The Tiffin weekly tribune. (Tiffin, Ohio) 1859-1868, 1860-09-28
A Defense Of the Ordinance Of
ITS9.

. n DNAFuNf Oh une VfNlnNnCC of
1851.
Mn. EbIToR;--Is not the suppression
OF truth equally criminal with tho sug-
gestion of folsehood.
Mr.. Doaglas in his Harper article says
that the 9th article Of the Ordinance Of
of 1884 reported to Congress by Thomas
Jefferson prohibiting slavery, never be.
came a part Of the Jeflersonian plan Of
government for the territories, as adopt
ed April 22d, 1854. And he argues frohi
that fact the Congress Of 1884 were in ia
vor Of "my great principle" of popular
sovereignty.
Judge Plants at Attica and A. NJ. Jack
son at Tifin, following the same line OF
sol.hlsticul reasoning, proclaim with great
gusto thar jefferson did not frame and re.
port TO Con ,ress tho 9Th article of the
Ordinance Of 1887 prohibiting slavery in
the territories.
Now why did not Mr.. Douglas infoim
his readers that tho o d nance.o 1884 on
ly remained in force 8 years . months
and 81 days, and was repealed before the
adoption ofthe Constitution
And why does he not inform his read
crs that this 9TH article Of the Jefferson-
ian Ordinance OF 1884 did become a part
of the plan of Government adopted July
10 1887, and that Il has never yet been
repealed. The continental Congress.
thus rejecting his plan of squattcr sove-
reignty after three years trial, and ud-
herring to the plan of prohibition for 73
years!
But why did the Congress Of 1884 re-
ject this prohibitory clause. Simply be-
cause the Ordinance of 1884 as reported
by Jefferson did not contain a provision
for the rendition Of fugitive slaves.
And when the prohibitory clause was
finally adopted there was but one vote
against it, and that vote was cast by
representative ofa non-slaveholding state.
(Mr. Yates of "
SO that whoever may have reported TO
Congress the Ordinance of 1887, Thorn
as Jefferson, the great apostle of free in
stitutons and universal suffrage, the lend
er Of the opposition to the alien and se-
dition laws, was the first to propose the
plan cf prohibiting slavery in the national
domain. Why should democrats who
pretend to revere his memory persist in
their attempts to pluck this brightest
gem from his crown Of glory.
Time was, within the memory of men
Of the present generation, when demo-
Gratis eontended earnestly for this hon
or as belonging to their great founder,
while Daniel Webster sought to pluck
the laurel from his brow and place il up
on the brow Of Nathan Dane of Massa-
chusetts. Having repudiated the doc.
trines and teachings Of Jefferson on the
subject Of slavery restriction, and the
power Of the Supreme Court over co-ordi-
nate branches Of the government, modern
democrats, like his old enemies, seek to
destroy the force of his noble teachings
and example by relieving him of the hon
ors justly attaching to his far seeing
craftsmanship, and love Of justice and
liberty. 1t 10 we'll. 1t is in ac-
sordance with the eternalfitncss ofthings
hat the followers Of Calhoun should re-
1udiato Jefferson. There ia an "irre-
lressible conflict" between their teach
ngs aud political oreeds.
Judge Plants at Attica and Mr. Jack
ion al Tifin assorted thatthere never had
'een a law of Congress prohibiting slay-
Try. presume they intended to say that
here never had been a law Of Congress
preventing slavery from going into the
errtories.
In proof of this they cite the fact that
laves were held in the North West ter \
tOry notwithstanding tho ordinance Of
7s7. Now this kind OF pettifoging ar I
rues AN entire lack OF material on which {
o base an argument, a lack Of historical /
.u,urIaI.., I.,Ir .F Q