Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1860-03-17

hensive field Of Kansas and Nebraska.
Now, when the present condition of the
various parts Of the Lousianian Territory
are observed, and we see that capital retains
undisputed possession Of what it then OBJ
tanned, while labor is eonvulsing the coun-
try with so hard and so prolonged strug-
gle to regain the lost equivalent which was
then guaranteed to it under circumstances
OF so great solemnity, we may well desire
not to be undeceived if the Missouri com
promise was indeed unnecessarily accepted
by the free states influenced by exaggera-
tlons OF the dangers of Disunon. The Mis-
souri, debate disclosed truths of great moment
for uIteror use
First, That it is easy to combine the cap.
ltal states in defence of even external in
terests, while it is hard to unite the labor
states in common policy
Second, That the labor states bave a
natural loyalty to the Union, while the
capital states have a natural facility for
alarming that loyalty by threatening dis
union
Third, That the capital states do not
practically distinguish between Legitimate
and constitutional resistance to the exteu-
sion OF slavery in the common territories Of
the Union, and unconstitutional aggression
against slavery established by local laws in
the capital states.
The early political parties were organ
lied without reference to slavery. But
since 1921 European questions have left us
practically unconcerned. There has been
great increase of invention, mining, manu-
facture, and cultivation. Steam on land
and on water has quickened commerce.
The press and the telegraph have attained
prodgious activity, and the social inter
course between the states and their citizens
has been immcasurably increased and con-
sequently, their mutual relations affecting
slavery have been, for many years, subjects
of earnest and often exciting discussion. 1t
is in my way only to show how such disputes
have operated in the course of political
events-not to reopen them for argument
here. There was a slave insurrecton in
Virginia. Virginia and Kentucky debated,
aud, to thegreat sorrow of the free states,
rejected the system of voluntary labor.
The Colonization Society was established
with much favor in the capital states.
Emancipation societies arose in the free
states. South Carolina instituted proceed
ingS to nuIify obnoxious federal revenue
laws, s,--The capital states complained of
Courts and Legislatures in the labor states
for interpreting the constitutional provision
for the surrender of fugitives from servise so
as to treat them as persons, and not property,
and they Disseminated against colored per-
sons of labor states when they came to the
capital states. They denied, in congress,
the right of petition, and embarrassed or
denied freedom of debate on the subject of
slavery. Presses, which undertook the de-
fence of the labor system in the capital
states, were suppressed by violence, and
even in the labor states, public assemblies,
convened to consider slavery questions, were
dispersed by mobS sympathizing with the
capital states.
The Wing Party, being genaralIy an op-
position party, practced some forberance
toward the interest of labor The Demo
cratic Party not without demonstrations
Of dissent, was generally found sustaining
the policy of capital A disposition toward
the removal of slavery from the presence
of the National Capital appealed in the
District Of Columbia. Mr.. Van Buren,,
Democratic President, launched a prospect
i've veto against the measure. ADemocrat-
c congress brought Texas into the Union.
stipulating practically for its future reorgani.
cation into four slave states. Mexico was
incensed. War ensued. The labor states
asked that the Mexican law of liberty,
which covered the territories brought in by
the treaty of peace, might remain and be
confirmed The Democratic Party, re-
fused.
The Missouri debate of 1920 required now
under circumstances of heat and excitement
in relation to these conquests. The defend
erS of labor took alarm lest the number of
new capital states might become so great
as to enable that class of states to dictate
the whole policy of the government aud, |
in case Of constitutional resistance, then to
form new slaveholding conrederacy around
the Gulf of Mexico. By this time the
capital states seemed to have become fixed
in determination that the Federal Govern
ment, and even the labor states, shonld re-
cognize their slaves, though outside Of the
slave states and within the territories of the
U nited States, as property of which the
master could not be in any way, or 10y any
divested and the labor states,
having become now more essentially Demo.
cratic than ever before, by the great deyel- !
opment of free labor, more firmly than ever
Insisting on the constitutional doctrine
that masters into the common territories, or
into labor States, are persons--men.
Under the auspicicuS influence of whig
success, California and New Mexico appear
ed before congress as labor states. The
capital states refused to consent to their ad |
mission into the union and again threats
of disunion carried terror and CONSERVATION
the land. Another compromise
was made. Specific enactments admitted |
CALIFORNIA as labor state, and remanded |
New Mexico and Utah to remain terrific |
ries, with the right to choose freedom or
slavery when ripened into states, while they
gave new remedies for the reception of fugi. |
tives from service, abolished the open slave |
market in the District of Columbia. These |
new enactments, collated with the existing !
stautes, namely, the ordinance of 1887, the |
Missouri prohibitory law of 1920, aud the
articles of Texas annexation, disposed by |
law of the subject of slavery in all the ter |