Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-03-03

In any State under its own laws, does, at the
same time, recognize every human being when
within any exclusive sphere of Federal jurisdlc-
ton, not as capital, but as q person.
What was the action Of the fathers in Con
aress They admitted the new States Of the
Southwest as capital States because Il was
practically impossible to do otherwise, and by
tho ordinance of 1897 confirmed in 1883, they
provided for the organization and admission Of
only labor States in the Northwest They d.
rected fugItives from service 70 be restored,not
as chattels, but as persons They awarded
naturalization to immigrant free laborers, and
they prohibited the trade in African labor. This
disposition OF the whole subject was in harmo-
nv with the condition Of society, and, IN the
main, with the spirit Of tie age. The seven
Northern States contentedly became labor
States by their own acts. The six Southern
States, with equa. tranquility and by their own
determination, remained capital States.
The circumstances which the fathers did not
clearly ioresee were two, namely: the reinUg-
Grafton OF Slavery consequent on The increased
consumption of cotton, and the extension Of the
national domain across the Mississippi, and
these occurred before 1920. The State.o Louis
lana. formed on a slaveholjing French settle~
ment, within the newly y-acquired Louislanan
Territory, had then already been admitted into
the Union. There yet remained, however, a
vast region, which included Arkansas and Mis-
sour, together with the then unoccupied and
even unnamed Kansas and Nebraska. Arkansas,
a sIaveholding community, was nearly ready to
apply, and Missouri, another such Territory,
was actually applying for admission into the
Federal Union. The existing Capital States
seconded these applications, and claimed that
the whole Louisianan Territory was righfully
open to Slavery, and to the organization of fu-
ture Slave States The Labor States maintained
that Congress had supreme Legislative power
within the domain, and could and ought to ex-
clude Slavery there. The question thus opened
was one which related not at all to Slavery in
the existing Capital States. It was purely and
simply a national question whether the common
interest of the whole Republic required that
Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska,
should become Capital States. with all the evils
and dangers of Slavery, or be Labor States, with
all the security, benefits, and blessings Of free
dom On the decision was suspended the
question, as was thought, whether ultimately
the interior of this new continent should be an
asylum for the oppressed and the exile, coming
year after year, and age after age, voluntarily
| from every other civilized land, as well as for
the children of misfortune in our own, or wheth-
er, through the renewal of the African Slave
trade, those magnificent and luxuriant regions
should be subjected to the control Of capital,
wringing out the fruit of the earth through the
impoVerishing toll of negro slaves. The question
of 1920 was identically the question of 1860, so
far as principle, and even the field of its appli-
cation was concerned. Every element of the
controversy now present entered it then; the
rightfulness or the wrOngfulness Of Slavery; its
effects, present and future; the Constitutional
authority OF Congress; the claims of the States,
and of their citizens; the nature of the Federal
! Union, whether it is a compact between the
States, or an independent Government; the
springs of its powers, and the igatures upon
their exercise. All these were discussed with
zeal and ability which have never been surpass-
ed. History tells US, know not how truly
that the Union reeled under the vehemence o.
that great debate. Patriotism took counse
from prudence. and enforced a settlement which
has proved to be not final one; and which, al
is now seen, practically left open all the great
political issues which were involved. Missouri
and Arkansas we're admitted as capital States
while labor obtained, as q reservation, the
abridged but yet comprehensive field of Kansas
and Nebraska.
Now, when the present condition of the vari
Gus parts of the LOusianian Territory are OBJ
served, and we see that capital retains undis
puted possession of what it then obtained
while labor is conyulsing the country with 81
hard and so prolonged a struggle to regain thu
lost equivalent which was then guaranteed t
it under circumstances of so great solemnity
we may well desire not to be undeceived if tht
Missouri Compromise was indeed unnecessarily
accepted by the Free States influenced by eX
sggerations of the dangers of DisuniOn. Tht
Missouri debate disclosed truths of great mo
ment for ulteriOr use
FIRST. That it is easy to combine the capita
States in defence of even external interests
while it is hard to unite the labor States in
common policy.
Second That the labor States have natura
loyalty to the Union, while the capital State
have natural facility for alarming that loyalt!
by threatening disuniOn.
Third That the capital States do not practi
cally distinguish between legitimate and con
stiutiOnal resistance to the extension of SLAYER,
in the common Territories of the Union, AM
unconstitutional aggression against slavery es
tablished by local laws in the capital States.
The early political parties were organizes
without reference to slavery. But since 1920
European questions have left US practicall
unconcerned. There has been great increas
tion. Steam on land and on water has quicken
ed commerce. The press and the TELEGRAPH
have attained prodigious activity, and the socia
intercourse between the States and their citi
zens has been immeasurably increased; an,
consequently, their mutual relations affecting
slavery have been, for macy years, subjects O
earnest and often excited discussion. 1t is il
my way only to shoE how such disputes hav
operated in the course of political events-no
to reopen them for argument here. There wa
slave insurreetion in Virginia. Virginia AM
Kentucky debated, and, to the great sorrow O
the Free States, rejected the system of fvOlunta
~ labor. The Colonization Society was es
tablished with much favor in the capital States
Emancipation Societies arose in the Fre
States. South Carolina instituted proceeding
to nullify obnoxious Federal revenue laws
The capital States complained of Courts ant
Legislatures in the labor States for interpreting
the constitutional provision for the surrender 0
fugitives from service so as to treat them a
persons, and not property, and they dscrimi
mated against eolored persons of the labor State
when they came to the capital States The,
denied, in Congress, the night of petition, an
embarrassed or denied freedom Of debate on th
f subject of slavery. Presses, which undertook
the defence of the labor system in the capita
States, were suppressed by violence, and evel
in the labor States, public assemblies, convene,
to consider slavery questions, were dispersed b
mebs sympathizing with the capital States
The Whig Party, being generally an opposi
ton party, practiced some forbearance tOwar
the interest of labor. The Democratic Party
not without demonstrations of dissent, wa
! generally found sustaining the policy of capital
a disposition toward the removal of SLAYER
from the presence of the National Capital ap
peaIed in the District Of Columbia. Mr.. VA
, Buren, a Democratic President, launched
prospective veto against the measure. A Dem
ocratic Congress brought Texas into the Union
stipulating practically for its future reOrgan
cation into four slave States. Mexico was IN
censed. War ensued The labor States aske
that the Mexican law of liberty, which covere
the Territories brought in by the treaty c