The daily Gate City. [volume] (Keokuk, Iowa) 1855-1916, 1860-03-10

and they prohibited trade in African labor. This
4 disposition Of the whole sahjert ~as In harmony
with the condition OF society end In the main, with
the spfrit Of The age. Ths seven Northern States
con1eh1odly became labor 6tatcs by their own acts.
The Nh Southern States, Nth squa tranquility
and ~ their own deteEnination, remained capital
| States. A
| Ihs circumstances which the forefathers did not
clearly foresee, were two, namely: the reinvigors-
ton OF slavery consequent upon the increased con-
sumption Of cotton, and the extension OF the ma
uonAl domain across the Mississippi, and these oc
curred before 1870. The State of Louisiana form
Cd slaye lding French settlement, within the
new y-acquired Louisiana Territory, had sthen nj
ready been admitted into the Union. There yst re-
manned, however, a vast region, which included
1 Arkansas and Missouri, together with then unoccn.
| pied and even unnamed Kansas and Nebraska. Ar
Kansas, slaveholding community, was nearly
ready to apply, and Missouri, another sach terrific
~, was actually applying for admission into the
Federal Union. The existing capital States sec
onded these applications, and claimed that the
whole LouisiAna Territory Was rightfully open to
slavery, and 10 the organization Of future slave
States. The labor States maintained that Congress
had supreme legislative power within the domain,
and could and osght to exclude slavery there. The
question thus opened was one which related not ut
all TO slavery in cxisting capital States 1t was
purely and simply anationai 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 be labor States, With all the
security, benefits and blessings Of freedom. On
the decision was suspended the question, N IVES
thought, whether ultimately the interior Of this
new continent should be m Asylum for the OPP
pressed and the exile, coming year after year snd
age after age, voluntarily from every other divil-
Eed land, we'll for the children Of misfortune
In onr own or whether, through she renewal Of the
African slave trade, those magnificent and luxs-
RANT regions sheuld be subjected tbs control OF
capital, wringing out the fruit Of the earth
through the impovsrshing toll Of negro slAves.--
Tho question Of l830 was idertically tie question
II 1860, FAR a. principle, and even the hsld Of
It's application, WAS concerned Every element of
the controversy now present entered il then the
rightfulness or the wrongfnlness Of Slaveryj Its
effects, present and future the Constitutional au
thorty OF Congress; the claims Of the States and
of their citizens the nature of thcF ederal Union
whether 1t is compact between the States, or an
| independent government; the springs Of Its pow
ers, and the ligaturcs upon their exercise. All
these were discussed with seal and ability which
have never been surpassed. History tells ISL know
not how truly, that the Union reeled under the We
henence Of that great debate. Patriotism took
counsel from prudence, and enforced settlement
which has proved TO be not final one and which,
rs Is now practically left open all tho great
political issues which were involved. Missouri
and Arkansas were admitted aa capital States,
while labor obtained, reservation the abridged
but yet comprehensive field Of Kansas and Nehras-
kA.
Now, when the present conditions of the various
parts of the Louisiana Territory observed, and
We see that capital retains undisputed possession
OF what it then obtained, while labor Ia ronvuls.
| ing the country with hard and SO prolonged a
struggle to regain the lost equivalent which was
then guaranteed to it under circumstances of so
great solemnity, We may well desire not to be un-
deceived Ii the Missouri Compromise was indeed
unnecessarily accepted by the Free States, iDfs-
enced by exsggerations OF the dangers of Dsunion.
The Missouri debate disclosed truths Of great mo-
ment for ulterior uses
First. That it 10 easy to combine the capital
States in defense Of external interests Will
1t is hard to unite the labor States in common
| policy.
second. That the labor States have = natural
loyalty to the union, while the ptal States have
/ y natural facility for alarming that loyalty by
| threatening Disunion.
Third. That the capital States do not practically
distinguish between legitimate and constitutional
resistance 70 the extension of slavery in the
mon Territories of the Union, and unconstitutional
aggression against slavery established by local laws
1 IN the capital States.
| The early political parties were organised with
/ out reference 70 slavery. But since 1890, Euro
rean questions have left practically upconcern-
ed. There has been gre at inc rease of invention
mining, IN manufacture, and cultivation. steam on
| land and on water has quickened commerce. The
press and the telegraph have attained prod gious
activity, and the social intercourse between the
States and their citizens has been immeasurably
i
tions affecting slavery have been, for many years,
subjects of earnest and often excited discussion
lit IL In my way only to show how such disputes
have operated on the course of political vents
slave insur-ection In Virginia. Virginia and
Kentucky debated, and, to the great sorrow Of the
Free States, rejected the system of voluntary la.
bor. The Colonization Society esta biished with
| much favor Ia the capital States. Emanc patton
societies in the Free States. South Caroline
institnted proceedings 70 nullfy obnoxious Fede-
raj revenue laws. The capital States complained
of Courts and Legislatures in the labor States for
interpreting the constitutional provision for the
surrender ct fugtives from service 80 10 treat
them as persons, and not property, and they die
criminated against colored persons OF the labor
States when they came to the capital States. They
denied In Congress, the right Of petition, and
bsrrassed or denied freedom Of debate on the cub
ject 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 asemhiies convened to consider slave
~ questions, were dispersedby mobs sympathixing
The Whig party. being generally an opposition
party, prnctieed some forbtarAnce toward the in
terest Of labor. The Democratic party, not with
out demonstrations Ct dissent, generally fount
tsuitaining the policy Of capital. disposition to
ward the removal OF slavery frem the presence Of
4 the National Capital appeared In the district oil
4 Columbia. MIR. Van Buren,, Democratic President
launched prospective veto against the MEASURE
VI Democrat1c congress brought Texas into TIT
Union, stpuating practically FOR it, future rs-or
ganizaticn iato four slave States. Mckee was In
cens ID. War ensued. LII, labor States asked tina
the Mexican law Of liberty which covered the ter
ritories brought IN BY the treaty Of peace, nigh
remain and be confirmed. The Democratic part,
refused. The Missouri debate OF 1920 REQUIRES
now under circumstances of heat and excitement
IN relation TO these conquests. The defenders OF
labor took alarm lest the aumber Of new capita
States might become so great as to enable thu
class OF States to dictate the whole policy Of tn
Government; and. In case Of constitutional resist
ance, then 70 form new saveholding confederacl
i arould the Gulf Of Mexico. BY this time the cap
ital States seemed to have become fixed In deter
mination that he Federal Government, and eve.
the labor States, should recognise their slaves
though outside ot the siaye States and within tn
.erritorisis Of the United States, ms property o
which the master could hot be in any way, or b
any au thority Invested; and the labor States bav
Ing become nov more essentially Democratic thar
ever before, by the great development Of free 10
m augss L.