The Buchanan County guardian. (Independence, Buchanan County, Iowa) 1858-1864, 1860-09-11
- CIap-Trap. ~

EF The Civilian, following the lead
of some Democratic spouters in this VI
cinity, who mangle history most horri-
bly,, asserts that "our Republican faith
ers" in Congress never abolished sla-
very in the Northwest Territory at all,
but merely carried out the agreement
between the general government and the
State of Virginia. Once before we had
occasion to correct this assertion, made
in the Civilian, and we now re-iterate,
that no such agreement existed between
the general government and Virginia.
Net a word is contained in the deed OF
cession made by Virginia, requiring the
general government to prohibit slavery
in the territory ceded BY that State, but
the old Congress of the confederation,
agreeable to tho universal sentiment Of
the " fathers of the Republic" voluntar-
ily abolished slavery in that, then the
only territory owned by the general gov
eminent. The adoption of the Consti-
tuition abolished the Ordinance Of 1877,
but the first Congress Of the Republic,
among its very first acts. eenacted the
Ordinance, SO distinct and popular was
the desire to prohibit slavery from the
territories. And the Supreme Court
has decided that the prohibition of sla-
very in the Northwest Territory derives
its force solely from the re-enactment by
Congress. In that Congress were sixteen
Of the thirly-nine trainers Of the Consti-
tuition, and it is there ora undeniable that
they regarded it as both constitutional,
and just, and proper, for Congress to
prohibit slavery in the Territories.
But the CGviljan will have it that the
policy Of slavery restriction was not the
policy OF the fathers," because slavery
WAS not prohibited by Congress from
Mississippi, and from the Orleans and
Louisiana Territory. Does not the c.
paian know that when North Carolina
ceded the territory now constituting the
state of Tennessee, and that when Geor-
gia ceded that now constituting the
States Of Mississippi and Alabama, one
condition Of both cessions was that Con
gress should pass no law abolishing sla-
very in such territory? The cession
was accepted with this condition. Con-
gress was therefore debarred from abol-
ishing slavery in those territories, but is
any one so dumb as not to see that the
placing Of that provision in the deeds Of
ccssion was a distinct acknowle dgment
Of the right Of Congress to SO prohibit :?
But Congress, although it could notabol
isb, did lesisate against the institution
even in these territories. In 1893, in
the act organizing the territory Of Mis-
sissippi, Congress prohibited the bring
ing OF slaves into the territory from any
place without the United States, by fine,
and giving freedom 70 the slaves. Con
gress was likewise inhibited by the con-
ditions Of tho Louisiana purchase from
prohibiting slavery in that territory, but
We. in organizing the territory Of Orleans
most emphatically asserted its control
over the institution there, and its hostili-
ty to the slave system, by providing, lst,
that no slave should be imported into
the territory from foreign parts I'd, that
no slave should be carried into il who
had been imported into the United States
offer the frs; day Of May, 1898; 81,