The weekly pioneer and Democrat., 1861-01-25

ton, according to the ratio Of representa-
tion for Representatives, to entitle it to one
member in Congress, apd then to be I'D.
mitted into the Union on an equal foOtirg
with the rest of the states, and with q con-
stitution adopting or excluding slavery,
according to the judgment of the people
themselves. .a.ai fel, ssosas.,l .5fi siar
HOW THE TERRITORY WAS ACQUIRED. -
o Now, Mr.. President, see how
exactly the very Territory within dispute
comes within the line of all that reasoning
which would show that every part of the
country ought to be considered as equally
entitled to share in the enjoyment of it.
That country was but recently acquired
from Mexico; and it was acquired by con-
quest. Is it not as plain case that every
section of the country paid it's proportionate
part of the consideration, as if it had been
bought with money and each citizen had
contributed the number of pence that his
interest amounted to? Did not the South
contribute her part of the treasure which
bore the expense of that purchase? Did she
not contribute her portion of the blood that
was shed in obtaining it? Did she not do
even little more of it than our northern
brethren, because of their remote situation
We were nearer the scene of action, could
get to it more easily, and therefore, perhaps,
there were more southern than northern
men engaged in the war. The millions of
money that it cost were paid, not out of
sectional purse, but out of national purse,
to which all contributed. We fought, one
as well as another, and all sections did their
duty. ,'s
q lido not recur to these things for reproach
upon any section of our country. No, sir.
I love it all too well. 1t is all my country.
am not the man to degrade any portion of
it by any language have to use.
Is IT RIGHT TO EXCLUDE SLAVERY.
This territory, then, plainly and clearly,
was acquired by US all. It is but the work
of yesterday. Now, a portion attempt to
take it. They have scruples about allowing
us our full and unrestricted and unreserved
equal right in the territory. Can this be
proper? We are but one community, with
diverse institutions in relation to domestic
slavery, as we'll as in relation to many other
subjects. We have grown up in, and culti-
waited habits suitable to, all the circumstan-
ces surrounding us, just as every people on
earth have. The institution of slavery has
given variety to the form of society in
which it exists. The absence of it has given
10TH W q 6OuCWudt OAAOlCue OOu0leAO4 VI
society, but equally adapted to its people.
So it will be every where. You say, then,
for instance, by way of mitigating the
wrong done, that you only exclude slave.
holders you only exclude three hundred
thousand-not section of the country; not
States; not fifteen States but three hun
dred thousand shareholders in those States.
Whether that is direct computation Of
them 1 do not know nor is it of the least
Importance to this argument. No; the
wrong does not stop there. ALI the millions
that have been reared in the society form
ed and receiving its character, and receiving
its complexion from that institution, though
they may not be the owners of slaves, have
been brought up and habituated to the
habit and form of society which that ms
titution has given birth to. That makes
difference in the habits of a people not
to be worn off in a day or minute
transient, I admit but they are, for the
present, their habits. Their feelings and
their habits 60 along together and neither
would you northern men prefer to go into
the society of these people under circum-
stances equal nor would the southern man,
with his habits and his feelings, prefer to go
into northern society, simply because Of
changes in the custom and habits that is
all. By restraining the STAKEHOLDER from
going into any Territory, then you restrain
the formation of any such habits as this
other man, who is not a STAKEHOLDER in the
southern States, has formed. You do not
expel him, but you erect a barrier; not an
insuperable one you create a new difficulty
in his way in going there, where he is to
meet with strangers, and strangers of some
what different habits from himself
But, as q matter of right, looking at it
according to the political principles upon
which our great political society is formed |;
looking at it upon the common popular
principles upon which the Constitution was
formed, have you right in the distribution
of the public property, to make any distinc-
ton between the portions of the country
holding slaves, and those who do not hold
them? Why have you more right to do it
in respect to the public lands and Territories
of the United States, than in respect to any
other species of public property? If you
had money in the Treasury, would you in
sist upon taking all of that?. No. 1 know
you would not. Why? Because it is COM
mon property. When instead of money, we
come to divide territory, land, does not the
same principle apply-not merely upon the
ground of ordinary equity or justice, but
because our Constitution has been formed,
those who made it we'll knowing that in
different sections of the common country
for which it was made, different scruples
might obtain, different dogmas might pre-
vail But these were not to be looked to at
all Our Constitution, in it's provisions.
leaves us all free to entertain these dogmas;
but it does not leave us free to disregard the
great principles of equality and equal justice
and equal distribution, as among honest
fellow-citizens, of land as well as money,
and every thing else. No part of the cOun-
try, no section of the country, has right
to set up its particular opinion on any sub
ject as the image of orthodoxy, and say
those who do not come up to this rule of
orthodoxy shall not share with us any thing
that belongs to this Government. This is
regulated, not by conscientious considera-
tions, not by a scruple, but by broad, plain,
common political principles such as our
common Constitution Yves framed upon:
Would you upon any ground of difference
as to. q question of religion, have a right
to make any distinction? Would you
have right to say that no Presbyterian
should settle in this territory because he is
a Presbyterian Would you have right
to say that no Congregationalist shall settle
there Suppose we were divided by sec.
tional line in our religion, would any one
Of us have a right to invoke his religion as
a reason why he was entitled to more, ard
his brother to less, or nothing? Nobody
would pretend that. You have no right to
bring up scruples of that sort, or questions
of that sort, against another.
This question of slavery has been, to no
small extent, connected with the question
Of religion. The pulpit has taken it in
hand. The pulpit has become the minister
of politicians, and politicians have minis
tered to ministers of the Gospel, neither to
the benefit or profit of the Gospel !; and
now scruples-I may as we'll call them scru-
nlea of relioion aa wall as scrnnlaa ahont