Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-07-17

slavery hid not republican gOvernmeut-6
Deb. p. 339.
On the other hand, said Mr. Walker of North
Carolina:
The amendment de7rivss the citizens Of the
Southern section OF the Union from any AGvan-
tAgss arising in the Government. or from having
either part or lot. or any inheritance on the west
side of the Mississippi. Sir, vas il not purchased
by the whole United Statsst Did not the South
ern States contribute their full share for that pur
chase! 1t is to be presumed that great portion
OF the emigrants to that territory will desire to go
from the Southern States. Shall they be pro-
scribed and prohibited from taking their slavesr
Sir. if so, your land will be an uncultivsted
waste.
but, sir. the great and radical objection to the
amendment proposed, is taking away from the
people of this Territory the natural and sonsttu-
tOnal right of legisating for themselves. In
forming Territorial and State Government, they
and they alone have the right, and are the proper
judges of that policy best adapted 70 their genius
and interest, and it ought to be exclusively left to
them Bent Deb, Vol. 6.
Mr.. Elliott of Georgia, Nr. Leake of Msss-
sippi, and Mr.. Smith, of Virginia, took the posi-
ton that the Constitution only gave Congress
power to adopt rules to dispose of United States
territory as property, not to create governments
for It'd PIP. 500, 404, 4S6, 4e7.
The South never contended for any other doc
trine. The Missouri Compromise. which was
adopted during the Missouri restriction contro-
versy, only declared that slavery should not exist
north of Sc deg. 80 min; it said nothing to the
territory south of that line, but left the question
in it to popular sovereignty Bent. Deb, Vol. g.
p. SOS.
So, it may be here properly mentioned, at 8
later period, when Texas was annexed and ad
mitted AS State. and il was provided that she
b. k@ al ipfn Era Staf
and that, in such division, those north of sc. 81
should be free States to those south of that
line, it left to popular sovereignty to deter
mine their character.-See l6 Bent. Deb. D. 40
and Brightly's Dig. Tit Texas.
The South never attempted to force any posi-
tive measure upon the North.
1t was supposed that the termination OF the
Missouri restriction controversy, and the enact
ment of the Missouri compromise, which forbade
slavery north of SO, go and left all south of thai
line open to both sections. would end sectional
strife. But il was Mr. Jetferson's opinion thai
tina. compromise had effected but = temporary
suspension of the Northern crusade upon she
South.
In letter to Mr.. Piuckney, dated Sept. 80
1870. he saws: The MISSOURI question is mere
party trick. The leaders of federalism. defeated
in their schemes OF obtaining power b. rsllyine
ciple of personal, not of local division have
changed their tack, and thrown out another bar
rel to the whale. They are taking advantage o
the virtuous feelings Of the people to effect d.
vision of parties by a geographical line; they ex
pect that this will insure them, Oh lncal princ
plies. the majority they could never obtain OF
principles of federalism" Cor, p. $50.
Again he says: Are we. then. to see Atheniar
and Lscedemonian coniederaciesH To wage an
other Peaponesian war to settle the ascendapc,
between them!" Id p. 200.
Again: at is not a moral question, but on,
merely of power. Its object is to raise geo
graphical principle for choice of president
and the noise will be kept up till that is effected
All know that permitting the slaves of the Soutf
to spread into the West will not add one being t
that unfortunate condition, that it will increas,
the happiness of those existing, and by spread
ing them over a larger surface, will dilute thu
evil everywhere, and facilitate the means o
finally getting rid Of it. In the mean time il il
ladder for rivals climbing to power" Id Id.
Again, he writes to Mr.. Nelson: II thank you
dear sir, for the information in your letter OF tn,
4.h inst. of the settlement. for the present 0
the Missouri question am so completely with
drawn from all attention to public matters, tina
nothing less could arouse me than the definition
of u geographical line. which, on an sbstrsc
principle, is to become the line of separation 0
these States, and TO render desperate the hop
that man can ever enjoy the true blessings o
peace and selfgovernn ent The question sleep
for the present, but is not dead h Isl.
Again: Il have been smong the most sangun,
in believing that our Union would be of long du
ration. now doubt it much, and see the even
ut no great distance, and the direct consequence,
of this question. Ny only comfort and conf
dence is, that shall not live to see this; and
envy not the present generation the glory o
throwing away the fruits of their fathers sacrifi
ces of life and fortune, and of rendering desper
ate the experiment which was to decide ultimatel,
treason against human hope will signalize thei
epoch in future history" &c. Id l5S, 1855.
Now, reader. who was right and who wa
wrong; who Was the aggressor in the first con
roversy between the North and the SOUTH
ltwould seem that there can be but one answer
Or is it a constitutional principle in the Unitet
States that the North has right to do what sh'
pleases, and that it is insulting aggression on thu
part of the South to do otherwise than slentl,
and Internationally submit!
NO. II.
The next serious difficulty between the Nortl
and the South grew out of the protective tariff 0
lS2S-thst il, the tax levied upon the agricultu
raj consumer for the benefit of the manufacturin,
producer Defeated in 1921, AS We have seen
upon the negro question, the party IN the Nortl
opposed to the Democracy, and imbued will
hatred of the South, determined to make thei
next stand upon protective tariff, Asth North
especially the North east, was adapted to and en-
gagged in manufactures. and the South was not
but was, and was almost necessarily to continue
agricultural, and great consumer OF manufac
tured articles which the North produced. it wa
plain that the burdens of protective tariff woult
fall sectonally upon the South, and the profits t.
the North. A fine opportunity offered to appes
to selfish sectional Northern interest. There wa
no authority given in the Constitution to Con
gress to lay u protective tariff; but there VAS Il
raise a revenue for the support of the Government
BY means of a tariff This power, Congress hac
exercised from its organization. under the Con.ti
tuition, with the appreciation OF all. - l.,.t
Before 1916, saws Mr. Benton, the tariffs wer'
discussed simply as business measures, and will
very little difference of principle. re, enue being
then the object. and protection the incident. But
i'm 1916, the idea was started OF reversing tn,
principle, and laying the tariff for protection al
the object 1t was not. however. then acted upor
to any great extent; but in 1924. and again il
1928, it was pushed to its extreme, was made
political, and became to a great extent sectiona
measure. and gave "deep discomfort to the plant
Ing States on which the burthen of the duties
chiefly fell :" and "left large section of the UnioI
under the painful belief that they were injured an'
oppressed b. this branch of the federal legisla
ton" Considerable men in other sections. b,
says. began to contemplate changing their conrs,
on this question. and to return to the old princi
pie "The return to the old principle, with econ
omy in the public expenditures, il was believeC
would remove all just cause fer discomfort in th'
planting States 10 Deb. p. liz, notes. Thu
was the feeling in 1928, of these "considerat'
men,"
The manner of determining the amount o
protective tariff to be laid, appears to have beer
to hear the statements of the different manufic
turers as to the amount they wanted to enable
them to realize such profits as they would be sat
isfed with. 81 ...,...,,, g.. ..,.
Such was the new policy of 1924. which tbs
South opposed. They proposed no positive mea
sure, they asked no legislative enactment to pro
mote their interest at the expense of the North
They only resisted q new, unconstitutional, auo
upon them sectionally, an oppressive system OF
measures at the North, for sectional profit. o.
like character is every ground Of complaint they
have ever furnished to the North.
The protective policy they did oppose, and the
rnhlic INDIGNANT has since nronounccd that they