The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-07-22

the North, who believed slavery to be
 doubt whether the South would ever
 ace Its way to emancipation.
 Even at the time of this writing there are many broad minded men in that section who, while admitting that the program of the Modern Abolition ists was iawless. nevertheless make for
 them the plea that the Southern
 manumitted their slaves. and that the crusade was a necessity if slavery was
 ever to De abolished My study of his view. My belief is that the South, if left alone. would have fallen into line
 with the growin~ sentiment of the found It's way to emancipation. Ger tain l am that If the North, while re- fusing to advocate or countenance proposed and voted for a Constitution al amendment authorizing the general l government to abolish slavery and ] public purse. as Great Britain did. the. South would have accepted the terms I with gladness. Such a scheme, or even
 Northern Aboiitionists were wiling iii "to to accept a fair share of the burden of I emancipation, would have been fair
 o ans sss bsHe nut no sSes pfop9ss northern mind, and it is therefore fair
 to assume that If The Liberator' had
 begun its crusade on that limo this | name of Mir. Garrison.
 I Speculation however as to what
 might have been Is profitless. Let me
 rSsade eeo of the f Modern thsy HSyoson Wsns | fsts' was conducted oh the idea, from l start to finish. that the, southern 1 that the sin of slavery in the South l was something the Northern people
 were answerable for and that therefore | and yet without any compensation to | the slave owners.
 sIavery had once existed everywhere ern States there had been only a few slaves Because the soil there was not adapted to slave culture" Into the
 merons because slavery there was pro-
 aasston sI,Eer aorth or thas South. tine os
 of % asipiavsry pson sentment t aseT swept oYe1 e9 the. world. and in, 1881 the Northern
 states had virtually already enamel been sold at the South. In some of those States the laws had provided that the process should bA gradual. Profes-
 ton Of these latter jaws was to trans
 fer Northern slaves to Southern mar Tn the Southern states, long before of social and economical institutions and there it was much more difficult to get rid of the fateful institution. the South were moving for emanc,pa- ton. Popular leaders like Jefferson and Clay favored 1t. and If we can take the United States census tfree blacks) | as authority, the people of the thirteen |
 slave states had. In lSS0 freed 44,541 l more slaves by individual action than 1
 had besn freed in the thirteen north |
 ern states by individual and state ae- In 1881 Tn the slave states the opin- |
 ion prevailed that slavery ill the ab- | stract was an evil History of Slavery. London, 1893, D. | 1s4, by Prof Ingram.
 Larned. History of Ready Reference, l Vol. V. D. 3S7I. It was an Inherited evil, coming over | from times when slavery was not thought to be wrong. and practically owners to be compensated for emanci- patton, and what was to be done with | the negroes if freed? The Southern | riously to these questions, and Judge
 Temple tells us, in the "Covenanter.
 Puritan and Cavalier" that in 1926 ont of 143 emancipation societies in the | United States, f03 were in the South. |
 Miss Martineau. "a noted author and traveller of that day), had conversed | with many people on the subject (slav
 sry. 1s she st Ssss wn Sly ohs hs ps,sS psss
 tion."
 Rhodes, Vol 1, D. 54
 There had, 1t Is true, as. far back AS | 1919 been sectional dispute about l
 slavery. Missouri in that year had Papplied for admission as a state, with l a constitution authorizing slavery; ob- | lection wSs msde s. and ysry exciting
 although the thoughtful among them |
 were not then ready to make what the f
 lawyers call full defence" of their |
 tr4t tRa A.A rs sN- aN.- terference with a matter that. as they | contended, concerned the states alone. l The Missouri constitution was like | theirs. .,s and @ by sanctloning slavery the some of its slaves without adding to
 the. number of this population in the
 United States. their importation hav- ing long ago been forbidden by statute. No doubt the debates In Congress oyer Missouri were bitter, and 1t Ia certain ly true that many of the speakers nat ing an institution prevailing among their constituents: but the question, slavery in the territories and r1~ ths great aessl comprotmise of sea Isae. This let in Missouri with slavery and pro- vided that thereafter every state conn ing from north of line drawn on the parallel ss degrees. 80 minutes, exterd- Ing to our then Western border, should be free, and that States applying south or that line nlBnt nave SlaVery or nOLf as their constitution might provide This was q settlement of the question so far as our territories were con eerned. As to the States in which slavery then existed, the underlying postulate of the agreement reached was that they were left to- deal with 1t for themselves.
 The Missouri Compromise was in- tended to take the question entirely out of national politics and to be final, and so no doubt 1t would have been, if anti-siavery people at the North had allowed the people of the Southern States thereafter to deal with this purely domestic institution in their own way, as the Constitution of the Union plainly provided And the spirit of their Compromise would have ex- utes to the Pacific ocean, when subse- quent1y we had acquired new territory to the westward.
 is quieted agitation Elev- en years had passed, and the Southern people we're now discussing the insti- tuition with which they found them selves encumbered in their own eman- cipation societies; and as to the thought { of the North, Daniel Webster, in his debate with Hayne iu 1881. expressed 1t t In this way:
 whether slavery Is a curable or an c evil T leave 1t to those whose very duty it is to decide, and q .hts I believe is, and uniformly has a been, the sentiment of the North"
 Who disturbed these conditions? e who violated the Missouri Compromise? W