Year: 1859

sumo to lead them are making unreasonable
demands which they have no right to make,
and which Northern Democrats should not
submit to- We do not believe that this po-
sition can be successfully contradicted We
know that it cannot A mere glance at the
political history of the country will show it
In the first place it is to be taken into con-
sideration that the great moral sentiment o
the North is against Slavery, and that what
ever the North has ever done in toleration o
the institution, or, to use a Southern phrase
in behalf of the constitutional rights Of the
South" has been in direct opposition to thi


great moral sentiment We are not here tC
argue the right or wrong of Slavery, but


right or wrong, the public opinion of the


North is antagonistic to the enslavement oi


men on the ground of humanity, the North


ern people believing that human flesh and


blood ought never to be bought and sold as


property. They Furthermore consider that


the institution is subversive of the dignity OF


labor, and that the system is in itself a con-


slant war against the working classes; that


is TO say. that it is ideness and ease support


ed upon the industry of labor-a system 10y


which a more fortunate class are fed and


clothed and live in luxury, while the thou
sands of the less fortunate class are sweating
and toiling without remuneration-a system
which eheapens free labor by bringing it in
to competition with the unpaid labor of slaves,
and, in short, establishes an aristocracy in a
Republican Government. As we have Just
said, we are not here to argue the right or
wrong of this proposition, lut such are the
opinions of the North.


1t is in direct opposition, we repeat, to
these opinions and feelings that the North
has consented to the various enactments of
Congress in recognition of the institution of
Slavery. Her sentiment was against the ad-
mission of any more slave States into the
Union, yet she gave her vote for the Nilsson.
ri Compromise of 1920, which not only pro-
vided for the admission of Missouri with a
Slave Constitution, but also accorded to the
South the unquestioned right forever thereaf-
ter of establishing Slavery in any other Ter


ritory of the United States south of SO degs
and 80 min. She was distinctly in favor of
the Wilmot Proviso, and fully convinced of
the constitu:ionaity of the measure, vet she
refrained, from consideration to her southern
brethren, from applying it to the territory
newly acquired from Mexico, in which Slave
ry wss already prohibited by the Mexican
law. She governed her prejudice so far as
to throw open, under the Compromise of
1850, all that extent of territory to the occu.
patton of the institution of Slavery, provi-
ded it should be found adapted to slave la
Dor. 1t was in direct conflict with all her
strongest feelings and inclinations, that she
agreed to the enactment of the Fugitive
Slave Law, which, in its moral aspect to her,
was nothing more than an agreement to turn
Stare catcher for the South, and to refuse to |
exercise the native sentiments of pity and |
benevolence and charity towards an unfor-
tunate fugitive, whoever he might be, fleeing
from oppression and seeking the liberty that
all men love in land of freedom. They re-
garded the act of returning fugitive slave
to his master as unchristian, cruel and barba


rous in the extreme for they did not consid-
er that man could rightfulIy hold fellow


man in bondage and believed fully that the
latter had right to escape from his thral-
dom, if he could. Yet the Fugitive Slave
Law was consented to by a sufficiency of
Northern votes to carry it. A still greater
sacrifice to the North and her anti-slavery
sentiments, was the Kansas-Ne Nebraska Bill,
which proposed to obliterate the line of SO
degs. and so min., ard to surrender to the
possible domination of the "Slave Power"
territory which had been specially set apart,
by solemn Congressional enactment, as free
soil, as ground whereon no slave should ever
set his foot. Yet the Kansas Nebraska Bill
was passed. 1t was with great reluctance on
the part of Northern Democrats, for the lea
ders of the Northern Democracy had looked
upon the Missouri Compromise as fnality
truly a compromise which had forever set
tied the question of Slavery with regard to
the territory over which the line extended.
1t was consented to, with the understanding
that never should Congress interfere with
the question Of Slavery in the Territories
again; that it should be the final and COM
plete removal Of the subject from the Halls
of Congress, and that the people of the Ter


ritories should fully aud absolutely determine


the question for themselves. For the sake


of peace, the North, by sufficiency of her


votes, agreed to the enactment of this bill


1t was great sacrifice, considering her pref
udiees, for her to make, and she showed


magnanimity in making it. She reluctantly


consented to the abrogation of the Missouri
Compromise, upon the ground that great
principle was to be established, which would


be constant, just, fair and uniform in its ope-
rations. She never expected to see that en-.
actment either repealed or virtually nullifed
She expected to be true to the compact, and
to see the other party true to it also. After
all these sacrifices of feeling, prejudice and
conscience, if you will, on the part of the
North, we have said before and we say now,
that it is asking little too much to require
Northern Democrats to again ignore f.
nality," and agree to new and unheard.of
concessions Northern Democrats have con.
sented to the protection of the socalled
constitutional rights Of the South" when
they were far from satisfied that their rights