4 springs of its powers, and the ligatures upon their exercise. All these were discussed with zeal and ability which have never been surpassed. History tells us, I know not how truly, that the Union reeled under the vehemence of that great debate. Patriotism took counsel from prudence, and enforced a settlement which has proved to be not a final one; and which, as is now seen, practically left open all the great political issues w'hich were involved. Missouri and Arkansas were admitted as capital States, while labor obtained, as a reservation, the abridged, but yet comprehensive field of Kansas and Nebraska. Now, when the present conditions of the various parts of the Louisianian Territory are observed, and we see that capital retains undisputed possession of what it then obtained, while labor is convulsing the country with so hard and so prolonged a struggle to regain the lost equivalent which was then guaranteed to it under circumstances of so great solemnity, we may well desire not to be undeceived if the Missouri compromise was indeed unnecessarily accepted by the free States, influenced by exaggerations of the dangers of disunion. The Missouri 'debate disclosed truths of great moment for ulterior use : 1st. That it is easy to combine the capital States in defence of even external interests, while it it is hard to unite the labor States in common policy. 2d. That the labor States have a natural loyalty to the Union, while the capital States have a natural facility for alarming that loyalty by threatening disunion. 3d. That the capital states do not practically distinguish between legitimate and constitutional resistance to the extension of slavery in the common territories of the Union, and unconstitutional aggression against slavery established by local laws in the capital States. The early political parties were organized without reference to slavery. But since 1820, European questions have left us practically unconcerned. There has been a great increase of invention, mining, manufacture and cultivation, Steam on land and on water has quickened commerce. The press and the telegraph have attained prodigious activity, and the social intercourse between the States and their citizen’s has been immeasurably increased; and consequently their mutual relations affecting slavery have been, for many years, subjects of earnest and often excited discussion. It is in my way only to show how such disputes have operated on the course of political events, not to reopen them for argument here. There was a slave insurrection in Virginia. Virginia and Kentucky debated, and, to the great sorrow of the free States, rejected the system of voluntary labor. The Colonization Society was established with much favor in the capital States. Emancipation societies arose in the free States. South Carolina instituted proceedings to nullify obnoxious Federal revenue laws. The capital States complained of courts and legislatures in the labor States for interpreting the constitutional provision for the surrender of fugitives from service so as to treat them as persons, and not property, and they discriminated against colored persons of the labor States, when they came to the capital States. They denied in Congress the right of petition, and embarrassed or denied freedom of debate on the subject of slavery. Presses, which undertook the defence of the labor system in the capital States, were suppressed by violence, and even in the labor States, public assemblies, convened to consider slavery questions, were dispersed by mobs sympathizing with the capital States. The Whig party, being generally an opposition party, practised some forbearance toward tiie interest of labor. The Democratic party, not without demonstrations of dissent, was. generally found sustaining the policy of capital. A disposition towards the removal of slavery from the presence of the national Capitol appeared in the District of Columbia. Mr. Van Buren, a Democratic President, launched a prospective veto against the anticipated measure. A Democratic Congress brought Texas into the Union, stipulating practically for its future reorganization in four slave States. Mexico was incensed. War ensued. The labor States asked that the Mexican law of liberty, which covered the territories brought in by the treaty of peace, might remain and be confirmed. The Democratic party refused. The Missouri debate of 1820 recurred now, under circumstances of heat and excitement, in relation to these conquests. The defenders of labor took alarm lest the number of new capital States might become so great as to enable that class of States to dictate the whole policy of the Government;
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=