FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55  
56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   >>  
should have awakened a spirit of resistance in the South that shook the Union to its very center. Whatever might be the opinion of Northern men as to the power of Congress over slavery in the territories, or as to the expediency of prohibiting it, it was too late to apply their doctrine to Missouri. She was ripe for admission to the Union as a State, with domestic institutions formed to suit her people, and formed, too, under the eye and sanction of Congress, and Congress had no right to make her State sovereignty dependent on the carrying out _as to other territory_, of the Northern idea of prohibiting slavery. The case of Missouri should have been decided on its own merits. In view of all the facts, and of its proposed restraint upon the constitutional power of new States besides Missouri, I fully believe the Supreme Court of the United States correctly laid down the law in the Dred Scott decision, declaring the 8th section of the act of 6th March, 1820, being the prohibition of slavery, to be unconstitutional and void, for the simple reason that it was the right _of the people_ of those new States to make a constitution or laws for or against slavery as they saw fit, and not the right of the Congress, which has no power under its own Constitution to make State Constitutions. The principle of compromise embraced in the Missouri line, whether legal or not, calmed the agitation of the question of slavery, which had, during the Missouri struggle, assumed a dangerous form. It shut out slavery in the vast region north of 36 deg. 30 min., not adapted to slave labor, and permitted it south of that line where slavery had taken or was likely to take root. Therefore when Arkansas applied in 1836 for admission as a Slave State, she came in without serious controversy, though northern opposition in Congress was not even then silent. Between the establishment of Texan independence in 1836 and her annexation to the United States in 1845, in view of the latter event, the question of slavery extension became one of absorbing interest to the nation. The Democratic party recognized it in the 7th article of their platform in their National Convention of 1840, taking the true ground of non-intervention by Congress. In 1843 the Liberty party, so called, organized upon the distinct ground of opposition to slavery. In 1844 the Democratic party reaffirmed their platform of 1840, and declared in favor of annexing Texas, and its candidat
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55  
56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   >>  



Top keywords:

slavery

 

Congress

 

Missouri

 

States

 

platform

 

people

 

formed

 

Democratic

 

United

 
opposition

question
 
prohibiting
 

Northern

 
ground
 

admission

 
Therefore
 
Arkansas
 

applied

 

controversy

 

region


struggle

 

assumed

 
candidat
 
adapted
 

dangerous

 

permitted

 

called

 

Liberty

 

nation

 

interest


absorbing

 

recognized

 

taking

 

National

 

intervention

 

article

 

extension

 
organized
 

Between

 

establishment


declared

 

silent

 
annexing
 

Convention

 

reaffirmed

 

distinct

 
independence
 
annexation
 

northern

 
prohibition