FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246  
247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   >>   >|  
even in the far south, and at the hazard, too, of exercising doubtful power. Nothing can be clearer than that the original States had a right to form a Federal Government on such terms as to themselves as they could mutually agree upon, and to fix the terms upon which they would permit new members to be admitted. The Northern States were under no obligation to protect slavery at all, not even by permitting fugitives to be reclaimed within their limits. If, then, they were willing to concede that right to the original States, only upon condition that slavery should not be allowed to extend, who will say they had not a right to make that condition, or that, if agreed to, it would not be valid and binding? With their views of slavery, believing it to be a moral and political evil, it was certainly their first and highest duty to make effectual provision against its extension, before undertaking, for any reason, to give the least protection to it. Such provision they supposed they had made, and it was this that justified them, if any thing could, in conceding the right of reclamation. The free, or northern States, in the exercise of their admitted right in deciding upon the terms of Union, insisted on making it a fundamental and ever-binding condition that no obligation to protect slavery in Illinois should ever exist; and this was done for reasons which render it morally certain that they would have insisted on the same condition in reference to Missouri, if Missouri had been part of the original territory. It would be preposterous to suppose that while they would not consent to guarantee slavery in any manner in Illinois, because they believed it to be a moral and political evil, they meant at the same time to make a Government that could obligate them to guarantee it in the adjoining Territory or State of Missouri, either by the return of fugitive slaves, or in any other manner. They meant no such thing, nor can an honest interpretation of the terms of union bind them to such guarantee now. The right to recapture fugitive slaves could not exist without the consent of the free States; and as that consent was given upon conditions and with limitations, by necessary implication and every sound principle of construction, they reserved the right to say whether it should exist upon other conditions and with other limitations, or without either condition or limitation. Mr. WICKLIFFE:--No one from Kentucky or Virginia wis
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   222   223   224   225   226   227   228   229   230   231   232   233   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244   245   246  
247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269   270   271   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
condition
 

States

 

slavery

 

consent

 

Missouri

 

guarantee

 

original

 

political

 

binding

 
slaves

provision

 

manner

 

fugitive

 

limitations

 

admitted

 

protect

 

Government

 
obligation
 
insisted
 
Illinois

conditions

 

render

 

believed

 

reasons

 

territory

 

preposterous

 

suppose

 

reference

 
morally
 

reserved


limitation
 
construction
 

principle

 
WICKLIFFE
 
Virginia
 
Kentucky
 

implication

 

return

 
Territory
 
obligate

adjoining
 

honest

 

recapture

 
interpretation
 
fundamental
 

effectual

 

permitting

 

fugitives

 

Northern

 

members