FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   608   609   610   611   612   613   614   615   616   617   618   619   620   621   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632  
633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   >>   >|  
lt with it. It is not a matter of argument or inference, but we know what they thought about it. It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country that one important omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of the history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats it as the whole, omitting from his historical sketch the legislation of Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri, by which the Missouri Compromise was established and slavery excluded from a country half as large as the present United States. All this is left out of his history, and in nowise alluded to by him, so far as I can remember, save once, when he makes a remark, that upon his principle the Supreme Court were authorized to pronounce a decision that the act called the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. All that history has been left out. But this part of the history of the country was not made by the men of the Revolution. There was another part of our political history, made by the very men who were the actors in the Revolution, which has taken the name of the Ordinance of '87. Let me bring that history to your attention. In 1784, I believe, this same Mr. Jefferson drew up an ordinance for the government of the country upon which we now stand, or, rather, a frame or draft of an ordinance for the government of this country, here in Ohio, our neighbors in Indiana, us who live in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin and Michigan. In that ordinance, drawn up not only for the government of that Territory, but for the Territories south of the Ohio River, Mr. Jefferson expressly provided for the prohibition of slavery. Judge Douglas says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from that ordinance. I believe that is true. When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation voted for it; but there were so many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear majority necessary, and it was lost. But three years after that, the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they adopted a new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory, not contemplating territory south of the river, for the States owning that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General Government; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In fact, the provision excluding slavery was inserted aside, passed u
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   608   609   610   611   612   613   614   615   616   617   618   619   620   621   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632  
633   634   635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

history

 
ordinance
 

country

 

slavery

 
government
 

States

 
Missouri
 

Congress

 

Confederation

 

majority


neighbors

 

Government

 

territory

 

Jefferson

 

Territory

 

present

 

provision

 
Revolution
 

United

 

Douglas


Compromise
 

inference

 
argument
 
matter
 

expressly

 

Illinois

 

Wisconsin

 

thought

 
Indiana
 

Michigan


absentees

 
provided
 

Territories

 

prohibition

 

General

 

giving

 

refrained

 

hitherto

 

passed

 

inserted


excluding

 

owning

 

voting

 

contemplating

 

Northwest

 
adopted
 

sketch

 
authorized
 

Supreme

 

principle