OCR Text |
Show 280 THE :MISSOURI QUESTION. nishcd another ground of distrust : besides, it exhibited a spirit of monopoly altogether incompatible wiLh that harmony and good will so essential in pre erving the Union of the States ; it created a distinction between slavcholding and non-slavcholding States-a di stinction that loses n.one of its mischievous quality from the ability to trace it on the map of our country. Who that regards the union of the States, can contemplate the feelings which the agitation of this question excited, ·without emotion ? A.nd who, in re. fleeting upon it, is not stron gly reminded of the admonition of the Father of his Couutry, to 'frown with indignation upon the first dawnings of an attempt to array one portion of the inhabitants of this country against another'? ''.And, after all, what has this qucstiou to do with the principle of slavery? Our ancestors brought this unfortunate race of beings into our conntry; they have multiplied to an alarming extent; they are the pror;crty of our fellow citizens, secured to them by the Constitution and Jaws of the United States. Their number forbids the idea of general emancipation. What, then, does policy require in relation to them ? '.rhat we should prevent the iucrcasc by importation, by the most rigid execution of the severest penalties. This we arc attempting ; and I had the pleasure of voting for a law at the late session, inflicting the penalty of death on any one convicted of importing a slave into the United States. What docs humanity demand ? That we should confine them forever within the preseut limits of the slaveholding States, or suffer the master to emigrate with his slaves into western America, where, from the extent, the fertility and productions of the country, they must be more tenderly treated, better fed, and in all respects their condition ameliorated." Extract from tho speech of Mr. Holmes, of Massachusetts, ou the Missouri bill-the same gentleman to whom 'l'HJ~ MI::;SOUHI QUESTION. 281 Jefferson addressed his celebrated letter on the Missouri question : "But this division, (upon the question of slave territory,) he says, is sin rr ularly unfo rtunate. I t is t he only subject in whieh the slaveholding States could be made to unite against the rest. Are the general iutrrests of Delaware more united wiLh those of Georgia than Penn, ylvania? Arc the in te rests of Ohio more co in cident with Massachusetts than Kentu cky ? Sir, the hopes and prospects of the north aud east arc in terwoven with the prosperity of the south and we t ; and yet we have armccl ourse lves again. t them all. It is not with them a question of policy, of political power, but of SAFl!~TY, PEACE, }~XI STENCE. 'l'hcy consider it is hastening and provoking scenes of insurrection and rna sacre. T heir j ealousy and their sensibility are roused; and they demand what motive, what ind ucement, you have to this ? They are answered, ' Jlnman ity !' In the name of humanity, desist. She asks no such sacrifices at her altar. Create jealousies, heartb urnings, and hatred -set brother against brother-kindle the flames of civil discord-destroy the Union-and your liberties arc gone. .And then where will your slaves find the freedom which you have proffered them at the expense of your ow11 ?" * * * * * * "New States may be admitted, and no difference IS authorized. The authority is to admit or not, but not to prescribe conditions. What would be a fair construction of this? Surely not that Congress might hold a te rritory in a colonial condition as lon g as they choose, nor that they might admit a new State with less political rights than another, but that the admission should be as soon as the people needed, and were capable of supporting a State government. "- National I ntelligencer, Feb. 1 9, 1820. Mr:· J. BarLo ur, at that t ime a Senn tor i 11 Congress from the State of Virgiuiu, !:;aid : |