a term not applicable to the colored more than to the white race of men; the meaning of the word being foreign, wild, or things in their normal condition. The Greeks and Romans called all foreigners-such as lived without their countries, and were ignorant of their language, laws and customs-barbarians. The word barbarian with them was not reproachful as with us; they applied it to things, as to manufactures made abroad, as Barbarice Vestes, embroidered garments from foreign nations; Barbaricum Aurum, gold from Africa. When applied to man, it meant a foreigner; and all such were considered slaves, and the Greeks and Romans considered themselves their masters so soon as they entered their countries.

At a later period, it was thought by other nations, that to hold men in Slavery, would aid in teaching them the Christian religion; and to this end, the pious King Louis XIII signed a law, declaring all negroes within his dominions slaves. Who knows, but that it was from a reading of this Christian law, and the pure piety of the Vice-President of the late Southern Confederacy, A. H. Stephens, that he conceived the philosophical ideas, advocated by him, of the divine right of Slavery.

The anti-Christian operations of the armies of the Republic of America, and the anti-Christian Proclamation of Emancipation, issued by Abraham Lincoln, no doubt entitle the whole Republican party to the name of barbarians, in the estimation of the slave-breeders of the South and their Democratic brethren of the North.

The doctrines and notions of Slavery and barbarians, as practiced and understood in Europe, had found early advocates in the Colonies of America. Virginia, (the mother of Presidents, and the mother of Slavery

in the United States) not satisfied with introducing Slavery of the negro into America, (twenty having arrived at Jamestown, Virginia, on board of a Dutch ship in 1620, the first in America) soon conceived the idea of enslaving the barbarian, and to this end enacted a code of laws, that has been in strict conformity with the sentiments of the leaders in the Slave States up to the date of Emancipation. With this exception, the slave-breeder of the latter days, neither discriminated between his own child (if a little mixed) and the negro, nor between "Christian and barbarian.”

As early as the year 1679, the chivalry of Virginia passed laws, turning over to the soldiers the absolute possession of all Indians captured by them. The statute reads: "For the better encouragement of soldiers, that all Indians taken prisoners in war in the Colony, should be the property of their captors."

Soon after this, it was held that all persons not Christians, could be held as slaves. In the case of Hudgins v. Wright, it was held by Judge Tucker in 1682, "That all servants brought into Virginia by sea or land, not being Christians, whether negroes, Moors, mulattoes, or Indians; and all Indians which shall hereafter be sold by neighboring Indians, or any other trafficking with us, as slaves, shall be slaves to all intents and purposes."-Hamirag and Mumford's Reports, p. 139.

CHAPTER VIII.

TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES.

GOVERNMENT OF THE TERRITORY.SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORY.-ADMISSION OF MISSOURI.-OPPOSITION TO HER ADMISSION.-MISSOURI COMPROMISE-POSITION OF THE FRIENDS OF FREEDOM AND OF SLAVERY.-SPEECHES UPON BOTH SIDES.

ONE of the subjects agitating the public mind during the past thirty years, was in relation to the government of the public domain, the great cause of which had its origin in the interests of the Slavery question. The Territories stretching westward from the Missouri to the Pacific, were filling up with a population chiefly from the Free States, carrying with them all their love of liberty and hatred of Slavery. Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Iowa, had planted themselves upon the territorial domain, reaching from the Ohio to the great lakes in the west, and had been admitted as Free States. Minnesota was still further northward; Wisconsin entered the Union from the west, in 1848, with a prohibition of Slavery; and now, in 1850, the jewel of the Republic, California, with an area greater than that of all the New England and Middle States, and with a climate, natural mineral and agricultural resources, unequaled in the world, came with Neptune's trident from the shores of the Pacific, and the golden harvest of her mountains, proclaiming that her hardy sons had planted the flag of liberty where the aurora borealis reflects back departed day, and demanded admission into the family of States. Her Constitution was examined, to see if it was Republican in form.

Article I. Section 18, reads: "Neither Slavery nor

The Constitution imposes upon Congress no obligation to admit new States; it permits none to demand admission; it authorizes no member of the Confederacy to require such admission. The President and Senate cannot by treaty admit a State into the Union, nor can they impose on Congress an obligation to do it. The admission of Louisiana, which was part of the same Territory with Missouri, was not claimed as a matter of right; it was solicited as a favor. The propriety of imposing conditions, was then thought reasonable and Constitutional too. A political, as well as every other society, should prescribe the manner of obtaining the conditions of membership. The power of admitting new States and making the laws necessary and proper therefor, gives the right for which we contend; and according to the plain and natural interpretation of language, appears too evident to need further illustration.

"By the treaty with France, Congress acquired an incontestable title to the domain, and possession of the ceded territory in full sovereignty, with all its rights and appurtenances. The only limitation on the exercise of this sovereignty, must be found in the Constitution. The sovereignty is general, but must be exerted in a manner consistent with the principles of our National Government; it, therefore, becomes important to ascertain what these principles are, in relation to the amendment on your table; in other words, is the power of holding slaves a Federal right? In discussing this question, we ought carefully to distinguish between the principles of the United States Government, and those of particular States.

"The doctrines of New Hampshire and Georgia in regard to Slavery, are diametrically opposite, and cannot both be the doctrines of the United States. The Federal Government is as distinct from each of these as they are from each other. All these rightfully exercise a limited sovereignty in their proper sphere. We further premise, that in a Confederacy like ours, the principles of a dominant State naturally acquire a currency and artificial value from their connection with honor and power. It is evident enough that the United States Government does not belong to Virginia any more than to Ohio, and is there less danger that the principles of Virginia in regard to Slavery, will acquire popularity, and ultimately pass for those of the nation, because she is wise in her policy, and maintains her consequence in every department of your Government?

*

*

*

"But let us examine what are the principles upon which the United States Government is founded. Do they justify Slavery? I answer they do not. Congress with its sovereignty, has constantly endeavored to prevent the extension of Slavery, and has maintained the doctrine, that all men are born equally free;' but has disclaimed, and continues to disclaim, any right to enforce this doctrine upon State Sovereignties.

"The first truth declared by this nation at the era of its independence was, 'That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' Are we willing to pronounce this declaration, for the support of which the fathers of our Revolution pledged their lives and fortunes, a flagrant falsehood? Was this declaration a solemn mockery? Did such men as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Sherman and Livingston, proclaim to the world a self-evident truth, doctrines they did not believe? Did they lay the foundations. of this infant Republic in fraud and hypocrisy? The supposition is incredible. These men composed the Committee which reported the Declaration of Independence; four of them were delegates from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New York. They expressed the opinions of the States they represented. The sentiments of their Chairman on this interesting subject, are not contained in the Declaration alone; if further evidence be required as to his opinions, it is abundantly furnished in his 'Notes on Virginia.' His denunciation of Slavery is there expressed in language too distinct to be misunderstood; its injustice is portrayed in glowing colors, and its evils portrayed with glowing eloquence. While books are read or truths revered, his sentiments on this subject will insure to their author unfading honor.

"In 1803, Louisiana, including the Territory of Missouri, was purchased from France. The third is the only article of the Treaty relating to the subject before us; it consists of three parts. First.-The inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States. This promise was to be executed immediately. It extended to all the inhabitants, wherever resident, and depended on no contingency; without it, they might have continued aliens, and been treated like the inhabitants of a conquered province. The obligation imposed by this clause, was discharged by Congress in passing the act of