The state was thus disrupted. The opposition to the
extension of slavery dated from 1787, from the work of Jefferson in
1800. However, let the people of the territories decide the matter.
Local self-government was a popular cry. Between saying that Congress
could keep slavery out of the territories, thereby treating the
territories as property, not as subordinate sovereignties, and Congress
sending slavery into the territories, because the Constitution was over
them, what juster pragmatism were possible than to let the people of the
territories decide the matter for themselves? If the general government
was one of granted powers, where did it get the right to prohibit
slavery in the territories? No such power could be indicated.
Oh, well, there was opportunity for infinite speculation. At the same
time, here were the territories and here was slavery. The powerful North
was assuming a definite opposition to a weaker South. Iron and coal were
stronger than cotton. What was to be done by a man who had the burdens
of leadership? How should the whole people be at peace? Since slavery
could not be removed from the states, why not let its tendrils creep
into the territories and there flourish or wither according to the soil?
Since it was practical, not radical policy to confine it to the states,
and not to abolish it in the states, it was practical and not radical
policy to let the territories decide the matter for themselves.
Pages:
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278