Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-11-06

tine, and it was decided in the affirmative.
The Bill (having been engrossed ad mite
riss) was then read third time, and the
question being put shall the bill passl"
Mr.. Leake presented reasons which
would induce him to vote against the bill.
and against all similar iegsihtion. He
complained that the house seemed to have
been converted into magnificent aboli-
ton society, and expressed bis fears that
the abolitionists. after laying thor proiane
hands on the altars Of religion and the
halls oflegislafion, would next assail the
bulwarks OF the Constitution itself, and
break il. like an aralaAehe on the peace
and security of the entire South lie
was sick and tired Of compromises; the
South had entered into many and they had
all been violated. He considered the vote
of this morning as an indication that the
Missouri Compromise was con1dered as
no longer Of any obligation. and an imtlma-
ton that the institutions OF the South were
no longer to he respected.
MIR. McClernand disclaimed this inter-
probation of his vote. and went into an ex-
PLANTATION as 10 the motive that had govern
ed him.
Mr.. Wick and Mr. Kennedy also explain
ell.
| Mr. Leake then went on to state what
he considered as the ultimatum OF the
South, which amounted to this-that 1t
the present attempt TO impose limitations
with respect to the extension OF slasey
should be persisted in and should prevail,
the South must stand in self-defence. for
they could not and would not submit TO 1t.
He went into review ofthe adoption OF
the Wi.mot Proviso-complained of the
North for having thrown a irebrand INTO
the House-appealed = their justice and
patriotism, and warned them to abandon
iheircrusade against therights Of the South,
or they might see before long the beginning
of The cnd,' but God only could see its ter
mination.
Mr.. Douglas deprecated the forming Of
this question in the House at present 1t
would come up legitimately on the bill APP
propria,ing funds for the war, or on the
bill providing two millions to effect a
peace. and intimated his intention when Mr..
Preston Kings bill should come up. to
move to amend il by introducing the Mis-
sour Compromise, instead Of the total pro-
hibition it contemplated in all the new ter
ritory we might acquire. AS he thought
that both sides had now been heard about
equally in the debate, he moved the pre-
vious question on the bill. He, however,
though with much hesitation, consented to
withdraw the motion at the request Of his
colleague"
The declarations of Mr.. Leake (Mr.
Shelton F. Leake, Col. Johnson's political
sccond) deserve special notice, as fixing the
true force and effect of the proceedings
thus far described. Mr. Douglass expla-
nation also shows that even he. although
willing to support the Missouri Compro-
mise afterwards, did not deny the assump-
ton of power over slavery in the Terri
tories embodied in the bill. The debate
was continued by various gentlemen, and
their speeches all 60 to show that the vote
against Mr.. Burt's amendment was full
affirmation Of the Free Soil principle. Mr..
Thurman, of Indiana, for instance, dis
claimed any intention to disturb the Mis-
sour Compromise, but denied that it ex-
tended beyond The Rocky Mountains. Mr..
Woodward,now a Co-operationist in South
Carolina, stated the position of the South
to be this /: .'that if the North were will
ing to abide by the Missouri Compromise
line to the Pacific, the South would agree
to prohibit slavery in Oregon" But, the
North fatty refused, and the question re-
CURED whether the South would agree to
prohibit slavery in Oregon, notwithstand-
ing the refusal.
On the 1Gth Mr. Hamlin, now a Sena-
tor from ainemadea set speech,in which
he openly proclaimed the policy Of the
North. A brief extract from his remarks
will suffice:
"What is it then that we propose to do 7
We propose to say, and to say with all
frankness, that there shall be no disagree
ment hereafter in this matter that we will
stand by the clearly defined rights of each
Individual State III reference 10 the institu-
ton of slavery Jutto territory nor free,
ruth our rotes and uM or consent, ii
shall nercr be extended, nor stall ats lin
IT'S, IN any ~ay, or IN any manner, be en-
Iarged"
Mr.. James Thompson, Of Pennsylvania,
generally moderate man, also declared lat
the very close ofthe debate" that he would
not consent TO any extension of slavery"
aud .l,e would never go for the acquisition
Of foot Of territory where slavery Would
be planted"
And now we come to the final action Of
the House upon the bill
MIR. Mcdaniel moved the previous cues
ton, which was seconded
And the main question was ordered to be
put, viz: Shall this bill pass
The vote was taken by yeas and NAYS as
follows: Yeas 1873, nays 35.
We omit the long list of names, but the
Virginia members voted thus:
IEAs-Messrs. VIM. G. Brown and
JOS. JOHNSON--2.
NAYs-Messrs. Bayly. Bedinger, Hu-
bard, Leake, Mcdowell. Pcndleton. Sed-
don and Trcdway-
Messrs. Atkinson, Chapman, Dromgoole,
Hopkins and Hunter, for what reason we
know not. failed to vote.
80 the bill was passed, and sent to the
Senate for concurrence.-Cong. Globe, p.
1913.
by this 'history from the record" it ap.
pears that Col. Joseph johnson, tie Demo
cratic nominee .for Gorcrnor, VOTED
FOR THE OREGON BILL WITH
THE W1LMOT PROVISO ENGRAF-
led UPON 1T; NOTWITHSTANDING TIE
DISTINCT AvowALs OF THE NORTHERN MA
lJORITY THAT TT WAS NOT yNrrxnrr A..
EXTENSION OF THE Missouri CoMpRo
MIsE,AND THAT THE SANE PRovIso WOULD
BE APPLIED To ANY TERRITORY ACQUIRED
FROM Mexico.
Now let the cavaliers at Mr.. Summers
opinions, held twenty years ago. and now
1 70, .l,..tul l. 1