Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1851-11-24

rim) was then read third time, and the
question being put shall the bill pass.
Mr.. Leake presented reasons which
would induce him to vote against the bill,
and against all similar legislation. He
/ complained that the house seemed to have
4 been converted into a magnificent sboli
ton society, and expressed his fears that
the abolitionis,s, after laying their profane
hands on the altars of religion and the halls
Of legislation. would next assail the bull
warks Of the Constitution itself. and break
in like an aralanche on the peace and secu-
rity of the entire South. He was sick and
tired Of compromises; the South had enter
ed into many and they had all been viola
ted He considered the vote Of this NOM
ing as an indication that the Missouri Com
promise was considered as no longer Of
any obligation, and an iniimation that the
institutions Of the South were no longer to
be respected
| Mr.. McClernand disclaimed this inter-
probation of his vote, and went into an ex-
planation as to the motive that had govern
ed him.
Mr.. Wick and Mr.. Kennedy also ex
planned.
| Mr.. Leake then went on to state what
he considered as the ultimatum ofthe
South, which amounted to this-that if
the present attempt to impose limitations
with respect to the extension of slavery
should be persisted in and should prevail,
the South must stand in selCdefence, for
they could not and would not submit to it.
He went into review of the adoption Of
the Wilmot Proviso-complained of the
North for having thrown a frebrand into
the House-appcaled to their justice and
patriotism, and warned them to abandon
their crusade againstthe rights ofthe South
or they might see before long,the beginning
of the end,' but God only could see its ter
mination.
Mr.. Douglas deprecated the forcing of
this question on the House at present; it
would come up legitimately on the bill APP
propriating funds for the war, or on the bill
providing two millions to effect n peace,
and intmated his intention when MIR. Pres
ton Kings bill should come up, to move
to amend it by Introducing the Missouri
Compromise instead of the total prohibi-
ton it contemplated in all the new terri
tory 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. ile however,
though with much hesitation. consented
to withdraw the motion at the request of
his colleague"
The declarations Of Mr.. Leake (Mr.
Shelton +. Leake, Col. Johnson's political
second) deserve special notice, as fixing the
true force and effect Of the proceedings
thus far described Mr.. Douglas cxpla-
ton 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 Terrific
ries embodied in the bill. The debate was
continued by various gentlemen, and their
speeches all go to show that the vote u
gainst Mr.. Burt's amendment was full
affirmation ofihe Free Soil principle. Mr..
Thurman, Of Indiana, for instance, dis
claimed any intention to disturb the Mis-
souri, Compromise, but denied that it ex-
tended beyond the Rocky Mountains-
Mr.. Woodward, now Co-operationists
in South Carolina, stated the position of
the South to be this: .that if the North
were willing 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 recurrcd whether the South would
agree to prohibit slavery in Oregon, not
withstanding the refusul
On the 10th, Mr.. Hamlin, now Sena-
tor from Maine, made set speech, in
which he openly proclaimed the policy Of
the North. A brief extract from his re-
marks will suffice:
"What is it then that we propose to dol
We propose to say, ard 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 in reference to the institu-
ton ofsavcry; but to territory now free,
,ctM our rotes and UiM our consent, IL shaN
ncrer be extended, nor shall its limits in
any aoay, erin any manner, be enlarged" /"
Mr.. James Tho npson Of Pennsylvania
generally moderate man, also declared,
at the very close Of the debate, "that he
would not consent to any extension Of
slavery" and "he would never go for the
acquisition Of a foot Of territory where
slavery would be planted"
And now we come to the final action Of
the House upon the bill.
Mr.. Mcdaniel moved the previous ques-
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 1888, nays 35.
We omit the long list of names, but the
Virginia members voted thus:
| YEAs-Messrs -Wm. c. Brown and
JOS. JOHNSON-2.
| NAYs-Messrs. Bayly, Bednger, Hub
ard, Leake, Mcdowell, Pendlcton. Seddon
and Tredway-S.
Messrs. Atkinson, Chapman Dromgoole,
Hopkins and Hunter, for what reason we
know not, failed to vote.
So the bill was passed, and sent to the
Senate for concurrence Gang. Globe, p.
1893.
By this "history from the record" it ap-
pears that Col. Joseph johnson, Me Demo
cratic nominee for Gore1nor VOTED FOR
THE OREGON BILL WITH THE
WILMOT PROVISO ENGRAFTED
1 UPON 1T; NOTWITHSTANDING THE DIS
TINcT AvowALs OF THE NORTHERN MAORI
TY THAT 1T WAS NOT INTENDED AS AN Ex-
TENSION OF THE Missouri COMPROMISE,
AND THAT THE SAME PRovrso WOULD BE
APPLIED TO ANY TERRITORY ACQUIRED
FROM Mexico.
Now let the cavillers at Mr.. Summers
opinions held twenty years ago, a d