Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-02-18

Dlu ne III inc report made by him as chairman o
the Committee Of Thirteen, or In any speech in
! support OF the compromise acts, in any conver
sation in the committee, or out of the committee
ever even hint Mt this doctrine Of supercedure? Did
any supporter, or any opponent of the compromise
acts, ever vindicate or condemn them upon the
ground that the Missouri prohibition would be Of
tected by them2 Well sir the compromise oet,
were passed. They were denounced North and
they were denounced South. Did any defender oil
them at the South ever Justify his support of then
upon in2 ground that the South had Obtained
through them the repeal Of the Missouri prohb
tionY Did any olector to them at the North evei
even suggest as ground of condemnation that that
ProhlbitIon was swept away by them2 No. sir
NO man, North or South, during the whole of the
discussion OF those acts here or in that other dis
cussion which followed their enactment throughout
the country, ever intimate any such opinion.
Now sir, let US come to the last session Of Con-
gress. Nebraska bill passed the House and
came to the Senate. and was reported from the
Committee on Territories bv the Senator from
Illinois, rs It's chairman. Was there any provision
in it wni,.. even sqcnted towards this doctrine Of
repeal by supersedurv2 Why, sir, southern gentle
men opposed it upon the very GROUND that 1t lett
the Territory under the operation OF the Missouri;
prohibition. The Senator from Illinois made II
speech in defense of it. Did he invoke southern
support upon the ground that it superseded the
Missouri prohibition? Not at all. Was it opposed
or vindicnted by anybody any such ground ?
Every Senator knows the contrary. The Senator
from Missouri, Mr.. ATcnIsoN, now the President
OF this body, made speech upon the BILL in which
he distinctly declared that the Missouri urohibiton
was not repealed, and could not be repealed
will send this speech to the Secretary, and ask
him to read the paragraphs marked
The Secretary read as follows:
81 will now state to the Senate the views which
induced me to oppose this proposition in the early
part Of the session.
al had iNrn nltact;nnr o., a. A. Al.
Indian title in that Territory had not been extin.
guished, or at least very small portion Of it had
been Another was the Missouri compromise, or.
as it is commonly called the slavery restriction II
was my opinion at that time-and am not now
very clear on that sulcct-that tho law of CONGRESS
when the State of Missouri was admitted into the
Cnion excluding slavery from the Territory Of
Louisiana north of 36o 30\ would he enforced in
that Territory unless it was especially rcscindcd
and, whether that law was in accordance with the
Constitution Of the United States or not it would
do its work, and that work would be TO preclude
shareholders from going into that Territory. But
when came to look into that question, found
that there was no prospect, no hope Of repeal Of
the Missouri compromise, excluding slavery from
that Territory. Now, sir, am free to admit that
at this moment at this hour, and for all time to
come, should oppose the organization or tho
settlement of that Territory unless my constituents
and the constituents of the whole South of tho
slave States of the Union could 60 into it upon tic
same footing. with equal rights and equal prvil
eyes, carrying that species of property with them
rs other people Of this Union. Yes, sir, acknow
ledge that that would have governed me, but ]
have no hope that the restriction will ever be re-
pealed
81 have always been Of opinion that the first
great error committed in the political history o
this country was the ordinance of 1887, rendering
the Northwest Territory free territory. The next
great error was the Missouri compromise Bu
l . tia.r LOT 1.,ll I
for them. We must submit to them. am pre-
pared to do it. 1t is evident that the Missouri
compromise cannot be repealed. So far rs thai
question is concerned we might as well agree t
the admission of this Territory now as next year
or five or ten years hence" "-C Congressional Globe
Second Session Iho7y-Second Congress- rol. 20
page lib.
Mr.. CHASE. That, sir, is the speech Of tn,
Senator from Missouri whose authority, think
must go for something upon this question. Wha
does he say? "Whcn | came to look into tina
question of the possible repeal of the Missour
prohiblton-that was the question he was looking
hto-"l found that there was no prospect n,
| hope Of repeal Of the Missouri compromise ex
cluding slavery from that Territory" And yet
sir, at that very moment, according to this nev
doctrine Of the Senator from Illinois, it had beer
repealed three years
Well, the Senator from Missouri said furthe
that if he thought it possible to oppose this re
strction successfully, he never would consent Il
the organization Of the territory until it was re
scindcd. But, said he 81 acknowledge that hav
no hope that the restriction will ever DO repealed
Then he made some complaint as other southern
gentlemen had frequently done, Of the ordinance o
! l7S7 and the Missouri prohibitions but went on L
say "they are both irremednble there is no rem
edy for them we must submit 30 them; | am pre-
pared TO do it, it is evident that the Missouri com
promise cannot be repealed"
:, Now, sir. when was this said? 1t was on tn
a INl. 4 Il
u the last session, when that Nebraska bill reported
by the Senator from Illinois, which proposed n,
repeal, aud suggested supersedurc, was unde
discussion. | think, sir that all this shows preti
clearly that up to the very close of the last session
of Congress nobody had ever thought of repcn
I by supersedurc. Then what took place at tn
. commencement Of the present session? The Sena
tor from Iowa, early in December, introduced bill
for the organization of the Territory of NebraskG
| believe il was the same bill which was under dis
cus.ion here at the last session, line for line, an
word for word. If am wrong, the Senator wi
correct me.
Did the Senator from Iowa, then, entertain III
idea that the Missouri prohibition had been supei
seeded? No, sir neither he nor any other ma
here so far as could be judged from any discu,
sion, or statement, remark, had received thi
notion
Well, on the 4th day of January the Committc
on Territories, through their chairman the Senate
from Illinois, made report on the territorial OF
ganization of Nebraska; and that report was az
companicd by bill. Now, sir, on that 4th day {
January, just thirty days ago, did the Committc
on Territories entertain the opinion that the con
promise acts of 1850 superseded the Missouri pr,
+ hibition2 If they did, they were very careful
{ keep il TO themselves We will Judge the commi
tee by its own report What does that say? |
f the first place, they describe the character of III
controversy in respect to tho territories acquire
from Mexico. They say that some believed that
Mexican law prohibiting slavery was in force ther
while others claimed that the Mexican law becam
imperative at the moment Of acquisition, and thi
! tory, and hold them there under the provisions
! the Constitution. The territorial compromise act
> as the committee tell us, steered clear of thet
1 questions. They simply provided that the STATE
? organized out Of these Territories might come
u with or without slavery. they should elect, b.
soaald be iniEndncad hefnra The nrnanizatioL