Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-02-15
a. re S. fa1t0aO
- === EIGT. WED.NEsDAY. FEB. Is. 1854.
s3,,5r ITpoN THE fNTELLIGENCER.

syME UPON THE INTELLIGENCER. 49,
:, :. ronerable representative of Federalism, the
,.as.l Intelligencer, has taken ground, as it was
na'l0 ..od & would do, against the Nebraska and
s5issss hill and consequently against the right Of
eotbern people to emigrate to territories north
' - 400 80 min with their slaves We have been
O at the course of certain Southern Whig pa
This question. Some of these presses, as for
p.,nle the Petersburg Intelligencer and Whining
Commercial have taken and maintaining the
tO'' rround bnt the Raleigh Register and others
~ heen darting about like boats in a storm,
1Id,, Knowing as the Register frankly confess
-hscb way to steer Governed by interest, hat
' - African slavery, or the promptings of fanat-
- which knows neither justice reason, the
WIZ nrssses of the free States hare opposed this bill
Il. first sciM one coiee; and they have found
e..:.r and commanding exponent of their views and
: - IN the National Intelligencer. Governed by
..;Tos Of expediency, and desire, sharpened by
love of the spoils still to affiliate and act
~ their Northern Freesoil brethren the Southern
VIZ. to which we have referred have hesitated,
lifted and struck out scientifically, and endea-
An- both to mysfy the question and underrate its
.anrt.nce and if driven at last by the popular
70 advocate the bill, they will do so with sin
.;trot
' AT for the change 1t is well enough that South
mon who thus hesitate, should be driven to their
lnty but the people nevertheless prefer willing to
reluctant servants
W. tole Measure in re-publishing the following
Conclusive reply of the Petersburg Inteligencer to
..ce Of the National Intelligencer. We prefer
% answer the latter paper through the medium of
ons Of its own party organs. Read it, and hand it
to your neighbors;
sTur NATIONAL INTELLIGgNcER ON THE NEBRASKA
~ The old saving that " there is telling what
D 1sy NAV bring forth has been forcibly brought
' ar mind by the appearance in the National Intel
rsnor of Monday of its leading editorial article.
This venerable and valuable journal has contrary to
onr evacuation come out against the Nebraska Bill,
and IA ken its position along side of Benton, Chase,
S n and the rest of the Freesoil and Abolition
onnonents of the South. We have rarely seen in
" mnortant political crisis the course of the Intel
Tqencer so feebly sustained by argument as in the
nTesent case We speak with entire respect when
o saw that in the article which noticing the
editors fall very short of doing justice to themselves
for thew have heretofore generally sgnalized them
saves in the discussion of great issue by their
pOwer of reasoning and felicity of illustration. We
have read with care what they have written in the
v,v of exception to the Nebraska Bill and we are
constrained to express qualification at finding in
their words nothing to weaken OF shake the opinion
which we have after mature consideration, arrived
at in favor of the proposed measure. We regret
that the Inteligencer has taken the attitude which
announces-but we cannot follow its example, for
our sincere belief that let Judge Douglas
ties be what they may, his proposition about the
Missouri Compromise involves not particle of vio-
lated ath-contains not syllable proposing to abro-
gate Hring COMPACT" There is in it no null |
G6caton of a solemn covenant between the United
States and the State of Missouri; for the very bill
itself expressly SAYS that the Missouri act of 1920
"Was SUPERSEDED BY THE ACTS OF 1885," |
and is upon this assumption rather this FACT,
that Judge Douglas proceeds to declare the super
seeded law imperative" Now, the only question |
to be considered is whether not the Compromise
1850 did actually virtually repeal that of 1920?
If it did then is the act of 1920, contend it |
is null void and of force; in another word, it is
imperative" without the need of any formal dec
/ araton from Congress to that effect We will not |
at present go again into discussion of the afrma-
tive of the above proposition, holding do that
either the old Compromise was cxtinguishcd by the
new or that the latter is entirely misrepresented
when it is called a FINAL SETTLEMENT IN
PRINCIPLE AND SUBSTANCE" of the whole
controversy about slavery. 1t characterized in
these precise terms of Mr.. Fillmore, who APPROX
Ed it 1t has been so recognized by the present
Head Of the Nation and by evcry eminent national
Wing and Democrat. Its purpose was avowcdiy to
srminate Tutty and JOrerer the unfortunate excite
mentS, which were periodically harassing Congress
and the country growing out of Freeson and Adolf
ton agitatons, and it intended and expected by
Its advocates to cover the whole ground, so far as
. the FUTURE was concerned We think that we
arc amply sustained by the records by the memora-
/ Die session of 1849--1s5O, and by the course of
events since, IN this statement of the matter. s.
IL has been the steady and earnest object of every
fehd OF the new Compromise, from the day of its
passage to the introduction of the Nebraska Bill to
give a paramount supre1ne authority in its prov
nc OF operations and we hear for the first time,
our astonlshment, than enactment which was
Ia . ana passed amidst the fierce elements of
rie that for the second time in the history of the
government threatened an extreme jssue-an enact
Isns winch was designed and calculated to close
!Nu'ey and pepetuatty the angry contentious be-
wen s the North and South, of which the SldreTy
ayect was so frufful-we hear now, for the first
sue the extraordinary cry raised even by press
as the National Intelligencer, that this
Aelnent this Compromise of185O, was, after all,
w seuement OF the question, for that the Missouri
rCompact is still in force-still solemn, sacred and
hng covenant" If the Intelligencer is ri ght, we
Siu u ike to be informed what is meant by the Of
MA H% language used by Mr., Fillmore when he spoke
e ACTS OF 1850 "a final settlement, in prin "a
ro. aau 1 substance" of the whole question:? Surely
s~ ,ts IKE these embrace something more than mere
and Py 1otions When we read about the "principle'
nal sa0Sance OF great controversy, and of fl
VI .ement Of by the highest power of theland,
co oally should not interpret such phraseology
or tsu'eyng the idea of subordinate, incomplete
riis a. porary arrangement The only consistent
o0 mat can betaken of law spoken Of is that
and s supremely within its prescribed limits,
who ssse limits in the present case, comprise the
Ter;t "ect OF slavery in its connections with the
the Union. '>1--l.'s4o y ne" 90 ~
Conn., are In error In this our understanding of the
ecm Olse OF 1850, then it is but few Indifferent
inn 10 o. wise comprehensive and efficient legis-
MES no, ~ ooes not meet and cover the case It