Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-07-20
Mr.. Flournoy on the Nebraska Bill.

Mr.. Flournoy has taken some novel positions on
the Nebraska bill, and in trying to involve Mr.
Lindey, has put his own foot in it, All who have
read MIR. Lindley's speech will recolect that he
objected to the Badger amendment, and gave no.
ce that at the proper time he would move to strike
It out. The bill was forced through under the
previous question, and no opportunity was given
TO make the motion. It will be borne in mind
that the louisiana Territory, when It was pur-
chased by the United State from France, was slave
territory. The Missouri Compromise restricted
slavery in portion Of that Territory, which now
constitutes Kansas and Nebraska Territories. BY
the repeal Of the Missouri Compromise Kansas
and Nebraska at once became slave territory, be-
cause the old French law was revived. SO far
this was decidedly favorable to the South; so much
SO, that the northern men would not stand it, and
demanded also the repeal of the old French laws
recognising slavery. The Badger amendment re-
pealed the slavery laws (thus enacting the Will
mot proyiso, and making slave territory free) at
the dictation of the north. Mr.. Lindley objected
TO this being against the interests of the South,
and against the only feature of the Nebraska bill
worth contending for-non- Intervention. The Mis-
souri, Compromise was Intervention by Congress,
because it made free territory out of slave. This
restriction being removed, Kansas and Nebraska
became slave territory. But Congress turns right
around and inierrenes again, by repeating the old
slavery laws, which would have protected Mis-
sourians going there with their slaves. This is
what Mr.. Lndley objected TO, and was he MOI
rightF There is no law now protecting slavery
in Kansas. The STAKEHOLDER who goes there takes
his rifle for his law, until laws can be made. If
Mr.. Lindey could have got the Badger amend
mrnt struck out, Kansas would at once have been
slave territory, and persons who went there would
have possessed the same rights they did when Mis-
souri, was settled-and the same rights they would
have possessed had the Missouri restriction never
been enacted by Congress. The Badger amend
men Intervention, and that, too, against south
ern interests. Every one who has read the Kan
sas and Nebraska bills, knows that the effect of
the Badger amendment is truly stated above; and
all who have read Mr.. Lindley's speech will see
that we have correctly stated his position. Now
we will give Mr.. Flournoy's position, and The
reader which Is the true friend of southern
interests. Lindley is on the southern side-Flour-
noy on the northern.
At Lagrange, in Lewis County, Mr. Flournoy
stated that he had read Mr. Lndley's speech, and
differed with him on some points. He said that
Mr.. Lindey objected to the Badger amendment to
the Nebraska bill, AMI thereby lcshei to recognise
tn. potrer Of Congress TO lgislate slarery OUT OF
he te rtory The Missouri Compromise legisla.
ed slavery out of the territory that was repealed
by the bill, and without the Badger amendment
slavery was reestablished. Mr.. Lndley wished tc
ske out the amendment, so as to leave It slave ter
rtory, and Mr. Flournoy says he thereby wished
to recognise the right of Congress to abolish slave
~! Is not this singular logic? As before remark
ed, the amendment was introduced at the instance
of Northern men-was free soil in its operations
and because Mr.. Lindley objected to it, al
against the interests of his State, Mr.. Flournoy
finds fault with him. We have not understood Mr.
Flournoy TO be free soier, but his position or th
amendment is the free sol! ground, and is the fea
ture of the bill that was unanimously objected tc
by southern members, of both parties They wer,
forced 10 swallow the bill, with the amendment
and with denunciations of It on their tongues, and
now Mr.. Flourgoy denounces them for it.
1t isa strange position for person to occup,
who is seeking to represent Mssourians in Con
gress. II is not the position of democrats(or wings
in this section, and of the latter, in other part
The District. Mr.. Lindey stood on the true south
ern ground; the opposite is the free soil ground
and upon it Mr. Flournoy stands. Depend upol
il, voters of the Third District, Flournoy is con
tending for the free soil side of the question: or h
has not sufficient capacity to understand the sub
Ject In either event, he is ar unsafe legislator TO
you.