Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-11

In lS46 the following amendment was offered to the
Oregon Territorial bill but SO rampant had pretended
freesoiism become that it voted dswn, nearly the
whole South voting for it, together With only four from
the North to wit: O. j. IngersoH, Charles BroDn and
myself, from Pennsylvania, and Mr. Brdsau from New
York The following is the amendment which adopt
ed by the Senate in Lieu of the Wmot provso and voted
down in the House,
That the line of $50 SO latitude known as the Mis-
souri, compromise line defined by the eighth section oan
entitled An act TO authorize the people of Missouri Territory
mission of such State into the Union equal footing with
the original States and prohibit slavery in certain Terrific
approved March 1920 be and the hereby do
cared to extend TO the Pacific and the said eighth
section together with the compromise therein Effected
by revived and declared be in full force and binding the
future organization of the Territories Of the United States in
the same and with the understanding with which
1t was originally adopted"
From the time we were about to acquire large terri
tory from Mexico in 1847 down to the adoption Of the
compromise Of 1850, the South and
again offered the Missouri compromise. Judge Dargan
distinguished member fSOm Alabama, said, in 1847,
when the Wilmot proyiso was first offered:
"He had yet met with the first Southern who
not willing and continue that compromise. They did
not ask i from any wish to obtain political ascendeney
the North hope control here but from the condition Of
things around them They ask their brethren the North
renew the same agreement now and they of tho South would
scrupulously fulfill it,"
Polk sent to Congress- he gave notice that the Missouri
compromise not carried out in good faith and accord
ing to the original understanding, it would become an
original question but still, sir the advocates of the Viii
mot proyso pertinaciousy insisted upon the introduction
Of the provso in the Territorial bills and finally compe
ed those who wanted to give peace the adopt
mode Of settlement in 1850 with which all
quanted The following is President Folks language
"But If Congress shall the decision by which
the Missouri compromise effected and shall propose
extend the restriction the whole territory south, well
north, of the parallel Of $50 30 It c Js
promise, and must be regarded original question:
tU,f..
advocates talk to about violation Of plghed filth
With what propriety my honorable colleague charge
that the passage Of this bill violates pghted faith when
the Journal of the Senate shows that he uniformly voted
for the Wot prouso, and against extending and thus
against maintaining in its true and meaning, the
Missouri compromise 1t will hardly do for my colleague
to say that he voted for the Wmo provso under in
structions for, if remember correctly, the instructng
resolutions passed in 1847 1S48 and aimed
at members like myself At any rate, they passed
before he took his seat in the Senate and before the sub
ject had undergone discussion.
think sir, that my record upon the subject Of the
Missouri compromise cannot be impeached. When, in
the House Of Representatives sustained it, the de-
bates, &C. will show, long there was any hope Of
sustaining it, against the assaults Of the Wilmotproviso
men, not because believed it was right to adopt it ORR
gnay, but because it had been acquesced in never
believed that Congress had any power say that slavery
should forever be excluded from Territory for when
Territory becomes State she has right abolish or
authorize slavery The question before Congress in 1920
the admission Of Missouri not dividing territory out
side of her proposed limits But wished to keep what
some supposed pghted faith, and preserve good
name for Congress good character is valuable to
government as IN individual 1t is that for which we
all live for which oil act and for which, trust and
believe, most of us would die
But sir is not the bill correct in principle and will
not work as well in practice as any other which be
adopted Does it give the people of the Territories
the right to regulate their domestic affairs in any
way they please not in violation Of the constitution of the
United States? We are not asked to give protection to
property in slaves or say that the local Legislature shall
not pass laws upon the subject of slavery We do not
say whether the STAKEHOLDER cannot hold slave
there by virtue of the constitution that is left an open
question, to be decided by the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States And who object to that But sir if we
put provision in the bill that up to the time Of the for
nation of State constitution the of slaves should
lawfully hold them there it would be Of no service to
them because there would be local poce SO that the
mere refusal of the Territorial Legislature provide
for the in which they shall be held and sold and
treated and penalties for harboring Them &C. would ef
fectualy exclude them.
But it is said that by repeating the Missouri compro-
mise the old French law which authorizes slavery would
be revived But sir such is not the fact because the bill
expressly says that 1t is the true intent and meaning of
the act not to legsate slavery into the Territory but
there should be any doubt this point it can and will
be made clear by an amendment.
What them is there in this bill to which any reason
able man can object? The people who 60 into the Ter.
rtores have rs much intelligence those they leave in
the old States and capable of governing them
~ paoeu upon Tue great principle winch lays
at the foundation Of Government to wit the right
and the ability of the people to govern themselves The
Wmot proviso not in it, is there authority given
to hold slaves 1t is therefore compromise; gives
and takes We all know with what zeal Southern men
claim the right to take and hold their slaves in any terri
tory of the United States. They say and not without
truth and reason that the territories of the United States
were obtained by the blood or treasure Of the
United States; that they helped to obtain them and
that therefore they should not be excluded from them
and that to prevent them from taking their property with
them is to exclude them, and give monopoly to the
North Fifteen Of the States Of this Union entertain
these sentiments Well sir, they say they did in
1850, when the compromise were passed. ave
do not ask any federal legislation for our protection we
do not ask you to restrain the Territorial Legislature
(Which Of course, must be subordinate aar from
Guiding slavery until State constitution is formed
Now, sir it to this is placing all the citizens Of
the United States upon equal footing and with equal
rights, under the constitution, in the Territories
think therefore, that have sustained the positions
which assumed.
of Representatives in which advanced the same views
Indeed then laid down the and advanced
the cardinal ideas upon which the Territorial bills of
1850 and this bill are framed do not know that can
improve the statement arrangement which then made
will therefore conclude what now have to say by read
ing the beginning and the conclusion Of the remarks
then made:
enforce this: That the question of slavery mot being m
original of the negroes whether Free in
the States the Territories be the good sense
the conscience the patriotism the philanthropy of those
in whose midst exists they reside In words that
nasmuch admit the blacks terms of political
and social equality and all the States have jurisdiction re-
gard them the compromises Of the Constitution as well as
sound policy, enoin neutrality upon the part of Congress
The question Of slavery and the rights of Shareholders
settled in three articles Of the Constitution We add
take from those rights Heretofore the great complaint
tha thakAk