Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1854-02-25


Nebraska or from the Louisiana purchase, and IN
cluded it the limits of the Territory of Utah
w by did We doit2 Because we sought for q nat
uFal boundary and i vas more natural e take the
valleys on one side ofthe mountains and annex them
to the country on the other side. And why Did we
take these natural boundaries, setting at the
old boundaries2 The simple reason WAS; that so
long as we acted upon the principle Of settling the
slave question by line SO long we OBJ
served those boundaries strictly and rigldly; but
when that was abandoned, in consequences OF the
action of free soers and aboltionistS, when 1t was
superseded by the compromise measures OF 1850,
which rested upon great universal principle, there
was necessity for keeping in view the old and I'M
natural boundary. For that reason, in making the
new Territories we formed natural boundaries rres-
pectiye of the source whence title was derived
In writing these bills paid attention to the fact
whether the title was acquired from Louisiana from
France, from Mexico; for what difference did 1t
make ? The principle which we had established in
the bill would apply equally well to either.
In fixing those boundaries, paid no attention to
the fact whether they included old territory or not
whether the country was covered by the Missouri
Compromise not Why? Because the principles
established in the bills superseded the Missouri Com
promise. For that reason dsregarded the old
boundaries dsregarded the territory to which it ap-
piled, and disrcgarded the source from whence the
title was derived say, therefore, that close eX-
animation of this actceary establishes the fact that
it the intent we'll the legal effect of the
Compromise measures of 1850 to supersede the Mis-
$500
rial lines
Sir, in order to avoid any misconstruction, will
STATE more distinctly what my precise idea is upon
this point So far as the Utah and New Mexico bills
included the territory which had been subject the
Missouri Compromise provision, to that extent they
absolutely annulled the Missouri Compromise. As
to the unorganized territory not covered by these
bills it superseded by the principles of the Com
promise of 1850. We all know that the object of
the Compromise measures of 1850 to establish
certain great principles which would avoid the slave
ry agitation in all time to come. Was it our object
simply to provide for a temporary evil? Was it our
object just to heal over old sore, and leave it to
break out again? Was it our object to adopt mere
miserable eXpedient to apply to that territory, and
that alone, and leave ourselves entirely at with
out compass, when new territory was acquired, or
territorial organizations were to be made? Was
that the object for which the eminent and venerable
Senator from Kentucky Mr.. Clay, came here, and
sacrificed his last energies upon the altar of his
country? Was that the object for which Webster
Clay, Cass, and all the patriots of that day, strug
ged SO long and so strenuously? Was it merely tine
application of a temporary eXpedient in agreeing to
stand by past and dead legislation that the Baltimore
platform pledged us to sustain the Compromise of
1850? Was it the understanding of the Wing par
ty, when they adopted the compromise measures of
1850 an article of political faith, that they
only agreeing to that which past and had no
reference to the future? If that was their meaning
if that was their object, they palmed off afro
cious fraud upon the American people. Was it the
meaning of the democratic party, when we pledged
we spoke only of the past and had no reference TO
the future? If so, it was worse than fraud. When
we pledged our President to stand by the compro-
mise measures, did we not understand that we
pledged him as to his future action? Was it as to
his past conduct? If it had been in relation to past
conduct only, the pledge would have been untrue
to very large portion of the Democratic party.
Men went into that Convention who had been OPP
posed to the compromise mcasureS-;nen who ab
horred those measures when they were pending
men who never would have voted affirmativeIy on
them. But, inasmuch as those measures had been
passed and the country had acquiesced in them and
it was important to preserve the principle in order
to avoid agitation in the future these said We
waive our past objections, and will stand by you
and with you i'll carrying out these principles in the
future
great parties at Baltimore. Such I understand to
have bee the effect of their pledges. If they did
not mean this, they meant merely to adopt resolu-
tons which never to be carried out and which
were designed to mslead and deceive the people for
the mere purpose of carrying election.
hold, then, that as to the territory covered by
the Utah and New Mexico bills there express
lnnuiment of the Missouri Compromise and as to
Ill the other unorgansed territories it was suppressed
ed by the principles of that legislation and we are
bound to apply those principles to the organization
Of all new Territories-of all which own, or
which we may hereafter acquire. If this construc
ion be given, it makes that compromise final adj |
ustment. No other construction can possibly i'm |
part fnality to it. By any other construction, the
Is 10 De fe-openeQ the moment you ratlfy
new treaty acquiring inch of country from |
Mexico. By any other construction you reopen the
ssue every time you make territorial govern
nent But, sir, if you treat the compromise meas
of 1850 in the light of great principles sufficient
% remedy temporary evils, at the same time that |
hey prescribe rules of action applicable everywhere
n all time to come, then you avoid the agitation for
if you observe good faith to the provisions of
hese enactments and the principles established by
hem.
Mr.. President, repeat that so far as the question
If slavery is concerned there is nothing the bill
lnder consideration which does not carry out the |
principles of the Compromise measures of 1850, by
eaving the people to do they please subject only
% the provisions of the Constitution of the United
States. If that principle is wrong, the bill is wrong.
If that principle is right the bill is right. 1t is un- |
necessary to bubble about phraseology words it
S not the mere words the phraseology, that |
onr constituents wish to judge by. They wish to
know the legal effect of our legislation.
The legal effect of this BILL if it be passed as re-
ported by the Committee Territories is neither to
egslate slavery into these Territories nor out of
hem but to leave the people to do as they please,
lnder the provisions and subject to the limitations of
he Constitution of the United States. Why should |
not this principle prevail Why should any man, !
North South object to it? l will especially ad- |
lress the argument to my section of country,
md ask why should any Northern object to
his principle? If you will review the history of |
he slavery question in the United States you will |
that all the great results in behalf of free nsti-
utons which have been worked out have been ac-
,omplished by the operation of this principle, and |
oy it alone.
When these States were colonies Of Great Britain,
nfth clio aIa11S