The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-01-19
THE NATIONAL ERA, WASHINGTON D. G, JANUARY 49, 1854


to the United States, under the name of Lou
isiana, which lies north of SO deg 80 min mort
latitude, not included within the limits of tn
State contemplated by this, act Slavery an
Involuntary seryitudc, otherwise than for th
punishment of crime, whereof the parties shall
have been duly convicted, shall be, and is here
by, forever prohibited"
No attempt was ever made to disturb thi
Compromise and it was sustained by the &C
quiescence of a whole generation.
In 1913, when it became necessary to pro
vide Territorial Government for Oregon, the
Proviso Of the Ordinance of 1887 was cmbod
led in the bill for this purpose but this wa.
not an abrogation of the Missouri Compro
mise, any more than the act of Mr.. Polk, who
insisted upon the validity of that Compromise
in the very message in which he sanctioned the
bill. Our claim to Oregon had been urged,
on several grounds, one Of which was. that IL
was originally part of the Territory OF Lou
siana. Had this been universally and abso-
lutely admitted to be true, the Proviso of the
act of 1920 would have exempted it from Sla-
very, just as it now exempts Nebraska But,
as this was disputed point, the friends of
Freedom justly held that the relations of the
Territory to Slavery should Tot be left in
doubt Hence they inserted the Proyiso Of
the Ordinance Of 1897. If the Missouri Conf
promise was in force as it related to tina. Ter
ritory, this additional Proyiso, being in harmo-
ny with it, could do no harm-it would be at
most mere surplusagc. But If it were not in
force, then the new Proviso was Indispensable.
Manitestly, in. neither case was it an abroga-
ton of the Missouri Compromise.
But the effort of the Pro- Slavery party was
TO engraft On the Oregon bill new Compro-
mise, not to rc-affirm the old oae-that is,
adopting the old Compromise as model, to
provide that thenceforth, in all territory Of the
United States, which, owing to recent acquisi-
tons, now reached the Pacific ocean, there
should neither be Slavery nor involuntary ser
vitude north of Sc deg 80 min. The Missouri
Compromise was limited by its terms to the
Louisiana Territory. Since its passage, Calfor-
MA Utah, and New Mexico, had been acquired
and the title to Oregon secured by treaty. The
proposition was, to adopt the same Compro-
mise Line in relation to these Territories, which
had been adopted exclusively in relation to
Louisiana. This and this only was resisted
and defeated by the Anti Slavery Party It
did not oppose or repudiate the Missouri Com
promise, for no question was made concerning
that
To say that the refusal to provide for new
Territory, in one set of circumstances, new
Law identical in principle with an old Law,
enacted for Territory in another set Of cir
cumstances, was 4 virtual repeal or abrogation
Of the latter, is unadulterated nonsense.
AS the Anti Slavery Party did not repudiate
the Missouri Compromise in ls4S or 1850, its
now to sustain it in relation to
Nebraska, when, for the first time since its
passage, the attempt is made to set it aside, is
entirely consistent with its principles and &C.
ton heretofore. It is the ProSlavery Party
which is criminal-gnilty of inconsistency, bad
faith, and fraudulent intention, because, hav-
ing admitted the validity of the Missouri Com
promise for thirty three years, it now pretends
to question its constitutionality, and having
fully appropriated and secured all the advan-
tages it gave to Slavery, now seeks to swindlc
Freedom out OF the single benefit it gained from
The bargain by falsely asserting that the
friends of Freedom themselves have abroga-
ted it,