The daily union., 1854-03-05
CONGRESSIONAL.
SPEECH OF HON. Il. M. II. HUNTER,
or VIRGINIA;

I or vIRSIsIA;
Delivered in The United States Senate February "a, 1854
on Nebraska and Kansas.
The Senate having under consideration the bi
ganize the Territories oil Neoraska and Kansas
/ Mr.. HUNTER said:
! Mr. President: Complaints have been made that this
question OF the repeal OF The Missouri Compromise has
been unnecessarily thrust upon U.S. and Inquiries have
been instituted 10 the motives OF those who brought
il before Congress In my opinion, il neither with
design Dor by The desire OF any here elsewhere
bat arises oui oil the nature OF he and has been
forced upon us by circumstances. Ii is but logical
sequence OF the OF argumen, and Of action which
pursued IN 1850 apon what were then called the
compromise measures OF that session And, cir, there
are numbers here nunbers in the other house-a ma
jory IN my opinion, well as majority oi The peo-
pie Of this Union-who could not refuse, il the question
presented for repeal OF this provision 10 vote Tor
il without any inconsistency with their previous profess
sioEg and course OF action
| The legislation which has been denominated the
Missouri Compromise OF $780, ii founded upon any prln-
lciple, was founded upon that OF division OF territory
bel ween the sayeholding and the non -s!aveholdng
States Of this contederacy i seemed 70 proceed upon
that territory, and that il social possession became
either impossible inconvenen then justice required
partition OF il amongst them for purposes OF use and oc
cupalion. Accordingly, when the slave Territory oi
/ Texas annexed, proposition made to run the
line OF SO deg so mR through IT, and prohibit slavery
in all that portion OF The territory north OF that line
To that proposition the South cheertuily aceeded
And when il became question as 10 the organization
OF the Territory Of Oregon and OF that acquired from
Mexico, then too the proposition made to settle
the South beng found 10 favor il almost unani-
mously, and he North generally voting against II.
will not repeat the very lucid history Of those votes
| which has been given BY The senator from North
North Carolina, Mr. BADGER. who has proved that the
proposition was repeatedly made by the South settle
these questions, upon the principle OF division By the
Missonr-C Compromise ne and that il oiieR voted
down by the North. On TIE contrary, The North wished
10 INTRODUCES new principle and insisted upon permitting
few people our western coast to come III State
thaas fhanv ns,{T
and not only TO include the territory which they them
selves occupied, and which might be OF convenient
size for the new Stale, but 10 assign 10 themselves what
Limits and boundaries they pleased That proposition
opposed by almos; The united OF the South
not because they believed that Stale had right TO
fix it's own institutions. but because they believed that
OF race, and not oi right, for Stale come into
this Union without the previous OF Congress-
and because ihsy thought that few people who organ.
lied themselves into Stale had right extend their
boundaries beyond what was suitable for State,
TO include much unoccuped territory oil the Union
hey might choose under terms which would exclude
the people and large portion Of the States OF the Union
from settling and occupying IL But the South
voted down, and the whole question settled that
practically, there not square inch Of that territory
which The South eau erer seile or occupy and,
change Tor t The South got, nrs the declaration the
part OF the leading northern friends OF that compromise
declaration hch seems 10 have been sustained by the
legislation OF the conniry-ihai 1t unconstitutional
pass any law that should rrobbi. the introduction OF
slavery into the unoccuPied territories Of the United
States; and, secondly, the admission Of the principle,
thai the true mode OF organizing that unoccuped Territory
give the people OF The territory power legislaie
all rabtiul subjects OF legislation which con-
ss.eni with the constitution. That was all the South
received in exchange for It's Just share OF that terri
tory; and although believe that the almost uni
veral sentiment ofthe South that they had been wrongea
in thus adjustment, yet they acquiesced and submitted.
Is IL, then, surprising that when organize
the territorial government, OF this country, where sa-
very prohibited BY preceding legislative resiricon the
South should say: Gentlemen, you said 1t was unoon
sutsional TO pass legislative prohibition. Here is
ska
territorial government TO give the people
oi that Territory power 10 legislae upon all rghiinl
subjects OF legislation consisted, with the constitution.
We ask you 10 give that power 10 The people IN these
Territories in the precise words contained 10 the bill for
The territorial org anzaiion OF Utah. Was not then.
inevitable consequence of the course OF events
have depicted that the South should make this eques,
Is il o justice Is il not matter OF consiiiu
tonal right. that The Norih should accord nl
Bat the senator from Ohio, Mr. CHASE the senator
from Massachusetts. tMr. SUMSER,l and the senator
from New York, Mr.. SEwARD,l have said that the
South esiopped from making any such demand be-
cause in truth, The MssouT Compromise was her own
act that she originated IL and bound by il, only
then bur and forever Sir, matter OF historical
truth take issue with the gentlemen this question
deny the South did originate II, If il were
compromise al all; and ibink | shall be able TO show
that ii no compromise, II were, thai the South
has long since been released from all obligation TO OBJ
serve H.
OF the vote upon those Missouri bs made by an ex-
celIeni clerk who sits your table, (Mr Hckey) and
shall refer The results Of thai examination for the pur-
pose OF showing how II that the Missouri Compro-
mi Sc a. Il IL called. originated and was adopted.
In 1919. when The ball tor the admission OF Missouri
into the Union presented 10 Congress- The northern
majority in the House OF Representatives affixed to il
condition thai ST onld be admitted only upon iis abo
shlng slavery within iis limits Ii the Senate
where that restriction stricken oui; and between the
two houses that bill failed during that OF Con.
gress.
In 1870 The application was again considered bin
passed by The House Of Representatives admitting MIS-
souri, upon condition OF her excluding slavery from within
ber Limits Ii went 10 ihe Senate About that lime or
soon AFTER bill passed BY ihe House OF Representa-
tives admitting Maine into the Union, which went 10 the
Senate there referred TO The appropriate committee
That committee reported back with amendment ad-
miung Missouri without limitation. An effort was made
10 strike il out, which failed And then Mr. Thomas of
Illinois, moved to add 10 The bill separate section pro-
vdng that slavery should be excluded from the territory
north Of 36 deg 30 fnn. and, in the vote upon that
amendment, II viii be found that the whole North, with
the exception oi The from indiana voted for
that clause introducing the restrictions and although
large portion Of The Soslh. nominay majority went
for it, large portion voted against w. Among The advsr
sary votes were two from Virginia two from South Caro-
hna one from North Carolina. MIR Macon,l two from
Georgia, and one from Mississippi. making 10 ALL eight
votes against d. And allow to say that these mem
bers represented the bulk of The slave population at that
time, being the members from Virginia, from South
Carolina, and from Georgia, and that those who voted
for il will be found TO have from the border or
States then not no much interested n the subject,
Now, there was one vote, and but one. BY which my
State have seemed 10 have assentcd 10 this Copro
mise. and the senator from Massachusetts fNr Sum
NvR took care 10 refer TO that vote and 10 no other
far as my memory serves me When the question came
10 engrsss the bill for The admission OF the State OF
A. l.. -.