Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-02-15
WHOLE NJ. 45l.. p: =:

In fixing those boundaries paid no attention
to the fact whether they included cid territory or
Inot-whether the country was covered by the
Missouri compromise or not. Whyl siBecanse
the principles established in the bills sgperaeded
the Missouri compromise. For that reasonswe
disregarded the old oundaries--disreghrdedG the
territory to which it applied, and disregsrdedthe
source from whence the title was derived. i cay,
therefore, that close examination of this act
clearly establishes the fact that il was the intent
as we'll as the legal effect of the compromise
measures of 1860 10 supersede the Missouri CON-
promise, and all geographical and territorial
lines. s-l....,s. tl sIIsl-1T - 7. ~ itsr aGj 90
Sir, in order to avoid any misconsEuctiou,
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 to the Missouri compromises provi-
sion, to that extent they absolutely annulled the
Missouri compromise. AS to the unorganixed
territory not covered by those blls il was SUPER
seded by the principles ofthe compromise Of 1850.
We all know that the object of the compromise
measure of 1850 was to establish certain great
principles, which would avoid the slavery agita-
ton in all time to come. Was it our object SIM
ply to provide for temporary evill Was it our
object Just to heal over an old sore, and leave il
to break out again! Was il our object to adopt
mere miserable expedient to apply to that terrific
ry, and that alone and leave ourselves entirely at
sea without compass when new territory was &C.
quired, or new territorial organizations were be
made! Was that the object for which the emf
nent and venerable Senator from Kentucky Mr..
Clay1 came here and sacrificed even his last en-.
ergies upon the altar of his country! Was that
the object for which WEBSTER, CLAY, CAss, and
all the patriots of that day, struggled long and
80 strenuously! Was it merely the application
of a temporary expedient in agreeing to stand by
past and dead legislation that the Baltimore plat
form pledged lis to sustain the compromise of
1850! Was it the understanding of the Whig
party, when they adopted the compromise meas.
ures of 1850 as an article of political faith, that
they were only agreeing to that which was past,
and had no reference to the future! If that was
their meaning-if that was their obiect--they
palmed off an atrocous fraud upon the American
people. Was it the meaning of the Democratic
party, when we pledge ourselves to stand by the
compromise of 1850, that we spoke only of the
past, and had no reference to the future! Ifso
it was then fraud. When we pledged our Pres
ident to stand by the compromise measures, did
we not understand that We pledged him as to hia
future action' Was it as to his past conduct? IL
it had been in relation to past conduct only, the
pledge would have been untrue as TO- very large
portion of the Democratic party. Men went in,
to that convention who had been opposed to the
measures when they were pending-men who
never would have voted a6irmatively 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 orderto
avoid agitation in the future, these men said, we
waive our past objections, and we will stand by
you and with you in carrying cGt tsse prius;pies
in the future, , ..-e .71 5 ,.a'- s4sih
Such understood to be the meaning of the two
great parties at Baltimore. Such underestimate to
have been the effect of their pledges. If they
did not mean this, they meant merely to adopt
resolutions which were never to be carried out,
and which were designed to mislead and deceive
the people for the mere purpose of carrying an
election. .r...t-t. rst.s. ..g b. u.. 80 u 4t.E
hold, then, that as to the territory covered by
the Utah and New Mexico bills, there was ansex.
press annulment of the Missouri compromise; and
as to all the other unorganized territories it was
superseded by The principles of the eilegisation,
and we are bound to apply those principles in the
organization of all new Territories, to- all which
we now own, or which we may hereafteracquire,
If this construction be- given, it makes that COM
promise a final adjustment. No other construc-
ton can possibly impart fnality to it. By any
other construction the question is to be reopened
the moment you ratify new treaty acquiring an
inch of country from Mexico. By any other con-
struction you II open the issue every time yon
make new territorial government. But, sir, if
you treat the compromise measures of 1850 in the
light of gleat principles, sufficient to remedy tenn
porary evils, at the same time that they prescribe
rules of action applicable everywhere in all time
! to come then you avoid the agitation forever, if
you observe good faith to the provisions of these
enactments, and the principles established by
! them. -,r..a e.ls ag.ttu-g. .. ta.9a1 ss5 ssR
n, Mr. President, repeat, that so far as the ques-
A. r. #, 10. fkn
bill undtr consideration whieh'does not carry out
the principle of the compromise measures of 1850,
by leaving the people to do as they please, sub
iect only to the provisions Of the Constitution Of
the United States. Ifthat principle is wrong,the
bill is wrong. Ifthat principle is right the bill 10
right. 1t is unnecessary to quibble about phrase
ology or words; it is not the mere words, the
mere phraseology, that our constituents wish 70
Judge by. They wish to know the legal effect OF
our legislation. a..s 5 ago q ysaaig5a
The legal effect of this bill, if it be passed az
reported by the Committee on Territories, is
neither to legslate slavery into these Territories
nor out of them, but to leave the people to do as
they please, under the provisions and subject to
the limit ttions of the Constitution ofthe United
, States. Why should not this principle prevail!
WHY should any man, north or south, object to ite
: will especially address the argument to my own
section of country, and ask why should any north,
ern man object to this principle! Ifyou will re.
view the history of the slavery question in the
United States, you will see that all the great re-
suits in behalt Of free institutions which have
: been worked out, have been accomplished by the
, operation ofthis principle, and by it alone. II
When these States. were colonies of Great
f Britain, every one of them was slave holding
province. When the Constitution of the United
States was formed, twelve out Of the thirteen we're
slaye-holding States Since that time six Of those
! States have become free. How has this been
effected! Was it by virtue Of abolition agitation
in CONGRESS? Was it in obedience to the. die
tates Of the Federal Government!, Not e all
but they have become free States under the silent
but sure and irresistible working Of that great
principle OF self-government which teaches every
people to do that which the interests Of ths
and their posterity morally and Pecuniarily mag
q require, aslg ", d. I, ..