The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1854-01-17
Nebraska.

We published yesterday notice Of Senator
Dougl;lss bill establishing a Territorial Govern
meut in Nebraska. Its chief features are the
extension of the fugitive slave law over the
Territory, and the provision that it may be ad-
mitted into the Union with or without slav.ry,
as the people forming State Government may
determine 1t is the same provision as in the
case of New Mexico and Utah. We had con-
fdenty anticipated the revival Of the slavery
agitation this winter; and though we had sup.
posed it would take another turn, We were
not mistaken in supposing that aboilt'onlSm
would seize the first opportunity to prove that
its venom was as intense as ever. According
iy the New York Evening Post pounces on MIR.
Douglass report and bill.
The object of the attack is, of course, one
with all such movementS,-to vindicate the
Sigla of the North to appropriate all the public
domain, and to make every organization OF a
portion of that domain the occasion of adding
insult as well as injury to the South. This is
the general principle But the form its asser-
sion has taken in this case is curious. The
Missouri Compromise is appealed to, and the
Bill is denounced as a violation Of good faith
in reference to that agreement We had sup
posed that even Abolition, shameless as it is,
could hardly have the lmpudence to make such
al appeal. 1t rests upon resistance to law and
comfy, and laughs at the binding force of con
stitutions. What respect was shown to the
Missouri Compromise, when in the organiza-
ton of Oregon the Free Soilers insisted on
inserting the Wilmot Proviso, and rejected,
with dersion even, the little amendment; press
ed by Mr. Burt, of this State, softeniug the
insult, by promising that the Territory lay
North, of the Missouri Compr"mise ine?-
They laid it down then as principle, that the
Missouri Compromise was never to be con,id-
cred as an obstacle in the path Of ant>lavery
aggression; that twas not only no law, but
was not even respectable equitable preced mt.
They appeal to it now as il it had been a Sa
credly binding engagement, which they had
always held in reverence, aud which the South.
the aggressive South had been in the habit of
violating!
If this Compromise were valid as law, why
did they set it at naught in the case of O:eson9
If it embodied principle of equitable section
al distribution, why did they resist its applc'-
ton to the Territories acquired from Mexico |!
The South supposed it embodied principle of
adjustment, and, accordingly the Nashville
Convention. which has been accused even by
the whole Compromise party OF plotting against
the Union. proposed no more extreme c"nd
ton for the settlement ofthe great controversy
of 1850, than that the country south of the line
of $500, should be open to Southern coloniza
ton. Have the Free>oiIers forgotten how they
received this proposition9 There was no talk
then of the sacfedness Of the Missouri COmpro
mise. They had more profitable occupation
in the enterprise Of seizng the whole Of our
Mexican acquisitions. Nay, so far did they carry
their hatred and contempt Of this line, tt b.
when the ef ssIng tn Southern 6ods
Diary of Utah came up they rejected the pro
position to make it the parallel Of 36 30, on
the avowed ground that they would not give
the South the consolation of even naming that
line in an act Of Congress, as if it had any of
the resp .ctability Of recognised authority
They therefore fixed an arbitrary line half a
degree further North.
1t is after such accumulated proofs Of a de-
termination to trample on the Missouri Com
promise as often as it stood in the way of the
North, that they now come forward TO plead
its sacredness, and invoke the god faith Of the
South in favor of its observance!
Charleston M.rcmy.