The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-09
WASHINGTON, d. G..
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1854
THE DEBATE ON TEE NEBRASKA BILL-THE
ARGUMEET-E0. l.

ARGUMEET-Eo. l.
The argument Of Judge Douglas is now be-
fore our readers. IL consists Of two portions,
In the first of which he AIMS to show that the
Missouri Compromise in relation TO Slavery
was superseded by the principles of the legisls,
ton Of 1850, commonly called the Compromise,
and is imperative; and in the second, endeav-
ors to reconcile Northern People, especially
the Democratic Party, to this view Of the ques-
ton.
1t is almost impossible to reduce the first
part of his argument to concise, logical form
in It's simples. terms, however, it stands thus:
The original policy of the Government was.
not to limit Slavery, bot to draw geographic
cal line between slave territory and free. Thus,
the territory northwest of the river Ohio was
exempted from Slavery, which was recognised
in territory south of that river. This policy
was continued when, to settle the controversy
that arose on the application Of Missouri for
admission as a State, the line of SO deg. 80
min was adopted as boundary between Sla-
very and Freedom and it was again carried
out when Texas was annexed, the principle of
the Missouri Compromise being applied to the
territory of that State: -
In ls4s, territory was acquired from Mexico,
and the attempt was made to subject it to the
same geographical division, but it was opposed
In the controversy that followed, repeated mo
tons to divide the territory between Freedom
and Slavery by the line of SO deg. 80 min. fail
cd the policy of a geographical line was aban-
doned, and new policy adopted-tha. of Con-
gressionai noh-intervention. 1t was agreed that
the Territories should be organized without any
restriction as to Slavery, the disposition OF
which was to be left to the inhabitants thereof
with the provision that States thereafter formed
out Of them should be admitted into the Union,
with or without Slavery, their Constitutions
might prescribe.
Thus, concludes Mr.. Douglas, the policy Of
geographical line being abandoned, and that
of Non Intervention adopted, the Missouri Com
promise Of 1920 was superseded by the princ-
pies Of the legislation Of 1850.
But at this point his argument fails: link
liz wanting to connect his statement, or premi-
ses, with his conclusion. Admit that the poll
been to divide the territory of the United States
according to geographical line, between
Freedom and Slavery, but that in 1850 this
policy was abandoned in relation to New Mex
leo and Utah and that of Non Intervention sub
stituted, it does not follow that it was either
the intent or effect of this change, to reverse
former Legislation in relation to other territory
The adoption of q new principle in regard TO
acquisitions from Mexico, in 1850, could not of
itself supersede an old policy, settled by posi-
tive Law, in relation to acquisitions from France,
IN 1890.
The conclusion of MIR. Douglas is sheer
assumption, unsustained by his premises.
But the statement containing his premises is
not true. The original policy Of the Govern
ment was, the limitation Of Slavery, with view
to its ultimate extinction by the States, and
not geographical division betweeH slaue terri
tors md free. History sustains this PROPOSE
ton, and refutes that Of Mr. Douglas. 1t tells
ms that Public Sentiment in the Colonies when
they embarked in the war of Independence, was
against Slavery; that after the Declaration of
Independence, State after State, by judicial de-
cision or Legislative enactment, recognised the
policy of Emancipation that in the last Con-
gress of the Confederation, sitting at the same
time the Convention tha. formed our present
Constitution was in session, the famous Ordi-
nance of 1877 was passed, excluding Slavery
forever from the Territory Northwes. of the
Ohio river-the only territory then belonging to
the United States that this act was dictated,
not by any purpose to draw line between
slave territory and Free but by the policy then
dictated By public sentiment OF limiting SD
gerry thet in the Convention that formed the
present Constitution, Slavery was uniformly
treated as an exceptional and transient system,
to be tolerated as necessary evil, for the time,
while every provision in relation to il was so
framed as to avoid mentioning its name, or
recognising its fundamental principle, so that
it might at any time be abolished in the States
without the slightest change being required in
the Federal Constitution that the delegates
from Virginia and Maryland We're the most
strenuous against the insertion of any provision
that might encourage the perpetuation or ex-
tension Of the evil that an amendment having
iccu piOpOocO WHICH secUfcQ 10 Involve the rec
ignition of the idea that man could hold man
rs property, it was modified SO as to exclude
this idea, at the suggestion Of Mr. Madison,
who insisted that the Constitution they were
forming ought not 70 contain any implication
that man could be property; that the abor-
ton of the slave trade In those days was re-
garded ns involving the abolition of Slavery
and that the clause comforting power in Con-
gress to prohibit the slave trade in 1905 was
adopted with view to facilitate and hasten
the extinction OF Slavery.
These are facts, standing out prominently on
the page of our history, and no one can deny
them without mourning the imputation of igno-
rance or dishonesty. They all show that the
policy Of the Government originally was to
limit and discourage Slavery, no. 10 perpetrate
it, by drawing geographical line bstween
slave territory and free.
Ii is true, that in the case of Tennessee end
Kentucky, lying south of the Ohio river, the
Government Gid not interfere to exclude the
evil, but few considerations will show that
its policy, in those instances, had nothing to do
with any geographical theory as to Slavery.
Ksntucky was part of Virginia when the
Ordinance Of 1897 was passed, and in eighteen
months after its separation from that State,