The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-09
[coNrIkuEp FROM FIRST rAeE.l


that sacred prohibition is said to be overthrown.
Can presumption further go?'
- In the very teeth OF the statute saying that
they should come in with or without Slavery,
as they pleased, these men declare that il is
stated that it should be forever prohibited /
repeat to them: could presumption 90 fur
therW Not only presumption in making these
statements, but the presumption that they could
avoid the exposure of their conduct.
In order to give greater plausibility to the
Justification of the terms of the Compromise
Measures Of 1850, the confederates also declare
In their manifesto, that they THE territorial
bills for the organization of Utah and New
Mexico) applied to the territory ACQUIRED
from Mexico, and to that only. They were in
tended as settlement of the controversy grow
ing out of that acquisition, and of that contro.
versy only. They must stand or fall by their
own merits"
/ submit to the Senate, If there is an intoili-
gent man IN America who does not know that
that declaration is falsi6ed by the statute from
which they quoted. They say that the pro-
visions of that bill were confined to the terri
tory acquired from Mexico, when the very Sec
uon OF the law from which they quoted that
proyiso did purchase a part Of that very terri
tory from the State Of Texas. And the next
section of the law included that territory in the
ID,
also, of the old Louisiana purchase, and added
that to the new Territory of Mexico, and made
up the rest out Of the Mexican acquisitions.
Then, sir, your statutes show, when applied to
The map of the country, that the Territory of
New Mexico was composed of territory acquired
from Mexico and also Of territory acquired
from Texas, and Of territory acquired from
France; and yet in defiance of that statute,
and in Justification of its terms, we are told in
order to deceive the people, that the bills were
confined to the purchase made from Mexico
alone; and in order to give it greater solemn
ty, as was necessary while uttering ialseho0d,
they repeat it twice, fearing that It would not
be believed the first time
What is more the Territory Of Utah was
not confined to the country acquired from
Mexico. That Territory, as is well known to
every man who understands the geography of
the country, includes large tract of rich and
fertile country acquired from France in 1903.
and to which the @ ghth section of the Missouri
act applied in 1920. If these confederates do
not know to what country allude only reply
that they should have known before they ut
tered falsehood and imputed crime to me-
But will tell you to what country allude.
By the treaty of 1919, by which We acquired
Florida, and fixed boundary between the
United States and Mexico the boundary was
then the line ran due north of the source of
the Arkansas TO the 42d parallel, then along
on the i2d parallel to the Pacific ocean. That
line, due north from the head of the Arkansas,
leaves the whole middle part, described in such
glowing terms 10y Col. Fremont, to the east Of
the Inc, and hence a part of the Louisiana
purchase. Yet, masmech as that middle part
Is watered and drained by the waters flown.
into the Colorado when we formed the terrific
rial limits Of Utah, instead of running that air
line, We ran along the ridge Of the mountains,
and cut off that part from Nebraska, Or from
the Louisiana purchase, and included it within
the limits of the Territory Of Usah.
Why did we do it, Because we sought for
national boundary, and it was more natural
TO take the mountains a boundary, than by |
an air line to cut the valleys On one side OF the
mountains, and annex them to the country on
the other side. And why did We take these
natural boundaries, setting at defiance the old
boundaries The simple reason was that 70
long as We acted upon the principle of settling
the slave question by geographical line 80
long we observed those boundaries strictly and
rIefdlB hut whom that vas abandoned, in con-
sequence of the action of Free-SoiIers and abo-
hti0nists-when it was superseded by the Com
promise measures of 1850, wuich rested upon
a great universal prime. ple-there was no ne
oessty for keeping in view the old and un-
natural boundary. For that reason, in making
the new Territories, We formed natural bound
aries. irrespective of the source whence our
title WIS derived. In writing these bills, paid
no attention to the fact whether the title was
acquired from Louisiana, from France, or from
Mexico; for what difference did it make The
principle which we had established in the bill
would apply equally well to either.
In fixing those boundaries paid no atten-
ton to the fact whether they included old ter
rItory or not-whether the country was covered
10y the Missouri Compromise or not Why 4! |
Because the principles established in the bills |
superseded the Missouri Compromise. For that |
reason we disregarded the old boundaries; dis Y
regarded the territory to which it ~--,.sace wa
disregarded the source after the neFhued, and
was derived: De. State sarom whence the title
say, therefore, that close ex-
-ii6afion of this act clearly establishes the
act that it was the intent well as the legal
effect of the Compromise measures of 1850, to
supersedc the Missouri Compromise, and ell
geographical and territorial lines.
Sir in order to avoid any misconstruction, |
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 Compromise pre-
vision, to that extent they absolutely annulled
the Missouri Compromise As to the morgan
lied territory not covered by those bills, it was
superseded by the principles Of the Compromise
of 1850. We all know that the object of the
compromise measures of 1850 was TO establish
certain great principles which would avoid the
slavery agitation in all time to come. Was it
our object simply to provide for temporary
evile Was it our object to heal over an old
sore, and leave it to break out again. VAST
our object to adopt a mere miserable expedient
10 apply to that Territory, and to that alone
and leave ourselves entirely at sea, without
compass, when new territory was acquired or
new territorial organizations were to be made
Was that the object for which the eminent
and venerable Senator from Kentucky Mr.
Clay came here, and sacrificed even his last
energies upon the altar of his country Was
that the object FOX which Webster, Clay Cass,
and I'll the patriots of that day, struggled 50
long and so strenuouslys Was it merely the
application of a temporary expedient, IN agree
ing to stand by past and dead legislation, that
the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain
the Compromise of 1850 z Was it the under
standing of the Wing PARTY, when they adopted
the Compromise Measures of 1850 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 object, they palmed off an afro
cious fraud upon the American people. Was
it the meaning Of the Democratic party, when
We pledged ourselves TO stand by the Compro-
mise of 1850, that We spoke only of the past,
and bad no reference to the future? If so, i.
was then q fraud. When we pledged our
President to stand by the Compromise Meas
nres, did we not understand that we pledged
him as to his fuure action Was it as to his
past conduct IL it had been in relation to
past conduct only, the pledge would have been