The true Democrat., 1854-04-25
The Nebraska Bill.

Ing the NeDraSka bill and the repeal of the
 Missouri Compromise. In this opposition it associates itself with the abolition party of the North. The abolition leaders in Congress, Se- ward, Giddings, Chase & Co.,, oppose the pas sage of the Nebraska bill and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, because it deprives them and their party of the food upon which they live. They exist and flourish only by agita- ton, and the passage of this bill, which with draws the slavery discussion from the political arena, and leaves it to the people where it right fully belongs, takes from them the means of agitation, and consequently, destroys their or ganization and their power.
 | There has never been any sectional party or sectional strife in the Union upon any other question than that of slavery; and only upon the question of slavery when it has been in- troduced into Congress and congressional inter- ference solicited. The Nebraska bill, by re- pealing the Missouri Compromise, by sanction ing the doctrine of nonintervention, and by denying the power of Congress to legslate upon this disturbing question, forever provides against its introduction into the National Legislature, and places it in the hands of the people, who are 1 immediately interested in, and alone responsi- ble for its consequences.
 The doctrine of noninterventon by the ge- neral government in the domestic affairs of the States and territories, is what the South has ever contended for She has never recognized the power of Congress over the institution of slavery or voluntarily assented to any act by which such power was exercised The Missouri Compromise was violation of the principles of nonintervention and self-government. It was the assumption by Congress of the power ry, and an invasion of the great principle upon which the constitution was formed-the princi- pie of self-government.
 The Whig says that the South never asked the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. This may be all true, because such demand made heretofore would have been scornfully rejected by the North. It was compromise in which the South sacrificed every thing and the North gained all. That she has never asked 1t before is no reason why it should not be granted now Why should she not demand the repeal of that measure now, and upon its repeal, the recogni- tion and establishment of the principle of non- intervention-the only principle sanctioned by the constitution, and the only principle in which she can find any safety for her institutions +ho of olol, cism?
 As far as the South is concerned the Missouri Compromise is worthless. When, in the great agitation of 1850, she asked for the continuation of the line of 36 90 through our acquisitions, to the Pacific Ocean, 1t was refused her. The North had got her in the Louisiana puachase to the line of 36 3O and in the new territory would take as much more as they could. This is what the Missouri Compromise is now worth to the South. We cannot understand what fascination it has over the Whig, or why tha: paper should cry out so vocferously against its repeal.
 The Missouri Compromise, we solemny be- lieve, is the origin of all the trouble and danger that have followed it's enactment It was one of the first steps taken towards the recognition of the power of Congress over the subject of slavery, and since its adoption, no opportunity for attacking southern institutions in that body, has been suffered to pass unimproved.
 MT. Jefferson said of the Missouri Compro- mise, that it was the most fatal error that ever had been committed in the Legislation of the country. It established "a geographical line which, coinciding with marked principle moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, cauld never be obliterated." How true the prediction, A geographical line now divides the country and has established a most odious distinction which time itself may never obliterate, and which "every new irritation will mark deeper and deeper"
 And of what lasting benefit has this Missouri compromise ever been to the country? Had it proved Jo be what its friends expected, and what is now claimed for it, why the necessity of another, and tar different compromise in 1850 Why the rejection of the extension of its benefits to our Mexican Territory, and the adoption of another compromise based upon principle directly opposed to the Missouri con- promise-the principle of nintervention
 The Missouri compromise has had its day it brought temporary reprieve from the angry excitement which led to its adoption-iti is now of no more value-so let it die, and let the safer and sounder doctrine of non intervention take its place,in the administration of the Govern ment. With the power against us in Congress; and the disposition upon the part of the North to wield that power, the South can find no safety for her institutions, except in the principle of non intervention.
 Treaty with England.
 In our last issue we commented upon the de- claration of the British Minister, that all Rus- sian produce to whomsoever belonging. and