Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-18

colonial Legislature"
Maryland gave her consent to the Declaration OF
independence upon the condition contained IN this
proviso
Sand that said colony will hold itself bound by
the resolutions OF majority of the United Colonies
| IN The premises, provided the sole and exclusive
right of regulating the internal government and
police OF that colony be reserved TO the people
thereof"
Virginia annexed the following condition to her
instructions TO vote for the Declaration of Inde-
pendence:
Provided that the power of forming govern
ment for, and the regulations OF the internal con-
| Germs ofthe colony, be left 10 respective colonial
| legislatures"
| viii not weary the Senate in multiplying evil
dence upon this point. 1t is apparent that the
Declaration Of Independence had its origin in the
| violation of that great fundamental principle
which secured to the people of the colonies the
| right to regulate their own domestic affairs in
their own way; and that the revolution resulted
IN the triumph of that principle, and tho rccogni-
ton OF the right asserted by it. Abeltionism
| proposes to destroy the right, and extingush the
principle for which our forefathers waged seven
| years bloody war, and upon which our whole
system of free government is founded. They not
only deny the application of this principle to the
Territories, but insist upon fastening the prohi-
btion upon all the Safes to be formed out ofthose
Territories. Therefore, the doctrine of the aboli-
tionists-the doctrine of the opponents of the Ne
braska and Kansas bill and of the advocates of the
Missouri restrcton-demand congressional inter-
ference with slavery, not only in the Territories,
but in all the new States to be formed theretrom.
It's thesame doctrine, when applied to the Terrific
ries and new States of this Union, which the Brit
| ish government attempted to enforce by the sword
upon the American colonies. 1t is this funda-
mental principle of selfgovernment which consti-
tntes the distinguishing feature Of the Nebraka
bill. The opponents of the principle are conss-
tent in opposing the bill. do not blame them
/ for their opposition. | only ask them to meet
the issue fairly and openly, by acknowledging
that they are opposed to the principle which it is
/ the object of the bill to carry into operation 1t
seems that there is no power on Garth, no intel
lcctual power, no mechanical power that can bring
them to fair discussion of the true ISSUE II
they hope to dclude the people, and escape detec-
ton for any considerable length of time under the
catch-word Missouri compromise, - and 'sfaith of
compacts, +" they will find that the people of this
country have more penetration and intelligence
/ than they have given them credit for.
/ Mr.. President, there is an important fact con-
nected with this slavery resolution, which should
never be lost sight of. 1t has always arisen from
one and the same cause. Whenever that cause
has been removed, the agitation has ceased and
| whenever the cause has been renewed, the agita-
ton has sprung into existence. That cause is,
and ever has been the attempt on the part of Con-
grcss to interfere with the question of slavery in
the Territories and new States formed therefrom.
Is it not wise, then, to confne our action within the
sphere of our legitimate duties, and leave this
vexed question SO take care of itselfin each State
and Territory, according to the wishes of the
people thereof, in conformity to the forms and
in subsection to the provisions Of the Consti-
tutions
The opponents of the bill tell us that agitation
is no part of their policy, that their great desire
is peace and harmony; and they complain bitterly
that / should have disturbed the repose of the
country by the introduction of this measure Let
me ask these professed friends of peace and
avowed enemies of agitation, how the issue could
have been avoided; They tell me that should
have let the question alone-that is, that should
have left Nebraska unorganzed, the people un-
protected and the Indian barrier in existence,
until the swelling tide of emigration should burst
through, and accomplish by violence what it is
the part Of wisdom and craftsmanship to direct
and regulate by law. How long could you have
postponed action with safety How long could
you maintain that Indian barrier, and restrain
the onward march of civilization, Christianity,
and free government by barbarian wall? Do
you suppose that you could keep that vast coun-
try bowling wilderness in all time to come,
roamed over by hostile savages, cutting off all
safe communication between our Atlantic and
Pacific POSSESSIONS? / tell you that the time for
action has come, and cannot be postponed. 1t is
a case in which the "let-aone" policy would pre-
cipitate crisis which must inevitably result in
violence, anarchy, and strife.
You cannot fix bounds to the onward march of
this great and growing country. You cannot
| tetter the limbs of the young giant. He will
burst all yolh chains He will expand, and grow,
and increase, and extend civilization, Christian
ity, and liberal principles. Then, sir, ifyou can
not check the growth ofthe country in that dircc-
tion is it not the part of wisdom to look the dan
uar in he fac md nrovidp for an eyapt ,uh oh
you cannot avoid ? tell you, sir, you must pro-
vide for continuous lines of settlement from the
Mississippi valley to the Pacific ocean. And in
| making this provision, you must decide upon
what principles the Territories shall be organized
in other words, whether the people shall be al
lowed TO regulate their domestic institutions in
their way, according to the provisions of this
bill, or whether the opposite doctrine of congress
sonal interference is to- prevail. Postpone it, if
you will; but whenever you do act, this question
must be met and decided.
The Missouri compromise was interference the
compromise of 1850 was non-interference, leaving
the people to exercise their rights under the Con-
stituton. The Committee on Territories were
compelled to act on this subject. as their chair
man, was bound to meet the question chose to
take the responsibility, regardless of consequences
personal to myself | should have done the same
thing last year, if there had been tme but we
know, considering the late period at which the bill
I
not sufficient time to consider the question fully,
and to prepare report upon the subject ! was,
therefore, persuaded by friends to allow the bill to
be reported to the Senate in order that such action
might be taxed as should be deemed wise and pro-
per.
The bill was never taken up for action; the last
night Of the session having been exhausted in de-
bate on the motion to take up the bill. This SEES
sion, the measure was introduced by my friend
from Iowa, Mr.. DODGE, and referred to the, Ter
ritoral Committee during the first week Of the
session. We have abundance of time to consider
the subject; it was matter of pressing necessity,
and there was excuse for not meeting it directly
and fairly. We were compelled to take our posi-
ton upon the doctrine either Of Intervention or
non-intervcntion. We chose the latter, for two
reasons: first because we believed that the prnci-
pie was right; and, second, because it was the
principle adopted in 1850, to which the two great
political parties Of the country wore solemnly
pledged.
There is another reason why desire to see this
principle recognised as rule Of action in all time
to come. 1t will have the effect to destroy all sec
tional parties and sectional agitatons. If, in the
4. 81 A. Il.