Washington sentinel., 1854-02-26

the hope that the north would, in returning
sense Of justice, repair the wrong What was
| the alternative offered to them? A resolution
introduced by Mr.. Taylor had already passed
| this House., as stated o little while ago, abol-
| ishing slavery within the very limits of what
was simultaneously to become the sovereign
State of Missouri ITSELF and throughout the
whole territory purchased from France. The
Senate, with some sense OF justice, proposed as
q substitute, that the south should be allowed to
come up to the line Of $50 30>, or retain that
portion of the territory as it then existed.
Bad as was this alternative, it was better to re-
tain part and the largest part of the territory,
than to have the whole of it wrested from them,
and submit besides, to see slavery abolished
within the limits of sovereign State.
The south, then, only yielded to this as the
least evil, and even then only half Of the south
ern members of this House voted for it. The
other half held out in opposition to any restric-
ton upon any part of the Territory in question,
and the measure was carried chiefly by northern
votes.
But, sir, it was no measure Of permanent
peace, nor was it so regarded by many wise
men at the time Mr.. Jefferson predicted at
that very day, in his letter to Mr.. Holmes, be-
lieve it was, that it could not permanently set
tie the question then agitating the public mind !;
that it was only a temporary reprieve, and not
lasting peace to the country. 1t was but
hollow truce, in which the extremists of both
sections prepared themselves for still fiercer
conflicts, as subsequent developments abun-
dainty displayed The North repudiated it,
rs has been on this floor fully proven they
never regarded it as permanent peace;
they never regarded it as final settlement
of the slavery question; they have never al
lowed the principle involved in that Missouri
compromise line to be applied to any Terrific
ries, save in two instances, in both OF which
the effect of the application of the principle
was to abolish slavery in sections of the coun-
try where it actually existed. That was the
case when the Missouri line was first estab-
lished, and such was the case with the territory
acquired by the annexation of Texas. In both
Instances the effect was to abolish slavery
where it actually existed, and leave it as it was
in the remaining portions of the Territories. A
beautiful compromise, truly!
The principle of the Missouri line recognized
general, dangerous, and underlined power
over the question of slavery in the federal gov
ernment. Out of that grew up dangerous
northern sentiment Of responsibility for, and
power over, the institution of slavery. Before
that time, scarcely, if ever, was there an abo-
lition petition presented to Congress. know
not that they had been presented at all; but
from that time they poured in in one almost
ceaseless stream. In the establishment of that
line, federal power over slavery was recognized
in more unequivocal and authoritative man.
ner than ever before. The principle was so
firmly established that nothing but the search
ing Investigations of 1850 served. to remove it,
even from the minds of the most eminent
statesmen of the north. Consequently, abo-
ltion petitions flooded the halls of Congress.
and obstructed the progress of proper and le-
gitimate legislation. The excitement grew,
and went on to increase, becoming more and
more formidable, until it eliminated in 1860,
with such peril to the Union as was only
averted, in the opinion Of some of the wisest
statesmen of the country, by the compromises
of 1850, by which the principle Of the Missouri
compromise line was displaced by new one,
utterly inconsistent with it, and far wiser,
sounder, safer, and happier for the whole
country.
But have, with regret and astonishment,
heard it asserted in high quarters that no prin-
ciple was established by the compromise of
1850. That only temporary expedients were
adopted for temporary ills. Those great patriots
who were scarcely spared to lead us through
LnOSc recent ptTllS, dHu Whoi uJibS1
thought they had bequeathed to us a lasting
principle of peace and harmony, lived, labored,
and died in vain A nations tears have
scarcely ceased to moisten their graves, and
their noblest work, which they vainly hoped
would be as enduring as this republic, is repu-
dated or despised-is characterized as tenn
porary expedient for temporary evils, involving
no principle, and holding out no hope OF per-
manent peace. In vain did Mr.. Fillmore, who
so largely participated in the legislation of
1880. without whose consent none ct the acts
could have passed. and who carried them out,
so far as they demanded executive action-in
vain did he declare to the next succeeding
Congress-, in his annual message, that those
measures were held to be sin principle and
substance a final settlement of the whole
slavery question.
In vain did both the great parties plant
themselves on that platform; the whig party
adopting the very language of his message.
The whole country received it as principle,
principle which was to be final settlement OF
the controversy; which of course it could not
he unless It was to be adhered to in all future
legislation on the subject of slavery. instead of
being confined to the mere measures OF the
time. How could it be "fnal' in any other
sense? Final! when confined, as has been
said elsewhere, to the Territories OF Utah ana
New Mcxico 1t was final from the fact that
it was to settle forever the whole slavery con-
troversy n yer y and to be adhered to in all coming
time. It cannot be maintained that the decla-
ration of the fnality of the compromise meas
ures in the two platforms OF the two great par
ties OF the country, simply meant that those
measures themselves we're not to be repealed, /
because, in the very platforms in which that
finalitv was declared, it was also allowed that
the f,ioitive slave law might be altered BY
subsequent enactment, which was to increase,
or not to impair its efficiency It was the
principle of that law which was to be enduring,
and so of the rest.
To saw that the compromise measure of 1850
did not, in terms, repeal the Missouri compro-
mise in its application to Nebraska is mere
quibble; an evasion. Nobody has asserted
that it was. We know that it did not. They
were not lepislating about Nebraska in 1850,
nor had they any business to legislate about it
in 1920. We are called upon to legislate p1ac-
tically upon the subject for the first time. Nor
~ ~ :,o;,lo of the compromisa 4