Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-01-31
DAILY NATIONAL ERA.

|
that the Missouri act passed, namely, the 9th
OF March, 1920, was provision, in effect, that
the people should be allowed to do as they
pleased upon the subject Of Slavery
The Territory Of Missouri having been left
IN that legal condition, positive opposition was
made TO the bill to organize State Govern
ment, with view to its admission into the
Union; and Senator from my State, Mr.
Jesse b. Thomas introduced an amendment,
known as the eighth section of the BILL in
which it was provided that Slavery should be
prohibited north of SO deg. 80 min. north lati-
tudc IN all that country which we had acquired
from France. What was the object Of the en-
actmcnt Of that eighth section Was it not
to 90 back to the original policy Of prescribing
boundaries to the limitation Of free institutions,
and Of slave institutions, by geographical
line, in order to avoid all controversy in Con-
gress upon the subject? Hence they extended
that geographical line through all the territory
purchased from France, which was a. far as
our possessions then reached 1t was not Sim
ply to settle the question on that piece of coun-
! try, but it was to carry out great principle,
by extending that dividing line as far west as
our territory went, and running it onward on
each new acquisition Of territory. True, the
express enactment Of the eighth section OF the
Missouri act now called the Missouri Compro.
mise act, oaly covered the territory acquired
from France; but the principles of the act, the
| objects OF Its Adoption, the reasons in its sup
port required that it should be extended indefi-
/ nitely westward, 30 far rs our territory might
J 60 whenever new purchases should be made.
| Thus stood the question up to 1S45, when
! the joint resolution for the annexation of Texas
| passed There was inserted in THAI a provision,
suggested in the first instance, and brought be-
fore the House of Representatives by myself,
extending the Missouri Compromise line indef-
nitely westward through the territory OF Texas
Why did | bring forward that proposition
Why did the Congress Of the United Statcs
| adopt ita Not because it was Of the least prac.
teal Importance SO far as the question Of Sla.
very within the limits of Texas was concerned
for no man ever dreamed that it had any prac.
tical effect there. Then why was it brought
forward? 1t was for the purpose Of preserv-
ing the principle, in order that it might be ex-
tended still further westward, even to the Pa
cifc ocean, whenever we should acquire the
country that far. will here read that clause
| in the joint resolution for the annexation Of
| Texas. 1t is the third article, second section,
| and is in these words
"New States of convenient size, not exceed
ing four in number, in addition to said State
j
| hereafter, by the consent of said State, be
formed out of the territory thereof which shall
by entitled to admission under the provisions
Of the Federal Constitution And such States
| as may be formed out OF that portion of said
territory, lying south Of SO deg. 80 min. north
latitude commonly known as the Missouri
/ COMPROMISE line, shall be admitted into the
Union with or without Slavery, as the people
of each State asking admission may desire
| And in such State or States as shall be formed
out Of said territory north of said Missouri
Compromise line, Slavery or involuntary servi-
tude Except for crime) shall be prohibited
Il will be seen that that contains n very re-
| markablc provision, which is, that when States
/ lying north Of SO dog. 80 min. apply for admis
sion, Slavery shall be prohibited in their con.
situations. | presume no one pretends that
Congress could have power thus to fettcr a
State applying for admission into this Union
| but it WAS necessary to preserve the principle
of the Missouri Compromise line, in order that
il might afterwards be extended, and il was
supposed that while Congress had no power tc
impose any such limitation, vet, as that was a
compact with the State of Texas, that State
could consent for herself, that, when any por.
ton Of her own territory, subject to her own
jurisdiction and control, applied for n Constitu
ton, il should be in particular form; but thai
provision would not be binding on the new
State one day after it was admitted into the
Union. The other provision was that such
States as should lie south of 80 deg. 80 min
should come into the Union with or without
Slavery, as each should decide, in it's Constitu
ton. Then, by that act, the Missouri Compro
mise was extended indefinitely westward, 30 far
as the State of Texas went, that is to the Ric
4 II Co. Al
recognised the Rio del Norte as its boundary
We recognised, in many ways, and among
them by even paying Texas for it, in order
| that IL might be included in and form portion
of the Territory OF New Mexico.
Then, sir in IS4S, we acquired from Mexico
| the country between the Rio del Norte and
tho Pacific Ocean. Immediately after that &C.
| QUESTION, the Senate, on my own motion, voted
| into bill provision to extend the Missouri
Compromise indefinitely westward to the Pacific
| Ocean. in the same sense and with the same
understanding with which it was originally
adopted. That provision passed this body by
decided majority think by ten at least and
went 20 the House Of Representatives, and was
defeated there by Northern votes
Now, sir, let us pause and consider for q mo-
ment. The first time that the principles Of the
Missouri Compromise were ever abandoned, the
first time they we're ever rejected by Congress,
was by the defeat of that provisionin the House
OF Representatives in lS4s By whom was
that defeat effected? BY Northern votes with
Free Sol proclivities. 1t was the defeat Of
that Missouri Compromise that reopened the
Slavery agitation with all its fury. II was tho
defeat OF that Missouri Compromise that Gre
ated the tremendous struggle of 1850. IL was
the defeat Of that Missouri Compromise that
created the necessity for making q new CON-
promise in 1850 Had we been faithful to the
principles q the Missouri Compromise in ls4s,
this question would not have arisen. Who was
IL that was faithIessi | undertake to say IL
was the very men who now insist that the Mis-
souri, Compromise was solemn compact and
should never be violated or departed from.
Every man who is now assailing the principle
Of the bill under consideration, 30 far Ms | am
advised was opposed 10 the Missouri Compro-
mise in 1913. The very men who now arraign
me for departure from the Missouri Compro-
mise are the mon who successfully violated it,
roYud;ated a and caused il to be superseded