Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-18
FREEDOM AND PUBLIC FAITH.
SPEECH OF WILLIAM II. SEWARD,
ON THE
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILLS
In United States Senate, February II, 1854.
lcoNcLuDED.l

aior, who, sacrificing himself. gave the aid
without which the Compromise OF 1850 could
not have been establshed--the Statesman Of
New England, and the Orator Of America
who dare assert here, where his memory IS yet
fresh, though his uniettered spirit may be
wandering in spheres far hence, that he in
tended to abrogate, or dreamed that, by virtue
of or in consequence Of that transaction, the
Missouri Compromise would or could ever be
abrogatedl The portion Of the Missouri Com
promise you propose to abrogate is the Ordi-
nance OF 1887 extended to Nebraska. Hear
what Daniel Webster said OF that Ordinance
itself, in 1880, in this very place. in reply 10
one who had undervalued il and lis author:
II spoke, sir Of the Ordinance Of 1857, which pro
hbts slavery, in all future time, northwest Of the
Ohio, as measure of great wisdom and forcthought,
and one which has been attended with highly bene-
fetal and permanent consequenccs''
And now hear what he said here, when ad-
vocating the, Compromise of 1850:
II now say, sir as the proposition upon which
stand this day, and upon tho truth and frmness OF
which / intend to act until it Is overthrown, that
there il not at this moment in the United States, or
any Territory Of the United States, SINCE foot Of
land the character Of which, in regard to its being
free territory slave territory is not fixed by some
law and some IRREPEALABLE law beyond the power
OF the action of this Government"
What irrepealabie law, or what law Of any
kind, fixed the character Of Nebraska as free or
slave territory, except the Missouri Compro-
mise act?
And now hear what Daniel Webster said
when indicating the Compromise Of 1850, al
Buffalo, in 1851
my opinion remains unchanged, that ii was not
within tho original scope design of the Constitu
ton to admit new States of foreign territory and
far hafa w ha nj he
vention any other assemblagc Of insane persons,
never would consent and never have consented that
there should BIO foot Of slave territory beyond
what the old thirteen States had ut the time Of the
formation Of the Union. Never. Never!
THE man cannot show his face to me and say he
can prove that / ever departed from that doctrine
He would sneak away, and stink away, or hire mer-
cenary press to cry out What apostatc from Lib
erty Daniel Webster has become! But he knows
himselfto be . hypocrite and falsifier."
That Compromise was forced upon the
slaveholding States and upon the non-slave-
holding States as a mutual exchange Of equiva-
Tents. The equivalents were accurately defined,
and carefully scrutinized and weighed by the
respective parties, through period Of eight
months. The equivalents offered TO The non
slayeholding States were: lst, the admission
of California; I'd, the abolition Of the public
slave trade in the District Of Columbia. These,
and these only. were the boons offered to them,
and the only sacrifices which the slaveholding
States were required to make. The waiver of
the Wilmot Proviso in the incorporation OF
New Mexico and Utah, and q new fugitive
slave law, were the only boons proposed 10
the slaveholding States, and the only sacrifices
exacied Of the -slayeholding States. No
other questions between them Were agitated,
except those which were involved in the gain
or loss of more or less Of free territory or Of
slave territory in the determination OF the
boundary between Texas and New Mexico,
by line that was at last arbitrarily made, ex-
pressly saving, even in those Territories, TO the
respective parties, their respective shares of
free soil and slave soil, according to the articles
of annexation Of the Republic of Texas. Again:
There were alleged TO be five open, bleeding
wounds ia the Federal system, and no more,
which needed surgery, and 10 which the Com
promise or 1850 was TO be cataplasm. We
all know what they were: California without
a Constitution New Mexico in the grasp Of
military power; Utah neglected; the District
OF Columbia dishonored; and the rendition OF
fugitives denied. Nebraska was not even
thought of in this catalogue Of national ills.
And now, sir, did the Nashville Convention Of
secessionists understand that, besides the
enumerated boons offered TO the slaveholding
States, they were 10 have also the obliteration
OF the Missouri Compromise line Of 1902 II
they did, why did they reject and scorn and
scout al the Compromise of 1850? Did the
Legislatures and public assemblies Of the non
slaveholding States, whomade your table groan
with their circumstances, understand that Ne
braska was an additional wound 10 he healed
by the Compromise OF 1902 IL they did.
why did they omit 20 demonstrate against the
NJ a. al. 9th.
by the caiaplasm. the application Of which they
resisted 80 long,
Again: Had il been then known that the
Missouri Compromise was 20 be abolished
directly or indirectly, by the Compromise OF
1850. what Representative from non slave
holding State would. nj that day. have voted
for IL Not one What Senator from q slave
holding State would have voted for it2 Not
one. So entirely was il then unthought Of
that the new Compromise was TO repeal the
Missouri Compromise line Of 70 deg. 30 min.,
in the region acquired from France. that one
half of that long debate was spent on propo
sitions made by Representatives from slave
holding States, 10 extend the line further on
through the new territory we had acquired so
recently from Mexico. until il should disappear
In the waves OF the Pacific Ocean, so as 10 Sc
cure actual federation OF slavery in all OF this
new territory that should be south Of that line !;
aud these propositions were resisted strenuous
ly and successfully 10 the last by the Repre-
seniaiives Of the non slaveholding States, in
order, il il were possible, TO save the whole OF
those regions for the theatre Of free labor.
admit that these are only negative proofs,
although they are pregnant with conviction.
But here is one which is not only affirmative.
but positive, and not more positive than con
elusive:
In the fifth section Of the Texas Boundary
bill, one Of the acts constituting the Compro-
mise of 1850, are these words:
PROVIDED, That nothing herein contained shall
be construed 10 impair qualify anything contained
in the third article Of the second section Of to joint
resolution for annexng Texas 10 the United States
approved March !, lS45, either as regards the num-
Der Of States that may hereafter be formed out Of the
State Of Texas, or otherwise"
What was that third article OF the second
coctinu If the ioint raoclut,ou Ear apnox ~ =,