The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-06-25

Douglas 10 repeal the Missouri restriction in the anisr
,eayp was suddenly and Unexpectedly made" We need
hardly anticipate the conclusion which every reader will
maketbat the statement is proved 10 be untrue by the
evidence of portion OF the appellants themselves
The warfare upon Judge Douglas and his original
bill was commenced by the abolitonists as
il was introduced, upon the distinct ground that
il abroeated and superseded the Missouri Compromise
That the fair legitimate construction Of the bill
as we maintained and because such was its legal ef
feet objected to the proposition OF Senator Dixon TO
amend by inserting clause of express repeal We OBJ
jected to proposition further because had fears
the object with which the proposition was made in
pertaining which fears however satisfied that we
did him injustice II was in view of the fact that the OPP
position the bill based by the aboitonsts in Con-
gress and of upon the construction that It abroga
ted the Missouri Compromise and because such was Sen
Douglass construction that he brought forward
the amendment which, in express terms, declared the Mis-
souri, restriction null and void. He entertained the hope
that as the country had acquesced in the Compromise Of
1885, the application Of its great leading principle TO the
Nebraska Territory leaving Its legal effect upon the Mis-
souri, Compromise judicial action wonld be acquesced
in without revival Of sectional agitation When he saw
clearly that agitation was determined upon and actually
commenced by the abolition leaders, he satisfied that
it was the better policy the issue oPssly and
boldly
Let Il now be remembered that the authors of the recent
address seek to hold the friends Of the Nebraska bill re-
sponsble for the revival Of the slavery agitation that they
charge that the SUDDEN and unexpected proposition to
repeal the Missouri Compromise which produced the
newal of the agitation and that that proposition was
violation of the pledge contained in the democratic and
wing platforms well in the inaugural Of President
Pierce Upon these facts upon whom rests the response
by Of the renewal of the agitation? The appellants do
not pretend that the original bill Of Senator Douglas fur
nshed legitimate cause for agitation that bill mere
rearmaton OF the principles of the Compromise Of 1850
appcablet to the Nebraska Territory When that bill in
troduced the agitation commenced by the aboltonists
and with view to agitation their celebrated address Of Jan
uary 10TH 1854 appealing every element of dscord and
fanatcism was issued They determined that the prnc
pies Of the Compromise of 1850 should not be renacted
and applied to Nebraska il il could be prevented by stir
ring up the religious and political nacism of the oppo
nen,s of slavery To make their resort to agitation
eectual and certain they affected regard the Missouri
Compromise "a sacred pledge and its abroeation by
the Nebraska bill they held up wicked violation Of
pghted faith The abolitopis had all their appliances
in operation, and the agitation fun blast before
peang the Missouri restriction The necessity Cor this
course created by the agitation already gotten up by
the abolitionists The agitation was by them
without cause according to the position occupied by
the authors Of the late address upon them and those
who have united with them rests the responsibility
If there be any Of the present appellants to the
people who did not combine with the abolition leaders
in putting the ball of agitation in motion, they now
make themselves the apologiss and allies Of the original
agators by seeking this unjust manner shift the
sponsbihty tia friends of tlasNebraska bill With all
the that they bring 10 bear in behalf Of their
associates they will fail to relieve them from the
odum which is fixed upon them by the facts whilst they
will be very certain TO incur the consequences Of their
present ignominious association 1t win not do for the
allies Of abotonists TO charge upon the friends of the
Nebraska bill violation of their pledge to resist any fur
ther agitation Of the slavery question and seek TO prove il
by falsely attribung to them agitation which orig
mated by aboltonists and encouraged by themselves
But for the encouragement extended the abolition leaders
by who had protested acquesce in the principles of
the Compromise Of 1850 the agitation would have been
fined the abolition fanatics Even now If the appellants
DESTROYS of avoiding the agitation which they profess
much to depore they would not be found lending their
influence the known leaders of sectional organizations
upon the proposed issue Of repeathey would aequicsce
like good citizens in the will o. the majority and leave the
abotonsts to fret and agitae TO their hearts content
The National Iteugencr has set them example which
they might follow with advantage.
But the appellants look to fearful consequences ~ likely
result from the passage Of the Nebraska bill They
in II only for broader propagandism Of slavery in
the future They look TO the annexation OF Cuba Of half
dozen Mexican States Of the eastern part Of ST Domin-
go-a to be followed up by alliance with Brazil and
the extension of slavery in the valley Of the Amazon Hav
ing laid this immense of work for the friends
Of the Nebraska bill the appellants turn with startling
fdence to the people and gay:
"It for You Judge whether when slavery shall have
made these additions to the United States win not demand
unconditional submission the part Of the free States and
failing in that demand, attempt withdrawal Of the slave
States and the organization OF separate empire in the
trail region Of the continent"
The plain honest unsophisticatcd people will be aston
ished that ssr! inquiry this should be addressed
TO them the consequence OF repeal Of the Missouri
striotonl A single scruple Of common osgh, to
have taught the appellants that their fears would be
laughed at ridiculous nHectaton. by the Missouri
Compromise slavery prohibited north of &c deg 30
min, and mpiealy sanctioned south Of that line We
wish the honorable appellants he'd condescended explain
how the repeal OF this prohibition upon tie tights Of the
people north of 30 deg min Is enable soreyy %
make he.e aions Mark IL is slavery that is TO make
the additions With the Missouri Compromise in force ali