The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-01

Nj SEWARD Certaialy there was.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. lhen ask, why was il nader pc
best evidence that the North did not carry the hst one
is the senator's admission that the South compelled to
submit new one. Then, II there was new complo-
mise made, did Missouri come IN under the new one OF e
old one} tE EA
Mr. SEWARD. Under both.
MIR. DOUGLAS, This is the first tlms in this debate,
il has been intmaied that Missouri under two acts
of Congress The senator did aude the resolution
of 1921 in his speech none OF the opponents OF inns ni
have said it, But is admitted that she did not come
into the Union under the act of 1890 alone She had been
voted under the first compromise and this vote COM
PEELED her make new one, and she came IN under he
new one yet the senator from New York. his speech
declared 10 the world that she in under the inst one
This ID immatera question His whole speech rests
upon that misrepresentation misstaement of the record
Mr. SEWARD. You had better say MISREPRESENTATION, |
MIR DOUGLAS. Very WELL We will call II by mat
name His whole argument depends upon that mlsappre
hension After stating that the act of 1920 was
that the North performed It's part of in good faith be
arragns the friends of this bill for proposing TO annu me
eighth section of the of 1920 without FIRST turning Mis-
sour out Union order that slavery may be abolished
therein by of Congress He says IN substances
Genteen if you going TO rescind the compact have
respect for that great law of morals of honesty and OF con-
science which compes you first to surrender the consdea
lion which you have received under the compact
with him III regard to the Obligation TO restore the
consideration when contract s rescnded And inasmuch
the prohibition in the Territories north Of 80 deg ~ nn
was obtained according his statement by an agree
admit Missouri saveholding State on an equal
footing with the original States in all respects whatsoever
as specified in the first of the OF 1920 and mas
much Missouri refused admission uder said act and
was compelled submit compromise in 1891, and
then received into the Union on Fundamental condition
of inequality call him and his abolition coniederaes 10
the consideration which they have received IN me
shape of prohibition of slavery north of So deg 81 mn I'M
der hch they repudated and refused 70 carry
into effect call them the statement IN
respect the admission of Missouri and TO make restitution
of the consideration by voting for this bill lepeat that
this is not mmateria statement II IS the point upon
which the aboluoniss rest their whole Argument lhey
could not get up show of petext against the great rnc
pie Of sefgoyeinnent involved this bill, they could not
repeat all the time, the from New York did 10 his
speech that Missouri into the Union With slavery In
conformity to the compact which mad by the act OF
1890 and that the South having received the consideration
is now trying cheat the North Of her part of the bcne
fits have proven that after aboitionism had gained It's
point far the eighth section of the act prohibited slavery
the Territories, Missouri denied admission by north
until she entered into compact by which she was
understood to surrender important right now exercised
by several States of the Union.
Mr.. President did not wish to refer TO these things
did not understand them fully all their bearings at the
made my first speech this subject and SO far as
was familiar with them made little reference to them
consistent with my duty, because 1t vas morufy-
ing reflection to me- northern man. that we had not
abe in consequence of the ABOLITION excitement at the
time avoid the appearance OF bad faith in he observance
of legislation which has been denomnaed compromise
There few then, there now, who had the
moral courage perform their duty to the country and the
constitutions regardless of consequences perona to them
selves. There northern who dared 10 per-
form their duty by voting to admit Missouri into the Union
on equal footing with the original States, and with no
other than that imposed by the constitution.
that they abused and denoutced as we are
now that they branded doughfacss to
freedom, and to the section of the country whence they
| come.
Mr.. GEYER. They honored MIR. Lanman, of Connec-
tcut, by burning him IN efigy.
| Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes sir; these abolitonss honored
MIR Lanman in Connecticut just they are honoring
in Boston and other places, by burning me in efhgy.
! Mr.. CASS. 1t will do you no harm.
| Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, sir, know IT will not but why
this burning egy Ii is the legitimate consequence of
the address which forth 10 the word by certain
senators whom denominated, former occasion, as
the abolition confedcrates The senator from Ohio pre-
scented here the other day resoluuonhe says uninten
tonaly and take sodeclarng that every senator who
advocated this bill traitor his country 10 human
ay and God and he seemed 10 be shocked at the
ADVISED IN 6s address over his own Signature when he
called upon the people assemble public meetings. and
thunder forth their indignation at the criminal betrayal Of
precious rights when he appealed ministers Of the gos
pei to desecrate their holy calling and attempted nfae
passions and anatcism and prejudice against who
would not consider themselves very highly comphmened
by being called his equals And yet when the natural
sequences of his own action and advice back upon
him. and he presents them here and called account
for the indecency Of the he processes his profound
greet and surprise that anything should have occurred which
could possibly be deemed unknd disrespectfu any
member Of ths body
Mr. SUMNER. / rise merely to correct the senator in
statement in regard to myself to the effect that had said
that Missouri into the Union under the of 1890
instead of the act of 1921 orbor designate any par
cular act under which Missouri into the Union but
simply asserted the result of the long controversy with
regard 10 her admission and the end of the whole
action, tbs she received State; and that on
being received whether or later whether under
the act Of 1920 1921 the obligations of the compact were
hxed-rreyocably xedso far the South is concerned
| Mr.. DOUGLAS The senator's explanation does not
help him at ALL He says he did under what act
Missouri came In but he did say understood him. that
the act OF 1890 compact; and that according that
compact Missouri was to come in with slavery, provided
slavery should be prohibited in certain Territories and did
come IN In pursuance Of the compact He the word
compact To what compact does he aludel Is ii not
TO the ACT of 1927 II he did not what becomes Of his
cusion that the eighth section Of that act rrepeAabe He
will deny that his reference the act Of
1890 Did he refer TO the joint resolution Of 1921 under
which Missouri ADMITTEDLY " So do not propose to
repeal IT. We admit that il compact and that its OBJ
ligaons are rrevocaby fixed But that JOINT resolution
does not prohibit slavery in tho Territories The Nebraska
bill does not propose repeal H. impair its obligation in
any way Then, sir why take back your correction
and admit that you did the Of 1890 when you
spoke Of uevocabe obligations and compacts1 Assuming
them that the senator meant what he unwilling either
to admit or deny while protesting me- that
Missouri came IN under the act Of 1890 that have
have proven that she refused admission under that
alleged compact. have therefore, proven nconestably
that the material statement upon which his argument rests
is wholly without foundation and unequvocslly contradict
ed by the record.
Sir, believe may say the OF every speech which
has been mode nganst the b upon the ground that
paired the obligation OF oompacts There has been an
argument against the measure every word Of which,
gard TO the faith Of compacs, is conrndcted by the
public records What complain Of IL this; the people
may think inst senator having the laws and journals be
fore him, to which he could refer would not make state
ment IN contrayenton Of those records They make the
k.-