Washington sentinel., 1854-03-01
Wasbington gfntinel.
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
SPEECH OF HON. R. M. T. HUNTER,

SPEECH OF HON. r. M. t. HUNTER,
OF VIRGINIA,
In the United Stases Senate, Feb. "a, 1854.
The Senate having under consideration the
bill to organize the Territories of Nebraska and
Kansas,
Mr.. HUNTER said:
Mr.. PRESIDENT: Complaints have been made
that this question of the repeal of the Missouri
compromise has been unnecessarily thrust up
on US, and inquiries have been instituted as to
the motives oil those who brought it before
Congress. In my opinion, it comes neither
with design nor by the desire of any man here
or elsewhere but it arises out of the nature OF
the case, and has been forced upon us by cir
cumstances. 1t is but logical consequence OF
the course of argument and OF action which
was pursued in 1850 upon what were then call
ed the compromise measures Of that session.
And, sill, there are numbers here, numbers in
the other house-a majority in my opinion, as
well as majority OF the people of this Union
who could not refuse, if the question were pre-
seuted for a repeal of this provision, to vote for
it, without any inconsistency with their pre-
vious professions and course OF action.
The legislation which has been denominated
as the Missouri compromise of 1920, if founded
upon any principle, was founded upon that OF
a division Of territory between the slaveholding
and the nonslaveholding States of this confed-
eracy. 1t seemed to proceed upon the assump-
ton that the States were jointly entitled to that
territory, and that if social possession became
either impossible or inconvenient, then justice
required partition of it amongst them for pur-
poses ofuse and occupation. Accordingly, when
the slave Territory fTexas was annexed, a pro-
position was made to run the line Of 36o 3O/
through it, and to prohibit slavery in all that
portion of the territory north of that line.
To that proposition the south cheerfully ac-
ceded. And when it became a question as to
the organization of the Territory of Oregon and
Of that acquired from Mexico, then, too, the
proposition was made to settle that question
upon the same principle Of division, the south
being found to favor it almost unanimously.
and the north generally voting against it. j
will not repeat the very lucid history of. those
votes which has been given by the senator from
North Carolina. Mr.. BADGER, who has proved
that the proposition was repeatedly made by
the south to settle these questions, upon the
principle of division by the Missouri compro-
mise line. and that it was as often voted down
by the north. Onthe contrary, the north wished
to introduce q new principle, and insisted upon
permitting few people on our western coast
to come in as State without the previous in
vitation or consent of Congress- and not only
to include the territory which they themselves
occupied, and which might be of a convenient
size for the new State, but to assign to them
selves what limits and boundaries they pleased.
That proposition was opposed by almost the
united voice of the south, not because they be-
lieved that State had not right to fix its own
institutions, but because they believed that il
was of race, and not of right, for State toy
come into this Union without the previous con-
sent of Congress; and because they thought that
a few people who organized themselves into
State had no right TO extend their boundaries
beyond what was suitable for State, so as to
include as much unoccupied territory of the
Union as they might choose under terms which
would exclude the people and large portion Of
the States Of the Union from ever settling or
occupying it. But the south was voted down,
and the whole question was SO settled that
practically, there is not one square inch of that
territory which the south can ever settle or
occupy; and, in exchange for il, the south got,
first the declaration on the part of the leading
northern friends Of that compromises decla-
ration which seems to have been sustained by
the legislation of the country--that it was un-
constitutional to pass any law that should pro-
hibit the introduction of slavery into the unoc
cupied territories Of the United States; and,
secondly, the admission of the principle, that
the true mode Of organizing that unoccupied
territory is, to give the people of the Territory
power to legslate over all rightful subjects of
legislation which are consistent with the Con
stitution. That was all the south received in
exchange for its just share OF that vast terri
tory; and although | believe that it was the al
most universal sentiment of the south that they
had been wronged in this adjustment, yet they
acquiesced and submitted.
Is it then surprising that when we come to
organize the territorial government OF this
country, where slavery is prohibited by preced
ing legislative restriction, the south should say:
/" Gentlemen, you said it was unconstitutional
to pass legislative prohibition. Here is one;
we ask you to remove it. You said that the
true way to constitute territorial government
was to give the people Of that territory power
to legslate upon all rightfal subjects Of legisla
ton consistently with the Constitution. We
ask you to give that power to the people in
these Territories in the precise words contained
in the bill for the territorial organization of
Utah." Was it not then an inevitable conse-
quence of the course of events / have depicted
that tue south should make this request? Is
it not matter of justice, is it not matter ol
constitutional right, that the north should ac-
cord it?
But the senator from Ohio, (Mr. CHAsE,) the
senator from Massachusetts, (Mr.SUMNER,) and
the senator from New York, (Mr. SEwARD.)
have said that the south was estopped from
making any such demand, because in truth the
Missouri compromise was her own act that
she originated it, and was bound by it, not only
then but now and forever. Sir, as matter of
historical truth, ] take issue with the gentle
men on this question. deny that the south
did originate it, even if it were a compromise
at all !; and think shall be able to show that
it was no compromise, or, if it we're, that the
south has long since been released from oil OBJ
legation to observe it.
hold in my hand, Mr.. President, very
careful analysis of the vote upon those Missouri
bills, made by an excellent clerk who sits at
your table, Mr.. Hickey,) and l shall refer to
the results Of that examination, for the purpose
of showing how it, was that the Missouri COM
promise, as it is called, originated and was
adopted.
In 1919, when the bill for the admission Of
Missouri into the Onion was presented to Con-
gress, the northern majority in the House Of
REPRESENTATIVES, affixed to II n condition that Il