The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1854-02-15
DEBATE ON THE NEBRASKA BILL


DEBATE ON THE NEBRASKA BILL
i (coEcLuDED
The leading feature of the Compromise G
1850 was congressional non-interven,ion as |.
slavery in the Territories; that the people @
the Territories, ard of all the States, were /
be allowed TO do as they pleased upon the sub
lect OF slavery, subject only TO the provision
at the constitution the United States. Thai
sir was the leading feature of the compromis
measures Of 1880 Those measures, therefor
abandoned the idea OF geographical line a
the boundary between free States and slav
States-abandoned il because compelled to do il
from an inability to maintain it: and in lieu %
that, substituted great principle Of seli-goy
crnnen,, which would allow the people 10 d.
as they thought proper. Now, the question is
when that new compromise. resting upon tina
great fundamental principle of freedom, wa
established, was ii not an abandonment OF III
old one-the geographical line' Was it not
supersedure Of the old one within the very Ian
guage OF the substitute for the bill which i
nov under consideration. say il did super.
sede it, because il applied its provisions as wei
To the nor, Ii as T., the south of SO deg. 80 min
II established a principle which was equally ap
plicable to the country north as we'll as seuti o
The parallel SO 30-a principle of universal ap
phcation. The authors Of this abolition mani
testo attempt to rebut this presumption, ant
maintain that the Compromise of 1850 dad NJ
supersede tl,at'of 1920, by quoting The provist
! to the first section of the act to establish tn.
Texan boundary and establish the Territory o
New Mexico. That proviso was made BY wa.
OF amendment, OF. motion Of Mr.. Mason, .
Virginia.
| lrepeat, tina, in order to rebut the presunp.
l'tion, as before stated, that the Missouri Com
promise was aband ned and superseded by the
al, - ,kNs.
confederates cite the following amendmen
offered to the bill to establish the boundary o
Texas aud create the Territory OF New Mexico
in 1856:
| "Prorided, That nothing herein containee
shall be construed to impair or qualify anything
contained in the third article of the second sec
ton OF the joint resolution for annexing Texas
TO the United States, approved March /, lS45
either regards The nunber of States that ma,
| hereafter be formed out OF the State of Texas
or otherwise
After quoting this proyiso, they make the
| following statsRent, ana attempt to gain creoi
for its truth by suppressing natera! facts VIII CT
| appear upon the face Of the same statute, and
| if produced would conclusively dsprova the
| statement:
| alt is soIemnly declared in the very compro
mise acts that nothing herein contained shat
be construed to impair or qualify the prohib
tionof slavery north of sc deg. 80 min., ano
yet, in the face Of this declaration. that sacrec
prohibition is said to be overthrown. Can pre-
sumption further 60: =
will now proceed to show that presumption
could not 90 tulther than is exhibited in this
| declaration
| They suppress the following material facts,
which, If produced, would nave dsproved theiI
statement:
| They first suppress the fact that the same
section OF the act cuts off from Texas, and
cedes TO the United States, al that part oi
Texas which lies north of 80 deg. 80 MN. They
then suppress the further fact that the same
section OF The law cA off from Texas large
tract of country on the west, more than three
| degrees Of longitude, and added it to the terri
tory Of the U. States. They then suppress the
further fact that this territory thus cut off from
Texas, and to which the Missouri Compromise
line did apply, was incorporated into the Terri
! tory OF New Mexico. And then what was
done' 1t was incorporated into that Territory
with this clause
| "That, when admitted as State, the said
Territory or any portion of the same, shall be
received into the Union, with or without SLAVE
| cry, as their constitution may prescribe at the
time of lis adoption"
| Yes, sir. the very bill and section from which
they quote cuts off all that part of Texas which
was TO be free by the Missouri Compromise, to-
| gcther with some on the south side of the | NJ
| incorporate it into the Territory of New
Mexico; and then says that that Territory, and
every portion cf the same, shall come into the
Union, with or without slavery, as it sees
proper.
What else does 1t do! The sixth section o.
the same act provides that the legislative power
and authority of said Territory Of New Next
co shall extend To all rightful subjects Of egis
lation, consistent with the constitution of the
United States and the provisions Of the act
no, excepting slavery Thus the New Mexican
bill, from which they make that quotation, con
tanned the provision that New Mexico, incIud
ing that part of Texas which was cut off, should
come into the Union, with or without slavery
as it saw proper, and in the mean time that The
territorial Legislature should have all The au hor
lily over the subject Of slavery that they had
over any other subject, restricted only by the
limitations of the constitution of the United
| States and the provisions Of the act. Now,
ask those senator's, do not those provisions re-
tpeal the Missouri Compromise, 50 far as il ap.
| piled to that country cut off from Texas. DC
they not annul it: Dothey not supersede it
| If they do, then the address which has been
put forth by these confederates is an atrocious
| falsehood. 1T they do not, then what do they
| mean when they charge me with having in the
substitute first reported from the committee
| repealed it, with having annulled it, with hav
| ing violated it, when only copied the precise
words into my bill, asreported from the con
miltee, which were contained in the New Mex
co bill. They say my bill annuls the Missouri
Compromise, Ii it dues, it had already been
done before by the act of 1850; for these words
were copied from the act of 1850.
MIR. WADE Why do you do it over again ?
Mr.. DOUGLAS. | will come 10 that point
presently, and explain why we did it over again.
l am now dealing with the truth and veracity of
| combination OF men who have assembled in
secret caucus upon the Sabbath day to arraien
my conduct and belle my character. l say,
therefore; that their manifesto is a Islander eli.
Their way; for it says that the Missouri Compro.
mise was not superseded by the measures OF
$780, and then it says that the same words in
my bill do re repeal and annul i. They must
be adjndged guilty of one falsehood in order to
| sustain the other assertion.
Now sir, | propose to 20 little further, and
and show what was the real meaning OF the
amendment Of the senator from Virginia, out of
which these gentlemen have manufactured so
much capital in the newspaper press, and have
succeeded by that misrepresentation in pro.
curing al expression of opinion from the State
Of Rhode Island, in opposition in this bill. |
will state what its meaning is. Did it mean
that that the States north Of SO deg 80 min.
should have clause in their constitutions pro-
hibiting slavery have shown that it did
not mean that, because the zane act says that
they might come in with slavery if they saw
proper. ! say il could not mean that, because
the same act says that they might come in with
slavery ii they saw proper say it could no,
mean that, tor another reason. The same Sec
ton containing that provso cut off all that part
of Texas north Of So deg. 80 min. and hence
there was nothing for it to operate upon. 1t
did not, therefore, relate to the country cut off
What did i. relate to Why, irmeant simply
this : By the joint resolution of lS45 Texas
was annexed with the right to form four add-
tonal States out of he's territory, and such
States as were south OF Sc deg. 80 min. were 10
come in, with or without slavery, as they saw
proper, and in such State or States as were
north ofihat line slavery should be prohibited
When we had cut off all north Of SO deg 80
min. and thus circumscribed the boundary and
diminished the territory of Texas, the question
arose how many States will Texas be entitled
to under this circumscribed boundary Ger