Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1854-02-23
Tu URsDAy, EERRUAR Y as.zs54
The Nebraska-Kanzas Question.

Nothing CAN be palmer, as is well
said BY the New Yo rk National De-
mocrat, than the honesty Of the sim
pie position, that every community
has right to legislate for ITSELF
Nothing can be more just than the
principle that the people Of every
State are best fitted to Judge of their
own wishes and their own necessities,
and that any attempt to control them
hy the Congress of the United States,
except through tho conceded author
ity and direct instr mentality of the
federal constitution, is a gross inva-
sion Of their rights, and tyrannous
approach to usurpation-
Congress should not be permitted
10 say whether slavery shall or shall
not exist in the contemplated Terri
tories Of Nebraska and Kanzas, but
should be directed to leave the de-
ci5ion entirely to the population Of
that region. 1t is ADMITTED that the
moment those Territories become
States, they will enjoy The sovereign
right of independent election upon
this subject. They will prohibit
slavery within their limits, if such d
prohibition suit their opinions and
purposes. They will, on the contra
ny, adopt slavery, if it agree With
their notions and interests. 1t is idle.
therefore, in Congress to anticipate
their action on SO vital pris iple,
and the example is most scbievous,
as well calculated to produce an TN
just and injurious excitement. The
incorpora lion Of clause pr hibiting
slavery into a territorial bill, is rank
injustice, as well as a DIRECT insult,
TO tbeentire South, andas such should
be met with nromptness ana become
ing spirit
Judge Douglas, lis ! pesgA de-
lfR6Ed in the United States Senate.
ably and deliberately reviewed the
whole ground Of abolition opposition
TO the committee bill for the division
Of Nebraska. His positions and ar
gumentsare wholly unanswerable, and
we cannot see how any man profess
ing to entertain democratic principle,
can refuse his assent to this admins
trative measure.
Judge Douglas shows very cohclu-
fivsly That all the. oltcry about the
,bandonrp lent Of the Missouri Com
promise but ruse of The aboli-
tionists, 4ho are determined, by some
means, I'd keep up the slavery ex-
kitement. lie shows that the pet
kf5jeet of Mr.. Clay, called the Mis-
Foari Compromise, was actually ahan-
lOned in 1913, by the almo st unan-
imoas consent of the Unio IN. lie
shows that it was compile tely superse-
He'd in 1850, By the principle of con-
gressional non,interventEon+ To use
his own words:
"Whoyiolated the sole mn compact?
It was the defeat of that bill which
opened the whole fury Of 81 avery ag-
station which distracted the country
afterwards. Ii was the deieh t Of that
lIill which left the question of slave
~ unsettled, destroyed the geograph-
zeal line, and made new col npromise
necessary. Had the North been
faithful to the Missouri Compromise
in IS4S, there would hive been no
slavery agitation, no excite ment, no
alarm. 1t was that defeat Of it, then, !
tbatplunged the country into sla We
~ agitation, disturbed our domef tic
peace, and defeated the Senator of
Michigan for The Presidency Who
violated them2 These v4rytmen who
now call the Missouri Compromise a
sacred compact, aud whoIno " arraign
him for want Of faith ID that sol
emn compact. It was Iwit tn a bad
grace that men who hadIthemselves
proved &lse to the sacred compact,
could now arraign him before the
country with doing that which was
accomplished in lS4S by their own
faithlessness and treachery.P