The Ohio star. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1830-1854, 1854-03-01
VOLUME XXY-Numbesr. Is

1850 "superseded" the prohibition OF Slavery
north of SO deg. 80 min., in the act preparatory
for the admission of Missouri. Ay, sir, IS super
seded" is the phrase" superseded by the princi-
pies of the legislation of 1850, comm ,nly called
the Compromise Measures"
1t is against this statement, unture in fact, and
without foundation in history, that the amendment
which have proposed is directed.
Sir, this is a novel idea. At the time when
these measures were before Congress in 1850,
when the questions involved in them were dis
cussed frem day to day, from week to week. and
from month to month, in this Senate Chamber,
who ever heard that the Missouri prohibition was
to be superssdedl What man, at what time. in
what speech ever suggested the idea that the acts
of that year were to affect the Missouri Compro-
mise? The Senator from Illinois the other day
invoked the authority of Henry Clay-that de-
parted statesman, in respect to whom. whatever
may be the differences of political opinion, none
question that, among the great men of this coun-
try, be stood proudly eminent. Did he in the re-
port made by him as chairman of the Committee
of Thirteen, or in any speeeh in support Ct the
Compromise acts or in any conversation in the
committee, or out of the committee, ever even hint
| at this doctrine of supersedure? Did any sup
porter or any opponent of the Compromise acts
ever vindicate or condemn upon the ground that
The Missouri prohibition would be affected by
them Well, sir, the Compromise acts were
passed. They were denounced North. and they
were denounced South. Did any defender of
them at the South ever justify his support Of them
upon the ground that the South had obtained
through them the repeal of the Missouri prohibit
ion! Did any obJector to them at the North ever
/ even suggest, as ground of condemnation, that
that prohibition was swept away by them? No.
sir! No man, North or South, during the whole
Of the discussion of those acts here, or in that
other discussion which followed their enactment
throughout the country, ever intimated any such
opinion. 8, s-ai5t7s sz.
Now, sir. let US come to the last session of Con-
gress. Nebraska bill passed the House az
came to the Senate. and was reported from the
:, Committee on Territories by the Senator from IL
linois, as its chairman. Was there any provision
in it which even squiuted towards this notion o
repeal by supersedure! Why, sir, Southern gen
tlemen opposed it upon the very ground that i
, left the Territory under the operation of the Mis-
souri, I6 O6QdtOF 1iiluJlS maui
a speech in defence oft. Did he invoke South
ern support, upon the ground that it supersede'
the Missouri Proh;biiionl Not at all. Was
] opposed or vindcated by anybody any sucl
ground Every Senator knows the contrary
!, The Senator from. Missouri Mr.. Atchison, nov
, the President of this body. made speech upo
the bill, in which he distinctly declared that tn
Missouri prohibition was not repealed, and coul
not be repealed. -E7f.iess ~
1 will send this speech to the Secretary, an
l ask him to read the paragraphs marked.
The Secretary read, as follows:
IL will now state tothe Senate the views whic
induced me 10 oppose this proposition in the earl
}. part of the session.
d 81 had two objections TO it. One was, that th
Indian title in that Territory had not been extir
gushed. OF, at least, very small portion of it ha
n been. Another was the Missouri Compromis
If or, it is commonly called. the Slavery restr'
! ton. It was my opinion at that tine-and 1 al
I not now very clear on that subject-that the la
: of Congress. when the State of Missouri was at
t, mitted into the Union, excluding Slavery from til
Territory of Louisiana north of SO deg. 80 min
8, would be enforced in that Territory unless it w
10 speeialy rescinded; and, whether that law was
10 accordance with the Constitution of the Unite
5 States or not, it would do its work, and that wo
would be to preclude Shareholders from going in
Of that Territory. But when l came to look in
D. that question: found there was no prospect,
30 hope, of repeal of the Missouri Compromise, e
le cluding Slavery from that Territory. Now, s
d. free to admit that at this moment, ,at this hot
e and for all time to come, should oppose the {
40 ganization the settlement of that Territory
in less my constituents, and the constituents of t
or whole South of the slave States of the u nie
ry could go into it upon the footing, with eqt
rights and equal privileges, carrying that species
property with them as other people ofthis Uni;
gh Yes, sir, acknowledge that that would have gt
ur erned me, but have no hope that the RESTRICT
We will ever be repealed. tss e
n - / have always been of opinion that the Fl
us great error committed in the political history
this country was the Ordinance of 1887, rend
ne ing the Northwest Territory free territory. T
IN, next great error was the Missouri Compromi
ID But they are both irremediabIe. There is
ain remedy for them.a We must submit to them.
am prepared TO do it. 1t is evident that the N
ier souri, Compromise cannot be repealed. So far
=. that question is concerned, we might as well ag
n'o to the admission of this Territory now, as n
year, or five or ten years acknowledgement
Globe, Second Session, Ihirty-sccond Congr
nth rol. 26. pageI115. -, .
ar Mr.. CHAsE.-That, sir. is the speech of
md Senator from Missouri, whose authority, thi
must go for something on this question. w
of does he say? when / came to look into t
in question ''-of the possible repeal of the Misse
nto prohbition-that was the question he was look
ors into--aI found that there was prospect,
the hope, of a repeal of the Missouri Compromise
US cludng Slavery from that Territory" And j.
'u sir. at thul very moment. according to this T
nal doctrine of the Senator from Illinois, it had
repealed three years
W 'oe Well, the Senator from Missouri said, furtl
that if he thought it possible to oppose this rest
~ tion successfully, he never would consent to
e 81 s.