Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-05-24
aAvENNA, WEDNESDAY, MAY IL, 1854.

sters position, his authority Is eertalniy win us
not with the abolitionists, i have right, there
fore, to have the sympathies Of his Boston friend
with me, as. sympathized with him when th'
same principle was involved. fs-syiau p. -i.
u. Mr., President, am sorry that have taken up
SO much time; but must notice one or two points
more. So much has been said about the Missouri
compromise act, and about faithful compliance
with it by the north, that must follow that mat
ter a little further. The Senator from Ohio Mr.
Wade] has referred to night, to the fact that
went for carrying out the Missouri compromise
in the Texas resolutions in l645 and in l848, on
several occasons; and he actually proved that
meyer abandoned it until 1850. He need not
have taken the pains to prove that fact; for be
got all his Information on the subject from my
opening speech upon this bill. / told yon then
that was willing, as northern man, in l845,
when the Texas question arose, to carry the Mis-
souri, compromise line throughout that State. and
in 1913 offered it as an amendment to the Ore
gon bill. Although did not like :he principle
involved in this act, yet was unwilling, for the
sake Of harmony, to extend to the Pacific, and
abide by it in good faith, in order to avoid the
the slavery agitation. The Missouri compromise
was defeated by the same class of politicians who
are now combined in opposition to the Nebraska
bill. II was because we were unable to carry
making new one in 1850. And then we estab-
shed this great principle of self-government
Which lies at the foundation all our institutions.
What does his eh4rge amount to! He charges
it, as matter Of ofense, that struggled in 1845
and in lS4S to observe good faith; and he and his
associates defeated my purpose, and deprived me
OF the ability to carry out what he now says is
the plighted faith of the nation
Mr.. WADE. | did not charge the Senator with
anything except with making a very excellent
argument on my side of the question, and wish
ed he would make it'again tonight. That was
all. ,......
Mr.. DOUGLAS. What was the argument which
| made! southern Senntor had complained
that the Missouri compromise was matter ofin-
justice to the South. | told him he ought not to
complain of that when his southern friends were
here proposing TO accept it; and if we could
carry out, he had no right to make such COM
plant. / was anxious to carry it out. 1t would
not have done for a northern man who was oppo-
sed to the measure, and unwilling to abide it, to
take that position. 1t would not have become
the Senator from Ohio, who then denounced the
very measure which he now calls a sacred com
pact, to take that position. But as one who had
always been in favor of currying il out, it was
Legitimate and proper that | should make that ar
gument in reply. . ... ..,.i.... ..-.N- ..r..
Sir, as have said, the South were willing to
agree to the Missouri compromise in l84S.-
When it was proposed 5y me to the Oregon bill,
as an amendment, to extend that line to the Pa
cifc the South agreed to it. The Senate adop-
ted that proposition, and the House voted it down.
In 1850, after the omnibVsablll had broken down,
and we proceeded to pass the compromise meas
ure separately, | proposed, when the Utah bill
was under discussion, to make slight variation
of the boundary Of that Territory, so as to in
clude the sMtrmoL settlements, and not with
reference to any other question:; and it was sug-
gested that we should take the line of 36 Q 80
min. That would have accomplished the local
objects of the amendment very well. But when
proposed it, what did these Free-Soers say?
What did the Senator from New Hampshire,
Mr.. HALE who was then ,her leader in this
body, sag Here are his words: .....r, .s
"Mr. HALE. wish to say word as a reason
why shall vote against the amendment l.shall
vote against 36 80 min, because think there
is an implication in it, Laughter. | will vote
for 81 or 36 Q either, just as it is convenient;
but is idle to shut our eyes to the fact that here
is an attempt in this bill-1 will not say it is the
intention of the mover--to pledge this Senate
and Congress to the imaginary line Of 360 sc
min., because there are some historical recO9ec
tiomS connected orih At in regard 10 MiS controver
So about slavery. l will content myself withsay
ing that neuer ,ciH By cote or speech, admit o,
submit to anything that may bind the action Of oa1
legislation here 10 make The parallel Of 36o 81
naan the boundary line Jetaceen save aud free Terri
tory, And when say that,I explain the reason
why 60 against the amendment 'cer aaH ataf
These remarks Of Mr.. Hale were not made oil
a proposition to extend the Missouri compromise
line to the Pacific, but on a proposition to fl
I0nn Dn i -
Utah, for local reasons. He Was against it be-
cause there might b., as he said, an implication
growing out OF historical recollections in fayo
Of an imaginary line between slavery and free
dom. Does that look as if his object was to &c
an implication in favor of preserving sacred thi
line, in regard to which gentlemen now say
there was a solemn compact! That proposition
may illustrate what wish to say in this ,connec
ton upon point which has been made by thu
opponents of this bill as to the effect Of al
amendment inserted on the motion of the Sena
tor from Virginia, Mr.. MASON into the Texa
boundary bill. The opponents of this measure
RELY upon that amendment to show that the Tex
as compact was preserved by the acts of 1885,
T [ have already shown, in my former speech
i that the object OF amendment was to guaranty t
f the State of Texas, with her crcumscribed boun
daries, thesame number of States which sh
, would have had under her larger boundaries, an
with the SAINT right to come in with or withou
: slavery, as. they pleased. We have been tol
over and over again that there, was no such thin
intimated in debate as that the country cut o
. from Texas was to be reliev ID from the stipula
tons Of that compromise This has been asscl
ted boldly and Internationally, as if there coul
| be no doubt about it. The Senator from Geol
t gia + Mr.. TooMBs] in his. speech, showed that
!, his address to his constituents Of that State, h
> had proclaimed to the world that the object wa
t to establish principle which would allow tn
people to decide the question of slavery ft
{ themselves, north as we'll as south of $50
D min. The line Of 36 80 min. was voted dow
as the boundary of Utah, SO that there should nj
be even an implication in favor of an ilnagnaI
;. line to divide freedom and slavery. Subsequen
!, ly, when the Texas boundary bill was under col
;, sideration, on the next day after the amendme
Q of the Senator from Virginia had been adopte