Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-02-17
SPEECH OF MIR. DOUGLAS.
ON THE NEBRASKA BILL AND THE
MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
On Monday Jan 30, Mr.. Douglas delivered "A
speech in vndoation of his measure previously
introduced in the Senate, To organize territorial
governments in the country known by the name
of Nebraska, embracing all the unorganized ter
ritory now belonging 10 the United States, amount
ing 10 about go, GOO square miles Mr., Douglas
had pressed the early consideration of his BILL
but had yielded to the solicitation of the Aboli-
ton Senators To defer it for days, on the
plea that they wished AN opportunity to look into
the provisions of the bill He afterwards dseoy-
cred that they had already prepared n pnblica-
ton, denouneing the bill aud its authors in the
most scurrillons, terms. and that their motive iii
asking delay could ho none other than to gain
time for the circulation of their slanderous state
ments.
In the opening of his speech Mr. Douglas char
acterises these proceedings as they deserved
He then proceeds to recito briefly the history of
Congressional Legislation on the subject of slave
ry and to show that IL characterised from
the first by determination 10 settle the matter
eilectuay by making geographical line between
the States that recognised and those that did not
recognise slavery. The first instance wns the
Ordinance of 1857, which prohibited slavery
North of the Ohio River to the Western limit of
our then territory-the Mississippi River. The
next was the Missouri Compromise, which pro
hbted slavery North of the line Of 36 30, and
West to the limits of our then territory. Final
ly ON the admission OF Texas. the same line was
| adopted to her extreme western limits, as n rule
| to be abided by, in case other being divided into
several States. This last provision was intro
| duced by Mr.. Douglas himself, then member of
| the House, not because he approved of Congress
sional legislation ON the subject, but becnuse it
had been established by preeedent,ond presented
feasible way OF disposlng OF the question by lay
| ing the foundation for running that line through
| To the Pacific, whenever we should acquire the
intervening territory from Mexico. We have
very briefly stated the speakers positions in the
| opening part of his speech. Ncnow quote him
in full; that portion most interesting to our read
| ers.
In 1913 we acquired from Mexico the country
! between the Rio del Norte and the Pacific Ocean.
| Immediately after that acquisition, the Senate,
| ON my motion, voted into hill II provision
| to extend the Missouri Compromise indefinitely
westward to the Pacific Oeoan,i the sumo sense
and with the same understanding, with which it
was originally adopted. That provision passed
this body by decided minority think by ten,
at least-and went to the House of Representa-
tves, and was defeated there by Northern votes
Now, sir, let US Iause aud consider for II mo-
ment. The first time that the principles of the
Missouri Compromise were ever abandoned, the
first time they were ever rejected by Congress-
was by the defeat of that provision in the House
OF Representatives in 1913. by whom was that
| defeat effected BY Northern votes with Free
! Soil proclivities. 1t was the defeat of that Mis-
souri, Compromise that re-opened the Slavery ag-
ltaton with all its fury. 1t the defeat of that
! Missouri Compromise TINT created the tremen-
dons struggle of 1880. II was the defeat of Il at
Missouri Compromise that created the necessity
| Tor making new Compromise in 1850. Had we
| been faithful to the principles of the Missouri
| Compromise in 1910, this question would not
have arisen. Who il that was fathless |
undertake to say IT was the very men who now
insist that the Missouri Compromise was u solemn
| compact, and should never be violated or depart
| ed from. Every man who is now assailinp the
principles of the bill under consideration, so lar
| as am advised, was opposed to the Missouri
| Compromise in 1913. The very men who now
arraign me for departure from the Missouri
Compromise, are the men who successfully viola
ted IT. repudatedi it, and caused it TO be superse-
! dedby the Compromise measures of 1850. Sir, it
is with rather bad grace that the men who proved
false themselves should charge upon me and
others, who were ever faithful the responsibilities
and consequences of their own treachery.
Then, sir, as before remarked, the defeat of
the Missouri Compromise in lS4S having created
the necessity for the establishment of "A new one
IN 1850, let us see what that Compromise was
The leading feature of the Compromise of 1850
was congressional non int fvention as to slavery
IN the Territories that the people of the Terri
tories, and OF all the States, were to be allowed
to do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery
subject only to the provisions of the Constitution
OF the United States That sir, was the leading
feature of the Compromise measures of 1850.
Those measures, therefore, abandoned the iden
OF a geographical line as the boundary between
thefree States and slave States-abandoned it
because compelled to do it. from an inability to
maintain it; and in lieu of that, substituted great
principle of sef-governmen', which would allow
the people to do as they thought proper. Now,
| the question is, when that new compromise, rest
ing upon that great fundamental principle of free.
dom, was established, was it not an abandonment
of the old one-the geographical liuel Was it
not supersedure of the old one within the very
language ofthe substitute for the bill which Is
now under consideration | say it did supersede
it, because it applied its provisions well to the
North as TO the South of 80 deg 30 min. II es-
tablished a principle which was equally appica-
BILE to the country north as well as south of the
parallel 80 30-a principle of universal applica-
ton. The authors of this abolition manifesto
attempt to rebut this presumption, and maintain