Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-02-08

the sentiments therein expressed accord with our
own, as will be readily conceived, by reference to
our article on the same subject, but because we
are so much in favor of Gfree speech, as to be
willing to give the other side, as well as our own,
hearing through our columns. The article was
received too late to give us an opportunity to COM
Iment on it, if we might choose so to do:
( .t-f ~ ne For The Portage Sentinel.
Nebraska Bill.
Mn. SENTINEL:-I have come to the conclusion
that, as Democrat, it is my duty and that Of 9TH
ers, to speak in decided terms of opposition to the
recent bill introduced by Senator Douglass, the
chairman of the committee on territories, for the
organization of the territory of Nebraska.
He has introduced this bill with the declaration
that the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the
Compromise Measures of 1850. The feature of
the bill to which am opposed is that which, in
accordance with that declaration, organizes the
territory on the principle that it may be slave
territory and State, when It was declared that
slavery and involuntary servtude except for crime,
should be forever prohibited in it by the Missouri
Compromise.
Mr.. Douglass seemed in haste to introduce this
bill with this feature; and the assertion that the
Missouri Compromise is repealed or imperative in
as far as it excludes slavery from territory north
of SO deg. 80 min, was for the first time made at
this session of Congress- In all the debates had
on the series of measures called the Compromise
of 1850, no mention is made of the Missouri Com
promise being repealed; but, on the contrary, it is
distinctly re-afirmed. 1t has been claimed that
the slavery question was settled by these meas
ures, and that all agitation that subject was for
ever to cease. But now for the first time it is d.
vulged how it was settled. Upon those measures
once included in the defeated bill, known as the
Omnibus Bill, a fierce debate arose. Mr.. Benton
distinguished himselfin opposition to them. Mr..
Cuss, Mr.. Clay, Mr.. Douglas, and almost all the
Senators participated in the debate, and not one
friend or foe ever claimed that the Missouri Com
promise was repealed by the Compromise Meas
ures of 1850.
But Mr.. Douglas states that the Baltimore
Convention which nominated Mr. Pierce under
stood by acquiescing in the Compromise Measures
of 1850, that the Missouri compromise was repeal
ed If this was so, why was not resolution pass
ed by that convention declaring that it was repeal
ed, and that slavery was to be introduced into all
the unorganized territory of the United States!
Who believes that Pierce or airy other man could
have been elected President on that issue!
What were the compromise measures of 1850!
The Missouri Compromise was not at issue at all.
One Of those measures was the admission of Cal
iforna without slavery, and with constitution
prohibiting it. Another measure was the organi-
cation of New Mexico into territorial govern
ment, defining its boundaries, and also that OF
Texas; Utah Territory was organized, and the Flu
gitive Slave Law passed. These were the COM
promise measures Of 1850; and not word in Ell
ther OF those bills relates, even remotely, to any
territory acquired by the purchase of Louisiana
north of SO deg 80 min. The resolutions annex
ing Texas recognized the Missouri compromise,
and applied it to that part of the territory of Tex
as north Of that line. The compromise measures
which took part of New Mexico and gave it to
Texas and part Of the latter and gave to the for
mer, did not even repeal the Missouri compromise
applied to Texan territory, but on the contrary
re-alfirmed it.
In the unhappy controversy between the Hards
and Solts in New York, no one claimed that the
Missouri compromise was repealed. The Union,
which is the national organ Of the Democratic
party, and which speaks by authority, states in
leading article, that the Baltimore Convention
only acquesced in the compromise measures OF
1850 as a settlement of the questions to which
they relate, but that the convention did not adopt
them as right in themselves. Nor did it claim
that the compromise of 1850 was repealed. 1t
was left for Mr.. Douglas, four years after the
passage Of these measures, to discover this.
Mr.. Pierce's Cabinet is composed of men who
opposed the compromise of 1850, and also those
who supported it. He did rot claim, nor none OF
them claimed, that the Missouri compromise was
repealed. Mr.. Pierce could not have been elec-
ted on that issue.
The House of Representatives last session pass
ed bill organizing Nebraska territory, in which
the Missouri compromise was recognized. 1t was
by none opposed on the ground that the Missouri
compromise was repealed. 1t was not acted on
in the Senate for want of time Mr.. Atchison, of
Missouri, in speaking on the subject, did not claim
this, but alludng to it said that there were two er
rors committed by the government which he re-
GREETED, but that it was now too late to retrieve
them. There was the Missouri compromise which
excluded slavery from territory north of SO deg
80 min., and the ordinance of 1887, which forever
excludes slavery from the northwestern territory,
ceded to the United States by Virginia, of which
Thomas Jefferson W as the author.
Now if it was understood that the Missouri
compromise was repealed, from what cause did it
occur that no one was found to assert it. But that
it was not SO understood is abundantly shown by
the fact that Senator Dixon, of Missouri, has intro,
/ duced bill into the Senate, though whig, yet