Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1854-02-08
WEDNESDAY MORNING, FEB. 8, 1854.
THE DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE

his hs-t Dill, organizing the lefritoFy ol 4NeptaShr
lii organizing ttoo Territories-Kanzas and Ne
bras a. They both lie Immediately west of the
State and river of Missouri. Kansas extends from
the 37th to the 40th parallel Of north latitude, or
2 = / miles. Nebraska extends from the 10th to
the 80 parallel or to British America 623t miles.
Both Territories extend west to the Rocky noun
tains Fort Leavcnworth is to be the temporary
;, at Of government for Kansas The governor oil
Nebraska will convene the first legislative assembly
at such place as may suit his pleasure
The introduction of this bill has occasoned great
exc.tsmeut among the politicians in Washington |
ga the Eastern States. 1t is contended by the
New York Tribune and the papers and politicians
OF ia class that the bill, in leaving the question Of
the introduction of slavery in the new territories
the people themselves is repeal of the Missouri
compromise, which excluded slavery north of $50
80 parallel Of north latitude On the other hand
is contended, and truly, that the compromise of
1850 takes precedence Of all previous legislation
inconsistent with its provisions and spirit that to
gisate slavery into or out of the territories would
be violation of its letter and spirit and that the
question should be left to the people.
The northern politicians have turned a complete
sammerset upon this question. In 1850 the ex-
trynest southern men only asked for a recognition
of the Missouri compromise line as a settlement of
the question then 50 exciting They could not OBJ
tain this compromise, and yielded to another Cal
iiornia came into the Union free State But now
the very men in the North who in 1850 repudiated
The Missouri compromise bitterly assail measure
proposed in strcl conformity with the compromise
OF 1850, bscagss as they say, it violates the Mis-
souI COMPROMISED
Mr. DOUGLAS defended his bill in the Senate in
speech of great elOquence and ability. We can
not print it entire at present. but we give an ex-
tract below, which shows some of its strong points
The indications are that the abolitonists will sue
coed in getting up fierce agitation among them
selves upon the question discussed:
Mr. D. contended that the settlement effected by
the establishment Of Utah and New Mexico Ter
rltories, upon the principle of allowing the people
10 act for themselves and guaranteeing their ad-
mi ssion, with or without slavery, as they them
selves should determine, was a total abandonment
OF all former rules and compromises on the sub
ict. The principle then adopted was intended to
apply not only TO the other Territory, then owned
by the United States, but also to all which might
thereafter be acquired. If it were otherwise, the
$, Element of 1850 amounted to nothing, for the
whole question would be open every time Terri
torial Government was to be formed or Territory
acquired He appealed to those who represented
The North to stand by this principle of set-govern-
ment. He begged them to remember that all the
original States were at one time slaveholding colo
MES
At the time Of the adoption of the Constitution
twelve out Of thirteen States were slaveholding.-
Since that time, six of them had become free not
because Of abolition agitation in Congress or by
any action of the General Government but by the
free and untrammeled exercise of the great prin-
ciple Of self government which would always lead
men and States TO do all things best calculated to
promote their own interests. Thus New Hamp-
shire had abolished slavery and Georgia had not
Connecticut abolished it. and South Carolina re-
tanned 1t. Not one Of these States had abolished
slavery because Of the Wilmot Proviso or Ordi-
nance of 49, or Congressional agitation but thew
had abolished 1t because free to upon the prin-
ciple OF sel-government They abol shed such in
stitutans whenever their interests required it. Sla
very was never abolished or prevented by Congress
sional enactment 1t was not prohibited in the
Northwest Territory. 1t was prohibited by law,
bat not IN fact When Illinois formed into a
Territorial Government she established slavery at
once, maintained it. and held it, in utter defiance
Of the Ordinance of 81 So long as Congress said
by law, that slavery should not exist then she did
have it, and The very day that Congress withdrew
a
system OF emancipation They did not abolish il
10: the purpose of getting into the Union for their
very Constitution contained provision for the grad
ual emancipation of the slaves The Territorial
act for Iowa did not prohibit slavery; the peop'e of
iowa were allowed to do as they pleased 1t might
be said that it prohibited because the laws of
Wisconsin, which prohibited slavery, were extern
dcd over Iowa, but power expressly given to
the Territorial Legislature otIowa. to alter amend
or repeal those Wisconsin laws. Some slaves were
FRIED there and held, and he believed the Census
Of 1850 showed that there were few in the State
vet lie said that Oregon might be referred TO as
spot wherein Congressional legislation had pro-
hbted slavery; but he called attention to the fact
that years before the act of Congress the tenpo-
rary Government established by the people, had
prohibited slavery. The act ofCongress was, there
tore, nothing more than prohibiting the people from
doing that which they had long previously declared
they did not want tc do.
The adoption Of that prohibition in the OREGON
bill was, therefore, nothing more than a measure
TO manufacture something to promote the political
ends Of certain party. When California was ac-
quired, every abotonist in the country declared
that unless Congress prohibited slavery there if
would be carried to that State. The result shows |
differently The people, left free themselves nro !
hibted it. So i'll Utah and New Mexico, those |
who favored the principle Of letting the people do |
as they pleased were denounced by the aboltonista
been heard Of those people establishing slavery
lie knew of no territory now owned by the United
States where slavery existed except in this very
territory of Nebraska, where these confederates
declare 1t is prohibited by the Missouri Compro-
mise and where the Ordinance of 81 is in force
There was a preacher in this city from Nebraska.
who, a few days since was before the Committee |
on Territories. member of the Committee asked
il there were any negroes there. He answered
that there were few, held by the indians. He
was then asked. if there were none held by the
white people His reply was that there were some
held by white people, but under very peculiar cir
c,uHstances. lie said that some years ago an abo-
..uoh missionary from Boston, came into that coun-
ny win hS wife to reside; that the country be-
20 NV; "e'p was very scarce and could not To
P.oI-.eo' ""d under these circumstances the mis-
I.l,. went down to Texas paid thousand dol
,Iis ~. Neeso and brought him for his own use
ilus ~ 10y THIS II would appear that pp6er
eou' '1uls''iceS, such as the di0ic,lty, or Oh
tanning help, these abolition r,nt,,, u oo-
will buy and hod slaves Tor tLrir n,lu missionaries
particular pains TOO that no one else .E use taxing
Tie preacher himself, it also turned a,, use them
aves there too. While this might bo owned
row, he did not believe that when the c u'e case n
ettled more closely. when labor could he 10y was c
lavery would exist in that climate dav THI oa
lie stood by the Missouri Compromise as lon su 9