Washington sentinel., 1854-03-02
4oIititaI.
How shall the question be settledi

From what we have observed in relation to
the question now pending before Congress and
the nation, there is reason TO believe 1t IS not
well understood. The motives by which men
are guided in political movements are various,
and thousands neglect to inquire into the merits
of questions upon which they are frequently
called to make decision. Meetings are held
! in different parts Of the country to denounce,
| often in a violent and unreasonable manner,
| the Nebraska bill, and the author OF it; and in
some insla. ces it seems nothing short of in
sanity could afford an excuse for the intemper-
| ate proceedings of some OF these assemblages.
Fanaticism which is a species OF frenzy, must,
at least, moye many of them.
But what is the mighty question at issue?
| Shall the provision of the law OF Congress OF
| 1920 that excludes slavery from all the Lou
siana purchase above $50 30> (except In Mis-
souri) be abrogated? A multitude OF reasons
have been urged by the antl-slavery advocates
OF the day to prove the sacredness OF that CON-
promise and the paramount obligation OF the
government to maintain it inviolate. We be-
lieve they are mostly oue.sided and partial, and
generally the result of strong political bias, or
misiudged religious zeal, and often to be charged
to motives of the basest party malignity.
1t is said that the peaceable acquiescence Of
more than thirty years. in such an amicable
arrangement, imposes an obligation upon all
parties not to disturb it. The south never
| were satisfied Of its justice, and many northern
men, the eabest too, never supposed it con-
stitutional law. 1t is plain principle that,
without statute of limitations in the funda.
| mental CODE any such acquiescence would not
bind those who reluctantly submitted to the en-
actment, and that they they aoould haze ar1gh, at
any time, to require ats repeal, # acarranted By
The letter 0fMe Constitution. Few would deny
this proposition; and it has been too often
acted upon to require illustration. An appeal
is, however, made to the honor Of those who
seem to favor this measure. The opposition
claim tnat an agreement, a sacred compact,
was made in 1920, upon full and excited dis
cussion and consideration of the rights and in
terests Of all parties, and became the settled
law of the land, under which all have quietly
lived, and that none before ever attempted to
annul.
That agreement made definite line between
the north and the south, and their rights on
this subject; and that was the parallel of 36o
30< of north latitude. This was submitted to,
as the only means, at that time, of securing
peace How has it been treated? AS early
as the agitation commenced upon the subject
of the annexation of Texas, an effort was made
lO eHpTdlL the pliuClpiC VI plOuiuitiou upOH luS
laws relating to all territories whether north or
south of that line For years the great theme
of angry debate, in and out Of Congress, was
the provso, the anti-slavery clause. What re-
gard was paid to the sacredness of the Mis-
souri, compact? Only one inference can be
drawn from all that provso manGuvering
that the abolitionists and freesoilers, acting as
unit on this question, as they do now, totally
repudiated any such obligation, and had in
view only one object, regardless Of compro-
mises regardless of all hazards to the Union,
to carry into any new territory the anti-slavery
prohibition. The political history Of those ex
citing years, with the party creeds and corner
stones of faith, laid down in conventions, and
promulgated by public speeches and newspaper
essays, are sufficient proof of this position.
But this is not the only evidence Of their
want of good faith on this subject. When the
treaty with Mexico was concluded, it became
necessary at once to organize several terrific
ries by acts of Congress, and the vexed subject
again arose. This acquisition of new territory
renewed the original question Of State-rights,
and there was to be readjusted and settled
privileges and immunities that all parties we're
entitled to under the Const tuition. What
course was then taken by the freesoil abolition
party? Did they claim the Missouri compro-
be made guide in the settlement? Nothing
of it. They repudiated any such rule, and in
sisted upon the old proviso prohibition, and
then fairly arose the question whether they
should abide by the rule of dividing and sepa-
rating slave territory from free territory by a
definite line, or adopt the constitutional p Incl
pie of nonntervention. The division policy
was that of the Missouri act, and what was
done at the last crisis referred to all know,
though it will not be amiss to explain, in few
words.
Inasmuch as the feesoilers repudiated the
division principle of the Missouri act, the ques-
ton was left open for readjustment. No
honest man can say that they ought to be al
lowed to hold on to the division rule, in one
meridian, and repudiate it in another But the
large acquisition of territory below 36o 3O> was
likely to give the south an advantage in the
formation of States and territories under this
rule, and it therefore appeared TO be their in.
terest to disclaim it, and rely upon their north
ern strength to accomplish their undoubted de-
signs, of securing political ascendency over
the south that could be perpetuated. This de-
termination brought the Union to the verge Of
dissolution. The difficulty was overcome by
the "great compromise of 1850. A detail of
the several laws constituting this compromise,
with the particular reasons given for the enact
ment of each, need not be recounted. The
whole is matter Of history but a few facts
should not be omitted.
In admitting California as State, which is
about equally divided by the line of 360 30>, the
question did not arise, because they presented
their State constitution before any territorial
law had been passed But in organizing the
territories of New Mexico and Utah north of
this line, the fact of adopting the principle of
non.intsvention, by leaving the question Of
slavery entirely to the inhabitants Of those ter
ritories is enough to satisfy an unprejudiced
mind, that Congress had come to the concu- |
sion that such a policy was best, not only in
principle, but was in accordance with the fund
amental law of the Union, that gioes to the peo-
pie the right to gore,n themselves. 1t is also
fact worth noticing, and has often been mem
toned before, that some portion of these ter
ritories, thus organized in 1850, was taken from
this very Louisiana Territory to which the Mis-
souri, prohibition applied.
These acts, with the fugitive slave law, and
the abolition of the slave trade in the District