Washington sentinel., 1854-02-28
THE NEBRASKA BILL.

The arguments in favor Of the Nebraska bill
are SO strong that none but abolitionists have
had the hardihood to face them. But yet there
are others besides the abolitionists who resist
the Nebraska bill, although they dare not meet
the real issue involved face to face. These
men seek to carry on guerilla warfare. They
avoid the open field and avail themselves Of
every ditch and dixie and hedge SO as to wage
an unmanly contest. n
There is no need to expose the Missouri re-
striction Of 1920. It would require but a few
words to expose its nconstitutionality but
even those few words would be thrown away
and the paper on which we might trace them
would be disfgured. The real Thoroughbred
abolitionists are the only people with whom we
could make an issue on that point, and there is
no inducement which should entice sane and
sensible men to reason with fanatics and mad
men before the face Of the country.
But there are men who shrink from the de-
fence of the Missouri compromise as an origi-
nal proposition who dare not give their
sanction to any construction of the Consttu-
ton, which would authorize Congress to make
such restrictionyet who oppose the propo-
sition to repeal that restriction, and assail
those who urge the repeal. In our humble
judgment this is q strange course for patriotic
men to pursue. 1t has been pursued, however,
and our duty is to expose it.
No friend of the Nebraska bill feels any
..I..:4,,5o 80 ~ tho oo,rso &c tha +ha ohol;f;oy
lists; because the ,abolitionists and freesoilers
will oppose the bill as matter of course. In
deed, it could not be otherwise. But there
are those who pretend to oppose abolition and
freesoil opinions who join most heartily in the
freesoil and abolition war on the Nebraska bill,
and on those who sustain the Nebraska bill.
These men undertake to excuse their con-
duct by the most subtle pretext They say that
the Missouri compromise was most sacred
engagements that men whose names are en-
balmed in the hearts of the people carried it
through that it was acquiesced in for thirty
years; and that it would be sacrilege almost
to disturb it now. The answer to these asser-
tions is plain and positive The Missouri COM
promise was unconstitutional. The most prom
inent of those whose names have been coupled
with that compromise bad nothing to do with
it. 1t was never acquiesced in for one year
but was secuted and repudiated by the very men
who made it, within twelve months of the time
when they made it. The object which was in.
tended to be produced by it was not accom-
plished until new arrangement was made and
entered into in 1921, by virtue Of which the
State of Missouri was admitted into the Union
But of all the foes of the Nebraska bill, we
count those to be the worst who assail the bill
with the charge that it has tendency to re
new the slavery agitation. We do not know
that our vocabulary is particularly scant, ye,
we cannot find in it words to express our full
appreciation of this miserable plea. Shall
wrong be done for fear that bad men may wage
war against right? Is that the idea? Shall
the right be abandoned, beause bad men vii
clamor against it2 Is that the idea? But
who are they that raise the clamor against the
Nebraska bill? They are the abolitionists anc
freesoilers. Let them stretch their lungs tt
the uttermost, and they cannot defeat the Ne
braska BILL They cannot do more than get VI
few violent thinly attended meetings, com
posed principally Of strong-minded women ant
weak-minded men. That is about all. Blu
others who are not abolitionists or freesoiler
oppose the Nebraska bill, because it will pro
duce agitation. These~people are blind; for i
they we're not blind, they would see that tn,
Nebraska bill was present practical thing al
ready presented to the American Congress
and they would see that they are aiding in pro
ducing the very evil that they pretend to depre
cate.
If the Nebraska bill is Of such a characte
as to produce agitation, it seems to us that M
one who will pause and consider can now op