Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-01


that climate, with its productions it is worse
than folly TO think Of It's being slavehoding
country do not believe there is Q man in
Congress who thinks it could be permanently
q slayeholding country. have no idea that 1t
could. All ] have to say on that subject is,
that, when you create them into u Territory,
you thereby acknowledge that they ought to
be considered q distinct political organization.
And when You give them in addition Legisla-
ture, you thereby confess that they are compe-
tent to exercise the powers of legislation. If
they wish Slavery, they have a right to it. II
they do not want it, they will not have it, and
you should not force it upon them.
do not like, never did like, the system of
Legislation on our part, by which q geographi-
cal line, in violation Of the laws Of nature and
climate, and SOIL and Of the laws Of Tod, should
be run to establish institutions for q people;
yet, out Of q regard Tor the peace and quiet OF
the country, out of respect for past pledges, and
out of desire to adhere faithfully to all COM
promises, sustained the Missouri Compromise
80 long as it was in force, and advocated its
extension to the Pacific Ocean. Now, when
that has been abandoned, when it has been su-
perseded, when great principle of self govern
ment has been substituted for it, choose to
cling to that principle, and abide in good faith,
not only by the letter, but by the spirit Of the
last Compromise.
Sir, | do not recognise the right Of the Abo-
litionists of this country to arraign for being
false to sacred pledges, as they have done in
their proclamation. Let them show when and
where ! have ever proposed to violate COM
pact. have proved that | stood by the com
pact of 1920 and l845 and proposed its con-
tinuance and observance in 1913. | have
Gil ~ al:
were the guilty parties who violated that Com
promise then. should like to compare notes
with these Abolition confederates about adhe-
renee to Compromises When did they stand
by or approve Of any one that was ever made
Did not every Aboltionist and Free Soiler in
America denounce the Missouri Compromise in
1920? Did they not for years hunt down raw
enously, for his blood, every man who assisted
in making that Compromise Did they not,
in 1845, when Texas was annexed, denounce
all OF us who won't for the annexation of Texas,
and for the continuation of the Missouri Com
promise line through it Did they not, in ls4S,
dcnounce me as . Slavery propagandist, for
standing by the principles Of the Missouri
Compromise, and proposing to continue the
Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific ocean?
Did they not themselves violate and rcpudiate
it then ? Il not tho charge Of bad faith true
as to every Abolitionist in America, instead Of
being true as to me and the committee, and
those who advocate this bill?
They talk about the bill being violation of
the Compromise Measures of 1880 Who can
show me man, in either House Of Congress,
who was in favor Of the Compromise Measures
of 1850, and who is not now in favor of leaving
the people Of Nebraska and Kanzas to do as
they please upon the subject Of Slavery, accord
ing TO the provisions Of my bill! Is there one
If 80, have not heard Of him. This tornado
has been raised by Abolitonists, and Adolf
tionists alone. They have made an impression
upon the public mind, in the way in which
have mentioned by Justification of the law
and the facts; and this whole organization
against the Compromise Measures Of 1850 il
an Abolition movement. presume they had
some hope of getting few tender-footed DEM
ocrats into their plot and, acting on what they
supposed they might do, they sent forth pub
Iicly to the world the falsehood that their nd
dress was signed by the Senators and a major
ity Of the Representatives from the State Of
Ohio; but when VIC come to examine sigma
lures, we find no one Wing there, no one DEM
ocrat there: none but pure, unmitigated una
dulterated Abolitionists
Much effect, know, has been produced by
this circular, coming as it does with the impo-
sing title Of representation of q majority Of
the Ohio delegation. What was the reason
for its effect? Because the manner in which
it was sent forth implied that all the Wing
members from that State had joined in
it !; that part OF the Democrats had signed it :;
and then that the two Abolitionists had signed
it. and that made majority of the delegation.
By this means it frightened the Wing party
and the Democracy in the State OF Ohio, be-
cause they supposed their own representatives
and friends had gone into the negro movement
when the fact turns out to be that it was not
signed by single Wing or Democratic mem,
Der from Ohio.
Now, ask the friends and opponents Of this
measure to look ut it a. it is. Is not the ques-
ton involved the simple one, whether the peo-
pie Of tho Territories shall be allowed TO do ae
they please upon the question Of Slavery, sub
ject only to the limitations Of the Constitution
That is oil the bill provides; and it does 10 in
clear, explicit and nnequivocal terms know
there are some men, Wings and Democrats,
who, not willing to repudiate the Baltimore
platform OF their own party, would be willing
to vote for this principle, provided they could
do 40 in such equivocal terms that they could
deny that it means what il was intended "a
mean in certain localities [ do not wish to
deal in any eqnivocal language. re the princi-
pie is right, let it be avowed and maintained
If it is wrong, let it DO repudiated. Let all
this quibbling about tho Missouri Compromise
about the territory acquired from Franco,
about the act of 1920, be cast behind you; for
the simple question il, will you allow the peo.
pie to legislate for themselves upon the subject
Of Slavery? Why should you not?
When you propose to give them Territorial
Government, do you not acknowledge that they
ought to be erected into n political organize
ton; and when you give them Legislature,
do you not acknowledge that they are capable
Of self government? Having made that ac
Encouragement, why should you not allow them
to exercise the rights Of legislation Oh, these
Abolitionists, say they, are entirely willing to
concede all this, with one exception. They say
they are willing to trust the Territorial Legs
laturc, under tho limitations of the Constitu.
tion, to legislate upon the rights of inheritance,
to lcgslate in regard to religion, education,
and morals, to lcgislate in regard to the rela-
tons Of husband and wife, Of parent and