Washington sentinel., 1854-01-31

municipal regulations of Missouri could not go
there untn the Indian title had been extinguished
and the countrythrown open 10 settlement. Such
being the case, the only Legislation in existence in
Nebraska Territory at the time that The Missouri
act passed, namely, the 9th OF March, 1920, was
a provision, IN effect that the people should be
aiiowed 10 do as they pleased upon the subject OF
slavery.
The Territory of Missouri having been left in
that legal condition, positive opposition made
10 the bill 10 organize State government, with q
view TO IFS admission into the Union; and sena-
tor from my State, Mr.. Jesse b. Thomas, intro
duced an amendment, known the eighth section
OF the bill, in which il was provided that slavery
should be prohibited. north OF 800 30 north lati-
| tude, in all that country which we had acquired
! from France. What was the object of the enact
ment of that eighth sectiont Was il not to go
back 10 the original policy Of prescribing boundaries
10 the Limitation of free institutions, and OF slave
institutions, by geographical line, in order 10
| AVOID all controversy in Congress upon the sub
Ject! Hence they extended that geographical
line through all the territory purchased from
France, which was as far our possessions then
reached. Ii was not simply TO settle the question
on that piece OF country, but il was To carry out
great principle, by extending that dividing line
as tar west our territory went, aud running il
onward each acquisition OF territory.
True, the express enactment of the eighth section
of the Missouri act, now called the Missouri
promise act, only covered the territory acquired
from France but the principles OF the act, the
objects OF its adoption The reasons in lis support,
required that it should be extended indefinitely
westward, so far our territory might go, when
ever new purchases should be made
Thus stood the question up To 1Si5, when the
Joint resolution for the annexation of Texas passed
There inserted III that provision, suggested
in the first instance and brought before the House
of Representatives by myself, extending the Mis-
souri, compromise line indefinitely westward
through the territory OF Texas. Why did bring
forward that propostiona Why did the Congress
Of the United States adopt it? Not because il
was fthe least practical Importance so far as the
question of slavery within the limits of Texas
was concerned; for no man ever dreamed that il
had any practical effect there. Then why was il
brought forwardt II was for the purpose Of pre-
serving the principle, i'll order that il might be
extended still further westward even 10 the Pa
cifc ocean, whenever we should acquire the
country that far. will here read that clause in
the Joint resolution for the annexation Of Texas.
II is the third article, second section, and is in
these words:
"New States, of convenient size exceeding four IN
number in addition to said State of Texas having
formed out Of the territory thereof which shall be entitled
TO admission under the provisions of the federal Consu
ton And such states as may be formed out q that por
north latitude, commonly known the Missouri
promise line shall be admitted into the Union with
without slavery the people of each State asking as
sion may desire And in such State States
formed out Of said territory north Of said Missouri
promise line, slavery involuntary seryitude Except
| crme) thA be prohibited"
II will be seen that that contains very re-
markabe provision, which is, that when State.
lying north of 36o 30 apply for admission, slavery
| shall be prohibited in their constit utons | IRE.
sumo no one pretends that Congress could have
power thus to fetter State applying for admis-
sion into this Union; but ii was necessary TO pre-
serve the principle of the Missouri compromise
line, in order that IL might afterwards be extended
and il supposed that while Congress had no
power 10 impose any such limitation, yet, as
that compact with the State of Texas,
that Stale could consent for herself that, when
any portion of her own territory, subject TO her
own jurisdiction and control, applied for con-
stiiution, il should be in particular form but
thai provision would not be binding the new
State one day after it was admitted into the
Union The other provision was that such States
as should lie south of 800 3U should come into
| the Union with or without slavery AS each
should decide in its constitution. Then by that
act, the Missouri compromise was extended in
definitely westward SO far as the State OF Texas
went that is, 10 the Rio del Norte; for our Govern
ment al the time recognised the Rio del Norte as
its boundary. We recognised, in many ways.
and among them by even paying Texas for il, IN
order that IL might be included in and form por-
ton of the Territory of New Mexico.
Then, sir, in lS4S, we acquired from Mexico
the country between the Rio Del Norte and the
Pacific ocean. Immediately after that acquisition,
the Senate, on my own motion, voted into bill a
provision to extend the Missouri compromise in
definitely westward TO the Pacific ocean, in the
same sense and with the same understanding
with which il was originally adopted That pro-
vision passed this body BY decided majority, ]
| think by ten at least, and went 10 the House OF
Representatives, and was defeated there by north
ern votes.
| Now, sir, let us pause and consider for mo-
ment. The first time that the principles Of the
| Missouri compromise were ever abandoned, the
tl..x AL
was by the defeat Of that provision in the House
Of Representatives in 1913. BY whom was that
defeat efected2 BY northern votes with freesoil
proclivities. II was the defeat OF that Missouri
compromise that reopened the slavery agitation
with all its fury. II was the defeat Of that
Missouri compromise that created the tremendous
struggle OF 1850. 1t was the defeat of that Mis-
souri, compromise that created the necessity for
making new compromise in 1850 Had we been
faithful to the principles Of the Missouri compro.
mise in lS4s this question would not have arisen.
Who was it that was faithless? undertake TO
say il was the very men who now insist that the
Missouri compromise was solemn compact
and should never be violated or departed from.
Every man who is now assaing the prin-
cple Of the bill under consideration, so far as
am advised, was opposed 10 the Missouri compro-
mise IN lSiS. The very men who now arraign
me for departure from the Missouri compromise
are the men who successfully violated it, repudi-
ated IT, and caused IL to be superseded by the COM
promise measures OF 1850. Sir, il is with rather
bad grace that The men who proved false them
selves should charge upon me and others, who
were ever aithful, The responsibilities and conse-
quences Of their own treachery.
Then, sir, as before remarked, the defeat of
the Missouri compromise in 1913 having created
the necessity for the establishment Of new one
in 1850, lei us see what that compromise was
The leading feature OF the compromise OF 1850
was congressional non-intervention as TO slavery
in the Territories; that the people of the Terrific
ries, and Of all the States, TO be allowed to
do as they pleased upon the subject of slavery,
subject only 10 the provisions of the Constitution
OF the United States.
That, sir was the leading feature Of the compro-
mise measures of 1850. Those measures, there
fore, abandoned the idea Of geographical line as
the boundary between free States and slave States;
abandoned il because compelled 10 do il from an
inability 10 maintain il; and in lien Of that, substi-
tuted great principle Of selfgoyernment, which
would allow the peopls TO do as they thought pro-
per. Now the question is, when that new com,
promise, resting upon that great fundamental
principle OF freedom, was established was il not
an abandonment of the old one-the geographical
lincf Was il not supersedure of the old one