Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-03
WASHINGTON, D. C.
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1884.
THE NEBRASKA BnL-THE ARGUMENT.


THE NEBRASKA BnL-THE ARGUMENT.
Having exposed the fallacies of the argu-
ment of Mr. Douglas, let US state briefly the
considerations which demonstrate the falsity
Of tho assumption that the Missouri Compro-
mise was superseded by the principles OF the
legislation Of 1850.
The question Of the validity of the Missouri
Compromise was not before Congress in 1850.
II was not argued or even intimated that the
Compromise Acts Of 1850 were in conflict with
il, or could in any respect disturb it. II alln-
sion were made to it at ALL it was a. to fixed
fact an unalterable law, which nobody pro-
posed to repeal. In none Of the resolutions Of
Conventions subsequently, held to sustain these
aots in none Of the resolutions Of State and
National Conventions making adhesion to them
Q test Of political orthodoxy, was the idea
preached Of conflict between them and tho
Compromise of 1920. Had the Union men Of
the South dreamed that that Compromise was
superseded, and the vast Territory Of Nebras.
ka opened to Slavery by the legislation Of
1850, with what exaltation they would have
referred to this result as an abundant justifca~
ton Of their policy against the assaults of those
ing basely betrayed the interests of the South
But, such thought never found utterance in
the South. Had the enemies OF the legislation
Of 1850, in the North, conceived the bare
possibility of such a result would they have
been silent!
What considerations prevailed with those
Northern men who waived the Wilmot Proviso
policy in 1850 The belief that the Mexican
Lave, the local laws Of the Territories Of Utah
and New Mexico, not having been abrogated
by their oession to the United States would
continue TO work the exclusion Of Slavery; the
assurance that the climate and soil of those re-
gions would forever discourage the growth of
Slavery; and the fact that by the proposed
arrangement the whole Of California would
come in as free State, and Slavery be thereby
shut out from the Pacific coast By these con-
alterations alone, were the People of the
North brought even to acquiesce in the legis-
iation. They acquiesced, because, although
the policy of positive enactment by Congress
against the extension Of Slavery was waived,
they were led to believe that this object was as
efectually secured in another way. But,
weighty as these considerations were regarded
bymany, and powerfully urged as they were by
such mon as Henry Clay and Daniel Webster,
the majority of the House, which was in favor of
the Wilmot Proviso was ut last overcome, only
by . Parliamentary stratsgem. The Speaker Of
that body was an adroit tactcian, committed
to the Compromise Measures. He and the
Southern leaders in favor of the Compromise
knew that, on direct vote, the Proviso would
be sustained that were the Bill to organize
Territorial Government for New Mexico to
como mp on its own merits, either it would be
defeated, or the Proviso would be attached to
it; that profound anxiety was felt in all Sec
tons Of the country for the settlement Of the
Texas Boundary; and that to prevent an
alarming collision on this point between the
Federal Government and sovereign State,
members from the North could be induced to
concede much.
The Texas Boundary Bill was therefore first
to il, rs An amendment, and then, for fear Of
losing all, enough Northern men were found
to vote for the twin bill, without the pro-
viso TO secure it's passage.
Now, suppose the declaration had been made
by the South, that the acts Congress was about
70 pass, involved the abrogation of Compro-
mise which had secured TO the North for thirty
three years, Territory large enough TO con-
stitute dozen States could they have CON-
manded the n sent Of that Anti Slavery ma
jority in Congress, majority which would
have stood invincible, but for the belief Of
some that the great object they were aiming
at--the limitation Of Slavery-would be ac-
complished, even though the Wilmot Proviso
was waived, and the dread entertained by
others Of q dangerous collision between the
Federal and State Governments
Why, when the bill for organising Nebras-
Ia, which passed the House at its last session,
and was laid npon the table in the Senate, for
want Of time to act upon il, was mot this won
derfuI discovery, Of the annulment Of the Mis-
sous Compromise announced How happens
u, WHOM Mr. Atchison declared in his speech
upon the bill in the Senate, that the Missouri
Compromise was in force, that 1t was useless
70 think that It could ever be repealed, and
that the Territory Of Nebraska would conse-
queDtly be free from SIavery--that Mr.. Doug
Les did not correct him, by informing him that
the Compromises had been superseded by the
principles Of the Legislation Of is5Oi Why;
when Mr.. Douglas introduced his first bill, on
the 4th Of January, did he not make this
announcement in his Reporta Why, on the
contrary, did he assume that tho Territory Of
Nebraska sustained relations to Slavery, like
those sustained 10 is4s by New Mexico and
Utah that as there was division Of opinion
then, as to whether the Mexican Laws prohib-
ting Slavery wore in force, 50 there was divi-
SION OF opinion now. whether the Miasour;