The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1854-04-15

made by the senator from Connecticut Mr..
SMrnl and the senators from Ohio NJ.
CHASE snd Mr.. WADE and the senator from
Massachusetts, Mr.. SUMNER. Each Of these
senator's made aud repeated this statement,
and upon the strength Of this erroneous as
scrtion called upon us to carry into effect Il Q
eighth sec ofthc same act The material fa
upon which their arguments rested being
ovcrthrown, of course their conc. usions are
erroneous and deceptive.
Mr.. SEWARD. hope the Senator will
yield for moment, because have never had
so much respect for him as have tonight
Mr.. DOUGLAS. ] see what course hsvo
to pursue in order to command the Senator'S
respect. know now how to get l..
Laughtor.]
Mr.. SEWARD. Any man who meets me
boldly commands my respect. l say that
Missouri would not have been admitted 1t
all into the Union by the United States OK.
ccpt upon the COM rOmisc of 1920. When
that point was settled about the restriction Of
slavery, it was settled in this way: that she
should come in with slavery, and that all tho
rest of the Louisiana purchase, which is now
known as Nebraska, should be forever free
from slavery. Missouri adopted u constitu.
ton, which was thought by the northern
States to infringe upon the right Of citizen
ship guaranteed by the Constitution OF the
United States, which was a new point alto
gcthcr and upon that point debate was held,
and upon il q new compromise was mad /,
and Missouri came into the Union upon tho
agreement that, in regard to that question,
she submitted to the Constitution Cf tho
United States, and SO she was admitted into
the Union
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, | must
remind the senator again that have already
proven that hc was IN error III stating that
the north objected to the admission Of Mis-
! souri, merely on account Of the frcc-ncgro
clause in her constitution. | have proven by
| the vote that the north objected to her al
mission because she tolerated slavery; this
objection was sustained by the north by
vote of nearly two to one He cannot shelter
| himself, therefore, under the free-negro
dodge, so long as there is distinct vote OF
! the north objcctng to her admission be-
cause, in addition to complying with the act
of 1920, she did not also prohibit slavery,
/ which was the only consideration that the
/ south was TO have for agreeing to the prohi-
/ biti,n of slavery in the Territories. Then,
| having deprived the senator, by conclusive
evidence from the records, Of that prctext,
| what do drive him to! | compel him to
/ acknowledge that new compromise was
| made.
! Mr.. SEWARD. Certainly there was.
! Mr. DOUGLAS. Then, | ask, why WAS
/ il madcy Because the north would not carry
out the first one. And the best evidence
| that the north did not carry out the first one
! is the senator's admission that the south was
| compelled to submit to new one. Then, if
| there was new compromise made, did Mis-
souri, come in under the new one or the Old
one
Mr.. SEW ARD. Under both.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. This is the first time, in
this debate, it has been intimatcd that Mis-
souri, came in under two acts of Congress.
The senator did not allude to the resolution
of 1921 in his speech; none ct the oppo-
ncnts OF this bill have said it. But it is now
admitted that she did not come into the Union
under the act Of 1920 alone. She had been
voted out under the first compromise, and
this vote compelled her to make a new one.
and she came in under the new one; and act
the senator from New York, in his speech,
declared to the world that she came in Und:r
the first one. This is not an iminatcrial
question His whole speech rests upon that
msapprehcnsion or misstatemcnt of the rec
ord.
Mr.. SEWARD. You had better say mis-
apprehension.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Very well. We will
call it by that name His whole argument
depends upon that misapprchcnsion. Af,cr
stating that the act of 1890 was u compact,
and that the north performed its part Of il in
good faith, he arraigns the friends of this
4 A., In
OF the act Of 1920 without first turning Mis-
souri, out of the Union, in order that slavery
nav he abolished therein by the act Of Con-
grcss He says to us, in substance: "Gen.
tlenen, if you are going to rcscind the com
pact, have respect for that great law Of NOR
ais, of honesty, and of conscience, which
compcls you first to surrender the consdsra'
ton which you have received under tho
r compact" concur with him in regard to
the obligation to restore the consideration
when contract is rescinded. And mas
. much as the prohibition in the Territories
: north Of 3Ge so was obtained, according to
| his own statement, by an agreement to ad-
nit Mo. as n slaveholling State on m equal
footing with the original States, "in all re-
! spccts whatsoever as specified in tho first
section of the act Of 1870; and, inasmuch
as Missouri was refused admission under said
!, act, and was compelled to submit to new
, compromise in 1921, and was then received
, into the Union on a fundamental condition o
, inequality, call on him and his abolition
confcdcratcs to restore the consideration
which they have received, in the shape si
! prohbitio, of slavery north Of 36s 80, un
, dera compromise which they repudiated, anc
, refused to carry into effect. call on then
, to correct the erroneous statement in rcspec
a To the admission of Missouri, and TO make I
restitution of the consideration by voting fol
, this bill. repeat, that this is not an imma
tcra statement, II is the point upon which
=, the aboitionists rest their whole argument
/ They could not get up q show OF prctcN
, against the great principle ofsclf- lf-governmcn
= involved in this hill, il they could not rcpca
4 all the time, as the senator from New lorl
i did in his speech, that Missouri camo int
the Union with slavery, in conformity to TN
compact which was made by the act
, 1920, and that the south, having receives
" :. the consideration, is now trying to chest tn
i. north out of her part Of the benefits hav
'. proven that, aftsr abolitionisln had gained II
', point so far as the eighth section of the &C
u prohibited slavery in the Territory, Missoul
1t was denied admission by northern votes unit
} she entered into compact by..which she wa
understood to surrender an important rgf
: now exercised by several States Of til
!, Union. .-,
h Mr. President, did not wish to refer
,s these things | did not understand them fu
/, " in all their bearings at the time male m
!. frs, speech on this subject; and, so far an
N was familiar with them, made AZ little re
/ ercncc to them as was consistent with m
,s duty because it was mortiiyins refcct'o
l. to me, as northern man, that we had M
10 been able, in consequence of the abolitio
,r excitement at the time, to avoid the appeal
N ance of had faith in the observance Of legi
pc laton, which has been dcnominated q con
~ promise There were n few men then,
io there are now, who had the moral courage
~ per form their duty to the country and II
n. Constitution, regardless of consequences pc
10 sonal to themselves. There were ten nortl
-. crn men who dared to perform their duty b
N voting to admit Missouri into the Union Q
-.