Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-05-17

make a restitution Of the consideration By voting
for this bill. repeat, that this is not an ipms-
terial statement. 1t is the point upon which the
abolitioRists rest their whole argument They
could not get up show Of pretext against Tho
great principle Of self-goveTnmeDt involved IN
this bill, If they could not repeat all The lime,
as the senator from New York did in his speech,
that Missouri came into the Union with alayeEy.
in conformity to the compact which was made By
the act Of 1920, and that the sonth, having re-
ceiVed the consideration, 10 now trying TO cheat
the north out Of her part Of the benefits. hase
proven that, after abolitionism adgafned its
point far as the eighth section Of the act pro-
hbited slaveryin the Territory, Missouri was de-
MED admission by northern votes until she eD-
tered into compact by which she was understood
TO surrender an important right now exercised
by several States of the Union. J4.al =
! Mr.. President, did not wish to refer to these
things. did not understand them folly in all
their bearings at the time l made my frst speech
on this subject; and so far as was familiar with
them, / made as little reference to them as wa&
consistent with my duty; because it was morti-
flying reflection 10 me, as a northern man, that we
had not been able, in consequence of the aboli-
ton excitement at the time, to avoid the appear
ance of bad faith in the observance Of Legislation,
which has been denominated compromise
There were few men then, as there are now,
WIZ Hau TIE tnOTal COuEdRe w pttloItu InSH uuty
to their country and the ConstitHtioB, regardless
ofconsequences personal to themselves. There
were ten northern men who dared to perform
their duty BY voting to admit Missouri into the
Union Oil an equal footing with the original
States and with other restriction than that i'm
posed by the Constitution. / am aware thatfhey
twere branded as NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. to freedom
and to the section of country whence they came.
! Mr.. GEYER. They honored Mr.. Lanman, OF
Connecticut, by burning him in efhgy. -
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir; these Abolitionists
honored Mr. Lanman in Connecticut just as they
are honoring me in Boston, and other, places, by
burning me in ef6gy. t.
Mr.. CAss. 1t will DO you no harm. gf
Mr. DOUGLAS. Well, sir, know it willinot!
but why this burning in eGgy! II is the legiti.
mate consequence OF the address which was sent
forth to the word by certain senators whomI de-
nominated, on former occasion as the Abolition
confederates. The Senator from Ohio present.
ed here the other day resoution--he says unin.
tentionally, and l take it so-declaring that eve
ry Senator who advocated this bill was traitor
to his country. TO humanity, and to God; and even
he seemed to be shocked at the results of his own
advice when it was exposed. Yet he did not
seem to know how it was, in substance, what he
had advised in his address, over his own sigma
ture, when he called upon the people to assemble
in public meetings, and thunder forth their indig-
nation at the criminal betrayal Of precious rights;
when he appealed to ministers of the gospel to
desecrate their holy calling, and attempted to in-
flame passions, and fanatc!sm, and prejudice
against senators who would not consider them
selves very highly complimented by. being called
his equals! And yet, when the natural conse-
quences of his own action and advice come back
upon him, and he presents them h re, and is call.
ed to an account for the indecency of the act, hs
| AInk
anything should have occurred which could pos.
sby be deemed unkind or disrespectful to any
member of this body! 81 85ti .E.E.t +! a3s
Mr. SUMNER. | rise. merely to correct the
Senator in statement in regard to myself, to the
effect that had said that Missouri came into the
Union under the act of 1920, instead of the act
Of 1921. | forbore to designate any particular
act under which Missouri came into the Union,
but simply asserted, as the result of thelong con.
troversy with regard to her admission, and as the
end Of the whole transaction, that she was re-
ceived as slave state; and that on being so re-
ceived, whether, sooner or later, whether under
the act of 1920 or 1891, the obligations of the
compact we're fxed-irrevocabIy fxed--so far as
as the South is concerned % ' a5' "r~
NJ DOUGLAS. The senator's explanation does
not help him at all. He says. he did not state
under what act Missouri came in; but he did say
as understood him, that the act of 1920 was a
compact; and that, according to that compact,
! Missouri was to come ia with slavery, provided
slavery should be prohibited in certain terrific
res, and did come in in pursuance of the compact.
He now used the word compact" To what
compact does he ailude! Is it not to the act Of
1920! If he did not what becomes of his con-
cusion that the eighth section of that act is ire
peaable! He will not venture to deny that his
} reference was to the act Of 1920. Did he refer
tr tho oin oI,,t;nn ~ uyh; Mio.
; souri, was admitted Ifso,we do not propose to
repeal it. We admit that it was compact, and
that its obligations are irreyocably fixed. But
) that joint resolution does not prohibit slavery in
the Territories. The Nebraska bill does not pro.
pose to repeal it, or impair in obligation in any
; way. Then, sir why not take back your correc.
ton, and admit that you did mean the act of 1926
: when you spoke of irrevocable obligations and
2 compacts! Assuming, then, that the Senator
(, meant what he is now unwilling either to admit
!, or deny, even while protesting to correct me,
t that Missouri came in under the act of 1890,
: aver that have proven that she did not come
e into the Union under that act. l have proven
: that she was refused admission under that alleg.
: ed compact. have therefore, proven incontes-
tibly that the material statement upon which
: his argument rests is wholly without foundation,
and unequvocally contradicted by the record.
t Sir, believe / may say the same of every
S speech which has been made against the billupon
the ground that it impaired the obligation Of COM
e pacts. There has not been an argument against
2 the measure, every word of which, in regard to
} the faith of compacts, is not contradicted by tho
: public records. What complain of is this: the
people may think thata Senator. having the laws
I and Journals before him, to which he could re-
fer, would not make statement in contravention
of those records. They make the people believe
these thinus and case them to do great niIlstic0
to others, under the delusion that they have been
! wronged aud their feelings outraged Sir, this
: Address did for a time mslead the whole country
} 1t made the legislature of New York believe that
: the act of 1920 was compact which it would be
disrracefuI to yiolate and noting under that de.