Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-01
WASHINGTON, d. C.
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY /, 1854.
THE DEBATE ON THE NEBRASKA BILL THE
ARGUMENT.

IdE UG0ATE ON IhE uEbhAonh BILL AxAI
ARGUMENT.
The argument Of Judge Douglas is now be-
fore our readers II consists of two portions,
in the first OF which he aims to show that the
Missouri Compromises in relation to Slavery
was superseded by the principles Of the legisla-
ton Of $50, commonly called the Compromise,
and is imperative; and in the second, endeay-
ors to reconcile Northern People, especially
the Democratic Party, to this view Of the ques-
ton.
II is almost impossible to reduce the first
part Of his argument to q concise, logical form
in its simplest terms, however, it stands thus:
The original policy Of the Government was,
not to limit Slavery but to draw geographi-
cal line between slave territory and free, Thus,
the territory northwest Of the river Ohio was
exempted from Slavery, which was recognised
in territory south Of that river. This policy
was continued when, TO settle the controversy
that arose on the application Of Missouri for
admission as State, the line Of SO deg. 80
min. was adopted as boundary between Sla-
very and Freedom; and it was again carried
out when Texas was annexed the principle of
the Missouri Compromise being applied to the
territory Of that State
In 1s4S, territory was acquired from Mexico,
and the attempt was made to subject it to the
same geographical division, but it was opposed.
In the controversy that followed, repeated mo-
tions to divide the territory between Freedom
and Slavery by the line Of SO deg. 80 min. fail
ed the policy Of a geographical line was aban-
doned and new policy adopted--that OF Con-
gressional non-intervcntion. 1t was agreed that
tue Territories should be organized without any
restriction as to Slavery the disposition Of
which was to be left to the inhabitants thereof
with the provision that States thereafter formed
out Of them should be admitted into the Union
with or without Slavery, az their Constitutions
might prescribe.
Thus, concludes MIR. Douglas, the policy o
geographical line being abandoned and thai
OF Non intervention adopted, the Missouri Com
promise Of 1920 was superseded by the princi
pies Of tho legislation of 1850.
But ut this point his argument fails: link
is wanting 10 connect his statement or prem
SEES with his conclusion Admit that the poll
cy Of the Government from 1887 to 1850, had
been to divide the territory Of the United States
according to geographical line, between
Freedom and Slavery, but that in 1880 th
policy was abandoned in relation to New Mex
loo and Utah, and that Of Non Intervention sub
stituted, il does not follow that it was eithe
the intent or effect of this change to revers,
former legislation in relation to other territory
The adoption Of new principle in regard t.
acquisitions from Mexico, in 1850, could not q
itself supcrsede an old policy, settled by posi-
tive Law, in relation TO acquisitions from France
In 1870.
The conclusion Of MIR. Douglas is shee
assumption, unsustained by his premises
But, the statement containing his Premises i
not true The original policy Of the Govern
ment was, The Limitation Of Slavery with view
TO its ultimate extinction by tho States IN,
NOT geographical diuision betoeen siape terri
tory and free. History sustains this PROPOSE
ton, and rcfutes that of Mr. Douglas 1t tell
us that Public Sentiment in the Colonies wher
they embarked in the war Of independence, wa
against Slavery; that after the Declaration o
Independence, State after State, by Judicial de
cision or Legislative enactment, recognised tn.
policy Of Emancipation that in the last Con
grss Of the Confederation, sitting at the SAND
time tho Convention that formed our present
Consultation was in session, the famous Ord
nance Of 1887 was passed, excluding Slavery
forever from the Territory Northwest Of thu
Ohio river--ths only territory then belonging Il
The United States ! that this aot was dictated
not by any purpose to draw line between
slave territory and free, but by the policy thcr
dictated by public sentiment Of limiting Sia
psry; that in the Convention that formed th,
present Constitution, Slavery was uniformly
treated as an exceptional and transient system
TO be tolerated as necessary evil, for the time
while every provision in relation to il was 8.
framed as to avoid mentioning its name, OF
recognising its fundamental principle, 80 thai
IL might at any time be abolished in the State.
without the slightest change being required in
the Federal Constitution /; that the delegates
from Virginia aud Maryland were the moul
strenuous against the insertion Of any provision
that might encourage tho perpstuation or ex
tension Of the evil that an amendment having
been proposed which seemed TO involve the REQ
IGNITION Of the idea that man could hold man
AZ property, il was modified so as to exclude
this idea, At the suggestion Of Mr.. Madison
who insisted that the Constitution they wer,
forming ought not to contain any implication
that man could be property; that the aboli
ton Of the slave trade in those days was re
garded a. involving the abolition Of Slavery
and that the clause comforting power in Con
grem 70 prohibit the slave trade in 1908, wa
adopted with view TO facilitate and hastcr
tho extinction Of Slavery.
These are facts, standing out prominently OF
the page Of our history, and no one can deny
them without incurring the imputati0n Of igno