Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1854-02-22
What is Nebraska q

oughly and accurately informed. we cam
not do so in better terms. than in those Of
the Abolition Address put forth by Senators
Chase, Sumner and Co.
"From the southwestern corner of Mis-.
souri, pursue the parallel. Of 36' 30 North
latitude, wcstwardy across the Arkansas
across the north fork Of Canadian, to the
northeastern angle of Texas; then follow
the northeastern boundary of Texas to the
western limit of New MEXICO then proceed
along that western line to lis northern ter
mnation then again turn .westwarCly, and
follow the northern line of New Mexico to
the crest of the Rocky Mountains; then as
cend northwardly along the crest Of that
mountain range to the line which separates
the United Statss from the British Posses.
sions in North America, on the 19th parallel
of North latitude: then pursue your course
castwarlly along that line to the White
Earth river, which falls into the Missouri
from the North; descend that river to its
confluence with the Missouri; descend the
Missouri, along the western boundary Of
Minnesota, Of Iowa, Of Missouri, to the point
where it ceases to be boundary line, and
enters the State in which it gives its name;
then continue your southwark course along
the western limit of that State to the point
from which you set out, You have now
made the circuit of the proposed Territory
. of Nebraska. You have travcrsrd the vast
distance Of more than three thnnsand miles.
You have traced the outline of an area Of
four hundred aud eighty five thousand square
miles; more than twelve times us great as
that Of Ohio.
This immense region, occupying the very
heart of the North American Continent and
larger, by 80 thousand square miles, than all
the existing Free States excluding CaliIor.
nia-this immense region. well watcred aud
fertile, through which the Middle and North
ern routes from the Atlantic to the Pacific
must pass-lhs immense region, embracing
all the unorganzed territory of the nation,
except the comparatively y insignificant dis
trict of Indian territory north of Red River
and between Arkansas and Texas" is the
subject. matter Of the bill now pending be-
fore Congress;
The position of the South in reference to
this question is seemingly anomalous and
and Inconsistent 1t is said, that the he S-a sAh.-
:. ,,,,,, r.,ll iu-1trrence or The Compro-
mise of 1851, Which She TepndIated. What
are the facts! The North asserted that l'
all Territory acquired from Mexico, the
Mexican law was paramount, and that by
its silent force slavery could neither. enter
nor exist there. They did not, therefore,
hesitate to engraft upon the bills admitting
Utah and New Mexico, a clause of non.ln-
,ervenion on the part Of the Federal Govern
ment, inasmuch as lis action against slavery
was entirely superseded by the Mexican law
This was the treachery of the Compromise,
which made it odious to the South. 1t was
non.intervcntion in theory, but absolute ex.
clusion in fact The principle OF noninter-
vention in slavery, has ever been the claim
and policy of the South. We have asked it
ut the hands not only of this Government,
but of fanatics, aud propagandists every
where. :" Let US alone" is all the South has
ever sought. And when the North held ont
to US truce which fair y enough conceded
the principle but nutlifed its practical effect
and benefit, we Of course repudiated 1t as
hollow and shameless.
But this principle of non.intervcntion,
however valueless to the South in relation to
New Mexico and Utah, is of practical effect
AS regards Nebraska No paramount law
supersedes its practical working there. No
obsolete code fingers there, to be resusclta.
ted against slavery, and the equal rights OF
Sou,herncrs, as citizens aud men. Aud it is
because Of this very thing, that the enemies
of the South are struggling against its applica
tion to Nebraska They were willing enough
to proclaim intervention in New Mexico
and Utah, where, as they asserted, its opera
ton was superseded by Il superior law; but
they scout the idea wherever it is not super
seded. They say to the South, if local laws
exclude yuu, we are content. Ii they DO
not Congress shall.
A word as to the Missouri Compromise.
Is it not the merest Justification to talk of the
South violating it! Why the South in spite
of her opposition to it at its passage, her belief
in its unconstitutionalty, aud the mark oil
inferiorty which it fixed upon her, has never
trenched upon its limits. During the late
crisis she was willing that the line of 37s
30 should be run to the Pacific, and the
Nashville Convention itself put forth this
proposition, as the final law and compact. by
which the question OF the extension oil slave
ry would be forever put at rest The North
refused it. Can she now complain IL heI
last contract for robbery of the South is
found to contain asclause by which former
spoliations are restored?
But the position of the AbolItonists or
this question is not only treacherous, but
makes also the Legislation Of the country
absurdly inconsistent. 1t may well be ask
ed, what is the basis upon which the Gov
ernment gets in reference to slavery Is /
line of latitude, or is it a principle Th'
former is the basis of the Mossouri Compro
mise, the latter that of the Compromise Q
+ 1850. AS the Herald well remarks, b,
these two acts, Congress has in fact assum
ed to say to one portion of the settlers II
the common territory, you may hold slave
to another you shall not Can Arrogance
, or absurdity exceed this2 In 1850 tn
South said, give US the Missouri Compromls
r line to the Pacific. True it shut out slave
' ry from Oregon, the whole of Utah. UPpe
r California, and this very Nebraska But
e will settle forever this vexed question. sh
was then content to take the geographlca
line as the basis of settlement The Nors
said no, we want principle. They dxe
it, and now that it justly and fairly involve
t consequences unfavorable to them, they see
9 to repudiate the principle aud re-establls