Washington sentinel., 1854-03-10

mon interest in the common property of the
country. We should understand each other
upon this point. We of the south say that the
Missouri compromise act which was passed in
| 1920, restricts our rights as to the country
north of $50 30<. Gentlemen Of the north ad-
init that it is true. Then we say to them that
act is unconstitutional and many statesmen of
the north, eminent for their intellect eminent
for THEN liberality, eminent for their indepen-
dence, announce that it is unconstitutional.
Others say to u.s. ave cannot go so far as to
declare it unconstitutional, but it is our decided
opinion, as Americans, us brethren, acknow-
lodging your rights to be equal to ours, that it
is inexpedient and unjust to impose such lin
| This is exercise of heart and Judgment unin-
| auenced by fanaticism or prejudice, and it be-
comes an honest man. But there is still ano
ther class. who say to US /: at was unconstitu-
tional; it was inexpedent; but in 1920 the
men of your section pledged their faith as
honest men to abide by this compromise, and
whether constitutional or not You ought to
stick to it." Sir, if that compromise Of 1920
had been recognized as compact between the
north and south; if both the north and the
south had honestly and sincerely abided by it
without any concealment or trickery, | would
have surrendered my seat on this floor before
| could consent to violate or annul it.
| We have heard elaborate discussions as to
| the question of plighted faith between the two
sections | have heard the arguments upon
| both sides, and will not discuss it now. be-
cause / could not add to what has been said
upon it. ] will merely say, the speeches which
have been delivered, and especially the speeches
Of the senator from Tennessee and the senator
from Delaware, within the last two or three
| days, would convince any twelve men, taken
from the city OF Boston or New York. that the
south is under no obligation to abide by the
compromise. Now, as plain man, q fair man,
| ask, how could any one stand up and tell
another, whether from the north or from the
south, the east or from the west, that, as the
| representative OF his constituency, the south
had violated an obligation which dishonored
them? Suppose we were conversing upon a
subject in private, would one gentleman, under
| similar circumstances, taunt another with dis.
| honor, and say he had violated his compact,
when he knew he had not? ! am willing to
submit the question to the calm decision, to the
honor of the American people, uninfuenced by
fanaticism or prejudice, and their verdict will
be according TO truth and justice. fear that
those who predict that agitation will follow this
act, desire that it should Although this glo-
| IlOuS COuHtIN VI ouiS udS SeCulCu " tICul wy
freedom of abusing their colleagues, and OF
abusing the Constitution under which this glo,
rious Union was formed, still, under this feel.
ing, they would try to destroy its compromises,
and crush all of us who do not yield.
But, Mr. President, there is another question
connected with this point. My friend from
Tennessee has no idea of the powers which he
displayed to-day in arguing the unconstitu.
tionality and inexpediency of the act establish
ing the Missouri compromise line; but yet he
stands trembling like an aspen leaf for fear an
act of justice, declaration of the truth, should
excite the American people, and disturb the
harmony Of the Union. Have we got to that
period in tie Senate of the United States, when
| we believe that the character of our people is
such that neither truth nor justice can receive
support from them? He who believes that OF
the American people had better haul down
our flag; for if this be true. it floats over a
people who are not worthy of its protection
But have no such fears. The same predic-
tions we're made here in 1850; yet the meas
ures which were then adopted have been ap.
proved by the people with great unanimity.
My friend from Massachusetts, Mr.. EVERETT,
and my friend from Tennessee, Mr.. BELL,
should be aware Of the fact that am advo
eating the principles which were adopted ir
/ low. hC tllC tCIIltOIJ lS lIlt
common property of the Union, and is to be
settled by the people of common country
that there shall be no barriers to the rights O
any portion and when the territory has suffi
cent population to be formed into State, il
shall come into the Union with republican
form Of government, with or without slavery
as its people may decide. Is not this the prin
ciple involved in this bill? Talk it plainly
| Tell it to the people exactly as it is. Concea
nothing in multiplicity of words, and the
people will be satisfied ".
Will any one dare say that the principle Of
the bill is not the American principle; the
principle upon which our whole system OF
government is based-the right of the people
to govern themselves? My colleague Mr.
IooMBsl asked, with great propriety, by what
right but this did our ancestors rebel against
Lord North and his ministry? Our forefathers
rebelled because the English government was
attempting to do things without our consent
which were inconsistent with our rights, and
we contended then that we had the right OF
saying who should make laws to govern us.
Why should we object to the principle now?
The senator from Ohio, Mr.. CHASE the
senator from Massachusetts, Mr. SUMNER, and
the senator from New York, Mr.. SEWARD
object to the application of this principle, be-.
cause, say they, the Missouri compromise
stands in the way, and our plighted faith re-
quires us not to remove it. Why? Because
humanity and philanthrophy demand that this
line shall exist? Is that their reason? If SO.
let me ask how does it extend humanity and
philanthropy? How does it benefit the white
man or the black man? Let us examine this
point for a moment. Here is their doctrine
Let me present it fairly, for wish to be com
pretended in everything that | utter They
say that slavery could be restricted by this gov
ernment in every State OF the Union save the
old thi teen; or, in other words, that the Con.
gress OF the United States had right to prohibit
slavery in all the States coming into the Union
after the formation of The Constitution Now,
why do they want slavery restricted there? Is
It Tor philanthropic purposes? Is it for the
benefit OF the negro? You acknowledge thai,
ne cannot be manumtted in the present state
OF society, with the present state Of feeling in
the existing condition Of the country.
What do they wish to do? Their conduct is
precisely like that of an army besiegng CITY,
and conhning every man within its walls, and
preventing him from pnint, outside ,L.r, T..