Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-02-01
DAILY NATIONAL ERA.
IN ssnals, M0nday, Janaary 30, 1854


Was that the object for which the eminent
ana venerable Senator from kentucky Mr..
Ciayl came here, and sacrificed even his last
energies upon the altar Of his country? Was
that the object for which Webster, Clay, Cass,
and all the patriots Of that day, struggled 80
long and so stronuously? Was it merely the
application OF temporary expedient, in agree
ing TO stand by past and dead legislation that
the Baltimore platform pledged us to sustain
the Compromise of 1867 Was it the under
standing Of the Wing party, when they adopted
the Compounds Measures Of 1850 as an article
OF political faith, that they were only agreeing
to that which was past and had no reference
to the futurea liz that was their meaning If
that was their object, they palmed off an afro
clous fraud upon the American people. Was
it the meaning DC the Democratic party, when
we pledged ourselves to stand by the Compro-
mise OF 1850, that we spoke only Of the past,
and had no reference to the future? If 80, it
was then fraud When we pledged our
President to stand by the Compromise Meas
ures, did we not understand that we pledged
him as to his fupre action? Was it as to his
past conduct? If it had been in relation to
past conduct only, the pledge would have been
untrue as to very large portion of the Demo-
cratic party. Men went into that Convention
who had been Qnposed to the Compromise
Measures-=1ii wiz abhorred those measures
when they were pending 49, men who never
would have voted afirmakyely on them. But,
inasmuch ~ those measures had been passed,
and the country had aequiesced in them, and it
WAS important to preserve the principle in order
to avoid agitation in the future, these men said,
we waive our past objections, and we will stand
by you, and with you, in carrying cut these
principles in the future.
Such understand to be the meaning Of the
two great parties at Baltimore. Such under.
stand to have been the effect Of their pledges
If they dill not mean this, they meant merely
to adopt resolutions which were never to be
carried out, and which were designed to mis-
lead and deceive the people for the mere pur-
pose Of carrying an election.
hold, taen, that, as to the territory covered
by the Utah and New Mexico bills, there was
an express annulmeut Of tho Missouri Com.
promise and as to all the other unorganized
territories, il was superseded by the principles
of that Legislation, and wo are bound to apply
those principles in the organization Of all new
Territoriet to all which we now own, or which
we may hereafter acquire IL this construc-
| tion be given, it makes that Compromise final
adjustment No other construction can poss-
bly, impArt tinality to it. By any other con-
struction the question is to be Ieopened the
moment you ratify new treaty acquiring an
inch of COUNTRY from Mexico By any other
construction, you reopen the issue every time
| you makea new Territorial Government. But,
sir, if you treat the Compromise Measures of
1850 in the light of great principles, sufficient
to remedy temporary evils, at the same time
| that they prescribe rules Of action applicable
everywhere in all time to come, then You avoid
the agitation forever, if you observe good faith
| to the provisions of these enactments, and the
principles established by them
| Mr.. President, repeat that, so far as the
question Of Slavery is concerned, there is moth
ing in The bill under consideration which does
not carry out the principle Of the Compromise
| Measuresof 1850, by leaving the people to do
as they please, subject only to the provisions Of
the Constitution of the United States If that
principle is wrong, the bill is wrong IL that
principle is right, the bill is right II is unne-
cessary to bubble about phraseology or words j;
it is not the mere words, the mere phraseology,
that our constituents wish to Judge by They
wish to know the legal effect of our lesgisla
ton.
The legal effect of this bill, If it be passed as
reported by the Committee on Territories il
neither to legislate Slavery into these Terrific
RIGS not out Of them, but to leave the people TO
do as they please, under the provisions and
subject to the limitations Of the Constitution Of
the United States. Why should not this prin-
ciple prevail? Why should any man, North
or South, object to iti will especially ad-
dress the argument to my own section Of coun-
try, and ask why should any Northern man
object 10 this principle? If you will review
the history Of the Slavery question in the Uni
ted States, You will see that all the great re-
suits in behalf of free institutions which have
been worked OUT have been accomplished by
the operation Of this principle, and by it alone.
When these States We're colonies of Great
Britain, every one of them was slaveholding
province. When the Constitution Of the Uni
ted States was formed, twelve out Of the thir-
teen we're slaveholding States. Since that time,
six of those States have become free How
has this been effected Was il by virtue Of
abolition agitation in Congress- Was il ia
obedience TO the dictates of the Federal Gov.
ernment! Not Mt all but they have become
free States under tho silent but sure and ire
sistible working OF that great principle Of self.
government which teaches every people to do
that which the interests Of themselves and
their pcstcrity, morally and pecuniarily, may
require.
Under the operation of this principle, New
Hampshire became free while South Carolina
| cOnblHuou " nOlu SlaVes, COnnecblcub nDOllSn-
ed Slavery, while Georgia held on to it; Rhode
Island abandoned the institution, while Mary
land preserved it; New York, New Jersey, and
Pennsylvania, abolished slavery, while Virginia,
North Carolina, and Kentucky, retained it.
Did they do IL at your bidding? Did they do
| il at the dictatin Of the Federal Government
Did they do It ID obedience to any of your VIII.
mot Provisos or Ordinances Of 81? Not nc oil
they did it by virtue of their rights as freemen
under the Constitution Of the United States,
to establish and abolish such institutions as
they thought their own good required.
Let me ask you, where have you succeeded
in excluding Slavery by an act Of Congress
from one inch OF American soil? You may tell
me that You did it in tho Northwest Territory
by the Ordinance of 1887. will show you by
the history Of tho country that you did not nc
complish any such thing. You prohibited
Slavery there by law, but you did not exclude
il in fact. Illinois was part of the Northwest
Territory. With the exception Of a few French