Washington sentinel., 1854-02-25
THE rranAsKA BILL.

| braska bill which is now pending before the
two houses Of Congress. But the passage of
that bill is matter Of vital Importance, be-
cause it is absolutely necessary to insure peace
and tranquility in the future, by returning, un-
der the guidance of the non-intervention prin-
ciple of 1850, to the true reading of the Con-
stitution.
The subject being one Of such grave import
ance, whilst the facts with regard to it reach
back SO far and stretch over such long pc
riod, that daily journal cannot present the
whole argument, set forth the truth of history,
refute bad reasoning, and correct misstatements,
at once. Hence we do not feel that we will
weary our readers by touching on the promi-
nent points of the Nebraska discussion, all
though we may repeat what we have already
| said.
The Nebraska bill proposes the repeal of the
9Th clause of the Missouri compromise of 1920,
as it is called, on the ground that it is incon-
sistent with the principle of congressional non
Intervention adopted in 1850 by Congress, and
sanctioned by the national conventions of the
two great parties Of the country in 1852. But
whenever we have spoken, and when we speak
now, of the Missouri compromise of 1920 in
connexion with the Nebraska bill, we mean of
course the 9th section Of the act approved
March 6, 1920, preparatory to the admission
of Missouri into the Union; for that is the
| only clause of that act which any one contends
has any practical existence now, and the only
one which the Nebraska bill undertakes to
repeal
We feel double interest in the Nebraska
bill. We feel an interest in it as patriots who
earnestly wish to see the practice of the govern
ment conform to the true principles Of the Con-
stitution; and we feel an interest in it because
| we advocated from the beginning the insertion
of clause in the Nebraska bill repeating the
eighth section of the Missouri compromise.
| Such clause has been inserted, and we will
labor increasingly, and use every honorable
means to sustain that clause; for it is the clause
on which every abolition and freesoil attack
have concentrated their forces
| We have already said, in former articles, that
there was no compromise in 1920; that the en-
actment which is now set up as sacred stipu-
lation was trampled under foot in less than a
twelve months after it passed the two houses
of Congress; and we have<exposed the asser
| tions that Mr. Clay was the author of that pre-
tended compromise, and that it was southern
measure. We will recapitulate briefly our re-
marks on these points.
There was no compromise in 1920, because
there were no parties which could enter into a
compromise. It was proposed to pass law
which would empower the Territory of Missouri
to form State constitution and enter the con-
federacy. When that proposition came before
the House of Representatives in 1920, anti
slavery fanaticism insisted that slavery should
be prohibited in the State to be admitted. The
whole south opposed the restriction. Mr..
Clay, then speaker of the House, made speech
Of four hours against it. But yet it is now
| pretended that Mr.. Clay and the south were
in favor Of that restriction. The pretension is
q false pretence. The entire south desired that
! Missouri should be admitted without trammel
and without restriction. And is it not prepos-
ferrous, and absurd to the uttermost degree to
/ believe that the south could have occupied any
other position? The south did not occupy
any other position. This is historical fact;
but, nevertheless, the restriction was imposed
by the House of Representatives in 1920.
II was, however, removed in the Senate, but
another feature was engrafted on the House
bill, on the motion of senator from Illinois,
which required that slavery should be forever
prohibited north of 36o 30I north latitude. This
feature was also distasteful to southern sena-
tors, but not so distasteful as the restriction on
the State of Missouri. By a strong vote of
| northern senator's it was fixed in the bill !; and
| then the southern senators had no other alter
| native but to defeat the admission of Missouri
| untrammelled, or sustain the bill as amended.
| But when the vote on the bill was taken, the
| northern senators who had voted for the re-
striction on the Territories, voted against the
adoption of the bill. Does not this show, even
to men who have lost their memory, where that
restriction came from?
But the restriction was finally adopted by
southern votes, they say. Does that prove any
thing2 Does it prove anything touching the
present controversy, which the foes of the Ne
braska bill can avail themselves of? We hum
bly, think not The southern senators and
representatives submitted to what they could
not avoid; they submitted to what they had
battled most manfully against, and aided in
perfecting bill on which most obnoxious
feature had been engrafted by the anti-slavery'
sentiment That is all; and, being youthful,
we wond ask our venerable friends Of the
National Iatelligencer if they can make more
of it than that?
Bear in mind that during all this time there
was no party to make contract. But when
Missouri came forward to demand admis-
sion, she did all she could do to make q
compact. She framed a constitution in obe-