The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-02-09

Slavery having been already prohibited there
and no man proposing to establish it, what Wa
the necessity for insulting the people of Oregon
by saying in your law that they should not d
that which they had unanimously said they di'
not wish to doc That was the only effect o
your legislation, 80 far as the Territory Of Ore
gon was concerned.
How was it in regard to California; Ever,
one of the Abolition confederates, who hsv
thus arraigned me and the Committee on Ter
ri5ories, before the country, have misrepresent
ed our position, and misquoted the law and til,
fact, predicated that unless Congress nterposet
by law, and prohibited Slavery In California
it would inevitably become slayeholdinf
State. Congress did not interfere Congress
did not prohibit Slavery. There was no en-
actment upon the subject; but the people
formed State Constitution, and then prohib
tied Slavery.
Mr.. WELLER The vote was unanimous
in the Convention of California for prohibition
Mr.. DOUGLAS. So it was in regard t.
Utah and New Mexico. In 1850, we who re-
sisted any attempt to force institutions upon
the people of those Territories inconsistent with
their wishes and their right to decide for them
selves, were denounced as Slavery prOpagand.
lists. Every one of US who was in favor Of the
Compromise Measures of 1850 was arraigned
for having advocated a principle proposing to
introduce Slavery into those Territories, and
the people were told and made to believe, that
unless We prohibited it by act of Congress
Slavery would necessarily and inevitably be
introduced into these Territories.
Well, sir, we did establish the Territorial
Governments of Utah and New Mexico with
out any prohibition. We gave to these Adolf
tionists a full opportunity of proving whether
their predictions were true or false. Years
have rolled round, and the result is before us.
The people there have not passed any law rec
ognising, or establishing, or introducing or pro-
tecting, Slavery in the Territories
| know of but one Territory of the United
States where Slavery does exist, and that one
is where you have prohibited it by law; and it
of the 9Th section of the act of 1920, in defiance
Of Congressional dictation, there have been, not
many, but few slaves introduced. | heard a
minister of the Gospel the other day conversing
with member of the Committee ON Terrific
ries upon this subject. This preacher was from
that country, and member put this question
to him: "Have you any negroes out there?"
He said there were few held by the Indians.
| asked him if there were not some held by
white men? He said there were a few under
peculiar circumstances, and he gave an in
stance An Abolition missionary, q very good
man, had gone there from Boston, and he took
his wife with him.
He got out into the country, but could not
get any help; hence he, being kind hearted
man, went down to Missouri, and gave 81 900
for negro and took him up there as help"
Laughter. So, under peculiar circumstances,
when these Free Soil and Abolition preachers
and missionaries go into the country, they can
buy a negro for their own use, but they do not
like to allow any one else to do the same thing
Renewed laughter. suppose the fact of the
matter is simply this: there the people can get
no servants-no "help," as they are called in
the section of country where was bOrn-and
from the necessity of the case, they must do the
best they can, and for this reason few slaves
have been taken there. | have no doubt that
whether you organize the Territory of Nebras-
ka or not, this will continue for some time to
come. Ii certainly does exist, and it will in
crease as long as the Missouri Compromise
applies to the Territory; and suppose it will
continue for a little while during their terrific
rial condition. whether prohibition is imposed
d. not. But when settlers rush in-when la
Dor becomes plenty, and therefore cheap, in
that climate, with its productions, it is worse
han folly to think of its being sIaveholding
country. do not believe there is mar in
Congress who thinks it could be permanently
D slaveholding country. | have no idea that it
could. All have to say on that subject is,
that, when you create them into Territory,
you thereby acknowledge that they ought to
be considered q distinct political organization.
And when you give them in addition Lagsla-
ture, you thereby confess that they are compe-
tent to exercise the powers of legislation. If
they wish Slavery, they have right to it, If
they do not want it, they will not have it, and
you should not force it upon them.
do not like never did like the system of
legislation on our part by which a geographi-
;al line in violation Of the laws of nature and
climate and soil, and of the laws of God, should
De run to establish institutions for people;
Jet, out of a regard for the psaes aad quiet Of
he country, out ofrsspsst for past pledges rsnd
'ut of desire = al1aG fin lfuiiy g all CON-
tromlses sustained Bic ..sas ena q ..loy
30 long as it was in force and advocated its
extension to the Pacific Ocean. Now, when
that has been abandoned, when it has been su-
perseded, when great principle of self govern
ment has been substituted for it, | choose to
cling to that principle and abide in good faith,
not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the
last Compromise.
Sir, do not recognise the right of the Abo-
itionists of this country to arraign me for being
false to sacred pledges, as they have done in
their proclamation. Let them show when and
where | have ever proposed to violate COM
pact. | have proved that stood by the COM
pact of 1920 and l845, and proposed its con-
tinuance and observance in 184S. | have
proved that the Free-Soilers and Abolitionists
were the guilty parties who violated that Com
promise then. | should like to compare notes
with these Abolition confederates about adhe-
renee to Compromises. When did they stand
by or approve Of any one that was ever made!
Did rot every Aboltionist and Free Soiler in
America denounce the Missouri Compromise in
1920. Did they not for years hunt down raw
enously, for his blood, every man who assisted
in making that Com promise! Did they not
in 1845, when Texas was annexed, denounce
all of Us who went for the annexation of Texas
and for the continuation of the Missouri Com
promise line through it Did they not, in 1913,
dcnounce me as a Slavery propagandist for
standing by tho principles of the Missouri
and proposing to continue the
Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific ocean.
Did they not themselves violate and repudiate
it then Is not the charge of bad faith true
as to every Abolitionist in America, instead of
being true a. to me and the committee and
those who advocate this bill
They talk about the bill being violation of
the Compromise Measures of 1850. Who can
show me o man, in either House of Congress,
who was in favor of the Compromise Measures
of 1850, and who is not now in favor Of leaving
the people of Nebraska and Kanzas to do as
they please upon the subject of Slavery, accord
ing to the provisions of my bille Is there one
If so, have not heard of him. This tornado
has been raised by Abolitionists, and Adolf
tionsts alone. They have made an impression
upon the public mind, in the way in which
have mentioned, by Justification of the law
and the facts; and this whole organization
against the Compromise Measures of 1850 is