Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1854-02-18
SPEECH OF MIR. DOUGLAS.
ON THE NEBRASKA BILL AND THE
MISSOURI COMPROMISE.


MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
CONCLUDED.
Now, sir, propose 10 go little further and
show what was the real meaning of the amend
mont Of the Senator from Virginia, ont of which
these gentlemen have manufactured so much
capital in the newspaper press, and hive succeed
ed by that misrepresentation in producing AN ex-
preston of opinion from the State Of Rhode Is
land in opposition :, this bill will state what
its meaning is. Did it mean that the States north
of36 deg. 30 min. should have clause in their
constitution prohibiting slavery have shown
that il did not mean TINT, because the same act
says that they might come in with slavery ii they
saw proper. | say il could not mean that, for
another reason. The same section containing
that proviso cut off all TINT part of Texas north
of 36 deg 30 min; aud hence there was nothing
for it to operate upon. II did not therefore, re
late to the country cut off. What did it relate
to Why il meant simply this BY the ointre-
solution Of 1915 Texas was annexed with the
right TO form four additional States out of her ter
ritory; and such States as were south of 80 deg.
30 min. were to come in, with or without slavery,
they proper and in such state or States
ms were north of thai line slavery should be pro-
hbitcd. When we had cut of all north Of 80 deg.
30 min, and thus circumsoribed the boundary
and diminished the territory of T,xus, the qncs-
ton arose, now many States viii Texas be ent-
tied to under this eireumserhed boundary Ger
tainly not four, il will he argued. Why : Be
cause the original teeoluton of annexation pro-
yded that one OF the Suites. fnot more, should
be north of SO deg 80 min. II would lcayo il
then doubtful whether Iexus was entitled 60 two
or three additional States under the circums crib
ed boundary. In order Ia put TINT matter 10 rest,
IN order 20 make iinul settlement in order to
have ii explicitly understood whit was the mcan-
ing of Congress, the Senator from Virginia oticr-
ed the amendment that nothing therein contained
should impair thai provision, either as TO the
number of States or otherwise--tbut il, that Tex
as should he entitled To the same number of
States with reduced boundaries MS She would
have been entitled 10 under her larger boundaries;
and those States shall come IN with or without
slavery, being all south of 81 deg. 30 min, and
nothing to impair that right shul be inferred from
the passage of the net. Such. sir, was The mean
ing of that proposition. Any other construction
of il would ultify the very character and pur-
pose OF its mover, the Senator from Virginia.
Such, then, was not only the intent of the mover,
but such is the legal effect OF the law; aud say
that no man, after reading the other sections Of
the bill-thosc to which | have reicwcd-cm
doubt that such was both the intent and the legal
effect of the law.
Then, submit to the Senate if | haycno con
! ucted this manifesto, issued by the abolition
! confedcratos, of being gross Justification of the
laws of the land, aud by that tnlsi6ation that AN
erroneous and injurious impression has been
created upon the public mind. am sorry to be
| compelled to indulge IN language of this severity;
! but there is no other language that is adequate
to express the indignation with which | see this
attempt, not only to nslead the public, but to
malign my character, by deliberate Justification
| of the public statutes and the public records.
Sir this misrepresentation and Justification
does not stop here. In order To give greater
! plauslbIty to their statements, they go further
| and state that ut Is solemnly declared in the
| very compromise act that nothing herein contain.
ed shall be construed to impair or qadiify the
prohibition of slavery north Of &c deg. 80 min.
and yet in the face of this dec aration that sncrc,
prohibition is said 10 be overthrow. Can pre-
sumption go furtherln
In the very the teeth of the statute saying that
they should come in, with or without slavery, Us
they pleased, these ren declare that it is stated
that il should be forever prohibited. repeat to
them "could presumption go further p Not on
ly presumption in making these statements, but
the presumption that they could avoid the expo
sure of their conduct.
In order to give greater plausibiity to this fall
sfcation of the terms of the Compromise meas
ures of 1850 the contederates also declared in
their manifesto that they tho territorial bills for
organization of L tab and New Mexico) "applied
to the territory acquired from Mexico, and 10 that
only. They were intended as n settlement of the
controversy growing cut of that acquisition, and
fall by their own merits"
submit to the Senate if there is an intelligent
man III America that does not know that the de-
claraton is falsiied by the statute from which
they quote! They say that the provisions OF
that bill were confined TO the territory acquired
from Mexico, when the very section of the law
from which they quoted that proviso, did purch
ase a part of that very territory from the State
of Texas; and the next section of the law inclu-
ded that territory in the territory of Mexico
1t took a small portion also of the old Louisiana
purchase, and added that to the new territory OF
Mexico and made up the rest out of the Mexican
acquisitions. Then, sir, your statutes, show
when applied 10 the map of the country, that
the Territory of New Mexico was composed o.
territory acquired from Mexico, and also of ter
ritory acquired from Texas, and of territory ac
quired from France; aud yet in defiance of tina
statute, and in Justification of its terms we ar,
told, in order TO deceive the people that the bills
were confined to the purchase made from AIex
co alone; and in order TO give it greater solem
nifty, necessary while uttering false
hood, they repeat il twice, fearing that it woul,
not be believed the first time. What is now tn,
| Territory Of Utah was not confined to the conn