Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-02-23

appeared to common observation there was no
mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky.
But suddenly all is changed. Rafting thun-
der breaks from the cloudless armament. Tho
storm bursts forth in fury. Warning winds
rush into conflict.
"Eurus, Notusque ruunt, crcber que procllis
Africus.o
Yes sir "crebcr prociMs Africus south
wind thick with storm. And now we find our
selves in the midst of an agitation, the end and
issue of which no man can foresee.
Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal
of strife and controversy Not we, for we have
introduced no question of territorial slavery into
Congrss-not we who are denounced as agita-
tors and factionsts. No, sir: the quietists and
the fnalsts have become agitators; they who
told us that all agitation was quieted, and that
the resolutions at the political conventions have
put final period to the discussion OF Slavery
This will not escape the observation OF the
country. 1t is slavery that renews the STRIFE
1t is slavery that again wants room. 1t is slave
ry, with its insatiatc demands for more slave
territory and more slave States.
And what does slavery ask for now! Why,
sir, it demands that Il time-honored and sacred
compact shall be rescinded-a compact which
has endured through whole generation-a
compact that has been universally regarded as
inviolable, North and South-a compact, the
constitutionality of which few have doubted,
and by whitehall have consented to abide
1t will not answer to violate such compact
without pretext >Some plausible ground must
be discovered or invented for such an act; and
such grouNl is supposed to be found in the
doctrine which was advanced the other day by
the Senator from Illinois, that the Compromise
act Of 1850 ''saperseded" the prohibition of
slavery North Of 36deg. 80 min, in the act
preparatory for the admission of Missouri. Ay,
sir, sssupercededn is the phrase ''supereeaed
commonly called the Compromise Measures"
It is against this statement, untrue in fact,
and without foundation in history, that the
amendment which have proposed is directed.
Sir, this is IL novel idea. At the time when
these measures were before Congress in 1850,
when the questions involved in them were dis
cussod from day to day, from week to week, and
! from month to month, in this Senate Chamber,
who ever heard that the Missouri prohibition
was to be superseded What man, at what
time, in what speech, ever suggested the idea
that the acts of that year were to effect the Mis-
souri, Compromise. The Senate from Illinois
the other day invoked the authority of Henry
Clay--that departed statesman, in respect to
whom, whatever may be tho differences Of po-
litical opinion, none question that among the
great men of this country he stood proudly en-
inent. Did he in the report made by him as
chairman of the Committee Of Thirteen, or in
any speech in support of the Compromise acts,
or in any conversation in the committee or out
of the committee, ever even hint at this doc
trine of supersedure! Did any supporter or
any opponent of the Compromise acts ever vim
dictate or condemn upon the ground that the
Missouri prohibition wonld be affected by them!
Well, sir, the Compromise acts were passed.
They were denounced North, and they were de-
nounced South. Did any defender of them at
the South ever justify his support of them upon
the ground that the South had obtained through
them the repeal Of the Missouri prohibition =
Did any Director to them at the North ever even
suggest, as ground Of condemnation, that the
prohibition was swept away by them! No, sir
No, man, North or South, during the whole OF
the discussion of those acts here, or in that
other discussion which followed their enactment
throughout the country, ever intimated any such
opinion.
: Now, sir, let us come TO the last session of
Congress A Nebraska bill passed the House,
and came to the Senate, and was reported from
the Committee on Territories by the Senator
, from Illinois. as its chairman Was there any
! provision in it which even squainted towardsthis
notion of repeal by supersedurel Why, sir,
Southern gentlemen opposed it upon the very
ground that it left the Territory under the ope-
ration of the Missouri prohibition The Senator
/ from Illinois made speech in defence of it,
: ground that itsuperceded the Missoari prohibi.
f % of W., ! ,ao4
, ed by anybody on any such ground? Every
Senator knows the contrary. The Senator from
Missouri, (Mr Atkinson now the President o
this body, mode speech upon the bill. in which
he distinctly declared that the Missouri prohibi
, ton was not repealed, and could not be repeal
+ ed.
will send THIS speech to the Secretary, ant
ask him to read the paragraphs marked.
The Secretary read, AS follows;
"a will now state to the Senate the views
} which induced me to oppose tlis proposition il
the early part of the session.
. q had two objections to it. One was, thai
. the Indian title in that Territory had not beer
f extinguished, Or, at least, very small portion
@ of it had been. Another vas the Missouri Com
promise, or, as it is commonly called, the slave
ry restriction, 1t was my opinion at that tint
and am not now very clear on that subjec
, that the law of Congress, when the State 0
Missouri was admitted into the Union, exclud
ing slavery trem the Territory of Louisiana
s north of 3G deg. 90, would be enforced in tina
Territory, unless it was specially roscinded and
whether that law was in accordance with thu
| Constitution of the United States or not, j
= would do its work, and that work would be tt
t preclude Shareholders from going into that Ter
r ritory- But when i came to look into that qucs
| ton, found that there was no prospect, n,
F., hope, Of a repeal of the Missouri Compromise
:, excluding slavery from the Territory. Now
e sir, am free to admit, that at this moment, a
: this hour, and for all times to come, shout,
oppose the organization or the settlement of tina
: Territory unless my constituents, and the con
stituents of the whelc South, of the slave State
t of the Union, could 60 into it upon the SANE
t footing, with equal privileges, carrying tina
1 species of property with them as either people o
= this Union, Yes sir, | acknowledged that thai
l would have governed me- but ] have no hop
s that the restriction will ever he repealed
Y " j have always been of opinion that the frs
great error committed in the political history o
v this country was the Ordinance OF l7s7, render
e ing the Northeast Territory free territory. Tb
next great error was the Missouri Compromise
Dub bhey are DOM lfremeulaDle- lnprc is III
u remedy for them. We must submit to them. -
g | am prepared to do it. 1t is evident that tn
Missouri Compromise can not be repealed. S
d tar as that question is concerned we might a
. well agree to the admission of this Territor
d now, as next year, or five or ten years hence.
; Congressional G'o0e, Second Session, Thirty
# second Congress, rOi. 26, page II 10.
e MIR. Chase--Ihat sir, is the speech of tn
d Senator from Missouri, whose authority, I think
'e must go for something on this question. VIVA
d does he say "When came to look into tina
e question ct the possible repeal of the Mis-
if souri, prohib'tion-that was the question he wa
10 looking into | found that there was no nros
pect, no hope, of aropeal of the Missouri Com
promise excluding slavery from that Territory.
# And yet, sir, at that very moment, according t
y this new doctrine of the Senator from Illinois
n it had been repealed three yearsi