Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-03-16
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS.
SPEECH OF HON. A. H. STEVENS,

The House being in the Committee OF the
Whole on the state of the Union,
Mr.. Stephens, of Georgia, said:
l was very anxious day before yesterday,
Mr.. Chairman, when the gentlemen from
Vermont, Mr.. Meacham, and the gentle
man from New York, upon my left, Mr..
Fenton, addressed the House upon the sub
iect Of the Nebraska BILL to make some re-
marks upon the same subject in reply to
them. l desired TO do so at the time, but
the opportunity was not afforded me. And
though have lost some Of the ardos of feel
ing which the occasion then excited, yet l
think it important that their positions should
be answered; and it is for that purpose that
rise to address the committee to-day. I
assure you l shall be as brief as as possible.
The gentleman from Vermont, Mr.
Meacham, if understood the train Of his ar
gument, opposed the Nebrask bill, as pre-
sented to the House, mainly upon the ground
that it declares the eighth section of the act
Of 1920 preparatory to the admission Of
Missouri into the Uuion as a State, inopera-
tive, because it is inconsistent with the prin-
ciples of the acts of 1850, known as the
compromise of that year. This eighth Sec
ton of the act Of 1920 is that clause which,
without any relation to the State Of Missouri,
prohibits slavery forever from all that part
of the territory acquired by the Louisiana
cession outside Of Missouri north of 36 deg.
80 min. north latitude. The argument of
the gentleman consisted of the following
series of assumptions:
First, that that restriction or prohibition
was in the nature Of a compact, or contract,
as he called it.
Secondly, that it had been continuously
adhered to from that time to this.
Thirdly, that the measure now proposed
would be violation OF that compact.
Fourthly, that this breach of good faith
would be attended with disastrous conse-
quenoes to. the peace, quiet, and repose of the
country.
This, Sir, was the outline of his argument
Now propose to take up these positions
and show to the House, if not to the gentle.
man himself, that in every particular they
are untenable.
In the first place, state that that eightl
clause of the act preparatory to the admis
sion of Missouri into the Union, restricting
slavery north of 36 deg. 80 min, never wa
n compact. 1t never had any of the requis
ties or characteristics of a compact. a com
pact between whom? Between the Nortl
and South?
Mr.. Meacham. used the word "con
tract" not compact"
Mr.. Stephens. The gentleman from Yer
mont used the word ''contract," as I said
but others have used the word compact,
and in this connexion they both mean abou
the same thing. But what I was about t
affirm, is, that that "great Missouri com
PROMISE" which Mr.. Clay proposed, an
with which his fame is identified, had moth
ing TO do with this restrictive clause of tn
act of 1920. That compromise Mr.. Clay's
lCaS in the nature Of compact" betwee
the General Government and the State {
Missouri. l am aware that the generi
opinion on this subject is very erroneou
This Mr.. Clay fully explained in 1850. tt
; common idea is, that Mr.. Clay was the authc
of the prohibition of slavery north of 36 de-
t 80 min. But such is not the fact. He di
not even vote for it. That proposition can
from gentleman from Illinois. The con
promise that Mr.. Clay offered was afte
e wards. Its history is this, Tho people
P Missouri under the act of6th Mrach, lS2
| went on and formed State constitutio
= which contained clause authorizing I
= Legislature TO pass law to prevent the il
. migration of free negroes; and when app
cation was made for admission as State If
" the Union, Congress refused the admissic
|, unless that clause should be eXpunged.
f, was then that Mr., Clay brought forward
d measure. Here it is:
u 10 Resolution providing for the admission
" Missouri into the Union certain con,
70 ton.
n Resolred, by the Senate and House of R
ID resentatiueS OF the United Safes of .4Terica
l. Congress assembled, That Missouri shall
ID admitted into the Union on an equal FOOT
b. with the original States, in ell respects VIII
Id ever, upon the fundamental condition Il
the fourth clause of the twenty-sixth sect
of the third article of the constitution, 81
~ mitted on the part of the said State to c.
of gress, shall never be construed to author
h the passage of any law, and that no law 81
= be passed in conformity thereto by which
s. citizen of either of the States in this I'm
shall be excluded from the enjoyment of
on of the privileges and immunities to WI