Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-03-09
Extracts From the Speech of
HON. GEO E. BADGER, of N. Carolina
. DELIVERED IN THE U. s. SENATE,
On the Nebraska Question.

Tony understanding, il is clear that when
the Missouri compromise line was establish
ed it was intended to apply 10 oil the terri
tory Of the United States. IF we had
had another territory acquired from Spain,
or conquered from Mexico, or ceded by Mex
leo at that time, this line would, of course,
have been extended to it. think it is de-
monstrabe-from the grounds Of dictation
and resistance on the one side, and the 9TH
er from the terms in which this contest is
sued, from the reason of the case, and from
the subsequent Legislation of Congress, for
which no reason under Heaven can be Civ
en-, except that they were carrying out an
established principle--that the principle of
Legislation embodied in the Missouri COM
promise was this: That line in the terrific
ries should be selected, and slavery exclu-
ded on the one side, and impliedly allowed
on the other; and that as we acquired future
territory, we should apply that line. One
modification of this existing power, which
has been one. think, not Of very long dis
covery, is this: That in truth and reality
any exclusion of a power of State either
to admit or exclude slavery imposed by the
Government of the United States must be
vain, idle and imperative, as an act of pow
er.
1t is obvious. as have said, thai the men
Of 1920 thought otherwise. Whether they
intended or supposed that this restriction
would operate poprio vigore, without fur
ther Legislation, as an exercise Of rightful
power in the part Of Congress, binding by
its own proper efficacy; or whether they ex-
pected as each new State within this domain
in which slavery was prohibited should come
into the Union, Fundamental condition."
as it is called, should be annexed to its ad-
mission, and whether they supposed that
that fundamental condition would itself op-
crate so as, in proper sense, to restrict the
power, or would merely impose all obliga-
ton of good faith upon the authorities of the
State, we know not; but, to my understan-
ding, it is plain that they intended the ex-
clusion to apply to this domain, under all po-
litical organizations, and for all time, to be
carried out in one or other of these man.
ners.
Now, Mr.. President, propose to show
that this principle, upon which the legisla-
tion of 1920 was based, :;'as repudiated by
the Legislature of 1850. propose to show
that the application of the Missouri compro-
mise TO State and Territory, was insisted
upon by the Southern members of the Sem
ale, in many, very many, cases; that we
asked nothing, we sought nothing but the
simple recognition of the Missouri com; ro.
mise line, as carried still further out upon
its original principle, and that it was re.
fused us; and the Territorial governments
established in 1850, were constructed in ut
ter disregard of the Missouri compromise
III can succeed in showing that, shall ther
contend that it is unreasonable, that it is idle
it is absurd use the terms in no offensive
sense-for gentlemen to call upon us tc
maintain compromise which has been re.
pudiated and disavowed by themselves.
But before proceeding TO examine thai
Legislation, wish 10 call the attention of the
Senate, for moment, 10 what l consider the
very small respect that was paid to what is
} called The Missouri compromise in less thar
a year after it was enacted. On the 9th o.
March, 1920, this bill was approved, ant
under it Missouri was TO come into the Tn.
ion as State, on an equal footing with ths
original States. Well, sir, her convention
met; they formed constitution; they sent il
here. Nobody disputed that it was a re-
publican constitution, and the Senate passed
| a bill Immediately fo- the admission Of Mis-
souri,, or declaring her admitted into III,
Union, upon an equal footing with the origi
nal States. 1t went down to the House.
What became of it? 1t was rejected by thc
House. Upon what principle was it re,
, jecied?
Now, sir, consider for one moment. We
are told that in the session of lSl9-2o there
was difficulty about the admission of Mis-
souri,, because the representatives of certain
, portions oil the United States wished to die
tate to that State the exclusion of slavery
and finally twas agreed that the State shonlC
be admitted into the Union with the exer
t else of her own power and discretion upol
that ct,provided that slavery should b.
excluded from the rest Of the territorial do
main acquired by the cession from France
That was the bargain. Well, then, does
not follow, beyond all doubt, that if that bar
gain was to carried out, Missouri shoul
have been instantly admitted after the for
nation Of her republican constitution? Bu