Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-11-01
History of the Nebraska Bill.

Some Ot our public men are beginning to
contend for the honor of having been from
the start in favor OF the Nebraska Bill The
Washington Onion alluding to an article in
the Evening Post, says,-
IL is not true that either Senator Douglas, or
Cass, or President Pierce, was ever opposed to
the repeal Of the Missouri restriction. These
Statesmen were the early. the earnest, and the
consistent advocates OF the principle of Con-
gressional nOn-intervention in the Territories,
and of necessity We're opposed TO the reeognl-
ton by act Of Congress of the Missouri restric-
ton, which was in direct conflict with that
principle The only question that presented
itself to Senator Douglas. rs chairman to the
Committee ON Territories, was whether the
Nebraska bill should be drawn in the language
Of the Compromise of 1850, and be literal
copy Of the New Mexico and Utah bills, so far
As the slavery question was concerned. and
therefore be repeal Of the Missouri restriction
By necessary implication. o: whether. in addi-
ton to the language of the Compromise Of 1850,
there should be clause expressly repeating the
Missouri restriction.
That the Missouri restriction was to be re
pealed was a fOregOne conclusion, and the only
debatable matter was whether it should be done
by implication or by express repeating IAN
guage. The first impression of Senator Doug
las was to adhere strictly to the language oil the
Compromise Of 1850 in preparing the Neofaskd
| bill The great object was to carry Out ''ie
| principle of nOn-interyentiOn, aud tneIepy 70
establish permanent and efficient rule iot the
settlement Of all sectional questions. me piih-
c;nle If non Intervention was palpabiy neon
sistent with the Missouri restriction, ana upon
every sound legal principle It's application 10
the Nebraska Territory would necessarily
abroOate and repeal the Missouri line. The
popular Judgment had been pronounced by an
Overwhelming majority in favor OF the non
Intervention principle in the election of Presi-
dent Pierce, and as that principle in the Com
promise of 1850 was not accompanied by any
express repeal Of the Mexican law, which
was understood to prohibit slavery in New
Mexico and Utah, so Senator Douglas deemed
it most prudent not TO accompany the non-inter-
vention principle in the Nebraska bill with an
express repeal Of the Missouri act of 1850
which prohibited slavery in Nebraska
Whether the Compromise act of 1850 repealed
the Mexican law or not was left by the com
promise To judicial decision. 30 Senstol
Douglas proposed to leave the question whethe
the adoption of the non-interventiOn Principl
in Nebraska was repeal OF the Missouri re
striction 10 judicial decision. although he wa
fully satisfied that IL did operate n repeal
and in that opinion President Pierce and Gen
Cass fully coHeurred. But inasmuch as it wa
known that the abolitioniSts were eager for an.
new pref xt for agitation, and as it was appaT
ent that the proposition for an express repeal d
the Missouri restriction would be seized upc
bv them az a violation Of the Compromise G
1850, as we'll aS Of that Of 1890. both of whic
compromises. however. they had uniformly OF
pOsed,) and be made the grounds OF renewe
sectional excitement. Senator Douglas deter
mined, in drawing the Nebraska bill, To avon
IL. II.
the language of the Compromise of 1850.
After the bill was introduced the abolitio
: leaders in Congress denounced il with yiolenC
as n violation of the Missouri compact; more
over, doubts were suggested by southern me
as to whether the repeal of the Missouri Con
promise was so clear IA to satisfy slaye-Ownel
that they might settle in the Territory and ris
n judicial decision rs 10 their property Wit
, safety. On the other hand, it was suggeste
by northern men that there was no doubt abo,
the repeal Ofthe Missouri Compromise; but the
was doubt whether the legal effects there'
5 was not to revive the Louisiana law of 1903, b
which Nebraska was slave territory. To r
move all room for doubt, and 10 free the que
e ton of non intervention in Nebraska from a
I controversy, Senator Do1glas himself brougl
forward the amendments which placed the hi
= in the shape in which it passed
I lt is due To the truth of history to state, ais
q that the amendments were seen and approve
By President Pierce and General Cass befo
they were offered in the Senate 10y Senat
4 Douglas. These three gentlemen We're q
4, earnest and consistent advocates of the N
= braska bin, from its inception TO its final pa
u sage, and We are entirely certain that its leg
4 effect in the shape in which it passed is iden
cally that which they attributed TO il in &
shape in which Mr.. Douglas first introduced
: We go farther, and affirm, with entire confiden
in our ability to maintain the assertion, III
the bill as it finally passed does not differ int
slightest degree in principle from the compT
= mise Of 1850.