Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-12-18
POLITICAL MOsAIC-THE sswAsH-
INGTON UNION

On the 10th of January, 1854, the Washing
ton Union denounced those who would give
the compromise of 1850 fair play in Nebraska,
by removing all obstacles to its full, and free,
and untrammelled operation there. 1t de-
nounced those who would repeal, by express
terms, that portion Of the Missouri compromise
which curbs and restrains the compromise Of
1850 while Nebraska remains territory. The
onion also demands precedence for the Mis-
souri, compromise as fixing the territorial con.
dtion of Nebraska, and denounced any at
tempt to repeal that unconstitutional act, in
order to give force and virtue to the Baltimore
platform.
In speaking Of Judge Douglass report, the
Union said
He has arrived at conclusions which seem
to us unassailable. He plants himself reso.
lutely upon the compromise Of 1850 as a final
settlement-not final merely as to the terrific
rles then in dispute, but final as TO all future
legislation for territorial governments. If the
principles Of the compromise, as brought for
ward in the Nebraska bill, are sustained by the
united democratic votes Of senators and repre-
sentatives, all doubt as TO the fnal expulsion
OF the-slavery question from the democratic
organization will be put to rest"
On the 18th Of January 1854, the Union
says:
We are gratihed to witness the earnestness
and promptness with which our democratic
contemporaries are rallying to the support of
the principles proposed to be Incorporated in
the Nebraska bill. As a historical fact, we
may remark, that in 1850, Judge Douglas pro-
posed to adopt the Missouri compromise line.
and 10 extend it to the Pacific; but the organs
which now insist upon the inyiolabilty of that
compromise, denounced his proposition as a
base trucking to slave power. He is now de.
nounced by the same organs as trucking to
the slave power because he does not again
bring forward the Missouri compromise"
Again, in reply to the Albany Atlas's stric-
lures upon the bill, the Union spoke as fol-
lows:
But the reasons for the insertion Of the
clause criticised by the atlas, should be dis
tlnctly stated. The clause is copied literally
from the compromise acts Of 1850, as to Utah
and New Mexico portions of their territory
we're situated north of the Missouri compro-
mise line. Its insertion in those acts was de.
handed as solemn recognition OF the great
principles OF congressional non-ntervention
This principle lay at the foundation Of the
compromise. If it can now be said with cor
rectness that the Nebraska bill proposes to re-
peal the compromise act Of 1850, so might it
have been said with equal correctness as to
the Utah-New Mexico bills II it be true as
maintained by the Atias, that this clause in
the Nebraska bill will be dead letter on the
statute book, so with equal force could il be
SAID that this clause in the Utah and New
Mexico bills was dead letter, and pet the de-
cioTdf'on m this clause ioas essential TO gipe
rttdtfy 70 NE compromise Of ls50--it was the
recognition Of great principle, and as such
acqulesced in by the country as an essential
element to the settlement Of the slavery ques.
ton"
Again, the Union says:
The bill reported by Mr.. Douglas challenges
the support Of every true democrat, By the !