Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-08-27

49, Aafe8af09 SnG queStlQno i slavery =.
Support thu Old comf<0a1ises to which the nth g
All sections Of the cQuatyy was pledged. II he nag
Sbecnin the presidential chair when the kanses.Ns
Sbraska bill WAS passed, he would have vetoed lit
And, gentlemen, why do the Republicans Oppose
hmP Simply because he is an honest man.
[Cheers
Fillmore is censured because hc signed the fdgi.
tive slave law but he could not do otherwise cleo
ted, as he was, by the Wings whose principles arc
opposed to the exercise Of the veto power He ex,
amined the law fully. He may not have considered
it the best law that could have been made but it
was his duty, as President and Whig to consider
whether il was constitutional or not. He referred
it to tho Attorney General, John j. Crittenden, to
see If it was CONSTITUTIONAL and he declared that II
was constitutional, and proved it in very able and
clear report 1t was then referred to the Cabinet,
and they unanimously decided it to be constitution.
al Now, ask the Republican party what Miiard
Fillmore could have done but sign the bill--advsed
by his Cabinet to do soits constitutionality having
been proved2 say, if he had not signed it, he
would have deserved impeachment. loud cheers.l
This is the only objection the Republican party dare
to bring forward against Fillmore. The man who
was born among us, who is bone Of our bone, and
from the very oins OF free labor, shall we give
him up for Fremont? Shall we make Fremont the
standard.bearer of freedom? Voices. No, no.
black Republicans Then groans were given for
FIR, mont
If either gets into power, the Missouri restriction
will, in my opinion, be restored 1t cannot be other
and tell US the consequences. Some OF MIR. Fill
morc's friends-the gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Dunn for instance-say it shall be restored, and re-
fuse to vote dollar to carry on the Government un-
til the refractory Senate and President yield their
consent Others OF his friends desire its restoration
but seeing possibility of bringing the Senate to
terms, opposed to agitatng it during this Con-
gress. The southern friends Of Mr. Fillmore, who
stand this platform, admit that the Missouri conf
promise was unjust and unconstitutional, and ought
to have been enacted, but seerl to object to
the repeal because it "reopcncd sectional agitation"
Does it to such, that the possible
mode which they could adopt to keep up and per.
petuate that sectional agitation is to dcnouncc the
Kansas and Nebraska bill great wrong, and yet
refuse to aid in its repeal? Can they expect the
agitation ever to so long as they continue to
occupy that position? \ bad law may inti!ct on
the country less injury than long and angry agita
ton for its repeal and if the Kansas and Nebraska
bill were as bad as they represent it, they can never
be justified in contributing to keep alive the strife
which prevails in the country. But it is not Il bad
law. 1t was great measure of justice and right
1t was but the long deferred payment of great debt
due to the Constitution Of the country.
What the Kansas and Nebraska bill, that it
should be thus denounced? The Missouri rcstric-
ton had always been regarded, by many able states
men of both sections, a violation Of the Constitu-
ton The South had felt it as an odous badge of
her nterority in the Union, and stigma upon her
domestic institutions. Those at the North the whole
OF whose political principles consisted of a malig
nant warfare upon the southern section, had never
regarded it in practice had repudated and spat up
on it from the day of its adoption, down to 1850,
and had never valued it except as a singing re-
proach to the South, to be perpctuaed in the stat
ute book only for the qualification of sectional
Lightly. 4 large and patriotic party at the North,
Qhe Democratic partyD though believing it to have
been unconstitutional and ujusyet, with the South,
labored for its enforcement whilst it the Stat
ute. hook nd n IFS tn
acquisitions from Mexico. They (he whole South
and the Democratic party of the North) failed in
their efforts, and it was repeatedly rejected and re-
pudated OH direct votes in Congress. Even the
Nashville convention, which denounced as
reasonable conspiracy against the Union, demand
ed nothing but the application ofs principles to the
new Territories
Thus stood the Missouri compromise at the COM
mcncement of the memorable session Of Congress of
1850. The friends of the Union and the Constitu-
ton wished a settlement the principles Of that
compromise; thoenemies of the Constitution, and
contemners of constitutional union Of equal States
refused to accede to such a settlement.
During the session Of 1850, the compromise meas
ures were passed Many in the South opposed that
settlement the allegation that their section was
called to yield everything, and to receive SUBJ
stantial concession. The whole South, as all re-
member, was agitated on the subject. The present
leaders of the Know Nothing party, standing now
a platform denouncing the repeal of the Missou-
RI compromise, tnat mat substantial con-
ceSsiOn to our section One OF my predecessors
this floor, having opposed the compromise of 1850,
was denounced for it at home on that ground, by
leading members of the present Know Nothing par
ty Of the district.
At the next presidential election, in 1852, both
the great parties of the country agreed to make the
compromise of 1850 " a finaity." At that election
General Pierce was chosen President, and came into
office under distinct pledge to regard the compro.
mise of 1850 as Ct finaty." and to carry out its
provisions. During his term, in 1854, it became
cessary establish territorial governments in Kan
sas and Nebraska. In the bill providing those gov.
ernments it was declared, in section thirty two, as
follows:
THAT the Constitution, and all the laws of the
United States which arc not locally inapplicable
shall have the same force and effect within the said
Territory of Kansas elsewhere within the United
States except the eighth section of the prepar-
atory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,
approved March 6, 1920, which, being inconsistent
with the principle OF non-nervcntion by Congress
with slavery in the States and Territories recog
Missed by the legislation of 1860, commonly called
the compromise measures, is hereby declared mop
eratiyc and void.
! TWAS not the Kansas and Nebraska bill that re-
pealed the Missouri COMPROMISE; it was repealed by
| the compromise of $780, and the Kansas and Ne.
braska bill simply declared the fact that it had been
repealed, and excepted it out Of the clause of the
bill extending the constitution and laws of the Uni.
ted States over the Territories. Congress could
| not have extended the Missouri compromise over
these Territories, consistently with the pledges all
parties had given to abide by the compromise of
1860. The Kansas and Nebraska bill may have as
serted fasehood when it declared the Missouri
compromise inconsistent with the legislation Of
1850. But it is not competent for the present Know
Nothing leaders 20 say so, for they told the same
thing in $780, and in 1854 they advocated the bill
| which their present platform denounces. sore than