The Union and eastern journal. [volume] (Biddeford [Me.]) 1854-1858, 1856-08-22
VOLUME XlI-NUMBER "a.

h no further excitement, If they could preven,
n it, on the subject Of slavery.
s Mr.. TO0MBS. The Senator does no.
s quote the resolution correctly.
: Mr.. FESSENDEN. Estate the substance
{ Of II, for | was member Of the convention,
, and also member Of the committee that
framed the resolutions. 1 was opposed to
! that part Of the platform which related to
this subject. 1t was presented, originally,
by Southern gentleman in the committee,
and amended by another, q Mr.. Scott, Of
Virginia. remember oil about II. There
is no such principle in that platform as the
Senator from Georgia seems to suppose. II
is a bare assumption. BY saying that Is an
assumption, l do not mean that the gentle
man does not suppose It to be as he states.
Nor do ! believe II was Incorporated into
the democratic platform Of that year. The
democrats merely resolved, that there should
be an end to the agitation Of slavery, and
that the measures Of 1850 werc to be con.
sidered fnality and nothing more. Nei.
ther Of these conventions adopted the prin.
ciplo which the Senator has stated, and /
hold that 1t was never adopted anywhere
until brought forward here in order to af.
ford an excuse for the repeal Of the Missouri
Compromise.
When, Mr.. President, 1t is perfectly man.
iiest that there was no necessity for repeal.
ing that compromise, unless It was designed
and intended that Kansas should be open to
slavery, and when the principle assumed Us
the basis ofthat repeal, had before been repu-
dated, laughed at and dcrided, North and
South, from the time when It was promul.
gated down to the time when II was thus
assumed, may fairly conclude the object
and design Of that bill could have been no
other than to afford an opportunity for the
slave power to get footing in Kansas, and
to place territory, which, up to that time,
had been free by the compromise of 1890,
in such position that slavery might 10 en-
abled to overrun and appropriate It.
This opinion, sir, is strengthened by an.
other fact, which has, I believe, been else.
where adverted to. allude to the geo
graphical boundaries Of Kansas, which nee
cssarily place that territory under the con-
troll Of the slave power. 1t will be recollec-
ted that the FIRST bill reported from the com.
mittec on territories embraced what now
constitute both territories-Kanas and Ne.
braska. That scheme was abandoned, and
new bill introduced, as an amendment, by
which Nebraska was divided. How was It
divided? Equally? Not at all. by any
natural boundary? No; but by the forticth
parallel Of north latitude. Why was this
so done2 Observe, that by the first bill the
Territory organized would abut, in part,
upon the slave State of Missouri and for o
greater distance upon the free State Of Iowa,
and the free Territory of Minnesota. by
the division the north line Of Kansas is made
to fall below the north line of Missouri tho
whole eastern border Of Kansas is exposed
to the border counties Of Missouri, and no
single inch Of II can DO approached from
free Territory. Had the division been equal,
or even natural, or convenient, 1t would
have been less noticeable. But that division
was grossly unequal. Nebraska is far tho
largest. A natural limo would have been
the Platte river, but this would have left
small portion of Kansas adjoining Iowa.
Why, sir, was tho Territory of Kansas plac.
ed in the position in which 1t was left by
that bill? Why not take such natural
boundary line as the Platte rivcr-why, as
subsequent events have proved, except to
enable the people of missouri to master the
Territory, control its elections, and deter
mine its character?
Tho developments afforded by the investi-
CATION of the committee appointed by tho
House of Representatives have shown anoth-
er remarkable fact, namely, that at the very
time when that bill was under discussion
here-at the very time when we were con-
sidering whether the Missouri compromise
should be repealed, societies were formed in
the State Of Missouri to force slavery into
that Territory. This is stated as fact. II
was testified to by members Of the society.
Before single movement had been made in
the East-beiorc any society had been FORM
ed there to aid emigration to Kansas-bc-
fore the bill was passed, that movement was
made in Missouri, which bounded the whole
eastern line Of Kansas from North to South.
DO not all these facts 90 to show what
the design Of the original Kansas bill was
what the design Of the repeal OF tho Missou-
ri compromise wasg When speak OF these
facts which are potent and palpablc, and
stand out as matter Of record and of history,
am l required on all occasions to be silent as
to what it appears to me must have been
the object and manifest intention of that
bill' Is there any rule Of parliamentary
proceeding which demands itof me in any
shape or form. II thcro is, rs l mako q
point ofsubmitting to the rules, shall re-
frain from saying so in future but until I
am decided TO be out Of order shall speak,
ifIspeak at NIL, what really think about
the matter.
Let us como down little further. What
has been the series Of acts which has follow
ed? l have spoken Of the events which
took place at the time Of the passage of the
bill. / do not mean to enumcrate all those
which have since occurred. They have
been spoken of over and over again by gen,
tlcmcn on both sides Of the chamber. Do
We not know that, from the beginning, Kar.