Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-01-28


Mr. CARLILE. win say to the gentleman,
that when that question is presented for the action
or this House, j apprehend that the gentleman
from Louisiana and myself will be found side by
side, acting together.
But there is another principle of this Nebraska
bill las expounded by the administration, and
that is that South Carolina STAKEHOLDER shall be
selected for Governor OF the Territory of Nebras-
ka--a Territory in which one ever dreamed
that slavery could exist while on the other hand
Pennsylvania Free-soiler is placed as governors
over the Territory of Kansas--the only Territory
where we had any hope that slavery would be like
ly to go. That is another principle of the Nebras-
ka-Kansas bill.
Mr.. EDMUNDSoN. / desire to say to my col
league that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who
was appointed Governor of Kansas avowed him
self in favor of slavery, and that he going to
take slave with him.
Mr.. CARLILE. Well, if the President was de-
ceived by any false impression made upon his mind
by his friends, and appointed Mr.. Reeder, / will
take back all have said upon that subject, and
say that it is not of the principles of the Ne
braska bill. But / apprehend, when the President
had it in his power, by the removal from Office of
bis first appointee, to place man there who would
ut least maintain the constitutional rights in that
Territory of all the members of the Confederacy,
he ought to have exercised it. But how did he
exercise it? BY selecting for the Office of Gov
ernor another gentleman not from a slave State,
Ex-Governor Shannon, of Ohio, who, as Mr.. String
fellow says in late paper, has betrayed them,
too |"
Mr.. Clerk, it will not do for the Democratic party,
or for any other party which expects permanent
success to turn its back upon principles clear and
well defined, and plant itself upon measures which
are construed one way by one gentleman, and in a
different way by other gentlemen. was gratifed
the other day, in debate which took place upon
this floor, to fad that the gentleman from Penn
sylvania on my left Mr.. JoNEs] maintained the
true constitutional doctrine upon the subject Of
slavery; while, at the same time, regretted to
hear the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr..
CLINGMAN, and another gentleman from the South,
Mr. JONES, of Tennessee say that the Nebraska
bill asserted the doctrine of popular sovereignty
in the Territories.
Whenever, Mr.. Clerk, the people of the South,
or any portion OF this Union, begin to compromise
away their rights, they will have no rights
left to compromise about. Now, desire to say,
in answer to a question propounied to me by my
colleague, Mr. FAULKNER, and other gentlemen,
had been a member of the last Congress should
have done precisely what / wrote to the worthy
gentleman who then represented my district
should do and that was this that were / a mem
Der of Congress, acting as have always done,
according to the dictates of my own judgment, /
should vote against the BILL for two reasons if not
for more-the first reason, that it would reopen
the fearful agitation of the subject of slavery with
out bringing to the South any practical good, and
would violate the plighted faith of the two great
parties, pledged by them in their National Conven-
TONS and secondly that it asserts the doctrine Of
squatter sovereignty, which Virginia has ever OPP
posed.
But, sir, am free to admit, like the honorable
and distinguished and, | win add, patriotic
gentleman from Pennsylvania, for whom have
so long voted, / would, under no circumstances,
vote for the repeal of the Kansas ebraska bill,
or the restoration of the Missouri Compromise,
because one of the reasons Which urged against
it was the agitation to which it would give birth
and were now to vote for its repeal should be
guilty of aiding to produce this very agitation
again. Why were not the Territories of Kansas
and Nebraska organized were the Territories of
Utah and New Mexico y By the bills organizing
these latter Territories, the Missouri Compromise
was practically repealed. But it had become ne
cessary, take it, for the purposes of agitation,
and for no other purpose of practical nature that
can zee, to introduce clause in so many words,
to repeal law which the South had always
maintained to be unconstitutional and void and
which had been practically repealed by former
Congressional legislation.
Mr.. PECK. Will the gentleman from Virginia
allsw me to ask him question:
Mr.. CkRLILE. Certainly
Mr. PECK. When the bills were originally re-
Kansas and Nebraska, were they not literally
copied from the bills organizing the Territories of
Utah and New Mexico, to which the gentleman has
referred? And / ask him whether, Immediately
after their introduction the agitation not re-
commenced the basis, that these bills did repeal
the Missouri Compromise And whether the
leader of the present Republican party in the Sen
ate did not cause appeal to be made in the North
through the press and the pulpit, that the North
should rise up as man, and disavow that act
Mr.. CARLILE. had net the good fortune to be
a member of either branch of Congress pending
these bills, and it has been my fortune to have some
thing else to do besides watching exactly the mo-
tons of body like the Congress of the United
States.
Mr.. PECK. ask you the question as matter
of history.
Mr.. CARLILE. AS a matter of history will
answer it in this way There was not, at that time,
a sufficient number of members in Congress rep
resenting the abolitionists and agitators of the
North to lock and paralyzs one branch of Con-
gress and there was l think, a sufficient number
OF national men in both branches of Congress to
have passed these bills as the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr.. PECK, says they were originally
reported; but sir, it is to be regretted-and it
but veriies the remark that first made-that my
old Democratic friends are treading on very dam
gerous ground when they place themselves under
the leadership of the Wings whom they fought so
long. Irecollect the history of the Senate's pro-
ceedings on those bills to be, that the bills were
not originally reported containing provision to
repeal the Missouri Compromise; but that Wing
Senator offered an amendment to that effect and
the Democrats followed in his wake.
Mr.. PECK. | referred the gentleman to the
point, in order to show, from the history of the
question, that the reagitation of the subject Of
slavery at the North, which he alludes to as being
the inevitable consequence and direct result Of the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise in the Kansas
and Nebraska bills, did not result from the intro
duction of that clause in the bills, but originated
before that and that the appeals had gone forth
prior to that, from the Senate, under which the