The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-08-28

nope tnat the propositions submitted by him
will be unhesitatingly affirmed by Congress"
The following is worthy of special notice 1t
will be seen that the official organ fully endorses
the remark of the Boston Post, that the Com
promise of 1850 became added TO the Missouri
Compromise of 1920:
From the Union of January 10, 1854.
I" The Nebraska Bill and the Compromises
Whilst the organs of Abolitionsm are stultify-
ing themselves an their effort to make an issue be-
tween the Missouri Compromise of 1920 and the
Compromise of l850-both of which were vio-
lently opposed by them during the perilous
scenes OF l850-we are gratiied to witness the
earnestness and promptness with which our
Democratic contemporaries are rallyiag to the
support of the principles proposed to be incor-
porated into the Nebraska bill. We subjoin
the views taken of this subject by those two
sterling organs of Democracy, the Boston Post
and the Philadelphia Argus. The Post says
"'On the 3D. bill was introduced into the
House, to organize the Territory of Nebraska.
This measure comes up under interesting as
poets. By the Missouri Compromise, Slavery
was to be prohibited in all territory north of
36' 3O>, but it says nothing about Slavery south
of that line; and hence States south of that
line might establish it or not, as the people
might determine. When the territory which
was south of this line was acquired from New
Mexico, the clause known as the Wilmot Pro-
viso was attempted to be applied to it. Gen.
Cass, in his Nicholson letter, took the broad
ground that the people of every State and every
Territory have right to determine their con-
stitution and laws, and that the relation of the
General Government towards both States and
Territories should be one of complete non-inter-
vention as to the Slavery question. On the
floor of the Senate, he contended that the Will
mot Proviso was unconstitutional. This was
the principle as to Neac Merico and Utah, that
Mr.. Webster advocated. This prevailed, and
thus the Compromise Of 1850 BECAME ADDED to
that Of the Missouri Compromise o. 1920. \ 4
The report is brief, clear, concise, and admira-
BILE, and we cannot too highly commend it to
the attention of ALL"
1t will be seen, from the last extract, that the
official organ, in its superserviceable ZEAL takes
retrograde step, and fully endorses the Mis-
souri, Compromise; while it denounces the Abo-
litionists for pointing out what they deemed the
Inconsistency of that measure with the Compro-
mise of 1850!
Some days after the introduction of Mr..
Douglass substitute, Mr.. Dixon offered an
amendment repeating the Missouri prohibition
of Slavery; and Mr.. Sumner offered an amend
ment expressly re-enacting it. The Washington
Union of January 20, in referring to these
amendments, remarked:
"We have never yielded to the Missouri Com
promise any other obligatory force than that
which attaches to a solemn coUendnt entered
into by two opposing parties, for the preservation
of amicable relations. To such considerations
wo hav foil N We Jv
escence as if the Compromise was the law of
the land" "If we have studied the
Southern sentiment correctly, this has been the
view taken of the Missouri Compromise in that
division of the Union" at was
upon this view that we gave Mr. Douglass bill
our ready approval; and are still think that the
peace and harmony Of the country aciU be best
secured by its adoption"
"When, therefore, a prominent Wig Send-
tor like Mr.. DIXON PROPOSES TO GO BEYOND
JUDGE DOUGLASS and beyond the Compromise
Of 1850, IN sho,oing his decotion to tie rights
Of the South, 1t may not be out Of order to re-
mind our friends that in the great issue Of
1850 the body of Mr.. Diron's political friends,
especially at the North, toere not prepared to 90
eDen as far as the Nebraska bill goes. But Mr..
Diron's amendment may serre to stir mp ercite.
ment on one side, Whilst Mr. Summers aciH eff
"
ism and Abolitionism have nothing to gain and
nothing to lose, the upshot may be, that the
agitation may inure to the benefit of the COM
mon opposition to the Democratic party. Pst-
dence, patriotism, deUotion to the Union, the
interest of the Democratic party, all suggest
that that public sentiment which now acqui-
esces cheerfully in the principles of the Com
promise of 1850, should not be inconsiderately
disturbed. The triumphant election of Presi-
dent Pierce shows that on this basis the hearts
| and the judgments of the people are with the
Democracy. We may venture to suggest that
it is well worthy of consideration whether a
faithful adherence to the creed which has been
SO triumphantly endorsed by the PEOPLE does
not require all good Democrats to hesitate and
reflect maturely upon any proposition phich
any member Of our party can Object to as an
| Interpolation upon that creed. In word, it
would be wise in all Democrats to consider
whether it would not be safest to LET WELL
| ENOUGH ALONE To REPEAL THE MIS-
| SOURI, COMPROMISE might, and, according to
our view, would, clear the principle of Congress
sional non-intervention of all embarrassment;
but aee doubt chether the good thus promised is
20 important that ii aoouid be wise TO seek IL
through the agitation aohich necessarily stands
in our path. Upon calm review of the whole
ground, we yet see no such reasons for disturb
1
| DUCE US TO ADVOCATE EITHER OF
THE AMENDMENTS proposed to Mr.. Doug
lass bill"
These remarks were made on the goth of
January. On the 23d, Mr.. Douglas offered a
second substitute, directly repeating the Mis-
souri, Compromise. Now mark the change
The organ of the Administration, which, be it
remembered, is the Administration itself speak.
ing, on the next day used the following Ian.
guage, in remarkable contrast to that used by
the same paper on the 9Th, the 10th, and the
10th of the same month. Let the reader turn
back, and compare the several extracts.
From the Washington Union of January "a, 1854
| The 7toQ Compromises - The Nebraska
Question.-* 1t was expected that the
action of the Senate on the bill would com.
mence on yesterday; but the Committee on Ter
rtories having concluded that two Territories
instead of one, should be provided for, and that
the provision in regard to the operation of the
Compromise principles of 1850 should be more
specifically defined, Mr.. Douglas presented two
bills in lieu of the former aud their consider
ation was postponed until the bills could b.
printed
After quoting the fourteenth section of tn,
bill, which embraces the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, the Union goes on TO remark,
"This amendment declares, in express terms
! that the Missouri Compromise of 1920 wa,
superseded by the principles of the Compromis,
OF 1850. AS far as we have observed, the gen
eral construction of Mr.. Douglass original bill
WAS, that In adopting and re-enacting the prin
t cples OF the Sonpromiss of 1850, It pecessa
riy superseded the Compromise of 1920. THr
: icds OUR construction Of 1t and with this I'M