Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-03-09
SPEECH OF THE HON. JOHN s. MILLSoN

The House being in the Committee of the Who'll,
on the state of the Union-
| Mr.. MlLLSON ssd:
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: Since tho passage OF the Nsbr4s
ka bill, have sought no opportunity here enforce
the vews respecting the power of Congress over III,
Territories, which then took occasion TO express -
] have had inducement, and even provocson enough
| to do so. My arguments have been repeatedly re
piled to- and, indeed. the whole subject has been al
most necessarily discussed by gentlemen who's,
views differ from mine. To be sure, this has beer
done with uniform courtesy aud kinGuess to me. Ii
my somewhat isolated position, appreciate il, and
pha return it. Blu. have been content to be silent
| | knew that the time would soOn come wien the cor
rectness of my views would be shown by results
That time has come already. 1t WAS fully accom-
pshed in the late decision Of the Supreme Court
and now, sir, standing here, in the midst OF predic
tions fulfilled, and forebodings realized can look
back on the events of the past two years, and fee
that no part of the responsibility Tor the disturbed
state of the country rests upon me- and that. If iry
| views and opinions have had any effect at ALL they
could have none but to allay the dsoontent of the
North. and to moderate the too haaty exutation o
| the South.
The defense of the Nebraska bill has sometimes be
trayed Southern gentlemen into the expression Of
| deem very erroneous views and opinions. / regre
that the clear and excellent speech of the gentle
men from Alabama, (Mr. Curry.) yesterday, il not al
together free from exception in this respect. Some o
these views propose to notice and to combat, moi
| merely erroneous, but mischevOus. The subject il
likely to be one of great practical importance in OUT
proposed legislation for Utah, we'll as for Kansa.
! and the other Territories.
II is pleasing 10 me 10 know that my difference with
my colleagues, and many others of my Southern ssso
ciates, has never been Of doctrine principle
All that they approved approved. All that disap
proved, they also disapproved. The question between
US simply was, whether what approve or what We
dsapproved was contained in the bill 1t was, fol
the most part, question of Interpretation construc
ton and upon this, almost the sole point of difference
between us, take leave to remind them that large
majority of the Democratic party agree with me apG
differ from my colleagues.
know, sir, that scarcely anything could have re
conoed them to the support Of the Nebraska bill bu
the promised repeal of the Missouri compromils.-
| But what was the course OF Congress upon il Tha
compromise was denounced, on the one hand, as un
constitutional and invidious, it WAS defended on the
other az constitutional and right IL would seem. then
that the only thing that Congress could properly do
was either to repeal it, or let IT alone, the the
other sentiment prevailed But, strange to say, Con
grsss would do neither.
Either sr,would have avoided the mischiefs which
| followed the passage of the Nebraska bill Had Con
grees simply repealed its own law of 1870, the former
state of things would have revived. 1t would have
fixed the condition of the Territory by its solemn
act, and have left nothing to be determined by the in
habants. 1t is true that some violence would have
been done to the prejndices and senments OF th'
! majority OF the Northern States. Perhaps. sir, thel
presses would have been lavish of complaints anc
an nuathema would have been now and then hurled
against the author. of the act. But, Mr.. Chairman
from the constitution Of nature quarre
long or tisrcely upon points of speculation and
theory. They may differ ever much but their dif
ferences are harmless when they confined to mat
| ters Of abstract opinion. A controversy about tht
existence OF an atmosphere around the moon vii
hardly ever lead TO blows. 1t is only when opinion
is to control conduct when something is to be aCtel
upon well As talked about, that contention becomes
eager and fierce.
| This, then, was the grave and fatal error into
which Congress fell. They apparently believed the
Missouri prohibition to be unconstitutional; yet the
legislation az | shall presently show, was shaped
rather upon the idea of its validity They declared
this prohibition imperative and void; but they woulG
do only upon conditions, to which were requir
ed to submit. One was, that slavery, "a legal rela
ton, should not be revived by force Of their law, but
should depend upon the will Of lhs people who migh
90 into these Territories. The other was, in effect
that no law OF regulation relating to slavery, whci
might have existed prior to the of 9Th March, 1870
| should be- revived or put in force.
But for this unfortunate flncfuhtiun-l will not cal
il trimmng-,he country would have been spared thu
| cnamiti-s which afterwards befell us. Kansas anc
Nebraska would have been settled, quietly and grad
ualiy by peAcesbIe emigrauts from the North ant
the South. Ii AboliiipnsTs anti slavery men haC
been urged 10 go quickly TO Kansas that they nigh
| nuinumber the men Of the South. the answer woulC
have been, "why, what can effect by superiority
! Of numbers Has not Congress fixed the condition
of the Territory, and can We deprive the Southern
ern men been urged TO ant tcpatd arrival of North
ern emigranis and prevent Il hostile majority o
anti.sayery settlers, their answer would have
| been, what should We care about that Shall VT
not hold our slaves under higher warrant than th'
nere will OF majority of the inhabItanis7 Cgn they
alter the established order and renew prohibition
| which Congress has removed"
But instead OF pursuing this wise and sa!utary
course, Congress adopted one which WA alike ncon
sistent with the grounds on which the bill TO be
defended at the North, and with the views previously
entertained by almost all classes OF politicians th.
South. Ii said-of course not in words, but in effect
1.-The prohibition of 1920. which transformed slave
holding into 8nonslavehOding Territory, was wrong
and shall not stand But we will not restore the
Territory to the condion in which We found il. We
will revoke our nterdic but whether it shall be-
| newed or not-whether slavery shall be allowed or
not-shall depend upon the people who may go to
| take possession OF the government We Are now pro
vidng. Run, then, men of the North and of the
South. Let US which shall 20 first and greatest
numbers To the swift aud strong shall the prize be
| given"
Sir, is it to be wondered at that after thus referring
| such controversy to the people, there should ha:e
been an immediate rush OF emigrants to the scene o
strife In contest to be settled by numbers. waa il
strange that each party should seek TO sw s forcesl
Was it likely they would bs very scrupuons in the
employment of means1 For what purpose did they 60
| to Kansasl Why,to determine whether slavery should
| be allowed or prohibited From the very nature OF
their mission, it must needs have been that those who
went were the zealots and bigos OF their respective
sections. They went not to confer upon subjects OF
common interest," but to proclaim a mutual opposi
tiOn and defiance; and that, too, upon question 30
irritating, go associated with rancorous recoecoDs
as hardly to admit of temperate discussion, even in
the Halls of Congress. Sir. it ought to have been
foreseen, that when they met, they would meet not
only as opponents but as enemies.
Had the Territory been inhabited before govern.
ment was made for it, even these mischievous pro-
| visions would not have produced the deplorabls re
| sus that folloyed. The intercourse of the inhab
tants would have brought them into relations OF
friendship and familiarity. The daily commerce Of
life, the customary interchange of good offices, q
thousand ties, would have bound together men of OPP
posite political opinions and when. at last they came
to give expression to these differences Of opinion, in
| the making Of laws and the regulation of their do
mestic affairs, they would have differed Deighbors
and friends who knew and esteemed and loved one
another. The most extreme party antagOnism would
have been perfectly consistent with personal good
| will.
But unhappily we did not wait till the country was
| inhabited. As said on former occasion, when op
poaing the bill, we planted government in the vii
derness, and then drove people to take possession
of it. Those who went to engage in the strife to
y hch We invited them, met ons another, not merely
as opponents aud enemies, but as strangers. There
was nothing in their past Intercourse to soften the
fierce animoses which stirred them to violence and
bloodshed. They recognized each other only AZ foes
| and the rihs and the bowie knife were. naturally
law se so far apart that they could not reach one an
other by the softer appeals of reason. Mr.. Chair.
man. the civil war which followed was the necessary
| may almost say the logical consequence of thess
provisions of the Nebraska bill. That civil war was The
Nebraska bill in action Sir, at the instant that thes
fatal changes were made in the BILL though | had
voted with the friends Of the up that time
sprang forward and moved TO lay the bill upon the
table. From that moment it had no more earnss,
opponent than / WAS
Sir, these objections were such as ought to have
been common to all parts of the country and TO every
variety Of political opinion But lot not the Northern
opponents of the measure take credit to Themselves
for their course upon it, Let them not boast that they
! voted against bill which produced thess calamitouc
results for it was 10 Difference to their viewt
and wishes, and to concate their favor, that
the provisions were inserted which caused these
| results. To them, the sole point of objection
was the abrogaton of the Missouri Compro
mise and ] have already said that that woulc
harmless agitation The gentleman from Nav Ynrk