Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-03-30

sulisct that while II would ard ne great pleasure
susaned b. ny constituents yes was not would re-
sign seat here the omentI tcuna that ny course upon
this sal vas not acceptable them. AsfOr my stand
ing public man and whatever prospects public man
Of long service in the councils # the country might be SUP
posed 20 have. ElC resign then eli with pleasure
told that gentleman st IT. upcn tbis any other great
question of citing the interested the South should ind
ny views conflicting materially with what should appear
to be the led sentiment Of that on should iee it
ny imperative dug 70 retire"
Ny honorable colleague said, in another portion
of his speech that he would not be seen in the Sen
ate another day after it vas aseertained that his
course rotacceptsbleto the people Of Tennessee
Why then, should tie Legislature be complained Of?
The honorable gentleman says he looks upon the
resolutions an insult An insult to reeie his own
language and address it to him in respectful terms,
and present 1t to the Senate Of the United States
That is NJ garbed extract It is the sueeeb as it is
in its context, and reads just as it is There is the
fair, unequivoca declaration that ihs course came
IN conflict with the views of The people Of Tennessee
he would not be seen in the Senate another day
Where is there anything wrong or insulting in recit-
/ ing that! It seems TO me that it is an improper
construction put upon the resolutions, and great
injustice has been done to those who passed them
rhave shown that the Wings ia the Legislature Of
the State Of Tennessee, in 1854, voted to instruct
their Senator TO 20 for Mr.. DixOn's amendment, or
in other words the repeal Of the Missouri compro.
| mise. Now, the honorable gentleman says that
/ repeal has produced agitation and confusion and
strife throughout the country; has led to those mis-
ohievous influences that have been exered from one
end Of the country TO The other. As that subject has
| been introduced, I think we may lust as well 90
into it understandingly and put it right The query
comes up who is responsible for the passage in the
/ language Of my honorable colleague, 'of this most
unfortunate act" ag he says to-day f'thGt ever
passed By The Congress Of the United States?' If its
| consequences have been misehev0us and dangerous
ifithas caused q sectional division OF parties, and
info - n a.
Union, l ask who is responsible? Where did the
repeal Of the Missouri compromise begiuf In 1850
there was a bill passed establishing territorial
government in New Mexico. 0ne of the provisions
Of that bill declared that New Mexico, ''When ad-
mtted aa State or any portion Of the RRme, shall
be received into the Union with without slsFay,
as their constitution may prescribe at the time Of
admission" In what condition was New Mexico at
that time? New Mexico ran up TO the forty-secOnd
degree Of north latitude You went on to tx The
southern boundary, and embraced certain area IS
| the Territory of New Mexico. Prior to the estRO-
lishmen Of the territorial government in 1850 what
was the condition of that Territory between 35'5y
and 42o?
In Is45, on the motion of the honorable Senator
from Illinois, Mr.. DOUGLAS, the Missouri cOmprO-
mise was extended TO theWestern boundary Of Texas,
| along the line of 36o30i The Missouri compromise
was in existence to the western boundary Of Texas
in 1860 when we passed the bill establishing ter
ritorial government for New Mexico When was the
Missouri compromise repealed? without the incOr-
poration Of that provision in the bill establishing
territorial government for New Mexico, the people
north of the line of 36o3Of would have been excluded
from the introduction of slavery but in the BILL you
say that when they are admitted into the Union,
they shall be admitted with without slavery, as
they may prescribe Ia their constitution. This is
clearly repeal of the Missouri compromise restrc
tion and enables the people, if they think proper,
in the formation of their constitutions to establish
Il, he
extended to the western boundary of Texas, along
the line of $780, and excluded slavery in the Ter
ritory between 96o30/ and 400. The incorporation
Of that provision into the New Mexico BILL providing
for their admission into the Union with or without
slavery removed the slavery restriction from IS 30I
up to Ace That is the gist, that is the point, that
is the great thing which gained in 1885, that is
what vas understood to be the pivot on which all
the comprGuise measures of 1850 turned. It was
the remof3Of the slavery restriction, in fact, from
| New Mexico and the establishment Of principle on
which all future Territories were 10 come into the
I Union as States. We cannot misunderstood this.
Then, who voted for the repeal in 1850? And was
not the Missouri compromise then repealed? It was
to that extent and the principle established OF
admitting all future States into the Union on the
| policy of noninterferenOe with slavery, allowing
the people 10 have it or not az they ight prescribe
il their constitution. Who voted for the repeal
that most unfortunate act? Who voted for the re-
peal-a measure which has resulted in bringing on
the country so many misehievOus consequence
Did not my honorable colleague stand up in 1850 and
say repeal it," Then we get beginning point
Now what extent Of territory was that? Some may
think there was there but what extent of ter
rt0ry is there between $50 30 and 1929 in New Mex
leo, from which the restriction was removed in 1850?
l have taken the trouble to look at the map, and
find that there is enough Of territory from which the
slavery restriction was removed in 1850 by the re
| peal of the Missouri compromise to make eight
States: in other BOrls, there is enough to make a
State larger than eight States in this ConfedeTacy
There are 20 $50 square miles in New Mexico, above
the line Of $50 3O, from which the slavery restriC-
tion was removed by the act of 1850, for which my
colleague voted. New Hampshire has only $3.50
square miles; Vermont, lO,2l2; Rhode Island, l.
SOG; Connecticut 4674 Even the State Of Mas
sachusetts has only 1900 square smiles New Jer-
sey s, 32O; Maryland, II, 100; Delaware 2,12O.
This territory was ten times larger than some of
these sovereign States Of the ConfedeTacy. In 1850
the slavery restriction was removed from this eI-
tent Of terrltoTyi for a. vas free territory then
and it was made discretionary with th5 people to
have slavery or not afterwards in forming their
State constitution.
Then we come to 1854. The Kansas Nebraska
territorial bill first reported by the Chairman
of the Committee on Territories, the Senator from
Illinois, and 1t came before this body 1t was then
sent back to the committee, and they reported it
with prOvisiOn-doing what Making no new law,
but simply interpreting what was meant by the
sct which intended as a repeal of the Missouri
compromise for they refer TO the act of 1850, and
establish that as a principle. Then they incOrpor-
ate another provision in the following words which
are familiar to every msmOsr Of the Senate:
alt being the true intent and nearing OF this act not
- IgsGts slavery into any Territory Sse, to
cUds thererO but to leave TIE people the eo perfect
" form end regulate their domestic institutions
their own way subject oay TO the Constitution of the
United States }"
Another provision Of the Kansas Nebraska act lie
in dentiCally the words as are contained in the
bill establishing the territorial government of New
/ Mexico. What are they? That when they are ad-
mItted into the Union State they shall come in
/ with without slavery the people may prescribe
I IN their constitution. The words are the same in
the New Mexico bill as in the Kansas bill All YOU
did in 1854 vas simply to interpret what you meant
by the act of 1850, and that was that the people
should come into the Union State with or with
out slavery they might prescribe in ther oolsti-
tuition, that it not the intention Of the act to
legislaG slavery in out Of the Territory, but to
leave the people free act upon the subject and it
/ is Botbing more less than an Interpretation of
the act of 1850 an tbis body this iden ical propo-
stiOn came up on q motion strike ont portion Of
/ the bill. Mr.. Dixons amendment substantially was
Incorporated into the bill and perfected little more
! By the chairman. A motion was made to strike out
that clause, aud upon it the yeas and nays were ia
I ken. That involved the very measure that M hon
Orsble colleague says has resulted in so much mis-
I
a dissolution Of the Union but he, under the SOL
emn sanction of an OATH with all the lights before
him, said "nO let it remain in the bill; repeal the
Missouri COMPROMISED that is the correct interpre-
tatiOn Of the act OF 1850; that is what voted for
| then, and that is what l affirm now" If this has
been the most unfortunate act, if 1t has produced
agitation, if it has produced distraction and Ia the
end should bring about dissolution of the Union,
my worthy colleague voted to put that very thing in
the bill Ehich has brought about this agitation
throughout this country.
But when the bill was put en- its passage after
this provision was incorporated in It. it Is true my
honorable colleague voted against it.; but the point
the gst Of the thing, voted for in 1850 and re-
tanned in the act Of 1854. On a naked. clean prop
osition to exclude it fromthe BILL my honorable col
league said no let If remain there :" and now he
tells the country that the repeal OF the Missouri
Compromise was an unfortunate act-the most |
unfortunate that passed the Congress of the |
United States
l know that, in my own State, and have no doubt |
It is the case in most of the States of the Union
there is one party who deny obedience to popular |
sentiment, and who are always ready and willing, |
when they can 10 60 plsusibly and successfully 10 /