Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-03-08
Stfainbaa:-
(coxcIuprD.l

(cosc1UDED1
am assailed by my colleague on the ground
that voted to receive abolition petitions !;
| and here are many of the most leading men
of the country and of the age pursuing the
sameecourse. Mr.. Clay took that course Mr..
Calhoun said no free government could exist
without the right of petition. The passages
which have read were from debate in 1886.
In 1889, Mr. Clay made a speech, in which he
reviewed the whole ground, and announced
his opinions very clearly I remember it very
we'll. for lived in the same mess with him at
that time. He took extraordinary pains to
lay down what he considered to be the true
doctrine. He believed that Congress had the
power under the Constitution to abolish slave
nv in the District of Columbia but he urged
with great force the inexpediency of adopting
such a measure. So satisfactory were the
sentiments announced by Mr.. Clay on that
occasion, that Mr. Calhoun (who, the year be-
fore had introduced resolutions seeming to
take the position that the admission of the
right of petition or the acknowledgment of
the power to abolish slavery in the District,
was synonymous with a grant of power to
abolish slavery in the States) came toward
and acknowledged that the abolition move
ment was at an end that there was no long
er anv danger; that it was smothered and
stiff by the declaration of these sentiments
from the great leader Of the Wing party. 1t
continued stifled until that election was over.
and how long after do not know, when it
was revived again in the South. The fact was
I believe. that Mr.. Calhoun had then come
over to the support of Mr.. Van Buren,, who
had recognized the power of Congress to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.
/ referred to it in this letter, but forbore to
state the principle or motive on which this
change was made. / alluded TO it in corro-
boration of the idea that the interests of party,
| the ambitious and mschievous views of aspir-
ants for public honors. had fomented a divi-
sion between the North and the South, and
made SO much difficulty about it with no re-
gard either for the interests of the South or
| the maintenance of the Union. Those times
| have passed. / am not holding this language
| in regard to the present but am explaining
| the conrse / took under the circumstances
which were referred to by my colleague to
show that / had long been looking to the
| North.
| do not care to refer to the paragraphs
which my colleague read from speech made
| by me in 1850, on the compromise measures
| of that period, because do not at all repent
them, as und rstand them. There may, per-
haps, I've AN accidental misprint | have not
had time to examine; but / do not wish to
retract any sentiment then uttered. My
| colleague holds me up AS an advocate of the
policy of abolition in the District of Column
bia. as conc"ding the power of Congress to
abolish slavery in this District. j have just
shown how many others admitted the power.
Mr.. Van Buren, and Mr.. Clay admitted it; and
| even Mr.. Calhoun. who had two years before
I pronounced it destructive TO the Union then
| consider the doctrines announced by Mr..
! Clay to be settled. NY sentiments in relation
| to that subject are cited against me to show
my abolition tendencies. or my disposition to
| court in the North. What did say in those
| extracts which my colleague rad yesterday?
/ 4 49, T Innh /
felt bound to defer TO the opinions of the many
| eminent men who had entertained these senti-
| ments to such an extent as not to place any
confidence in my own Judgment. | said it
was a desirable object. if il could be done on
safe principles. TO remove that apple of dis
cord between the North and the South, which
has given rise to so much excitement in rela-
ton to the question of the reception or rciec-
ton of petitions; that if it could be done
satisfactorily to both sides, it would be a hap
DIV events; but | said at the same time il
could not bc done unless You made some pro-
vision for removing the emancipatcd slaves.
| declared that on no other condition would
il he safe to tn surrounding States, Maryland
and Virginia to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia. | hold the same sentiments
now. | do not find the least occasion to
change them.
My colleague. passing over my votes on the
compromise measures of 1850, alluded to my
votes on the repeal of the Missouri compromise
bv the Kansas Nebraska act of 1854. He said
that act was only an Interpretation of the COM
promise measures of 1850, for which l had
voted. He contends that those acts repealed
the Missouri compromise, inasmuch as they
gave to the people of the Territories power.
control. and jurisdiction of the whole subject
while in the territorial condition, and provid-
ed that when they came to be admitted into
the Union as States, they should he admitted
with or without slavery. az their constitution
at the time might prescribe. voted for the
compromise measures of 1850. They were
not satisfactory TO me in all respects, but under
the circumstances in which the country was
placed, | ought it my duty to sustain them.
| did not hesitate to vote for them without re-
gard to the ground stated by my colleague,
rs to the right of the people of Territory to
lcgislate on the subject of slavery. wanted
the Who'll, question permanently settled and
| if we had h vi such statement then ms | sup
! posed was possible to he made, and as il Seem
| cd to me tia, re was Il prospect of making, We
should ncver have heard of this question again.
| But sufficient unto the day is the evil there
off, and on this maxim the friends Of the
| Union acted in 1880. We said, "let us do the
best we can let US make sEch enactments as
! will be most likely to settle this question he
! tween the North and the South and we did IT.
! But my colleague says that j voted for the
repeal of the Missouri compromise, of which
| [ complain so much AZ the origin and source
| of all the m,chiefs and disturbances that have
taken place in Kansas, and the fearful agita-
| ton that exists in the country. Let us see
what actually did vote for. | have before
me the Journal of the Senate for 1854 and
when the bill to organize the Territory of Ne
braska was taken up it appears that the Sen
ator from Illinois offered an amendment TO
| strike out, in section fourteen, the words ::
| (which was superseded by the principles of
the legislation of 1850. commonly called the
compromise measures" and to insert
(Which being inconsistent with the principle Of
intervention by Congress, with slavery in the states
aud Territories, recognized by the legislation Of
| 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, n
hereby declared imperative and void being she true
intent and meaning OF this act not to legisate slavery
into any Territory STAT. IA exclude II hercfrom
but 81 c tho people Thereof Perfectly free % form
and regulate then domestic insttatolis III their own
wav, subject only to the Constitution If the United
/ states
The Section which it was proposed to amend
was in these words:
That the Consultation and all laws of the United
States which locally inRplcabic, shall have the
force and eect within the said Territory Of Ne
| braska as elsewhere within the United States, except
the eighth section of she act preparatory 20 the adms
| sion of Missouri into the Union, approved March s,
1870 which was superseded by the principles Of the
legislation OF 1850, commonly called the compromise
treasures"
The vote on this amendment was merely q
choice between two different forms of express
sion but | presume this is the vote upon
which my colleague commented yesterday,
when be said | had vot d for this obnoxious
measure, which | now declare to be the
sourre and origin Of the mischicfs that have
afflicted the country during the last four years.
| He asserts that 10y voting for this amendment.
/ gave NV sanction to that m assure, and
have heard other genu men ss,rt the same
thing.
voted To strike out one form in which that
| principle was announced and insert another.
| pb,, f,t,D ,yhirh 4 yo,, Al IN Strike ont was that