Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1858-03-09

Having considered, Mr.. Chairman. aud nj gr-.,es
lengtn 'hah l intended, the character and Ssu<>
qnsne-s OF the first OF the two conditions upo which
Congress consented to annul the Missouri C9,mprn.
mise, l propose 10 notice, more briefly hoSe the
oner cohall!on tns objections 10 which belonsVore
particularly to the South lrefr of course to Si.;
Is commonly known as the Badger proyjso. 1t prc.
yidas-
That nothing herein contained shall be construed
TO revive, or put in force. any law or regulation
| which may have existed prior 10 the Act ~ 6yb al
March, 1890, either protecting establishing pronib,
| ing or aboIishing slavery"
The effect of this provision I discussed. at soms
length, before the passage of the Nebraska BILL and
| do not intend TO repeat the arguments which then
uaed. But the late decision of the Supreme Court in
the OF Dred Scott, has given point and sign Il
cance to my objections, which they not admitted
TO have before; and wish to view this prOviso in the
| light Of that decision
The Territory ceded to the United Statea by France,
iu 1913, was, IS We all know slsveholdiDg country
throughout lis whole extent. The institution of do
mssc slavery was recognized and established by law
osfore we acquired IT, Ii was confirmed and sane
toned by the treaty with France, at the moment
acquired Land was protected by several Coag ressona!
and territorial ensctmens afterwards. Itwould have
continued asaveholdlng country to this hour, coun
try 10 which slavery or involuntary servitude WAS
fixed and legal relation between psrsons-but for tbs
passage Of the act of the 9th of March 1920, known
as the Missouri compromise by which it WAS enscted
that in so much Of il as lay North of 36o BY slavery
and involuntary servtude should be forever prohi.
bited.
This simple prohibition ID all that Congress then
thought it necessary TO do to exclude slavery from
that country 1t is all that was ever done until the
passage Of the Nebraska bill. IT, then, slavery wss
ever abolished there, it was by that act of 1920 and
nothing else. Ii it not and could not be, right:
fully and constitutionaly abolished by that act then
it never was abolished at all foT that the only
act which undertook 70 prohibit il.
! Now, cir, the Supreme Court Of the United States
has lately decided that the prob bton that act
unconstitutional and utterly null and void that it.
WAS wholly nugatory and without any valid force or
effect. This being so, the territory continued be
ssveholdng country; slavery, or involuntary serv.
tude continued 10 be established and legal rela
ton between persons; and would have so continued
to this day, but for the passage OF the Kansas Ne
braska bill in 1854 II the Nebraska bill had never
passed. then, a. the judgment Of the Supreme
| Court wss made known declaring null, and void the
| Missouri Compromise, which was the only impedi.
ment that had ever been throw in the way OF tue
Shareholder, the right to hold slaves would have been
secured by existing laws to the extent precisely
as before the passage of that ACT. But the Nebraska
bill undertakes to snnul those laws, by providing, in
the language have just quoted. that they shall nor
be revived put in force. In other words, the eec
of the Judgment of the Supreme Court was to annul
the Missouri prohibition absolutely and without any
conditions; while the Nebraska bill imposes upon the
South very hard and unfavorabe conditions And
yet this bill has been supposed to fatter Southern
opinion and advance Southern interests.
Why, cir, now that the Supreme Court has decided
the Missouri Compromise TO be unconstitutional, their
decision is Of no practical value 10 US whatever /.
we 60 to Nebraska and say, "here, under the judg
ment of the Supreme Court, may we hold our slaves
in security and find adequate laws for protection;
We shall be told, "sofy. gentlemen; it is true that
that Judgment has annulled the original prohibition
which legisated slavery out of the Territory but you
forget that your Nebraska bill expressly declaree
that it was not your intention to egslae slavery back
again into the Territory. You forget that your own
Nebraska bill, 10 put that intent beyond all doubt
prevents the revival putting in force Of those very
| laws whose protection you ars now counting upon
You forget that your Nebraska bill leaves gs
the inhabitants Of the Territory to cay whether those
laws or any other laws for your protection, shall be
revived or put in force; and We have not thought il
| proper to revive them, or put them in force. We
| shall let them "seep ou."
| II We go to Kansas shall find that there-yes.
there. after fierce and desperate struggle involving
the most dsplorabe sacrifice Of property and hf-
traDgng the people, and threatening the destruction
of the Cnion-we have succeededin getting back to
| The position which We voluntarily abandoned short
tins before; but only TO find ourselves surrounded
with such circumstances of Embarrassment, uncertain
~ and danger that our very victory has alncst IN.
| done US.
Gentlemen may tell me, gentlemen have
tnld ms, "how could know that the Supreme
Court would decide the Missouri Compromise 10 be
| unconstitutional Gentlemen may tell that AN
| attempting to justify my vote against the Nebraska
bill by relying upon events which had not then hap
pansd, which were not then known, and which could
not be then foreseen. know sir, that it is
common thing to excuse false step in ststesmGnshp
| ny seizng upon an unexpected accident which con
| vsrts the bunder into happy stroke Of policy
| But fortunately, | am enabled to chow thai i.
not the decision Of the Supreme Court which frs;
suggested to me those objections TO the Nebraska bill
which am now presenting; that these very ohi-c.
| tions formed part of the considerations which IN
fuauced my course; and that thoy were, in public
and open debaie communicated to the House On
the 10th day of May, 1854, the gentleman from G-"r-
gia Mr.. Seward now before me, in the ccurss OF 4
very candid speech upon the BILL in which, while he
pointed out with great cearness and force many Oo
-cons to IT, yet declared his purpose TO vote for it,
m4de this reuest of ma:
"a ask the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.. Mlison who
spoke the other day In opposition to this bill, tell mo
and tell the Commoe how the passage Of this bill could
work injury TO the Southt
"Mr MILLsoN Does the gentlemen wish "A reply
mir SEWARD do.
| "Mr MILLsos. As the gentleman desires that should
reply to his Inquiries will with pleasure accede his
request; Of course say but few words. Ia the
remarks To which the gentleman aliudes, commenced by
showing that the South had always been in opposition
the organization of Government in Nebraska. eXpsE
ed extent the reasons which had induced south
gentlemen to oppose the establishment of Territorial
Government there. then stated that Inducements
found necessary to be held out to overcome these
objections 1t supposed that repeal of the --onr
Compromise would remove them undertook 10 exam
ne the real weight and value OF the Inducements held
My purpose to show that. under the operation
Compromise would be nuIlfed, and that the restriction
would still be In operation And now will state how,
understand it, the south will be injured by the pa
sage Of th bill with that proyiso TO create. extent
th by the continuance OF the Missouri Compromise
| itself
| "Mr. SEWARD. That is what want to know.
MT MILLsos will tell the gentleman The Missouri
Compromse simply prohibited slavery In the Territory
North OF 36o 3o but did not undertake to repeal law
either of Congress Of the Territorial Legsture by
which slavery had before that time been protected there
Now, sir, II this Missouri Compromise act should be
declared to be unconstitutional as many gentlemen main
tain TO- then these laws protecting slavery would imme
daatey be put in force again because nothing inter
feres with them but law which, by the sopposon is
unconstitutional and void. But the Badger proviso IN
! on. keeu the Missouri restriction and rcpens
the pre-existlng laws by which slavery was protected
I'M, s' % osee Whssvs may be- thought of the
consttutionaity of the Missouri Compromise act,
one doubt the constitulionaly OF the Badger pro
the extent Of its -cation To the egislaon OF
Congress and the Territorial Government M can
doubt that Congress have the power OF repeating laws
already made by theuselves by their authority In This
state ofthe therefore, the Missouri Compromise. il de-
cIared unconstitutional would leave the laws protecting
slavery in full force. while the Badger provso would re
peal those laws. and therefore, operate more inu1usy
| to The South"
Sir it not strange that advocates of the Nebraska
BILL who all that is unconstitutional In their own
saving Intended 20 refer It TO the de-
cson Of the Courts should not have that the easiest
way of settling the question OF the power Of Congress
over Slavery in the Territories. 10 subject the
Missouri Compromise itself to the decsion OF the
| Courtsi What the use OF passing new law
for the purpose of raising question for the Cours
when the very same question was presented By
| law already existin2l If Southern gentlemen sup
posed that this question would be decided agmnst W:
peSd BE- decided n they
SAY they did, and 1t lately has been bow could they
overlook the Disadvantages of the new bargain tney en-
tered into In annung all the laws which had protected
Slavery and In surrenderng the institution Itself TO the
hazards of popular majorityf Well might Mr.. Hunter
of Virginia. say In his letter Mr Leake, last October
that the bill was such would nave been framed BY
the delegates from either section il Il bad been submitted
to them alone" Yes . it was anew COMPROMISE to sup.
nIan, an oId Connromise IL the Missouri Compromise
superseded by the Nebraska Compromise; and tru.,
have shown that the new was even more dhsdvahts'
will ia its turn. be superseded by modern
con,rivance making everybody support what nobody
ts in favor of OF course cannot tell.
| Here the hammer fell
DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION.
HARRISBURG, March 5-The Convention re.as-
,embled to day. Resolutions wsrs unanimously
ported, declaring that the principle involved in The