Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1860-07-27
The Missouri COmprOmise-Tr. Doug-
lass sudden Conversion.


The nefalous violation of the Missouri
Compromise by Mr.. Douglas and his associ-
ates has always been placed upon the ground
that its repeal was rendered necessary by
the Compromise Measures of 1850. Such
is the position now taken by Mr.. Douglas
in the speeches he is delivering through the
country, and by his friends everywhere
The hypocrisy of this protence is easily and
plainly shown by reference to few facts in
history.
On the 4th day of January, 1854, Mr..
Douglas, as Chairman of the Committee on
Territories, reported to the Senate bill for
the admission of the Territory Of Nebraska.
The bill was accompanied by report, from
which we take tho following extract:
Your Committee do not fec themselves called upon to
enter into the discussion of these questions
They involve the grave issues which produced the
1850 As Congress deemed 1t wise and prudent to refrain
from deciding the matters in controversy then either by
Affirming repeating the Mexican laws, by act de-
claratory of the true intent Of the Constitution and the
extent of the protection afforded bv IL slave property in
PREPARED NOW TO RECOMMEND A DEP1RT-
URE from the pursued on that memorable
sion, EITHER BY AFFIRMING OR REPEALTNG
THE EIGHTH SECTION OF The MISSOURI
1CT by act decaratory Of the meaning OF the
stituton in respect the legal points of dispute-
douglas report Chairman of the Committee on Ter
ritories, in the Senate january 4th, 1854
Here the matter rested for nineteen days.
During that period Senator Dixon,( IA Whig,)
of Kentucky, introduced his amendment, re-
pealng the Missouri Compromise. Sena-
tor Atchison, of Missouri, was also engaged
in manipulating Douglas. In speech de-
livered at Atchison City, in Kansas, in Sep
tember, 1854, the former thus alludes to the
fact:
For myself am entirely devoted to the interests Of
the sosth and would sacrifice everything but my hope
of Heaven to advance her welfare He thought the Mis-
souri, Compromise ought to be repealed; he had pledged
himself in his public addresses to vote for territorial
organization that would not virtually annu it, and with
this feeling in his heart he desired to be the Chairman
troduced.
"wth this object in view, he had interview with Mr.
Douglas and informed him what he desred-the intro
duction ofa bill for Nebraska like what he promised to
vote for and that he would like tn be the Chairman of the
Committee on Territories, in order to introduce such
measure; and he could get that position he would i'm
mediaey resign President of the Senate. Judge Doug
las requested toconsider the matter and
IT, at the expiration Of that time he could not introduce
such bill as he (Mr. Atchnson) proposed, which would
the time accord with his of justice TO
the South he would resign Chairman the Territorial
Committee in Democratic caucus, and exert his influence
TO get him Atchson) appointed At the expiration of
Introduce such bill as had been spoken Of"
Accordingly, on the 23d day of January,
1854, Mr.. Douglas brought in bill which
he offered as substitute to his bill present
ed nineteen days previously, dividing Ne
braska into two terrtories-Kansas and Ne
braska--and repeating the Missouri Com
promise in the following terms:
"That the Constitution and all the laws Of the United
States which not locally inAppcable shall have the
force and effect within the said territory Of Nebras-
ka (and Kansas elsewhere within the United States
except the eighth section Of the preparatory the ad
admission Of Missouri into the Union, approved March
sixth eighteen hundred and twenty which being iHc0H
sisieH h The principle Of RNerUeHtiOH by Congress
h sa1ery the states and territories recognized By
the Legislation of 1850 commonly called the Compromise
measures, is hereby declared imperative and void"
This, in brief is tho history of the mat
ter. On the 4th day of January, Mr.. Doug
las was opposed to the repeal of the Mis-
souri, Compromise, asserting that such a
course would be departure from the legis-
lation of 1850; nineteen days thereafter he
introduced a bill for its repeal on the ground
that it was inconsistent with the said legis-
lation Of 1850. He has never been able tc
explain this inconsistency. Blade.