The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-09-28
GREAT SPEECH OF DOUGLAS AT
ROCHESTER,.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE AND ORDI-
NANCE OF 1887.

THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE AND ORDI-
NANCE OF 1887.
He Replies to one of Stewards Argu-
The Rochester Union estimates the crowd
at that place to hear DOUGLAS, on the 18th,
at from forty to fifty thousand. Several
persons were badly injured by the pressure
of the immense throng. We make few
extracts from DOUGLAS speech:
.... THE ORDINANCE OF 1857.
observe that in a recent speech at the
capital of Wisconsin, Mr.. Senator Seward
told the people that the ordinance of 1887
banished Slavery from the Northwestern
Territories and rescued that country to free
dom. | have no doubt that Mr.. Seward
believed the statement he made, for caLnot
conceive that be would have made it if he
had known it was contradicted by the hiss
tory of the country. We of the Northwest
are of the opinion that we hold our freedom
by higher title than an act of Congress.
The smaller leaders of the Republican party
have so often repeated the statement, that
the States are free because Congress COM
PEELED them to be so, that many have come
to believe it. 1t is true that in 1887 the
old Congress of Confederation passed an
ordinance prohibiting Slavery forever in the
Northwestern Territory. But it is also
true that the first Territorial Legislatures
that ever assembled in Illinois, Indiana,
Wisconsin and Michigan, passed laws intro.
ducing, maintaining and protecting Slavery
in defiance of that ordinance. Hence when
Mr.. Seward tells the people of the North
west that they are free simply because Con-
gress said they should be, be misunderstands
the history of our country. The fact is,
that so long as Congress declared the peo-
pie of Illinois Territory should not have
Slavery, just so long we did nave it and
maintain it; and it was only when Congress
withdrew its prohibition, and allowed our
people to do as they pleased by admitting
us as State into the Union, we adopted a
gradual system of emancipation.
Notwithstanding these historical facts,
which the schoolboys in our country we'll
understand, we hear the Republican orators
contending that the Northwest is a free
country not from choice, but from compul-
sion, under an act of Congress. l Iscorn the
imputation on the people of my own State.
On their behalf repel the slander. We of
Illinois tried Slavery, and maintained it un-
til we found out that in our climate, with
our soil and our productions, it was not our
ip%oroo% IN hovo - opd thor, MN hi: Ill
it of our own free will and accord, because
we thought that our prosperity required
that we should make ours free State.
Having decided the Slavery question to suit
ourselves, we are in favor of according to
every other State and Territory the same
privileges of self government.
You, in New York, have similar histo>
ry. You had Slavery when you were a
British colony, and you maintained it for
many years after you became sovereign
State you abolished it when you came to
the conclusion that your interest would be
promoted by so doing. New York is con-
sequently Free State-not by compulsion
NOT by coercion-but by the free choice
and voluntary action of your own people.
Why should not that principle be extended
to all the States and all the Territories of
the United States? Congress has never
yet succeeded in driving it back from one inch
of American soil. Wherever it has at
tempted it, it has failed. The people in eve
ry instance have settled the question to suit
themselves. 4f-".a.a a -',.Hf-. q
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE. ...
So long as the people of the free States
were willing to abide by the Missouri Com
promise, was in favor of maintaining it
and extending it to the Pacific Ocean. In
l648 the Senate passed bill, onmy motion,
extending the Missouri Compromise to the
Pacific Ocean, in the same sense and with
same understanding with which it was ori-
ginally adopted. That bill was defeated in
the House of Representatives by the votes
of Northern men who had free soil proclivi-
ties. Every Aboltonist and every Free
Soiler in America joined in denunciation of
me because l was willing to maintain the
Missouri Compromise line, and extend it to
the Pacific Ocean. When l went home that
year l was assailed by the Free Soilers for
my vote in favor OF that line. In my speech
in defence of my course on that question
called the attention of the old Wings to the
fact that for years they had been claiming
credit for Henry Clay as the great compro-
miser in securing the passage of the meas.
ures-that they had been in the habit Of
representing the Missouri Compromise as
the greatest of great achievements hav.
ing an origin akin to the Constitution--ont
80 sacred that no ruthless hand would ever
dare disturb it. This was an argument ad.
dressed to the old Wings, repeating what
they had been in the habit Of saying. a.Ant
now the Free Soilers of this day misrepre'
sent me by taking up my speech and charg
ing that I said what 1 only repeated as th,
arguments they had used in support of th'
| Missouri Compromise. refer to this Incl