St. Charles City Republican intelligencer. [volume] (St. Charles City [Charles City], Iowa) 1857-1861, 1860-05-17

wv N'oi ~ VI iiic SouIt, us MI BU
chanan said in regard to the Other
question, that he is lrpriscd how
amy one could ever have doubted the
right
But let us come back to the lCgisla
ton of lS54-thC Kansas Nebraska
act-this cornerstone of Democratic
faith. 1t says that the Missouri com.
promise act was repealed because it
docs not agree with the Legislation of
1900. | have again to alludc to the
declaration, before quoted, from the
speech Of Mr.. Douglas in the Senate,
that the owner Of slaves has the
same right to remove to the Terrific
rIcs, and carry his slave property with
hlm, as the owner Of any other spc-
cI"S OF property Upon this the Dem
"rratlc party prcdicatcs its doctrine
OF non-IntcrvcntiOn with slavery. |
propose to show that the non-intcrvcn-
ton Of 1880 is prcdicatcd upon an en-
tlrcIy different idea, at least so far as
Mr. Clay and those who sympathiZcd
with him understood it. The founda-
tlon OF the compromise legislation of
1890, was Mr.. Clay's celebrated rcso-
lutlonS, introduced into the Senate by
HIM as the basis for the settlement of
an angry sectional controversy then
agltatInS the public mind and threat.
ening the stability of the Union. The
war with Mexico had closed, and we
were about to dispose of the territory
acquired. Mr. Clay's second rcsolu-
tlon affirmed that Whereas. slavery
does not now exist by law in any of
the territory recently acquired from
Mexico, and is not likely to be intro
duccd, therefore," &c, "it is inexpc-
dent to pass the Wilmot proviso." |
quote from memory. Here YOU see
that the nOn-intcrvention of 1850 is
prcdlcatcd upon the law and the fact
that slavery does not exist in the Ter.
ritorics !; while the non,intcrvcntion of
1854 goes upon the opposite assump.
ton, that slavery does exist in the
| Territories.
am glad to see present, Mr.. Chair
man, a member from Ohio (Mr. Cor
VIM who was an actor in the lcgisla-
ton Of those days, and who can vouch
for the accuracy Of my position. He
knows that the men who passed the
compromise measures of 1850 prcdi-
Gated their action upon the fact that
slavery did not exist 10y law in the ac-
quired territory, and that, therefore,
it was unnecessary to lcgislatc it out
twas contcnded, to be sure, by dis
tinguished gentleman from the South,
that man had the same right to car
ry his slave into the Territories that
he had to carry his horse, just as the
! Democratic party now contend but
MIR. Clay met that doctrine with his
unqualified condemnation. If | rccol-
lcct rightly the debates report him to
have said that it was the most indie
tcusiblc opinion ever uttered by man
But we arc not left even in doubt
ON this subject. The compromise of
| 1880 did something more it had
something to do with the territory en-
bracCd within the Louisiana purchase,
as well as with the territory we ac-
qulred from Mexico. The legislation
of 1850, instead of repeating, rcaf-
tirmed the Missouri compromise line
Of 1920 and with reference to the
boundary OF Texas, Congress proposed
to give that State $l0,000,000, one
condition of which was, that all por-
ton of the territory lying north of
SO 30 Of north latitude, included
within the original Louisiana pur-
chase, should remain free, and that
the States formed out of it should be
free States. The Sl0,000,00O paid
into the Golfers of Texas was ran
som from the Federal Treasury for
the freedom of the States to be formed
out of that territory. Yet, sir, the
Legislation of 1850 was made a pre-
text in 1884 for the repeal of the Mis-
sour compromise.
In the annals Of the world there is,
perhaps, but one parallel for the facili-
~ with which the Democratic party
Of to-day clothes its monstrous here.
sizes i'll the garb of truth /; and that is
when Satan, with assembling speech,
melted mother Eve to treason against
high Heaven, saying that she should
not surely die as penalty for her
transSrcssion. Why, Mr.. Chairman
so far from sanctioning the doctrine
of non-intervention with slavery, the
Legislation of 1850 carried that doc
trinc further than it had ever been
carried before. 1t prescribed that
upon subdivision of Texas into 9th
CT States, that portion of her terrific
; ry included within the original Louis
lana purchase, lying north Of SO 80
should be admitted into the Union
O1lig as free States.
Again, the Legislation of 1850 abol
ishcd the domestic slave trade in tn,
District Of Columbia this particu
lar also going a step beyond any pre-
vious Legislation. Does that look lik,
non-intcrvcntion? This Fundamental
article in the Democratic creed vii
have to look somewhere else for sane
tion than to the Legislation of 1850.
it is worthy Of note that, soon after
the acquisition of Louisiana, Congress
prohibited not only the foreign slave
trade from being carried on with that
Territory, but also forbid the intro
duction there of slaves from the States
as merchandise This humane law
was revived, and continued from time
to time, and it remained in operation
until superseded by the compromis,
: act of 1920, and never was repcalc,
= until the passage of the kansas-Nc
braska act in 1854, which provides a.
| follows
That nothing herein containc,
shall bc construed to revive, or put il
force, any law or regulation whicl
may have existed prior to the act o
9th of March, 1920, either prohibiting
establishing, protecting, OF abolishins
slavery"
, The effect of the Legislation of 1875
has been to revive the domestic slav,
trade between States and Territories
, 1t is legitimate result of this dog