The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1860-09-08
1politifol.
John Bells Record.
MR.. BELL IN lS54--THE KANSAS. NEBRASKA
BILL.

N"AN' iN lCOt--llE hANSAS- NEBRASkA
We come now to what may Justly he con.
sidcrcd as the most important act of Mr.. Bell,
public lite-his opposition to the Kansas.
Nebraska act. A few brief passages from
the two speeches made ty him III the Senate
ON the memorable occasion will suffice to
place before the people of the South (where
his vote against the bill has been made the
subject of hitter CONDEMNATION the motives
and reasons by which he was governed
Hear him. leow-ctizcns:
REPEAL OF TIE MISSOURI COMPROMISE A
GREAT PRACTICAL QrEsTIoN-lTs PROBABLE
RESULTS CONSIDERED.
IF this measure Shall appear to be as
important to the interests of the country MS
its friends assume, | Shall Gel no embarrasS.
ment arising from any Of the questions to
which have just alluded, in giving my sup
port 10 the principle of non-intervcnlon.
embraced in the provisions of the nl.l before
the Senate. / think it is wise and expcdl-
ent principle, for general application, and
upon this point it will be perceived, that
there is no difference between myself and any
of my Southern friends 1t is not new
principle 1t was the principle adopted IN
the compromise acts Of 1850, and had my
full concurrence and support. But in tn.
application Of this principle TO the Territories
proposed to be organized by this bill. in
order to give it a free and uncmbarrased op-
peration, it proposed to repeal the Missouri
Compromise; and thus great practical
question is directly presented: and one
which, above all others. claims the dIspas.
sionate consideration and reflection of every
statesmen Of the country. north and south -
L.. - u ornpjjr,I/ In ,Ji,J,,I H.
sowi Compromise Docs the repeal of the
slarcry restriction clause of the act Of 1920
promise such impo' tamt and Lencfciem results
10 the country that all ject,ons shouM be uield-
ed!"
MISSOURI RESTRICTION UNJUST TO THE Souri,.
e Sir, it is contended that by applying the
principle of non-inervention to the Terrific
rics, we shall harmonize the action of the
government by conforming it to the principle
of the compromise acts of 1850. Admitted.
1t is said that the Slavery restriction clause
of the act of 1920 was a violation of the OBJ.
legations of the treaty by which France cedcd
to the United States the Territory of Louis.
lana. admit it. 1t is contended that the
restriction upon slavery imposed by the Mis-
souri, Compromise was unjust 10 the South
That is also true.
The attempt of the North in 1920 to inter-
dict slavery in Missouri as a condition of her
admission into the Union, and the continued
resistance offered to the application of that
State for admission, unit, the South agreed
toacccpt the proposition TO inlerdict slavery
III all the remaining territory ced,d by
France, lying north of the line of &c deg
80, was just such q proceeding that tie
great names invoked by the honora BILE Sena-
tor from Massachusetts, Mr. Sumner. to
sustain him IN his course as an abohtionist-
Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, and Hamil.
ton, had they been living at the time, anti
slavery in sentiment though they We're, would
have raised their united voices against it rs
conceived in spirit the very reverse of that
which controlled their own course when thew
gave their sanction to the Constitution when
they contributed the full weight of their grea,
names and characters in concillialing and
itconclllng the strongest antagonisms of SEN
tineht and interests between the North and
the South; and in blending all in one great
organic instrument of Unioii, unparalleled ir
the wisdom gifts provisions and the gran
deur of its results. Jefferson did raise his
voice against it, but unhappily his glorious
compatrlots of the revolution had passed
away, and he, in his retirement, was no longer
able to control The active passions of the day"
HE FEARS THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE REPEAL.
ING THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
Having thus gone over all the grounds of
objection suggested against the validity of
the Missouri Compromise, trust it will be
Seen that am not disposed to controyert
them either as to fact or doctrine, with such
exception only as upon more deliberate con-
sideraton, by those who asserted them, will
be allowed to be well taken. But, Sir adj
uniting them, with the exception l have
stated, to be incontrovcrtibly true. still the
main question remains to be considered and
decid,d: DO these ,Jacts and doctrines demon
slrote the erpcdiency Of disturbing the Missouri
Compromise under eI,sting circumstances g
and IN coming to an affirmative conclusion
upon this point, hesitate pause
PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES OF THE REPEAL
FURTHER CONSIDERED.
al have listened with attention to all the
luminous exposition of theories of constitu.
tional construction, and Of popular sovereign.
ty. to the ingenious application of doctrilIal
points TO questions of compac:s and
compromises by the friends of this
measure The question has been fruitful Of
themes for dialectlc display; for the exhibit
ton of great powers of analysis and logical
acnmen; but the whole argument has been
H.. 4