The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-02-03


witness renewal of the sectional contro-
versy which had attended the organization
of nearly every territory, and the admission
of nearly every State since the admission of
Missouri, and were willing again to tender
the Missouri compromise as basis of
future action in reference to the subject of
slavery and adopt the same if it should
prove agreeable to the country Accord
iugly Mr.. Douglas offered the following
amendment to the bill.
"That the line of $50 80 of North latitude,
known as the Missouri Compromise line as de-
fined by the eighth section of an act entitled
An act to authorize the people of the Missouri
Territory to form Constitution and State gov
ernment and for the admission of such State
into the Union on an equal footing with the Or
iginal States, and to prohibit slavery in certain
Territories approved March 6, 1920, be, and
the same is hereby declared to extend to the
Pacific ocean; and that the said eighth section,
together with the compromise therein effected,
is hereby revived and declared to be in full
force and binding for the future organization
of the Territories of the United States, in the
same sense and with the same understanding
with which it was originally adopted"
The amendment prevailed in the Senate,
and it is curious to note that the names of
Franklin Pierce and S. A. Douglas stand
recorded in the affirmative; while those of
Messrs. Hale and Hamlin, Corwin and 9th
ers, now the peculiar friends of the sacred
compact" may be found in the negative
Upon the bill going to the House of Re-
representatives., the amendment was stricken
out by the efforts of those who now claim to
have been the devoted adherents of the Mis-
souri, Compromise, and Congress refused to
endorse the principle in regard to the Ter
ritories upon which the Missouri Compro-
mise was based We come now, in order
of time, to the year 1850, when the United
States having acquired possessions from
Mexico, it became necessary to provide for
them some method of government. Califor-
MIA, without going through the forms of
Territorial existence, had adopted consti-
tuition, and asked admission into the Union,
governments had to be formed. An imme
date excitement again arose upon the sub
ject of slavery. The anti-slavery men con-
tended that in any bill establishing govern
ments for the newly acquired territories, a
provision should he inserted forever proh
biting slavery therein while on the other
hand it was contended that not only had
Congress not such power over the subject
as was claimed, but also that, as these pos
sessions had been won and purchased by the
common blood and treasure of the country,
the benefits derived from their acquisition
should be shared by all alike. We have
seen that Congress on former occasion
had repudiated the Missouri Compromise
line, and consequently they had not to de.
termine upon either of two lines of policy
for the present and future regulation of the
subject of slavery in territories. They must
either adopt the principle of prohibition or
the principle of leaving this, as all other
questions of domestic concern, to the arbi.
trament of the people, who were more i'm
mediately interested therein. At this time
Mr.. Clay came into Congress for the pur-
pose of lending the aid of his mighty genius,
to bring about some measure of peace. In
this connection he says " When l came to
consider this subject there were two or three
general purposes which seemed to me most
desirable, if possible, to accomplish. The
one was to settle all the controverted ques.
tions in regard to slavery and it seemed to
me to be doing very little if we settled one
question and left other disturbing questions
unadjusted. 1t seemed to me to be doing
very little if we stopped one leak only in
the Ship of State, and left other leaks capa-
BILE of producing change, if not destruction,
to the vessel. l therefore turned my atten>
ton to every subject connected wit the in
stitution of slavery, and out of which con-
troverted questions have sprung, to see if it
were possible or practicable to accOmmo.
date or adjust the whole of them"
The result of the action of Mr. Clay in
the matter, aided by patriotic statesmen
from all portions of the country, was the in
PRODUCTION of the famous Compromise mea-
sures of 1850, included among which were
bills for the government of Utah and New
Mexico, each of which contained provision
leaving to the people of either territory the
settlement of all their domestic concerns, not
excepting slavery, in their own way, subject
only to the Constitution OF the United States.
1t is hardly to be supposed that Mr.. Clay
and his cOmpeers, who supported this mea-
sure of justice to the people of the terrific
ries adopted it merely as temporary expe-
pedient. Indeed, the whole current of de-
bate upon the question, shows the contrary
to have been the case.
During the debate, Mr.. Douglas is re-
ported to have said "The position that
very question: and all other questions rea-
ting to the domestic affairs and domestic
policy of the territories, ought to be left to
the decision of the people themselves, and
that we ought to be content with whatever
way they would decide the question, because
they have much deeper interest in these
matters than we have, and know much bet
ter what institutions suit them than we who
have never been there can decide for them"
And again these measures are predicated
upon the great fundamental principle that
every people ought to possess the right of
forming and regulating their own internal
concerns and domestic institutions in their
own way"
Mr.. Toombs in letter to his constituents
in 1850. after the passage of the Compro-
mise, said : " This great principle of State
equality and non-intervention, thus compro-
missed away in 1920, has been rescued,
re-established, and firmly planted in our
political system by the present action of
Congress" And to show that Henry Clay
held the Missouri Compromise in not such
s<-L nnl oe ~