Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-01-23
4Oltltal.
STATE OF THE UNION
SPEECH OF HON. $. A. DOUGLAS,
or ILLINOIS
Is zBr srSArr, January 3, 1861

oution reported By the Select Committee Of Thirteen
pointed TO conside agated distracted condition
Of the country
Resolred, That the committee have not been able to
agree upon any general plan Of adjustment and report
that ct TO the Senate together with the Journal o. the
committee
Mr. Douglas said:
Mr. PREsIDESr No act of my public life has
ever caused me so much regret as the necessity of
voting in the special Committee Of Thirteen for
the resolution reporting to the Senate our ina
bility TO agree upon any general plan of adjust
ment, which would restore peace to the country
and insure the integrity of the Union If we wish
to understand the real causes which have pro-
duced such widespread and deep-seated discon-
tent in the slaveholding States, we must go back
beyond the recent Presidential election, and trace
the origin and history of the slavery agitation from
the period when il first became an active element
in federal politics. Without fatiguing the Senate
with tedious details, / may be permitted to as
sumo, without the fear of successful cOntradic-
ton, that whenever the Federal Government has
attempted to decide and control the slavery ques-
ton in the newly acquired Territories regardless
of the wishes of the inhabitants. alienation of feel
ing, sectional strife and discord have ensued and
whenever Congress has refrained from such in
reference, harmony and frateTnal feeling have
been restored. The whole volume of our nations
history may be confidently appealed to in support
of this PROPOSITION The most memorable in
stances are the fearful sectional controversies
which brought the Union TO the verge of disrup-
ton in 1870, and again in 1850 1t was the Ter
rt0rial question IN each case which presented the
chief points of difficulty because it involved the
irritating question of the relative political power
OF the two sections. All the other questions which
entered into and served to increase the slavery ag
itation, were deemed of secondary importance,
and dwindled into insigniicance so soon as the
Territorial question was definitely settled.
From the period of the organization of the Fed
eral Government, under the Constitution, in l7e9,
down 10 1870, all the territorial governments bad
been organized upon the basis of non-interfer
ence by Congress with the domestic Institutions
of the people. Dnring that period several new
Territories were organized, including Tennessee,
Louisiana. Missouri, Mississippi and Alabama.
In no one OF these Territories did Congress at
tempt to interfere with the question of slavery,
either 20 introduce or exclude, protect or prohibit
it, During the whole Of this period there was
peace and good will between the people of all
parts Of the Union so far as the question of sla-
very was concerned.
But the first time Congress ever attempted to
interfere with and control that question, regard
less of the wishes of the people interested in it,
the Union was put in jeopardy, and was only
saved from dissolution by the adoption of the
compromise CT 1890. In the famous Missouri
controversy, the majority of the North demanded
that Congress should prohibit slavery forever in all
the territory acquired from France, extending
from the State of Louisiana to the British Posses
sions on the North, and from the Mississippi to
the Rocky Mountains. The South and the con-
servafive minority Of the North, on the contrary,
stood firmly upon the ground of Intervention.
denying the right of Congress to touch the sub
ject. They did not ask Congress to interfere for
protection nor for any purpose, while they opposed
the right and Justice of exclusion Thus, each
party with their respective positions distinctly de-
fned-the one for and the other against Con
gressional ervention-maintained its position
with desperate persistency until disuni0n seemed
inevitable, when compromise was effected by an
equitable partition of the territory between the
two sections on the line of So deg. 80 min., pro-
hibiting slavery ON the one side and permitting il
on the other.
In the adoption of this compromise, each party
yielded one-half of It's claim for the sake of the
Union. 1t was designed to form the basis of per
petual peace on the slavery question by establish
ing rule in accordance with which all future
controversy would be avoided The line of par
tition distinctly marked far our erritory
might extend; and, by irresistible inference, the
spirit Of the compromise required the extension o.
the line on the same parallel whenever we should
extend our I eTitorial limits. The North and thu
South-althOugh each was dissatisfied with tn,
terms Of the settlement, each having surrendered
one half of its cIain-by common consent agree
to acquiesce in it, and abide by it as permanen
basis of peace on the slavery question. 1t il
true that there were a few disconnected spirits il
both sections who attempted to renew the contro
versy from time to time; but the deep Union feel
ing prevailed. and the masses of the people wer
disposed to stand by the settlement as the sures
means of avertng future difficulties.
Peace was restored fraternal feeling returned ant
we were happy and united people so long a
We adhered to and carried out, in good faith, tn
Missouri Compromise according to its spirit, a
well as its letter In lS45, when Texas wa
annexed 70 the Union, the policy of an equitabl
partition on the line of SO deg 80 min. was ad
hered to and Carried into effect by the extension
Of the line as far westward as the new acquisition
might reach IL is true, there was much diverst
of opinion as to the propriety and wisdom of an
nexing Texas. In the North the measure wa
opposed by large numbers upon the dIstinc
ground that Il was enlarging the area of slav
territory within the Union: and In the South
probably received much additional support for tn
same reason; but, while il may have been oppose
and supported, in some degree, North and Soutl
from these considerations, no considerable nun
Der in either section objected to it upon th
ground that il extended and carried out the polio
of the Missouri Compromise. The objection wa
solely to the acquisition of the country, and not
the application of the Missouri Compromise to i
III acqulfeu. NJ Idf uLnOcQ man cOuiO Gen
that every reason which induced the adoption {
the line in 1870 demanded its extension throug
Texas, and every new acquisition, whenever "
enlarged territorial possessions in that dires
ton. No man would have been deemed faithfi
to the obligations Of the Missouri Compromise
that day, who opposed to its application
future acquisitions
The record shows that Texas was annexed I
the Union upon the express condition that Il
~ ii
made applicable to the country, so far as our ne
boundaries might reach The history OF that a
ouisition viii show that | not only supported Il
annexation Of Texas, but that urged the nece
sity of APPLYING the Missouri COMPROMISE to
for the purpose Of extending it through Ne
Mexico and California to the Pacific ocean, whe
ever we should acquire those Territories, as
means of putting an end to the slavery agitatiC
forever.
The annexation of Texas drew after it the vi
with Mexico, and the treaty of pence left US
possession Of California and New Mexico. tn
large acquisition of new territory was made Il
occasion for renewing the Missouri controvers
The agitation of 1880 was a second edition
that OF lSl9-20. 1t was stimulated by the san
motives, aiming at the same ends, and enforc,
by the same arguments. The Northern maiori
invoked the Intervention of Congress to prohil
slavery everywhere in the Territories of Il
United States--bOth sides of the Missouri line
South as wen as North of 50 deg. 80 min. II
South, together with a conservative minority
the North, s-ood firmly upon the ground of no
Intervention. denying the right of Congress to i
terfere with the subject. but ayOwing willin
ness in the spirit o. concession for the sake
peace and the Union, to adhere to and carry o
the policy of equitable partition on the line
80 deg. and 30 min to the Pacific ocean. in /
same sense IN which it was adopted in le20. al
according to the understanding when Texas W
annexed in le45. Every argument and reaso
every. consideration of patriotism and duty. whi
induced the adoption of the policy in le20, al
its application to Texas lS45, demanded its a