Year: 1860

then owned, as theI compromise line of 1920 had
settled the condition Of the country in relation to
all we then owned, and the ordinance of 1887 as
to all We then owned How was il settled in 1850, ,
1t was said that if Congress passed the measures
in relation TO Utah and New Mexico, and the other
compromise measures then agreed upon, there
would he no territory left about which TO quarrel
in relation to the subject of slavery; it would all
be settled and arranged, and there would be, as
they said at that time, fnality Of that topic
Those compromise measures were passed. They
were passed because the Missouri compromise line
had settled all the Louisiana purchase, and they
took it up there and settled all beyond; and these
two standing together made perfect provision for
the whole subject in the whole Union. Thus it
was that the Missouri compromise line entered as
very large element into the formation Of the COM
promise measures Of 1850. II was the leading in
gredient in IL, because that settlement was in re-
laton to large and more important part Of the
country than the other.


By means of this compromise line, the South
had, from step to step, ms | have stated, obtained
these several advantages; and what do we come to
next! This had operated as n sort Of stoo-pigeon,
decoy, to enable them to 60 on, step, after step,
with these various arrangements as they wanted
II quieted the North it enabled them to obtain
from the North these various measures. But sir
when. they had gotten them all through; when
there was no more expectation of obtaining any
thiny south of the line; when they had secured
every advantage it practicable to have from it,
now they must just Mt once take down the stool
pigeon, destroy this decoy, obiterate the line and
spread their peculiar institution as much north Of
it as they could. That was attempted to be done
in 1854, by the legislation of that year.


Now | come to the point that the Senator from
Louisiana suggests. Why was that compromise
repealed' Why was that line obliterated' Here
let me say, that the more excuses man makes for
thing, the less we are satisfied with it. A good
excuse or reason is perfect in ITSELF 1t is not made
by collecting together half dozen imperfect ones;
and will now call the attention to some of what
are said TO be the Of that obliteraton. First,
we are told by the honorable Senator from Lousi-
that the North were unfaithful to the agree
ment. know the honorable Senator from Louisi-
ana, in putting the question to me, does not use
those terms but they are the terms that are at
tempted to be used in presenting this proposition
to the community; that the North were unfaithful
and untrue to the Missouri compromise line. How :
What do you mean by being true and faithful to a
compact' What is meant by it in the English
languagel l take it, it is the carrying out and
executing the compact according to its terms, ac-
cordng to the understanding of it when it was
made. What was the understanding in relation
to that compromise line when il was made in 1920
1t was to run through the French purchase-the
Louisiana purchase, if you please-from the Mis-
sissippi river to the Rocky Mountains. Had not
that always been carried out until it repealed
What had ever the northern people done that was
untrue to that compact' Nothing nothing. Moth
ing is pretended. Then that pretended excuse is
unfounded. The allegation that they had been un-
true to it themselves is simply untrue.


But we are told that they would not vote to ex.
tend it AFTER the Mexican war and our obtaining
from Mexico territory towards the Pacific. 1t is
said they would not consent to extend that same
line through to the Pacific. In relation to that point,
I :, H..
it is not true that there any sort Of obligation
on them TO make another bargain and oHtend it
over Other country. II never was any part OF the
original compact that it TO be extended over
other territory; and therefore it is matter Of no
sort Of importance what their reason for their ac-
iion was. | was not present at the time those gen.
temen objected to that. am not possessed Of what
their true reasons were. do not think they need
ed any When one man propose TO another TO en-
ter into compact, he has simply TO say, "l do not
intend 10 entertain it, What then II is very
obvious that the gentlemen who represented the
free States on that occasion were in very different
condition about that territory, for the country OBJ
tained from Mexico had no slavery in it; it had
been abolished while the country belonging TO
Mexico; il was not q slayehodng country al all
and therefore they probably may have thought,
though | do not know it, that their constituents
would not have approved of their making bar
gain to give away and make into slave territory
that which was already free, by any means. But
gentlemen say they agreed to divide the new Ter
ritorics that were slaveholding. Very well; you
may have been generous on that OCCASION; that
makes no demand on the other side TO reciprocate
it a different occasion. But that is not the great
difficulty with the thing. Suppose the North, as
you say would not agree to extend that line over
the newly acquired territory: what then: You
might find fault, if you pleased; perhaps you would
! have occasion to do so; | DO not say whether you
! UoulI orn lut this I Whit Of xcuS
can a man OF common discernment make to another
of similar character, say 'Sir, because you will
not make this other additional bargain, l will
break up the one made MYSELF That is what
you did do. You repealed the Missouri comprom-
ise line in the country called the Louisiana pur-
chase, for which it made, and to which il was
confined. To my mind this is rather lame ey-
cuse in Short it is excuse at all; but it is said
that that was the reason why it was repealed.


The next is the which is put into the re-
pealing bill. That bill, called the Kansas-Nebras
ka act, which repealed the eighth section of the
Missouri act does not say that it was repealed fol
any such cause as that which | have jsst noticed
| 1t says that it was to be declared null and void
because it was inconsistent with the principles oi
the compromise acts of 1850. That is the reason
given in the bill. can merely say, those who pass
ed it put on the record that as the reason, and il
isl will not give it any bad name-a sort OF
| equivocation for any man TO resort to any other
reason when he has recorded the one which he gave
at the time; he is stopped from giving any others
That is an entirely different reason, and utterly in
consistent with the first; and, besides, they are both
false; for the latter one, though it put on
ord that it was inconsistent with the compromise
of 1850, is just wrong as the other. The fact
is, that compromise of 1850, was made on the
ground that the former one of 1920 was part and
parcel of the arrangement; and therefore this ex.
cuse is equally unfounded with the other.


But, Mr.. President, l have now attended tC
three reasons for the repeal. The gentleman from
Virginia found fault with the compromise of 1920
because, he said, the North made it, and it was AT
~ gression when it was made. The next reason
that is given is, that they would not extend it
The third reason is the one put into the bill, thai
it was contrary to the compromise Of 1850; but
we have this session, and perhaps within shor
period before, got another reason 1t is said that
it is unconstitutional; that Congress was well JUS
tilted in repeating it, because it was unconstituon-
al


Mr.. Wgtal With the consent of the Senator,
I will ask him a question. do not want to pro-
tract this debate, because | have little matter
that want to get up after it is over; but, just as
a matter of curiosity, should like TO know what
the Senator understands to have been the principle
of the compromise of 1850 as to Utah and New
Mexico


Mr.. Collamer. 1t was this: there had been diff
n Al.