Page images
PDF
EPUB

bill? Is there one ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado has been raised by abolitionists, and abolitionists alone. They have made an impression upon the public mind, in the way in which I have mentioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts; and this whole organization against the compromise measures of 1850 is an abolition movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tenderfooted democrats into their plot; and, acting on what they supposed they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that their address was signed by the senators and a majority of the representatives from the state of Ohio; but when we come to examine signatures, we find no one whig there, no one democrat there; none but pure, unmitigated, unadulterated abolitionists.”

On the 3d of February, Mr. Chase, senator from Ohio, moved to strike out from the bill, the words," was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and," 80 that the clause would read :

“That the constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the union, approved March 6, 1820, which is hereby declared inope rative."

Mr. Chase then proceeded to reply to Mr. Douglas :

“ Mr. President, I had occasion, a few days ago, to expose the utter groundlessness of the personal charges made by the senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) against myself and the other signers of the independent democratic appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement which I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact or history. I intend afterwards to move to strike out the whole clause annulling the Missouri prohibition.

A few days only have elapsed since the congress of the United States assembled in this capitol. Then no agitation seemed to disturb the political elements. Two of the great political parties of the country, in their national conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at an end, and that henceforth that subject was not to be discussed in congress or out of congress. The president, in his annual message, had referred to this state of opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to maintain, as far as any responsibility attached to him, the quiet of the country.

“The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by the chief magistrate of the country was complete, and a large majority of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which he spoke. A few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of these statements, and the

permanency

of this

repose. We never believed that the acts of 1850 would prove to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery question.

“ But, sir, we only represented a small, though vigorous and growing party in the country. Our number was small in congress. By some we were regarded as visionaries—by some as factionists; while almost all agreed in pronouncing us mistaken. And so, sir, the country was at peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and upward to mid-heaven, not a cloud appeared ; to common observation there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky. But suddenly all is changed; rattling thunder breaks from the cloudless firmament. The storm bursts forth in fury.

And now we find ourselves in the midst of an agitation, the end and issue of which no man can foresee.

“Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? Not we, for we have introduced no question of territorial slavery into congress-not we, who are denounced as agitators and factionists. No, sir: the quietists and the finalists, have become agitators; they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery.

“This will not escape the observation of the country. It is slavery that renews the strife. It is slavery that again wants room. It is slavery with its insatiate demand for more slave territory and more slave states.

" And what does slavery ask for now? Why, sir, it demands that a time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded—a compact which has endured through a whole generation—a compact which has been universally regarded as inviolable, north and south-a compact, the constitutionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to abide.

“It will not answer to violate such a compact without a pretext. Some plausible ground must be discovered or invented for such an act; and such a ground is supposed to be found in the doctrine which was advanced the other day by the senator from Illinois, that the compromise acts of 1850 superseded the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30', in the act preparatory for the admission of Missouri. Ay, sir, superseded' is the phrase— superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures.'

“It is against this statement, untrue in fact, and without foundation in history, that the amendment which I have proposed is directed."

Mr. C. farther said, that, during the long discussion of the compro

mise measures in 1850, it was never suggested that they were to supersede the Missouri prohibition. At the last session, a Nebraska bill passed the house, came to the senate, and was reported on by Mr. Douglas, who also made a speech in its favor; and in all there was not a word about repeal by supersedure. The senator from Missouri, (Mr. Atchison,) had also spoken upon the bill, and had distinctly declared, that the Missouri prohibition was not and could not be repealed." An extract was here read from the speech of this senator, of which this

is a part:

• I have always been of opinion that the first great error committed in the political history of this country was the ordinance of 1797, rendering the Northwest Territory free territory. The next great error was the Missouri compromise. But they are both irremediable. There is no remedy for them. We must submit to them. I am prepared to do it. It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed. So far as that question is concerned, we might as well agree to the admission of this territory now as next year, or five or ten years hence.'

“Now, sir, when was this said ? It was on the morning of the 4th of March, just before the close of the last session, when that Nebraska bill, reported by the senator from Illinois, which proposed no repeal, and suggested no supersedure, was under discussion. I think, sir, that all this shows pretty clearly that up to the very close of the last session of congress, nobody had ever thought of a repeal by supersedure. Then what took place at the commencement of the present session ? The senator from Iowa, early in December, introduced a bill for the organization of the territory of Nebraska. I believe it was the same bill which was under discussion here at the last session, line for line, and word for word. If I am wrong, the senator will correct me.

“Did the senator from Iowa then entertain the idea that the Missouri prohibition had been superseded ? No, sir; neither he nor any other man here, so far as could be judged from any discussion, or statement, or remark, had received this notion."

Mr. C. then referred to Mr. Douglas' own report of the 4th of January last, made only thirty days ago. Nor did this report express the opinion that the compromise acts of 1850 had superseded the Missouri prohibition. The committee said that some affirmed and others denied, that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery in the territory acquired from Mexico, were still in force there; and they said that the territorial compromise acts stood clear of these questions. They simply provided that the states organized out of these territories might come in with or without slavery as they should elect, but did not affect the question whether slaves could or could not be introduced before the organization of state governments. That question was left to judicial decision.”

So in respect to the Nebraska territory. There were southern men who contended they would, by virtue of the constitution, take their slaves thither, and hold them there, notwithstanding the Missouri prohibition, while a majority of the American people, north and south, believed that prohibition constitutional and effectual. But did the committee propose to repeal it, or suggest that it had been superseded ? No. They said they did “not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controversy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican laws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the constitution and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave property in the territories ; so your committee are not prepared now to recommend a departure from the course pursued on that memorable occasion, either by affirming or repealing the eighth section of the Missouri act, or by any act declaratory of the meaning of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute."

“ Mr. President, here are very remarkable facts. The committee on territories declared that it was not wise, that it was not prudent, that it was not right to renew the old controversy, and to rouse agitation. They declared that they would abstain from any recommendation of repeal of the prohibition, or of any provision declaratory of the construction of the constitution in respect to the legal points in dispute."

Mr. Chase traced the progress of the committee's bill. As published January 7th, it contained twenty sections. On the 10th, it was pub- . lished again : it then had twenty-one sections. The omission of the last section was alleged to be a clerical error. It was, he said, a singular fact, that this twenty-first section was not in harmony with the committee's report. It in effect repealed the Missouri prohibition, which the committee, in their report, declared ought not to be done. Was it possible that this was a mere clerical error ?

But the addition of this section did not help the bill. It declared among other things that the question of slavery in the territories and in the states to be formed therefrom, was to be left to the decision of the people through their representatives. But this did not meet the approbution of southern gentlemen, who claimed the right to take their slaves into the territories, notwithstanding any prohibition either by congress or by a territorial legislature. It was not enough that the committee had abandoned their report, and added this twenty-first section in direct contravention of its reasonings and principles; the section must itself be abandoned and the repeal of the Missouri prohibition placed in a shape which would deny the slaveholding claim. He next alluded to the amendment of the senator from Kentucky, “which came square up to the

[ocr errors]

a

repeal and to the claim. That amendment probably produced some fluttering and some consultation. It met the views of southern senators, and probably determined the shape which the bill had finally assumed." For “it was just seven days after the amendment bad been offered by senator Dixon, that a fresh amendment was reported from the committee on territories, in the shape of a new bill, enlarged to forty sections. This new bill cuts off from the proposed territory half a degree of latitude on the south, and divides the residue into two territories." This new bill thus provided for the repeal of the Missouri prohibition :

“ The constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the union, approved March 6, 1820, which was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and is therefore declared inoperative."

“ Doubtless, Mr. President, this provision operates as a repeal of the prohibition. The senator from Kentucky was right when he said it was in effect the equivalent of his amendment. Those who are willing to break up and destroy the old compact of 1820, can vote for this bill with full assurance that such will be its effect. But I appeal to them not to vote for this supersedure clause. I ask them not to incorporate into the legislation of the country a declaration which every one knows to be wholly untrue. I have said that this doctrine of supersedure is new. I have now proved that it is a plant of but ten days' growth. It was never seen or heard of until the 23d day of January, 1854. It was upon that day that this tree of Upas was planted : we already see its poison fruits

" The provision I have quoted abrogates the Missouri prohibition. It asserts no right in the territorial legislature to prohibit slavery. The senator from Illinois, in his speech, was very careful to assert no right of legislation in a territorial legislature, except subject to the restrictions and limitations of the constitution. We know well enough what the understanding or claim of southern gentlemen is in respect to these limitations and restrictions. They insist that by them every territorial legislature is absolutely precluded from all power of legislation for the prohibition of slavery. I warn gentlemen who propose to support this bill, that their votes for this provision will be regarded as admitting this claim."

Having thus endeavored to prove that the doctrine that the Missouri compromise had been superseded by the acts of 1850, was new, Mr. Chase attempted to prove it unfounded. Mr. Douglas had charged as a

. misrepresentation, the statement in the appeal of the independent democrats, that the acts of 1850 were intended to apply to the territory

« PreviousContinue »