Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER VI.

KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT-A SLAVERY TRIUMPH.

By the compromise measure of 1820 slavery was forever prohibited north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude from the territory of the Louisiana purchase, except that portion included in the State of Missouri. As this Compromise was a Southern movement and maintained by Southern votes, it would seem that they were most fairly and solemnly bound to this compact. The opponents of slavery extension were bitterly opposed to the Compromise, because it yielded up the extensive domain of Missouri to slavery; whereas the spirit and teachings of our Government demanded an inhibition of this curse; but after it was legitimately approved of by the legislative councils of the nation, they regarded it with that veneration which is due to a law of the land.

The first infraction of this Compromise occurred in 1836 when a triangular piece of territory, lying between the then existing boundary of the State of Missouri and the Missouri River, was annexed to the former. The original western boundary of Missouri was a line drawn due north and south from the point where the Kansas River enters the Missouri. This was an exceedingly fertile tract of country, from which was formed seven counties of largest size and capable of sustaining the densest population, which numbered in 1860, 70,505 souls. This work was effected so quickly and dextrously by Colonel Benton that it attracted little attention at the time.

Petitions were received at the first session of the thirty-second Congress (1851-2) for organizing the territory west of Missouri, but no action was taken upon them. At the next session Mr. Willard P. Hall, of Missouri, introduced a bill' in the House to organize the same territory, together with that west of Iowa, under the name of Platte, which was referred to the Committee on Territories. From this Committee a report was presented' organizing the same territory under the name of Nepraska. This, on going to the Committee of the Whole, encountered a strong Southern opposition and was reported3 back to the House with a recommendation for its rejection. After the failure of a motion to lay it on the table, the bill passed by 98 yeas to 43 nays. On arriving in the Senate it was referred to the Committee on Territories, of which Mr. Stephen A. Douglas was chairman. From this committee it was reported without amendment, but was never acted upon though several unsuccessful efforts were made to have it taken up in the latter days of the session. Thus the Southern members stoutly refused to organize this territory at that time, which, in the next Congress, was an object that they earnestly sought to accomplish. But it is a note-worthy fact that the existence and validity of the Missouri Compromise had not, as yet, been questioned, and no one had discovered that the legislation of 1850 had superceded that of 1820; the only objection urged being that it would infringe upon the rights of the Indians to organize this territory.

In the thirty-third Congress (1853-4), agreeable to a previous notice, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, introduced' a bill into the Senate to organize the Territory of Nebraska without any reference to slavery, which, after being read twice, was referred to the Committee on Territories, from which it was reported back by the chairman, Mr. Douglas, with various amendments. In the report of Mr. Douglas, which accompanied the bill, although he raised the question as to the con

(1) Dec. 2, 1852. (2) Feb. 2, 1853. (3) Feb. 10. (4) Feb. 11. (5) Dec. 14. 1853,

stitutionality of the Missouri Compromise, he refrained from passing judgment upon it himself, and no where intimated that the legislation of 1850 had rendered it inoperative. The seat of government was located at Fort Leavenworth, and "all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories and new States formed therefrom," it suggested that agreeable with the legislation of 1850, should be left to the decision of the people residing therein, through their appropriate representatives. The bill, with the report and amendments, was ordered to be printed.

Mr. Dixon gave notice that when the bill should come up for consideration he would offer an amendment to the following effect:

"That as much of the 8th section of An act approved March 6, 1820, entitled 'An act to authorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a constitution and a State government and for the admission of such a State into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and to prohibit slavery in certain Territories' as declares in all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, slavery and involuntary servitude otherwise than in the punishment of crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, is forever prohibited,' shall not be so construed as to apply to the territory contemplated by this act, or to any Territory of the United States, but that the citizens of the several States and Territories shall be at liberty to take and hold their slaves within any of the Territories of the United States, or of the States to be formed therefrom, as if the said act, entitled as aforesaid and approved as aforesaid, had never been passed."

This first stroke at the sacred Compromise which had quieted the storm of 1820, and which had been regarded for thirty-four years as lasting as time, fell like a thunder bolt upon the Senate and the nation. The blast of strife was thus sounded by the expiring breath of Plighted Faith. Slavery

(6) January 16, 1855,

no longer seeks to disguise its foulness, or apologize for its existence; but vaunteth itself as an institution of our fathers, wholesome to society, and sanctioned by religion. Disdaining all legislative restrictions and trampling under foot all compromises whereby it has hitherto secured tolerance, it arrogates to itself the prerogatives of a full grown monster and dictates to the nation its demands.

Even the ambitious Stephen A. Douglas was startled at the unexpected report. He had congratulated himself that he had rendered such signal service to the South by questioning the validity of the Missouri Compromise and virtually removing its interdiction to slavery that it could only be rewarded by placing him in his long sought for position-the Presidency, Ambition, though baffled and apparently defeated, never despairs, but proceeds to consult the unprincipled Oracle of Suecess. Mr. Douglas resolves to go so far beyond the one who thus outbid him, that the spoils of his achievements shall be all that the insatiable cravings of slavery can demand. He therefore draws up a bill almost entirely unlike any of the preceding ones. Instead of organizing one, he now proposes to organize two Territories, the first to include that Territory lying between Missouri and the Rocky Mountains, north of thirty-seven degrees north latitude, to be called Kansas; the second, the remaining portion of what was contemplated by the former bills, called by the name of Nebraska. He moved the southern boundary up to thirty-seven degrees north latitude in order that it might coincide with the boundary between the Osages and Cherokees. The question of slavery was left to be decided by the people of said Territories through their appropriate representatives. The section providing for electing a Delegate is amended by adding to the words "that the Constitution and all the laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere in the United States," the following:

"Except the 8th section of the act preparatory to the ad

mission of Missouri, approved March 6, 1820, which was superceded by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measure, and is declared inoperative.

The bill thus reported by Mr. Douglas was debated at length in the Senate The arguments employed by the disputants were the same as those employed in the similar discussion of 1820 with two additional ones. The Restrictionists now had besides all their other arguments, the Missouri Compromise, forever prohibiting slavery from the territory in question, which had been regarded as sacred for more than a score and a half of years. The Anti-Restrictionists had the famous doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty, which, claiming for itself absolute orthodoxy, utterly repudiated all quondam legislation not in harmony with it, disdained precedents and overswept every logical barricade.

On the 15th of February Mr. Douglas moved that the clause, declaring that the Restriction of 1820 superceded by the legislation of 1850, be stricken out, and in lieu thereof, had inserted the clause of similar nature now found in the Ordinance. Mr. Chase then moved to have the following added:

"Under which the people of the Territories through their appropriate representatives, may if they see fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein."

But this motion was lost by 36 nays to 10 yeas. Thus the people of these territories which had been shielded from slavery by the compromise of 1820, were not allowed by this act to exclude slavery if they wished. On motion of Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, the following amendment was added.

"Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to revive or put in force any law or regulation which may have existed prior to the act of 6th of March, 1820, either protecting, establishing, abolishing or prohibiting slavery."

« ZurückWeiter »