Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

National-Demokratische Douglas-Platform.

Angenommen in Charleston und Baltimore 1860.

1. Beschlossen, daß wir, die Demokratie der Union, in, dels, des schnellen Verkehrs und der Postverbindung eine Eisender Convention versammelt, hiermit uns einverstanden erklären bahn nach dem Stillen Ocean eine Nothwendigkeit ist, und daß mit der im Jahre 1856 in Cincinnati einstimmig angenommenen die demokratische Partei sich verpflichttt, eine solche constitutionelle Platform der Grundsäße der demokratischen Partei, indem wir Regierung ins Leben zu rufen, welche den Bau einer solchen Eisenglauben, daß die demokratischen Grundsätze ihrem Wesen nach un- bahn so schnell wie möglich sicher stellt. veränderlich find, insofern sie sich auf dieselben Gegenstände beziehen, und wir empfehlen als die einzigen weiteren Beschlüsse die folgenden:

[ocr errors]

5. Beschlossen, daß die demokratische Partei sich der Erwerbung der Insel Cuba unter solchen Bedingungen, wie sie für uns selbst und Spanien ehrenvoll find, günstig er lärt.

Da in Bezug auf das Wesen und die Macht einer Territorial- | 6. Daß die Gesetze von Staatslegislaturen, søfern sie der geLegislatur verschiedene Ansichten in der demokratischen Partei bestreuen Durchführung des Sklavenfanggesetzes widerstreben, ihrem steben, sowie auch in Bezug auf die constitutionese Macht und Charakter nach feindselig, der Constitution zuwider, und ihren ErPflicht des Congresses in Betreff der Sklaverei in den Terri folgen nach revolutionär find. torien,

2. Beschlossen, daß die demokratische Partei sich den Entscheidungen des Oberbundesgerichts in Fragen des constitutionellen Gesetzes unterwerfen will.

3. Beschlossen, daß es die Pflicht der Ver. Staaten ist, allen Bürgern, daheim und im Auslande, eingeborenen und ausländischen, vollen und genügenden Schutz zu gewähren.

4. Beschlossen, daß von Seiten der Interessen des Han

7. Daß es mit der wahren Auslegung der Cincinnati-Platform übereinstimmt, daß während des Bestehens einer Territorials Verwaltung die Beschränkungen, wie immer sie auch sein mögen, welche die Bundesverfassung den Territorialgesetzgebungen betreffs der klaverei auferlegt, wie dieselbe vom Obergerichte der Ver. Staaten ausgelegt worden sind, oder ausgelegt werden mögen, von allen guten Bürgern geachtet, und treu und gewissenhaft von jedem Zweige der Bundesverwaltung vollzogen werden müssen.

National-Demokratische Breckinridge-Platform.
Angenommen in Charleston und Baltimore 1860.

Beschlossen, daß die von der demokratischen Partei in | gleichviel ob feine Verfassung die Sklaverei anerkennt oder aus-
Cincinnati angenommene Platform bestätigt werde, und zwar mit | schließt.

den folgenden erläuternden Beschlüssen:

1. Daß die Regierung eines durch ein Gesetz des Congresses organisirten Territoriums nur eine vorläufige ist, und daß während der Dauer derselben alle Bii ger der Ver. Staaten gleiches Recht haben, sich mit ihrem Eigenthum im Territorium niederzulassen, ohne daß ihre Rechte, sei es die Person oder das Eigenthum betreffende durch Gesetze des Congresses oder der Territorien beeinträchtigt oder aufgehoben werden.

?. Daß es die Pflicht der Bundesregieruna ist, falls es nöthig fein sollte, die Slechte der Person und des Eigenthums in den Territorien, oder wohin irgend die Macht des Congresses sich erstrect, zu beschützen.

3. Daß, sobald die Bewohner eines Territoriums die gesetzlich geforderte Bevölkerung haben, um einen Staat zu bilden, das Souveränitätsrecht beginnt, und daß sie nach der Zulassung in die Union auf gleichem Fuße mit den andern Staaten stehen, und daß der so organisirte Staat in die Union aufgenommen werden truß,

4. Daß die demokratische Partei zu Gunsten der möglichst baldigen Erwerbung von Cuba ist, unter solchen Bedingungen, wie sie für uns selbst und für Spanien ehrenvoll find.

5. Daß die Gesetze von Staatslegislaturen, sofern sie der ge= treuen Durchführung des Sklavensanggefeßes wide streben, ibrem Charakter nach seindselig, der Constitution zuwider, und ihren Erfolgen nach revolutionär find.

6. Daß es die Pflicht der Ver. Staaten ist. a'en Bürgern, daheim und im Auslande, eingebornen und ausländischen, volen und genügenden Schutz zu gewähren.

7. Daß von Seiten der Intereffen des Handels, des schnellen Verkehrs und der Postverbindung eine Eisenbahn nach dem Stillen Ocean eine Nothwendigkeit ist, und daß die demokratische Partei fich verpflichtet, eine solche conftitutionelle Regierung ins Leben zu rufen, welche teu Bau einer solchen Eisenbahn so schnell wie möglich sicher stellt.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Der New-Yorker Demokrat“,

09

Office: Nr. 75 & 77 Chatham-Str., New-York.

„Beobachter am Hudson 86.

Die tägliche Ausgabe des „New Yorker Demokrat“ kostet jährlich 85, mit dem Sonntagsblatt: Die wöchentliche Ausgabe des „New-Yorker Demokrat kostet jährlich $2.50, mit dem „Beobach ter am Hudson" $3.50. Der,,Beobachter am Hutsen", Sonntagsblatt des „New-Yorker Demokrat', loftet jähr. lich $1.50 in unbedingter Vorausbezahlung.

Briefe adoresfire man an

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

puolioon Pesty, ollinois.

3,

1860, Sept. 24. Gift of

O

Pam. A. Green, Fl. D
Boston Class of 185

[ocr errors]

POLITICAL RECORD OF

STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

A TRACT ISSUED BY THE

ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE.

Republican Party, Allinois - Sterte Central Com

CONTENTS.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

"And in such State or States as may be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri Compromise line, slavery or involuntary servitude-except for crime-shall be prohibited."

The record of this action is found in the Congressional Globe, Vol. XIV, (2d session, 28th Congress,) page 193. The amendment became a part of the law for annexing Texas, and will be found on page 798 of the U. S. Statutes at Large, for 1836-1845. Let it be observed, that while Thomas Jefferson and the fathers of the Republic proposed to prohibit slavery in Territories only, and while the Republican party of to-day propose no more and no less, Stephen A. Douglas sought, in 1845, to prohibit it in States, even though the people wanted it!

HE REGARDS THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE AS A "SACRED THING.' "

On the 23d of October, 1849, Mr. Douglas made a speech at Springfield, Illinois, which was published in the State Register of Nov. 8th, in which he used the following remarkable language:

"The Missouri Compromise has an origin akin to that of the Constitution of the United States, conceived in the same spirit of fraternal affection, and calculated to remove forever the danger which seemed to threaten, at some distant day, to sever the social bond of union. All the evidences of public opinion, at that day, seemed to indicate that this Compromise had became canonized in the hearts of the American people as a sacred thing, which no ruthless hand would ever be reckless enough to disturb."

[merged small][ocr errors]

"The Missouri Compromise had then been in practical operation for about a quarter of a century, and had received the saction and approbation of men of all parties, in every section of the Union. It had allayed all sectional jealousies and irritations, growing out of this vexed question, and harmonized and tranquilized the whole country. It had given to Henry Clay, as its prominent champion, the proud soubriquet of the Great Pacificator, and by that title, and for that service, his political friends had repeatedly appealed to the people to rally under his standard, as a presidential cand date, as the man who had exhibited the patiotism, and the power to suppress an unholy and treasonable not aware that any man or any party, from any secagitation, and preserve the Union. He (Mr. Douglas) was tion of the Union, rad ever urged as an obj ction to Mr. Clay, that he was a Great Champion of the Missouri the opponents of Mr. Clay, to prove that he was not Compromise. On the contrary, the effort was made by entitled to the exclusive merit of that great patriotic measure, and that the honor was equally due to others as well as him, for securing its adoption. "He, (Mr. Douglas) in connection with the entire delegation from Illinois, and according to his recollection, in company with nearly all the members from the Northern States, and some forty odd members from the Slave States, voted for the Oregon bill, containing a prohibition of slavery in that Territory, leaving the people to regulate their own domestic institutions under the Constitution when they should become a State. This triumphant vote, uniting both Northern and Southern members in favor of the Oregon bill, was a matter of no practical importance so far as the existence of the institution of slavery in that country was concerned, and is only referred to now, for the purpose of showing legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories, that at that day, the Constitutional right of Congress to

WAS NOT VIRTUALLY RESISTED, IF, INDEED, IT WAS SE RIOUSLY QUESTIONED."

HE BELIEVES IT IS NOT UNJUST TO THE SOUTH TO EXCLUDE SLAVERY.

On the 13th day of March, 1850, Mr. Douglas made a speech in the Senate, defending the "sacred thing," from which the following is an average extract:

"The next in the series of aggressions complained of by the Senator from South Carolina, is the Missouri Con promise. The Missouri Compromise, an act of Northern injustice, designed to deprive the South of her due share of the Territories! Why, sir, it was only on this very day that the Senator from Mississippi despaired of any peaceable adjustment of existing aifficulties, because the Miss ui Compromise line could not be extended to the Pacific. That measure was originally adopted in the bill for the admission of Missouri by the union of Northern and Southern votes. The South has always professed to be willing to abide by it, and even to continue it, as a fair and honorable adjustment of a vexed and difficult question. In 1845 it was adopted in the resolutions for the annexation of Texas, by Southern as well as Northern votes, without the slightest complaint that it was unfair to any section of the country. In 1846 it received the support of every Southern member of the House of Representatives-Whig and Democrat-without exception, as an alternative measure to the Wilmot Proviso. And again in 1848, as an amendment to the Oregon bill, on my motion, it received the vote, if I recollect right- and 1 do not think that I can possibly be mistaken-of every Southern Senator, Whig and Democrat, even including the Senator from South Carolina hin self, (Mr. Calhoun.) And yet we are now told that this is only second to the Ordinance of 1787 in the series of aggiessions on the South."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 370.

"The Territories belong to the United States as one people, one nation, and are to be disposed of for the common benefit of all, according to the principles of the Constitution. Each State, as a member of the Confederacy, has a right to a voice in forming the rules and regulations for the governm nt of the Territories; but the different sections-North, South, East and Westhave no such right. IT IS NO VIOLATION OF SOUTHERN RIGHTS TO PROHIBIT SLAVERY."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, puge 369.

[merged small][ocr errors]

On the same day, and in the same speech, Mr. Douglas continued in the following surprising strain-surprising, if we reflect in whose mouth the sentimenis are found:

"I have already had occasion to remark, that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, there were twelve (slave States) and six of them have since abolished slavery. This fact shows that the cause of freedom has steadily and firmly advanced, while slavery has receded in the same ratio. We all look forward with confidence to the time when Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and probably North Carolina and Tennessee, will adopt one gradual system of emancipation, under the operation of which, those States must, in process of time become free."

And again, on the same page, speaking of a proposition to am nd the Constitution so as to preserve an equilibrium in point of numbers between free and slave States, he says:

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"Then, sir, the proposition of the Senator from South Carolina is entirely impracticable. It is also inadmissible, if practicable. It would revolutionize the fundamental principle of the Government. It would destroy the great principle of popular equality which must n cessarily form the basis of all free institutions. It would be a retrograde movement in an age of progress, that would astonish the world. - Congressional Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 871.

HE BELIEVES THAT CONGRESS MAY RIGHTFULLY EXCLUDE SLAVES, BANKS OR ARDENT SPIRITS FROM THE TERRITORIES.

On the 13th of March, 1850, in the speech already quoted from, Mr. Douglas distinctly asserted the right of Congress to prohibit the introduction of cert in species of property in the Territories, as being "unwise, immoral

and contrary to the principles of sound public policy," among which he enumerated property in slaves. He s id:

"But you say that we propose to prohibit by law your emigrating to the Territories with your property. WE PROPOSE NO SUCH THING. We recogmze your right, in common with our own, to emigrate to the Terri ories with your property, and there to hold and enjoy it in subordination to the laws you may find in force in the country. These laws, in some respects, differ from our own, as the laws of the various States of this Union vary on some points from the laws of each o her. Some species of property are excluded by law in most of the States as well as Territories, as being unwise, immoral, OR CONTRARY 10 THE PRINCIPLES For instance, the OF SOUND PUBLIC POLICY. banker is prohibited from emigrating to Minnesota, Oregon or California with his bank. The bank may be property by the laws of New York, but ceases to be so when taken into a State or Territory where banking is prohibited by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whisky, brandy, and al the intoxicating drinks, are recognized and considered as property in most of the States, if not all of them; but no citizen, whether from the North or South, can take this species of property with him, and hold, sell or use at his pleasure, in all the Territories, because it is prohibited by the local law-in Ore, on by the s atutes of the Territory, and in the Indian count y by the acts of Congress. NOR CAN A MAN GO THERE AND TAKE AND HOLD HIS SLAVE, FOR THE SAME REASON. These laws, and many others involving similar principles, are directed against no section, AND IMPAIR THE RIGHTS OF NO STATE OF THE UNION. They are laws against the introduction, sale and use of specific kinds of property, whether brought from the North or the South, or from foreign countries."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, puge 371.

And again:

"But, sir, I do not hold the doctrine that to exclude any species of property by law from any Territory, is a violation of any right to property. Do you not exclude

And

banks from most of the Territories? Do you no exclude whi ky from being introduced into large portions of the Territory of the Unit d States? Do you not exclude gambling tables, which are properly recognized as such in the Sta es where they are tolerated? has any one contended that the exclusion of gambling table S, and the exclusion of ardent spirits was a violation of any cons itutional privilege or right? And yet it is the case in a large portion of the territory of the United States; but there is no outcry against that, because it is the prohib.tion of a spec fic kind of property, and not a prohibition against any section of the Union. Why, sir, our laws now prevent a tavern-keeper from going into some of the territories of the United States and t king a bar with him, and using and selling spirits there. The law also prohibits certa n other descriptions of business from being carried on in the Territories. I am ot, therefore, prepared to say that, under the Constitution, we have not the power to pass laws excluding Negro Slavery from the Territories. IT INVOLVES THE SAME PRINCIPLES."-Speech of Senator Douglas, June 3d, 1850, pages 1115 and 1116, vol. 21, Cong. Globe, 1849-50.

HE BELIEVES IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL TO PROHIBIT SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.

On the same day, and in the same speech, Mr. Douglas referred to the Wilmot Proviso resolutions, passed by the Illinois Legislature, thus:

"My hands are tied upon one isolated point. "A SENATOR-Can you not break loose? "MR. DOUGLAS- I have no desire to break loose. My votes belong to those who sent me here, and to My opinions are my own, and I express them freely. whom I am responsible. I have never differed with my Constituency during seven years service in C ngress, except upon one solitary question. AND EVEN ON THAT I HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFICUL

TIES, and have previously twice given the same vote,

under peculiar circumstances; which is now required at my hands. I have no desire, therefore, to break loose from the instruction." [Congressional Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 1, page 373.]

THE RESOLUTIONS OF THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE.

This is perhaps an appropriate place to introduce the Wilmot Proviso resolutions of the Illinois Legislature of 1849. They were adopted by the Senate on the 8th of January, in that year, and by the House on the 9th, in the following words, and by the annexed

vote:

"Resolved by the Senate of the State of Illinois, the House of Representatives concurring, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to use all honorable means in their power to procure the enactment of such laws by Congress for the government of the countries and territories of the United States acquired by the treaty of peace, friendship, limits, and settlement with the Republic of Mexico, concluded February 2d 1848, as shall contain the express declaration that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in said territories, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.'

"Res lved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring herein, That the Governor be respectfully requested to transmit to each of our Senators

and Representatives in Congress, a copy of the joint

resolution of the Senate, concurred in by the House on the 9th inst., for the exclusion of slavery from the new territories acquired by our late treaty with the Repub

lic of Mexico."

IN THE SENATE.

YBAS-Messrs. Ames, Denny, Gear, Gillespie, Grass, Judd, Matteson, (Joel A.) Morrison. (J. L.D.) McRoberts, Patterson, Plato, Reddick, Smith, Stuart. -14.

NAYS-Messrs. Cloud, Davis, Hardy, Markley, Odam, Osborn, Richmond, Rountree, Sutphin, Tichenor, Witt-11.

IN THE HOUSE.

YEAS-Messrs. Abend, Austin, Blakeman, Brady, Brown, Crandell, Crawford, Denio, Edwards, Ewing, Fay, Gilson, Gray, Harding, Harrison, Hendrson, Keating, Keener, Kellogg, Lasher, Leach, Linder, Little, Maxwell, Pickering, Rives, Runkle, Ryan, Sanger, Sconce. Sherman, Smith, Starkweather, Thomas, Turnbull, Waller, Wheaton, Yutes--38.

NAYS-Messrs. Blackman, Bradley, Bridges, Bond, Campbell, Cooper, Cochran, Darneille, Darnell, Dearborn, Evey, Fry, Guthrie, Hayes, Jennings, Lucas, Merrett, Morris, McDonald, Olds, Page, Pattison, Price, Rice, Richardson, Sayre, Skinner, Sloan, Tackerberry, Tyler, Vernor, Walker, Wilson, Mr. Speaker, (Zadock Casey)-34.

[Whigs in Itulics-Democrats in Roman.]

MR. DOUGLAS RESPONDS TO THE RESOLUTIONS.

confidently expected him to resign, rather than obey those instructions. It would be disagreeable to disappoint them in so reasonable an expectation. It was a serious question, however, requiring grave and deliberate consideration, whether he could conscienciously do under instructions wHAT HE HAD JUST DONE FROM THE DICTATES OF HIS JUDEMENT WITHOUT INSTRUCTIONS.

As the decision of so important a question requires time to consider, he invited them to wait and see."

If it be denied that Mr. Douglas ever uttered these "Abolition" sentiments, a copy of the Register containing them, may be four d on file, in one of the public ffices at Springfield, another at Jacksonville, and perhaps others in other parts of the State, though it is true, that several les of the paper containing Mr. Douglas' spe ch of Oct. 23d, 1849, were quite mysteriously mutilated or destroyed in 1854, after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

HE THOUGHT THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN EXTENDED TO THE PACIFIC.
The bill for the admission of California
being under debate, Mr. Turney (of Tenn.)
moved to amend the same by extending the
Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean,
saying his amendment was a verbatim copy
of Douglas' amendment to the Oregon Bill.
Mr. Douglas, on the 6th day of August, 1850,
said:

"As reference has been made to me as the author of sire only to state that I was then willing to adjust the a similar amendment, in 1848, to the Oregon Bill, I dewole slavery question on that line and those terms; and if the whole acquired territory was now in the same condition as it was then, I WOULD NOW VOTE FOR IT, AND SHOULD BE GLAD TO SEE IT ADOPTED. But ince then California has increased her population, has a State government organized, and I cannot consent, for one, to destroy that State governshal form her southern boundary. For that reason, ment and send all back, or that such a line as this AND THAT ALONE, I shall vote against the amend ment." Cong. Globe, Appendix, vol. 22, part 2,

page 1510.

HE RESOLVES NEVER TO MAKE ANOTHER SPEECH
ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION!

In Senate, December 23d, 1851, on a resolution declaring the Compromise measures a finality," Mr. Douglas said:

*

*

*

*

*

*

"At the close of the long session which adopted those measures, I resolved NEVER to make another speech upon the slavery question in the hulls of Congress. "In taking leave of this subject, I wish to state that I have determined NEVER to make another speech hope that the necessity for it will never exist. upon the slavery question; and I will now add the I am heartily tired of the controversy, and I know that the Reg-country is disgusted with it. In regard to the resoluwill be pardoned for saying that I much doubt the wistions of the Senator from Mi-sissippi, (Mr. Foote,) I dom aud expediency of their introduction. *

On the 23d of October, 1849, Mr. Douglas made a speech in Springfield, Ill., (referred to above,) which was published in the State ister of Nov. 8th, 1849. In this speech, he referred to the resolutions of instructions passed by the Legislature, in the following language:

* *

"So long as our opponen's do not agitate for repeal or modification, why should we agitate FOR ANY PURPOSE? We claim that the Compromise is a final se tle"In August, '48, he (Mr. Douglas) had voted for the ment open to discussion, and agitation, and controverOregon bil, containing a clause prohibiting slavery in sv. by its friends. What manner of settlement is that that Territory. About four months afterwards, the which does not settle the difficulty and quiet the disLegislature assembled and prepared a resolution in- pute? Are not the friends of the Compromise becomstructing our Senators, and requesting our Representa-ing the agitators, and will not the country hold us retives in Congress to vote for territorial bills in Califor-sponsible for that which we condemn and denounce in nia and New Mexico, containing a proh bition of slav the Abolitionists and Free-soilers? These are matters ery in those Territories. In other words, they instruct-worthy of consideration. Those who preach peace ed him to do precsely what he had just done without should not be the first to commence and re-open an old instructions. He had been informed that his Whig quarrel."-Cong. Globe, Appendix, 1851-2, pages friends, and perhaps a few others, peculiarly situated, 65 and 68.

SLAVERY IN NEW MEXICO.

No. 2.

On the 4th day of January, 1854, Mr. Douglas, as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported to the Senate his second bill for the organization of Nebraska. The bill was accompanied by a report, from which the following is an extract:

For the purpose of contrasting the views uttered by Mr. Douglas in the Senate, on the 12th day of February, 1850, on the subject of slavery in the territory of New Mexico, with his remarks on the 16th of May, 1860, (hereafter quoted,) we copy the following from the Congressional Globe, vol. 22, part 1, page 343; "Mr. DOUGLAS.-If the question is controverted here, I am ready to enter into the discussion of that question at any time, upon a reasonable notice, and to show that by the constituted authority and constitutional authority of Mexico, slavery was prohibited in Mexico at the time of the acquisition, and that prohibi-versy then, either by affirming or repealing the Mexican tion was acquired by us with the soil, and that when we acquired the territory, we acquired it with that attached to it-that covenant running with the soil-and that must continue, unless removed by competent authority. And because there was a prohibition thus attached to the soil, I have always thought it was an unwise, unnecessary, and unjustifiable course on the part of the people of the free States, to require Congress to put another prohibition on the top of that one. It has been the strongest argument that I have ever urged against the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, that it was not necessary for the accomplishment of their object."

THE THREE NEBRASKA BILLS.

No. 1.

On the 17th day of February, A. D. 1853, Senator Douglas, as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, reported to the Senate his first "Act to Organize the Territory of Nebraska." This act contained no repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and it failed to become a law for want of time. Senator Atchison, of Missouri, on the 3d day of March, 1853, made some remarks on this bill, in which he acknowledged that he had no hope of ever seeing the Missouri Compromise repealed. He said:

"Your Committee do not feel themselves called upon to enter into the discussion of these controverted questions. They involve the same grave issues which produced the agitation, the sectional strife and the fearful struggle of 1850. As Congress deemed it wise and prudent to refrain from deciding the matters in controlaws, or by an act declaratory of the true intent of the Constitution and the extent of the protection afforded by it to slave propetry 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 of dispute."

introduced an amendment to the bill, declarSenator Dixon, of Kentucky, immediately ing the Missouri Compromise null and void. Senator Atchison, of Missouri, then the presiding officer of the Senate, threatened Mr. Douglas with a displacement from his position unless he should accept Mr. Dixon's amendas Chairman of the Committee on Territories, ment. Mr. Atchison tells the whole story in a speech delivered at Atchison City, Kansas, on the 10th day of September, 1854, reported as follows in the Parkville Luminary:

"He [Atchison] thought the Missouri Compromise public addresses to vote for no territorial organization ought to be repealed; he had pledged himself in his that would not virtually annul it; and with this feeling in his heart, he desired to be the chairman of the Senate Committee on Territories when a bill was introduced.

ison] proposed; which would, at the same time, accord resign as Chairman of the Territorial Committee in with his own sense of justice to the South, he would. [Atchison] appointed. At the expiration of the given Democratic caucus, and exert his influence to get him time, Senator Douglas signified his intention to introduce such a bill as had been spoken of."

"With this object in view, he had a private interview with Mr. Douglas, and informed him of what he desired "I had two objections to this bill. One was, that had promised to vote for, and that he would like to be --the introduction of a bill for Nebraska like what he the Indian title 10 that Territory had not been extinguished, or at least but a very small portion of it had introduce such a measure; and if he could get that Chairman of the Committee on Territories, in order to been. Another was the Missouri Compromise, or, as position, he would immediately resign as President of it is commonly called, the Slavery Restriction. It was my opinion at that time,-and I am not now very clear the Senate. Judge Douglas requested twenty-four hours on that subject,-that the law of Congress, when the to consider the matter, and if, at the expiration of that State of Missouri was admitted into the Union, exclud-time, he could not introduce such a bill as he [Mr. Atching slavery from the Territory of Louisiana north of 36 deg. 30 min., would be enforced in that Territory unless it was spec ally rescinded; and whether that law was in accordance with the Constitution of the United States or not, it would do its work, and that work would be to preclude slaveholders from going into that Territory. But when I came to look into that question, I found that there was no prospect, no hope, of a repeal of the Missouri Compromise excluding Slavery from that Territory. Now, sir, I am free to admit that at this moment, at this hour, and for all time to come, I should oppose the organization or the settlement of that Territory, unless my constituents and the constituents of the whole South, of the slave States of the Union, could go into it upon the same footing, with equal rights and equal privileges, carrying th t species of property with them as other people of this Union. Yes, sir, acknowledge that that would have governed me, but I have no hope that the restriction will ever be repealed.

"I have always been of opinion that the first great error committed, in the political history of this country, was the Ordinance of 1787, 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."-[Cong. Globe, Ses: sion 1852-53, page 1113.

No. 3.

Whether Atchison told the truth or not, it is a fact that on the 23d day of January, 1854, nineteen days after he was 'not prepared to recommend a departure" from the Missouri prohibition, Mr. Douglas brought in a new Kansas and Nebraska- and repealing the bill, dividing Nebraska into two TerritoriesMissouri Compromise in the following terms:

"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 of Nebraska (and Kansas) as elsewhere within the preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the United States, except the eighth section of the act Union, approved March sixth, eighteen hundred and twenty, which BEING INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF NON-INTERVENTION BY CONGRESS WITH SLAVERY IN THE STATES AND ISLATION OF 1850, commonly called the Compromise TERRITORIES, AS RECOGNIZED BY THE LEGMeasures, is hereby declared inoperative and void."

« ZurückWeiter »