Page:The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade.djvu/647

, that the amendment which I have proposed is directed During the long discussion of the compromise 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 superseding. The senator from Missouri, (Mr. Atchison,) had also spoken upon the hill, and had distinctly declared that the Missouri prohibition was not and could not be repealed." An extract win 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 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 It is evident that the Missouri compromise cannot be repealed.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.'

"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 Nebraska. I believe it was the same bill that 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 Did the senator from Iowa then entertain the idea that the Missouri prohibition had been superseded?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 or 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 "Nor did this report express the opinion that the compromise acts of 1850 had superseded the Missouri prohibition.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