按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
when this very bill was first brought in； it contained no repeal。
But； say they； because the people had demanded； or rather
commanded； the repeal； the repeal was to accompany the
organization whenever that should occur。
Now； I deny that the public ever demanded any such thingever
repudiated the Missouri Compromise； ever commanded its repeal。 I
deny it； and call for the proof。 It is not contended； I believe；
that any such command has ever been given in express terms。 It
is only said that it was done in principle。 The support of the
Wilmot Proviso is the first fact mentioned to prove that the
Missouri restriction was repudiated in principle； and the second
is the refusal to extend the Missouri line over the country
acquired from Mexico。 These are near enough alike to be treated
together。 The one was to exclude the chances of slavery from the
whole new acquisition by the lump； and the other was to reject a
division of it； by which one half was to be given up to those
chances。 Now； whether this was a repudiation of the Missouri
line in principle depends upon whether the Missouri law contained
any principle requiring the line to be extended over the country
acquired from Mexico。 I contend it did not。 I insist that it
contained no general principle； but that it was； in every sense；
specific。 That its terms limit it to the country purchased from
France is undenied and undeniable。 It could have no principle
beyond the intention of those who made it。 They did not intend
to extend the line to country which they did not own。 If they
intended to extend it in the event of acquiring additional
territory； why did they not say so？ It was just as easy to say
that 〃in all the country west of the Mississippi which we now
own； or may hereafter acquire； there shall never be slavery；〃 as
to say what they did say； and they would have said it if they had
meant it。 An intention to extend the law is not only not
mentioned in the law； but is not mentioned in any contemporaneous
history。 Both the law itself； and the history of the times； are
a blank as to any principle of extension； and by neither the
known rules of construing statutes and contracts； nor by common
sense； can any such principle be inferred。
Another fact showing the specific character of the Missouri law
showing that it intended no more than it expressed； showing that
the line was not intended as a universal dividing line between
Free and Slave territory； present and prospective； north of which
slavery could never gois the fact that by that very law
Missouri came in as a slave State； north of the line。 If that
law contained any prospective principle； the whole law must be
looked to in order to ascertain what the principle was。 And by
this rule the South could fairly contend that； inasmuch as they
got one slave State north of the line at the inception of the
law； they have the right to have another given them north of it
occasionally； now and then； in the indefinite westward extension
of the line。 This demonstrates the absurdity of attempting to
deduce a prospective principle from the Missouri Compromise line。
When we voted for the Wilmot Proviso we were voting to keep
slavery out of the whole Mexican acquisition； and little did we
think we were thereby voting to let it into Nebraska lying
several hundred miles distant。 When we voted against extending
the Missouri line； little did we think we were voting to destroy
the old line； then of near thirty years' standing。
To argue that we thus repudiated the Missouri Compromise is no
less absurd than it would be to argue that because we have so far
forborne to acquire Cuba； we have thereby； in principle；
repudiated our former acquisitions and determined to throw them
out of the Union。 No less absurd than it would be to say that
because I may have refused to build an addition to my house； I
thereby have decided to destroy the existing house！ And if I
catch you setting fire to my house； you will turn upon me and say
I instructed you to do it！
The most conclusive argument； however； that while for the Wilmot
Proviso； and while voting against the extension of the Missouri
line； we never thought of disturbing the original Missouri
Compromise； is found in the fact that there was then； and still
is； an unorganized tract of fine country； nearly as large as the
State of Missouri； lying immediately west of Arkansas and south
of the Missouri Compromise line； and that we never attempted to
prohibit slavery as to it。 I wish particular attention to this。
It adjoins the original Missouri Compromise line by its northern
boundary； and consequently is part of the country into which by
implication slavery was permitted to go by that compromise。
There it has lain open ever s； and there it still lies； and yet
no effort has been made at any time to wrest it from the South。
In all our struggles to prohibit slavery within our Mexican
acquisitions； we never so much as lifted a finger to prohibit it
as to this tract。 Is not this entirely conclusive that at all
times we have held the Missouri Compromise as a sacred thing；
even when against ourselves as well as when for us？
Senator Douglas sometimes says the Missouri line itself was in
principle only an extension of the line of the Ordinance of '87
that is to say； an extension of the Ohio River。 I think this is
weak enough on its face。 I will remark； however； that； as a
glance at the map will show； the Missouri line is a long way
farther south than the Ohio； and that if our Senator in proposing
his extension had stuck to the principle of jogging southward；
perhaps it might not have been voted down so readily。
But next it is said that the compromises of '50； and the
ratification of them by both political parties in '52；
established a new principle which required the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise。 This again I deny。 I deny it； and demand
the proof。 I have already stated fully what the compromises of
'50 are。 That particular part of those measures from which the
virtual repeal of the Missouri Compromise is sought to be
inferred （for it is admitted they contain nothing about it in
express terms） is the provision in the Utah and New Mexico laws
which permits them when they seek admission into the Union as
States to come in with or without slavery； as they shall then see
fit。 Now I insist this provision was made for Utah and New
Mexico； and for no other place whatever。 It had no more direct
reference to Nebraska than it had to the territories of the moon。
But； say they； it had reference to Nebraska in principle。 Let us
see。 The North consented to this provision； not because they
considered it right in itself； but because they were compensated…
…paid for it。
They at the same time got California into the Union as a free
State。 This was far the best part of all they had struggled for
by the Wilmot Proviso。 They also got the area of slavery