« AnteriorContinuar »
granted by Congress. That recharter was laid before General Jackson. It was urged upon him, when he denied the constitutionality of the bank, that the Supreme Court had decided that it was constitutional; and General Jackson then said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay down a rule to govern a coördinate branch of the government, the members of which had sworn to support the Constitution, that each member had sworn to support that Constitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say that I have heard Judge Douglas say that he approved of General Jackson for that act.
What has now become of all his tirade against "resistance to the Supreme Court”?
REPEAL OF THE MISSOURI
From Lincoln's reply to Douglas in the joint debate at Jonesboro, Illinois, September 15, 1858.
The judge has gone over a long account of the Old Whig and Democratic parties, and it connects itself with this charge against Trumbull and myself.
He says that they agreed upon a compromise in regard to the slavery question in 1850; that in a national Democratic convention resolutions passed to abide by that compromise as a finality upon the slavery question. He also says that the Whig party in national convention agreed to abide by
and regard as
a finality the compromise of 1850.
I un. derstand the judge to be alto. gether right about that; I understand that part of the history of the country as stated by him to be correct. I recollect that I, as a member of that party, acquiesced in that compromise. I recollect in the Presidential election which followed, when we had General Scott up for the Presidency, Judge Douglas was around berating us Whigs as abolitionists, precisely as he does to-day-not a bit of difference. I have often heard him. We could do nothing when the Old Whig party was alive that was not abolitionism, but it has got an extremely good name since it has passed away.
When that compromise was made, it did not repeal the old Missouri Compromise. It left a region of United States ter
ritory half as large as the present territory of the United States, north of the line of 360 30', in which slavery was prohibited by act of Congress. This compromise did not repeal that one. It did not affect or propose to repeal it. But at last it became Judge Douglas's duty, as he thought (and I find no fault with him), as chairman of the Committee on Territories, to bring in a bill for the organization of a territorial government-first of one, then of two Territories north of that line. When he did so it ended in his inserting a provision substantially repeal. ing the Missouri Compromise. That was because the compromise of 1850 had not repealed it.
And now I ask why he could not have left that compromise alone. We were quiet from
All had ac
the agitation of the slavery question.
We were making no fuss about it. quiesced in the compromise measures of 1850. We never had been seriously disturbed by any abolition agitation before that period. When he came to form governments for the Territories north of the line of 360 30', why could he not have let that matter stand as it was standing? Was it necessary to the organization of a Territory? Not at all. Iowa lay north of the line, and had been organized as a Territory, and came into the Union as a State without disturbing that compromise. There was no sort of necessity for destroying it to organize these Territories.
But, gentlemen, it would take up all my
time to meet all the little quibbling arguments of Judge Douglas to show that