« AnteriorContinuar »
DANIEL WEBSTER'S MEMORIAL IN REGARD TO IT-HISTORY OF
Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1854,
By J. S. REDFIELD, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
C. O. SAVAGE, STEREOTYPER,
13 CHAMBERS ST., NEW YORK
The importance of the NEBRASKA QUESTION, and the all-absorbing interest of the public in relation to it, will be deemed sufficient reasons for the appearance of this pamphlet. The enactment of the Missouri Compromise in 1820 did not excite a deeper or more general feeling among the people than does its threatened repeal in 1854. A generation, almost, has passed away since the first event took place, and its unwritten history is nearly forgotten. The proposed organization of the Territories of NEBRASKA and Kansas has reopened the whole subject. The admission of Missouri, the annexation of Texas, the organization of Oregon Territory, the Compromise Acts of 1850, and the NEBRASKA-Kansas Bills, form a chain of great events whose histories are indissolubly interwoven. One object of this publication is to present a brief but intelligible sketch of these earlier transactions, in connection with the recent debate in the Senate of the United States, on the “Nebraska Question,” as it has been termed. This question, as is well known, involves not only the organization of the Territories, but the greater subjects of Indian treaties, and Slavery extension.
Nearly all the Speeches which had been made in the Senate, on the NeBRASKA Bill, by its friends and opponents, at the time this pamphlet went to press, are contained in its pages. The reader has thus before him the whole subject fairly stated and fully discussed.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
IN 1818 the Legislature of the Territory of Missouri, resolved to petition Congress for admission into the Union as a State, and on the 18th of December, of that year, the petition was received by Congress.
Passing over the preliminary and incidental proceedings and debates, we come to the main question, which was a proposition made on the 19th of February, 1819, in the form of an amendment, in these words : - That the further introduction of slavery, or involuntary servitude, be prohibited,” &c., in the embryo state. This amendment received 87 votes against 76, in the House. On the 15th of March, James Tallmadge, of New York, moved an amendment, embracing the above restriction with this addition,—“All children born within said state after the admission thereof, shall be free at the age of 25 years." Adopted : ayes, 79; nays, 67. The Senate struck out this amendment when the bill came before that body, by a vote of 22 to 16. But the House refused to agree. For concurring, 70; against it, 78. The Senate again took up the subject, and voted to adhere to their former decision, and sent a message to the House to that effect. The House was equally obstinate, and on the final vote stood, for adhering to their restriction 78 to 66. Mr. Tallmadge vigorously sustained his amendment throughout the whole controversy. The adherence of the two Houses to their own antagonistic positions precluded any further action at that time, and the bill was lost. At the next session, Mr. Taylor, of New York, moved the following resolution :—"Resolved, That a committee be appointed with instructions to report a bill prohibiting the further admission of Slaves into the Territories of the United States, west of the Mississippi.” _This resolution was postponed on the 28th December, 1820, by a vote of 82 to 62. Mr. Taylor remarked in the debate that, he knew of no one who doubted the constitutional power of Congress to make the prohibition. At the commencement of this session, a bill was introduced for the admission of Maine into the Union, which passed the House. A section providing for the admission of Missouri, also, was tacked to this bill, by the Senate. Several unsuccessful efforts were made to separate the two propositions. A motion of Mr. Roberts, of Pa., to that effect, was lost 18 to 25. On another day, a similar motion was defeated, 21 to 23. On the 18th of January, 1820, Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, introduced in the Senate the celebrated slavery restriction, whereby slavery was to be for ever excluded from all territory north of 36° 30', north latitude. After an exciting debate the matter was referred to a select committee:-Messrs. Thomas, Burrill, Johnson, Palmer, and Pleasants.
The Missouri bill coming up in the House, a motion was made by Mr. Taylor to postpone, and lost 87 to 88.
Mr. Taylor, of New York, moved and advocated the restriction clause in the House, and Mr. Holmes, of Maine, opposed it.
A motion to exclude slavery from Missouri was lost in the Senate, by a vote of 16 to 27. YEAs-Messrs. Morrill of N H., Mellen, and Otis of Mass., Dana of Ct.,
Burrill of R. I., Tichenor of Vt , King and Sanford of N. Y., Dickerson and Wilson of N. J., Lowrie and Roberts of Pa., Ruggles and Trimble of Ohio, Noble and Taylor of Indiana.
Nays-Mersrs. Parrott of N. H., Hunter of R. I., Lanman of Ct., Palmer of Vt., Van Dyke of Del., Lloyd and Pinkney of Md., Barbour and Pleasants of Va., Macon and Stokes of N. C., Gaillard and Smith of S. C., Elliott and Walker of Ga., Johnson and Logan of Ky., Eaton and Williams of Tenn., Brown and Johnson of La., Leake and Williams of Miss., Edwards and Thomas of Ills., King and Walker of Ala.
On the 17th of February, Mr. Thomas's amendment (the slavery restriction), was adopted by the Senate. Ayes 34; nays 10.
AYES—Messrs. Brown, Burrill, Dana, Dickerson, Eaton, Edwards, Horsey, Hunter, Johnson, Ky., Johnson, La., King, Ala., King, N. Y., Lanman, Leake, Lloyd, Logan, Lowrie, Mellen. Morril, Otis, Palmer, Parrott, Pinckney, Roberts, Ruggles, Sanford, Stokes,
Thomas Tichenor, Trimble, Van Dyke, Walker, Ala., Williams, Tenn., Wilson. Nays-Messrs. Barbour of Va., Elliott of Ga., Gaillard of s. C., Macon, of N. C. Noble of Ind., Pleasants of Va., Smith of S. C., Taylor of Ind., Walker of Ga., Williams of Miss.