apply the principle to the Territories in their unorganized and chrysalis condition. Sovereignty implies the power of organization, and a self-acting, self-moving, and self-sustaining principle; but the Territories have it not. They only acquire it when they become constituent parts of this Confederacy.
But we are told that the South has stood by the Compromise. I am glad of it. Yet gentlemen have protested against the recognition of North and South. Why, sir, they are recognized every day. The distinction has been recognized by the statesmen of every day, and every section of the country. Am I to be told that the question has not assumed that character, and that it will not operate to carry sectional influence with it to a certain extent? It is impossible that you can divest it of a sectional character to some extent. Why, we are told in the very breath that declares there is no such principle recognized, that the North has violated the Missouri Compromise and the South has maintained it; and yet do you tell me that there is no North and no South? Let us look at the action of the North and South. I am not going back to make a technical, or legal, or constitutional argument upon the facts and circumstances of the Missouri Compromise—its creation, its progress, its recognition, and final decision. I am not going to characterize it as a compact, distinguished from a compromise, because I can see no reasonable application of the one that does not belong to the other.
The word "compromise" is a more comprehensive and rational term when applied to an amicable adjustment of differences existing between two parties who are reconciled. I well remember that on the organization of Oregon Territory the South denounced the Missouri Compromise, and did not recognize it. Was not that denunciation subsequent to a joint recognition by both sections of the Union, the North and the South? Had they not united, the South, perhaps, with more unanimity than the North, upon its application to Texas in her annexation? Yes, sir, they had. That was in 1845; and in 1848, three years after, without any intervening act of bad faith on the part of the North, the South repudiated it on the organization of Oregon Territory.
Mr. Atchison (Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, in the chair). The Senator says that the Southern members of the Senate repudiated the Missouri Compromise on the Oregon bill. Now that, I think, with all due deference to the Senator, is not so. The Senator from Illinois proposed to the Oregon bill the Missouri Compromise, and every Southern gentleman, according to my recollection, voted for it—every one in the Senate. The bill went to the House, and the House refused to accede to it.
Mr. Douglas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Atchison. The Senator from Texas, and my then colleague, the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. Benton], alone of all the Southern members voted to recede from it.
Mr. Houston. I thank the gentleman for giving me a very pleasing intimation. It reminds me, Mr. President, of what did occur. We voted to recede from it. The other gentlemen did not vote to recede. They had voted in opposition to its organization and admission, or what was tantamount to it. And what was the reason? It was because there was a proposition, and I had introduced resolutions myself, to extend the compromise line to the Pacific Ocean. The North did not accept it. I did not believe it would be more than an abstraction. Why did I do it then? I will tell you. But previous to this,
