Pacific ocean; which provision was defeated in the house. This defeat of that proposition Mr. D. construed into an abandonment of the compromise. It was this defeat of that compromise that created the struggle of 1850, and the necessity for making the new compromise of that year; the leading feature of which was non-intervention by congress as to slavery in the territories — leaving the question to be settled by the people therein. It was of universal application — to the country both north and south of 36° 30'.
Mr. Douglas said "the legal effect of this bill, if passed, was neither to legislate slavery into nor out of these territories, but to leave the people to do as they pleased. And why should any man, north or south, object to this principle? It was by the operation of this principle, and not by any dictation from the federal government, that slavery had been abolished in half of the twelve states in which it existed at the time of the adoption of the constitution."
In regard to Utah and New Mexico, Mr. D. said: "In 1850, we who resisted any attempt to force institutions upon the people of those territories inconsistent with their wishes and the right to decide for themselves, were denounced as slavery propagandists. Every one of us who was in favor of the compromise measures of 1850 was arraigned for having advocated a principle purposing to introduce slavery into those territories, and the people were told, and made to believe, that, unless we prohibited it by act of congress, slavery would necessarily and inevitably be introduced into these territories.
"Well, sir, we did establish the territorial governments of Utah and New Mexico without any prohibition. We gave to these abolitionists a full opportunity of proving whether their predictions would prove true or false. Years have rolled round, and the result is before us. The people there have not passed any law recognizing, or establishing, or introducing, or protecting slavery in the territories.
"I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geographical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate, and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish institutions for a people contrary to their wishes; yet, out of a regard for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri compromise so long as it was in force, and advocated its extension to the Pacific ocean. Now, when that has been abandoned, when it has been superseded, when a great principle of self-government has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that principle, and abide in good faith, not only by the letter, but by the spirit of the last compromise.
"Sir, I do not recognize the right of the abolitionists of this country to arnign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have done in their proclamations. Let them show when and where I have ever proposed to violate a compact, I have proved that I stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its continuance and observance in 1848. I have proved that the free-soilers and abolitionists were the guilty parties who violated that compromise then. I should like to compare notes with these abolition confederates about
