Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Nebraska advertiser. (Nemaha City, Neb.) 18??-1909 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 4, 1907)
'J ' .- '. .' .. . 1 '. I IJ '"' . ?. Bborton'e Mietor of IRebraeha Hirtbcnttc 1400 ro 1906 Complete (Copyrighted 1D0C. All rights reserred.) By courtesy of Editors and Publishers of Morton's history, the Publishers Newspaper Union of Lincoln, Nebraska. Is permitted Its reproduction In papers of their Issus AC CHAPTER V CONTINUED (13) In reply to this objection, Mr. Hall of Missouri, who was an ardent lieuten ant of Douglas and Richardson In their enterprise, said that a tract forty miles wide and throe hundred miles long, running along the border of Mis souri, had been set asido for the In dians by treaty and wa occupied by twelve thousand to fom ecn thousand of them; a strip of a out the same oxtent, called neutral, was not occu pied; as to the rest f the territory It was in the samo situation as that of Oregon, Utah, Wisconsin, Minne sota and Iowa when they wore organ ized. Mr. Hall said that by the act of 1834 all the territory west of the Mississippi river, except the states of Missouri and Louisiana and the terri tory of Arkansas, was erected Into what was called Indian territory. Un der tho operation of that law our peo ple were not permitted to enter that territory at all without a llcenso from tho executive of the government or his agent. As a result tho occupants were limited to about Ave hundred licensed persons, and yet as many as fifty or sixty thousand people passed through this country annually on tho way to Oregon, California, Utah and Now Mexico, under the protection of no law, and murders and other crimes were perpetrated. If wo desired to protect this travel wo must organize the territory and extinguish tho In dian title. When Mr. Brooks insisted that this was the first time that a territorial bill had ever been intro duced to establish government over territory to which tho Indian title had not been extinguished in any part and over a people who do not exist there, Phelps, Richardson and Jlall held out .that tho Indian title had not been ex tinguished In any of tho territories when they were organized. Brooks persisted in his demand to. know the population of the proposed territory, and Richardson replied that It was not over one thousand two hundred. Mr. Howe (Pennsylvania) taunted Joshua Giddings on neglecting to In sert tho anti-slavery provision of the Ordinance of 1787 In the bill, and wanted to know if it was on account of the national party platforms of 1852, which had dodged the slavery question. Giddings retorted by read ing the restriction of the Missouri compromise and said: "This law stands perpetually, and I did not think that this act would receive any in creased validity by a re-enactment. ... It is very clear that the ter ritory Included in that treaty must be forever free unless the law bo re p f pealed." . When asked by Mr. Howe if ho did not remember a compromise since that time (1850), Giddings replied that it did not affect this question; and, Illustrating the then temperate spirit of anti-slavery statesmen, Mr. Giddings added, "I am not in tho habit of agitating theso questions of slavery unless drawn into It" t When Sweotzer (Ohio) moved to strike out the part of the bill which provided for the nfaklng of treaties with Indians to extinguish their title, because it was time "to let the coun try know that It Is our policy to plun der theso people; not make a mock ery anew by tho pretense of a treaty," Hall protested that while Sweotzer mlgnt be correct in holding that the Indians should be Incorporated as cit izens, yet a territory largo enough for two or three large" states should not bo given up to ten or twelve thousand Indians. He thought a portion of tho territory had been secured by treaty with the Kansas Indians, but that so far there was no controversy between tho Indians and the government. Mr: Howard said that tho treaty of 1825 had given the Ohio and Missouri Shawnees fifty miles square, and the Kansas Indians had also selected a tract of the same area on tho Mis souri river under treaty. Howard (Texas) said tho territory had 340,000 square miles and not over six hundred white people, that the bill violated treaties with eighteen tribes who had been moved .west of the Mississippi river, to whom the government had guaranteed that they should never bo included in any state or territory. Monroe had begun this policy in 1825, and Jackson had ma tured and carried it out under tho act of 1830. Tho Indians, he said, would be surrounded by the white men's government, which would force them to como under tho jurisdiction of whlto men's laws or suffer their tribal organization to bo destroyed. There would bo no country left for other tribes east of tho Rocky moun tains and west of tho Mississippi river. It was Great Britain's policy to concede to Indians the right to oc cupancy but not to the fee, while Snaln conceded neither. Hall then charged Howard with tho design of settling the Comanches and other wild tribes of Texas in Nebraska territory, which would d-ve the overland routes from Missouri and Iowa to Texas; and ho urged that, "If in course of time a great rail road should be found necessary from this part of tho continent to the shore nf the Pacific, and the doctrine pre vails that all the terrtiory west of the Missouri river Is to be a wilder ness from this day, henceforth and forever. Texas being settled, thlB country will have no alternative but to make the Pacific road terminate at Galveston or some other point in Texas." Mr. Hall Insisted that Howard's ar Cument meant that "we should never pettlo Nebraska at all," and that white settlement must bo extended to tho mountains to keen id touch with California and Oregon for tho protec tion of tho Union and of travel ncrnag tho plains. Ho nuoted from Medill, tho lato commissioner of Indian af fairs, who urged that tho Omahas, "Ottoes" and "MIssourias" bo moved so as to bo with the Osages and "Kan zas" because they were circumscribed, in hunting by tho Pawnees and Sioux and often attacked and murdered by the trlbo last named. "Tho Pawnees all Bhould bo re moved north of tho Platte, and tho Sioux of tho Missouri restrained from coming south of that river, so that there would bo a wide and safe pass- ago for our Oregon emigrants and for such of thoso to California as may prefer to take that routo, which, I am informed, will probably bo tho case with many." Howard argued that wo should ne gotiate with tho Indians before vio lating our treaties with them by or ganizing a territorial government over lands which they occupied. To the objections of Clingman (Nortn Carolina) that there were only from tiix hundred to nine hundred nhabl tants in tho proposed territory, Hall replied that it was because tho law prevented a white man from settling there, "and If he does a company of 'dragoons will run him out." Thoro would bo thirty thousand or forty thousand pooplo there within three or four months after there was a terri torial organization to protect them. Tho southern line went down to 36 30'. he explained, because tho routo from Missouri to New Mexico crossed that lino, and that travel must bo pro tected. Sutherland (Now York), imbued with tho characteristic spirit of the Northeast, and especially of New Eng land, In relation to western expan sion, argued that It was bad policy to lake In more lands and encourage emi gration from tho states which were still so largely unoccupied. The elev en landed states, as he called thorn, of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illi nois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michi gan, Mississippi, Missouri and Wis consin had 137,000.000 acres of unim proved lands In, the hands of private owners and 200,000,000 acres of public lands. Richardson retorted that this was the argument of Fisher Ames over again, and charged the eastern members with fear of opening the better lands of tho West in compe tition with their own. He thought the best way was to give the peoplo a chanco to make their own choice. Tho Senate committee on territories was composed of Douglas, Johnson of Arkansas, Jones of Iowa, Houston or Texas, democrats, and Bell and Ever ett, whigs. Douglas dominated tho committee. The three members last named wore opposed to tho Nebraska bill. On the 17th of February Doug las reported the bill as It came from tho House without amendment, and March 2 ho tried to get It up for con sideration, and complained that for two years tho Senate had refused to hear a territorial bill. Rusk of Texas bitterly opposed tho bill, and said that Its passage would "drlvo tho In dians back on us," and It failed of consideration by a vote of twenty to twenty-five, all but five of thoso op posed including two from Delaware being of tho South. Of the south em senators only tho two from Mis souri favored tho bill. Senator Atchison's remarks on tho 3d of March are notable as a remark able contribution to tho theory of tho inviolability of tho Missouri compro mise, and also as being tho only se rious reference in tho whole debate to tho slavery question. In tho early part of tho session ho had seen two objections to the bill, namely, the fact that tho title of the Indians had not been extinguished and tho Missouri compromiso. It was very clear to him that tho law of Congress passed when Missouri was admitted Into tho Union, excluding slavery from tho territory of Louisiana north of 36 30', would bo enforced In that terri tory unless It was specially rescinded, and, whether constitutional or not, would do its work, and that work would preclude slaveholders from go ing Into that territory. But when ho camo to look Into tho question ho saw no prospect of tho repeal of tho Missouri compromise. But for this ho would oppose organization of the ter ritory unless his constituency and all people of the South could go Into it carrying their slaves with them. But he had no hope that tho restriction would ever be repealed. The first great error In the political history of the country was tho Ordinance of 1787, making the Northwest territory free; tho second was the Missouri compromise. Ho did not like the competition In agriculture with his own Btate which would follow the or ganization of the territory, but popu lation would go Into every habitable part of the territory In a very few yeara In defiance of the government, so it might as well be let in now. Houston made a flamboyant speech against the bill, entirely devoted to the wrongs of the Indians which Its passage would involve, and Bell (Ten nessee) spoke along the same line, and urged that there was no neces sity for territorial organization. Doug las closed the debate showing that the provisions of the bill did not In clude tho land of any Indian tribe without their consent (it had been so amended in tho House), and he said, "It is an act very dear to my heart." Ho had presented a bill eight years beforo in tho House and had been pressing It over since. But on tho 3d of March tho motion to tnko up tho bill was laid on tho tablo by a vote of twenty-three to seventeen, and it was novor revived in that form. House, discloses that the border states north and south wore fighting for ad vantage In tho traffic to tho Pacific coast and In tho location of tho then somewhat dimly prospective Pacific railway. This real objection to the measure on tho part of tho southorn states seems to have been largely veiled by an ostensibly very philan thropic regard for tho fato of the In dian; but it seems scarcely posslblo that finesse could havo been so adroit ly spun and spread , so far as to have concealed tho consideration of tjio ad mission or more free territory as the real objection on tho part of tho South. On the other hand, tho prompt report which Douglas mado from his committee early In the next sessiqn of Congress, recommending tho squat ter sovereignty compromiso, indicates that ho had discovered not only that tho South, In part at least, had de cided to press the slavery objection, but the way to meet it unless Indeed this compromiso was a gratuitous sop thrown to tho South as a bid for Its favor to his political fortunes. In a speech at Atchison during tho vaca tion, September 24, 1854, Senator At chison, in a bibulous burst of confi dence, said that ho had forced Doug las to change his tactics and adopt tho compromise. While this claim shames tho wily senator's frank dis claimer at tho last session, alluded to above, It Is entirely consistent with his leadership In tho subsequent at tempt to make tho most of tho com promise by forcing Kansas Into the Union as a slave state. . At a meeting, in Platte county, Mis souri, Atchison spoke In the same vein. Tho sentiment and determina tion of tho western border Missouri' ans whom ho represented wero ox- pressed In tho following declaration: "Resolved, that If tho territory shall be opened to settlement wo plodgo ourselves to each other to extend tho institutions of Missouri over tho ter ritory, at whatever cost' of blood or treasure." Thoro was a very largo slave population In theso border coun ties, amounting, It Is said, to as many as seventeen thousand and tho fears freely expressed by Atchison and oth ers that this property, and so tho sys tem under which It was held, would bo seriously menaced If tho Immedi ately adjoining torrltory of Kansas should bo mado free, wero no doubt well founded. And yet solicitude about this matter seemB to havo been confined to a few, and there Is evi dence that nldlfferenco was tho rule rather than tho exception. This Is illustrated by tho fact that tho mem bers of the House of Representatives from Missouri left to tho members or Congress of Iowa to Insist on tho di vision of tho territory. Tho sweeping dictum that, "Doug las was a man of too much Independ ence to suffer the dictation of Atchi son, Toombs or Stephens," Is rather beside tho question, and seems to uo virtually contradicted by its author when ho shows how readily Douglas yielded to the radical and momentous amendment of Dixon, a lesser man than either of tho three above named, for tho total repeal of tho Missouri restriction, when Douglas spoke "In an earnest and touching manner," so that "It was a pretty comedy. Tho words of Douglas wero thoso of a self-denying atrlot, and not thoso of a man who was sacrificing tho peace of his country, and, as It turned out, the success of his party, to his own porsonal ambition." Early in tho session of tho next Congress, December 14, 1853, Senator Dodgo of Iowa, apparently acting In concert with tho committee on terri tories of which Douglas was chairman, introduced a bill to organize the torrl tory of Nebraska which should com prise "all that part of tho territory of tho United States Included between tho summit of tho Rocky mountains on the west, tho states of Missouri and Iowa on tho east, tho 43 30' of north latitude on tho north, and tho torrltory of Now Mexico and tho par allel of 3G 30' north latitude on tho south." This bill contained no refer ence to slavery. "The slmplo bill which Dodgo Introduced had under gone very Important changes," said Chase, In asking for moro timo to con sider the committee's substitute. On tho 4th of January following, tho committee on territories, through Douglas, reported the bill of Dodgo In the form of a substitute, in which the proposed torrltory embraced all that part of the territory of Minnesota which lay between the Mississippi river on the east and the northern boundary of Iowa and the Missouri and White Earth rivers on tho south and west; and Ft. Leavenworth, then a military station, wua designated as the capital. A leading historian com mits tho error of Including within this proposed territory of Nebraska the area now comprised In the states of Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Mon tana and part of Colorado and Wyom ing, which "contained 485,000 square miles, a territory larger by thirty three thousand square miles than all the free states In the Union oast of tho Rocky mountains." That larger part of tho Dakotas lying east of tho Missouri, hdwover, belonged to Min nesota, and a corner of Wyoming was not included In "tho purchase." But tho nrea in snuaro miles as given Is approximately correct. Tho commlttco's bill contained tho compromiso provision of tho Utah and Now Mexico bills, that tho torrltory of Nebraska or any portion of tho samo when admitted as a state or states "shall be received Into tho Union with or without slavory ns their constitution may prescrlbo at tho time of tholr admission." Accompanying tho, bill was a formal report In which Douglas explained why tho provisions relating to slavery wero Inserted. Ho points out that "omlnont statesmen hold that Congress la Invested with no rightful authority to leglslato upon tho subject of slavery In tho terri tories, and that thoroforo tho eighth section of tho Missouri compromiso is null and void"; whllo "tho prevail ing sontiment in largo sections of tho Union sustains tho doctrino that tho Constitution of tho United States se cures to every citizen nn lnallcnablo right to movo into nny of tho terri tories with his property of whatever kind and description and to hold and enjoy tho Bame under tho sanction of law. . . Under this section, ns in tho caso of tho Mexican law In Now Mexico and Utah, It Is a disputed point whether slavery is prohibited in tho now country by valid enact ment. As Congress doomed It wlso and prudent to refrain from deciding tho matters In controversy then (1850) either by affirming or repealing tho Mexican laws or by an act declaratory of tho true Intent of tho constitution nnd tho. extent of tho protection af forded by it to slavo property In the territories, your committeo are not prepared now to recommend a depart ure from tho courso pursued on that memorable occasion either by affirm ing or repealing tho olghth section of tho Missouri act, or by any act de claratory of tho moaning of the con stitution In respect to tho legal points In dispute." After tho bill was roported It was amended by tlio addition of tho con cluding part of tho committee's re port, which was declaratory of tho moaning of tho compromiso of 1850, ns follows: "First That all questions pertain ing tb slavory In tho territories and tho new states to bo formed there from aro to bo left to tho decision of tho peoplo rosldlng therein by tholr appropriate representatives, to bo cho sen by them for that purpose. "Second That 'all cases Involving title to Blaves' and 'questions of por sonal freedom' aro 'to bo referred to tho jurisdiction of tho local tribunals, with the right of appeal to tho Su premo Court of tho United States. "Third That the provision of tho Constitution of tho United States In respect to fugitives from service Is to bo carried Into faithful execution In all 'tho organized territories' tho samo as in tho Btatos." On tho ICth day of January Dixon of Kentucky fortified tho indirect set ting asido of tho MIbsouH compromiso by tho popular sovereignty provision of tho bill by moving an amendment explicitly repealing tho anti-slavery clause of tho compromise. If it is true that "tho Senato was astonished and Douglas was startled" their emotions must havo been duo to being brought faco to face with tho spoctacular plainness of tho meaning of the Indi rect repeal already Incorporated in tho bill. Tho popular sovereignty clause of tho Nebraska bill was abso lutely Inconsistent with tho Missouri restriction and applied to all tho ter ritory affected by It except tho part of tho Dakotas lying oast of the Mis souri river, and which would be hope lessly anti-slavery unaer tno popular choice. Moreover, this very area had been embraced in tho territory of Wisconsin by tho act of 183C, In which was Incorporated tho slavory interdic tion of tho Ordinance of 1787; and this Interdiction seems to have been passed on when tho torrltory foil to Minnesota in 1849, whero It remained when tho Missouri compromiso was repealed by tho Kansas-Nebraska act. It seems still leBS accurate, or Bull moro misleading, In tho attempt to exaggerate tho Importance of tho for mal repeal of tho Missouri compro miso, to say, touching Douglas' 4th of January bill, that, "Tho South was In sulted by tho pretense of legalizing slavory in territory already by tho Missouri compromiso preempted for freedom"; for tho report of Douglas "closed with a proposition which cer tainly set it (tho compromiso) aside"; and this very proposition was ap pended to tho 4th of January bill. Nor Is tho ground for tho statement that, "So long as the Missouri com promise remained the law of tho land slavery could havo no legal recogni tion In Nebraska while it was yet a territory" discoverable; for the 4th of January bill provided, as we have seen, "That all questions pertaining to slavery in the territories . . . are to be left to the decision of tho people residing therein." Eastorn writers seem to have conceived It to be an a priori virtue to bo offended at the vlrllo stronuoslty of this re markable western leader, and thoy seem to wrjto under tho compulsion of arriving at tho conclusipn that "in tho view of Douglas moral Ideas had no place in politics." For the great part which Clay played In tho com promise of 1850 there Is palliation where there Is not praise, and we aro told that It Is probablo that "tho ma tured historical view will bo that Webster's position as to the applies- , Hon of tho Wilmot proviso was states- manshlp of tho highest order' Though Clay, like Webster, was a -constant candldato for tho presidency 1 and boro a potent part In tho two f great compromises with slavery ag- -v' grosslon, which wore bitterly nsBallodF by nntl-slnvery sontiment, ho Is awards, , ed tho meed of patriotic motlvo and' achievement, whllo tho similar action . U of Douglas Is written down as a moro ;. UU 1U1 DUUIUUI II OHJi;uil III U1U HUAlt democratic convention." By a sort of ? pnoumatlc mothod ho Is summarily re- 1 Jected from tho company of respoct ablo statesmen, or politicians oven, with the brand of "Stephen Arnold Douglas with accent on that second ft name." 1 ' This last is a good example of tho over-working of a bias, a predilection or a tortured omotion which one al- a most oxpects of tho author. Another historian is falror in describing the great 3d of March speech: "Tho appearanco of Douglas was ,1 striking. Though very short In stat- .. uro, ho had an enormous head, and when ho rose to tnko arms against a sea of troubles which opposed him ho was tho very picture of Intellectual force. Always a splendid fighter, ho scorned this night' like a giadlator who contonded against great odds; for while ho was backed by thirty-seven ' senators, among his opponents wore tho ablest men of tho Senate, and tholr arguments must bo answored If ho expected o ride out tho storm which had been rnlsod against hlra. Never In the United States, In the arena of debates had a bad cause been moro splendidly advocated; novor more effectively was tho worso mado to appear tho bettor reason." Theso estimates of tho author of Nebraska's political beginning by standard historians of today soom por tincnt hero ns affording tho latest and thus far the best view of his character and of his motives in tho prologue to the groat national tragedy which fol lowed tho Nebraska contest. But they ' also Indicate that a remove of a slnglo generation from tho culminating, scones of tho strugglo over Blavory docs not servo entirely to separate tho northern writer from northern prejudice and partisanship. Tho se rious chargo against Douglas is that ho Initiated tho Nobraska bill, which grow into tho Kmsas-Nobraska act, Including tho ropoi.! of tho Missouri ' compromise, of his own volition, and," by so doing, to lngrntlato hlmsolf with tho South for tho selfish furtherance of his presidential ambition, he .delib erately disturbed tho repose which had been established by tho compro miso of 1850, and which Presldont Pierce had promised In his late meB sdgo should "suffer no shock during my official term, If I havo powdr to proveiit It." ' There Is much reason for bollovlng that Douglas was aware that southern politicians would preBS for adherenco to tho principles of tho latest compromiso, and that, Instead of accepting it in tho way of a com promise, ns Clay or Webster would havo dono, at an earlier timo, by his Imperious method ho took tho lead and pressed what ho saw was a neces sary concession as a positive measure of his own. Moreover, tho debato shows that tho question whether Doug las acted In bad faith In reference to tho Missouri compromiso at least re mained an open one, and with tho technical or formal advantage with Douglas. In his speech In tho Senate, February 29, I860, ho said: "It was tho defeat In tho House of Representatives of tho onactment of tho bill to extend tho Missouri com promiso to tho Pacific ocean, after it had passed tho Senate on my own motion, that opened tho controversy of 1850, which was terminated by tho adoption of tho measures of that year. . . . Both parties In 1852 pledged themselves to abldo by that principle, and thus stood pledged not to prohibit slavery In tho territories. Tho whig party affirmed that plodgo and so did tho democracy. In 1854 wo only car- N rled out, In tho Kansas-Nebraska act, tho samo principle that had been af firmed In tho compromise measures of 1850. I repeat that their resistance , ( to carrying out In good faith the set . tlomont of 1820, their defeat of tho ; ,.. bill for extending It to tho Pacific ocean, was tho sole cause of tho agi tation of 1860, and gave rise to the necessity of establishing the principle of non-intervention by Congress with ,rj slavory In tho territories." And in his famous speech of March '; 3, 1854, he silenced Chase and Seward , on thlB point by showing that, after the Missouri compact of 1820 was, ; made, the northern vote In Congress " still kept that stato out of tho Union and forced Mr. Clay's now conditions . of 1821; that a llko northern vote was recorded against admitting Arkansas, with slavery In 183G, and that the leg Islature of Mr. Seward's Btate (New York), after tho Missouri act of 1820, had Instructed her members of Con gress to vote against the admission of any territory as a stato with sla very. Mr. Douglas at least wont far to ward establishing the consistency of his action In 1854 by quoting from his Bpoech in Chicago in 1850: "These measures (of 1850) are predicated on tho great fundamental principle that evory people ought to possess the right of regulating their awn internal concerns and domestic institutions in their own way." To be Continued f