ay, an
extension of the Ohio River. I think this is weak enough on its face. I
will remark, however, that, as a glance at the map will show, the Missouri
line is a long way farther south than the Ohio, and that if our Senator in
proposing his extension had stuck to the principle of jogging southward,
perhaps it might not have been voted down so readily.

But next it is said that the compromises of '50, and the ratification of
them by both political parties in '52, established a new principle which
required the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. This again I deny. I deny
it, and demand the proof. I have already stated fully what the compromises
of '50 are. That particular part of those measures from which the virtual
repeal of the Missouri Compromise is sought to be inferred (for it is
admitted they contain nothing about it in express terms) is the provision
in the Utah and New Mexico laws which permits them when they seek
admission into the Union as States to come in with or without slavery, as
they shall then see fit. Now I insist this provision was made for Utah
and New Mexico, and for no other place whatever. It had no more direct
reference to Nebraska than it had to the territories of the moon. But,
say they, it had reference to Nebraska in principle. Let us see. The
North consented to this provision, not because they considered it right in
itself, but because they were compensated--paid for it.

They at the same time got California into the Union as a free State. This
was far the best part of all they had struggled for by the Wilmot Proviso.
They also got the area of slavery somewhat narrowed in the settlement
of the boundary of Texas. Also they got the slave trade abolished in the
District of Columbia.

For all these desirable objects the North could afford to yield something;
and they did yield to the South the Utah and New Mexico provision. I do
not mean that the whole North, or even a majority, yielded, when the law
passed; but enough yielded--when added to the vote of the South, to
carry the measure. Nor can it be pretended that the principle of this
arrangement requires us to permit the same provision to be applied to
Nebraska, without any equivalent at all. Give us another free State; press
the boundary of Texas still farther back; give us another step toward the
destruction of slavery in the District, and you present us a similar case.
But ask us not to repeat, for nothing, what you paid for in the first