to　so　late　as　the　year　1849。
  But　going　back　a　little　in　point　of　time。　　Our　war　with　Mexico
  broke　out　in　1846。　　When　Congress　was　about　adjourning　that
  session；　President　Polk　asked　them　to　place　two　millions　of
  dollars　under　his　control；　to　be　used　by　him　in　the　recess；　if
  found　practicable　and　expedient；　in　negotiating　a　treaty　of　peace
  with　Mexico；　and　acquiring　some　part　of　her　territory。　　A　bill
  was　duly　gotten　up　for　the　purpose；　and　was　progressing
  swimmingly　in　the　House　of　Representatives；　when　a　member　by　the
  name　of　David　Wilmot；　a　Democrat　from　Pennsylvania；　moved　as　an
  amendment；　〃Provided；　that　in　any　territory　thus　acquired　there
  never　shall　be　slavery。〃
  This　is　the　origin　of　the　far…famed　Wilmot　Proviso。　　It　created　a
  great　flutter；　but　it　stuck　like　wax；　was　voted　into　the　bill；
  and　the　bill　passed　with　it　through　the　House。　　The　Senate；
  however；　adjourned　without　final　action　on　it；　and　so　both
  appropriation　and　proviso　were　lost　for　the　time。　　The　war
  continued；　and　at　the　next　session　the　President　renewed　his
  request　for　the　appropriation；　enlarging　the　amount；　I　think；　to
  three　millions。　　Again　came　the　proviso；　and　defeated　the
  measure。　　Congress　adjourned　again；　and　the　war　went　on。　　In
  December；　1847；　the　new　Congress　assembled。　　I　was　in　the　lower
  House　that　term。　　The　Wilmot　Proviso；　or　the　principle　of　it；　was
  constantly　coming　up　in　some　shape　or　other；　and　I　think　I　may
  venture　to　say　I　voted　for　it　at　least　forty　times　during　the
  short　time　I　was　there。　　The　Senate；　however；　held　it　in　check；
  and　it　never　became　a　law。　　In　the　spring　of　1848　a　treaty　of
  peace　was　made　with　Mexico；　by　which　we　obtained　that　portion　of
  her　country　which　now　constitutes　the　Territories　of　New　Mexico
  and　Utah　and　the　present　State　of　California。　　By　this　treaty　the
  Wilmot　Proviso　was　defeated；　in　so　far　as　it　was　intended　to　be　a
  condition　of　the　acquisition　of　territory。　　Its　friends；　however；
  were　still　determined　to　find　some　way　to　restrain　slavery　from
  getting　into　the　new　country。　　This　new　acquisition　lay　directly
  west　of　our　old　purchase　from　France；　and　extended　west　to　the
  Pacific　Ocean；　and　was　so　situated　that　if　the　Missouri　line
  should　be　extended　straight　west；　the　new　country　would　be
  divided　by　such　extended　line；　leaving　some　north　and　some　south
  of　it。　　On　Judge　Douglas's　motion；　a　bill；　or　provision　of　a
  bill；　passed　the　Senate　to　so　extend　the　Missouri　line。　　The
  proviso　men　in　the　House；　including　myself；　voted　it　down；
  because；　by　implication；　it　gave　up　the　southern　part　to　slavery；
  while　we　were　bent　on　having　it　all　free。
  In　the　fall　of　1848　the　gold…mines　were　discovered　in　California。
  This　attracted　people　to　it　with　unprecedented　rapidity；　so　that
  on；　or　soon　after；　the　meeting　of　the　new　Congress　in　December；
  1849；　she　already　had　a　population　of　nearly　a　hundred　thousand；
  had　called　a　convention；　formed　a　State　constitution　excluding
  slavery；　and　was　knocking　for　admission　into　the　Union。　　The
  proviso　men；　of　course；　were　for　letting　her　in；　but　the　Senate；
  always　true　to　the　other　side；　would　not　consent　to　her
  admission；　and　there　California　stood；　kept　out　of　the　Union
  because　she　would　not　let　slavery　into　her　borders。　　Under　all
  the　circumstances；　perhaps；　this　was　not　wrong。　　There　were　other
  points　of　dispute　connected　with　the　general　question　of　Slavery；
  which　equally　needed　adjustment。　　The　South　clamored　for　a　more
  efficient　fugitive　slave　law。　　The　North　clamored　for　the
  abolition　of　a　peculiar　species　of　slave　trade　in　the　District　of
  Columbia；　in　connection　with　which；　in　view　from　the　windows　of
  the　Capitol；　a　sort　of　negro　livery…stable；　where　droves　of
  negroes　were　collected；　temporarily　kept；　and　finally　taken　to
  Southern　markets；　precisely　like　droves　of　horses；　had　been
  openly　maintained　for　fifty　years。　　Utah　and　New　Mexico　needed
  territorial　governments；　and　whether　slavery　should　or　should　not
  be　prohibited　within　them　was　another　question。　　The　indefinite
  western　boundary　of　Texas　was　to　be　settled。　　She　was　a　slave
  State；　and　consequently　the　farther　west　the　slavery　men　could
  push　her　boundary；　the　more　slave　country　they　secured；　and　the
  farther　east　the　slavery　opponents　could　thrust　the　boundary
  back；　the　less　slave　ground　was　secured。　　Thus　this　was　just　as
  clearly　a　slavery　question　as　any　of　the　others。
  These　points　all　needed　adjustment；　and　they　were　held　up；
  perhaps　wisely；　to　make　them　help　adjust　one　another。　　The　Union
  now；　as　in　1820；　was　thought　to　be　in　danger；　and　devotion　to　the
  Union　rightfully　inclined　men　to　yield　somewhat　in　points　where
  nothing　else　could　have　so　inclined　them。　　A　compromise　was
  finally　effected。　　The　South　got　their　new　fugitive　slave　law；
  and　the　North　got　California；　（by　far　the　best　part　of　our
  acquisition　from　Mexico）　as　a　free　State。　　The　South　got　a
  provision　that　New　Mexico　and　Utah；　when　admitted　as　States；　may
  come　in　with　or　without　slavery　as　they　may　then　choose；　and　the
  North　got　the　slave　trade　abolished　in　the　District　of　Columbia。。
  The　North　got　the　western　boundary　of　Texas　thrown　farther　back
  eastward　than　the　South　desired；　but；　in　turn；　they　gave　Texas
  ten　millions　of　dollars　with　which　to　pay　her　old　debts。　　This　is
  the　Compromise　of　1850。
  Preceding　the　Presidential　election　of　1852；　each　of　the　great
  political　parties；　Democrats　and　Whigs；　met　in　convention　and
  adopted　resolutions　indorsing　the　Compromise　of　'50；　as　a
  〃finality；〃　a　final　settlement；　so　far　as　these　parties　could
  make　it　so；　of　all　slavery　agitation。　　Previous　to　this；　in　1851；
  the　Illinois　Legislature　had　indorsed　it。
  During　this　long　period　of　time；　Nebraska　（the　Nebraska
  Territory；　not　the　State　of　as　we　know　it　now）　had　remained
  substantially　an　uninhabited　country；　but　now　emigration　to　and
  settlement　within　it　began　to　take　place。　　It　is　about　one　third
  as　large　as　the　present　United　States；　and　its　importance；　so
  long　overlooked；　begins　to　come　into　view。　　The　restriction　of
  slavery　by　the　Missouri　Compromise　directly　applies　to　itin
  fact　was　first　made；　and　has　since　been　maintained　expressly　for
  it。　　In　1853；　a　bill　to　give　it　a　territorial　government　passed
  the　House　of　Representatives；　and；　in　the　hands　of　Judge　Douglas；
  failed　of　passing　only　for　want　of　time。　　This　bill　contained　no
  repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise。　　Indeed；　when　it　was　assailed
  because　it　did　not　contain　such　repeal；　Judge　Douglas　defended　it
  in　its　existing　form。　　On　January　4；　1854；　Judge　Douglas
  introduces　a　new　bill　to　give　Nebraska　territorial　government。
  He　accompanies　this　bill　with　a　report；　in　which　last　he
  expressly　recommends　that　the　Missouri　Compromise　shall　neither
  be　affirmed　nor　repealed。　　Before　long　the　bill　is　so　modified　as
  to　make　two　territories　instead　of　one；　calling　the　southern　one
  Kansas。
  Also；　about　a　month　after　the　introduction　of　the　bill；　on　the
  Judge's　own　motion　it　is　so　amended　as　to　declare　the　Missouri
  Compromise　inoperative　and　void；　and；　substantially；　that　the
  people　who　go　and　settle　there　may　establish　slavery；　or　exclude
  it；　as　they　may　see　fit。　　In　this　shape　the　bill　passed　both
  branches　of　Congress　and　became　a　law。
  This　is　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise。　　The　foregoing
  history　may　not　be　precisely　accurate　in　every　particular；　but　I
  am　sure　it　is　sufficiently　so　for　all　the　use　I　shall　attempt　to
  make　of　it；　and　in　it　we　have　before　us　the　chief　material
  enabling　us　to　judge　correctly　whether　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri
  Compromise　is　right　or　wrong。　　I　think；　and　shall　try　to　show；
  that　it　is　wrongwrong　in　its　direct　effect；　letting　slavery
  into　Kansas　and　Nebraska；　and　wrong　in　its　prospective　principle；
  allowing　it　to　spread　to　every　other　part　of　the　wide　world　where
  men　can　be　found　inclined　to　take　it。
  This　declared　indifference；　but；　as　I　must　think；　covert　real
  zeal；　for　the　spread　of　slavery；　I　cannot　but　hate。　　I　hate　it
  because　of　the　monstrous　injustice　of　slavery　itself。　　I　hate　it
  because　it　deprives　our　republican　example　of　its　just　influence
  in　the　world；　enables　the　enemies　of　free　institutions　with
  plausibility　to　taunt　us　as　hypocrites；　causes　the　real　friends
  of　freedom　to　doubt　our　sincerity；　and　especially　because　it
  forces　so　many　good　men　among　ourselves　into　an　open　war　with　the
  very　fundamental　principles　of　civil　liberty；　criticizing　the
  Declaration　of　Independence；　and　insisting　that　there　is　no　right
  principle　of　action　but　self…interest。
  Before　proceeding　let　me　say　that　I　think　I　have　no　prejudice
  against　the　Southern　people。　　They　are　just　what　we　would　be　in
  their　situation。　　If　slavery　did　not　now　exist　among　them；　they
  would　not　introduce　it。　　If　it　did　now　exist　among　us；　we　should
  not　instantly　give　it　up。　　This　I　believe　of　the　masses　North　and
  South。　　Doubtless　there　are　individuals　on　both　sides　who　would