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 instance.  If you wish the thing again, pay again.  That is the principle of the compromises of ’50, if, indeed, they had any principles beyond their specific terms—­it was the system of equivalents.

Again, if Congress, at that time, intended that all future Territories should, when admitted as States, come in with or without slavery at their own option, why did it not say so?  With such a universal provision, all know the bills could not have passed.  Did they, then—­could they-establish a principle contrary to their own intention?  Still further, if they intended to establish the principle that, whenever Congress had control, it should be left to the people to do as they thought fit with slavery, why did they not authorize the people of the District of Columbia, at their option, to abolish slavery within their limits?

I personally know that this has not been left undone because it was unthought of.  It was frequently spoken of by members of Congress, and by citizens of Washington, six years ago; and I heard no one express a doubt that a system of gradual emancipation, with compensation to owners, would meet the approbation of a large majority of the white people of the District.  But without the action of Congress they could say nothing; and Congress said “No.”  In the measures of 1850, Congress had the subject of slavery in the District expressly on hand.  If they were then establishing the principle of allowing the people to do as they please with slavery, why did they not apply the principle to that people?

Again it is claimed that by the resolutions of the Illinois Legislature, passed in 1851, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was demanded.  This I deny also.  Whatever may be worked out by a criticism of the language of those resolutions, the people have never understood them as being any more than an indorsement of the compromises of 1850, and a release of our senators from voting for the Wilmot Proviso.  The whole people are living witnesses that this only was their view.  Finally, it is asked, “If we did not mean to apply the Utah and New Mexico provision to all future territories, what did we mean when we, in 1852, indorsed the compromises of 1850?”