On the record
The bill had fully recognized the binding force of the Missouri Compromise, and if it had passed, there could have been no pretense for the introduction of slavery in the territory of Nebraska.
Source
gutenberg.orgJames Blaine: “The bill had fully recognized the binding force of the Missouri Compromise, and if it had passed, there could have been…”
Editor's note · Context
Blaine discusses the implications of a bill that would have upheld the Missouri Compromise and prevented slavery in Nebraska.
Share
More from James Blaine
If this view of the subject be correct, as I think it is, then the Union must utterly perish at the moment when Congress shall arm one part of the people against another for any purpose beyond that of merely protecting the General…
But this is a totally different thing from an offensive war to punish the people for the political misdeeds of their State Government, or to enforce an acknowledgment that the Government of the United States is supreme.
You can use force only to repel an assault on the public property and aid the Courts in the performance of their duty.
All these provisions are made to protect the States, not to authorize an attack by one part of the country upon another; to preserve the peace, and not to plunge them into civil war.
Other voices in this conversation
