Secession Era Editorials Project

No Title.

New Orleans, Louisiana, Bee [Whig]

(31 May 1854)

The substitute adopted is the Senate (Nebraska) bill, without the Clayton amendment. The bill is one of very doubtful policy for the South. The State Rights party was indifferent. Some voted for the bill, while others took no pains to vote, thinking the bill extremely questionable. The border slave States took great interest in it, and it was thought by some, best not to embarrass them by active opposition. The policy is to strengthen the border States, and the members said this would do much to do this. The vote was taken at 12 o'clock at night, after an exhausting session of twelve hours, and a good many, who were indifferent, were absent. Much may be said for and against the bill. It is thought here, that South Carolina cares nothing about it -- regarding it as a bagatelle. -- Washington Correspondence of the Charleston Mercury, 22d.

We are very sure Louisiana "cares nothing about it." Indeed, we believe the same thing may be truthfully said of a great majority of the Southern States. There has not been the slightest agitation among the masses of the people. The preponderating sentiment has been, and is, that of indifference. Had the bill been defeated there would have been no excitement -- no indignation. As it has passed, there are no indications of rejoicing -- none of jubilation. The people are tired of demagoguical clamor -- tired of scheming politicians, who, to gain their support, would recklessly venture upon any project, no matter what consequences might follow in its train. They are sufficiently intelligent to appreciate the valuable services of of the unasked, self-elected, champions of their Rights. In due time Douglas [amp;] Co., will learn this fact to the full extent of all its bearings.

The abstract principle that the people of the territories have the clear right to frame their own constitution as it suits them when they propose to come into the Union, is undoubtedly correct. But for this, the Nebraska bill would have found few supporters from the South. Nearly all of the members of Congress admitted that this principle could not be practically applied to Nebraska. Climate, soil and production, alike prohibited it. Yet it was hard, extremely difficult, for them to oppose a principle correct in itself, although utterly barren, contingently or remotely, otherwise. They would have served the South, and their immediate constituents, much better, in our humble opinion, had they aided to defeat the bill. Its defeat would have disarmed the Abolitionists of nearly all their weapons. Its passage has supplied them with arms to wage their war upon the South until Nebraska makes application for admission with a free constitution. And the South has not gained, nor can she gain, in any event, one single particle of practical advantage! It seems to us that the South has paid too high a price for the re-affirmation of an admitted, pre-existing fact. The amount is altogether disproportional to the vale of the whistle.