tion,
a pretense was put forth that the Compromise of 1820 was in conflict
with the Compromise of 1850, and that it was necessary to repeal
the former in order that the doctrine of non-intervention with
slavery in the Territories should become the recognized policy for
all the public domain of the United States. Mr. Douglas was the
first to adopt this construction. Indeed, to him may fairly be
ascribed the credit or the discredit of inventing it. He had a
strong hold on the South, and in his Congressional life had steadily
voted on the pro-slavery side of all public questions. But he
instinctively foresaw that his political future would be endangered
by advocating the repeal of the Missouri Compromise on the basis
and for the reason announced by Mr. Dixon. Hence the resort to
the doctrine of non-intervention under which the South should get
all they wished by having the right to carry their slaves into the
territory, and the North could be conciliated by the presentation
of another final settlement of all issues which threatened the
perpetuity of the Union.

Instead of the single Territory of Nebraska, Mr. Douglas reported
a measure to organize both Kansas and Nebraska; and in one of the
sections of the bill the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was declared
to be inoperative and void, because "inconsistent with the principle
of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and
Territories as recognized by the Compromise measures of 1850."
The bill further declared that "its true intent and meaning was
not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, and not to
exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people perfectly free to
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way." The North
was fairly stunned by the proposition made by Mr. Douglas. Had he
proposed to abolish the Constitution itself the surprise could
scarcely have been greater. The acting generation had grown to
manhood with profound respect and even reverence for the Missouri
Compromise, and had come to regard it almost as sacredly as though
it were part of the organic law of the Republic. If a Southern
man talked of its repeal it was regarded as the mere bravado of an
extremist. But now a Northern senator of remarkable ability, a
party leader, a candidate for the Presidency, had reported the
measure, and made it a test of Democratic faith, of administration
fealty. The contest that followed was severe and prolonged. The
bill was