First. That the Nebraska country needed a territorial government.

Second. That in various ways the public had repudiated that
compromise and demanded the repeal, and therefore should not now
complain of it.

And, lastly, That the repeal establishes a principle which is
intrinsically right.

I will attempt an answer to each of them in its turn.

First, then: If that country was in need of a territorial organization,
could it not have had it as well without as with a repeal? Iowa and
Minnesota, to both of which the Missouri restriction applied, had,
without its repeal, each in succession, territorial organizations. And
even the year before, a bill for Nebraska itself was within an ace of
passing without the repealing clause, and this in the hands of the same
men who are now the champions of repeal. Why no necessity then for
repeal? But still later, when this very bill was first brought in, it
contained no repeal. But, say they, because the people had demanded, or
rather commanded, the repeal, the repeal was to accompany the
organization whenever that should occur.

Now, I deny that the public ever demanded any such thing--ever repudiated
the Missouri Compromise, ever commanded its repeal. I deny it, and call
for the proof. It is not contended, I believe, that any such command has
ever been given in express terms. It is only said that it was done in
principle. The support of the Wilmot Proviso is the first fact mentioned
to prove that the Missouri restriction was repudiated in principle, and