politicians in Washington City," was one of the Oregonian's declarations.[1]
However, in order fully to understand the sudden change of sentiment by which those that had opposed statehood now joined in support of the measure, a glance at the political situation will be necessary. As late as 1854, Oregon was calmly confident that slavery could not be introduced there. The Missouri Compromise had settled that, for Oregon was north of the compromise line. Moreover by a decision of the Oregon Courts it had been held that slavery could not exist in the Territory and that slaves brought there were free.[2] But congress passed the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 1854, providing for the organization of the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and asserting the doctrine of "squatter-sovereignty," or local option for territories on slavery and other questions, in effect repealing the Missouri Compromise. One indirect result of this enactment was to disrupt the national whig party, and ultimately to create the republican party.
Oregon, therefore, after this bitterly fought legislation, became debatable ground, and instead of being free from active local interest, at once became the scene of agitation, and the slavery question was the basis of political discussion and conduct. The legislature of 1854-5 had debated at great length the series of resolutions offered by Delazon Smith, endorsing the KansasNebraska Act, which he claimed had the effect to repeal any and all provisions of the fundamental laws that prohibited slavery in Oregon. In April, 1855, the Yamhill County Whig Convention denounced squatter-sovereignty, and on June 27, 1855, a general convention of those op-
- ↑ Oregonian, November 1, 1856.
- ↑ Judge George H. Williams allowed a writ of habeas corpus to free slaves brought by Nathaniel Ford of Polk County. See his article in Or. Hist. Quarterly (1901) v. 2, p. 1. See also the articles by Fred Lockley, "The Case of Robin Holmes v. Nathaniel Ford," id., XXIII, p. 111; "Some Documentary Records of Slavery in Oregon," id., XVIII, 107.
