The Chicago Foreign Language Press Survey was published in 1942 by the Chicago Public Library Omnibus Project of the Works Progress Administration of Illinois. The purpose of the project was to translate and classify selected news articles that appeared in the foreign language press from 1855 to 1938. The project consists of 120,000 typewritten pages translated from newspapers of 22 different foreign language communities of Chicago.

Read more about this historic project.

You are looking at one result from the German group.
This group has 7091 other articles.

This article was published in 1861.
66 articles were published that year.

This article has a primary subject code of "Interpretation of American History" (I J).
211 articles share this primary code.

  • Illinois Staats-Zeitung -- January 08, 1861
    The Nationalen's Knowledge of History (Editorial)

    Anyone who wishes to ascertain how well the Nationalen, a German Democratic publication, is edited, may read the following bold but, unfortunately, untrue statement which appeared in the Saturday issue: "The Missouri Compromise was not mentioned in the bill which provided that the people themselves should have the power to decide the slavery question."

    The Nebraska-Kansas Bill is the one referred to. Now compare the above statement with Section 14 of the bill: "All laws of the United States which are not applicable locally shall be in force in the Territory of Nebraska, with the exception of Section 8, which preceded the admission of Missouri into the Union, and which was passed March 6, 1820." It is generally known that this act was the Missouri Compromise.

    One need not wonder at the short memory of the Nationalen, considering that 2Douglas, too, now suffers from the malady. For, six years ago this "statesman" claimed that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, that it would lead to the formation of geographical and sectional factions, that he had discovered a "higher principle," according to which the slavery question could be finally settled, that the sovereignty of the people is, in fact, "Supreme Court" sovereignty. For six years he has been telling the nation that this "new principle" is the pride of his life, and that he would devote his whole life to its enforcement against the two existing "extremes"; but now he chews his words again, swallows his "great principle" as a magician swallows his "fire," and recommends the restoration of the same Missouri Compromise which for six years he has denounced as an unconstitutional and inadequate measure. Under no circumstances should such a proposal have come from Douglas, but since it does, it merely proves that his cowardice is just as great as the inconsistency which has marked his entire career.

    I J, I G