Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1845-02-18


ENJOYMENT OF THEIR PROPERTY IN THE cEDsl
TERRITORY" nor have been protected" therein
under the minis,rations of law whlch eilher DID,
nished their sMre-,aOpcrty beyond It's limits, o.
confiscaed its ownership if it remained wen
did il affect the principle OF the measure al ali
that the exclusion or conhscaiion was limited .
fou,-6ths Of the territory, and did not extend e
the arioke Did il mitigate the wrong or lessen the
grievance inflicted on the slave holder who dwel
North Of the an,i-sarery line, maj ms leiio"ch'
zens South OF that line were PROTECTED ~ TIL
FREE ENJOYMENT OF THEIR rRopERTfs We olpcd
10 discuss with you, whether 'hese SnPu'dlioh =
Of the treaty were wise or unwlse we MAKE d
allowance Tor your opinions, ana we exPec. some
lule 10 be made for ours. Be this as il may, yor
cannot DENY bu, that these stipuatons were nic,e
that. being Meye they covered and protected the
sore-propcrty of the "inhabitanls" as well as any
other properly which they owned; and that al
parties in interest had right 10 The protecllor
and the guarantees vouchsafed under these hiSn
and solemn pledges. Nevertheless, sec wha
Congress has done!
On the 9th OF March, 1920 an act was passed,
entitled, ian act 10 auihoiise the people OF me
Missouri Territory 10 form Constitution and
State Government, and for The admission OF such
State into the Union on an equal ioolins with lhe
original States and TO PROHIBIT SLAVERY IN GER
TAIN TERRITORIES"
The Sth section thereof provided, "That in all
that territory celed BY France 10 the uniiec
States, under the name OF Louisiana, which lies
North of thiry-six degrees and thirty minutes
North lattude-not included within the limits
of the State contemplated by this act-slGrrJ
and inroluniarv @7r,inde, 0tkerwi@ Maa IN ne
punishment Of crimes ,ciercof The 6cen
duiU cOnvicicd. SHALL BE- AND Is HEREBY FOREVER
PROHIBITED"
Now, we appealt 10 your candor, whether, under
your appreciation Of the common rights Of
brethren, bound in Union by common ties and
affections, you think such an act as this Just
towards those "inhahitants" who dwelt with
their slaves North Of that line or TO those who
held slaves South Of that line, and who were
privileged under that treaty 10 take them and
dwell with them, North of that line, or TO The
South generally, whose equal treasures were
contributed TO the acquisition OF that territory
and who, until that ACT was passed, had COM
mon right, under The treaty, of settling with their
slaves upon any portion ihereof2 You cannot
bu, own that TO all these things the act was I'M
lust, and was nothing less than plain and
palpable inlraclon of the treaty referred TO.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE LINE A VIOLA.
TIoN or THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.
CONSIDER: That the mode of effecling the eom-
promise was fully as Objectionable as the measure
itself II was truly extolted from the weakness
and the apprehenSions OF the South. under mena-
ces and avowed purposes of depriving her of her
Constitutional rights. The facts were these
Missouri, being part oflhe Louisiana territory, APP
piled for admission into the Union underline qua
ran,ees of the treaty, that 1.-THE inhabitants of the
ceded territory should be incorporated into the
Union, and admitted as soon as possible, Accord
ing 10 the principles Of the Federal Constitution 10
ali the rights, advantages and immunites OF citi-
zens OF the United States" There was no dis
pute about lhis-there could be none. Neverthe-
less Congress eXacted other the unconstitutional
and realy-breaking condition, tina! she should not
be admitted unless she provided in her Constu-
lion for the immediate and final abolition of sla-
very within her borders, by just such clause as
the one have cited from the Missouri act OF the
9th Of March, 1920. Can any candid mind PER
suade itself, that the imposition Of condition
like this upon Missouri, was admitting her "ac-
cording 10 the principles of the Federal Constitu-
tion?" Is there any one principle in the ConSlitu-
ton more essentially and conspicuously there,
than the perfect and Interchangeable equality OF all
the States of The Union? No one would pretend,
that Congress could determine for Virginia or
Massachusetts,, whether the one should abolish or
the other introduce slavery within Retrospective
borders. 1t could command or forbid: neither the
one nor The other Is it not equally manifest, then,
thai Congress was also incompetent TO PREJUDICE
and decidc such aquestion lorthe Stateof Missouri
which mus, have been, from constitutional me-
cessity, the constitutional equal OF Virginia and
Massachusetts,? No man of sane mind and sound
principles can deny this But for the sipnlalions Of
the treaty, Congress might have admitted or might
have rejected Missouri, but il never could have
consttntionally imposed conditions upon her, from
rk oil NJ done
so, il is plain that such conditions could never
have bound Missouri Obligations that bind, are
TO be enforced. And pray, how were
these to beenlorced? Suppose Missouri had inserted
the restriction against slavery in her Constitution
had then been admitted into the Union, and in 4
month thereafter had assembled in convention
and abolished the restriction What could have
prevented herr Where was there power lodged
in the Constitution or elsewhere, to have prevent
ed her doing so. or which could revise or reverse
The act after was done? Congress would have had
inst he same right of interference in her case,
that it would have had in the case OF Virginia, il
a Convention Of hers should abolish slavery or,
in the case OF Massachusetts, il Convention OF
hers should introduce it-that is TO say, INST pre-
cisely none at all. Il is not possible 10 distinguish
these cases, and all must agree, that Congress
possessed no constitutional power 10 interfere
with either. An opposite conclusion could hardly
be reached but by unsteady minds, and they pow
erfuy wrought upon in frenzied times.
ALL COULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED WITHOUT
TIE COMPROMISE.
CONSIDER: That if Missouri had inserted the
restriction, entered the Union, and then abolished
the restriction, there would have been no C0mprO-
mise, lf Missouri had refused TO insert the re-
slriciion, and Congress had refused TO admit her
without il, there would still have been no Com-
promise! What then? Why, Missouri WOULD
HAVE pEEN STATE; AND BEING OUT or THE u
MON, WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT,
SOVEREIGN ASD FREE. Becoming STATE, with
the consent Of Congress-kept out Of the Union
by the unconstitutional exaclions of Congress
with no power in Congress 10 abolish her Constl-
tuition and State Government, 50 established I'M
der lis consent what would she have been-what
could she have been but free, sovereign and
independent S,aie1 This was the commanding
and invincible position occupied By The ilustrlous
L.oirndes in the Missouri debate. His adverse
ries were fairly vanqui>hed. Nothing was need
ed 10 make the triumph complete, but constancy
OF purpose and frmness VI resolution. Time
would have done all the rest. When passion
cooled down, and Judgment became unclouted
and patriotism resumed full sway, our Northern
brethren would have seen their false position,
ana nave given Ndy. Ink y "Ouiu ho - = - "
all its force, The duty enjoined by our Treaty, both
to France and our own citizens. They wonld
have felt, in all its force, the insurmountable OBJ
slace of imposing conditions upon one state,
which had not be, ', and could not be, imposed
upon oll-nor enforced against any. They would
have felt, in all its force, that their measure had
signally failed of accomplishment; Tor, there
would have stood Missouri with her slaves, una
bridsed in her sovereignty, and absolute in her
independence The dues Of lrea'y.iah and con- n
the public interests BY our Northern brethren
time must have madeso manifest and paramount,
that il surprises US that any one should have ever
doubted, bnt that all restrictions would have been
abandoned, and the whole controversy have been
closed in peace!
But alas for The poor South and for her pros
perity and power in all time TO come.Iusi at TINS
lime, one Of her aspiring citizens, Mr.. Clay, in
the hope OF reaping fresh laurels in the name and
through The functions Of the 'Gre0t Pae.feH'or1."
came forward and without asking even consid-
Grafton much less an equivalent, ieltlh North as
free She nd ever bocn 10 use for her own pufpO-