Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1849-07-26


what were these principles, or rather
this principle, for the Missouri compro.
mise had but one principle in it. The
line Of SO deg. 80 min. is not the priH-
ciple of the compromise, but only the
result of it; and what is sc deg. and
half in one part, is 40 deg. and three
quarters in another. The principle was
to let slavery alone where il actually
existed, and not to carry i, where i, did
not. Slavery then existed in fact in
Missouri, and also in Arkansas; and
the dividing line between slave and free
soil was ran accordingly; and this gave
the northern boundary of Missouri for
the line in one part,sand the northern
line of Arkansas for il in another. Ac-
cording to this principle, then, there
would be no slavery admitted in either
Mexico or California; for none exists
there now, either in fact or in law
But this principle 10 inconsistent with
the rest of the resolutions; il is also in
consistent with them to take line of SO
deg. 80 min, or any line; for all such
are positively declared TO be uncons,i.
tu,ional in another resolve; and it was
solemnly declared by vote on an
amendment offered, that the Missouri
compromise line should no, be adopted;
and having declared such line to be
unc constitutional, i, is not to be presum-
ed that the General Assembly would
sanction" its application to any terrific
ry. Besides, that line had been pre-
scribed by the previous General Assem-.
bly,; and if this Legislature was in ia,
vor of it, they had nothing to do bu, to
le, that former instruction stand. But
that was not ,hsir intention; and imme.
diately two provisos TO render nugato.
ry any such construction.
If by such concessions future aggres-
siOns upon the rights of the States shall
be arrested. This is the first proviso;
and of itself nullifes all action under
the previous par, of the resolve. /, is
called concession; the principle of The
Missouri compromise is concession;
and they will again make this conces-
sion If they can stop aggressions. This
is rather too much! the General Assem-.
bly, Of Missouri concedng a part OF
the constitution! and that upon a con.
dilion! upon two conditions! and both
absurd and impossible. No, citizens
said Mr.. B., the principle Of the Mis-.
souri, compromise is no concession OF
the constitution. This line itself, and
not the principle which governed it
was the compromise. The compro.
mise was about the ground, dividing the
land, and was not, and could not be
about the constitution, which cannot be
divided. The constitutional po,cer had
to be ascertained before the compro
mise line could be adopted, and thai
was the course pursued by Mr.. Mon
roe's cabinet. He submitted the ques
ton first, Had Congress the right, un
der the constitution, TO prohibit slavery
in territories! and, that being decided
in the affirmative, then came the secont
question, which was ths prohibition o
il according to the terms of the bill
then before the cabinet, that is TO say
dividing the territory into free ant
slave soil, so as to leave slavery where
il actually existed in Missouri and Ar
kansas, and prohibit it in all the unset
tied territory north and Yves, of Mis-
souri,, where il only existed by law
This abolished il in the territory whicl
now constitutes five counties in III,
Platte country. While the soil of thos
counties remained United States terri
tory, there could be no slavery ihere;-
when il became part of the State o
Missouri, slavery as d part of her con
sti.u,ion, accrued upon it. And this il
Illustrates the whole power, both of Con
gress and of the States over the sub
jeci; and illustrates the correctness o
the decision of Mr.. Monroe's cabine,
that the prohibition of slavery in ter
ri,ory by Congress, only applied 10 thu
territorial condition, and not to tn
State. This was all, and the Genera
Assembly of Missouri cannot alter III
constitution by concession, even if tn
concession was unconditional and pos
sible, instead Of being, as il is, condi
lionai and impossible. The first cond
I,;oo e that northern Stafos coasa Al -;