Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1849-06-07

- .,,..ss--.-.zzr-z.,---zs---U-
cause | will proceed TO state During the
session Of The compromise. Mr. Lowndes
and myself resided together. He was a
member OF the House Of Representatives
and was Secretary Of War. We both felt
The magnitude Of the subject. Missouri, at
The preceding session, had presented herself
Tor admission as a member Of The Union
She had formed constitution and govern
ment, in accordance with an act OF Congress
Her admission was refused on the ground
that her constitution admitted OF slavery, and
she was TemaDded back to have the obiec
tionable provision expunged. She refused
TO comply with the rcquisi!ion, and at the
next session again knocked at the door or
! Congress for admission, with her constitution
as It originally stood, This gave rise to one
Of the most egtating discussions that ever
occurred in Congress. The subject was one
oil repeated conversation between Mr.. Lown.
des and myself. The question was, what
was 10 be done, and what would be the cons
sequence II she was not admitted? After
iuli reflection, we both agreed that Missouri
was State made so by regular process or
law, and never could be reminded back 10
the territorial condition. Such being The
case, We also agreed that the only question
was, whether she should be State n or out
OF the Union? and it was for Congress 10 de
eide which position she should occupy. Nv
friend made one Of his able and lucid
speeches on the occasion, but whether it has
been preserved or not, am no. able 10 say.
1t carried conviction TO Tho minds Of all.
and in fact settled the question. The cues,
ton was narrowed down TO single point.
All saw that if Missouri was not admitted
she would remain an independent State on
The west bank Of the Mississippi, and would
become the nucleus Of new confederation
oil States extending over the whole OF Lou>
lslana None were willing 10 contribute to
such result, and the only question that re,
manned with the Northern members who had
opposed her admission Was, to devise some
means Of escaping from the awkward dilem>
ma in which they found themselves. To hack
out or compromise, were the only allerna~
tlves left, and the latter was eagerly seized
10 avoid the disgrace OF the former-so ca
gerIy, that all who opposed it at the North
were considered traitors to that section Of
the Union, and sacrificed for their votes"
Every part of this statement is er.
roneous, and to such degree as 10 de-
stroy all reliance upon Mr.. Calhoun's
memory. He says that during the com.
promise session he and Mr.. Lowndes
resided together, and that at the prece.
ding session Missouri had presented her
constitution. made under the act of
Congress, and applied for the admission
into the Union. Now this is error.
The constitution of Missouri followed,
and did not proceed the compromise act.
That act was passed March 9th 1920:
the constitution framed under it was
signed July 9Th Of the same year; and
was presented to Congress in the month
Of November acknowledgements in
that year having met on the second
Monday in November. Here then is
an error Of year in point of time,
and transposltIon Of events in point
of fact. The constitution of Missouri
was made after the compromise, aud in
pursuance of it; and not TO know that
much was 10 know nothing al all about
it. Mr.. Calhoun says the admission was
refused. and the constitution remanded
back, because it admitted slavery in
Missouri. This is great error. The
act of Congress under which the Mis-,
souri, constitution was made admitted
slavery in Missouri, and her constllu.
lion could mol be, and was not, refused
on that ground. The admission was
not refused fer that cause, nor for any
thing like it, nor for any thing in rela-
ton TO slavery, but the direct opposite
for a clause in relation 10 free people
of color, and by which, it was contend
ed, the citizens Of other States might be
prevented from removing 10 lbe State
of Missouri. The Sc was this: TO
preUeM free negroes and mulattOS from
coming TO, and settling IN MiS State under
any pretert uhateUer," This provision
was found in clause 4, section 20, of ar.
tlcle 8, Of the constitution, and was OBJ
jected 10 as being inconsistent with the
constitution Of the United States, and
the rights of the States, as in some of
those States free people of color might
be citizens. This was the clause OBJ.
jected 10, and not the one sonctioning
slavery. Mr.. Calhoun says tho consti.
tuition was remanded back 10 The State
to have the slavery clause expungcd. 1t
was not remanded for the purpose OF
having anything expunged, but the con.
Irary-to have something added--,o
obtain the legislative assent Of the Stale
to the Joint Resolution Of The two Hou,
ses of Congress declaring that the clause
in question should never be SO construc.
ted as 10 exclude from settlement, and
the rights of citizenship, the citizens of
other States emigrating to Missouri
Mr., Calhoun says the State refused to
comply with the requisition Of Con.
gress. This is more error. The State
compiled immediatey-the legisl alive
assent IN the rannire1 combination of