Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1849-07-26

OF any alr adjustment, which with your
constitutional rights. Of this gave very strong proof
at The very next session, BY supporting the bill reported
by Mr.. Clayton, which left the decision to the adudica
ton of the courts The Bill would have passed but for
his associates, the Aboonsis and Free Soers and the
question 10 controversy between the two sections
ference to territories finally adjusted;and yet he knowing
all this had The erontery Ito call by harshe name
to charge me, and not hem opposed any ADJUST
men and that too for the base purpose Of destroying the
Union
But all these assumptions but preliminary a
charge still more audacious that am the real author of
the Wllmot Proviso He calls it the Calhoun Proviso
and says that am better entitled its paternity, than
Wmo himself, which he accompanies by strong denun
Citations of the provso, and long enumeration of many
and great evils it has inflicted the country. What
etrontery! He, The avowed advocate of The Wilmot
Proviso. of being lis aulhor and denounces
1t IN the most unmeasured terms in the speech. in
which ne praises it and declares himself t, be in its ia
vor. He would seem to be perfectly indifferent of the
recoll on himself when his object TO aSsa me- There
is no term in the language, by which such com
biDatlon OF nsncerity, Inconsistency and efron
terry can be characterised. The way in which he
empts to make out his assertions in keeping with
their character
He first assumes that the Wilmot Provso and the
Missouri Compromise indentcay thes same, and then
undertakes to PROVE that am the author Of the latter
and, of course, also, of the former This must be
piece of strange intelligence Mr.. Clay, and his friends
and admirers. | had supposed there doubt what
ever OF his being the real author of the Missouri Com
promise. 1t he who devised the measure, nroduc
ed 1t into the House of Representatives, carried 1t through
by his address and gored in the reputation of being its
author. 1t is little cruel strip him of the honor of
being its authpr this late dae, and bestOw it upon
another, who suspected of being until COL
Benton discovered it,
But if he could really make out that am the author
Of line Missouri Compromise, he go Step further
to make me the author of the Wimot Provso He must
prove the two be Identical This he has
done attempted. Instead of that he has adopt
ed his usual of assuming what he is incapable Of
proving. 1t is very easy way TO reach conclusion
that is desired. In this toohe has disclosed his wonder
full aptitude what before saw,
pected. Heretofore all had supposed that they wero
very different things that compromise was essential
to one, while the other necessarily excluded tthat
presuppcses conflict of opinion between parties,
question of right eXpedency, to have been adus ed
ground in which neither surrendered its rights or opn
lon The other, the contrary, presupposes positive
assertion of right opinion, to the exclusion of all COM
promise Thus. in the of the Missouri Compromise,
the North and the South differed the constitutional
question, whether Congress had the right to prohibit
the Introduction Of slaves condition of admitting
State into the Union. One commended that Congress
had the ght impose whatever condition might think
proper territory about 10 become State, and the
other that it had right to impose any except that pre-
scrlbed by the Constitution that its government should
be republican. The North, in that case, waived the
the Northern limits of the territory into which slaves
might be introduced at Sc so. This proposal, although
made by Southern member taken up and carried by
the vote of the North and thus became lin fact their Of
fer 10 compromise. The South, however, acquIesced,
without yielding her prnc pies, asserting dissenting
as to he power of Congress to exclude slavery from the
territories. twas compromise in which both waived,
but neither yielded, its opinion the power of Con-
gress.
Very different was the case in reference to the Oregon
bill, passed at the session preceding the last There
the North contended for the absolute right exclude
slavery from all the territories and announced their de-
termination to do So against the efforts Of the South
compromise the question, by extending the Missouri
Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean, The offer
scornfuy refused, and the bill passed without any
promise. 1t was intended indeed, to be the practical
Of naked principle that Congress had the power
to claim for it. by the Wnot Proviso. 1t the first
act of the kind passed, and carried by the de-
sertlon from your Of Col Benton and Gen. Hous
ton II is not surprising that The former should be de-
rirons of confounding this far odious with
the Missouri Compromise, much less odious one, liz
the hope OF mitigating your deep Indignation occasloned
ny his betrayal of you. question vital TO the
South. But he had another motive, which will be
planned hereafter, and which makes ii still deslra
bic to him that the Two should I've conounded and regard
ed as identical. When il to be explained, it will
be that it necessary that they should be, in Of
der to exlrcate hr from very awkward dilemma in
mine adversary lad written book" and well might
have exclaimed, oh that my adversary might make
speech His adversary must have been very much like
mine. We have never heard whether his had the folly
to accommodate him as mine has had 10 accommodate
me-
have eecually repealed his preposerous charge
that the author of tho Wllmot Proviso, for is
erly imp )ssiie that he show that arm the
thor of the Missouri Compromise that that c0mpro
mise and the Wlmot Proyso the same. But as he
has made 1.-THE position from which assail with
the charge of disunon and through you, including
his constituents shall follow him, step by step, through
the long process. by which he makes. the desperate
endeavo establish his preposteous charge. by attempt
ing show that | have changed my opinion, as to the
powers Of Congress the territories But my pur-
pose expose his inconsistency, contradictions and
absudltles, than reule what he advances argument
If he could prove demonstration, that have chang
ed my opinion it could have weight whatever towards
showing that my resolutions aimed at disunon. Nor do
deem 1t matter Of any importance in this connection,
whether my opinion has or has not undergone change
in the long period Of thirty years, since the adoption Of
the Missouri Compromise. AT that time, the power of
Congress over the territories had received but little
sideraon while for the last few years it has been sub
ec of vital interest YOU and such. has been thor
oughly investigated by myself and others. whose duty
it has been to defend your rights in the councils Of the
Union, in reference TO it.
To subsantate the charge of change of opinion, he in
roduced copy Of what pupmts to be draft of letter
found among the papers Of Mr. Monroe 1t is said to be
in his hand writing. 1t is without date, not signed. or
addressed to any Terson by name but contained express
slons, which leave doubt that it was intended for
General Jackson. This paper found filed away with
another endorsed "lnitrrogat,ries, Missouri March 3d.