Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1849-07-21

passed but Tor his associates, the Aboloniss and
Free Soers, and the question in controversy be-
tween The Two sections. in reference to territories
finally adjusted; and yet, he knowing all this had
: the ellronery Qo call it by no harsher name) to
charge me, and not them, opposed to any adjust
ment and that too for the base purpose of DESTROY
ING the Union.
But all these assumptions were but preliminary
to charge, still more audacious; that am the real
author OF the Wimot Proviso He calls it the Cal
houn Provso and says that am better entitled to its
paternity, than Wimot himself which he accompa-
MES by strong denuncations of the proviso, and
long enumeration OF many and great evils it has in
ficted on the country. What effronery! He the
avoWed advocate of the Wmot Proviso, accuses
NE OF beng Its author, and denounces it in the most
nnmeasured terms In the same speech, in which he
praises 1t and declares himself to be in its favor
He would seem to be perfectly Indifferent of the re-
coil on himself when his object is to assail me-
There is no term in the language, by which such
combination OF msncerity, inconsistency, and bra
zen ettrontery can be characterised The way in
which he attempts to make out his assertions are in
keeping with their character
lie first assumes that the Wmot Proviso and
the Missouri Compromise are dentcaly the same
and then undertakes to prove, that am the author
OF the latter, and, OF course, also, of the former
MS must De q piece OF strange intelligence to Mr.
Clay, and his friends and admirers. had supposed
there was no doubt whatever to his being the real
author of the Missouri Compromise 1t was he who
devised the measure, introduced it into the House
OF Representatives, carried it through by his adj
dress, and glored in the reputation of being its al-
THOR 1t is little cruel to strip him of the honor of
beng It's author at this late date, and to bestow it
upon another, who no one ever suspected of being
SO until Col Benton discovered it.
But, if he could really make out that am the au-
thor OF the Missouri Compromise, he must 90 one
step further to make me the author of the Wilmot
Provlso. lie must prove the two measures to be
Identical This he has not DONE or even ATTEMPTED
Instead OF that he has adopted his usual course of
assuming what he is incapable of proving. It is a
very easy way to reach conclusion that is desired
In this, too, he has disclosed his wonderful aptude
to see what no one ever before saw or susnected
Heretofore all had supposed that they were very diff
ferent things-that compromise was essential to
one, while the other necessarily excluded it-that
one presupposes conflict of opinion between par
ties, on question of right or eXpediency to have
been adjusted on ground in which neither sur
rendered its rights or opinion The other, on
the contrary, presupposes a positive assertion of
right or opinion, TO the exclusion of all compro-
mise. Thus, in the case of the Missouri Com
promise, the North and the South differed on
} the constitutional question, whether Congress
had the right to prohibit the introduction of
slaves, as condition Of admitting State into the
Union One commended that Congress had the right
to impose whatever condition it might think proper
,
that 1t had no right to impose any except that pre-
} scribed by the Constitution-that its government
should be republican The North, in that case
waived the claim OF power, on the proposal made by
MI Clay, to fix the Northern limits of the territory
INTO which slaves might be introduced at SO 30
This proposal, although made by Southern MEM
Der, was taken up and carried by the vote of the
North, and thus became, in fact their offer to com
promise. The South, however, acquiesced, without
yielding her principles, asserting dissenting as
to the power OF Congress 10 exclude slavery from the
territories. 1t was Il compromise in which both
waived, but neither yielded, its opinion as to the pow
er OF Congress.
Very different was the case in reference to the
Oregon bill, passed at the session preceding the last
There the North commended for the absolute rieht to
exclude slavery from all the territories, and an
nounced their determination to do so, against the eff
forts OF The South to compromise the question, by
tending the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific
Ocean, The offer was scomtully refused, and the
= bill passed without any compromise. 1t was intend
ed indeed 10 be the practical assertion of the naked
principle, that Congress had the powerl claim for it,
by the Wilmot Proviso. 1t the first act of the
KIND ever passed, and was carried by the desertion
from your cause OF Col. Benton and Gen. Houston
1t is not surprising that the former should be DESTROYS
Of contonnding this far more odons mea-sa1e with the
MISSOURI COMPROMISE. Il much less odiOus one i'm
the hope OF mitigating your deep Indignation, occa
stoned by his betrayal you, question SO vital
to the South. But he had another motive; which
will be explained hereafter and which makes it still
more desirable to him that the two should be con-
n founded and regarded as identical When if comes
to be explained, 1t will be that it was necessary
that they should be, in order to exrcate him from
!, very awkward dilemma in which he has placed
3 himself. Job exclaimed, ''Oh that mine adversary
} had written book; and well might have exclaimed
oh that my adversary nigh make speech. His
7 adversary must have been very much like mine
We have neverheard whether his had the folly to &C.
commodate him as mine has had to accommodate
me-
| have now etfectually repealed his preposterous
charge, that am the author of the Wilmot Proviso:
Tor 1t is utterly impossible that he can ever show that
am the author of the Missouri Compromise, or that
r that compromise and the Wilmo Proviso are the
same. But as he has made it the position from which
: to assal me with the charge of disunion, and
4 through me you, including his constituents | shall
follow him, step by step through the long progress
by which he makes the desperate endeavor to estab-
: sh his preposerous charge, by attempting to show
that have changed my opinion, as to the powers of
t, Congress the territories. But my purpose is
more to expose his inconsistency contradictions and
absurdltles than to reue what he advances argu-
9 ment. 1t he could prove to demonstration, that
T. have changed my opinion, it could have weight
whatever towards showing that my resolution aimed
+ at dlsunion. Nor do deem it a matter of any mpor-
lance IN this connection whether my opinion has or
S has not undergone change in the long period of
l. thirty years, since the adoption of the Missouri Com
J. promise. AT that time, the power of Congress over
the territories had received but little considerations
while for the last few years it has been subject of
vital interest to you and such has been thorough
ly 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 substantiae the charge Of change of opinion he in
troduced copy OF what purpors to be draft of letter
found among the papers OF Mr. Monroe 1t said TO be
in his hand writing 1t without date NOT signed or ad-
dressed to any person by name but contained expressions
Jackson This paper was found filed away with another
endorsed Interogatores, Missouri March 3d. 1920"
sTe the Heads OF Departments and Attorney General"
1t contains questions of which the one pertinent to
the present subject the following words HAS Con-
gress right under the powers vested in the Constitution
to make resolution prohibiting slavery in teIrtory!"