Democratic banner., 1849-06-04

QucSblOu " dS1 WIcbIcE SII0 SiIUuI OO q otoSOI
in or out-of the Unionp and it was for Con.
gress to decide which position she should
occupy. My friend made one Of his able
and lucid speeches on the occasion, but
whether it has been preserved or not am
not able to say. 1t carried conviction tol
the minds of al, and in fact settled the ques-
tion. The question was narrowed down to
q single point. All saw that if Missouri
was not admitted, she would remain an in
dependent State on the west bank of the
Mississippi, and would become the nucleus
of a new confederation of States, EXTEND
ing over the whole If Louisiana. None
were willing to contribute to such a result
and the only question that remained with
the Northern members who had opposed her
admission was to devise some means of es-|
Gaping from the awkward dilemma in which
they found themselves. To back out or
compromise, were the only alternatives left,
and the latter was eagerly seized to avoid
the disgrace Of the former-soeagerly,t that
all who opposed it at the North were con-
sidered traitors to that section ofthe Union,
and sacrificed for their votes"
Every part of this statement is erroneous.
and to such a degree as to destroy all reli-
ance upon Mr.. Calhoun's memory. He
says that during the compromise session he
and MIR. Lowndes resided together, and
that at the preceding session Missouri had
presented her constitution, made under the
act Of Congress, and applied for admission
into the Union. Now this is error. The
constitution of Missouri followed, and did
not precede the compromise act. That act
was passed March 9Th, 1920, the constitu-
tion framed-under it was signed July 18th
ofthe same year; and was presented to
Congress in the month ofNovember follow
ing-Congress in that year having met on
the second Monday in November. Here
then is an error Of a year in point of time,
and q transposition of events in point Of
fact. The constitution of Missouri was
ance ofit and not to know that much was
to know nothing at all about it. Mr.. Cal
houn says the admission was refused, and
the constitution rsmanded back, because it
admitted slavery in Missouri. This is a great
error. The act of Congress under which
the Missouri constitution was made admit
ted slavery in Missouri, and her constitu-
tion could not be, and was not, refused on
that ground. The admission was not re-
fused for that cause, nor for any thing like
It, nor for any thing in relation to slavery,
but the direct opPosite-for q clause in re-
lation to free people of color, and BY which,
il was commended, the citizens of other
States might be prevented from removeing
to the State of Missouri. The clause was
this: "To preventf free negroes and nsu-
AttOs from coming to, and settling tn this
State under any pretert tohateUer." This
provision was found in clause 4, section 26,
of article 8, of the constitution, and was OBJ
jected to as being inconsistent with the con-
s~titution 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 objected to-, and not the one
sanctioning slavery. MI. Calhoun says the
constitution was remanded back to the
State to have the slavery clause expunged.
1t was not remaDded for the purpose ofhav-
ing any thing ~expunged, but the contrary
to have something addea-to obtain the
legislative assent of the State to the Joint
Resolution of the two Houses Of Congress
declaring that the clause in question should
never be 50 construed as to exclude from
0otIIoIneutS duu tuo EiSubo Vi CItiZenSntp,
the citizens of other States emigratins to
Missouri.-Mr. Calhoun says the State re-
fused TO comply with the requisition of
Congress. This is more error. The State
complied Immediately the legislative as
sent to the required construction of the OBJ
jectionable clause being given on the 26thI
day of June, in the same year. He says,
the State knocked again with her constitu-
ton at the door of Congress at the next ses-
sion. and that this gave rise to the most ag-
itating discussion that ever took place in
Congress. This is the very error of the
moor. The State never applied 70 Con-
grsss again, but was admitted in the recess,
and before next meeting of Congress, and
by Proclamation from President Monroe
The proclamation was issued the 10th of
August, 1920, in pursuance to the Joint res
.~olution Of Congress of the second of March
.ofthat year, expressly framed to save the
State from applying to Congress again. by
referring it to the President to proclaim
her admission as soon as she assented to the
required construction of the obnoxious ar
ticle. The fact is that Congress did not