The North-Carolina standard., 1849-08-01

difference between them is that mine aim directly
dlsunion, and theirs ultimately at the thing, fo
which he offers reasons, except that theirs pledged
the State Cooperate with the other slayeholdino
States. He thus assumes that your aim as well as
mine, is dsunon and this, while he is exerting him
self to the utmost to discredit with you, as dis
unionist; for 1t is apparent his speech intended
have its effects you generally as we'll as his oMr
constituents particularly. He then drags in the Ac-
comac resolutions to prove, that the object is Con
ventlon of the Southern Staes and that he assumes
to be proof conclusive that dsunion is intended by
my resolutions. He is quite Mortified at the idea OF
your meeting in Convention, in order to consult on
the best mode of saving both yourselves and the
Union; if indeed the madness of fanatics, and the
reachery of deserers should not make the latter i'm
possible He next asserts in order prove that dis
union is their object that they render the adjustment
of the territorial question mpractcable and that that
was my motive for introducing them. He makes
this assertion, in the face of facts perfectly we'll
known to him, that the Northern members, with a
very few honorable exceptatons, had rejected every
effort at compromise, and had declared their fixed
determination not to accept of any. 1t was against
this arrogant and uncompromising course, that of
ered my resolutions. 1t was, then, they and not me-
who took ground against compromise or adjustment.
So far from this being true. have been in favor
of any fair adjustment, which was consistent with
your constitutional rights Of this gave very Strong
proof at the very session, by supporting the bill
reported by Mr.. Clayton, which left the decisont
the adjudication of the courts. The bill would have
passed but for his associates the abolitionsts and
the sections in reference to the territories finally
adjusted; and yet he knowing all this has the eron-
terry Ito call it by harsher nane) to charge me, and
not them, as opposed to any adjustment and that too
for the base purpose of destroying the Union. :
But all these assumptions were but preliminary to
a charge still more audaclous-that j am the real
author of the Wimot proviso. He calls it the Cal
houn proviso, and says that am better entitled its
paternity than Wilmot himself, which he accompa-
MED by strong denunciatons of the -proviso, and
long enumeration of the many and great evils it has
inflicted on the country What effrohtery He, the
aVowed advocate of the Wilmot Proviso, accuses me
of being its author, and deRounces it in the un-
measured terms in the speech in nwhich he prais-
it and declares himself to be in its favor! He
would seem to be perfectly Indifferent of the recoi
on himself, when his object to assai me. There
is no term in the language by which. such combi-
nation of nsincerity, Inconsistency, and brazen eon
terry can be characterised. The way in which he at
tempts to make out his assertions, is in keeping with
tn cir character. .-. e.. ..-..
He first assumes that the Wimot Proviso and the
Missouri Compromise identcally the 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 to Mr.. Clay and
his friends and admirers. had supposed that there
doubt whatever his being the real author
of the Missouri Compromise. 1t was he who de-
vised the measure, introduced 1t into the House of
carried through by his address, and
gloried in the reputation of being its author 1t is
little cruel strip him of the honor of being its
author at this late date, and to besow upon anoth-
er, who ever suspected of being so until Col.
Benton discovered 1t. ...
But, if he could really make ont that am the
author of the Missouri Compromise, he must go one
step further make out the author of the Wlmot
Proviso. He must prove the two measures to be
Identical; this he has not done, even attempted.
Instead of that, he has adopted his usual of
what he is incapable of proving. lit IS
very easy way to reach conclusion that is desired
In this too he has disclosed his wonderful aptitude
TO see what no one ever before saw, suspected. |
ofor all had
ferent things-that compromise was essential TO ,
one while the other necessarily excluded itthat enc
pre-supPoses conflict of opinion between parties, on
question of right eXpedlency, to iave been ADJUST
ed on ground in which neither surrendered its right
Dr. opinion The other, the contrary, presupposes
positive assertion of right or opinion, to the eXcl
sion of all compromise. Thus In the case OF the
Missouri Compromise the North and South dll1ered' >
On the constitutional question: whether Congress had
the right to prohibit the introduction of slaves, as
condition of admitting State into the Union. One
that. Congress had the right to- impose
whatever condition IT might think proper on terri
Lory about become State, and the othe1 that 1t
had right to impose any, except that prescribed by
The Constitution that its government should be re-
publican. The North in that case waived the claim
of pow er, on the proposal made by MIR. Clay to fix
The northern limits of the territory, into which slaves
might be introduced, at $50 S5. This proposal al
though made by Southern member, was taken up
and carried by the vote of the North, and thus be-
came, in fact, their offer to compromise. The South
icquiesced, without however, yielding her principles
,r asserting or dissenting as to the power of Con-
yress exclude slavery from the territories. twas
compromise. in which both waived but neither
yielded its opinion as TO the power OF Congress.
Very different was the case in reference. to the
Oregon bi passsd at the session preceding the last
There the North contended for the absolute right to
exclude slavery from all the territories and announ-
led their determination do so against the efforts
u, the South compromise the question, by extending
he Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean. |
The offer was scornfully refused, and the bill pass
ID without any compromise. 1t was intended indeed
o be the practical assertion of the naked principle
hat Congress had the power claimed for it, of passing
he Wilmot proviso. 1t the first act OF the kind
,ver passed. and was carried by the desertion from
your cause of Col. Benton and Gen. Houston. 1t is
lot surprising that the former should be desirous OF
,onfoundng this far more odious measure with the
Missouri Comp PROMISE much less odlous one IN hope
If mitigating your deep Indignation, occasioned by
lis BETRAYAL of you, question vital to the South
But he had another motive which will be explained
hereafter, and which makes it still more desirable to
lim that the should be eonfounded and regarded
IS identical. When it comes to be explained, 1t will
seen that it was necessary that they should be in
rider to extrcate him from the very awkward dilem-
ma in which he had placed himself. Job exclaimed,
Oh that mine adversary had written book" and
veil might have exclaimed, s'Oh that my ad versary
nioht make speech. - His adversary must have
zen very much like mine. We have never heard
whether his had the folly to accommodate him as
nine has had to accommodate me. ..
/ have now effectuay repelled his preposterous
haroe. that am the author of the Wimot Proviso;
or it is utterly impossible that he can show that
am the author of the Missouri Compromise, or that
hat compromise and the Wilmot Proviso are the
ame But as he has made it the position from which
assaiI me with the charge of disdnion, and through
ne you, including his own constituents shall fol-