The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1836-1851, 1849-07-18

y
Legislature of Missouri at their lale session;
and then asserts that the only difference between
them is, that mine aim directly at disunion, and
theirs ultimately at the same thing. for which he
offers no reason, except that theirs pledged the
State to cooperate with the other slaveholding
States. lie thus assumes, that your aim as
well as mine. is disnnion anil this, while he IS
cxerting himself to the utmost to discrrdt me
with you. as disunionisl tor II is apparent his
speech was intended to have its effects on you
generally as well as his own constituents par.
ticuarly. lie then drags in the Accomac r"so-
nions 10 prove, that The object is a Convention
of the Southern States, and that he assumes to
he proof conclusive. that disuaion is intended by
nv resolutions. He is qnite Mortified at the
idea of your meeting 10 Convention, in order to
consult on the best mode of saving both your
selves and the Union ; if indeel the madness OF
fanatics, and the treachery of deserters should
not make the latter impossible. lie next as
serts, in order to prove that dsunion is their OBJ
ipct, that they render the adjustment of the ter
ritorial questi m impracticahc, and that was my
motive for introducing them. lie makes this
assertion, in the face Of facts perfectly well
known to hm that the Northern members,
with very few honorable exceptions, had re.
i"ctpd every effort at compromise, and had de.
clared their fixed determination not 10 accept nt
any. II was agains, this arrogant and uncom.
promising cou' Sc, that offered my resolutions.
1t was then. they and not M, who took ground
against compromise, or adjustment. So tar
from this being true, | have ever been in favor
Of any fair adjustment, which was consistent
with your constitutional rights. Of thisl gave
very strong proof at the very next session, ny
supporting the bill reported by Mr.. Clayton,
which left the decision to the adjudication OF
the courts The bill would have passed but
for his associates, the abolionists and free soil
ers, and the question in controversy between
the two sections, in reference to territories
finally adjusted; and yet, he knowing all this,
has the effron,ery TO call thy no harsher name)
to charge me, and not them, as opposed to any
adjustment and that too for the base purpose o
destroying the Union.
But all these assumptions were but prel'm'na'
ry to a charge, still marc audacio'' that am
the real author Of the Wiimot Proviso. He
calls it the Calhoun Proviso, and says that am
better entitled to its paternity than Wi!mot him.
SELF which he accompanied by strong dennncl.
ations of the proviso. and a long enumeration Of
the many and great evils it has inflicted on the
country. What affrontery! He, the avowed
advocate ofthe Wilmot Proviso accuses me ot
being its author, ond denounces it in the most
unmeasured terms in the same speech IN which
he praises it and declares himself to be in its
favor He would seem 10 he perfectly indfer'
ent of the rccoil on himself when his object was
TO assailme There is no term in the language,
by which such combination of insncerlty, in
consistency, and brazen ef1rontery can he char
acterised. The way in which he attempts to
make out his assertions, are in keeping with
their character.
He first assumes lhat'the Wilmot Proviso and
the Missouri Compromise are idrntically the
same, and then undertakes to prove that am
the author Of the latter, and OF course, also, of
the former. This must be strange intelligence
to Mr.. Clay and his friends and admirers.
had supposed that there was no doubt whatever
as 10 his being the real author of the Missouri
COMPROMISE. 1t was he who devised the meas.
ure, introduced it into Tim House of Representa-.
,ivcs, carried it through by his address, and
and glorird in tie reputation ofbring its author.
1t is q little cruel to strip him Of the honor Of
being its author at this late date, and to hestow
it upon another who no one ever suspected Of
being so until Colonel Benton discovered it.
But, if he could really make out, that am
the author of the Missouri, compromise, he must
20 one step Elrher,o make me the author "i the
Wilmot Proviso. He must prove the two mes
ures to be identical this he has not done or
even attempted Instead of fthat he has adopt.
ed his usual course of assuming what he is in
capable of proving. 1t is a very easy way to
reach conclusion that is desirci. In this too
he has disclosed his wonderful aptitude to see
what no one ever before saw, suspected.
Heretofore all had supposed that they were very
different thngs-lhat compromise was essen
tial to one, while the other necessarily excluded
it,-that one pre- .supposes a conflict of opinion
between parties, on question of right or ex.
pediency to have been adjusted on ground, IN
which neither surrendered its right or opinion.
The other, on the contrary, pre- suPposes posi-
tive assertion Of right, or opinion to the exclu.
sion of all compromises. Thus in the case o
the Missouri Compromise, the north and south
differed on the constitutional question, whether
Congress had the right to prohibit the lntrodlc.
ton of slaves. as a condition Of admitting State
into the Union. One contended, that Con
gress, had the right to impose whatever c"ndI.
ton it might see proper in a territory about I"
become State, and the other, tha, i, had no
right to impose any, except prescribed ny the
Constitution, that its government should be
republican. The north on that cas-" waived the
claim of power on the proposal made by Mr.
Clay, to fix the northern limits Of the territory,
into which slaves might he introduced, at 36
30. This proposal although made hy South.
ern member, was taken up and carried hy the
| vote of the North, and thus became, in fact,
their offer to compromise The South. acqu.
esced, without, however. yielding her principles
or osscnling, or dissenting. as to the power OF
Congress, TO exclude slavery from The territories.
It was a compromise, in which both waived hnt