Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1849-06-21

and government, in accordance with an act
of Congress. Her admission was refused
on the ground that her constitution admit
ted of slavery; and she was remanded back
to have the Objectionable provision ex-
plunged. She refused to comply with the
requisition, and at the next session again
knocked at the door of Congress for admis-
sion, with her constitution as it originally
stood. Mr.. Calhoun says that Missouri was
then State, that if refused admission to
the Union she would still have been "A State,
independent of the Union, aud the probable
centre of new confederacy None were
willing to contribute to such result, and
to avoid it, the Northern members opposed
to her admission, were forced to propose u
compromise, which the South accepted
Mr.. Benton says that every part of this
statement is erroneous, and to such a de-
gree as to destroy all reliance upon Mr..
Cahoun's memory. He says that during
the compromise session he had Mr.. Lown-
des residing together, and that at the pre-
ccding session Missouri had presented her
constitution, made under the act of Con-
gress, and applied for admission into the
Union. Now this is error. The constitu-
ton of Missouri followed, and did not pre-
cede the compromise act That act was
| passed March 9th, 1920, the constitution
formed under it was signed July 10Th, of
the same year, and was presented to
Congress in the month of November 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 transposilion of events in point of
fact. The constitution of Missouri was
made after the compromise, and in pursu-
ance of it 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 remanded back, because il
admitted Slavery in Missouri. This is a
great error. The act of Congress under
which the Missouri constitution was made
admitted slavery in Missouri, and her con.
stltution could not be, and was not, refused
on that ground. The admission was not
refused for that cause, nor for any thing
like it, nor for any thing in relation to sla-
very, but the direct opposlte-for clause
in relation to free people of color, and by
which, it was contended, the citizens oil
other States might be prevented from re.
moving to the State of Missouri. The
clause was this: TO preocnt free negroes
and mniattos from coming to, and settling
an th'S State, under any pretert aohateuer.'
The provision was found in clause 4 sec.
tion 26, of article 3, of the constitution. wa.
objected to as being inconsistent with the
constitution of the United States, and the
rights of the States, as in some of those
States Tree people of color might be cit
zens. This was the clause objected to
and not the one sanctioning slavery. Mr.
Calhoun says the constitution was remain
ded back to the State, to have the SLAYER,
clause expunged. 1t was not remandet
back to the State, to have the slavery clause
eXpunged. 1t was not remanded for the
purpose OF having any thing expunged, Blu
the co3trary-to have something added
to obtain the legislative assent of the Stat
to the joint resolution of the two Houses O
Congress, declaring that the clause in ques
ton should never be so constructed as t,
exclude fr~m settlement, and the rights o
citizenship, the citizens Of other States EN-
israting to Missouri.
Mr.. Calhoun says the State refused t.
comply with the requisltion of Congress.
This is more error The State compile,
Immediately; the legislative assent to tn
required construction of the objectionabl
clause being given on the Goth day of June
: in the same year He says the State knock
: ed again with her constitution at the doc
OF congress at the next session, and tina
, this gave rise to the most agitating discus
sion that ever took place in Congress, Thi
, is the very error Of the MOON The Stat
: never applied to Congress again, but wa
admitted IN the recess, and before mex
meeting OF Congress, and by proclamation
) from President Monroe. The proclama
: ton was issued the 29th of August, 1920
, IN pursuance to the oi 1t resolution of Con
gress of the 2nd of March of that year, es
, prcssly framed to save the State from az
, plying to Congress again, by referring it t
= the President to proclaim her admission a
3 soon as she assented to the required cor
structIon OF the obnoxious article Tn
y fact is, that Congress did not refuse to ac
: init the State at all on the contrary, pa
: sed joint resolution at her first session
/ the presentation of the constitution, for he
: admission "on a certain cOnditiOn,' %
e compliance with which condition her az
S mission was to be complete, without furtht
r proceeding on the part of Congress, an
S was to be SO proclaimed by the Presiden
All this appears in the legislative history ,
a the country, aud was automatically recite
t, IN the proclamation issued on the occasion
g Now this proclamation was issued fro
o the cabinet of which Mr.. Calhoun was
e member, and appears to have been as cou
e pletely forgotten by him as was the cabin
C decision of the same year in favor of II
i power of Congress to legiSlate upon Il
o subject OF slavery in territories for tn
If was the effect of the compromise act
is lS2O. He actually forgets that Nilsson
l. was admitted upon a proclamation issue
n from the cabinet council of which he was
e member and goes on to substitute the wa
Is behring's of his Imagination for the legisl
l. tive history of the country, in giving su
y posed circumstanial account of what to,
at place between himself and Mr. Lowndes. {
n Ter the second rejection ofthe Missouri co
he stitutlon, and which led to the conclusion
IN which, according TO him, produced the col
1t promise. "To back out, or comproms
IL was the only alternative left and the latt
Sc was eagerly seized upon to avoid the d
a grace OF the former" So says Mr.. CT
n noun aud so saying, he postpones the col