Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1849-06-27

RAVENNA, 0HI0 WEDNESDAY, JUNE o. l849

speeches on the occas3 bilt whether
has been preserved on am NOT able
say. 1t carried cony 81 q. .the minds
> all, and in fact setileds s aaeslion. III
question was narroN III to d sine
point. All saw that was moi 4 3 3
!, mitted, she would rem an indcpendel
State, on the west bad 0f the Mississipp
and would become l{ nucleus of a ne
Confederation Of Staa6 tehding over tn
whole of Louisiana pne were wiHin
i llto4eontribute4Ia such ssl1ssssasd thasonI
[qnestion that remained with the Norther
members who had opposed her admissio
was, TO devise some means Of escapin
from the awkward dialema in which the
found themselves. To back out or com
promise were the only alternatives left
and the latter was eagerly seized, to avoi
the disgrace of the former: so eagerly, tha
all who opposed it at the North we're cor
sldered traitors 10 that section OF the Uniol
and sacrificed for their votes:
Every part of this statement is errone.
Gus, and to such degree as to destroy all
reliance on Mr.. Calhoun's memory. He
says that during the Compromise session he
and Mr.. 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 an error.
The Constitution Of Missouri followed, and
did not Precede, the Compromise act.
This act was passed March l6, 1920; the
Constitution framed under it was signed
July l9of the same year; and was presen-
ted TO Congress in the month of November
lollowlng-Congress in that year having
met on the second Monday in November.
Here, then. is an error of year in point
OF time. and transposition of events in
point of fact. The Constitution of Missou-
ri was made after the Compromise, and in
pursuance of 1t; and not to know that
much, was to know nothing at all abou. il.
Mr.. Calhoun says the admission was refu-
sed, and the Constitution remanded back,
because it admitted slavery in Missouri.
Fhis is great error. Fhe act of Con-
gress under which the Missouri Conslitu.
tion was made admitted slavery in Missou-
ri, and her Constitution could not be, and
was not, refused on that ground. The ad-
mission was not refused for that cause,
nor for my thing like it, nor for anything
in relation to slavery, but the direct oppo-
site-for clause in relation to free people
Of color, and by which, it was contended,
the citizens Of otherStates. .naight be pre-
vented from removing 10 The State of Misl
souri,. The clause was this: 'to preuent
free negroes and muzattoes from coming to
and settling in this Slate, under any pre-
tert aDhatever." The provision was found
in clause 4, section 26, of article 8, of the
Constitution, and was objected to as being
inconsistent with the Constitution 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 sane
tioning slavery. Mr.. Calhoun says the
Constitution was remanded back to the
State, TO have the slavery clause expunged.
1t was not remanded for the purpose of hav-
ing anything expunged, but the contrary
10 have something added-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 so construed as to exclude from
settlement, and the rights Of citizenship,
the citizens of other States refused to COM
ply with the requisitioa of Congress. This
is more error. The State complied imme-
dlately; the legislative assent to the re-
quired construction of the Objectionable
clause being given on the Goth day Of
June, in the same year. He says the
State Knocked again with her Constitution
at the door of Congress at the next session,
and this gave rise to the most agitating
discussion which ever took place in Con-
gress. This is the very error Of the moon.
The State never applied to Congress again.
but was admitted in the recess, and before
the next meeting of Congress. and by pro-
clamation from President Monroe. The
proclamation was issued the 10th Of Au-
gust. 1920, ia pursuance to the JOINT reso-
luton of Congress of the second of March
of that year, expressly framed to save the
State from applying 10 Congress again, by
referring it to the President to proclaim
her admission as soon as she assented TO
the required construction of the obnoxious
article. The fact is. that Congress did
not refuse TO admit the State at all-on
the contrary, passed joint resolution at
her first session of the presentation of the
Constitution, for her admission son a GER.
tam condation"--on compliance with
which CONDITION her admission was TO be
complete, without further proceeding on
the par: Of Congress. and was 10 be so pro-
claimed BY the President. All this ap.
pears in the legislative history Of the coan'
try, and was automatically recited in the
proclamation issued on the occasion
This is the proclamation.
"Whereas the Congress of the United
States, by joint resolution of the I'd day
Of March last, entitled Resolution proyi
ding for the admission of the State of Mis-
souri, into the Union, on certain eondi
,ion,' did determine and declare-.Tha
Missouri should be admitted into this Unior
ON an equal footing with the original States
in all respects whatever. upon the fanda
mental condition that the foerth clause O
: the twenty sixth section OF the third articl.
of the Constitution submitted on the par
cf SAID State TO Congress. shall never b.
construed to authorize the passage of an,
law, and that no law shall be passed il
conformity thereto. by which any ciilzer