New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-06-08
A Southern View of the Compromise.

n Southern view OF the compromise
We copy from Thursdays Washington
Union the following letter by a leading
Southern ultraist 1t shows on what grounds
the Compromise of Mr.. Clay is opposed from
that quarter and may serve to indicate some
considerations which certainly modify the
objections entertained against that measure
by many friends of Free Soil:
House OF REPRESENTATIVES June 1, 1880
To The Editor Of The linton; 800
gross error in relation TO the Clayton Compromise
bill Of last session mo doubt unntentionall which
| call upon you 10 correct as an act OF justice dae
alike to yourself and to the oppOsers OF the present
Compromise bill. You say this BILL ia the clause
concerning Slavery, is identical with the Clayton
Compromise and you quote the following words
as from the Clayton bill: "But no law shall be
passed respecting an establishment OF religion, or
respecting Sdvery;" and then you contrast those
words with the following, from the present Com
promise bill: "But no law shall be passed inter
iering with the primary disposal Of the soil, nor In
respect TO african Slavery" Now, if the facts
were as you state them there would be no differ
ence in the two bills in thus particular but there
is no such clause in the Clayton Compromise bill,
as it passed the Senate and came 70 the House.
The clause quoted was reported by the Committee
of the Senate, but it was stricken out and the fol-
lowing substituted for it: "But no law shall be
passed respecting the prohibition or establishment
Of African Slavery"
The difference between the two is observable at
the first glance. The clause in the present bill
would prohibit the Territorial Government from
passing the necessary laws to protect slave proper
~, even though it should be decided that the pro.
perty could lawfully go there whereas, the clause
in the Clay ton bill only denied TO the Territorial e
gisature the power either TO prohibit or establish
Slavery. Whether Slavery could legally exist
there or not was question for the Courts If afir
mativey decided the Territorial Legislature could
nnder the Clayton bill, pass laws 10 protect the
property; under the present BILL it could not.
As have been arraigned, with others, for oppos
ing the present Compromise BILL while favored
the Clayton BILL and as we have, unfortunately, no
paper here through whose columns Southern mem.
Jers opposed to this bill can speak to the public
you will not deny to me a small space in your pa
per to show to my constituents IN what essential
particulars the two bills differ:
First: The Compromise bill now before the Sc
rate denies to the Territorial Legislature the pow.
err to protect slave property, though legally and
constitutionally carried there the Clayton Conpro-
mise bill did not deny it that power.
Secondly: The Clayton bill gave to the slave
holder the opportunity Of taking his property to any
portion Of California; the present ol confirms ana
legalizes the Wilmot ProvisO over very large and
the better portion of the country-nay, over that
portion where slave labor would be more produc'
i've by five hundred per cent than in any other
country in the world
Soil rule onethrd OF the undisputed Territory oil
Texas comprising an area equal to six or eight such
States as Massachusetts: the Clayton bill LETT US at
least what we had, and contained no provision con-
yerting or that might convert Slave Sol into Free
Soil and establish free States out OF Texas and be-
low Arkansas.
Fouythly. When the Clayton compromise was
nroposed, il was at least an open question whether
we might not take our Slaves to California now
Il is foregone concluson-the great patron OF the
Hill himself virtually declaring that Ii he thought
This compromise enabled the South % occupy the
Territory with its Slaves he would be opposed IT,
Fffkiy Under the Clayton bill, the STAKEHOLDER
had an inducement, Ia the rich mines OF California,
10 try the question of right under this compromise
he is shut out from the gold mines, aud he viii
abandon the rest of the territory to the reesoers
nnless the discovery of new mines should offer a
snf;cient premium for the hazard OF attempting 10
work them with Slaves. Time and circumstances
then favored the South; now they are opposed
10 it. =,
am opposed to this compromise, Mr.. Editor for
another very important reason, to wit: 1t is at any
moment, in my power TO get better one. We
can NJ least save Texas TO the South, (which this
hin in part gives up by letting the North take the
Territories and go; for IL is very certain they viii
vet all and Texas 70 bOOt, under THIS Oil. III YOU
doubt il ask Mr.. Clay AS far ss our honor is con.
oerped. can see no difference between submitting
10 the Wimot Proviso and buying it off. No one
acquainted with the course Of events here can fail
10 perceive that the offer Of a third of Texas TO
free. soil was intended TO buy of the Wilmot Pro
viso, and is thus, in fact, the price We offer the
North 10 change the form of the insult. The Texas
boundary could be settled by merely buying her
right to the slip Of territory she claims the Rio
Grande, and included in the limits Of New Mexico
The South has said she will resist the Wilmot
Proviso "to the last extremity" 1t is thought she
was play ing the part OF Captain Bobadi, and that
she has become alarmed at her own bravado, and
now seeks only a pretext TO back out In other
words, let the same outrage and insult be perpetra-
ted in another form, and she will tamely submit.
shall hold different opinion until she submits to
this bill.
You think il strange, Mr. Editor, that the defen.
ders OF the South should be found in opposition to
this bill along with the ultras and abotionists Of
the North. Twill explain 70 you the reason. T1eir
creed is agitation; they would therefore be op-
posed 10 any settlement il would destroy their vo-
cation. Would y0u agree 70 any compromise,
however unjust No, you would not bat your
opposition to such one would throw you with
these men.
While on this subject of strange political comb.
nations, turs your eyes inwardly for moment,
and reflect that you are advocating the same bill
with one who declares that "no power on earth
could make him vote to convert Free Soil Slave
Soil" II quote from memory, and only profess to