The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1850-07-27
THE OPPONENTS OF THE COMPROMISE,
WHAT DO THEY WANT?

a What DO the present advocates OF the MIS-
souri, compromise expect 10 accomplish? The
y they do not desire the passage Of that measure
may fairly be inferred from their former OPpO.
sition to it, and their zeal for it now, when i
q has ceased to be a %favorite measure with thu
people. There was a time when the principle
of that compromise could have been carried
and it would have been but for the opposition
Of those who now present it, as the platform on
+ which they invite the South to rally. Their
= p%rofessed devotion to Southern rights, then,
> prevented them from adopting II, while now
they would have the people believe an equal
sollcitude for their welfare renders them its
advocates. Their past acts and present posi>
r ton should be regarded with suspicion, as to
j, the truth of the sincerity OF their professions d.
1t is not consistent with principle or honesty
Ofpurpose that this glazing Inconsistency, this
complete revolution Of principle, could be the
result Of reason, acting on minds deslrous of
advancing the public good. The Nilsson i
compromise was cast aside in 1919 by John
G.. Calhoun and his followers, and the doctrine
Of non-intervent,on substituted in its stead,
and upon 1t the people OF both sections of the
republic could now be united, but for the op-
position of those who were once its warmest
advocates, but now the ~favorers OF the Missou-
ri compromise. The present advocates Of the
Missouri compromise may be honest in their
adherence to that measure, but it is strange
they have been so long in the discovery Of its
many virtues and vast merits. To those who
desire the peace and prosperity Of the country,
it is to be regretted the many beauties Of that
measure, which they insist should commend
il to every one, were permitted to remain so
long hidden from public view, and not made
known before the public affection was fixed on
the scheme Of non-intervention. Why it is
that the Missouri compromise is now SO great
a lavorite with the South Carolina politicians,
can only be accounted for on the rule that they
are generally after something-and what that
something is, they don't know-and they won't
be satisfied until they get it. This is certainly
the case with them if their professions Of love
for the Union and the constitution are to be
credited, and they.ara not influenced by fac
tious opposition to the administration. If they
really desired the adoption of the Missouri
compromise, and considered it essential for the
South, why did they delay bringing it forward
until the public mind was fixed on another
measure? If they really have the best inter-
ests Of the South at heart, why do they with-
draw their support from the compromise of the
Committee Of Thirteen, now before the Senate
of the United States, and give it to a measure
that has no friends Of either party in the North,
and but few in the South? They know there
is no hope for the passage of the Missouri com.
promise by Congress; wherefore, then, oppose
every other scheme for that which is unuttain-
able? Is such the conduct of wisdom or the
evidence Of a foregone conclusion to oppose
every act Of the patriots VINO desire TO preserve
the cnnstit Hiien and the Union4 Tho leadrrs
IN this new movement, know that it cannot
call to its aid the vote of a single Democrat in
Congress from the free States. Why, then, do
they press it, when they know that it is with
out friends; in fact, that it is SO far gone as to
be beyond resuscitatlon by the combined efforts
OF all the suges and wiseacres Of South Caro-
lima! Why Southern men should advocate
that measure, is strange, when they have here
lofore contended that the longer the question
of slavery is kept open in the territories, the
prospect OF any portion of them being slave
States is rendered more aud more hopeless?
They must see that such is, and must be, the
case, unless they unite on the bill reported by
General Foote'S Committee of Thirteen. Why
do they, then, madly and obstinately urge a
measure which is not half as acceptable to the
South as the COMPROMISE bill, when they see
it must fail, and that every days delay is pref
judicial to Southern rights and the preservation
Of q Southern equiIib ium in the Senate 4
Those who defeat the compromise bill by in.
considerably urging the Missouri line in it's
stead, will have The responsibility to meet Of
being united with the worst enemies of the
South in opposition TO that measure which was
the only hope of preserving their political
equality. Do the friends of the Missouri COM
promise thus desire 10 strike down the only
hope of the South, to preserve an equilibrium
Of power in the Senate? If they do not, let
them cease to act with the abolitionists, Hale,
Seward, and Chase, and unite with Foote and
the other true friends Of the South, who sus.
tain Mr.. Clay's bill. The defeat ofthat meas
ure loses to the South every hope to share in a
j, division of the territory acquired from Mexico.
Then let Southern men ponder the question
well, before they aid by their votes its defeat
AS the delay Of The settlement of the question
can only injure the South, we can see no other
object the agitators Of the Missouri compro-
mise can have, but a desire to keep the ques-
ton open, for them to use as an entering wedge
to sever the Union. Such must be their OBJ
ieCt and intent. unless thew have hecoma e,cL