The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-03

ter or the people might dictate. fH pes'ei si,
the line had been jagged, and waving, ana tiie
localities of different institutions nterocked, SO
that the people holding and those not holdlhS
slaves should have been brought in juxtaposinon
and have been better enabled to understand each
other.
l When parallel of latitude was drawn across
our territory, and declared to be the division De-
tween the slaveholding and non-slaveholdlng
States, well might Jefferson point to 1t as an ui
cation Of the future disruption OF the Union
when the wedge enters, we may anticipate t a''
rending OF the oak. But, sir, 1t has been haPphy
| found inadequate TO the rending of our Union
Fraternity, patriotism, and good sense triumphed;
! the Compromise has been acquiesced IN Inc
generation has grown up which is now governing
the country since that Compromise was aaoPteu.
We stand now in another and a very dihereht
attitude towards the proposition from those ny
whom il was adopted. Although it was an evil
in the beginning it is now the best resource with
in our reach if not the only thing which can pro-
| duce permanence in the settlement OF this vexa-
tious controversy. 1t seemed strange to me to
hear the suppositon that our lamented friend, Mr..
Calhoun, would, if living, support the measure
before us. That he who has been justly called by
my colleague our leader upon this great issue be-
tween the North and the South, the champion
who was taken away from us like summer-dred
fountain when our need was the sorest; that he
who never shrank from demanding on every
occasion the whole rights of the South that he
who opposed the Missouri Compromise because
it gave to the South less than was her right that
he who was always first of his friends in every
contest involving Southern interests and Southern
| honor; that he should now be held up as an ad-
vocate of that " non-intervention " which leaves
in force the Mexican laws prohibiting our entrance
into the country, and forbids Congress to remove
those impediments which stand in the way Of the
enjoyment OF our constitutional rights, is strange
to me, surprising beyond expression. Sir, can
any one Of those who have served with Mr.. Cal
houn, or watched his course from however remote
a distance, doubt where he would have been found
upon this question: Can any one, who has read
| the speech which closed his career in the Senate
doubt to what were Mr.. Calhouns opinions
upon all the points which have been raised in the
| progress of this debate? Surely none can do it.
| But as to the other point, whether or not he
| would have agreed to the extension of the Mis-
souri, Compromise, with the recognition of slavery
below the line, we not left to mere conjecture
Not only did Mr.. Calhoun vote for the Missouri
Compromise, when offered, in the sense and spirit
Of the original compact, by the Senator from Hi
| nols, and on that occasion indicate his willingness
to acquesce IN such settlement, but he voted for
the same proposition, the Missouri Compromise
line, contained in what was called the CLAYTON
| Compromise bill. Ii is not because one asserts
constitutional right to be higher or broader than
the basis of this partition, that therefore to be
taken for granted he will, in every contingency
| reject 1t. Its history gives it consideration
above it's merit 1t has come down from 1920
renewed in the case of the State of Texas, both
times diminishing the territorial strength of the
South, and by her has been faithfully observed
ever since it became, was believed to have be-
come, the settled policy in relation to the Terri
| tories of the United States. But properly enough
the South has stood back to allow those who hold
the power to pass or to reject 1t to propose the
line 1t was once proposed by the Senator from
Indiana, who now occupies the chair, Mr..
BRIGHT, and well recollect the regret that felt
on that occasion that 1t was not made sufficiently
explicit, and brought to a vote. The same amend
ment, however, after 1t Withdrawn by the
| Senator from Indiana, was renewed by another
member of the body, and was further amended by
the Senator from Kentucky, mr. UNDERwooD,]
| who proposed distinct recognition of the right
to carry slaves south of SO deg 80 min. 1t is not
now, therefore, for the first time that the South
has demanded distinct acknowledgment of her
right. AT that time had reason to hope, far, far
more than | have now, that the amendment of the
Senator from Kentucky W. aid be agreed to, and
that the Missouri Compromise would be fairly
justly, honorably carried out, in the sense and
spirit of the original compact, the line being eX-
tended until its trace was lost in the waters Of the
western ocean.
Mr.. UNDERWOOD. have already, in the
course Of this debate, stated very briefly the his
tory of that transaction. | will repeat it again,
as 1t has been brought up to-day. The Senator
now occupying the chair mr. BRIGHT1 offered
an amendment to what was called the Oregon BILL
and it was printed. That amendment proposed
$50 30 north latitude as the division OF the terri
tory, not stating distinctly that slavery would be
tolerated on the southern side of that line.
proposed to amend that amendment by distinct
recognition of the right of the Southern people
TO take their slave property south Of the line.
My amendment was printed also. am informed
by the Senator from Georgia, behind me, Mr..
BERRIEN, that the Senator from Indiana with
drew his amendment, and that it was renewed by
HIM. But while these amendments were thus
pending, the committee of eight was raised, and
the bill, with the pending amendments, was
referred to the committee of eight. In that COM
mlttee introduced my proposition of distinctly
recognising the right of Southern individuals to
go South of that line $50 3O with their slave prop
ery, to be protected. Mr.. Calhoun made a sug-
geston to me with regard to the language of the |
proposition which submitted and in the course
Of our conversation he stated if it were adopted
he would submit to the line, although it did not
meet his views. 1t not what he required
but he would acquiesce in it, if adopted. In the
committee, he constituted of the four who
voted for the proposition thus offered by myself;
but it was rejected by division of the commit
tee-four to four. These are the facts in refer
ence to the matter.
Mr.. DAVIS, of Mississippi. I am glad to have
received this minute explanation from the Senator
from Kentucky upon point Of history which is
valuable. 1t establishes several main points,
First, that this is no new proposition; second
that it received the counenance Of half Tie coma
mittee that was engaged on compromise mcasur,
at n former PERIOD and third, that the di ulguISh
ed Southern statesman, long the recogl led leader
upon all questions peculiarly belon4 lrg to the
rights and interests of the South, as a mrmh,rur
that committee, ac9uiesced in the proposluou ri
the Senator from Kentucky, voted for it, and was
willing with that condition to extend the Missouri
Compromise line across the continent, and thus
close forever the only cause of serious discord be-
tween different sections Of our Union. 1t was,
therefore, with surprse-these things, at least
many of them, being fresh in the memory of all
that heard my colleague say that any one had
had the infamous falsehood and audacity to assert
that Southern men had introduced this proposition
to embarrase the bill before us, and prevent the
adjustment of existing difficulties.
Mr.. FOOTE. Will my colleague excuse me:
did not hear the beginning of his remark.
Mr.. DAVIS. | will repeat it, then. said
that it was with surprise heard my colleague say
that any one had had the infamous falsehood and
audaciy to assert that southern men had introduced
the Missouri Compromise in order to embarrass
the bill before us, and to prevent an od justment
Mr.. FOOTE. understand my colleague now,
and will simply state that did not charge amy
Senator or member of The House with such an
! Il ..l