The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-24


consent Of the adjoining States and without
compensation, the division Of Texas into four
States, and their admission hereafter, with
or without slavery, according to their own
choice, the rights Of the South were distinct
ly stated and enforced; but when the set
Element of the vacant territory was dis
cussed, nothing was said Of the right Of the
South to share in its enjoyment, nothing in
the reputation Of the power Of Congress to
exclude slavery by Legislation; on the con-
trary, the omission to recommend the proviso
seems to have been excused on the ground
that il was unnecessary. The almost irre-
sistble inference from that report, as itseems
to me, is, that the proviso would have bsen
recommended had it been necessary for the
exclusion Of slavery; but we are told that
the report is no part Of the bill, and that we
vote for the last and not the first. But it is
true that the report is not to be considered
along with the bill, in estimating the moral
force Of the precedent to be established by
the passage Of this bill' Is it not rule in
the Attorney Generals office to consider a
report in constituting and interpreting law
which it recommended In estimating the
moral influence of the passage Of this measure,
a measure so entirely political in its charac-
ter, is there any inquirer who would not turn
to the report as one Of the sources OF expla-
nation as to its objects and motives' The
friends Of this measure must thus esteem it,
for they refer to its recommendations as to
Texas, as one Of the advantages conferred
on the South; but nothing is proposed to be
done as to this matter; the only benefit
which it confers, is the moral force Of an ex-
preston Of opinion on the part Of the majority
of the committee. II the moral force of an
expression Of opinion be good for us, it must
also be good against us, and if ! am right in
these conclusions, there is no one respect in
which the compromise is better than that of
the resolutions, whilst in some important
particulars it is worse.
But we are told that it is compromise,
and will give peace. 1t is, fear, like some
other comprom ses which we have made, a
surrender Of right on the part Of the South,
and will lead probably to the same or a
worse conclusion. We were to have peace
and harmony on the passage Of the Missouri
Compromise. Under that hope, and from a
sense Of honor, the South has adhered to it
since, but what sort Of peace did il procure
COR US. Scarcely dozen years elapsed be-
fore |" the run Of anti-slavery petitions com
menced, and thus began the war whose
object it is, we are told, to denationalize the
institution Of slavery-that is, to place it
without the pale Of the Constitution, and be-
yond the protection Of the General Govern
ment Mr.. President, we all remember the
scenes and excitement to which this warfare
gave rise. The South insisted that these
petitions should not be countenonced, en-
couraged, or even considered. The agita-
ton to which they led endangered Southern
property and life, and accordingly the House
Of Representatives adopted rule excluding
abolition petitions. But we were soon adj
vised to consent to the repeal Of that rule;
we were told that it furnished fuel to the
fame Of anti-slavery agitation, and aliment
to those who famed it into fury. Abolish
this rule, and we were told that they could
have no means Of infaming the public mind
in the North, but must perish from want Of
the means of existence. The rule was
repealed-that compromise made. And
what is the condition in which the country
is now placed' Has it given us peace, or
the appearance Of peace, or, on the con-
trary, has it not encouraged the anti-slavery
spirit and made it more presumptuous !?
Formerly when these abolition petitions and
papers were presented, the question in de-
hoto ,,,,n ,,,L o<hnr So ,ho,lJ conc;J.r tLA ~
Now the question is, whether we shall act
upon them, and how we shall act upon them.
Let the present condition Of our legislation
testify as to the fact Of the peace which such
a compromise has given us. And who shall
tell me, after these warnings from history,
that the adoption of this compromise, by a
surrender of power and the rights Of the
South, will give US peace, and that it will
not, on the contrary, lead to new and more
extravagant demands ! have said that this
was, in my opinion, one of sur
render Of right and power on the part Of the
South. Certainly such a surrender, if tested
by what the South have hitherto claimed;
and to sustain that point wish to show
what the South has hitherto claimed, what
has been her standard in relation to our own
rights, and to compare that standard with
what it is proposed she shall accept. The
South has claimed, in relation to the COM
mon territories of the United States, that all
the States Of the Union are tenants in COM
mon; that it is common property, and that
each and all have right to settle with their
property, of every description, on all the vacant
territory Of the United States. That is the
position which they have taken, and do not
stand here to argue it; it has been argued
often, and argued too with more ability than
can bring to the task. That is her position,
and what follows from it II these be her
rights, it follows concusvely that she is
either entitled to partition and division Of the
territories, or else to the social possession
and enjoyment of all. That is the rule Of
tenantry in common; it is the rule of justice
and OF common sense, and it is the rule which
history will show the South herself has even
applied to the case. She has offered to set
tIa fbo 1;Gc,Ifioc &c The oort ~, hnth mo1ec