The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-05-07

bit unlike g Lowndes," am willing to trust
her o'sce more. An act passed under such cir
cumstances may be repealed by reckless ma
jority," but suchsa violation Of confidence and
such breach Of faith, would justify at once a
dissolution of the Union.
Again, "Lowndes" says that with the old
disturbers of the country's peace, maintain
that Congress has the power to determine that
some States shall be free and others slare," in
other words, that Congress has the power ia
pass the Missouri compromise BILL My reply
is simply this: Ii it was deemed advisable in
1920, by such men as Samuel Smith, of Mary
land Lewis McLane, of Delaware; Floyd, and
Nelson, of Virginia; Williams, of North Caro-
lima; Crawford, of Georgia; VIM. r.. King, OF
Alabama; Johnson, of Kentucky; Williams, OF
Tennessee, and Others to waive their consttu-
tional rights, and compromise the question--lnay
it not be prudent for their successors to do the
same thing! IT, when Texas was annexed to
the Union, the North and the South agreed to
adopt and apply the Missouri compromise to
that territory, may it not with equal propriety,
be applied now to California New Mexico, and
Utah? If able, honest, and patriotic men could
sustain this measure from 1920 to the time Of
the meeting Of the Nashville convention, with
out abandoning the rights, or sacrificing the in
terests of the South, may it not be done now,
when The same necessity exists for the exercise
of spirit Of peace, liberaity, and fraternal re-
gard? These are plain questions, and should
like to see them satisfactorily answered. Con
gress, with the consent Of the North and the
South, can DO in 1859, what was done in 1920.
II it had power to pass the Missouri compromise
then, with the same understanding and agree
ment, it has power to pass it now.
What doctrine is violated and what interest is
sacrificed now, that was not violated and sacri-
feed then! The situation Of the country il
and eonvas ss s noW as i was asb sssd fsaaia
iIity Of the government is shaken, and the Union
itself trembles under the earthquake shock OF
popular excitement. If concessions were neces-
sary then, they are demanded now. "Lowndes
seems to forget that in making compromise,
rights can be waived. Concession Of rights is
the very ground of all compromise. In the
formation of our consttution-the chart of our
rights and the bond of our Union-prejucices
had to be overcome, preconceived opinions aban-
doned, conscientious scruples waived and i'm
portant rights sacrificed. Who regrets the sacri-
fees that were then made! The North and the
South, the East and the West were required to
make concessions. Their preferences and pre-
JUDGES, their rights and interests were laid cheer
fully on the altar of liberty, and upon the ruins
of despotism aud oppression, the temple OF free
dom was soon reared, with i,s broad foundations
resting for their support upon the pillars of
justice, equality and Slate sovereignty
After all, the real issue between "Lowndes"
and myself is a very simple one. He is opposed
to and am in favor of the adoption of the Mis-
souri, compromise line, as the basis on which the
difficulties between the North and the South
ought to be adjusted. With an interested and
active majority against us at the North, and
dissatisfied and restless minority against US at
the South, we are forced, rs before stated,
eithe- 10 submit, or resist, or 10 compromise. I'm
der all the circumstances, | agree with the Nash
vile convention, that it is the interest of the
South, although the "course is open to grave
objections" to "acquiesce in the adoption of the
line Of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, as an ex-
IRENE concession, upon considerations Of what
is due to the stability of our institutions"
HANCOCK.