The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-28
Mr.. stephens, Letter.

MT. CIkfHENS asks 10 w ihioTin tho Souheiy
who were the Northern members that, in the
last Congress, would have voted for $3.50,
rather than pass no bill on the territorial ques-
ton. Now, this is an. inquiry to which We
could hardly be expected TO reply specifically
The facts we learned in private conversations,
when we demonstrated bitterly with Northern
members on their votes in favor Of the Com.
promise; and we do not relate private con-
versations. We may state the substance OF
them, when Of public importance. - 1--WE
tlaAoustN- the fact we referred to, was too vel
known here in this city, at least, to be ques'
toned. But we can offer corroborative evidence
of public nature, to show almost conclusively
that we are correct.
In l848, when the Oregon territorial bill
was under consideration in the Senate, the
clause prohibiting slavery in Oregon was
opposed by the vote Of every Senator from the
South, we believe, except two-Mr BENTON and
Mr.. HoUsToN. On that occasion, Senator DoUe.
LAS offered an amendment to the bill, basing the
clause excluding slavery,on the Missouri ompro-
mise, and thus in effect extending that line west
of the Rocky mountains to the Pacific The
vote on this amendment was on the 10th of
August, after California and NeD Merico had
been confirmed to US by treaty. And for that
amendment the following Northern Senators
voted, viz: BRIGHT, CAMERON, DIcKrSsos,
DoUeLAs, HAKsEGAs, and SrURGEos-fve sen.
ators-most of whom were in the last Con-
gress, when the Compromise bills passed And
when the bills passed, the South and the North
had an equal vote in the Senate lfthen all the
Southern senators had insisted on 1853 here were
at least three or four Northern senators who had
already voted but two years before, so as to indie
ate what their vote would be in this case, and they
had not subsequently, indicated any change in
their determination Now, these three or four sen.
ators represented half of New York, the half Of
Pennsylvania, the whole of Indiana, and half of
Illinois, and assuming that the delegation in the
other House CORES bonded in sentiment with
them, the vote then would have been amply suffi.
cient to secure the adoption of the Missouri Com
promise line there. And, in addition 10 what we
said the other day, we may now state that, in the
course Of the Compromise discussion, we met in
Washington several editors of leading papers, or.
gans, In the larger Northern States, who, in reply
to our circumstances with them for supporting
such measure, asked us how could they recon
mend better terms for the South, when the Demo
cratic organ here-the Union conducted BY .
Southern man, and so many Southern member,
ofCongress, themselves supported the Compro
misei They said then, (and we commend II tc
the South now let the South unite, and sh,
Will lind plenty Of cooperation in the North tC
do her justice.
But Mr. STEPHEss then asks us another ones
ton: Were there enough Northern men to vot,
for the recognition and protection Of slavery
south Of $500, provided II were excluded north
Of that line ?" We answer no. And for on,
own part, we never insisted as an ultimatum on
any express Congressional recognition or estab.
lishment Of sla cry. We always thought that
such thing would weaken, rather than strength.
en- it-and so we presume, thought the men who
adopted the federal Constitution. We thinI
that slavery requires no more Constitutional O
statutory recognition than any other property, o.
than the institution Of marriage, or than modes o
religious worship But II it did, the recognition
would be rs clear, in the words ofthe Missour
Compromise, particularly IL IL applied to IN
new territory, rs we could desire. Those word
would divide that terY~oy by a line of latitude
and prohibit slavery S5vfh Of Il. What is IN
inference--the inevitable inferencei Why, tina
slavery Is moi prohibited south Of il But w
are told the Mexican law remained in force owe
all The territory, until changed by Congress.
and would exclude slavery south Of the line
bat this very inference would be excluded b
an express enactment prohibiting slavery mort
Of s630-for IL that were already done b
law In force, IL would be useless for Congre.
10 say anything on the subject; unless
could be cnntsudod that Congress desiQne,
by such clause, 10 render the prohibition o
slavery certain north Of the line, and doubtt..
south Of IL which would be too absurd.
Mr. STEPHEss asks us, lit was not a well as
certained fact, that at the time the Compromis,
measures passed, and long before, an over
whelming majority Of the South denied the
power Of Congress TO legislate upon the subjec
OF slavery 10 the territories, either for or agains
1t! and was not this the doctrine of Mr.. CAL
HoUs, the great leader Of the Sou IN in chi.
controversy, and was il not well asct rtaned fac
that upon this ground he was opposed 10 the Mis-
soori compromise on principle We answer yes
these are all well ascertained facts. But il i
also fact that although majority Of tb,
Southern members, and Mr.. CALnous, denies
the right Of Congress 70 restrict slavery, an,
claimed for the South an equal and commo
hight TO colonize all the territories with IN
North, yet Mr.. CALHOUN, and a majority Of III
Southern members, opposed and detested tn
Compromise Of 1850 much more than that {