The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-28

The Missouri restriction exaeted by the North anc
acquesoed in by the South in 1920 1t the first grea
wrong committed upon section by another h,
first mpedment placed in the way OF the free exercise OF
the right Of the people OF State to govern and regulate
their domestic affairs in their own way.
I IL was great wrong arbitrary enactment and the
South forced TO vote for il the only alternative
The names Of ustrous statesmen have been invoked
having been connected with IT TO give il the semblancc OF
poor paiaon The friends of this unconstitutional
men in their desperation and phrenr have attempted to
shield and cover It's deformty with the fame OF the OF
Ashand although has been proven by the best Of evil
dence that he had sort of connexon with the Missouri
Compromise of 1920 which is believed to be nopera
tive and Of force For myself want better evidence
TO convince my d of that fact than the rcanng Of the
editor Of the National ntegencer from publishing TO the
world Mr. Clays fouhours speech the subject which
has never been published and is only in the hands
If Mr. Clay was favor Of the measure and spoke Is
il not probable in these times Of investigation that Mr.
Gales would bring to the world the fact it would
sustain the position which he and his friends have as
sumed But as it Is it tends to prove his opposition to
the Missouri Compromise OF 1920. This great wrong
mted by the North upon the South is justified by col
leagues Messrs. CuLLoM ErHERIDGE TAYLOR and BuGe.
They oppose its repeal; while my other colleagues in this
end Of the Capitol advocate the passage Of the bill
How does the matter stand with colleagues in the Sem
ate find in the Congressional Globe of the 10th Febru-
AIRY, 1854, the following:
The Senate resumed the consideration Of the bill to
ganize the Territory Of Nebraska.
The pending question is the amendment moved by
Mr. DOUGLAS the 4th section Of the substitute reported
by the Committee on Territories to strike out the words
chch THE Missouri Compromise dct superseded by The
principles Of The legislation Of 1850, commonly called the
prose measures and hereby declared noperatue and to
insert WHICH BEING INcossgrENT PRINCIPLES
koNISTERvEKTIoS CONGRESS SLAVERY STATES
TERRITORIES RECOGNISED by LEGISLATION OF 1850
COMMONLY CALLED COMPROMISE MEASURES, is HEREBY
DECLARED NoPERATIvE VOID, BEING INTENT
LEGIsLATE SLAVERY INTO ANY
TERRITORY STATE NOR EXCLUDE II THEnEFRoM BUT
| PEOPLE THEREOF PERFECTLY FORM AND
REGULATE INSTITUTIONS THEIR OWN WAY,
suBEcT ONLY 10 THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
On this proposition repeal the Missouri Compromise the
/ vote stood-as shown by the Senate Journal
! YEAS-Messrs. Adams Atchson Bayard, Bell Benjamin,
Hunter Johnson Jones Of Iowa. Jones Of Tennessee Mason
Stuart Thompson Of Kentucky, Toombs Weller, and VIII
liams35.
ett Fish, Foot, Houston, Seward Sumner and Wade-lo
So it win be by this vote that both the whg
from Tennessee essrs JONES and BELL voted for the
repeal while four of my colleagues Messrs CuLLox ErHE
RIDGE TAYLOR and Buos in this end Of the Capitol are
found voting with such aboltionists GIDpINcs and
CAMPBELL, and with the reesoilers against it, This is
important fact that while Col BELL did not vote for the
bill on its final passage YET he roted for the rat Mis-
ouri Compropise shown by the vote here given. II
certainly places these southern representatives from Ten
In unenviabe attitude before the people Of that
State but whether II does not leave it TO the people
themselves say. They viii with the facts before them
correctly form their judgment
We grsvely told that II is sacred compromise-"te
work of fathers Yes sir IL the work Of our
fathers it the best work they could do at that time
for their children but not the work of their choice
We told that II is Of thrtyour years standing Grant
it, still it is not ancient as the constitution il violates
1t entitled TO place in the statutebook
constitutional enactment mo such power be fairly
deduced from any grant In the constitution
] 1t was adopted in 1920 What the consequence
In less than year after its adoption, when Missouri
up with her constitution whom do find repudiatng
IL? Why sir the very of the North who had shor,
time before presented ii TO the South the only asrna-
tive While they refused Missouri admission, they well
coined in the State OF Maine We told the North
4 repudiaed the Missouri Compromise What compromise
II that brought in that State Was II not the joint
resolution Of 1871 Of which Mr. Clay was the author2 That
compromise under which Missouri admitted.
No presumes TO deny this fact SO that the Mis-
souri, Compromise Of 1920 repudiaed nearly soon
as made They tell Us that this was because her consu
ton had clause barring free negroes from going there
This not the II was the slavery clause in her
constitution, which her people 10 convention had adopted
They contended the ireesoe that Congress must guar
anty 10 each State ryu6hcqa form Of government and
that slavery antrepublican. This complacenty
said by who had forgotten the fact that twelve Of the
this republic slave States And there any bass
az to declare that they were not republican Stes2 Sir
i trust not
But matters very little at this day what was the cause
that induced the citizens Of the northern States 10 present
the Missouri restriction to the Senate the only asrna-
tive 1t great wrong yet four Of my colleagues
! still in favor Of retaining IL
i Colonel BFSroS, in his aThiuy Ysars IN ne United
i States senate says speaking Of the line Of 80 deg
80 min, "rhat Il divided free and slave soil far more
1 favorable TO the North than the ordinance Of 1881
4 TAa divided about equally; ri, ef 1870 gqrs aJoa
I an % ne North. II abolished slavery over an inn
nense extent Of country where Il might then legally
exs-over nearly the whole OF louisiana le il only in
Florida and Arkansas Territory and opened terr
tory 20 its existence % He
Hoa-ta5et0idng Sdtes DIT Ae genius Of sidetrg agitation
n0f Lad BY this restriction the North took for her
\ share about million square Hailes, nearly equal q
treu States ne szt Of ker York while the South got
for her share only of territory. Was this cqua
y1 was Il justl Il right Let the soyercgns Of the
4 southern States answer
The honorable gentleman my colleague, who frat took
position this question, r Cu1ov and the gentlemen
who have followed him, also my colleagues Messrs ErHr
and TAYLOR here that the Missouri Com
promise right ask them II do state their posi-
ton correctly when say that they in favor Of the Ns
Il souri, Compromise II not hope they viii me
They are in favor Of retaining IL
4 Mr. CULLOM Docs my colleague desire that should
Il answcr him
4 Mr. CHURCfIwELL. should like to have you answer
II IT,
Mr.CULLox Ny position in reference to the Missouri
COMPS onse Is this il passed in time Of great poll
cal ir5v9< by worthy band Of patriots looking 10 tb,
Cong&s should have votes for IL under the necessity
then fling. The act Is not favorite Of mine but th
necessity which originated Ii continues to-day and there
fore am opposed 70 its abrogatioa.
n Mr.. CHURCHWEI.I. That Is the position which
thought my colleague occupied that be for submission
that il is wrong but under the necessities then existing h
would have voted for IL with the Of that day bu
now, when We have opportunity TO throw OF that
strction and 10 place ourselves in original position
occupying unrosrainod and free all those rights that
fathers established he refuses southern representative
4 70 avail himself Of this opportunity and thus hi
constituents and mine 4 common constitutional fight o
which the retricton doprves us Bat my ooeau taxi
another position they tell that this Compromse
acauiescSd 10 by the best Of the country admit II