The Yazoo Democrat., 1854-03-01
From The Richmond Enquirer.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE

5reat interest and importance at the present
ime, we think it not amiss to quote some re-
niniscences on the subject. The Norfolk Bea-
son, in view of the attempt now made in the
North to revive agitation on the slavery ques-
ton and the. sstress which is now laid on the |
Missouri Compromise by the enemies of the
South, quotes from letter written in 1850 by L.
w. Tazewell to H. S. Foote in relation to the
of 1850. Mr. Tazewel says ofI
compromises generally: The constitution does
not confer upon Congress any authority to en-
large or contract its grants of power, by any con-
cessions, compromises or other means" He
then adds: Although can readily conceive the
expediency and propriety of adjusting questions
of interest by compromises, and in many other
modes. freely acknowledge that have never
been able to comprehend how questions Of con-
stitntionol rights could properly be so treated,
especially by those endowed with fiducary pow
ers only. 1t is supposed that the results Of
compromise Of constitutional principles be-
come equivalent with the provisions of the con-
stitution ITSELF then the compromise is in truth
an amendment Of the constitution-an amend
ment of this instrument, too, by those to whom
it has positively denied the power of making
any amendment whatever, And if the compro-
mise has not such an effect, but it is regarded as
a mere legislative act, which. like all other such
acts is repealable at the will of the majority,
then the compromise becomes temporary expo
dent to postpone a troublesome subject, until
the majority, by means of this very compromise.
shall acquire sufficient strength to enforce some
other and to them better bargain. in the one
case, it is gross assumption of power not gran
ted but denied and in the other, it would be a
perpetual abandonment Of important rights, in
consideration of a supposed security of compar-
latively inconsiderable interests. The Missouri
Compromise furnishes strong illustration Of
this truth.
| Mr.. Tazewell spoke like statesman on this
point. In 1850 the North would not stand by
the Missouri Compromise which was so distaste-
tu to the South in its violations of the Constitu
tion-and after they themselves had violated tha
bargain for their own advantage, they now hyp
ocriticaly seek to revive il for the injury Of tht
South. We are convinced that the passage
the Nebraska Kansas bill viii efIectualy do ava,
with all deceilful compromises, and will plac,
all parties upon the true basis of the constitu
tiOn, with equal rights to all sections. The ex
citing subject will be entirely removed from Con
gressional discussion and action, and peace anl
good policy, will permanently be established.
1t is alledged by the enemies of the Nebrask;
bill that in 1850 Congress recognised and re-adop
ted the Missouri Compromise Of 1920 and there
fore did not, as the friends Of the bill argue, ther
annul the older compromise and in proof
they cite the following in the act fixing the Tex
as boundary introduced by Senator Mason OF Va.
/ provided, That nothing herein contained
shall be construed to impair or qualify anythin,
contained in the 3rd article of the 2nd section o
Il the Joint resolution for annexing Texas to th,
I United States, approved March 1915, either il
regard to the number Of States that may hereaf
ter be formed out of the State of Texas, or 9th
ertoiSe.''
That 81 article made compact that Texas b
formed into five States Tin all:)
{" And such States as may be formed Of tha
portion of said Territory lying south Of sc deg
80 min. north latitude, commonly known as th(
i Missouri Compromse line, shall be admitted in
to the Union, with or without slavery, as th
people of each State asking admission may de
lsire. And in such State or States as shall b,
formed out of said Territory north of said Mis-
s)uri Compromise line, slavery or involuntar,
servltude, except for crime, shall be prohibited
j The fallacy Of this argument of the opponent
of. the Nebraska bill is we'll exposed by the N
Y. Express, journal which avows itself neutra
in regard to the bill. The Express says in re
gard to the above:
The acts Of 1850 were "a cofnpronnise" TIL,
act of l945 was a compact with Texas. A com
promise may be repealed compact with For
eign Power cannot be, without the consent o
that power. In 1850 and 1920 our Legislation
was domestic: in 1915 it was foreign, (witf
Texas, then a foreign power.) In passing The
compromise of 1850-then on its face violating
the compact with Texas in 18I5-it became ne
cessary expressly to have the assent Of Texas a
every step of it.
/ Texas, It will be remembered, claimed Terrific
i rynorth Of SO 80; but the act of 1850 limited
the northern boundary of Texas 10 that line, and
to that extent violated the compact of l845
thus requiring the assent of Texas to it, before i
could become law, for which assent she has tc
be paid ten millions of dollars. Senator Masor
and others feared that it might be inferred from
this new legislation, that the compact of five
States to be made of Texas would be violated BY
thus limiting her domain and his object, doubt
rcss, was to secure the five slave States south d
the SO 80, one or more of which was to be nortE
and free and hence his proviso in 1850. The
words or otAeraoise," doubtless had reference
to the pledge in the compact of 1915, that there
be five States in all, - and these words in con-
nection with the limitation of the boundary to
| SO so, made them slave States.
| Conorecc in 1914 II, the 2e On cr,,,,,o,t ,;t ~