The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-05-30
CON G R ESSI0N AL.
SPEECH OF HON. r. p. STANTON,
JF TENNEsaEtl


The House being in Committee of the Whole on the state
Mr. STANTON, Of Tennessee, said
Mr. CHAIRMAN weuQ Aot have deemed II necessary for
ma 10 participate the discussion OF this question, but for
me- extraordinary position in which the State OF Tennessee
presents herself in this Congress In the other house on
his mportant BILL her influence is null by the conflicting
votes of her senators in this House it is almost rs bad
pr out d her representatives being openly against the
measure know very well that for about twenty years
n no other State has witnessed more fierce and violent
political conflicts and that nowhere else have party prelu
aices been inveeratc But had fondly supposed
his was subject upon which there would be great unan-
unity throughout the whole South. IL seems, however
that though political differences may be forgotten in other
souhern States when peculiar interests are IN
yoyed they are still to divide in the State OF Tennessee
But In addition to this consideration Of my honorable
colleagues Mr. ErHEnIpGE IN very sbie apd coqaeht
speech fen days ago called on me directly and indvidu
alv 10 rey to certain portions OF his remarks. happened
10 be then in the chair presiding where you now do, and
there could be misunderstanding OF the challenge DIS
tinety though respectfully, thrown down before me re-
et that my colleague is not now in his seat and regret
also still more that his speech has not been published SO
that could deliberately examine and answer it. shall
notice his points, in the course of my argument as they
may occur to my recollection. -# # 4MN
But withou, further preliminary remark, | approach
that great leading objection which is presented by the OPP
ponen Of the bill as decisive Of its fate 1t is said the
Missouri restriction of 1920 solemn compact between
the North and the South and therefore rrepealabe Upon
this ground it is alleged with great earnesness that il
would be gross violation of faith, an unwarrantabe a
ession the rights of the northern people, to pass the
6nl in its present form. | cannot view the subject
in this light There is nothing in our constitution
and laws which justies us in looking upon the act of
1920 anything more than act Of Congress know
ofnothng which authorizes the attempt to place the stamp
Of rrepealabiity on nything may do, anything
which Congress may have done before us 1t is acknowl
edgedt must be universally acknowledged in its
substance and essence the act OF 1920 is certainly not
compact nor an agreement of irrepeaabe character
But il alleged with show Of reason that there
something in the time the OCCASION and the circumstances
Of its passage which gives it moral force equivalent
that which would be the sanction of compact binding
the parties by mutual and irrepealable stpulatons.
shall not attempt to deny that in the circumstances
which attended the passage of the Missouri Compromise
there something of solemn and important character
there something which invested that act with char
acter imposing than that of ordinary acts of egsa
ton and if the circumstances continued the at this
day should be the last to raise my hand to disturb set
hement which, in that point of view, might well be consd-
cred sacred and binding 1t allayed the violent passions of
the hour it dspeed the dangers which then mmneny
threatened free institutions and il gave comparative
peace and quiet TO the whole country Objectionable
the act was in very important aspect the attending cir
Of its origin and results gave it high sanction
for the time being but they could mpart TO it either
the legal or moral power to bind future generation called
upon TO act upon wholly different state Of facts waive
the argument based upon the subsequent act of 1921
which, by some alleged to have been the real compro
mise also waive that derived from the votes of northern
men in opposition to the admission of the States of Mis-
souri, and Arkansas and from all those other acts which
Indicated total disregard Of the law, having any bind
ing force upon them am willing TO meet the argume:.
presented III It's greatest force by the opponents OF the
bill and, with that view will frankly admit all the
weight which be justly ascrbed to the circumstances
Of the great crisis of 1920 Thiryfour yearshe time
dinarily assigned TO a single generaton-haye passed
away and stand in the midst Of and circum-
stances wholly changed shall briefly attempt to show
ia all their exigencies and requirements
have already admitted, and repeat with all its force
hat the influence of the of ls20-though OF doubtful
nstuonality in the opinions Of many and certainly
10 the minds Of Of the best of the daythe in
auence Of that in allayg the fearful excitement
and linz, tbrA pxh,.
involving the existence OF the Union itsefhis happy in
hnence alone gave the high and solemn sanction which
gentlemen claim still adhering to it, and impartng
the force and validity OF compact Sir, there
equivalent considerations the side and the other in
the nature of bargain between the North and the South
Slavery extended over the whole Louisiana Territory The
State OF Missouri entitled 10 into the Union with
her constitution and laws subject to condition
eept that of adopting republican Institutions The idea Of
imposing conditions upon incoming State additional to
those found in the federal constitution is this day aban
doned. Then the Missouri restriction stands sheer
surrender by the people of the South Of all the territory
north OF 36o 3V as sacrifice the altar OF peace and
union II was based upon the idea OF division Of terri
tory between the North and the South. Against the
solemn conviction Of right in the whole southern people
the North demanded absolute exclusion of slavery from
the whole territory The South resisted this demand
but finally yielded to the principle Of division In the
practical application of the principle upon that occa
son, the division was extremely unequal glance
at The map win show H. The South acquired part
OF Mississippi, all Of Louisiana and Arkansas and that
small tract Of Indian territory which lies west Of Ar
kan'as On the other hand look at that vast region
pred within the Louisiana grant north Of the line Of 3Go
SV Estimate the difference and you viii sec what the
South surrendered when she agreed to the principle Of d
VISION Unequal and unfair ii was il had the merit OF
oeng founded principle which might be made TO OPP
ua'e iairly and equally. II acknowledgment of
some night on the part Of the southern peopean admis-
SION that they possessed interest in the joint property
VI he whole country have said that the pro-
qued quiet and comparative satisfaction at that day and
now add That it continued for series of years to be
gaeu hy me people Of all sections of the country with
great respect and reverence am not even disposed
to deny that this feeling was st and right As long as
we Prlnpie had vitality and power il was cherished in
the hearts Of the people
~ ls45 1t had not yet lost its strength and validity II
oni regarued with reverence, and had living power
ogh 70 settle and compose the strife that aroused
~ ~ lne proposition to admit Texas into the Union Al
ough me Texas resolutions contained the political sole
9 ana eresy Of prohibiting slavery In any State to be
north ot the Missouri line yet the old policy
Es.aeui ~ proved to be balm applied 10 the wounds
nnlced upon the countrys peace end have not doubt
have been respected and maintained by the South
provided he same spirit had been manifested on the other
But what have we witnessed an th;s subc, s;co o aa
MISSION " Texas into the Union Within the last six
ts we nave lived TO the principle Of the Missouri
4ompromisethep principle Of division Of territory between
s ana the souhsterny and unrelcntngy repudu-
@u snd scorntuily tramped under foot | admit very
anky that when the law was adopted In 1920 Il applied
9 9 70 INC territory then possessed In its terms
u % mol apply to any other territory because presume
@ OF future acquisitions was not foreseen or
rb,L nv CONSIDERATION But the principle OF division,
er rleht or wrong at least plain and practical in its
ae'er and easy of application was seized upon under
ny T pressure OF great emergency 10 settle the difficulty
i en "a nand Il proved to be tasman and continued
lo possess its original virtue But what
ecne Of y IN 1892 Where is Il uow2 When we stood
oa lne brink Of disunon fighting over the Mexican acqui
Shs the Missouri principle was no longer divine staff
ill., % nahps OF some political Moses dividing the Of