Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-04-16

advance, that all territories acquired from Mex.
leo should come to us saddled by this insulting
interdict? Sir, l repeat and no man who
looks back to the history Of the country will
question the fact that from the day this power
was assumed by Congress, a false impression
was diffused of the powers and responsibilities
OF this government in relation to the subject OF
slavery, and stern and fanatical impulse i'm
parted to the public sentiment of the north
against the south. Do you ask the evidence
OF this? 1t is tobe traced in the action OF their
State Legislatures throwing impediments in the
way of the recovery of our fugitive slaves,
| striking instance Of which was exhibited by
the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.. BARKs-
DALE; in the current of their judicial de-
cisions in their organized abolition societies,
and in their pertinacious agitation of the sub
| ject Of slavery in Congress. Believing from
this precedent that the general policy Of slavery
| as an institution was within the control of Con-
gress, and that this government stood response
/ Bile before God and man for its continuance and
extension, it is not surprising that in their false
conceptions of the powers and responsibilities
of the Government, they should have so zeal
ously pursued that policy which so long con-
| vulsed the country with internal strife.
Sir, notwithstanding the opinion entertained
by the south of the injustice and unconsti
nationality Of the Missouri restriction, it is one
among the many illustrations of their deep at
tachment to the Union, and of the selfsacri-
/ ficing spirit in which they have met every ques-
ton bearing upon the preservation of the peace
and harmony of the Union, that no effort has
been made upon its part to disturb it; but on
the contrary, o fixed and settled opinion has
been cultivated in the south to respect it as a
permanent line Of division between the slave
holding and non.slaveholding States. This can
be seen from the resolutions of the southern
legislatures-from the opinions of her most
eminent public men, extending through pc
riod of twenty years But, sir, two important
events have occurred in our history in which
southern statesmen, commanding the full con-
| fdence of that section of the Union, and occu-
plying prominent and official relations to the
question, have, by their acts, shown, beyond all
| question, the sentiment and determination Of
the south on that subject. The first to which
allude are the instructions given by Mr.. Cal
houn, in 1914, when Secretary Of State under q
southern President, directing our minister to
Texas to extend the Missouri line through that
republic TO the Rio Grande, as it has been
since fixed; and the second, the approval by
Mr.. Polk, in 1913, of the bill for the organiza.
ton Of the Oregon Territory. The gentleman
from Pennsylvania Mr.. CHANDLER has quoted
| so much of that message Of President Polk as
expressed his desire to sustain the Missouri line,
but he omitted to quote that portion which gave
full notice to the country, that if that line was
not extended to the Pacific, it must thereafter
be considered an open question. | will sup.
| ply that omission:
+" Ii was upon this consideration that, at the
close of your last session, / gave my sanction 10
the principle of the Missouri compromise by APP
| proving and signing the bill 10 establish the terri
| torial government of Oregon. From sincere de-
| sire TO preserve the harmony Of the Union and in
Difference 10 the acts OF my predecessors, felt
constrained TO yield my acquiescence 10 the extent
TO which they had gone in compromising this deli
cate and dangerous question. Bnt " Congress
shall rererse fhs decision By nhich tie Missouri
compromise affected aud shall propose 10 erisnd
the restriction the Rhoie TsrTitrry, so0M fre
as north Of The parallel Of 800 30, tcM cease 10 Be
a compromise, and must Be regarded az original
question"
| The north having by its course in lS20--yes
sir, / say by its course-having forced this geo.
graphical line upon the country, and the south
having manifested the most unequivocal pur-
pose, by her subsequent conduct, to acqniesce
| in and abide W Il in all future acquisitions Of
territory, why is it that il was not extended ia
the Pacific? By whom was it repudiated in
/ 1850?
i
mittee by reference to the journals of Con
gress to establish facts not denied, and which
in every variety Of form have already been sc
fully laid before the country; but this may
assert, that from the period of the acquisition
of these large territories, which were the fruits
of the Mexican war, down to the final DISPOSE
ton of the question in 1850, the south were
ever ready and willing to have adjusted this
sectional controversy by an extension of the
line to the Pacific; but every proposition sub
mitted by it to that effect was repeatedly voted
down by the north.
The propositions submitted in the Senate, by
Mr.. DOUGLASS on the 10th of January, lS4S, by
Davis, of Mississippi, by King, Of Alabama,
and by Foote, of Mississippi, in 1850, and in
the House Of Representatives, by Mr.. Burt, OF
South Carolina, have all been, in minute de-
tail, laid before the country. Mr. CLAYTON, OF
Delaware, has recently furnished us with ano.
Their important item of evidence on this subject;
which, as it has not been before adverted to
in this body, and is very conclusive on the same
point, will quote. Addressing Mr.. ArcHIsoS,
presiden. Of the Senate, who was member OF
the committee raised in 1913, of which Mr..
CLAYTON was chairman, he says:
"Now, sir, am compelled, in justice 10 both
sections of the Union, TO relate in your presence,
/ you having been MEMBER OF the committee and
| knowing the truth of the facts which am about
TO state, what occurred in that committee. As
soon we assembled, proposition was made by
member from the south 10 extend the Missouri
compromise line 10 the Pacific. You, sir, renem-
Der il well. The vote upon il stood four northern
members against il, and four southern members
| for il. The proposition was renewed in every
| form in which we could conceive il would be pro-
per but our northern friends rejected il often
as it was proposed. We discussed il; we entreat.
ed them 10 adopt it, We did not pretend that il
was constitutional measure; but il had been
held by many as a compact between the north and
the south, and in such an emergency as that then
existing il had been justified by the people as a
measure Of peace. We argued the question TO
show our northern friends the justice, not the con-
stitutionaty, of extending such line TO the Pa
cifc. remember well that I obtained state
ment from the land Office which showed the effect
oft and thought il ought TO satisfy northern
| gentlemen. From that statement il appeared that
If the line were extended TO the Pucifc, the free
labor Of the north would have the exclusive occu-
| patton Of one million six hundred thousand square
miles Of land in the Territories outside OF the
States, and the south but two hundred and sixty