Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-21

| that the elevation and Characterization Of til,
negro Is only to be effected by his servitude t.
superior race, and the ameliorating influence
OF an intelligence borrowed from the white
man.
But, sir, We repudiate all authority but the
Constitution. If by that instrument it can be
shown that We of the south have been commit
ted to an odious Inequality of right in the pub
lie domain, then we will submit; but so long as
we are able to hold with one hand this charter
of our equal rights before the eyes of our child
ren, and to defend it with the other, you will
find any andeevery authority other than the
Constitution insufficient to restrain us.
will next proceed to the second objection
to the bill, which is because of an act of legis-
lation, passed in 1920, the consideration OF
which has been enjoyed by the south, and the
benefits of which have not yet accrued to the
free States. We are asked TO revere the pro-
visions Of the act of March G, 1920, as sacredly
binding upon honor, and told that refusal in.
wolves the turpitude of fraud.
Since the first assemblage Of delegates from
American States, to confer upon matters affect
ing the general welfare, questions connected
never-failng source of sectional disagreement
this government have been threatened by its
throes, and as often has repose been re-estab-
lished by the magic of compromise. 1t was
ton, and opened again in the federal conven-
ton. After eliciting much Of eloquence, and
more of patriotism, it was seemingly settled by
the adoption of the Constitution, but again dis
turbed by the acquisition Of territory from
ran tba IF
smothered over only to break out with fercer
violence upon the organization of territory ac-
.quired of Mexico
Again, the virtues Of compromise were in
yoked, and with triumphant success, which
was heralded forth to the world as q specific
against the ills Of State. But three short years
have passed, and again the subject is before us,
with its extremes rs thoroughly charged with
opposite qualities as before the equilibrium had
been created BY the aid Of compromise. This
rehearsal of the general history of the several
compromises is made to show that there is no
manner of affinity between slavery and COM
promise. We are warned by the past Of the
entire insuhiciency of compromises to secure
finality of the subject, and l submit that it is
more manly, wiser, and more honest, from
hencetorth to eschew the word.
The question of slavery was legally settled
when the States. which were then parties to the
compact, ratified the Constitution. It thereby
became part and parcel of the supreme law
OF the land, and no graver Legislative mistake,
none so dangerous to the south or so embar-
RAISING to the Constitutiop-loving portion of the
north, was ever committed, as when the stern
letter of the Constitution was forgotten in the
deusive attractions of hollow compromise.
But, sir were we, for the sake of argument
to admit the consttutionality Of the act known
as the Missouri compromise, it would not, in
justice strengthen the position of the opponents
of this bill. In fact it weakens them, and ex-
poses their entire insincerity because it is
proof Of record that the very men who are cry
ing out tie bond! the bond! have on every oc-
casion and opportunity, violated its spirit and
meaning, and, in their interference with The
slave trade in the District of Columbia and in
the matter of California, the very bond ITSELF |
know it will be replied, that the people of Cali
fornia excluded slavery by their own constitu-
ton but the journal of this House will show,
BIZ the voting which IS therein recorded, that
the price of her admission was the exclusion of
slavery. Were we to grant that the Z" Missouri
bond," as it is somewhere called,) was consti-
tutional and fair, the opponents of this bill are
from pleading it in the present issue,
by the fact that they themselves have uniform
ly disregarded it's provisions. 1t is, believe,
a universally admitted principle of justice and
of law, that, in every dependent covenant, fail
ure Of performance by one Of the parties to it
releases the other from all obligations to its
terms.
For upwards of thirty years has the south
acqu:esced in this Missouri line which was at
first forced upon her by a northern majority,
and not i'll single instance have we attempted
to overleap it. Believing that we would be ex-
cluded BY natural laws, which north of $50
30< are adverse to the proftableness of slave
labor we became reconciled to law which we
knew to be unconstitutional. Continually har-
assed almost beyond endurance, we were will
ing, for the sake Of quiet, to adopt this line as
a final settlement Of the question. Actuated by
these considerations, we have made repeated
offers to extend the line to the Pacific ocean
offers which vindicate our fidelity to the con-
tract, and which, had they been accepted in
the good faith in which they were rendered,
might have given stability to the adjustment.
On the 10th August, ls48 an amendment to
the Oregon BILL then before the Senate, was Of
fered providing for the extension of the COM
promise line to the Pacific, and passed that
body, by vote Of SO yeas and 81 nays. The
nays NCie' ....
"Messrs. Allen, Anterior, Baldwin, Bradbury,
Breese, Clarke, Corwin, Davis of assachusetts,
Dayton, Dix, Dodge, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin,
Miller, Niles, Phelps, Upham, Walker, and Web
ster-2l."
The bill thus amended was sent to this
House, and rejected by the freesoil vote, which
was unanimous against it.
My immediate predecessor moved to amend
bill, originating in this House, which pro-
vided territorial government for Oregon, and
in which the Wilmot proviso was Incorporated,
by declaring in effect that, inasmuch as slavery
was excluded from Oregon by operation of the
law known as the Missouri compromise, we
were content to abide by its terms; and it was
promptly rejected, as insufficient for the pur-
poses and designs of freesolers
In 1850, when the bill for the admission of
California was before the Senate, Mr.. Davis, of
Mississippi, moved to amend, by making $50
3V the southern boundary Of the State; and it
was lost-23 yeas, 33 nays.
Amendments to the same effect were subse-
quently twice offered first by Mr.. Foote, of Mis-.
sissippi. and again by Mr.. Tnrney, of Tennessee,
and both rejected But why multiply instances,