Washington sentinel., 1854-03-15

Was it with Rufus King, the predecessor of the
senator from New York, who made the motion
in this BODY, and stood by it for weeks, and
months, and years, to put the prohibition upon
, the State of Missouri, and who never voted for
!, the Missouri compromise Was he one OF the
, contracting parties? If he was, he did not
sign the bond. Who, then, represented the
north? How can any honest man look me in
the face, and say that that was contract, which
the north then, yesterday, to-day, now, and for
ever repudiates? Let all the world know it.
Let the next meeting at Faneui Hall know it.
Let the next meeting at the Tabernacle know
{ it. Let the true men of the north know 1T; and
J they will come TO just decision on this ques-
ton as readily as my constituents. The free
soiers falsify history to make it contract, and
! would have to falsify their own principles to
maintain it.
J Such is the true history of this pretepded
compact rejected by the north when Passed.
J rejected by her twelve months afterwards, re-
Jected by her in 1886, on the admission of Ar
kansas, rejected by her in the formation of the
territorial government for Oregon, rejected by
her when we attempted to apply the principle
to California and New Mexico, rejected every
where, and in every form, except when it work
ed prohibition and doubt whether there is
an opponent Of this BILL on this 23d February
1854, who will rise in his place and say that he
IS willing to apply it to the country west of Ar
kansas and south of 800 30/ north latitude
There is not one Yet they have the effrontery
to say to US: Stand by the bargain" main
tain plighted faith )" public faith and honor is
j pledged to it." Mr.. President can command
no language strong enough to express my alb
horrence Of such abandonment of all public
principle.
One OF the excuses offered in extenuation Of
the conduct of senators, in not carrying out the
principle of the Missouri compromise to terri
tories OF the United States subsequently ac
quired, is that it applied specially to the coun-
. try acquired from France. Admit that to be
true; yet if it was settled upon honest and
sound principles, it ought equally to be ex-
tended to all other territory. Its principle was
territorial division between the north and south.
II that be correct principle, it can lie applied
to all cases; but its present advocates have OPP
posed every proposition for any division what
ever, and still oppose it. This position con-
fesses the superiority of the settlement of 1850
over that of 1920, and jnstifes our preference.
We say the settlement of 1850 was based upon
sound, just, and constitutional principles, and
we are willing to apply them to all territory !;
and the people have affirmed it, both the people
of the north and of the south.
Sir, have already argued upon principle the
that now proposed to be abrogated. 1t will be
found to be equally well sustained by authority.
Mr.. Jefferson, Mr.. Madison, Mr.. Munroe, Gen
eral Jackson, General Harrison, and most of
the distinguished men Of the revolution, who
were living in 1920, when the Missouri restric-
ton was sought to be imposed, opposed it; and
many Of them both on the grounds of constitu-
tionality and expediency. Mr.. Jefferson, in his
letter to John Holmes, of Maine, dated the 29th
of April, 1920, strongly condemns both the geo.
graphical line and the attempt to restrain the
" diffusion of slavery over a greater surface"
and adds:
"An abstinence, too from this act of power
wonld remove the jealousy excited by the under
taking of Congress to regulate the condition Of
the different descriptions of men composing
State. This certainly is the exclusive rigbr ofevery
State, which nothing in the Constitution has taken
| from them and given 10 the general government.
Could Congress, for example, say that the non
| freemen of Connecticut should be freemen, and
that they shall not emigrate into any other State 2?
He then goes on to denounce the restrictions
lists of his day as political suicides, and traitors
against the hopes Of the world" Such were
the opinions of the author Of the ordinance Of
1857, of the Missouri restriction of 1920.
Again, Mr.. Jefferson, in letter to Mr. Mad
ison, says: ......
II am indebted to you for your two letters of
-
geographical line Of division, is the most portent-
Gus one have ever contemplated"
" Is ready 10 risk the Union for any chance of re-
storing his party 10 power, and wrigging himself
20 the head of il nor isn .witbout
his hopes nor scrupulous as to the means of full
filling them ?"
Mr.. Madison, in letter to Mr.. Monroe in
1920, says: ......
"On one side it naturally occurs that the righ,
py q he nd in
suspension of the great principle Of sell-sovern-
ment, ought not 10 be extended further, nor con-
tinued longer than the occasion might fairly re-
quire."
Mr.. Madison says further:
The que.t tons to be decided seem TO be-
a"l. Whether territorial restriction be an as
sumption Of ilegitimate power; or,
/ "2. A misuse of legitimate power and if the
latter only, whether the injury threatened 10 the
nation from an acquiescence in the misuse or from
illustration oft. be the greater
On the first point, there is certainly room for
difference of opinion; though, for myself must
own that have always leaned 10 the belief that
the restriction, ,cas not acthi. the true scope of The
4 Constitution"
This was the opinion of Mr.. Madison, the
father Of the Constitution, who participated in
the deliberations Of the convention which
formed it, and who, the senator from Massa-
chusetts says, was mbued with the early policy
of the government, which he contends was
against slavery.
4 Mr.. Monroe expressed the same opinions in
q letter to Judge Roane.
General jackson, who was also an actor in
those exciting scenes, in letter to Mr.. Monroe
spoke in very strong language in regard to the
| Missouri restriction. He was man of strong
Words and strong will to back them. He
said:
II hope the majority will see the evil Of this
rash aespoic act, and admit the State and prevent
the evilh
In the same letter, he says that the feelings
OF the south and west are aroused, and that
Missouri should not retrograde or humble her
self. All these eminent men, whom the gen.
tleman from Massachusetts, called up as au.
thority for his position, are directly against
him.
Upon these facts, principles, and authorities,
l submit my third proposition to the Senate as