The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-23


Of the constitutions We say them that unless they viii
agree ordinance of 1887 the treaty. whose pro-
visions will thereby be entirely varied We viii violate IT'S
terms disregard them What would have been said If
we had insisted upon similar by the States
formed Of the territory coded by North Carolina which
also admitted according TO the terms of the contract Of
sessioni We haye little right TO insist upon them IN
regard the people OF Missouri had dictate them TO
those States II is in both cases, violation of good faith.
Under this treaty we accepted territory IN which slavery
existed and rights Of property recognised by the govern
ceding We stipulated protect the enjoyment of
that property. We have encouraged emigration of the free
citizens Of the United States thher Wy whole OF
policy We have instance attempted 10 niedict the
transportation of slaves there, excepting by law which
lived but year, and then repealed this law prevented
their Introduction there for sale merely IL permitted, and
thereby encouraged their introduction by persons removing
into the Territory to settle In this way, under our own
auspices this species of property has been acquired and
now attempt the face OF acts and in defiance Of
the treaty. only the people of Missouri give
up their right 10 form their constitution regard TO the
future Introduction of slaves by persons going there 70 ve
but also TO anDihac all the rights already acquired we
force them to do what thought prudent ourselves
to attempt even when we had the power"
"The right govern territory is clearly incident to the
right OF acquiring II would be absurd 10 say that any
government might purchase territory with population
and have the power give them laws but from what
ever the power devable, admit IT be plenary
80 long as remains in condition of territorial Dependence
but no longer"
1t will be seem by examining these speeches, that they
have far exhausted the subject in discussing the very
question before that scarcely idea has been pro-
duced in this debate. ~
Sir do hnk any man can deny that Massachusetts
may admit slavery and Georgia may reject il Tomorrow
So il be commended thar State may constituonaly
be refused admission unless she prohibit slavery You
grant that after admission she may the next day ex
punge the prohibition if SO, not the prohibition idle
and nugatory and do you believe the fathers who made
the constitution weak have conferred power
on which g e my fsit as s
wishes of the people Of the Slater Let tell the senator
from Massachusetts, and all Others here who contend for
IF in
Congress- in 1890 by held to be bright and shining
Lights to rradate my path and that by the aid OF those
lights think she'll walk in safety in 1854, Nicholas
Vandyke of the first uriss and most accomplished
gentlemen of his me standing account of his eminent
ability and his unquesoned integrity the same exat-
ed platform with his great contemporaries and comparots
the Bayards and Rodneys Of that day. Mr.. McLane,
younger the distinguished representative of the
State In the other housea gentleman whose talents cleva-
The legislature of the State had, upon hasty consdera
ton of the question: actually instructed her delegates in
Congress to vote against the admission of Missouri Yet
the whole delegation defiance Of those Instructions voted
for her admission without restriction and order get
her into the Union they ransomed her. gentleman
has by voting for what they themselves publicly proved
to be unconstitutional II is plain they acted under
duess If they refused to vote for the Missouri bill con-
tanning this section, alarming violation of the cons
tuition would necessarily In the rejection OF the State
admitted by the bill. They could not vote TO admit
the State without voting for the eighth section of the bill
also They made sacrifice to avoid greater evil To
reject Missouri was they believed have been the
signal for southern rally for southern confederation, of
which Missouri to be the nucleus Far be 1t from me
to censure them for what they did On the contrary
would have followed their example, by extending the line in
lS45 to save all the excitement and III feeling afterwards
provided the North would have acquesced IN it. would
have resored to the compromise
to settle dangerous question thenand aud the exalted
patriotism by which the senators and representative of
Delaware actuated in 1920. They deserve be
membeed in history for the sacrifice they made much
a. the patriot heroes who the best days OF the Roman
Commonwealth devoted themselves the perous edge Of
battle to the internal gods to secure victory to the cpub
Mr.. BAYARD. My colleague may add, that the people
sustained them in their opposition the instructions of
the legislature. @ ' .".
Mr.. CLAYTON Yes sir they were fully and rium-
phany SUSTAINED by the people of the State afterwards
notwithstanding the instructions of the legislature
Sir, want better argument this question OF con-
stn,onay than furnished in the speeches of those dis
unguished statesmen. And it be contcnded that, by
voting for the unconstitutional section in the act of 1920
they snned against the light and knowingly violated the
constitution who understand the fearful alternative
which presented them OF the Of their country il
ipffit newtb 70 Heavens chanccry with the vote the re-
eordng angel dropped tear upon The record and boed
out forever
wish to add few words in regard to the charge
that repeal Of this section would be unjust and viola
uon of pghed faith. 1t appears from the statements
which have read to the Senate but upon which did not
comment that every proposition extend the Missouri
Compromise line to the Pacific voted down every
casion by our northern friends from August lS4S until
the passage of the compromise 1850 In the
confident belief that Missouri line be extended to
me racine, southern President Mr.. Pok, ~ In August
1875 approved bill to organize territorial government
Oregon, with the Wmot provso IT, thus devotng the
whole OF that immense region exclusively TO free labor in
Obedience to the compromise principle of 1920 and the
next session he gave notice to Congress that If line
should not be extended the Compromise Of 1920 would
cease to be binding and the question would "become
original question: Still, the North, though having by
these secured the whole benefit of the extension of
the Compromise Of 1890 in by far the greater part Of the
territory north of 36 deg 30 mn refused extend so as
TO give the South the benefit Of any part of the Terri
torres Even the line Of IS deg 80 min proposed by
Mr. King, of Alabama and every other geographical line
proposed, was rejected by the North In the time
while the struggle going the North acquires the whole
OF California thus securing the whole Pacific of one
thousand miles, with every harbor leaving nothing but the
comparatively sterile and uncongcnia regions Of New
Mexico, where the from Connecticut TMr SmITHl
ssys sensible wolf would settle and where he and
late senator from Massachusetts MIR Wcbsterl both
demonstrated slavery could never Of
an irrcpealnble law of God" Thus after securing the
whole of the Territories, containing million and sew
ety thousand square miles exclusively free labor and
large part of the express UNDERSTANDING stated by
President Polk that the compromise line Of 1920
extended held void, told forsoo,h that the
repeal OF that line, only reaching through the old French
csson weuld be breach Of faith and of injustice
Let me state for illustration Two to the
western country in 1890 and purchased township Of land
being farmer and sklfu the cultivation Of the cereal
grains agreed to occupy the northern section of the town
ship; b, being grazier upscquanted with farming, but
skilled IN the management Of livestock agreed to confne
hmsef TO the southern portion Of the township for which
both had equally expended their The compro-
mise line being acquesced in between cm each carried on
,,,orp