Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-22

the south, and that vast majority of the
south does now oppose, and has always OPP
posed that compromise; meaning always that
feature of it which is now matter Of public
interest and discussion. We know something
of the public sentiment of the south, and we
would be willing to risk anything we have on
the truth of the assertion that the Missouri
compromise of 1920 has always been, and is
now, regarded as unconstitutional and unjust
by the almost entire people of the slavehold-
ing States. No matter how southern rep.
resentatives in Congress voted, no man who
has been in the south and has knowledge
ofsouthern sentiment can fail to know, unless he
be blind so that he cannot see, and deaf so that
he cannot hear, that the southern people, with
unanimity almost reprobate the Missouri COM
promise of 1920 And the man who will read
the history of that struggle with an impartial
mind cannot fail to perceive that the restric-
ton which we now wish to see repealed was
forced upon the south. We care not who vo-
ted for it or who voted against it, for that does
not touch the real point. Why, how is it?
The south wished to have Missouri admitted
into the Union; and did the south wish to put
any antislavery restrictions upon the State of
Missouri? Certainly not. Did any such idea
originate in the south Most certainly not.
The south wished to admit Missouri, and all
the difficulties, all the necessities for com
promise, were forced upon the country by
non-slaveholding fanaticism. That is the
truth and the whole truth and all the skillful
and artful special pleading of the National
Mtelligencer can make no more and no less OF
it, in our humble judgment.
But suppose we were to admit as we cannot
do without violating the truth of history, that
the anti-slavery restriction of 1920 was purely,
perfectly, and entirely southern proposition,
would that admission strengthen the untenable
position which the National Intelligencer has
chosen to occupy? We think not. And we
think so because, if it be admitted that the
anti-slavery restriction of 1920 was southern
measure, the south comes forward and offers to
repair the wrong by repeating the restriction
Is there any harm in that !? If there be, we
cannot see it. True, we may be dull Of sight,
yet, being young, we think that our visual or
gans are as good as those of older men.
But there is a question between us and our
friends of the National Latelhgencer, touching
Mr.. Clay's agency in carrying through the Mis-
souri, compromise. We hayealready INDICATED
our position on this point, yet we think that
one of the editors of the National Inteltigencer
could do something which has not been done
to place Mr. Clay in his right position before
the country; and surely justice should be
awarded to the dead even if it is denied to the
living. We read in the National htelligencer
of February 9, 1920, these words:
missouri BILL
"The House then went into Committee of
the Whole, Mr.. Baldwin in the chair, on this
bill the restrictive amendment being still
under consideration. Mr.. Speaker Clay rose
and addressed the committee near four hours
against the right and expediency of the pro-
posed restriction"
Now we do not know, but yet we feel conf
dent that one of the editors of the National
h,telligencer has full and perfect notes Of that
speech of four hours which Mr.. Clay delivered
in the House of Representatives on the 9Th of
February, 1920, and which was alluded to in
the National htelligencer on the 9th of Feb
ruary, 1920, in the words we have Just quoted.
It is important that this matter should be pro-
perly understood. It's but right and proper that
the acts of every statesman should he properly
represented. Mr.. Clay is no longer amongst
the living; he has gone down to the tomb, fol-
lowed by the lamentations Of whole nation.
His great voice and brave utterance are hushed
forever. He can no more speak to mortal
ears, and therefore we ask the National Intel
lgencer- democrats as we are we ask it to lay
before the world, if it can do so, the speech to
which we have alluded That speech will show
where Mr.. Clay stood in 1920. 1t will show
what his ideas were then, what motives infu-
enced him, what reasoning regulated his action.
That speech has never been published. Let it
be published now. Let justice be done though
the heavens fall
But we have been speaking of the compro-
mise of 1920. We have used those words be-
cause they are on every tongue. THERE WAS
NO COMPROMISE IN 1920. The law passed that
year intended to be preparatory to the admis-
sion of Missouri into the Union WAS NOT A
COMPROMISE, and was utterly and entirely mop
arative so far as Missouri was concerned. That
State was refused admission under it, and that
refusal made new compromise necessary in
1921, and it was the compromise of 1921
which Mr.. Clay carried through; and if our
riends Of the National htelligencer will re-
fresh their historical knowledge, they will ad-
nit that what we have said is strictly and liter
ally true. But yet the InteHigencer opposes
the Nebraska bill because it will give an i'm
pulse to agitation. If the National Intelliye,s-
Ger deprecates agitation, why does it league
with the agitators and aid them in fomenting
agitation? This subject will, however, be con-
,idered bv us hereafter The present article