The Camden weekly journal. [volume] (Camden, South-Carolina) 1853-1861, 1854-03-07
Nulitiral.
SPEECH OF MIR STEPHENS.

The following condensed report Of the re-
marks of Mr.. Stephens, of Georgia, on the
Missouri Compromise and the Nebraska ques-
ton, we copy from the National lnte'I'geneer:
Mr. Stephens, Of Georgia, said that he was
very anxious, the day before yesterday, when
the gentleman from Vermont MIR. Meacham)
and the gentleman from New York Mr. Fen
tony addressed the committee on the Nebraska
bill. to submit some remarks in reply to some
ofthe positions then assumed by those gentle
men. He desired to do so at that time, but
the opportunity was not afforded him /; and
though he did not bring to-day the same inte-
rest in the question that he should then have
brought, yet he thought it Important that the
position assumed by the gentlemen referred to,
should be answered, and answered as soon as
possible 1t was for this purpose that he arose
to address the committee to-day, and be as
brief as pos>ihe.
The gentleman from Vermont, if he under
stood the train of his argument, contended,
first, that the restriction against slavery in the
territory ACQUIRED by by the purchase Of Loui
siana, north Of 3G deg. 80 min. north latitude
was in the nature of a compact ; and that to
declare this restriction imperative would he i'll
violation Of The contract made in lS2O. And,
secondly, that this contract had been contInu-
ouslv adhered to from the day Of its adoption
to the present time and that any breach of it
now would be attended with disastrous consc.
ouenccs to the peace, quiet, and repo>e of the
country. He (Mr. S.) now proposed to take
up each branch Of the gentlcmen's argument,
and show. even TO the honorable member him.
self, that every pant of it was indeiensible. In
the first place he would state that tie Slh
section of the act preparatory to the admission
of Missouri into the Uni"u was never doomed
in the nature ola compact
Mr.. Meacham explained that he used the
word 'cnntract," not "compact
Mr.. S:pphens said that the gentleman used
the word contract" but others the word com
EJact." As Mr. Clay stated in 1857, perhaps
There was no question aS little understood, III
! so short period of our history, as the Miss"u-
1 ri compat of 1920 That compromise, with
J which Mr. Clay was identified, and known as
the Missouri Compromise, had nothing tn do
with the restriction of slavery north of 81 So
The compromise WAS nadc lie year after
Mr.. CLAW did not even vote Tor the compro-
mise of 1920, and tn" G mt EN- who -propos,,
ed it was from the State .. Illinois. 1t could
not he a contract, it was simple law. Sub
seuuentIy, in 1921, when Missouri had formed
her constitution in pursuance of that law, the
House Of Representatives refused her admission
because there WAS an article in her conStltn-
ton. prohibiting the Introduction of free ne
groes there.
It was upon these Gi>agreeing votes that Mr.
Clay offered his compromise. providing that
Missouri should be admitted if she would pass
law declaring that clause of her constitution
should not violate the constitution OF the Uni
ted States. Now, this was 4 compact-a SOL
emn compact because it took two parties to
constitute a compact, and in this instance Con-
gress was a party to it and Missouri was par
ty to it, The eysament restricting slavery
North Of 36 deg. 80 min. never WAS any
\ thing but law there was n" compact about
b. Missouri never gave her sanction to it. SO
far as the territory outside Of her limits was
concerned, she had no right to d" it.
As to the other point, the gentleman from
Vermont had insisted that this act of $40 was
4 solemn engagement between the South and
the North, and that the South now ought to
adhere to it, So far us this line is concerned,
AS Southern man he would state that his sec
ton never proposed it; majority of the
South had always been against ii; and had al,
!, ways held it unconstitutional. He believed
he could state this fact with authority. The
South acquiesced in it when an overwhelming
majority of the North pressed upon them The
! South was all the time protesting against it :;
but her fidelity to the Union caused her to
Weld her cherished sentiments of right for the
sake Of peace and harmony.
But has the North abidcd by this called
compromise? Why was it not extended hro'
New Mexico and Utah? Was it because the
South was untrue to it! The South offered 1t
again and again, and it was the same overwhel
= ming majority of the North that refused it !;
eN1d not satisfied with the territory North OF
! 36 deg. 80 mn they said they would have all
south Of that line.
The gentleman from Vermont had spoken OF
"honor," and the gentleman from New York,
(Mr Fenton) had said that this compact had re
ceived the approval Of the North fora period OF
70 wears Gentlemen would take notice that
# any compact WAS made between the North
and South, in 1920, it WAS that south Of 36
deg 20 min. slavery should exist. aud north