Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-02-18

o
United States Homestead Of hundred and sixty
Of land out Of the public domain upon condition Of
and cultivation Of the for the period herein
specified.
Mr. STEPHENS, Of Georgia, said that he was very
anxious the day before yesterday when the gentleman
from Vermont Mr. MEAcHAM) and the gentleman from
New York Mr. FEsTos) addressed the committee the
Nebraska bill to submit some remarks in reply to some
OF the positions then assumed by those gentlemen. He
desired to do at that time but the opportunity
afforded him and though he did not bring to-day the
same interest in the question that he should then have
brought yet he thought it important that the positions
by the gentlemen referred to should be answered
and answered possible 1t was for this pur-
pose that he rose to address the committee to-day and
should be as brief as possible.
The gentleman from Vermont, If he understood the
train OF his argument commended first that the restrc
ton against slavery in the territory acquired by the
chase Of Louisiana north of 36o 3 north latitude in
the nature OF compact and that to declare this resrc
ton imperative would be in violation Of the made
in 1920 And secondly that this contract had been
tnuousy adhered to from the day of its adoption to the
present time; and that any breach of it would be
tended with disastrous consequences to the peace quiet
and repose of the country. He (I S. proposed to
take up each branch Of the gentemans argument and
show, the honorable member himself that every
part Of 1t was indefensbe In the first place. he would
state that the eighth section of the act preparatory the
admission of Missouri into the Union was never deemed
in the nature OF a compact.
Mr. MEAcHAM explained that he used theword soon
/ tract" not :. compact"
Mr. STEPHENS said that the gentleman used the word
Clay stated in 1885, perhaps there question
little understood in short period Of our history
the Missouri compromise of 1920 That compromise with
which Mr.. Clay was identified, and known the Mis-
compromise had nothing to do with the restriction
of slavery north of 500 3o That compromise was made
the year after Mr. Clay did vote for the COM
promise of 1920 and the gentleman who proposed it
from the State of Illinois 1t could not have been con-
tract; it simply law subsequently, in 1921 when
Missouri had formed her constitution in pursuance Of that
law the House Of Representatives refused her admission
in titufio
| ing the introduction Of free negroes there
1t was upon these disagreeing votes that Mr. Clay Of
fered his compromise providing that Missouri should be
admitted II she would pass law declaring that that
clause of her constitution should violate the Const
tuition Of the United States. Now, this compact
solemn compact because it took two parties consti
tute compact, and in this instance Congress party
to it and Missouri party to it. The enactment re-
srctng slavery north Of 36o 30 any thing but
q law; there was compact about it. Missouri never
gave her sanction it, So far the territory outside
her limits was concerned she had no right to do it.
As to the other point the gentleman from Vermont had
that this act of 1920 solemn engagement be-
tween the South and the North and that the South
ought to adhere to it. So far this line concerned
Southern he would state that his section never
proposed it; majority Of the South had always been
against it, and had always held it unconstitutional He
believed he could state this fact with authority The
South acquiesced in it when overwhelming majority Of
the North pressed it upon them. The South all the
time protesting against it, but her fidelity to the Union
caused her to yield her cherished sentiments Of right for
the sake of peace and harmony. "
But had the North abded by this so-caled compro-
mise! Why was it not extended through New Mexico
and Utah Was it because the South untrue to it
The South offered it again and again. and it the same
overwhelming majority of the North that refused it and
not satisfied with the territory north Of 36o 30 they said
they would have all south Of that line.
The gentleman from Vermont had spoken Of ohonor
and the gentleman from New York (NIr FENros) had
said that this compact had received the approval Of the
North for period Of thirty years Gentlemen would
take notice that if any compact was made between the
in fyu0o fhafu hnfQe
slavery should exist and north Of that line it should be
excluded. Now, had the North abided by this so-caed
compact Had she ever given her sanction to it? The
rst State that applied for admission after the enactment
of this law the State Of Arkansas, which south
Of $50 30<. Who moved to disturb this compact then
which the gentleman from New York had said had re-
ceyed the sanction Of the North for thirty years. Why
Mr.. John Quincy Adams who moved to amend the Con-
stitution of the State thus applying make pro-
vide that nothing in the act should be construed
assent by Congress to the article in the Constitution Of
the said State relating to slavery and the emancpa
ton of slaves &c. which received the votes Of eighty
gentlemen from the North, among them the gentemens
Mr. MEAcHAMs) predecessor, Heman Allen, Of Vermont
The gentleman had spoken Of contract and sshonor
Did the South thus disturb this line Did the South
ever propose to touch it? Every attempt to disturb it
came from the North and the genteman's own State
Honor! ~ thank thee, Jew for that word" When
he heard men from the North raising their cries for
the compact of 1920 and appealing Southern men to
stand by it, he would tell them that if that compact no
longer existed they themselves that broke it, it
had been disturbed by the South Notwitkstand
ing Missouri formed her Constitution upon the very prn
cpe set forth in the preparatory act Of 1920 every
from the North except four voted against her admission
when she applied The North thus violated this CON-
pact within nine months after its enactment
He noticed few weeks since in the " National In
teigencer paper Of long standing in this country
article speaking of this compromise much less
cred than the Constitution itself 1t enough make
the blood run cold in the heart of every patriot hear
any attempt to disturb it Yet when John Quincy Adams
In 1885, moved to disturb it, why did the Integen-
sound the alarm that the Constitution and the conn
try were in danger? When eighty men from the North
voted to disturb it. why did the Integencer speak
out? When ffytwo recorded their votes against the
OF Arkansas because her constitution tolerated
slavery why did not this conservative paper then speak
out? But he must pass
Mr.. s. then cited various instances in which he said
the North refused to abide by the Missouri act prove
while the South had stood by that compromise the
North had not done He granted that the Nebraska
bill did not propose directly repeal the Missouri COM
PROMISE and argued to show that the principles Of the
compromise of 1920 and that of 1850 inconsistent
He eoqueny advocated the principle upon which the
compromise OF 1850 based and then stated that he
did not agree with those who thought that there would be
much excitementupon this question He believed that day
was passed. and that the country understood this ques
ton too well, North and South. There might be some
who, under Executive patronage for the purpose of
obtaining that patronage, might have given kind of
adhesion to the compromise Of 1850; but the adhesion
was but temporary He had doubted but that the
time would come when the spirit which
pant in 1850 would break out again. Hydrophobia
never cured; negroism was hardly ever cured.
He referred to the mobs at Boston, at Syracuse and
Chrstiana and inquired if Southern blood had not been
to carry out tire compromise of 1902 Could it be