The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-08-06


negative votes which did force the Compromise upon
any one, seventy east by southern men, and
nine from the North Now is it true that this Missouri
Compromise is solemn compact between the North and
The South, that these two votes against seyentyhree
/ bound the South as party to it? Impossiblel And
could the North make compromise compact as sacred
and as binding as the constitution ITSELF and compel the
South to sign it, noteas vons and although there were
only two southern representatives willing to accept it
And then in the face and eyes of this vote is it not the
height OF impudence TO charge them with forcing upon
the North after the North had succeeded Ia forcing on
the Southfor the shows itthis "rrepealaJle act
which was so sacred that could be touched without
sacrege and this prohbory clause not all of this act
us VIII be seen by referring TO its title which follows
An act to authorize the people of the Missouri Territory
To form constitution and State government and for tie
admission Of such STATE into he Union on an equal footing
with the original States and to prohibit slavery in certain
Territories. In short year after the adoption Of this
sacred Compromise the only party who had consented
it repudated it. 1t true stated in the anti-Ne
braskn protest above referred to- that he free States have
ever since left 1t undsurbed and unquesoned for when
Missouri had formed her State government and adopted
her constitution and asked for admission into the Union
according to the terms of the first section of the compro-
mise act which says "And the said State when formed
shall be admitted into the Union equal footing with
the original States in all rcpects whatsoever the North
closed the door against her will be BY the record
of the vote taken in the House of Representatives Febr-
| AIRY 2e, 1921, on the following resolution \
Resoscd By Tie Senate and Houss of <pyeseuacs, of
ne United States Of america in Congress assen,bed That
Missouri shall be admitted into this Union on an eoua foot
ing with the original States in all respects Whatsoever &c
Who will dispute but that the passage of this resolution
was necessary TO carry this socaled compromise es-
peciaiy as 1t is in the very words Of important
clause therein contained? But how the North stood by
this sacred compact of their own making not vet
year old the record shows. The vote on the above
resolution stoodyeas ST. nays 8 and according to the
vote on the original act might fairly suppose that these
81 affirmative votes cast by northern men, and the
negative votes by southern But we find that the
northern vote stoodyeas l8, nays TO- Is this leaving tht
sacred compact unquestoned Does this prove the truth
Of the assertion made by Senator Wade in his speacb
or February o." That ut the North had offered IN
deprive the South of their share Of this comoromiae ??
Does it prove the truth Of the statement IN the resolutions
passed by the Legislature of this State ut its last session
THAT the assent OF the e0 States yielded to the nd
mission of Missouri into tho Union with slavery N 1t
does IL the vote Of eighteen representatives against seven
ty-nine was the voice Of the free States
1t alleged that the slave States considered the passage
OF the Compromise us n triumph. A few such victories
would ruin any ono. II the Missouri Compromise was
binding on the South slavery thereby lost an area Of more
than one million square miles of terroy and did not gain
| q single foot.
Missouri entitled to admission as slave State not
by virtue OF the act Of 1920 but the language Of John
Quincy Adams, by virtue Of article in the treaty by
which the territory was acquired Arkansas was entitled
to admission by virtue of the See Adamss
speech on the admission Of Arkansas.)
The North had rgh. To object to the admission Of
either the ground that their organic law recognised
slavery She had no right to ask the surrender Of Ger
tain rights and privileges guaranteed by the treaty
as condition of their admission; neither had the
south the right or the power to surrender those privileges
and nmuntes. They not guaranteed To the South
tied nv
ment to the inhabitants of the territory and they drne
could yield them up,
have said that the North within one wear rcnnd;o,e5
this compromise The protest above referred to saws that
py ihe terms OF TINS compromise the free States assened
to the admission of Missouri with her saveholdng cons
touon. Admitit. Does not the vote ON the admission
Of said State taken within year after the passage Of
said compromise show that the North repudated that nor
| tion of it?
Again: if the South had the power to Weld the priv-
eges and immunes secured to the people of the Louis
ana Territory BY the treaty of acquisition aud if she was
voluntary party to the compromise and did agree to do
it (a of which is entirely dsproved STILL by an unds-
puted rule OF law, she was not bound by her agreement
and why? Because if was made without sufficient consid-
ernton and therefore was without binding force Sup
pose that A, in consideration that wishes right Of way
across the premises of agrees convey said RIGHT Of way
to who will pretend that the agreement binding upon
50 In this case suppose Lls. the South had right
to surrender the privileges guaranteed to the people of the
Territory and in consideration that the North wished her
do it, she did enter into the agreement will the agreement
in this case be any binding than in the other? But
says one there oonsdcratonand that was the ad-
mission Of slave State into the Union It has already
shown that the North had right to object to such
admission Furthermore it right not Of the South
but OF the people of Missouri and could be made the
consideration for the prohibition Of rights and privileges
belonging to otlsrs not party to the transaction 1t APP
| pears to zoe that it must be perfectly clear
First That Congress has power under the coasttu-
ton to egsate in any for the people Of the Terrific
ries and consequently had power 10 establish abolish
| or prohibit slavery therein
Secondly The. lad Congress the power to legisIae 70,
the people Of the Territories generally aud prohibit sa-
very in the Territories it deprived OF that power in
the Louisiana purchase by the express spuaon of the
treaty of acquisition whereby all the rights privileges and
mmuntes possessed by the original citizens of the United
States, guaranteed to the inhabitants of that Terri
tory.
Thirdly That no State States Of the Union have
right to ener parties into such agreement as it
claimed the Missouri Compromise was--a solemn com
! pact an irrepeaabc law
fourthy That the claim the South forced the Mis-
souri, Compromise upon the North or that the South was
party to IT. or even consented thereto considered it
triumph over the North is without foundation in fact
ana utterly disproved by the history OF the transaction
ththly That the assertion that the North assened to
The admission OF Missouri with her savehoding constu
ton and that the North had offered to deprive
the South Of their share undcr this compromise is equally
| without foundation.
One be surprised when looking the speeches