Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-19


THE MISSOURI COIIPROMIsE-THE
TREATMENT 1T HAS RECEIVED.
Yesterday we sought to clear up and explain
the misapprehehsions which have existed touch.
ing the Missouri compromise. We promised
also to present to-day an exposition of the man
ner in which the Missouri compromise has been
treated by that party which now insists upon its
sanctity. The pressure upon our columns forces
us to be brief; yet we think we con make room
enough to expose the low, mean, and contempt
ible hypocrisy of the freesoil and abolition crew
who are seeking to renew the reign of agita-
ton by the basest and most dishonorable prac.
tees.
As we stated yesterday, the act preparatory
to the admission of Missouri into the Union did
not in fact clear the way for the admission Of
that State. The Missouri convention framed o
constitution in accordance with that prepare
tory law; but the anti.slavery sentiment reso-
lutely closed the door to her. Then Mr.. Clay
brought forward his compromise, as we men
toned yesterday by virtue of which Missouri
became member Of the confederacy in 1921 !;
30 that the Missouri compromise, the sacred
compromise as the freesoilers and abolitionists
have termed it for the last forty-eight days, was
repudiated by the anti-slavery sentiment as
soon as it was passed.
That compromise was never approved by the
south. 1t was forced upon the SOUTH Up to
the present moment vast majority in every
southern State regards the Missouri restriction
as plain and palpable violation Of the Consti-
tuition, springing from feeling hostile to south
ern interests, and unjust to southern rights
But yet the south, although protesting most
solemnly against that restriction, has always
endeavored to carry it out, and apply it and the
principle which lies at the bottom Of it in good
faith; and we defy any man to point to an in
stance when the representatives Of the south
in Congress have manifested even unwilling
ness to abide by the arrangement with regard
to Missouri; and we will state further that
every vote which has ever been taken in Con-
gress on the subject Of the Missouri compro-
mise since the memorable 9th day Of March,
1920, bears full, complete, and convincing testi-
mony of the bitter and yindictive hostility Of
the anti-slavery sentiment. But this is the
point which we have to establish by reference
to past transactions.
The Missouri compromise, that act of legis-
lation which the freesoilers and abolitionists
dishonesty pretend for selfish and and sinister
q" 7 Z u
purposes to hold sacred, became law on the
9th day of March, 1920. When the State of
Missouri applied for admission under that law,
within few months after its passage, the anti
slavery sentiment rejected the application and
made a new compromise necessary. This was
the first reputation Of the Missouri compromise
by the men who now insist on its sanctity.
When Arkansas, which is south of the Mis-
souri, compromise line, applied for admissic n
into the Union, the anti-slavery party, with
John Quincy Adams at its head, undertook to
defeat the application unless Arkansas would
forbid slavery. This was the first unsuccessful
anti-slavery attempt to overthrow the Missouri
compromise.
When Iowa, which is north of the Missouri
compromise line, applied for admission, the
south did not oppose the application.
When Texas was annexed, the effort was
made to extend the Missouri compromise line
as . line of permanent settlement. The anti
slavery men voted against that proposition.
When our title to Oregon was perfected, the
anti-slavery men repudiated the principles of
the Missouri compromise, by insisting on a
special amendment offered by Mr.. Winthrop,
Of Massachusetts, excluding slavery from Ore
eon. Mr.. Polk, southern President thor
oughly imbued with State-rights sentiments,
signed the Oregon bill with the Winthrop pro-
viso attached, on the express grounds that the
principle on which the Missouri compromise
was founded required the extension of the
line of 36s.3O as far westward as our posses
sisions might reach.
When we acquired territory from Mexico,
the south offered, not once or twice only, but
again and again, and again and again, not
only in the Senate, but in the House of Repre-
sentatives, to abide by the principles of the
Missouri compromise. Even the Memphis
convention--the disunion convention, as it has
been termed the Missouri compromise
line. But again, and again, and again anti
slavery said: no, will not have it; ! must
have all the Territories of the Union. This i.
no fancy sketch; it is true ,veritable history
and no man can deny it without denying The
truth as recorded in the archives of the nation
Considering that the anti-slavery men hav,
done all that we have charged against them, il
isenough to drive one from his propriety to see
the freesoilers and abolitionists now insisting
on the sanctity Of the Missouri compromise in
order to make capital against the Nebraska bill
When we were younger than we are now
Ave years ago, when we had not been brought
face to face with the anti-slavery sentiment
we would have been utterly astonished and com