The daily union., 1854-02-28
The Compromises of 1920 and 1850.


However confidently the contrary may be asserted, the
evidence that the Missouri Compromise regarded
restriction upon the action of Congress- during the
history.
Thus on the 18th OF June, Stephens, OF Georgia. de.
clared before the House "that the Missouri Compromise
had been expressly rspudiated.'
On the 7th OF the same month Mr. Root remark ked, /,
.tha, the democratic party had made great mistake in
abandoning The Missouri Compromise policy for the
docirnt of aoa- Intervention"
Earlier eyen on the 2sib OF May, John 7. Hale COM
planned ,ha, the ordinance Of I7s7 identical in principle
with the Missouri Compromise, and all legislation of like
character down 10 ls4s, the Missouri Compromise in
cuaed had been denounced In the Senate infamous, and
NOT a vord lpa, said in reply
On the 81 of June be declared that "unless the
gressonal restriction inserted in every territorial bi
slavery would go into the Territories, and il not
worth while shut eyes to this fact that but
those who were wilfuily blind could help seeing" This
fact by the by, has been shown false, abolition
facts generally turn out TO be. But the admission by
the abotonists OF their total want OF confidence in the
binding force and validity Of the Missouri Compromise
so early in 1850, is worthy OF remembrance.
On the same 80 OF June, 1850, Mr.. Douglas announced
TO the Senate his general policy with regard to the Terri
tores-a policy in beautiful harmony, ii will be seen
with thai he now maintains. He said:
81 would LEAVE 10 THE rrorLK or
THE TERRITORIES THEsELvfs and allow them introduce
or exclude slavery they may proper. believe that
that principle upon which Institutions rest
believe OF those rights be conceded Territories
the they have governments and legislatures estsb-
lished for them"
Mr. Jones, OF the House. said, on the 5th Of June 81
believe that TO advocate the Missouri Comprou,ix E.s al
The present. Tina is, in effect, TO oppose settlement OF the
agating question which threatens the integrity OF
the Union"
Upon the sth OF August, Brown, OF Mississippi took
grounds even more distinctly. He said
"GvR coNsTruTroN As IT WAS ADMINISTERED IRON
rHK DAY 1872 and are satisfied Up
that Congress assumed interfere In tho
ation Of master and servant II extended ALL and
gave ell an equal protection" "LKss THAs
rurs WILL NOT AccErr."
II thus appears that during the discussions Of ssolhs
Missouri Compromise was declared to have been ex-
pressy repudated that il was denounced as infamous
in the Senate and there was no reply to ha, denunca
ton until John p Hale came to lis defence that even he
admitted il 10 be without legal force or validity tha
general principles were svowed in the Senate wholly
inconsistent with it that the advocacy of 1t was depre.
Gated in the House as likely 10 prevent, peaceable ad
us,men Of the pending controversy; that the consti-
tuton--as il was in 1919, before the Missouri Compro
mise-was demanded in Congress, and the position taken
there that the South would accept nothing less
Such are few facts in reference to the discussions
$780, collected by hurried examination OF one volume
OF the Cong, essionoi Globe
What, under the light OF these facts, becomes Of IN,
assertions OF the enemies OF the Kansas and Nebrasks
bill, so solemny, and in many nicely rounded sen
fences pot forth, that the Missouri COMPROMISE wa,
neither assailed, in any called in question
during those discussions' When so far have these as
setons proven to be anirue, that the Missouri Compro
mise is shown have been denounced treated as rcpu
dsled and yod and The utter abandonment OF il nssie,
upon
But acs reliable than words as tokens OF le
gsa,ve intentions And the fact tha, Congress acted il