Washington sentinel., 1854-04-11

l.
] Of selEgovernment, for you have neither pointed
out nor intimated in your protest the existence
of any other objections than those which stand
as obstacles in the way of carrying this princi-
pie into complete effect.
Perhaps you will tell me that you are in favor
Of that principle which allows the people to
enact such laws as they may choose, and that
you oppose the bill only because it abrogates
the eighth section of the act of 1920, sometimes
called the Missouri compromise. Before you
| assume that position, / must be permitted to
remind you that it is necessary, yea, absolutely
| indispensable, to render the eighth section of
| the Missouri act imperative and void in order
to enable the people to legislate for themselves
freely upon oil subjects touching their local in
terests and domestic concerns. You must
therefore abandon your objection to the annul-
ment of that section, or persevere in your oppo-
sition to the principle upon which the bill is
/ founded. f4 81
In your protest, (alluding, presume, to the
annulment of the Missouri restriction, you de-
nounce the Nebraska bill as great moral
wrong; as breach Of faith imminently inju-
rious to the moral principles of the community,
and subversive Of all confidence in. national
engagements" and exposing us to the righte-
GUS judgments of the Almighty !"
| | am reioiced to learn that the "clergymen
of different denominations in the city of Chi
cago have come to the firm conclusion that /" q
breach Of faith" that the non-fnl6llment Of Hna-
tional engagements is "a great moral wrong"
exposing the offenders rto the righteous judg-
ments Of the Almighty ~ HI
remember well my feelings upon this sub
ject, in October, 1850. should then have re-
joiced with exceeding great JOY to have heard
from your lips, to have known that you were
ready to proclaim in your pulpits and in pub
lie places, the sanctity Of national engage
ments," and the "great moral wrong" Of their
non-fulfllment; and especially when contained
1 in the Constitution our fathers made for us,
and upon which all patriots now look as the
ark of our safety. have no recollection that
when the common council Of the city OF
Chicago by resolutions, refused to carry into
effect the national engagements" contained
in the Constitution Of the United States, for
the return Of fugitives from service, when the
councilnullifedana actof Congress passed for the
purpose of carrying those national engagements
into faithful execution when the council called
upon the police to refrain from rendering any
assistance in executing the law when public
meetings were held, and speeches made pro-
posing to defy death and the dungeon in re-
1 sistance to the ful6llment of these national
| engagements ~ | say | have no recollection
that, on the solemn and fearful occasion re-
ferred to- any one of your "divinely-appointed
institution" appeared on the stand, or in the
pulpit, or elsewhere to proclaim, Sin the name
of Almighty God,'' that the non-fulfllment OF
9national engagements was a great moral
wrong, exposing us to the righteous judgments
of the Almighty r. The particulars of that
wild and terrific scene remain yividly impressed
upon my memory; but | repeat, that | have
not the slightest recollection that any one Of
you was ever suspected of a desire to see the law
enforced, much less to contribute even moral
aid to its execution.
There is, however, this difference in the two
cases: the national engagement for the return
of fugitives from service was incorporated
into the Constitution Of the United States, and
therefore forms part of the supreme law Of
the land while the national engagements, to
which you refer, as constituting what has been
called an irrevocable compact, under the name
Of the Missouri compromise, have no existence
in fact, are unsustained by the terms of the
law and contradicted by the record of the trans
action. You have, doubtless, been misled
by the positive statements which have been
solemnly put forth that the act of Congress Of
the 9th Of March, 1920, constituted a sacred
and irfevocable compact between the north and
the south, whereby, in consideration of the ed.
mission Of Missouri on an equal footing with
| the original States, it was stipulated that sla-
very should be forever excluded from all the
residue of the country acquired from France
| north of latitude 36o 30> !; and that the north
has always been faithful in the performance OF
its part of the obligations, and that the south,
having secured all its advantages, now seeks to
be released from its membranes. j have the
charity to believe that you have been misled
| by this erroneous and unfounded statement,
which, in an imposing form, has been spread
broadcast throughout the free States, and is
now everywhere being circulated and repeated
| for partisan purposes and, relying on the truth
Of the statement, and acting under that fatal
| delusion, you have had the misfortune to pro-
nounce judgment "in the name of the Almighty
| God"
| II you will condescend to listen to human
authority, to legislative enactments, and con-
gressional journals, in derogation of your. di-
vine testimony, you will find that Missouri was
never admitted into the Union under the act
| Of the 9th of March, 1920, called the Missouri
compromise that, if the said act was an ire
vocable compact it was disavowed and repu.
dated by the north within eleven months from
| its date; that Missouri, having formed con-
stitution conformable in all respects to said
| act was denied admission into the Union in
| reUTudIy3 lo6lj Dy Hortnerl foteS tidC Tile
north, by vote of 81 to 49, on motion Of Mr..
MALLORY, of Vermont, refused to admit Mis-
souri, into the Union, with constitution cor
responding with the precise terms of the al-
| legged compact, unless, in addition" thereto,
she would "titrther procide, in and Jy said con,
stitution, that neither slaUery nor involuntary
serritude shall erer be allo,ced IN said State Of
Missouri" that, in consequence Of the refusalof
the representatives from the northern States to
carry into effect what is known MS the coinpro-
mise Of 1920, Missouri was compelled to sub
NIT to a new one, in the form Of an irrevocable
compact between that State and the United
States, by the terms of which she was to be ad-
mitted into the Union on new Condition"
unlike anything contained in the act Of 1920;
that this compact was entered into and ap-
proved on the I'd of March, 1921 that Mis-
souri, complied with the condition in the month
Of June thereafter; and that, on the 10th Of
August, 1921, the President of the United
States issued his proclamation declaring the
e II = 4. - n