Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-02-10
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

r,pIDsy ,IORNiNG. FEBRUARY TO- CT.
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
,, o,o,is Of The grand and conservative feature Of
Nh,ro Kansas bll-the direct and positive decia:a
rs ,be aoctrioe of congressional noR-nsertenon-lha-
,o..,lv aere that the clause in the bill announcing lna'
The Missouri compromise is Inconsistent with Inc compto
mise of 1850 and Is therefore imperative and Voio
IA fact; as latter compromise expressly lecos"seu WV
validity ofilhe Missouri compromise, as apphca'i' " "
,ure territories Its useful TO look back 10
ous history for an exposition Of the true CONSTRUCTORS "
compromise of 1885, and for this purpose we na uu'
- lon, md Interesting letter tho DEAN Oh NIX "ay'
~ hv Thomas RitchIc and published in our columns Oh
tho Iob Sen,embe 1850 cannot be denied that Thomas
RI,chIe was prominent actor 10 securing the oooplon o.
rhe compromise 1885, and against the sentiment
of large portion OF his party saked his all upon 'ut ques
tion His opinion of the grand result OF lese MEASURES
is therefore, entitled little weight Win this view, We
quote fow passages the letter above referred TO- which
leave no doubt on the question
In describing anineryew win DR. Clay on the o'h eo
ruary 1850, MIR. Richie writes
ua d.,ot "A some time 10 the recognition which he MI
had virtually pyep hs resolutions and speeches OF
IN, MEXICAN law 10 respect to slavery In Now Mexico.
commended that the South would never acqniesce 10 WIS
ture because the recognition OF the validity oil inc
law BY an act OF Congress, was equivalent % Tue "
provi,o Upon this point there great deal Of ngenui,
~ and learning exhibited the part OF Gen 6ayy as "
US Mr.. Clay, In which Gen. B. sustained our view.
Gas roso to leave the room asked Nj Clay II Old
no, understand him as saying that the whole question was
10 be settled once, by fair and liberal compromse
.Evny thing or noMingn He cordially ussented TO this
idea then frankly asked him. whether, If nothing else
could be effected TO save Union would he agree TO the
adoption of the Missouri Compromise He as frankly re-
Piled substantially and nearly in the words as follows: AS
fur personally concerned can have no oeectoh 10
the Missouri Compromise ne but do not think It Will oe
agreed to-nor do sec what the South is TO gain by it, IT,
however be agreed to- und it be satisfactory Will ae'
quiesce In i, for the sake Of the public tranquility"
The writer Of the letter further quotes from the Union OF
June 1850 then edited by himself:
awe would not vote for the admission Of California per
ss but we waive all objections the If 1t can
be made part system of compromise 10 give peace to
the Republic The compromise p.osrates the WiElot Pro-
yiso the moot iusdious form which abotionism has
assumed and the fatal the South for this compro
mise organizes territorial governments for Utah and New
Mexico without any restriction savery- course there
IL an express understanding that it lie TO be solemn com.
pact binding upon the North as we'll as the South; and
that If till, system hereafter DO disturbed by the inu
ence of fanacsm If tho grossest violation OF good faith
ia 10 be added 10 tho violence Of aggression the South will
then be prepared say that she no longer put faith
our Northern breihIen and that pM DO time 10 part
He also cites the following passage Of Mr. Cays Speech
made in introducing resolutions which led to the CON-
promise Of 1850:
Taken in combination together they propose an AMIGA
bio arrangement of all the questions In controversy between
the free and slave Staes growing out Of the subject OF the
institution Of slavery"
Can any one doubt after reading this exposition that the
object of the Compromise Of 1850 TO settle, completely
and finally "every thing nothing oH tho questions in
the free and slave Statea and
future System" adopted whose great principle was
that of Congressional nonnteeTcnce win slavery IN all
the territories As the object Of tho noasscosntion oil lEe
Mexican law In Utah and New Mexico and the prostitution
of the Wmo, Provo allow equal rights forever to
tho a. well as 10 the czeas Of the free States
II follows ,ha, the adoption of the principle The vail
div of the Missouri Compromise really done away wih
and Senator Douglas amendmen, strictly tue wherein
1t declared that the Missouri Compromises inconsistent
with" tho Compromise Of 1880 II the MISSOURI Conp'o-
misc still retain its virtue 1t practically operates, Ike the
Wno, Proviso aud the Mexican Law gross pJaslco 10 tue
Southland as they proetraed by the Compromise o.
1850 equally the Missouri COMPROMISE Us apPeo 10
Nebraska ard other new Territories
But, more than this, we have evidence aeeVe 'ha' sie
Ma,our; Compromise as applicable to California and oil
other new territories rendered 10 Mr. Clay but ey MN
declined 1t lie also notorious that the South offered again
and (, us as shamelessy dseearded and
,ramned upon BY those who camor hoarsely lo lis
r.tora;on The North then refused 10 abide by what they
now hold ND as sacred obligation by the refusal Of
N. North 10 como up to their bargain aud by their epudta
,ion of tho Missouri Compromise the South wac thrown
back upon their original rights under the constitutions and BE-
Ing driven the wall upon the Missouri Compromise they
proposed new basis of settlement
M Of eomproniss which In substance was In the words OF
ashinpon correspondent of the Savannah Republican,
that the common territories Of the Union should be free
from all Congressional restrictions upon the subject OF slave
~ and that the people inhabilng them should haVo inc
rph, TO come into the Union States at the proper
me either with whou. slavery they may determine
for themselves When all other propositions for settlement
upon EQUITABLE had been rejected by the Norhwhen
The had assumed It's most threatening aspect
when legislation had become parayzed, and all things
were tending 10 auarchy-it was then that the South
nlsced herself upon this her ultima ro!io, and In
the Language OF distinguished representative from your
own State declared let these terms be acceded TO- or
e, dscord reign forever And II then that anaticlsm
at tho North was driven back The "Wimo Psovso was
eec,ually put down. The abolition forces, with oil their
ales were completely routed. The nep Compromise Of
1880 was based upon this principle And to carry out
this principle In all the territories of the United States as
tho friends of that Compromise intend TO do Sin principle
and substance" requires The removal OF any legislation y
heretofore inconsistent with tue principle then cs
,ab,hed Ii surprising that Mr. Greeley and his as
socstes whether Democrats Wings at tho Morrill, should
now raise such bowling as they do at the Nebraska BILL
In 1850 their division OF territory between
the North and South "The,Wmor 10 DO put upon the
whole or none Well they only did not get it put upon
any of the nov territories but they 60, 1t in eae. aken
oH of this very territory Of Nebraska Hence their despe
ration. "Let them howl on"
BY way cnchiuc the nai we Take great pleasure in
hi.hipp the following conclusive reply of the Petersburg
Insqencer tho elaborate article OF the National 1nte
cancer 10 opposition the Nebraska Kansas BILL We
far 10 answer the Washington negence through the me-
dunn of one of its party organs We only wish that
all the Wing papers tho South would come out as boldly
and manfuy on the subject does the Petersburg 1niei.
psncsr 10 tue following article:
rur NATIONAL 1NTELLIG GER ON THE NEBRASKA BILL.
The old saying that "there telling what day may
hiring forth orciby brought mind BY the
nasrsncs In the National n,egencer Of Monday CT lie Lead
no editorial article This venerable and valuable journal
hps contrary expectation, out against The Ne
br.ska Bill and taken It's position along eide OF Benton
and the of the Soil and Abolition