Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-09-16
REMARKS By THE EDITORS.

1t is with great reluctance that we take up our
pen to controvert any opinion coming from so con-
siderate gentleman as Mr.. STEPHENS; but, upon
question of political history in which we deem
ourselves to be so clearly right feel assured that
he will not ascribe to caviling or controversial
spirit what we have to say in opposition to the views
advanced by him in the preceding letter.
The points at issue between us were fully review
ed in the National Intelligencer of the 2Sth of
February last, to which many of our readers no
doubt have it in their power to refer 1t Is unne-
cessary therefore, for US now to go over the same
ground again The substance of the whole matter
may be stated in few words.
Mr. STEPHENS, in his speech in the House of
Representatives on the Nebraska bill, charged that
Mr. ADAMS in 1886 had opposed the admission of
Arkansas as State into the Union because there
was no restriction of slavery in her Constitution.
The record shows that, so far from opposing the
measure on that ground, Mr.. ADAMS expressly
recognised her right to be admitted Staue State,
as he had previously contended for the right of Mis-
souri, (another part Of the Louisiana purchase) to
come into the Union as Slave State. His amend
ment related solely to the opinion Of Congress.
He wished it declared that Congress did not give
its appreciation to the clause in the Constitution
of the State which prohibited the Legislature from
passing any law to authorize the emancipation of
slaves question totally different from that of ad
hitting Arkansas into the Union Slave State.
That this was the position of Mr. ADAMS is fully
disclosed by himself in the remarks which he made
in explanation of his amendment These remarks
we republish below, to enable every one who takes
troversy. .... IT,. g.. ~
According to our judgment, Mr.. STEPHENS could
scarcely have fallen into greater than in sup
posing that the opposition of MIR. Adams to the ad-
mission of Arkansas into the Union was because
her Constitution recognised the institution Of slave
nv. Had not Mr. Adams declared, as he unequivo
cally did, that he could not that account object
to her admission, the nature Of his amendment and
the circumstances under which it was offered are
sufficient to protect his memory from such suspi.
cion in the minds of all persons who are familiar
with this legislative proceeding. His amendment
related to the ninth article of the Constitution of
Arkansas, and did not propose to expunge there
from single word or letter; that, if the amend
ment had been adopted the provisions Of this article
which it had been sanctioned by the people of Ar
kansas But, independently of this ninth article,
there were in the fourth article of the Consti
tution* two other sections which recognised and re.
gulated the subject of slavery, to neither of which
did Mr.. Adams raise one word of objection. These
he passed by in silence and simply asked that Con
gress should not express its approval of the princ
pie Of that clause in the ninth article which imposed
restriction upon the action of the State Legisla
ture in regard to emancipation. If this principle
had been thus dsavowed, it would not, in our opin
ion, nor according to that expressed by Mr.. Adams
have in any manner denied to the citizens of Ar
kansas the right to regulate slavery in their owl
way.
The fact that Mr.. Adams voted against the ad
mission of Arkansas, on the final passage of the bill
for that purpose affords no evidence that he was in
fuenced by considerations having any connexior
with slavery. He also, upon the same occasion
voted against the third reading of the bill for th
admission of the Free State of Michigan. This wa
separate BILL in which the question of slavery wa
not at issue. Inc vote III Tue Case Vi hTkauSaS was
yeas 143, nays so; and in the case of Michigan
yeas 153, nays 45-the vote of Mr.. Adams in boil
cases having been cast in the negative. We hav
before shown, in our general review of this subject
that there were party considerations, wholly indie
pendent of the question of slavery, which operated
upon members, both from the North and South, il
deciding upon the admission of Michigan and Al
kansas. 1t was well known at the time that bot
States, if admitted into the Union previous to tn
Presidential election (Which was to come on in Nc
vcmber following,) would vote for Mr.. VAN BUREl
as President Their immediate admission was cor
sequently urged as party question-as measur
. Of Gen. Jackson's Administrations it was S
resolutey resisted by the Wings generally, withou
, regard to the section of country from which the
came as to induce the official organ of that day (th
Globe) to charge that the opposition to the admi
sion of both States was the joint effort of th
Abolitionists and Nullifers to deprive two State
of their unquestionable rights" Can Mr.. st,
phens, or any other liberal-ninded Southern ger
tleman, believe that the Nullifers of the South CT
) alesced with Mr. Adams and other members from tn
See the fourth volume Of Debates of the House
Representatives for 1856.