Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-18
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISES.

-<sOSs---
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
For the last thirty years public men and
public presses have been speaking often of the
Missouri compromise Since we can remember,
political discussion, in private circles even,
was sure to bring up the Missouri compromise.
We had thought that an act of legislation
so often mentioned in public and in private, as
an era in our legislative history, was fully I'M
derstood by every one who made any preten-
sion to political knowledge. But it seems
we were entirely mistaken, for even some of
our national legislators appear to be perfectly
ignorant Of the real history of the Missouri
compromise.
Even our much-respected friends of the Ma
tional hatelligencer have fallen into great err
ror in this respect, and have done much to
mislead the public. That journal existed long
before the Missouri compromise was thought
Of, and it has won such place in the estima-
ton Of the public as to give to its statements
Of remote transactions something of the force
Of historical narrative. We feel compelled,
:"
therefore, to correct the erroneous impressions
which have been disseminated with regard to
the Missouri compromise; and we invite the at
tention Of the National Istelligencer to our
statement, having no doubt that it will repair
the wrong which it has committed.
The Missouri compromise act Of 1920 was
simply an act of ordinary legislation. 1t was,
or rather it has been, miscalled compromise;
but it had no one feature of compromise
about it, as it was practically administered.
Mr.. Clay's name has been connected with that
enactment. Indeed vast number of people
nine tenths of those with whom we have spoken
on this subject believe that he originated and
carried it through. The National L,telligencer
has published remarks equivalent to direct
and positive assertion of that fact. But the fact
is not so. Mr.. Clay had nothing to do with the
Missouri compromise of 1920. Hehad no hand
in its formation and no agency in its passage;
and five are not mistaken, Mr.. Clay in one of
the speeches which he delivered in 1850 on the
measures of Establishment, washed his hands of
and any connexion with the Missouri compro-
mise Of 1920, We have not the means of
reference at hand as to this; but whilst we for
get many things, we never remember wrongly.
The original Missouri compromise, as it is
termed, required that the State of Missouri
should prohibit slavery within her borders In
that form it went to the Senate, where the re-
strictive clause was stricken out, and the pre-.
sent eighth clause, prohibiting slavery in the ter
ritory north of $50 3O< north latitude was substi
tuted A committee Of conference was appoint
ed, and on the Recommendation of that com.
mittee the Senate's amendments were adopted.
and the bill embodying them was approved on
the 9th of March, 1920.
Missouri then framed constitution in ac
cordance with the law of the 9th of March,
1920, and applied for admission into the Union
to the Congress which met in December, 1920.
When that application was presented, the Mis-
souri, compromise, as it is called, was repudia-
ted; and repudiated by northern men, because
the constitution of Missouri forbade the immi.
grafton of free negroes. The Missouri COM
piOHiiSc VI lcLV WdS LHeu lnSumClenI, because
of anti-slayery hostility to it. Indeed it was
not then considered as a compromise or treat
ed as compromise. The majority denied to
it any such sanctity. The foes of slavery in
sisted that it was mere act of ordinary legis-
lation, and treated it as such, by refusing ad.
mission to Missouri under it. This is history
true veritable history.
When Missouri was refused admission into
the Union, then Mr.. Clay brought forward his
proposition, which has been mixed up, and
mingled with the act Of 1920, and enabled
Ignorant, or forgetful, or misguided men to
couple his great name with an act in which he
did not participate. Mr. Clay found the act Of
1920 repudiated, he found Missouri repulsed
in the very teeth Of the boosted compromise,
because she had forbidden the immigration of
free negroes. Under these circumstances, he
brought forward a proposition, which en-
powered the President to declare by procama-
ton Missouri State of the conEederacy when
ever the constituted authorities of that State
should adopt q fundamental law rectifying the