Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1854-03-06
TIE Missouri Compromise.

The Missouri Compromise.
The National Intelligencer has compil-
ed from the proceedings Of Congress the
particulars Of the SETON of that body in
1920 and 1921 in regard to slavery, or
what is commonly called the Missouri
Compromise.
The reader will be astonished at the
Facts disclosed. Mr.. Clay said in 1850
that no historical event was ever SO mis-
apprehended in the same length Of time
as the .o.called Missouri Com romise.-
The common impression has been that the
declaration that slavery should not be al
lowed North of SO 80, was the Compro-
mise proposed by the South for th. admis-
sion Of Missouri and agreed to by the
North. That Mr.. Clay was the proposer
of that Con.nfomise--and that both sec.
tons of the Unios since its adoption have
scrupulously respected i: Thisis the pre-.
vailing idea Of what constitutes the Mis-
souri, Compromise. There ID, however, nc
truth in it. The South did not propose,
in consideration of the admission of Mis-
souri, to prohibit slavery North Of SO 80.
That proposition was made by Northern
Senator Mr.. Thomas, Of IIlinois,) after a
long and angry contest, and was adopted
by mixed vote--some Southern men vot-
ing Tor it--but most ofthem against it.
Mr.. Clay had nothing in the world to do
with this proposition. His name does not
appear among those voting-and being
Speaker. it highly probable, Ee did not
vote at ali. The clause was carried like
any other amendment, and had no more
sahctty than any other act OF icgislation.-
A. Committee Of Conference between til 4
two Houses approved and Recommended
It as the only expedient for getting rid OF
the sectional quar,el-and Mr.. Lowndes,
in referring 10 the action OF the Committee
spoke Of i asa Compromise. That was
the whole aud sole authority for calling It
a Compromise. 4e>. -.
But that the North, BY which it was
proposed and adopted, did not consider it
sacred and inviolable Compromise, was
made manifest in nine months after
When Congress met in December 1920,
Missouri presented herself for admission.
The draft Of her Constitution contained a
provision against the admission Of free ne.
groes. Forthwith the Northern gentle.
men, who, Give believe Free Soil histo-
Iians Of this day, had settled the whole
question in March preceding, pounced
upon this clause aud said it was in viola.
ton of the Constitution of the United
states, which declares the citizens Of onp
State entitled to equal privileges in the
rest of the States. This clause in the Mis-
souri, Constitution infrnged upon the rights
OF their colored teiiow citizens, and they
went to work with teeth and nails to pre-.
vent the admission Of Missouri. That was
their practical Interpretation of the sacred
Compromise within the twelve month az
ter it was adopted. They did not consider
themselves bound to perform their part oil
the contract-not at all. 1t was then, that
Mr.. Clay brought forward his COMPROMISE
which had nothing in the world to do with
the !ine Of SO. 30. Its givin in full il
the inteiilgencer's compilation. Its con.
lined expressly and exclusively to the pro.
vision in she Missouri Constitution. rela.
ting to the admission of free negroes $. 1t Is
simply designed to obyiate any ant n SIN
IN that provision and the Constitution, the
United States. This Is the sum and sub.
stance ofthe much-talked. of Missouri Com,
promise. 1t had nothing to do with sla.
very North Of So. 80. That lad been =.
dopted the previous wear, on motion Of q
Northern member. and by Northern coles
Its constitutiocaiity was not defended By
Mr.. Gay, Mr.. Calhoun or any o.her dis.
rnguished man Of the South. It was car.
ried BY brute force-by u sectional maiori.
ty-and those, who carried it have never
respected it farther than it might be made
subservient to their sectional VIEWS
Whenever it suited their convenience. they
have disregarded it.
Its constitutionality cannot be defended
on any principle Of law or logic. 1t is OF
the very essence of our con.rdrra,sd sys.
tenn, that all the States are entitled to =.
quail rights under the Constitution; State
equality, was the basis Of the Union-with-
out it, the Constitution would never hayp
been formed, aud ought no, to he suffered
TO exist.
The outrage upon the Constitution and
equality Of the States, which was prrpetra.
ted in 1920, being on motion OF Nena-
tor from Illinois, motion to abrogate that
outrage comes now withdouble propriety
iIom Senator from the same State.
lphig.