The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-04
northern whix Answered.

A Northern Wing Answered.
The Albany IN. Y) Evening Journal of the 3olh ull
mo has an article from which we take the following
paragraphs:
Six months ago the Union with other journals which
had supported the compromise measures, was congratua
ting country upon the loyalty of The people. Nor
their congratulations altogether unounded. There ,eas
peace Those who orig' ally sustained those measures
content, and those ho did comorled themselves
with the reflection that fnay' on all the questions in
dispute having been reached, and all the bleeding
wounds having been healed, there would be no excuse
for future eIactions.
"But while the Washington Union was thus ieliciiatng
itself and the country, and insisting upon the recognition
of the 'Gnaliy Of the compromises OF 1850 the peoIa
startled by the intelligence that the Compromise OF
1920 was be repealed This violation OF good faith and
this reputation Of the Baltimore platform, the first
In the drama consistency II other In the
drama being enacted different Stage, il 10 not tor
those who the example ccise either the perform
ance or the performers"
The regard Of the Albany Evening Journal and its
parsans for compacls and compromises is very wintry
regard, TO call it by colder How they respected
the compromises Of 1850, after these measures became
laws of the land, may be more thoroughly realized
when remind the country tha hey have since.
constantly and perseverngly assaed the fustve-slave
statute without the enactment of which those compro
mise measures never would have passed So much for
one Compromise
1t is little too much, however to see the Albany
Evening Journal shedding the repeal Of the
Compromise Of 1870; for those with whom it acts
have been less consistent in trying 10 violate that Com
promise. and in declaring their contempt for il, than they
have been in denying the validity and preventing the
execution of the fugitive law New York was the
first State in the Union 10 repudiae the Missouri Com
PROMISE and 10 instruct her senators not to vote TO admit
Missouri any other State into the Union, comprised
within The original boundaries Of the United States with
making the prohibition OF slavery therein indis
pensable condition OF admission" This resolution was
passed b. the legislature Of New York eight months af
ter the adoption OF the Missouri Compromise OF 1890, and
distinct, positive and perempory violation Of the
terms OF that called compact" The Evening Jour-
nal may talk Of violation of good faith" in
gard the Missouri Compromise, but it should first try
TO dsprove the historical fact that New York
scented TO what she now calls the Missouri Compromise
never observed lis stipuations a compact, and
has been willing TO carry ii out"
So long assaults upon the Missouri Compromise
suited MIR. Seward, the Albany Journal and other abo
litoniss, that measure a most internal machine
Suddenly, however, they fell upon their faces before
this very Compromise. Suddenly they interested TO
preserve Nebraska and Kansas from the bghtng curse
of slavery And yet, the record shows so late
1885, when the State OF ATkansaswhich is south OF
the line of 50 deg 30 min-applied Tor admission into
the Union, with slavery in her constitution according to
the Missouri Compromise, the present abo,ions,s took
the ground that this very Missouri Compromise under
which Arkansas demanded admission po, not eompro.
misc, much lass compact ODe OF the other New York
representatives Mr. Hurd, who evidently spoke for his
S,at Al,
admitting Arkansas, in the teeth OF The Missouri Com
promise,) used the following decided language
" am IL will be, as it has already BEEN contend
ed that by the Missouri Compromise it has been rRsros.
rERousLr termed Congress has parted with right pro-
hbi the introduction OF slavery into the territory south Of
SO deg. 30 min north laiitude'
He acknowledged that by the Missouri Co npromise,
as he said it preposerousy termed, the North was
esopped from denying the right to hold slaves south of
,ha, line bu, be added
There are, my mind, insuperable objection, to the
'oundness Of that proposition"
Here they are;
" In the FIRST place. there compromise or com pact
whereby Congress surrendered any power or Welded any
jursdcton and, in the second place. If IL had done
legislative act, that could not bind their sue
cessorst would be subject a repeal at the will of any
succeeding Congress"
SO much for the sentiment Of New York, contenp,u-
years ago, and nearly sixteen years after it became
law
As for Nebraska and Kansas-or rather the territory
called by these names-what Rbolltionist ever
thought Of putting in much as a saving clause for
them when, in 1850, abolition voices denounced, and
abolition votes rebuked all attempts apply
sanzed Territories ths, very Missouri line clsmored
for consecraed barrier against slavery 10 The Louis
lana cesson On the contrary Mr. Hale, their leader in
Congress at that lime, hostile TO the Missouri.
Compromise oe that he recoed at the very mention OF
it, and solemny declared follows: ~ never triH, by
poh spetei, admit submit 10 opyhing hat may bind
the aion Of legislation hare TO make pe parallel Of 36
deg 30 min N, boundary line Sspssn 'av, and free terri,
tory" Mr. Hale, Mr. Seward, the Evening Journal, and
The aboonis,s Of The North, thought Of that line,
odous oppressive, usiH thy found they could
make capital out of against The democratic parry
And IL is upon such basis his--n the face OF such
reeord-wh all this upauswefable chain of evidence
against ,hsmthat the preachers Of the North. the press
Of the North, and he people Of the North, virtually
asked by the abolionis take up arm. against the