Virginia free press. (Charlestown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1832-1916, 1854-06-08
May 81. FRANKLIN THOMAS.
FRoM THE CHARLESTON COURIER.


Ii further support 81 our position that Mr.. CAL
noUS never dsRicd hat he gay9his sanction 10 tie
Missouri compromise when nsmber Of an. Mon
roe's Cabib4i. gul always sPete oracaierlN On the
sabl-ct, we subjoin an exfsel from bis sHeeeh 10
The Senate d The United States, February ~ 1917
Il have nov met and, / trust successfully re-
PEELED, all lie cha1ges mace 81 theSenaidr from
Missouri, except shose feating TO the Missouri
conproni and the Abolition question OF that pesi-
Cd, Tor which am in no aayS responsible! IrdS
f0f ffsn ia Congress. | fsd tAe Office d! Secreia-
~ 81 War at tia, time, and had agency or con-
trel over it, His ehafgesare aslisli as aif, old
aud stale, without even FEASIBILITY; and have
not the slightest fear OF their having any weight,
either here Or 10 the cohmunily" (CalAgEaS
JIorls, r9I W., 3G2)
In this here is denial Of e-eacy Or eohifa hut
nphc Of sanction or approval either al regards coe
aitafenai1g Of erged,eaeg Had ne disappeared on
either groudd, il his prominent and commanding
position, ana as a candidate lor The Presidency, he
should noy have been silent aud allowed measure
Of even doubtful expedtency or consllntl9nality,
not only 10 pass b Southern majority without
censure, bla il be claimed BY Charles Pisek ~
a. "a great triumph fog Tie slayeho'diag States"
silence, under sneh circumstances, was aeqaies.
cehce sanction, approval. We % not understand
Mr.. Cslhaun 70 have deaiel approval lie may
nsyr approved me measure as 6aaiSaS although
Eotas Constitutional. e. By way Of compromise, as
Mr. Clay, William Lowndes, John Gaillard,
Charles Pilckney, and oiher true SouihFons ala !;
and, under she circumstances Of The case, even as
Southern dr slageholding lrismPh. Mr. Calhoun
himself said of Tie Missouri eompromisi, H'It was
compounds IN which both Nouh and South
waived lug neither yielded its opinion as to the
power q C.Rgress." The alternative was resific-
tiaa eato,h sides ofths line 81 IS co. Or res riction
No-th anl dot sou.h Of il; the North (suoag in
nanber3'wfa isr TIE former. ihe South ew- ak Ia
nunbets) went or the latter, and saaicientnum
hero N5rtAern votes uai;e with the Southern
votes torarfy lhe latter.
Mr. Calhoun himself, IN .his reply to Mr.. Zen
toa. allutss pp5isgssaiy t5 lie very case we sip.
pose. He sass:
"Nordo teem i matter Of any importance in
this coanexi4n whether my opiHion hasor has not
undergone change in the long period If thlrty
yeats, since HE adoption 81 The Missoafili line Al
that time the power Of Congress over the Tettit0-
ries had receiyed but Iitle consideration while
for The last few fears il has been thoroughly in
yes,gaed w myself and others, whose duty il
has been 70 teicEd yOur rights Ia Tie Councils OF
The Union inreer nee 10 H."
But what boots il 10 makS0n issue as to Mr..
Cafnoun's opinions on the Missouri compromise
Of 1920. when Mr.. Calhoun himself admitted hat
he adopted th4 Missouri line or Compromisesin the
Texas compapmise Of 1915 saying, I1toi oaiy g.
ee'cd L 5st dssigssd ny reasons ar making 4 [ie
seeel6n in adespalch 10 our then Minister 10 Tex.
as, Mr. Dontlsonn