Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-04-16

opposition to her admission was factious and
unconstitutional. Err naiefcio non orifur con-
trdctus. The idea Of basing q compact upon
the consent to admit State into the Union,
which had the right to demand admission, free
from all degrading conditions upon her sover
eighty, is a position which no public jurist can
maintain. Upon this point of right, need
quote no higher authority at the north than the
opinion of John Quincy Adams, expressed in
debate in the House of Representatives upon
the admission of Arkansas as State.-See
Register Of Debates, rol. II, p. 1851.
Mr.. Chairman, I cannot consistently with my
sense OF my obligations a citizen of the United
States, and bound by oath 10 support their Con-
stution, Icannot object to The admission Of Arkan-
sas INTO Mc Union as a Stare State; cannot pro-
pose agree to make IL condition. Of her admission
thai a eonrentio'i Of her people shall ezpunge thus
article from her constitution She is entitled 10 adj
mission as a slave State as Louisiana, and Mis-
sissippi, and Alabama, and Missouri have been
admitted, by virtue Of that article in the treaty for
the acquisition of Louisiana which secures 10 the
inhabitants of the coded territories all the rights,
privileges, and immunities OF the original citizens
ofthe United States, and stpuates for their adj
mission, conformably to that principle, into the
Union Louisiana was purchased as country
wherein slavery was the established law OF the
land AS Congress have not power in time of
peace to abolish slavery in the original States of
the Union, they equally destitute OF the power
in those parts of the territory ceded by France
the United States by the name Of Louisiana, where
slavery existed at the time Of the acquisition.
Slavery is in this Bnion 4 IA subject of internal
Legislation in the States, anF peace is cogniza-
bic by Congress only, as ii is tacity tolerated and
protected where it exists by the Constitution of
the United States, and it mingles in their inter-
course with other nations. Arkansas, therefore,
comes, and has the right to come, into the Union
with her slaves and her slave laws. 1t is written
in the bond, and, however may lament thatit
ever was SO written, must faithfully perform its
obligations"
In 1850, Mr.. Clay said in the Senate:
~ do not know whether anything has excited
more surprise in my miad as to the rapidly with
pass out of memory, than has the knowledge of
the fact that was everywhere considered the au-
thor of the line of 800 30, which was established
upon the occasion of the admission of Missouri
into the Union"
That the compromise Of 1921, of which Mr..
Clay was the chief agent, should have been con-
founded with the proceedings of 1920, is not a
more striking illustration of historical inaccu-
racy than is the idea that the act of 1920 was
considered at the time of its adoption as COM
pact at all. No such character then attached
to it. If so, why the agitation of 1921? Why
the necessity for second compact for the ad-
those gentlemen upon this floor, who profess to
be the peculiar guardians Of Mr.. Clay's fame,
if they are not, by their positions, robbing him
of one of the brightest jewels in his immortal
name, and proving that the act which first es-
tablished his reputation as great national
pac6cator was a gross imposture upon the
public credulity? What merit could accrue to
him from his compromise of this vexed ques
ton in 1921, if as you allege, the admission of
Missouri was settled by compact on the 9th
Of March, 1920?
Sir, ! am prepared to admit that the Missouri
line had acquired, at least in the southern pub
lie mind, something of the character and sane
tity of comprehend from any of the incidents
of 1920, or even of 1921, but from a slow and
gradual acquiescence in it, since its adoption,
under the belief that it would make conve.
nient and acceptable line of demarkation be-
tween the slaveholding and non-slaveholding
States, and that it would be respected in all flu
ture acquisitions of territory, as the basis Of
such division. In this respect, it has for many
years past been regarded and respected. Under
this view it was, upon the annexation of Texas,
extended in l845 TO the Rio Grande, and, SO
regarding il, we demanded its further extension
in ls48 to the Pacific; and when so repeatedly
denied by the north, it is not surprising that ex.
| element followed that refusal in the south.
Sir, in this aspect, the only aspect in which the
Missouri line can maintain the character of
compact, it has been faithfully adhered to by
the south, and openly repudiated by the north.
But, sir, if, in opposition to the views which
| havc presented, the act of March, 1850, could
be regarded in the light of a compact, it's force
and validity as such has been cancelled and an
nulled, not only by the refusal of the north to
extend it TO the Pacific, but by the more solemn
and deliberate adoption, as applicable to the
Territories, of the principles Of the act of 1850
And briefly, sir, what was that legslation2
1t was no ordinary event in the history of the
country. We were acting upon the fundamen-
tai and organic laws which were to call into
being political communities extending over
near one hundred thousand square miles. The
magnitude of the subject and the excited feel
ing of the country had awakened the most
searching and profound spirit of inquiry. Hos
tile interests we're arrayed upon the questions
involved, for period Of four years. Time was
given for the most ample discussion and con-
sideration Of the subject. Two elections for
members Of this House, four for members of
the State legislatures, and one presidential elec-
ton had occurred during its tendency for de-
cision. All that partisan and sectional zeal
could urge, all that an enlightened and COM
prehensive policy could suggest, was freely
spread before the country. We had the most
ample experience in the past to guide and in
struct us. We had the example of non-inter-
vention illustrated in the practice of the foun-
ders of the republic, with its peace, tranquility
and contentment we had the geographical ex.
pedient of 1920, with all its strife, agitation,
and bitterness; we had the Clayton recommen.
dation, with its doubt, difficulties, and unceS.
tainties and we had the Wilmot proviso, with
its red flag Of war, inviting to insurrection and
disunion. All these and many more were be-
fore us The popular mind was thoroughly
awakened and informed. A decision made
under such circumstances, could not fail to
embody an enlightened and popular judgment,
and to leave permanent impression upon the
future policy OF the country. 1t was destined
TO close up the past and to open new era of
congressional action for the future; and SO it
proved. The struggle was long and arduous,
but truth and right we're ultimately triumphant.
So oyerpowering was the current of public SEN
timent, that both Of the two great political par
t,au nf th. rtr., y,ol,cv r1afforrn