Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-01-14
WASHINGTON, D. C.
SATURDAY, JANUARY IA, 1854.
MISREPRESENTATION CORRECTED.

adjustment Of the Slavery controversy. But
yet, if we have read history Alright, no party
ever adopted that Compromise in its creed !;
and the only sanctity it ever had, was that
which it gained by a long period Of acquies-
cence.
But notwithstanding that long period of ac-
quiescence, Free Soil fanatcism repudiated it
when Oregon became Territory of the United
States.
When the bill to give Oregon Territorial
Government was before the House of Repre-
sentatives, Mr.. Winthrop, of Massachusetts,
moved to apply to ii the Anti-Slavery prohibit
ton Of the Ordinance Of l787-which is word
for word the Wilmot Proviso. When that mo-
ton was carried, many able and patriotic men
thought that it was virtual repeal Of the Mis-
souri, Compromise. But Mr. Polk signed the
bill with the Offensive clause in it, on the
ground, as he stated in a special message, that
Oregon was north Of the Missouri Compromise
line, which was intended to be permanent
adjustment Of the Slavery question, and that
the Winthrop Proviso was mere surplusage.
Free-Soilism, having gained thus much by the
Missouri Compromise, refused to abide by that
Compromise any further; for when the Mexican
treaty gave US California, and New Mexico,
and Utah, every effort to extend the principles
~ resisted, and that Compromise was virtual
~ abrogated, and it's binding force denied and
repudiated. This abrogation Of the Missouri
Compromise denial and Reputation of its
binding force, made it necessary that NEW
COMPROMISES should be made
That NEW COMPROMISES was made in 1850,
and it has been sustained to the present time.
But all on sudden, the Free-Soilers, who have
pretended for the long space of FOUR MONTHS
to be better and truer Democrats than the long
tried veterans Of the Democracy, now come
forth, and speaking through their organ, the
Albany 4tlas spit on the Compromise Of 1850,
which is recognised as fnality by the Balt-
more platform, and insist that it must give
place TO the Missouri Compromise of l820!!
Washington Sentinel.
The advocates Of Slavery seem incapable of
making any correct statement Of facts con-
corning the issues between them and their OPP
ponents. Expose their bunders as often as
you may, they will repeat them with as much
GOODNESS as if they had never been detected and
pointed out.
The foregoing extract from On editorial in
the Sentinel is tissue of misrepresentation.
/. 1t is NOT true that the Missouri Compro-
mise was intended as o permanent adjustment
Of the Slavery controversy 1t was simply in
tended as device for allaying the agitation
against Slavery in 1920, to such degree that
Missouri might be admitted into the Union as
Slave State, and the price paid for this was
the perpetual exemption from Slavery Of the
whole of our territory beyond the Mississippi
river, and above SO deg. 80 min. 1t was pro-
posed and advocated as an adjustment of that
particular controversy, but not as permanent
adjustment of the Slavery controversy
2. "Free-Soil fanaticism," nor any other ia
naticism, srepudiated the Missouri Compro-
mise when Oregon became Territory of the
United Ssatesn
3. Mr.. Winthrop moved the Anti-SIavery
provision Of the Ordinance Of 1887 as an
amendment to the Iowa bill the Oregon bill,
as reported by the Committee on the Terrific
ries, embraced this Proviso.
4. California New Mexico and Utah, al.
ready belonged to us when the Oregon bill was
passed, instead Of being acquired subsequently,
as the Sentinel represents.
s. Nor, as the same paper asserts, was the
Missouri Compromise virtually abrogated,
and its binding force denied and repudiatedn
These erroneous statements of the Sentinel
are made for the purpose Of convicting the
Anti-Slavery Party Of inconsistency-o main
tanning in 1854 the binding force Of what they
repudisted in 1s4s and 1850.
A concise, but correct statement Of facts will
vindicate its entire consistency The Missouri
Compromise as il is called, or, more properly,
the Anti-Slsvery Proviso Of that Compromise
applied Exclusively 10 the Territoryof Louisiana
acquired from France. Its language is
"That in oil that Territory ceded By France
to the United States under the name Of Lou
isiana,which lies north Of 36 deg. 80 min north
latitude, not included within the limits Of the
State contemplated by this act, Slavery and
involuntary servitude, otherwise than for the
punishment Of crime, whereof the parties shall
have been duly convicted, shall be, and is here
by, forever prohibited"
No attempt was ever made 10 disturb this
Compromise, and il was sustained by the ac-
quiescence Of a whole generation.
In ls4s, when it became necessary 10 pro-
vide q Territorial Government for Oregon, the
Proviso Of the Ordinance Of 1887 was ombod-
led in the bill for this purpose; but this was
not an abrogation Of the Missouri Compro-
mise, any more than the act Of Mr. Polk, who
insisted upon the validity Of that Compromise
in the very message in which he sanctioned the
BILL Our claim to Oregon had been urged
on several grounds, one Of which was, that IL
was originally part Of tho Territory Of Lou
isiana. Had this been universally and abso-
lutely admitted to be true, the Proviso of the
act of 1920 would have exempted IL from Sla-
very, just as il now exempts Nebraska. But,
as this was disputed point the friends Of
Freedom justly held that tho relations OF the
Territory 10 Slavery should not be left in
doubt. Hence they inserted the Proviso of
kho 0rd,panoa nf f-oy Tc tbo M.sac,,~, ror,