Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-11


tacks upon it. / have condemned his bill
strongly, and have condemned his action in
bringing forward this repeal of the Missouri
prohibition. But / have done no injustice
to the Senate. All that j have done at all
have done openly. / have not waged, nor will
| wage war of epithets. 1t neither accords
with my principles, nor with my tastes. But
while | wage no such war, | dread none.
Neither vituperation, nor denuncation, will
move me, while have the approval of my own
judgment and conscience. But | did not in
tend to recur to this matter, and willingly dis
miss it.
If the Senator is wrong, as have shown he
is, in respect to the incorporation of all the
territory cut off from Texas into New Mexico,
then he is also wrong in his declaration that
the compromise act of 1850 does not preserve
and reassert the principle of the Missouri pro-
hibition.
The facts are few and simple, and the infer
ence from them obvious and Irresistible.
The third article of the joint resolution for
the annexation of Texas reads thus
New States, ofconvenent size. not exceeding
four in number, in addition 10 said State of Texas,
having sufficient population, may hereafter, by the
of said State, be formed out of the terrific
ry thereof which shall be entitled TO admission
under the provisions of the federal constitution.
And such States may be formed out OF that por-
ton Of said territory lying south of 500 3U north
latitude, commonly known as the Missouri COM
promise line, shall be admitted into the Union,
with or without slavery, as the people of each
State asking admission may desire. And in such
State or States shall be formed out OF said terri
tory north ofsad Missouri compromise line slavery
or involuntary servltude Except for crime) shall
be prohibited"
Here is an express stipulation that slavery
shall be prohibited in any State formed out Of
the territory of Texas north of 36 degrees 80
minutes. This was valuable stipulation for
freedom, in case the claim of Texas was valid
one to the whole territory within her bounda-
res. The senator from Virginia regarded that
claim as valid; and it was upon his motion
that the proyiso which now proceed to quote
was incorporated into the Texas boundary
bill
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be
construed to impair qualify ANYTHING contained in the
third article of the section Of the joint resolution
for annexng Texas to the United States approved March
l. 1S45 either regards the number of States that may
hereafter be formed out Of the State of Texas OTHER
WISE"
Here was compact between two States. So
far as the parties were competent to enter into
it, it was obligatory and permanent. That COM
pact covered all the territory rightfully within
the limits of Texas, until rescinded. 1t could
make no difference if portion of that terri
tory should be subsequently relinquished to the
United States. That would not disturb the eff
feet Of the compact. But this matter was not
left to inference or conjecture. AT the very
moment of REIMBURSEMENT, the United States
and Texas, by agreeing to the proviso | have
quoted, saved the compact, and continued it in
full force in all its provisions.
Nothing can be clearer, then, than that, if
fha fwo fro ctc of country Of which | have enO
ken were within the rightful claim Of Texas,
the compact applied to them, and the prohibi-
ton of slavery in the States to be created out
of them, is still in force. And it is, perhaps,
at this day the only prohibition which is in
force there; for the Missouri prohibition, en-
acted in 1920, may be regarded as restricted to
the limits of the Louisiana acquisition as de-
fined by the treaty with Spain, which was con-
cluded in that year.
But the senator from Illinois says that the
prohibition in the annexation resolution was
of no practical effect, except to preserve the
principle Of the Missouri compromise. That
was true, if Texas never had any just claim
north of 36o 30>. Upon that supposition, also,
the Mason proviso had no effect as preserving
and reaffirming an actual prohibition north of
36o 30<, but still served to preserve the princi-
ple 1t is impossible to maintain, as the sena-
tor does, that the third article of the original
joint resolution, though of no practical effect,
preserved the principle of the Missouri com
promise, and yet deny that the Mason proviso,
which reaffirms and re-establishes, as part of u
new compact, every provision of that third arti-
Gle, preserves that principle. If the principle
was preserved by one, it must be by the other
/ have now, think, demonstrated that the
senator from Illinois was clearly wrong in as
{ba, nf oil fba
off from Texas into New Mexico, and just
as clearly wrong in denying the reafirmance of
the principle Of the Missouri compromise by
one of those very compromise acts which, as
he would have us say, superseded it. Certainly
the Senate, when it adopted the Mason proviso,
without division, and the House, when it
agreed to the bill of which it was part, must
have intended to keep alive and affirm every
provision of the third article of the annexation
resolution. One of these provisions prohibited
slavery north of go 30<. That provision pre-
served the principle of the Missouri compro-
mise. The proviso, taken in connexion with
that provision, makes it clear beyond all ques-
ton that the compromise acts preserved that
principle, and rejected the consequence which
it is now sought to force upon them.
submit to the Senate if ] have not com
petely indicated this part of the appeal against
the speech of the senator? The errors, mis-
takes, misrepresentation, are all his own.
None are found in the appeal.
The third specification ofthe senator charges
the signers of the appeal with misrepresentation
of the original policy of the country in respect
to slavery. The senator says
"The argument Of this manifesto is predicaed
upon the assumption that the policy of the fathers
Of the republic was 10 prohibit slavery in all the
Territories ceded by the old States TO the Union,
and made United States territory, for the purpose
OF being organized into new States. take issue
upon that statement"
The senator then proceeds to attempt to show
that the original policy of the country was one
of ndifferentism between slavery and freedom,
and that, in pursuance of it, geographical line
was established, reaching from the eastern to
the western limit Of the original States--thatis
to say, to the Mississippi river. Sir, if any
thing is susceptible of absolute historical de-
think it is the proposition that
the founders of this republic never contem-
plated any extension of slavery. Let us for o
few moments retrace the past.
What was the general sentiment Of the coun-
try when the Declaration Of Independence was
| invoke Jefferson as witness. |