Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-24
VIOLATION OF coMpAcrs.

The opponents of the Nebraska bill use
against its passage through Congress every con-
ceivable form of argument and sophistry. The
rampant and acknowledged abolitionists OPP
pose it because they want to make an approach
towards establishing abolition doctrines. They
want to make an entering wedge; they want
to get foothold. Those who repudiate abo.
liton doctrines, and call themselves by the
milder and more modest name of freesoilers,
oppose it because they desire to limit and con-
fine slavery as much as possible. There is
still another class who profess to abhor both
abo!itionists and feesoilers, and who would
feel themselves greatly outraged by the appl-
cation to them Of either name, who oppose
it on the ground that it violates sacred com.
pact. This is the great argument that oil the
opponents of the great measure to which we
refer agree in urging. 1t is the platform on
which they all stand. In other respects their
arguments are diverse, inconsistent, and con.
Trajectory. So far as the abolitionists are con-
cerned, this argument is cheat and a fraud !;
for they would not under any circumstances, be
| willing to make or to be bound BY any arrange.
ment, compact, or compromise, by which sla.
very should receive any countenance, protection,
or benefit. e.. .. ......-
The argument we refer to is put in this form
by the Connecticut Coarant, in its reply to an
article of our own. The Couraat SAYS:
ave are no abolitonsts; we are no inter
| fornrc u,,t tha IL
States; but We tell the Sentinel that the repeal
ofthe Missouri compromise will cause an agi-
tation at the north beyond that which the
nation ever saw. 1t will produce distrust in
all existing compacts and determination of
never making another. The day Of compro-
misses is over. The evils that will result to the
national peace, or even the national existence,
/ must be laid on the shoulders of those who
have thus unnecessarily removed the ancient
| landmarks"
We would say to the Co,uan MT that such
threats have no terrors for us. If a compact
exists, and If it was made voluntarily, but made
in violation of the Constitution, it ought to be
repealed. The Constitution is the most sacred
and solemn and binding of all compacts; and
if to observe that and to cancel all arrange.
ments that violate it shall have the effect to
produce distrust in all existing compacts
and determination Of never making another"
! then let that distrust and that determination
take possession Of the public mind. All the
abolition and freesoil movements spring from
distrust of and q contempt for the Constitution;
and then they have the effrontery to talk about
our contempt for what they call other "com-
pacts." Such consideration for compacts comes
with bad grace from men who have been
wont to denounce all compromises with the
south as "compacts with SIM and bargains
with the DEVIL
II the Missouri restriction was compact, it
has been clearly and conclusively demonstrated
time after time, and by none more completely
than by the able author Of the Nebraska bill,
that it was first violated and practically repealed
by the north. But Senator Douglas denies that
twas compact After tracing it from its in.
! ception to its consummation with all its act
compartments, he, in his last great speech,
says
"Sir, if this was compact, what must be
i
diateiy after it was formed? say it was a
calumny upon the north to say that it was q
compact / should feel flush of shame upon
my cheek, as northern man, if / were to say
| that 1t was q compact, and that the section of
the country to which belong received the con.
-sideration, and then repudiated the obligation
| in eleven months after it was entered into.
| deny that it was compact in any sense Of the
term. But if il was the record proves that
! faith was not observed that the contract was
never carried into effect; that after the north
had procured the passage of the act prohibit
ing slavery in the Territories with majority
in the House large enough to prevent its re-
peal, Missouri was refused admission into the
Union as a slaveholding State, in conformity
with the act Of March 6, 1920. If the propo.
sition be correct, as contended for by the oppo.
nents of this BILL that there was solemn com.
pact between the north and south that, in CON
sideration Of the prohibition of slavery in the
| Territories, Missouri was to be admitted into
| the Union in conformity with the act Of 1920
that compact was repudiated by the north and