The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-04-02
CITY OF WASHINGTON. SUNDAY MORNING. APRIL 2. 1854

refer 10 the abolition portion Of it which portion. viii
attempt 10 show. has opposed the principle since
On the i2th OF May, 1896, MIR Buchanan, OF Penasyl
va0is then member Of the Senate, reported u bill to-
ihe admission Of the Territory Of Arkansas into III,
Union as State This was territory lying south OF 3t
deg 80 min about whiaas there should have been No
dispute under The Compromise Of 1870. II the people de-
sired slavery TO exist there Yet, when vote wa'
against IL the most, il moi all, being sboonsis--ths
South still standing in the position where the Mssour
Compromise had placed it.
In lS45, when Texas made application for nexatlon
the Missouri principle was again brought up and applied
10 he territory lying between the western boundary OF the
Stale OF Texas and the Rio del Nor,e river But ths
record shows that that also opposed by aboenlsts
And sgan, in ls4s after lhs country between the Rio
del Norie and the Pacific bad been acquired from
Mexico, an amendment offered in the Senate BY
distinguished senator from Illinois, to bill from ihs
House to organize the Territory Of Oregon. by which !
proposed TO recognise and extend the Missouri line
from the Rio del Noris TO the Pacific ocean But the
amendment was defeated by the northern abolition
Thus, that from 1920 10 s4s The aboonists
have steadily Iepuda,ed the principle which they frs
helped 10 establish, aud for which they clamor be-
consistency gross this b~sound s0y hiso
Of legislation Honoraby dlshoDorably. they were
determined to force upon the country their dsoganzing
principles and, II necessary 10 success 70 divide apd
dissolve the Union. Yet unbushingy told by
them that the Missouri principle has been strictly adhered
to by them from 1920 TO this very hour And this
and lead them again into But there is record
proof upon which such declaration can be made.
challenge reference TO it, invite the most thorough
But 10 show further the consistency and
of the South to the Missouri principle and the light in
which the conduct OF the North was viewed. lrefer TO
resolutions which passed by the legislature OF the
State of Missouri and presented BY Mr. Atchson to the
Senate the Sd day OF January 1850, one OF which s
follows: aa#
"Raolssd, That this general embly regard the
a If nj
leasing the slayehoding States from ell further adherence
tie basis fixed by the act Of Congress
OF the 9th of March, 1920 il such act ever did impose
obligation upon the slasehoding Sa,es and author
izes Them upon their rights under the constitution
but for the sake Of harmony and for the preservation oour
federal Union, they will sill sanction she application
The Missouri Compomse to the recent territorial acquisi
lions, it, by such concesson future aggresons upon the
equal rights Of the States be arrested and the spirit
ani-slavery ianaticsm be extinguished tsa
This patriotic resolution sir, believe brea,hed The
true spirit of nearly the whole South al the time il yas
passed and nober senmenis, in my opinion, under
similar circumstances, were never expressed The peo.
pie OF Missouri had io long time their ins,itu-
!loas bitery and wantonly assalled They had sespa
long and angry warfare carried by the North which
threatened TO deprive them OF their Just and equal
under the constitutions to an interest in common
ntofy And feeling that all ties OF friendship and broth
erhood which before had bound them TO the Norlh had
been sundeIed, and themselves released from all sup
posed standings and arrangements OF 1920. yet, o
the olive branch Of peace, and offered 10 renew them
The Tapacious North still refused the and plant
ed itself upon Ifs supposed power TO carry out lis pur
poses Agn'n. s'r, Q" The 2eh Of January, 1850; Mr.
Davis, of Mississippi, while speaking upon Mr. CIays
resolutions tor the admission OF California the Union
us.d the following language:
We maintain that tits the right of the people
ss hs M ess 8 p,0pe , 70 any poGn o. ss
constitution, The ssme basis other properly bn
speaking of ompromse II was the ultimsrin
nounced s,rapge that the senator from Kentucky
should be much surprised; IL certainty a ne
with him nor win his colleague with whom on
n Ii IL a
pa riaI recognition right claim be
with rhe TsTories OF The Unitsd ate bur " heh we
are willing in opirIt eonpromse, and com pliance
with ast acqaescenee OF the Safes restrict by The
parallel ol 10 deg. 80 min north
Here again was exhibited The conciliatory and compro.
missing spirlt oi The South, which had so long ds,n.
Igushed II, and an offer made 10 settle upon
the line OF SO deg. 80 min not, however, in colnpI
ance with any contract which abo,onists allege ba.
been made, but Sin compliance with the past acq uSs
cence OF the States" This has been the understanding
OF the South.
And again, the lst of August. 1850. Mr. Clay said
.Permlt me TO fer one OF two sddional rcsfks Ia re-
gard to my own position touching the Missouri Compfo
mise IL known that have always voted for when
ever has been proposed here that have sbo,ed sen
uousy years past To procure iis adoption and have
several weeks sgo gwen minute history OF my erenon
any unprludced regard my zeal and since rit,
in utgns the Missouri Comptomise upon the Senate anl
the country"
Other references might be made to show the con.
ssteHcy and seada astness OF the South in support oil
the Missouri principle, bat IL Is unnecessary II has be
come TOO much matter oi history TO require
Now, sr otwih-landing all this we hear the South
charged with breaking entered into in 1890 and
with violation Of pghed faith. But after the HISTORY
which have presented, would ask who is the gull,
party Who must stand denounced before the tribuna
Of the nation Iof want OF hdeIny IN the fuhment o
contrscis If any, and the redemption OF pledgesl No
the South, sir, but the North The Norh has always
been the party which caused the difficulty, and encour.
aged controversy. The South has always couried friend
ship and peace, but the Nouh has always spurned IL
Again, sir told that II the Missouri Compromise
was not strictly binding between the North and The
South it has been aeqniesced n ios period OF thin,
yrsfs. and therefore acquired the force OF kind Of com.
mopsw snd now has binding eff cscy. which oue hi
not and cannot be done away, But have shown thai
from less than year alter the adoption of the Missouri
COMPROMISE the North has steadily and continually re-
fused acquesce ~ Il that the storm which free. soil.
ian and aboltonism raised IN that quarter il entirely in
consistent with the idea OF scquiescence No sir in.
stead OF there having been scuescence there has bees
the most emphatic rejection and abandonment
4 will now proceed consider the efec, which be-
leve the compromise OF 1850 have bad upor
the Missonri Compromise Of 1920 And The main ques
ton is has ibs latter been, positively implicitly re
pealed, superseded, rendered inconsistent with hs
ormetl ay the act OF 1920 slavery clearly intend
ed 10 be prohibited 10 then western territory north
80 deg 80 min OF uorh latitude. thipk have clearly
.hovs that the South uuderstooJ H. aud that their ac
ton has always been consistent with up 10 1850. Ant
IT would be natural 10 suppose, thai u The advocates
slavery restriction bad intended hat IL should f0regu
remain the southern boundary cl ree territory,
would have been earelally and suaiousy preserved
for cauno be eoniended, after the long spirited
angry contest upon the subject Of slavery that any
thing has been neglected the supposed Tight
OF the North, that there has been any misapprebeu
zion mistake on their part In legislsng upon them
nj fhsrp has beFf