Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-03-17

of its citizens will be jeoparded and invaded, they
| should raise their voice in protest against the
threatened infraation of their rights, and declare
that the. negallon or repeal by Congress of the
Missouri compromise will be regarded by them as
violation of right and of faith, and destructive Of
that confidence and regard which should attach 10
the enactments of the federal Legislature"
Mr.. President, cannot let the senator off on
the plea that !, for the sake Of the argument, in
reply to him and other opponents OF this bill, have
called it q compact or that the south have called
it compact /; or that other friends of Nebraska
have called it compact which has been violated
and rendered invalid. He and his abolition con-
federates have arragned me for violation of
compact, which, they say is binding in morals, in
conscience, and honor. / have shown that the
legislature Of New York, at its present session,
has declared il to be " solemn compact" and
that its repudiation would " be regarded by them
as violation of right, and of faith, and destruc-
tive of confidence and regard l have also
shown, that if it be such compact, the State Of
New York stands selfcondemned and selfconvic-
ted as the first to repudate and violate it.
But since the senator has chosen to make an
issue with me in respect to the action OF New
York, with the view of condemning my conduct
here will invite the attention of the senator to
another portion of these resolutions. Referring
legislature of New York says:
aThat the adoption of this provision would be
in derogation OF the truth, a gross violation of
plighted faith, and an outrage and indignity upon
the free States Of the Union, whose assent has
been yielded TO the admission into the Union of
Missouri and of Arkansas, with slavery, in re-
ance upon the faithful observance of the provi-
sion (now sought TO be abrogated) known as the
Missouri compromise, whereby slavery was de-
cared to be forever prohibited in all that territory
ceded by France 10 the United Stales under the
name of Louisiana, which lies north of go 30
north latitude, not included within the limits Of
the State Of Missouri
have no comments to make upon the courtesy
and proprety exhibited in this legislative decla-
ration, that Il provision in bill, reported by
regular committee of the Senate of the United
States, and known to be approved by three-tourths
of the body, and which has since received the
sanction OF their votes, is in derogaton of truth,
gross violation of pighted faith, and an outrage
and indignity, SC. The opponents of this meas
ure claim monopoly of all the courteses and
amenities which should be observed among gen
tlemen and especially in the performance Of Off
cal duties and | am free to say that this is one
of the mildest and most respectful forms of ,ex-
preston in which they have indulged. But there
is a declaration in this resolution to which wish
to invite the particular attention of the Senate
and the country. 1t is the distinct allegation
New York, yielded their g assent to the admis-
sion into the Union of Missouri and Arkansas,
with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful obser-
vance of the provision known as the Missouri
compromise.
Now, sir, since the legislature of New York
has gone out of its way to arraign the State on
matters of truth, will demonstrate that this par
agraph contains two material statements in direct
ssderogaton of truth" | have already shown,
beyond controversy, by the records Of the legis-
lature and by the journals of the Senate, that
New York never did give her assent to the adms-
sion of Missouri with slavery! Hence, must be
permitted to say, in the polite language of her
own resolutions, that the statement that New
York yielded her assent to the ADMISSION of Mis-
souri, with slavery is in s'derogation of truth!"
and, secondly, the statement that such assent
was given sin reliance upon the faithful observ-
| ance of the Missouri compromise is equally sin
derogatoi of truth New York never assented
to the admission of Missouri a slave State,
never assented to what she calls the Mis-
souri, compromise, never observed its stipulations
as compact, never has been willing to carry it
out; but on the contrary has always resisted it,
as have demonstrated by her own records
Mr.. President, have before me other journals,
records and instructions, which prove that New
York was not the only free State that repudiated
the Missouri compromise of 1920 within twelve
months from its date. will not occupy the time
of tho Senate at this late hour of the night by re-
ferrng to them, unless some opponent Of the bill
renders it necessary In that event, may be
able to place other senators and their States in
the same uneRviable position in which the sena-
tor from New York has found himself and his
State.
| think have shown, that to call the act of the
9th of March, 1920, compact binding in honor,
is to charge the northern States oft this Union with
an act of perfdy unparalleled in the history of
legislation or of civilization. ! have already ad-
al Taofc hat tba rnf1
Missouri formed her constitution, in conformity
with the act of the 9th of March that it was pre-
sented to Congress at the next session that the
Senate passed joint resolution declaring her to
be one of the States of the Union, on equal
footing with the original States; and that the
House of Representatives rejected it, and refused
| to allow her to come into the Union, because her
| constitution did not prohibit slavery.
| These facts created the necessity for new COM
promise, the old one having failed of its object,
which was, to bring Missouri into the Union. At
this period in the order of events-in February,
| 1921, when the excitement was almost beyond
restraint, and great fundamental principle, in
volving the right of the people of the new States
to regulate their own domestic institutions, was
dividing the Union into two great hestle parties
| Henry Clay, Of Kentucky, came forward with
| a new compromise, which had the effect to change
the issue, and make the result of the controversy
| turn upon different point He brought in res
| Union, not in pursuance of the act of 1920, not
| in obedience to the understanding when it was
adopted, and not with her constitution as it had
| been formed in conformity with that act, but he
! proposed TO admit Missouri into the Union upon
| Fundamental condition, which condition was
| to be in the nature of solern compact between
the United States the one part and the State of
| Missouri on the other part, and to which " fun
damental condition" the State of Missouri was
required to declare her assent in the form of "a
solemn public act" This joint resolution passed,
and was approved March 2, 1921, and is known
| as Mr.. Clay's Missouri compromise, in contradis-
ton to that Of 1920, which was introduced into
the Senate by Mr. Thomas, of Illinois. In the
month Of June, 1921, the legislature of Missouri
assembled and passed the ''solemn public act, !"
and furnished an authenticated copy thereofto the
President of the United States, in compliance with
MIR. Clay compromise, or joint resolution. On
1 August 10, 1891, James Monroe, President Of the
United States, issued his proclamation in which,
after reciting the fact that on the Cd Of March,
1921, Congress had passed joint resolution tpro-
vidinr for the admission of the State of Missouri
into the Union, on certain condition. and that
the general assembly of Missouri, on the 26th of
4 (. ,,ll L.. Il