Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1854-05-08
Coz. Rentegs's speech.


;s more condensed than any ever before
delivered by him; but is too long for
Cur columns. We present two or three
extracts, which are taken from the
speech as reported in the n. Y. Post:
MISSOURI COMPROMISE NOT MERELY A
STATUTE.
The question before ns is, TO get rid
of the Missouri Compromise line; and.
to lawyer, that is an easy question:
The compromise is in the form Of a sta
tute, and one statute is repealable by an
other. That short view is enough for a
lawyer. To statesman il is something
different, and refers the question OF It's
repeal, not TO low books. bni TO reasons
of state policy-to the circumstances nm
der which it was enacted. and the con-
sequences which are TO flow from its alb
roga.ion. This compromise OF 1920 is
not mere statute, to last for day il
was intended for perpetnity, and SO de-
clared itself. 1t is an enactment to set
lie controversy--andd did settle it-and
cannot be abrogated without reviying
that controversy.
1t has given the country peace for a.
hove thirty years how many years of
disturbance will it's abrogaiion bring p
That is the statesmar's question and
without assuming to be mich of a states
man, claim to be enough so to consider
the consequences Of breaking settle
nent which pacifed continent. re-
member the Missouri controversy, and
how il destroyed all social feeling, and
all capacity for beneficial legislation !;
and merged all political principle in an
angry contest about slavery-dividing
the Union into two parts. and drawing
up the two halves into opposite and con-
fronting lines, like enemies on the field
Of battle. | do not wish TO see s,lch
times again; and, therefore, am against
reviving them by breaking up the set
Element which qnieted them.
THE THREE SLAVERY COMPROMISES.
The Missouri Compromise Of 1920
was the FORTHCOMING between the free
and slave states, OF great province, ia
king the character of perpetual settle
meni; and CHASING with the two great
compromises which gave us the ordi-
nance of July Is, 1887, and the iedera'
constitution OF September II, Of The
same year. There are three slavery
compromises in our history, which CON
meet themselves with the foundation and
preservation OF this Union. Frst. the
territorill partition ordinance of 1887.
with lis clause for tie recovery of fngi-
Tive slaves; secondly, the contempora-
neeus constitutional recognition Of slave
ry in the states which chose to have il.
with the fugitive slave recovery clause
in the same instrument thirdly, the
Missouri partition line of 1920, with the
same law annexed for The recovery Of
fagitis slaves.
part and parcel Of II, 80. r. o. =. afs
neither Of then conl. have been formed
without the other, nor either of them
without the fugitive slave recovery
clause incorporated in IT. The anti-sla-
very clause in the ordinance of, 1897
could not have been adopted (as was
proved by its three years reiecIion)
without the fugitive slave recovery
clause added to it; the constitution cod
not have been formed without its reeog.
milton Of slavery in The states which
chose ii. and the guaranty of the right TO
recover slaves fleeing into the free
states {; the Missouri controversy could
not have been settled without partition
OF Louisiana between free and slave soil /;
and >hat partition could not have been
made without the addition of the same
clause for the recovery of fugitive slaves.
Thus, all three compromises are settle
Inent> of existing questions, and intend
ed TO be perpetual. They are all three
of equal moral validity. The constitu-
tional compromise is guided b, higher
obligation in consequence of its incorpo-
ration III that instrument but ii in no
way differs from the ether two in the
circumstance which induced ii, the poll
cy which guards it, or the consequences
which would flow from its ahrogation.
A proposition 10 destroy the slavery
compromises in the constitution would
be an open proposition TO break up the
Union: the attempt to abrogate the com.
prsinise Of 1887 and 1920 would be yir-
tuai attempts 10 destroy the harmony OF
the uniui;, and prepare i, for dissoiu-
tion, 10y destroying the confidence and
affection in which it is founded.
The Missouri Compromise of 1920 is
a continuation OF The ordinance of 1913
It's extension 10 the since acquired ter
ri,ory West of the Mississippi, and not
differing from il either in prime, pie or de-
tail. Tie ordinance Of 1887 divided The
then tarsi.s,ry ut thu Unit 81 ogareS about
equally between the free and slave
states The Missouri Compromise line
did the same by the additional territory
Of the United States as il stood in 1920 !;
and in both eases ii was done by act OF
Congress, and was the settlement OF
difficulty which was to last forever. /
consider them both, with their fugitive
slave recovery clauses, and the similar
clauses IN the constitution, as part and
parcel oil the same traiisaciion-- differ
ent articles in The same general settle