Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-11
THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

PETERSBURG, (VA.) FEBRUARY rs, 1854.
GENTLEMEN: Some Of the facts to which I have allu
| ded, it seems to me, will bear repetition.
An attempt has been made to withdraw from the Mis-
souri, compromise the influence of the name Of HENRY
CLAY 1t is true that he did, in the Senate of the Unite
States in February 1885, deny having been the propose
Of the line Of $50 3 in 1920 The record shows tha
ne was not the author Of the proposition. Yet it
equally true that he did, in 1921 propose the joint
luton which adopted by Congress in 1921 and upo
the acceptance Of which by Missouri by authoritative
public act, she admitted into the Union and the ID
gslaton Of 1920 took effect and the line Of $50 30 wa
completely established Now, it is the less certa
that Mr. Clay supported the line Of SO 3 although
did not propose the BILL If his proposition Of the join
resolution, or its equivalent had not been made an
adopted the line of 36o 30/ would not have been esta
lished in 1921 His proposition, or its equivalent, va
necessary to hush the angry agitation If he had 10
been friendly to that line he would not have proposed u
joint resolution by which, it being adopted and accepted
the legislation Of 1920 secured and the line esab
lished. He would not have done all that or any thu
like it. if he had deemed the line unwise the legslatA
unconstitutional.
The facts which Senator BADGER has lately broughth
his way, to bear the discussion, to wit, that ev
Southern Senator in 1850 voted to extend the Mssou
compromise line to the Pacific; that the measure W,
carried in the Senate but disagreed in the Houses al
so much anxiety felt in the Senate that they sat
oil night to see to it that the Senate should not reced
are facts that bear repeating How could Southern Sc
ators be so awake to measure then, which they, d
only the same body, but the same men as to manyf
them. now deem unconstitutional. Unconstitutional
let the exclusion Of negro slavery north of see 3 stat
as it is as to the Territories to which it originally apple
but constitutional to extend it to Territories afterwar
acquired and to which it did not originally apply Sun
is the state Of the case unless the Southern msmbs
who in 1850 voted to extend the line to the Pacific d
prepared to admit that they voted for unconsttut
measure by way Of compromise If unconstituti,ll
act may be passed to make compromise may not
constitutional compromise be suffered to stand und-
turbed? If not so, may not the in authority in no
contend that the precedent Of 1854 is Of higher Of
CATION than the precedent Of 1920? Is there peacen
change or safety in Instability
There is jet other fact to which | wish to advt,
not having seen it brought into review. When the M
Mexico, Utah, and the other bills in 1850 we're in CT
gress and after their adoption series Of measus
intended and calculated to quiet the whole country s
generally said in the South, and ceaselessly by lire
fraction Of the Southern newspaper press that the Nun
gained every thing and the South nothing but the fd
tive slave law by that legislation. But now, in the Son.
and the press is contendcd that by that les
lation the South gained every thing, principle e
magic power Of which opens the door for slavery to err
into and be cherished in all the Territories into It
Territory which it has been long supposed orr
shielded by the ordinance of 1887 and the COMPROMISED
1S20-'2l!
Although am private citizen, Ihave not felt milf
at liberty to say less than have said in these let's
My home is in the South and this is my native andle
North too is my country, whose literature and jurin-
dence admire, whose enterprise and commerce Nd
protect and extend and the virtues Of whose sonld
the powers Of whose statesmen venerate Froner
abolitionists do most decidedly dissent.
PUBLl