Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-02-03
pIcnMOND ENQUlRER.
nT RIrcH,ES s PRn oN.
=:,:5r.n.Y MORNING, FEBRUARY & ie' K
..o,,n OF THE MISSOURI RESTRICTION.

a-ov,I OF THE MISSOURI RESTRlCIloN'
NJ ;.. had no, made familiar with tho arrogant
characle. Of Northern Abolitionism, Inc Vio-
sa' ;;o, which the Nebraska bill encounters would
s0' VIZ ,s,,,4 amcn, and Indignation. That measure
a' - 20 the rights Of the South, and 50 reasona-
and effect, should have provoked such de-.
,,v.yer strange in ITSELF will surprise no one VINO
N. srasping and ferocions nature OF the anti
t,,,,icism From the organization o! the Govern
Saw ,h. moment, The South has endured from the
7s", cohinc bat ccnumely, wrong and oppres-
- would be simple aiectaliou at this day 10 eS'
s'' .,.t surprise at any fresh instances however
~ of Injustice and outrage Stll there are circum-
,on,hac the prsssn, dispute about Nebraska which
s'''' A5,li,ionists Of worse than characteristic
...s.y and ic!us!lce
1s"' I'm @. the argument of the aboltionsts when
,se 10 the dignity Of rational discussion, Is That
compromise" was compact which The South
'I' ;,c0rd without violation of good faith. This
,osd iei.h aud The obligation OF com2acs by the
''n.s IS something under the sun Heretofore II
Nom heir pride to recognise the validity only OF the
and TO "spit upon' all platforms and compacts
s amman construction. They refuse submission eVeu
M sn,,cm,cy of the constitution and nselresistance
III. laws. This very Missouri compromise, about the
v of which they declaim with 80 much solemulty, has
m puda,cd and violated by them on more than one oc-
,n Souhern men proposed 10 recognise The obligation
s Missouri restriction in regard 10 Oregon but the North
, IN The necessity OF some original and more positive
ocn, il exclusion OF slavery. And again curing the
,ovsrsy Of 1850 the South sought the extension OF the
v;.on, compromise line 10 the Pacific Ocean, and the
b r<isc;ed the proposition with In the debate
~ ,b, proocs,on Hale the champion OF the aootionsts
Yoc,y and Indignantly denied the efficacy OF the Nilsson
i compromise
T. mus not be understood that ulege these instances
had fh on The part Of the aboiIionsts, with view to
of, breach of compact by the South. In demanding
~ .,pc, and complete abrogation Of the Missouri re-
ic,on in the Nebraska bill, the South stands on higher
ground The compromise OF $780, was in design and eec
epes Of the compromise 1920 And even If this no
., M blame could attach the South for seeking release
om an nu!cus burden imposed upon by the brute force
OF numscel majority For moro than thirty years ha
The South endured The disgrace Of law which restricted III
,shs ard mpusncd its character and If il finds itself nov
position 10 demand repara,on for the wrong and Injury
n, obsolete "compac s,e its voice arrest s action
The Missouri compromise was gross usurpanon OF pow
Congress- and long stands the statute book
mates the claim of the Federal Government 10 pre-
bs conditions 10 sovereign State and 10 impose bur
tn and disabilities the citizens OF one section OF Inc
,,nsde,acv While the restriction OF lS2O remains to at
,s The jurisdiction of Congress slavery there is nc
.cu,y 70, the rights of The South The South then should
h. con,en, with nothing less Than surrender of the usurped
nws, ana repeal Of the odous statute This concession
. essential well The dignity of it's character as 10 The
,ecuri,y of its rights