The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-18


compact lis essential requisite is, that there should be
parties able TO contract, willing contract and who do
tualy contract This Missouri lacks every these
essential Ingredients OF contract There parties
competent to make compact Congress poss Law with
Ia their constitutional sphere and within that it can com
mand the people Of the whole United States ii can make
no ba gain with them by the Of 1870 Congress did not
attempt 10 do any such foolish thing passed law and
very bad Law that all But II they were able 10 con
aet, they did not contract If the North bound herself
she certainly must have been bound by her represent
aiises but very large majority of her
voted against accepting the eighth section OF the Of 1920
lieu Of the State of Missouri which she
claimed until beaten off from by the members from the
southern States with the addition of twenty northern
representatives. Then II any bargain made ny
these twenty members Therefore, the North neither made
the contract nor rauhed It after made but the
ary her up Congress very
session. and IN the face of the pretended bargain, voted
against the admission of Missouri the Union under
entirely different and distinct pfet.xt Miss our had tus
IN her constitution against The of free negroes
her bouodaresust such clause Massachusetts, then
mad aud many OF the free States SEEKING upon
this prtext IN spite of the - solemn compact large ma
Joay OF the northern representatives, against her
mission into the Union; but we tor, by the free
soers and aboiton,sts that the admission Of Mssou
part OF the bsrgsin iha have thar
fore To ABIDE by the ion. Even s pretext a-
cious Missouri to-day 10 the Unon through The votes
OF majority of northern embers She here spite
tbeir votes IL does me, Mr. President that the
senators from Massachusetts Mr. SuMsER and Ohio, NJ.
CHASE and his colleague Mr. WADE had sufficient
experience political bargains compacts 10 have clearer
! IDEAS Of what constitutes a barg an
Whie there can b" no such ~ legislative compac,
~ ibis Union, people frequsstly called Missouri d
compromise be farinoed and moderate yielded
much OF their personal opinions dangers the
country In this sense alone get rid Of the geaer
rage OF the exclusion Of Missouri slavery thu
South supported the eighth section lieu of ta ex-
cusion clause OF the House Of united
aieW moderate northern and carried but the major
NY OF the North did not then, and
SINCE have looked carefully throuz the history those
nes and have never yet found particle OF evidence
single northern State did or affirm
nd f,es.
soes, who are now clamorous for it, support il solely
because, as IT is now presented, it naked question of
prohibition This is the sole of their support of
END all the rest IS but fraudulent petexts with which
delude and deceive better but simpler people than them
selves When Arkansas admitted into the Union, it
was also opposed by over fifty northern of
slavery as that was the only question made her adms
slon When Oregon admitted Territory the prin-
cple OF the Missouri Compromise again repudiated by
the North II was again repudlated by her when Cafor-
MIA and New Mexico acquired, and attempts were
made TO apply the principle those ACOUSTIC and
mes and through all Of her opinions has the North
uniformly refused 10 recognise the the principle
r1torial division upon which it is founded.
Suppose the Missouri Compromise was a compact or
treaty; with whom il made' Was with Rufus King
The predecessor of the from New York. who made
the motion IN this body and stood by it for weeks and
months, and years to put the prohibition upon the State
OF MISSOURI and who voted for the Missouri Com
promse' Was he of the contracting parties If he
he did not sign the bond. Who, hen represented the
NORTH How can any honest look in the face and
that that which the North then
to-day, and forever repudiate Let all the world
know IT; let the next meeting Faneu Hall know il !;
let the next meeting at the Tabernacle know il let the
true men of the North know il; and they will
just decision on this question readily my
The ree-soiers falsely history make contract and
would have 70 iasy their own principles to maintain il
Such Is the true history of this pretended compact
eeted by the North when passed rejected by her twelve
months after yards; rejected by her 1886 on the adms
of Arkansas rejected by her in the formation Of the
territorial government for Oregon rejected by her when
attempted TO apply the principle California and New
Mexeo rejected everywhere and in every form, except
when II worked prohibition and doubt whether there
is opponent of this BILL thus 23d February 1854 who
will rise in his place and say that ne willing apply it to
the country west Of Arkansas and south of sc deg 80
north latitude There is onel Yet they have
the etironery to say TO u.s. Island by the bargain -
'maintan pligbted fnith;r "pubc faith and honor
pledged to i" Mr. President, command language
strong enough TO express my adherence Of such abandon
ment of all public principle.
One Of offered in extenuaton Of the conduct
Of senator's in carrying principle Of the
sour COMPROMISE TO Territories Of the United States SUBJ
sequenuy acquired is that applied specially the cou
try acquired from France Admit that be yet if
it settled upon ard sound principles ough
equally be extended to all other territory Its principle
territorial division between the North and South if
that be correct principle can be applied to all cnscs but
It's advocates have opposed every proposition for
any division whatever and sull oppose it, This position
Nconesses the superiority OF the of 1850
that Of lo2O, and ustidcs pre- We say the
settlement of 1850 based upon sound just constr
tutonal principles and willing Apply them to al
territory and the pc pie hsve affirmed it, both the people
/ of the North and of the South.
4
Congress pass such restriction that proposed
to be sbrog ted 1t will be found to be equally well sus
| tsInei by authority. Mr.. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Mr.
Monroe, Geners Jackson General Harr most Of
the dsnt uished Of the were living in
1920, when the Missouri resuc sought TO be Inn
posed opposed IT, and many IT them both tn grounds
Of constunon ally aud expediency. Mr.. jefferson, hi
l. ter John Holiness Of Name dated the 29th Of Ap H.
1920 strongly CONDEMNS both the geographical line and the
restrain the diffusion Of slavery over greater
surface and adds;
An abstinence too from this set OF power woud remove
the jealousy excited by the undertaking Of Congress
u the condition Of the different descriptions OF men com
posing State This certainly the exclusive right o
every State, which nothing IN tho consultation has taken
from them and gwen to the gene al government Coud
Congress- for example, say that non-reemen Of Con
neccut should be feemeD add that they shall emgrale
into any other statei"
lie then goes denounes the resrctonsts Of his day
political suicides and traitors against the hopes Of
world" Such the opinions Of the author OF the ord
nance Of l75I Of the Missouri restriction Of 1890.
Again Mr. Jefferson, in letter Mr.. Madison ssys
Il am indebted you for your letters Of February
and TO- This Missouri question: by geographical line Of
DIVISION, the port ntous have ever coptem-
plated" I" l. ready to risk the Union for any
cha, ce of restoring bis party power, ard wrggng him
self to the head of IL; isn " without hrs
hopes, nor scruulous the Of fulfilling hemn
Mr.. Madison, in letter Mr.. Monroe in 1890 says
On one side naturally occurs that the right, beng
the great principle Of sefgovernment, ought be
tended further, continued longer than the
might fairly require"
Mr.. Madison says further;
"The questions to be decided seem to be-
"l Whether territorial restriction be assumption Of