Washington sentinel., 1854-03-03

ton 10 make those States one eonfederacy was
| not wild one. Ii Missouri had continued out of
| the Union, she would have remained out sas a
sovereign, not as a rebel for She had been au-
thorized 10 form constitution, and If she and the
other States had formed such a confederacy as
that, the eastern States would have realized what
has been said by some one, that there is nothing
so caustic as the ashes of disappointed ambition
The accomplishment of such project would
have been the death-knell of this conederacy.
The south and the west, under policy of free
trade, would have formed such connexions as
would have isolated the sentimental north from
the remainder Of the country.
The senator from Texas (Mr HousToNO think,
used the expression that the north and east could
have been reconciled if they had been given mo-
nopoly of the slave trade. do not know how that
Is But the idea which have suggested was one
of the concurring and cooperating causes in bring
ing Missouri into the Union. The north preferred
to allow Missouri 10 come into the Union, rather
than run some of these hazards. II had been
upon this floor then, / do know that, acting up
on the responsibility of a southern representa-
tive, would not have gone with my distinguished
countryman, Mr. Lowndes, and others but with
my present convictions of duty, and with the dis
closures now before me, could not have done so.
What might have adopted then, in the hope of
peace and equality, cannot now ratify with the
lights of experience shining on my way.
My friend from Virginia tMr. HuNTER) and my
friend from North Carolina (Mr. BApGER) have put
this question in such lucid light, that | need not
worry the Senate by dealing with this matter fur
ther. shall go now to the fact that the Missouri
compromise, if it were adopted in good faith did
impose upon both sections Of the Union obligations
which have been disregarded by one and faithfully
observed by the other.
Sir, what were the obligations growing out of
the adoption of the Mi ssouri compromise line? |
would leave il to those gentlemen themselves, if
they are disposed 10 consult the truth of history,
When the Missouri compromise line was adopted,
was it not with the understanding that, whilst
slavery was TO be prohibited north Of the line of
500 30, southern institutions should not be invaded
south Of that line? Has that obligation been OBJ
/ serveda pause TO make this inquiry, which may
be pregnant with suggestions.
| II will be recoected that, when the bill for the
organization of the Territory of Oregon was before
! the House of Representatives, Mr.. Burt. one of
Mr.. Calhouns friends offered proposition that
inasninch that Territory lay north Of the A1e Of
36o 30' il should come in under the restriction of
/ the Missouri compromise. The north, however,
| said they had the power, and they would not agree
| TO any such thing, but they would the line
where they pleased, and they put the Wimot pro-
vso in that bill; and two senators from the south
| in this body voted for it, Was that observing the
i Missouri compromise in good fatha Was the
spirit of harmony intended TO be inculcated by its
provisions, consulted, in this mere wanton and in
| sulting declaration of sectional supremacy
| The south wanted nothing but Legislative re-
cognition Of the Missouri line. The north chose
10 say that it gave no such reason for lis conduct
/ II made the occasion one of cumulative insult.
! Sir, | attach great deal of Importance TO the
/ conduct and the resolution of States Now is it
| not notorious that when the southern troops were
| contendng upon the common field OF glory and
4 honor, when they were moistenng the sands of
| Mexico, and mingling their blood with the blood
| Of the north, General Dix rose in this body, and
made the insulting proposition TO deprive us of
any share in the territories At the very time
l fDrt thei nte of
common and an equal confederacy, he proposed
i in this body that, whenever the war terminated,
Of the south should have nothing for our share but
its honors, that we should not poute, as it is said
| the soil by carrying slaves there TO cultivate
! it. Was not that declaration authorized by the
/ legislature of New York believe il was. /
think great many States passed resolutions then
| who would be willing now 10 retrace their steps
if they could but many ofthe northern States in
| sisted that south of 36o 3O they would exclude
slavery. Now: would ask the honorable SEN
ator from Ohio if that was not a violation Of The
Missouri compromise?
Mr.. CHASE. Think not.
Mr.. BUTLER. Well, the senator has curious
way ofthinking, that is all. If that was not vio
lation of the Missouri compromise. what was
When we were insisting upon its benefits they
denied them TO us. We asked to have the line
extended 10 the Pacific ocean, but il was refused.
The gentleman will not deny that that proposition
was voted down. 1t was voted down upon the
| broad ground then assumed, that they had got us
| TO the line of 800 30' and that they would 60 just
| as much farther as they could. The assertion
was made, and the power openly assumed, that
| Congress would use federal power 10 crush, as
| far as il could, the institutions Of the south
| Now, sir, suppose the north had sue ceeded in
| the very beginning in excluding slavery west of
the Mississippi, and north of the line of 36o 30, ,
| and had confined IT, as my friend from Virginia has
said TO the old States, they would have made them
a unit +; they would have made them more adver-
4 m ~ a NJ in~fe n IL
| ing the condition of the "poor slave, they would
| have driven him into such state of existence
| that il would have been mercy to destroy him,
rather than have him crowded up, without the
means of subsistence where the white man could
not support him.
may here remark. by way OF parenthesis, that
have doubt that, whether you pass this bill
or not, or no matter what bill you may pass in re-
gard tothe acquisition OF new territory, Mr.. Web
ster was right in saying that the laws of God will
govern the question of the employment of slave
labor; and paradoxcal as il may appear il is true
that every extension of slavery, especially to the
south, has weakened its existence. II is, after
| all, but transfer. you were 10 acquire tomor-
| row all the West India Islands and South Amer
ca, and II were found that slave could make hve
times much in the cultivation Of the sugar. cot
ton, and other products of that region he could
make in Virginia, am rather inclined to think
/ that the Boston merchants would buy up half the
| slaves and take them there. They would have
L
could make money by it. What would be the
consequence? The slaves would be transferred
from Virginia, and North Carolina, and the upper
part of South Carolina, and those laborers from
the free Safes, Of whom the gentlemen talk so
much, would take their places.
/ This debate, and the temper manifested in IT,
are violations OF the Missouri compromise.
| Here allow me TO notice one remark which was
| made by the senator from Massachusetts, which
| think, even common prudence common deli
| cacy would have suggested to- him that he ought
not 10 have made He said that, wherever sa-
very existed, il was followed by sterty gno-
| rance and the want of civilization, and that
wherever il was it banished civilization. Well
sir, comparisons are invidious. In what are the
south inferior TO the north In war, in peace in
the pulpit in the academy, in all the departments
of human neutrality-suspicious.. perpaps, some of
the mechanical arts-and acknowledge that the
northerners are perhaps, little ahead Of US in
patent discoveries, &c.--in all the sphere of moral
and intellectual dignity, will not say that the
south superior to the north, but will say that
it struck me singular that the gentleman in
one breath should have remarked that civilization
and education could not exist in the south, when,