Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-04-25
DAILY NATIONAL ERA.

i sA0 kAKut manu- VI puHticdi AItcnuouip w ONuiJ
member Of this body that will stand together
y vindicate it's privileges, protect its respecta
blllty, and maintain 1T in tho high place fol
which it was intended-the master branch 0
the American Government.
| The question before US is to get rid of the
Missouri Compromise line; and to q lawyer
that IL an easy question. That Compromise ],
in the form Of q statute; and one statute is re.
pealable by another. Thatshort view il enough
for a lawyer. To statesman it il something
different; and refers the question of its repeal,
not to law books but to reasons OF State poll
cy-t0 the circumstances under which it was
enacted, and the consequences which are to
flow from its abrogaton This Compromised Of
1920 is not mere statute, to last for q day il
was intended for perpetuity, and 80 declared
itself Ii ID an enactment to settle a cOntro-
yersy--and did settle it--and cannot be abro-
gated without reviyipg that controversy.
1t has given the country peace for above
thirty years how many years Of disturbance
will its abrogation BRING That is the states
mans question and without assuming to be
much of statesman, claim to be enough so
to consider the consequences Of breaking a
settlement which pacitied continent. re-
member the Missouri controversy, and how it
destroyed oil social feeling, and all capacity for
beneficial legislation and merged nil political
principle in an angry contest about slavery
dividing the Union into two parts, and drawing
up the two halves into opposite and confront
ing lines like enemies on the field of battle.
| do not wish to see such times again and
therefore am against reviving them by break
i1g up the settlement which quieted them.
The Missouri Compromise of 1920 was the
partitioning hetween the free and slaves States,
Of a great province, taking the character of q
perpetual settlement; and chasing with the
two great Compromises which gave us the Or
dinance Of July IS, 1887, and the Federal Con-
stitution, Of September II, of the Same year.
There are three slavery Compromises in our
history, which connect themselves with the
foundation and the preservation of this Union.
First, the Territorial Partition Ordinance Of
1887, with its clause for the recovery of fugi-
tive slaves; secondly, the cotemporane0us con-
stitutional recognition Of slavery in the States
which chose to have it, with the fugitive slave
recovery clause in the same instrument; third
ly, the Missouri partition line of 1920, with
the same clause annexed for the recovery of
fugitive slaves. All three of these Compro-
misses are part and parcel of the same policy !;
and neither of them could have been formed
without the other, nor either of them without
the fugitive slave recovery clause Incorporated
in it. The anti-slavery clause in the Ordi-
nance Of 1887 could not have been adopted las
was proved by it's three years rejeotion) with
out the fugitive slave recovery clause added to
it.; the Constitution could not have been form
ed without its recognition Of slavery in the
States which chose it, and the guarantee Of
the right to recover slaves fleeing into the free
States the Missouri controversy could not
have been settled without partition of Lou
isiana between free and slave soil; and that
partition could not have been made without
the addition of the same clause for the recov-
cry of fugitive slaves Thus, oil three Com
promises are settlements of existing questions
and intended to be perpetual. They are all
three of equal moral validity. The Constitu-
tional Compromise is guarded by a higher obi
CATION, in consequence of its incorporation in
that instrument but it no way differs from the
other two in the circumstances which induced
it, the policy which guards it, or the conse-
quences which would flow from its abrogaton.
A proposition to destroy the slavery Compro-
misses in the Constitution, would be an open
proposition to break up the Union the attempt
to abrogate the Compromises Of 1887 and 1920,
would be virtual attempts to destroy the har-
mony Of the Union, and prepare it for dissolu-
ton, by destroying the confidence and affection
in which it is founded.
The Missouri Compromise of 1920 is q con-
-tinuation Of the Ordinance of I7S7-its ex.
tension to the since acquired territory west of
the Mississippi, and no way differing from it,
either in principle or detail The Ordinance
of 1887 divided the then territory of the Uni
ted States about equally between the free and
slave States the Missouri Compromise line did
the same by the additional territory OF the
United States as it stood in 1920; and in both
cases il was done by act of Congress, and was
the settlement of difficulty which was to last
forever. consider them both, with their fu-
gitive slave recovery clauses and the similar
clause in the Constitution, as part and parcel
of the same ansaction-different articles in
the same general settlement.
The anti-slavery clause in the Ordinance of
1887, could not have been put in las was proved
by its three years rejection) without the fngi-
tive slave recovery clause added to it. The
Constitution could not have been formed with
out the recognition of slavery in the States
which chose il, and the right Of recovering
slaves fleeing to the free States. The Missouri
controversy could not have been settled except
by the prohibition Of slavery in the upper half
of the Territory of Louisiana; and that pro-
hibition could not have been obtained without
the right to recover fugitive slaves from the
part made free. Thus, the three measures are
one, and the Ordinance Of 1887 father to tho
other two. IL led to the adoption of the fugi-
tive slave clanse in the Constitution, and, we
may say, to the formation of the Constitution
itself, which could not have been adopted with
out that clause, and the recognition Of slave
property in which it was founded. This vital
fact results Of itself from tho history OF the
case In March, Of tho year 17S4, the Virginia
delegation in the then Congress Of the Confed-
GRAFTON, headed by Mr.. Jefferson and Mr.. Mon
roe conveyed the Northwestern Territory to
the thirteen United States. In the month Of
April ensuing tho organizing mind Of Mr.. JEFF
ferson, always bent upon systems and admins
tration, brought in an Ordinance for the gov
eminent of the Territory 80 conveyed, with tho
anti-slavery clause as part Of it to take effect
in the year 1900; but without clause for the
recovery Of fugitive slaves For want Of this
provision, the anti-slavery clause was opposed
by the slavcholding States, and rejected; and
a. n.d;oaooo xvao xoaead uithout IL In Julv