The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-03-15
lily is Justly subject to doubt II the reader will examine
the following extract from the article in the Ins
genesr, he will understand fully our meaning

lily Justly subject TO doubt If the reader will examine
the following extract from the article in the s
geneer, he will understand fully our meaning;
These impressions Of fact and law, in which
respondent oonoeiyes that la errorand almost
begin fear that be so, seeing how many great
inIelecs and how much distinguished legal ability IN the
Senate OF the United States have taken different ground
in the debates upon the Nebraska biwers, II to
ourselves state, confirmed by every yetrecolected cir
cumsance in the history Of the Missouri Compromise"
The editors almost begin 10 doubt whether they
not in error in thell opposition to the bllthey al
most converted by the many great nteecls and the dsn
guished legal ability which they have 10 encounter, But
yet they not altogether ready to yield to these high
authorities. Their impressions confirmed by the
circumstances in the history of the Missouri Compromise
ecolected by them, and they constrained 10 continue
their warfare. We have hope of seeing the In
egeneer out andout advocate of the Nebraska bill
II it could resist the influence OF the mighty ntelecs
in its party, which have again and again annhila-
ted all that had the sembance OF argument in its grounds
Of opposition and not iis position upon the simple fact
that its editors happened TO live in the days when the
Missouri Compromise enacted, we could not now
hope for their conversion. The most that we hope
for is, that may yet discover that its party is not likely
to derive any benefit from the defeat OF the BILL and that
this consideration will induce it relapse into neuirali-
ty 1t published letter on yesterday which is we'll
calculated to make an impression and as is most tr-
snphant to all the suggestions and arguments Of
the Iiegncer, reproduce from its columns the fol-
lowing liberal extracts and invite to them special a,en
ton The writer informs the I,elligsncer that he is
whig and has long looked up to that journal for
political sentiments:
{" The chief points in your objection the passage OF
this bill appear be founded upon your opinion of the
nvlolabe OF the Missouri Compromise, and the
apprehension OF excitement which discussion
sion Now, we oil the South find 1t difficult 10 what
rights violated by removing restriction doing injustice
to section of the country The very word RESTRICTION,
used in this connection, implies curament Of rights
and fit is conceded that have equal rights with
brethren Of the North, the virtue OF
promise at all respecting the right 60 20 into
the Territories with property. We have never de-
sired any restrictions to be placed upon the emigration
OF our northern friends either into the Territories the
southern States. Where, then, is the justice equality
in the opposite views entertained by them The fact
that the Missouri Compromise sustained by southern
votes is in my opinion, argument for its defence AT
that time southern gentlemen could not ioIesee the
tent TO which the agitation of the slavery question would
be carried the necessity OF remaining firm in resisting
encroaclnens upon their rights but, moved by patri-
otto feelings and spirit of CANCELLATION, they cheenuy
accepted the best they could get The times also, and
the position of the country, essentially different then
from what they Would not the whole country
now both North and South, consider II preposerous
Congress resist admission OF State the simple
ground that she tolerated slavery In her constitution
But wha, was the eifec, of Missouri Compromise Its
influence upon the South like a thorn in the flesh,
which, being constantly initated by northern encroach-
ments, kept fostering until 1t seemed about destroy
life in 1850, when very much relieved, but
rely cured. And now, when is proposed effect
radical of this canker upon the body polite, great
hue and cry is raised by the very class of who OPP
posed all compromise, and told, in address
forth iname the Masses that il is gross violation
sacred pledge criminal betrayal OF precious rights,
and an arocous plot will characterize this adj
dress deserves, has been characterized
in Congress but must say that look upon it fit
erpar the OF Mrs. Stowe, and believe 1t viii
have a similar effect upon the enlightened portion of
country 1t does really strike with surprise how gen.
emen. occupying such high positions lose sight OF
their dignity and the high claims which the country
large has upon them, and be led away by their preju-
dices upon the abstract question OF slavery Their
stuen must surely have been mistaken in the pacy
of these
But to return TO the controversy. distinguished sem
from Massachusetts,, upon whom the mantle Of the
immortal Webster appears have fallen, alter declaring
his firm belief that slavery exist in these Terrific
res asks the question, Why do southern gentlemen in
s upon the removal of this restriction II, he thinks
the real advantages all the side OF the free States,
might we with greater poprey ask him. and those
who think with him, why do they oppose the passage Of
this bill Anticipating the answer, would again ask,
compac be sacred involable which Is formed in
and based upon wrongl
sThe fact is Messrs. Editors, conendng for a
prime pie dear rights dear very
existence as coequals with the North and unless this
question fully and fairly set at rest embe for the safety
OF the Union"