Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-03-04
WASHINGTON.
"Liberty and Union, now and forever, one ina
inseparable."
SATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1854.
MR.. CALHOUN ON THE COMPROMISE LIN


Wesubjoin an article which we find in the ChaNes-
ton Courier of the 9th ultimo relative to Mr..
CALHoUN's course on the Missouri Compromise act
of 1920. 1t is we'll understood that Mr.. CALHOUN
when member of the Cabinet, was officially con-
suited and gave an affirmative response as to the
propriety of President MONROE giving to the bill
his appreciation and signature, but an effort is
now being made, in aid of the political projects
of the present day, to show that Mr.. CALHOUN was
in sentiment opposed to the principles Of that act.
This article, therefore, cannot be either unnterest-
ing or uninstructive to our readers
FROM THE CHARLESTON COURIER FEBRUARY q.
In further support of position that Mr. CALHOUN
denied that he gave his sanction TO the Missouri
compromise when a member of Mr. Monroe's Cabinet,
but always spoke oracularly the subject subjon
extract from his speech in the Senate of the United
States, February "a, ls47
81 have met, and trust successfully repealed,
oil the charges made by the Senator from Missouri ex
eep those relating to the Missouri compromise and the
abolition question Of that period for which am in no
ways responsible not then IN Congress. filled the
Office Of Secretary Of War at that time and had agen
cy control it. His charges are as light MS air
old and stale, without plausbility and have not
the slightest foar of their having any weight either here
OF in the community" (Cahouns Works, roL ~, &c.,
In this there is denial of agency CONTROL but
sanction approval either regards constuoaay OF
erpedency Had he dapproped either ground in his
prominent and commanding position, and candidate
for the Presidency he should not have been silent ane
allowed measure of doubtful expediency con-
stitutionay, not only to pass by Southern majority
without censure, but to be claimed by Charles Pnckny
/" "a great triumph for the saveholding States" ST.
ence under such circumstances, acquescence sane
ton, approval We do not understand Mr. Calhoun to
have denied approval he may have approved the ea-
erpeaien although not constitutional, l. by
way of compromise, Mr. Clay, William Lowndes John
Galard, Charles Pinckney and other true Southrons
did and under the circumstances of the case, even
Southern slayeholding triumph Mr.. Calhoun himself
said of the Missouri compromise, 1t compromise
in which both North and South waived, but neither
yielded its opinion to the power Of Congress" The
alternative restriction both sides Of the line Of
$50 30 restriction North and not South of it, the
North trong in numbers for the former the South
(weak in numbers) went for the latter and sufficient
number Of Northern united with the Southern votes
to carry the latter
Mr.. Calhoun himself, in his reply to Mr. Benton, al
ludes opologicay to the very suppose He
"Nor do deem it matter of any Importance in this
connection whether my opinion has has not undergone
change in the long period of thirty years. since the
adoption or the missouri llne AT that time the power
of Congress the Territories had received but little
consideration while for the last few years it has been
thoroughly investigated by myself aud Others whose duty
it has been to defend your rights in the Councils of the
Union in reference to it,
But what boots it to make issue to Mr. Cahoun's
opinions the Missouri compromise of 1920, when Mr.
Calhoun himself admitted that he adopted the Missouri
line or Compromise in the Texas compromise of 1915,
saying, not only selected but assigned my for
MAILING the selectioa] in despatch to then Minister
to Texas, Mr.. Donelson." s.. G.@