Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1845-1854, 1854-05-17

Missouri compromise, whereby slavery was de-
clared to be "foreyef prohibited in all that terri
tory ceded by France to the United States, under
the name of Louisiana, which lies north of Sc
80 min. north latitude, not included within the
J limits Of the State of Missouri
have no comments to make upon the courtesy
and proprety exhibited in this legislative decla-
J ration, that provision in bill, reported by
regular committee Of the Senate Of the United
States, and known to be approved by three.fourths
OF the body, and which has since received the
sanction of their votes is sin derogaton of truth,
gross violation of plighted faith and an outrage
and indignity," &c. The opponents of this meas
ure claim monopoly of all the courtesies and
amenities which should be observed among gen.
tlemen, and especially in the performance of off,
cial duties; and i am free to say that this is one
Of the mdest and most respectful forms Of ex-
!. preston in which they have indulged But there
is a declaration in this resolution to which wish
to invite the particular attention Of the Senate
and the country. Ii is the distinct allegation
that "the free States of the Union," including
New York, yielded their ''assent to the admis-
sion into the Union Of Missouri and Arkansas,
with slavery, in reliance upon the faithful obser-
vance OF the provision known as the Missouri
compromised .. .rg-l aar.. d. -.. sa
: Now, sir, since the Legislature of New York
has gone out Of its way to arragn the State on
matters of truth, will demonstrate that this par
Eagraph contains two material statements in direct
'.derugation Of truth" have already shown, be-
yond controversy, by the records of the legisla-
ture and by the journals of the Senate, that New
York never did give her assent to the admission
of Missouri with slavery. Hence, | must be per-
mitted to say, in the polite language of her own
resolutions, that the statement that New York
yielded her assent to the admission of Missouri
with slavery is in "derogaton of TRUTH! and, Sec
ondly, the statement that such assent was given
sin reliance upon the faithful observance Of the
!, Missouri compromise is equally Sin derogaton
of truth" New York never assented to the ad-
mission Of Missouri as $ lave State, never as
sented to what she now calls the Missouri COM
promise, never observed its stipulations COM
pact, never has been willing to carry it out; but
: on the the contrary has always resisted it, as
have demonstrated by her own records.
Mr. President. have before me other journals,
records, and Instructions, which prove that New
;, York was not the only free State that repudiated
the Missouri c-mpromise of 1920 within twelve
months from its date. | will not occupy the time
OF the Senate at this late hour of the night by
ferring to them unless some opponent Of the bill
renders it necessary In that event, may be
able to place other Senators and their States in
the same unenviable position in which the Sena-
tor from New York has found himself and his
State. .., ....-n ..... --. ... .-..- ...... .,
think have shown, that to call the act of the
9th of March, 1920, q compact, binding in honor,
is to charge the northern States Of this Union
with All act of perfdy unparalleled in the history
OF legislation or Of civilization. have already
adverted to the facts, that in the summer OF 1920
Missouri formed her constitution, in conformity
with the act of the 9th OF March; that it was pre-
sented to Congress at the next session; that the
Senate passed Joint resolution declaring her to
L. aI-- f1I,e Ia:
footing with the original States; and that the
House of Representatives rejected it, and refused
to allow her to come into the Union, because her
constitution did not prohibit slavery. f....
These facts created the necessity for a new
compromise, the old one having failed of its OBJ
ject which was, to bring Missouri into the I'm
ion. At this period in the order Of events-in
u February, 1921, when the excitement was al
most beyond restraint and great fundamental
principle, involving the right of the people of
the new States to regulate their own domestic
institutions, was dividing the Union into two
great hostile parties. Henry Clay, Of Kentucky,
came forward with a new compromise, which had
the effect to change the issue, and make the re-
suit of the controversy turn upon a different
point. He brought in resolution for the ad-
mission of Missouri into the Union, not in pur-
suance of the act of 1920, not in obedience to
the understanding when it was adopted, and not
&, with her constitution as it had been formed in
conformity with that act, but he proposed to ad-
nit Missouri into the Union upon "undamen-
tai condition. which condition was to be in the
+ nature of solemn compact between the United
States on the one part and the State OF Missouri
on the other part, and to which fundamental
condition. the State of Missouri was required to
declare her assent in the form of "a solemn pub
| lie act.'' This joint resolution passed, and was
Ionn uol - and &c l.
Clay's Missouri compromise, in contradis'ion to
that Of 1920, which was introduced into the SEN
ate by Mr.. Thomas, of Illinois. In the month OF
June, 1921, the legislature of Missouri assem-
bled and passed the "solemn public act,' and
furnished an authenticated copy thereof to the
} President OF the United States, in compliance
4 with Mr.. Clay compromise, or Joint resolution
On August 10, 1921, james Monroe, President of
the United States, issued his proclamation, in
which, alter reciting the fact that on the I'd OF
March, 1921, Congress had pass joint resolution
providing for the admission of the State Of Mis-
4 souri, into the Union, on certain condition.
5 and that the general assembly of Missouri, on
y the 26th of June, having, "by solemn public
e act, declared the assent OF said State OF Nilsson.
e rito the fundamental condition contained in said
e joint resolution" and having furnished him with
S an authenticated copy thereof he, SIN pursuance
OF the resolution of Congress aforesaid" declared
. the admission of Missouri to be complete.
do not deem it necessary to discuss the ques.
a ton whether the conditions upon which Missouri
nj was admitted were wise or unWise Ills suff
e cent for my present purpose to remark, that the
4 fundamental condition. of her admission rea.
ted to certain clauses in the constitution Of Mis-
souri, in respect to the migration oil free negroes
: into that Stute; clauses, similar to those now in
a force in the constitutions Of Illinois and aInd-
ana, and perhaps other States; clauses similar tc
I the provisions of law in force at that time in
. many of the old States OF the Union; and,
= will add, clauses which, in my opinion, Missouri
had right to adopt under the Constitution Of the
, United States. II is no answer to this position
& in snv thar those clauses in the constitution o