Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-04-01

~ oh6oA suio " aoSso PlsSAohS VI
uts the purposes Of the phlanhropsts
gtators Of the North represent the celebrated
slavery exenton movement in 1920 as founded ex-
clusbey principles Of humanity and opposition to the
INSTITUTION OF slavery in the South. Nothing could be
mor deceptive untrue The great leaders in that
movement were influenced by such sympathy for the
slave they had such horror of the institution itself
as induce them to adopt policy so likely to lay the
fourdation of lasting feud between the North and the
South There other considerations which impeled
then OF very different nature and quite repugnant
to their feelings slavery. These the longcon-
tinued and apparently never-ending sway of the Vir
gha dynasty, and the perpetual exclusion from power
with which the preponderating influence of the South at
tnat period seemed to threaten them Urged by these
strong passions, they had difficulty through the press
aud the pulpit to into activity the whole latent yet
j powerful anti-slavery feeling in the North 1t
great party and political and the slavery
sentiment SO universal at the North the chief ele
4 ment of its success
further urged by the friends Of this bill that Con-
gross haa no constitutional power to enact the Missouri
compromise, and therefore they contend it ought to be
repealed The power of Congress to impose perpetual
restriction upon slavery any portion Of the territory
OF the United States strongly questioned at the time
OF the adoption OF the measure and looking at the ques
ton as one OF constitutional constructions agree with
my Southern friends that such power be fairly de-
duced from any grant in the constitution. Yet it
accepted by the South, and asquesced in as measure
OF compromise between the North and the South and its
constitutionahty was sanctioned by President Monroe
and his Cabinet.
Again: it has been alleged that the Missouri compro-
mse which is now claimed to have become compact of
so sacred character that to repeal it would be breach
OF good faith the part of the South has been repu
dated by the North ITSELF and that the North has
acquiesced in it settlement concession of the right
OF the South to introduce slavery the territory south
of $50 30 That the North, in $780, opposed the
sion Of the Missouri compromise line, established in
1870 to the Pacific any part of the territory
quired from Mexico is true 1t has also been urged in
the of the debate that the North opposed the ad
mission Of Arkansas lying south Of the line of aG0 ao
into the Union the ground that slavery recog-
Missed in its constitution; but believe it has been
cessfuly shown that such opposition made But
sir it is true that the Missouri compromise has been
pudated and has never been acquiesced in as valid
compact by class Of citizens at the North made
aboitionists proper and the mscheyous type of
slavery agators which is found represented this
floor They repudiate all compromses--the compromise
of 1920 and 1850 alike Their hostility to the nstu
ton of slavery in the South is uncompromising The
Senator from Ohio mr. CHAsE) and the Senator from
Massachusetts Alr SUMNER have boldly proclaimed the
principles which will control their upon this sub
ect The Senator from Ohio ayows the purpose to ag
tate the question until slavery shall be abolished in the
District of Columbia and everywhere else within the
control of Congress They admit that slavery where it
exists in the States they cannot reach through Congress
but they give pledge that when it is abolished in this
District they will their agitation; will they.
Though they profess to make upon the consttu-
on yet such is their for freedom and free Ia
bcr and their hostility to slavery and slave labor that if
in their efforts to vndcate the rights Of the and abo
fish the other the Union should perish they would be
sufficiently consoled for the ruin they had brought upon
the country by the reflection that they had been
the principles they professed.
Do what you may forbear to do what you may now,
these gentlemen the memorable foes Of the institutions
of the South They not only repudate the compromises
of 1920 and 1885, but the compromises Of that greater
compact for the settlement of all conflicting sentiments
and interests between the North and the Southhe Con-
stution admit then, that the North has opposed the
extension of the line of $50 30 to the Pacific and that
the class of agitators in the North to whom have alud
ed never acquiesced in it.
Some Of the friends of this bill have denied that the
slavery restriction clause Of the of 1920 was any part
of the Missouri compromise. They that this clause
of the act Of 1870 not acquiesced in by the North
settlement of the question; that the admission of Mis-
souri, into the Union was still opposed by the North in
1921, the ground that the constitution formed and
presented by the people of Missouri under the act of
1920 prohibited the Legislature from passing any law
thorzng muattoes other free persons of color to emf
crate t0he State and it is commended that the admission
Of Missouri into the Union the result of compro
mise of that questions and that contended by gen.
demen to have been the real Missouri compromise.
That opposition made by the North to the final ad-
mission of Missouri in 1921 the ground stated is
rue but the inference drawn from that fact by the very
ingenious and distinguished gentleman who brought it to
notice. that is to say that the slavery restriction
clause the of 1920 had nothing to do with the ques
ton Of the admission Of Missouri into the Union, or in
other words that it formed part Of the compact
Outstanding between the North and the South which led
to that result think scarcely find any support in
the judgment of the country. .s.
Having thus gone all the grounds of objection sug
gested against the validity of the Missouri compromise
trust it will be that not disposed to controvert
them either to fact doctrine, with such exceptions
only upon deliberate consideration by those who
asserted them, will be allowed to be well taken
But, sir, admitting them, with the exceptions have
stated to be incontrovertby true, still the main ques
ton remains be considered and decded Do these facts
and doctrines demonstrate the expediency Of disturbing
the Missouri compromise under existing circumstances
and in coming affirmative conclusion upon this ques
ton? / hesitate, pause. /
have listened with attention to all the luminous expo
stions of theories Of constitutional construction and of
popular sovereignty to the ingenious application of doc
trnal points to questions Of compacts and compromises
by the friends of this The question has been
fruitful of themes diaectic display for the exhbi
ton of great powers of analysis and logical acumen but
the whole argument has been singulary defective and
unsatisfactory upon the main question: What practical ad
vantage benefit to the country generally, to the
South in particular will the repeal Of the Missouri
promise secure? a
1t is asserted with great confidence that the appca-
ton Of the principle of nonnterventon to these Terrific
res and the repeal of the Missouri compromise will have
the effect to transfer to the local legislatures the Terri
tories and States and to relieve Congress for the future
from the most dangerous and dstracng subject of
troversy which has disturb its debera
ton that the of those sectional conflicts and ag
tatons upon the subject Of slavery which have than
threatened the peace of the country will be
ed that justice will be done to the South that the Con-
sttution will be restored and indicated; and new
guaranty be provided for the stability of the Union
need not say that If half Of the many benecent
suits predcated Of this DO shown follow
probable consequence of its adoption, would longer
hesitate to give it my support but unfortunately the
without showing how these results must will fol-
low. Some gentlemen delighted at the prospect of see