Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-09-16
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
A LETTER FROM MR.. STEPHENS.
caAw,onpv1IIr, ga SEPTEMBER 6, lsI

well justice to the memory Of the deceased states
whose is used in the connexion equally
forbid it. You win therefore, trust be pleased to allow
me- through the medium Of your columns to make such
reply think necessary put this matter right before
the public. The remark refer to is in the following
words:
Note the fact that the opposition of Mr. Adams was
TO tie restriction upon the State of Missouri Nota word
about the dividing line. And this affords another oppor
tunty repeat how unusty Mr. Stephens, of Georgia.
asssiled the memory of Mr. Adams for alleged opposi
ton to the admission of Arkansas Stare State"
Now Messrs. Editors, you will permit to say most
respectfully that in the speech made by the occa
sion which you evidently aude, nothing further
from my intention than any design wish to do the
slightest injustice to the memory Of Mr.. ADAMS, or a
justly assa the motives character Of any living
or dead; do now think that what then said
legtmately bear any such construction. So far as Mr.
ADAMS concerned simply stated facts about which
there be dispute, at least between persons
thoroughly conversant with them you and ought to
be- That we may understand each other ask your at
tention to what did say 1t is as follows:
WE'LL the next time this question arose was ON the
admission of Arkansas into the Union in 1856. This
State formed out of part of the Louisiana purchase
south Of 36o S0/. By the terms of the Missouri con-
tract the gentleman from Vermont admits that she
70 in slave State. Did the North then so
New York Mr FESToN) said that this division line had
been approved by the North for thirty years If so,
ask him when where! Did they raise no objection
when Arkansas applied for admission? Let here
is the record. 'as e.<. .a"r.~-
Mr.. John Quincy Adams, in this House, June Is,
1856, moved amendment so as to make section Of
the bill for the admission Of that State read thus
" And nothing in this act contained shall be construed as
by Congress the article IN the Coaston Of the
said State relating slavery aud to the emancipation Of
s,ares,'" &c. ".-".
"Still harping on my daughter J" ..~ ~.
What is here said you will certainly not undertake to
gainsay or deny. That Mr.. ADAMS offered the amend
ment stated above to the Arkansas bill, which
jected in Committee Of the Whole, is fired ae in the
history of our country That he afterwards attempted
to offer it in the House, but precuded by decision
of the Speaker under the rules is another fixed fact
After its rejection that he and forty Others making
Fifty in ALL voted against the admission of Arkansas, is
also another fixed fact My object in referring to
these " facts to show, then thought and still
think they did and do show that at that time neither
Mr. ADAMS nor the anti slavery who agreed with
him in advocating the amendment recognised adhered
to the line Of SO deg and 80 min. Incorporated in the
act of 1920 preparatory for the mission Of Missouri
into the Union The diridng line between slave ter
ritory and free territory agreed upon by solemn
pact which could not be departed from ,ciou breach
Of good faith Assuredy Mr.. ADAMS could not have
recognised any obligations growing Of the establish
ment Of this dividing line he would not have moved
the amendment which he did In his speech from which
you quote he said nothing from which recognition of
any such obligation be inferred And as to the
views which his associates who spoke the took
Of the matter need cite but few examples In the
debate on this amendment of Mr.. ADAMS
Mr.. CUSHING said /" 1t is demanded of u.s. Do you
seek to impose restrictions Arkansas in violation of
the compromise under which Missouri entered the Union
might content myself with replying that the State of
Massachusetts was not party to that compromise She
never directly indirectly, assented to it, See your
Register Of Debates in Congress, vol IL part 4,
page Ago. ,,.. .E.. ~E
Mr. BRIGGs said: But sir upon this subject of slave
ry go the breadth Of hair beyond the obliga
tions of that instrument" (the Consttuon Not word
here about the dividing line any good faith in its
maintenance. But he goes on to add " l never
consent with the views which entertain to give
do any other act which will sanction the principle
or extend the existence Of human slavery"-Se
authority, page 4276.
Mr.. HARD, of New York, said 81 am aware that it
will be, as already has been, contended that by the
Missouri compromise, it has been PROFESSIONALLY
termed, Congress has parted with its right prohibit
the introduction of slavery within any part of the terri
tory Of the Louisiana purchase south of thirtysx de-
grees and thirty minutes north latitude There are to
my mind two substantial and unanswerabe objections to
the soundness of that proposition In the first place.
there was no compromise or compact whereby Congress
in the second place, if it had done it egs
lave that could bind their it would
be subject to repeal at the will Of any succeeding Con-
gress."-[See same authority, pages 1872 and 4273
From these extracts it will abundanty appear how
Mr. Adams's amendment was received at the time, and
with what views, feelings, and sentiments it advo
Gated and supported. So far from the dividing line
being then recognised by the slavery associates Of
Mr. Adams, it secuted at and repudated by them.
1t was "prepostToas proposition then talk to them
Of the " Missouri compromise" line "."
To exhibit this truth my sole object in referring to
the proposition of Mr.. Adams and the action of the
House upon it. / made allegation concerning him,
either in eulogy detracton With his general views
upon the subject Of slavery before that time then
since was not dealing The point at issue in the de-
bate in which was engaged, you will recoect, whe
ther the dudny line of SO S0," established in 1920
had been faithfully adhered to by the North from that
time down had shown that it had been totally disre
gnrded by majority of the North the very next year
lin 1921 on the admission of Missouri And l was
proceeding in regular order to show how the
slavery factioniss at the North had manifested similar
disregard for it whenever the question arose. until it was
finally abandoned by all parties in 1885, The South was
willing adhere to it up 1850 but only as an alter
zdire
join issue with you in any thing you say about
Mr.. Adams except when you assert that unjusty as
sailed him. know it is true, you state that he was
in 1920 opposed the original restriction against slave
~ in the State Of Missouri which the South generally
adhered with much tenacy; and might have added
his name wen that Of Gen. Harrison to the list Of
those few Northern men who in that crisis in on,