Washington sentinel., 1854-05-06

SiuerSu, Out not nnaily acted upon; among
them one to enable the people of Oregon Ter
ritory to form q Constitution and State govern
ment and for the admission of such State into
the Union.
MR. BENTON AND THE MISSOURI COM
PROMISE.
The representative of the st. Louis district
has more that once assumed, with much zeal,
the task of yindicating the truth of history from
alleged misconceptions and false statements.
He has also recently appeared before the pub
lie in the character of an historian, and he oan-
not complain if we vindicate the truth Of his
tory from his mistakes and misrepresentation,
no matter whether they spring from passion
or prejudice, from treacherous memory or
careless investigation.
The transactions connected with the Missouri
act of 1920 and the Missouri compromise of 1921
constitute most important part ofour political
annals. They areespecially interesting, and have
an important bearing at the present time The
deep concern which Mr.. Benton must have felt
in them when they happened give importance
to the errors which he may commit with regard
to them and make the duty of correction imper-
ative.
Since the introduction of the Wilmot proviso
into Congress, Mr.. Benton has been particularly
industrious in disseminating the belief that the
south irresponsible for the prohibition slavery
north Of 36o 30<; and he has not been back
ward in exertions to wound an adversary by
coupling his name with measure which has
always been unpopular at the south and abso-
lutely odious to a large portion Of the southern
people.
In his recent speech in the House Of Repre-
sentatives, Mr.. Benton, without deigning to
cite facts or quote the record, announces in q
tone Of authority that /" the Missouri anti-slave
NJ line aoas not made upon agreement. Kcas
imposed by yotes by the South upon the North,
resisted By the North at the time, acquiesced in
afterwards; and By that dcquiescence became a
binding corenant betpeen both parties, and more
so on the South because she imposed it," These
words plainly imply that the South, Of her own
free will, forced the Missouri act as favorite
policy on the North which had not the power to
resist it.
Every one who has read the history Of the
Missouri controversy, knows that the south
was compelled to accept the act of 1920 in
order to obtain the admission of Missouri as a
slaveholding State. The north took the ini-
tiative, the south acted on the defensive. Mr..
Benton says, in the preliminary View to his
Thirty Years View," that the agitation came
from the north, and the act of 1920 was an
immense concession to the non-slaveholding
States'--that "t divided free and slave soil
far more favorably to the north than the ordi-
nance of 1885," and that "t was all clear gain
to the anti-slavery side Of the question" This
being true, is it not passing strange that the
south should have forced the act of 1920 on the
reluctant north? Do politicians insist on max.
ing "immense concessions?" Do they insist
on filing the hands of their opponents2 Do
they impose divisions whereby all is "clear
gain to their adversaries? Never, except
when they are ignorant and uniformed and
surely, Mr.. Benton, with all his self complacen.
cy, would not undertake, in the face Of the
American people, to charge the southern
statesmen of 1920 with folly and imbecility.
The author of the "Thirty Years View
comes nearer to the mark when he says, in the
second chapter Of his work, the non-slavehold
ing States, though defeated in the State Of
Missouri, acre successful IN producing The
icompromise,' conceived and passed as south
ern measure The non-slaveholding States
by resisting the admission Of Missouri unless
slavery was abolished within her borders, pro
d,ced the act Of 1920 by a Jorcible process ;
and even If that act was conceived and passed
as a southern measure, it was so conceived and
80 passed under compalsion, and not through
choice; and it was not imposed on the unag
gressve north as favorite chemes of southern
policy, as the extract we have quoted from Mr.
Benton's recent speech would make the public
believe.
But, fortunately, Mr.. Benton does in his
book what he does not do in his speech; h'
states in it the grounds upon which he aver
that the. Missouri act of 1920 was q southern
measure.
The first argument advanced is " the unan
unity of Mr.. Monroe's cabinet This unan
unity has been questioned but admitting i
to be true, it proves nothing useful in tn
present controversy. Mr.. Monroe did not orig
nate or recommend the measure; and neithe
Mr.. Monroe nor his cabinet had anything to d
with it until it had passed both branches 9
Congress, and was presented to the Presiden
for his signature. Even then Mr.. Monro
doubted, and hssitated whether he would sig'