Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1854-03-16


the act itself, and before the same Congress.
It came up on the application Of Missouri
for admission in pursuance ofthe provisions
Of the very act that contains the covenant"
She had formed q State Constitution in pur-
suance Of it; she had violated none ofits con-
ditions. The whole south were for letting
her be admitted, and the entire north, nears
ly, were against it. Here was the vote re-
iecting her admission. The vote was: 79
for it, and 90 against 1.-THE north en- masse
almost against it, Why was this refusal?-
If they recognised the provisions Of the act
of March preceding, as containing any Sec
ton binding upon them, in the nature osa
contract" or compact" why did they re-
fuse to fulfill it? The pretert assigned was,
that the constitution Of Missouri contained a
clause empowering the legislature to pas q
law 10 prevent the introduction Of free per-
sons of color, as have stated. But this
could have been nothing but pretext, for
at that very day Massachusetts, had a similar
law Oh her statute-book. The truth is, the
north at that very early day showed that she
did not regard the provisions Of 1920 as at
all obligatory upon them, as anything like
compact. The real objection to the final ad-
mission Of Missouri as State was, that
slavery was tolerated within her limits by
her constitution. It was the old question
which gave trouble before this contract" Of
1920 was made. 1t was then that Mr..
Clay's compromise was adopted. Twelve
months, therefore, had not passed, before the
north repudiated this compact, by refusing
Missouri admission without another compro-
mise.
Well. the next time this question arose
was on the admission of Arkansas into the
Union, in 1886. This State was formed
out ola party of the Louisiana purchase
south Of SO lat. 80 By the terms Of tho
Missouri contract the gentleman from
Vermont admits that she was to come in as
slave State. Did the north then SO recog-
Mise and act upca these terms? The gem
tleman from New York Mr.. Fenton] said
that this division line had been approved by
the north for thirty years. If so, l ask him
when or whereP Did they raise no object
tion when Arkansas applied for admission
Let US see; here is the record.
Mr.. John Quincy Adams, in this House,
June l3, 1886, moved an amendment SO as
to make a section of the bill for the admis-
sion OF that State read thus:
"And nothing in this act contained shall
be construed as an assent by Congress to the
ari,le in lie constitution o. fthe said STATE reld-
fire 10 s1arcry and 10 the emancipation Of
slareS," Sc.
"Still harping on my daughter -
On vote, the effect of which was to al
low this amendment, there were eighty in
; favor of afordlng an opportunity. There
were one hundred and nine on the opposite
side, which prevented its being offered. OF
these eighty votes, some were from the
south. Their object may have been to get
vote upon this distinct question Of the re-
cognition by the House OF the line established
in 1920. But after the amendment was
d ruled out on the direct vote for the admis-
e sion OF Arkansas with constitution tolera-
y ting slavery, though she was south of sc
e lat. 3d. there are fifty two names, under the
e lead of Mr.. Adams, in the negative, every
h one of them, believe, from the north,
d have the journal before me. And amongs
N these names l see Heman Allen, Horac,
1t Everett, Hiland Hall, Henry f. Jones, w
is Slade-the entire delegation from Vermont
~ The gentleman's Mr.. Meacham's owl
re predecessor upon this floor, or lie who the
De represented portion of the same constituen
he cy that that gentleman now does, rccorde
-i- his vote against the admission of Afkansa,
We Did he or his colleagues have alx alher oh
ce lection to it except that it was & Sfayt State
y If they regarded the line of SO sassae' as
ne solemn covenant between the DeFthahd sout
iis why did they not give i,their sanction at III,
es time?
oe The gentleman spoke Of "honor"--
81 thank thee, Jew for teaching me til;
on word.'
se- Where was the "honor" OF the represer
en tatives of Vermont on that occasion?
d. whose keeping was it placed? Isuppose
err the hands Of their constituents, of whom II
IN gentleman was one. The Representative
las from the gentleman's twn State did the
ess unanimousl y-most dishOnOrably, if he cho
SUI ses so TO characterize their conduct-rep,
les dated that "contract" which The south ne,
er offered TO disturb, until il was total
or abandoned by an overwhelming majority
ge' the north, as shall presently show. l ha'
not shown that it was disregarded within twel,
sed months after il was made, and refused TO