Richmond daily Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1842-1861, 1854-02-21
It'd CSRRsroNDkNrs.
The Mls,s,ri osmn.a.I..-

Tho National Intelligenccr has compiled from the
proceedings Of Congress the particulars Of the action
Of that body in 1890 and 1891 in regard to slavery
or what s commonly called the "Missouri Compro.
mise" We give the article in another column.
The reader will be astonshcd at the facts disclosed.
Mr.. Clay said in 1850, that no historical event was
ever so Inexperienced in the same length Of time
as the so-callcd Missouri Compromise. The common
impression has been that the declaration that slavery
should not be allowed North of 5000, the
Compromise proposed by the South for the admission
of Missouri and agreed to by the North. That Mr..
Clay was the proposer Of that Compromises
that both sections Of the Union since its adoption
have scrupulousy respected il. This is the prevailing
idea OF what constitutes the Missouri Compromises
There is however, truth whatever in il. The
South did not PROPOSE in consideration of the amis
sion Of Missouri to prohibit slavery North of Sc 80
That proposition was made by Northern Senator
CMr. Thomas of llnois,) after long ard angry
test, and was adopted by mixed vote-some South
ern men voting for it-but of them against it.-
Mr.. Clay had nothing in the world to do with this
proposition. His name does not appear among those
voting-and being Speaker, it is highly proba-
BILE, he did not vote at all. The clause was
carried like any other amendment, and had more
sanctity than any other act of legislation. A Com
mittee Of Conference between the two Houses ap-
proved and recommended il as the only expclient for
getting rid of the sectional quarrel-and Mr. Lowndes
IN referring TO the action of the Committee spoke
oil it as Compromise. That the whole and sole
authority for calling it Compromise.
But that the North by whom it was proposed and
adopted, did not consider it sacred and nviolabe
Compromise, was made manifest in nine months after.
When Congress met in December 1920, Missouri pre-.
ntad q l,,;.
stituton contained provision against the admission
OF free negroes. Forthwith the Northern gentlemen
whc Gf We believe Free Soil historians of this day)
had settled the whole question in March preceding,
pounced upon this clause and said it was in violation
OF the Constitution of the United States which de,
cares the citizens OF State entitled equal prvi
ieges in the rest of the States. This clause in the
Missouri Constitution infringed upon the rights of
their cotored Jelloo-citseRl and they went to work
with teeth and nails to prevent the admission Of Mis-
souri,. That was their practical Interpretation of the
sacred Compromise within the twelve month after
1t was adopted. They did not consider themselves
bound to perform their part Of the contract-not at
all. II was then, that Mr. Clay brought forward his
Compromise, which had nothing in tie world to do
with the line of 30. 80. 1t is given in full in the In-
teligencer's compilation. 1t is confined expressly
stituton, relating to the admission of free negroes
1t IS simply designed to obviate any antagonism bc-
tween that pr vision and the Constitution of the Uni
ted States. This is the and substance of the
nuch.talk ed-oi Missouri Compromise 1t had Moth
ing to do with slavery North Of 3D. 80 That had
been adopted the previous year. on motion ara North
ern member, and by Northern ro,e. Its constitutions
atty was not defended by Mr.. Clay Mr. Calhoun, or
any other distinguished of the South. 1t was
carried by brute forcc-by sectional majority
and those, who carried it, have never respected il Jar
Their than it might be made subscrvicn to their sec
tional views. Whenever it suited their convenience
they have dsregarded it.
Its conStitntionality cannot be defended ON any
principle OF law logic. 1t is Of the very essence
of our confederated system, that all the States are
entitled to equal rights under the Constitution =
State-eqnality, was the basis of the Union--witout
1T, the Constitution would have been formed,
and ought not to be suffered to exist
The Outrage upon the Constitution and the equality
OF the States, which perpetratel in 1920, being
on the motion of Senator from Illinois, motion Ia
abrogate that outrage comes now with double pro-
prlety from Senator from the same State