Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-06-21


Territory, then neither Ohio, Indiana, Illinois,
or Michigan are sovereign States In this par
ticular, and neither one Of them could estab-
lish slavery by convention Of her people.
regard such doctrine as simply absurd !;
and we hold that any State may establish;
abolish, and re-establish slavery, by conyen-
ton Other citizens, without restraint. So much
for the rights of States in this respect. nthis
point Of view the Missouri Compromise Of 1920
was not binding as an organic law. Were
the Missouri Compromise act still unrepealed,
and were Kansas and Nebraska to be admitted
as States, without any repeal Of that Compro-
mise act, they could, nevertheless, as sovereign
States, afterwards decide for themselves, wheth-
or they would or would not establish African
slavery within their respective limits, and there
would be no power under the constitution To
override their action.
| The only binding obligation in the Missouri
| Compromise act, was that Of honor and good
faith. 1t was quasi a compact, made between
| the then representatives from the North and
South-yet compact which neither party
could enforce and which succeeding represen-
tatiyes in Congress could legally annul. The
only question therefore, was, whether under the
circumstances then existing, in 1854, 1t was
polite and wise to annul it? The country had
just become quieted by an acquiescence in the
Compromises measures Of 1850. Sectional strife
on the slavery question had been hushed.
| There was no demand-no necessity-no Occa-
sion for any disturbance Of the Compromise line
Of 1920. It's disturbance as question OF pol
icy, mot of right,) was the most reckless act
of legislation recorded in American history.
1t rcopened that agitation which it will take
perhaps years and years to allay. 1t gave the
North, not only serious umbrage as an appa-
rent violation Of good faith by the South, but
it excited feelings Of revenge and retaliation,
which jeopardze the more recent Compromise
of 1850. We shall not 60 back to inquire
what party was right, and what party wrong
in establishing the Compromise of 1920. But
it is due to truth and justice to repeat, that, SC
far as the rights of the South are concerned
the ordinance of 1857, voluntarily agreed to
by epery Southern State in Congress, was q
tentoM greater surrender, than that made by
the Missouri Compromise of 1820-ten. fold
greater in every point ofvisw, in which the sub.
iect can be considered.
But we have before said, and we repeat that
neither the ordinance Of 1887, nor the Com
promise Of 1920, could bind the sovereign
States, when carved out Of the restricted ter
ritory, and admitted into the Union, to conform
to the terms Of said ordinance or compromise
on the slavery question.
But we proceed to the point embraced in
the extract from the Richmond Enquirer.
On this point we have first to say, thai
nearly every Southern man in the Nationa
Council who expressed his opinions on the
subject, admitted, that as question of policy
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise in
1854 was 6lunder---that ii was not then dc
manded by the South, and that 1t had reopen
cd the agitation Of question dangerous t
the peace and harmony of the country.
"Ncarly all of them took the ground that th,
Comprosaioe Of 1890 wss unconstitutional, anc
not therefore binding but the policy of it,
repeal was sustained but by few. Again
There was not one Southern man in the Coun.
Gil, SO far as our memory serves us, who held
the opinion that Kansas .oouM eper Be slac.
State. Judge Gamble of Missouri, Mr.. Bur.
well of Virginia, and many other gentlemen Of
the South, maintained that Kansas could no,
be slave State. Their arguments on this
point were unanswered, and are unanswerable
We did not hear one single member Of the
Il he al hat
be slave State.
Southern men, OF course, all desired that
the citizens of Kansas should do as they
pleased, on the question Of admitting or ex.
Guiding slavery-6ut as a body, they enter.
tained the opinion, that slavery would not ex.
list in Kansas. We, and others, distinctly op.
posed tho re-enactment Of the Missouri restric.
ton, By Congress, for reasons which may be
deduced from the positions hereinbefore taken
We wished no further agitation of any ques.
ton connected with slavery, in Congress. But
we believed, and we still entertain no manner OF
doubt that notwithstanding the efforts which
have been made to force slavery into Kansas,
II can never exist there, as an institution Of
the State.
Well-the question at issue between the
North and South, in tho Council, was finally
narrowed down to this, Shall the Missouri
Compromise be restoredf We throw out Of
view, the wishes and claims Of Massachusetts,.
in thus stating the issue. Her delegates desired
no compromise with the South. On the above
issue the line was drawn by the majority and
minority reports from the committee on the
platform. The minority report in flvor Of the
restoration Of the Missouri Compromise, By lar,
was defeated-ayes Al, noes 90. We voted
against said restoration, by lao.
But we saw no difficulty then, and see none
now, in a reconciliation with the North, on the
basis which we proposed, and which we have
herein above copied Our proposition required
nolcgislation-no surrender Of a principle, but
simple, and, as we think, sensible acquies-
cence, in what il is almost universally agreed,
UiH be the destiny Of Kansas Our propo-
sition does not propose to bind Kansas by any