Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1855-07-14

each, founded in their respective circumstances
and therefore submitted an amendment, con-
sisting of two resolutions applicable to
the district, the other to the territory. In
stating the reasons why slavery should not be
abolished in Florida, he quoted the Missouri
compromise line of 1920 This was objected
to by other senators on the ground that that
line did not apply to Florida, and that her case
was complete without it. OF that opinion was
the Senate, and the clause was struck out
This gave Mr. CALHOUN occasion to speak of
that compromise, and of his own course in re-
lation to it, in the course of which he declared
himself to have been favorable to that memora-
bic measure at the time it was adopted, but
opposed to it now from having experienced its
lll-etfects in encouraging the spirit of aboli-
tioniSm.
ment which referred to the Missouri COmpro-
mise had been struck out. He was not men,
Der of Congress when that compromise was
made, but it is due to candor to state, that his
impressions were in its favor but it is equally
due to it to say that with his present expert
ence, and knowledge of the spirit which then,
for the first time began to disclose itself, that
he had entirely changed his opinion He now
believed that it was dangerous measure, and
that it has done much to rouse into action the
spirit. Had it then been met with uncompro-
missing opposition, such as a then distinguished
and sagacous member from Virginia. (Mr
RANDOLPH, now no more, opposed to it, abo,
lition might have been crushed forever in its
birth. He then thought of Mr. RANDOLPH as,
he doubts not, many think of him now, who
have not fully looked into this subject that he
was too unyielding, too uncOmprOmSing, too
impracticable but he had been taught his
error, and took great pleasure ill acknowledge
ing it,"
This declaration is explicit 1t is made in
a spirit Of candor, and as due to justice 1t
Is a declaration spontaneously made, not an
admission obtained on interrogatories 1t
shows that Mr.. Calhoun was in favor of the
compromise at the time it was adopted and has
since changed his opinions" entirely changed"
them, to use his own words-not on constitu-
tional but expedient grounds He had changed
upon experience and upon seeing the dan
gerous effects of the measure. He had been
taught his error, and took pleasure in acknowl-
edging it. He blamed Mr.. Randolph then for
having been to uncompromising, but now thought
him sagaciouS, and believed that if the measure
had met with uncomprOmising opposition at
the time, it would have crushed forever the
spirit of abotionism. All these are reasons
of eXpediency, derived from after-experence,
and excludes the idea of any constitutional
objection. The establishment of the Missouri
Compromise line was the highest possible
exercise of legislative authority over the subject
of slavery in a territory 1t abolished it where
it legally existed. 1t forever forbid it where
it had legally existed for one hundred years.
This abolition and prohibition extended over
an area large enough to make dozen states {;
and of all this Mr. Calhoun was in favor and
now had nothing but reasons of expediency,
and they &C post facfO, against. His expressed
belief now was that the measure was dangerous
he does not say unconstitutional, but danger
ouS-and this corresponds with the terms of
his resolution then submitted, which makes
the lntermeddling to abolish slavery in the
District Or territories, or any act or measure
of Congress to that effect dangerous"
attack on the institutions of the Slavehoding
states. Certainly the idea of the unconstituti-
onal;ty of such Legislation had not then entered
his head. The substitute resolve of Mr.. CLAW
differed from that of Mr.. Calhoun in changing
the word intcrmeddling' to that Of Inter
ference" and confining that word to the
conduct Of citizens, and making the abolition
or attempted abolition of slavery in the District
an injury to its own inhabitants as well as to
the states, and placing its protection under the
faith implied in accepting it ceSSion from Mary
land and Virginia. 1t was in these words
That the interference, by the citizens of
any of the states, with the view to the abolition
Of slavery in this District, is endangcrimg the
rights and security of the people III the District
and that any act or measure of Congress, de-
signed to abolish slavery in this District, would
be violation Of the faith implied in the ccSSonS
by the states of Virginia and Maryland a
just cause of alarm to the people of the slave
holding states, and have a direct and incvi-
table tendency to disturb and endangcr the
Union"
The vote on the final adoption of the reso-
luton was:
YEAs-Messrs Allen, Bayard, Benton,
Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clay of
Alabama Clay of Kentucky, Thomas Clayton,
Crittenden, Cuthbert, Fulton, Grundy, Hubbard,
King, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, NOrvell,
Franklin Pierce, Preston, Rives, Roane,
Robinson, Sewer, Smith of Connecticut,
Strange, Tallmadge, Upton, Walker, White,
Williams, Wright, Young.
NAYs-Messrs. Davis, Knight, Mexican,
Morris, Prentiss, Smith of Indiana, Swift,
Webster.
The second resolution of Mr.. Clay applied
to slavery in a territory where it existed, and
deprecated any attempt to abolish it in such
territory as alarming to the slave states, and as
violation of faith towards its inhabitants, un-
less they asked it, and in derogation of its right
to decide the question of slavery for itself
when erected into state. This resolution
intended to cover the case of Florida, and ran
thus
"Resolred That any attempt of Congress
to abolish slavery in any territory of the United
States, in which it exists would create serious
alarm and just apprehension in the states
sustaining that domestic institution, would be