Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1856-10-09
Letter from Henry Clay.
From the National intelligence
rlrl. 1Ts... r-s

LeCLer from denry Clay'
From the National Intelligencer.
The Missouri Compromise.
The history and merits of the missouri
Compromise" having, after an unds,urbed
and happy existence of thrty-three years,
become a subject Of renewed discussion
possessing indeed with the present genera
ton the interest of new question-we
could not, we are sure, offer TO the majority
of our readers any document which would
be pursued with profounder respect and at
tenton than the ubjoined original letter
from the ilustrious author, as he may be
Justly styled, of that important Compromise.
This valuable relic of the departed states.
man, containing so circumstantal an account
of his patriotic labors, though written twen-
ty-one years ago, now meets the public eye
for the iiist time. The esteemed subscri-
ber in Virginia TO whom we are indepted
for the pleasure of placing the letter in our
columns explains in the annexed note the
motive which induced him TO give it 10 the
public.
ALBERMARLE, Va, Sept. 2, 1856.
Dear SirS: In conversation a few days
since with Representative in Congress
from this State, allusion being made to q
letter Of Mr.. Clay TO my late brother, Will
liam S. Woods, giving the part which he
had taken in bringing about the Missouri
Compromise, considerable anxiety was en-
pressed that the letter might be published;
and | herewith enclose 10 you, his ever
constant and devoted friends, the original
that you may do with it as you think prop,
er. Yours, most truly,
... JouN R. WooDs.
Messrs. Gales s. Seaton, Washington.
ASHLAND, July l6, 1885.
Dear Sir: l have duly received your "a.
vor of the Sth instant, and feel greatly 90.
liged by the friendly sentiments and the
constancy with which you have adhered to-
wards me. l regret extremely that l can
supply YOU with no copy of any speech that
| ever made on the Missouri question. The
debate was long, arduous, and, during the
last agitation Of the question, spoke almost
every day for two or three weeks on the
main or collateral questions. The set or
prepared speech which made of three or
four hours duration was never published
or my share in the debate there is, there
fore, only a meagre account 10 be cleaned
from the papers of the day.
The question first arose in the session Of
lSl9-'20. When the bill FOR admitting
Missouri into the Union was on its passage,
Mr.. Taylor, of New York, proposed to in
sert in it, as q condition on which the State
was TO become member of the Confedera-
cy, that it should never tolerate slavery or
involuntary servitude. The argument by
which that proposition was maintained by
himself and others was, that slavery is con-
trary TO the divine law, and to Acknowledged
rights of man; that it ought not 10 exist, that
it is an admitted evil; that, if the General
Government cannot extipate it in the old
States, it can prevent its extension TO the
new; that, being contracted within litni-
ted sphere, it will be less perncious and
more comfortable; that Congress, having the
power to admit new States, may prescribe
the conditions Of their admission; and that
in all proceeding instances of the admission
Of new States, some conditions were an.
nexed. ..
To all this we replied that the General
Government had nothing to do with the
subject of slavery, which belonged exclu.
sively to the several States; that they alone
were to judge of the evil and the remedy,
that every State had such entire control
over the matter that those which tolerate
slavery might abolish it, and those which
never had 1t or had abolished it might now
admit without any interference from the
General Government; that although Con.
gress had the power 10 admit new States
when admitted, by the express terms of the
Constitution, they were on the same footing
in every respect whatever with the senio,
States, and consequently had right to Judge
for themselves on the question Of slavery
that, if Congress could exercise the power