Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-07-29
TUESDAY MORNING, JULY 10, 1855.


FILLMORE FALSIFYING THE FACTS OF
HIsToRY-THE REPEAL OF THE MISsOU.
RI RESTRICTION NOT AN ACT OF PER-
FIDY.
In his philippics against the authors OF the Kan
sas. Nebraska Bill. Mr. Fillmore charges that the re-
peal Of the Missouri restriction was an ac of perfdy,
in that it violated the Compromises OF 1870 and of
1850.
Now, II i'll becomes any Northern man Of Wbig
associations to accuse the South Of n6deity to its
engacements The South did once pledge itself to
Compromise; and onerous ns it was the South en-
dured il without complaint The North stood to the
adjustment only while honor and interest were iden'
tical but the moment it began to operate 10 the ad-
vantage Of the South the North broke its pledge and
repudiated it's obligations. We speaking of the
Tariff Compromise of 1893, by which the South con-
sented to pay protective duties for nine years, and the
North agreed after the expiration Of that period to
reduce the imports to purely revenue standard.-
The people of the South, true to the principles OF
honor which have ever controlled their policy, bore
the burden without murmur until the day for their
emsncpation then the North true to its instincts ol
self.aggrandizement, only frightened the rapaclous
grasp which was pledged TO relax BY solemn compact
And Milard Fillmore personally participated in the
violation of the Tariff Compromise OF 1883. With
what face can he now talk Of the sancuy OF COM
paot,1
But is i, true that the Kansas-Nebraska Bill viola.
ted the Compromise Of lS2U1 Emphatically, no; for
the Compromise of 1920 was repudiaed and set aside
long before the Kansas. Nebraska Bill existed even
in conception-repudiated and set aside too, BY the
very men who now denounce its formal repeal.
The Missouri restriction was imposed upon the
South by the despotism of Northern majority, and
for that reason not entitled to respect or ooser'
ance. Yet the South quietly submitted to is opera
ton. Thus when Texas was admitted into the onon'
much Of it's territory lay North OF the line OF 'o o
but the South adhered to the Compromise oil loZo'
and suffered in consequence, considerable losS o'
slave soil. Again in lsi7, when Oregon was organ
lied into territorial government the South proposed
to apply the principle OF the Missouri Compromise
But the North, now that the settlement had come 10
operate 10 it's disadvantage, shamefuy repudiated It's
obyatiops, and substituted the new principle OF the
Wiuot Proviso. This was the first but not the last
violation of the Missouri Compromise for when the
South again proposed to apply the principle OF that
settlement TO CaltOruld, ~Notu ioo'o'SH' eN
cured the exclusion of slavery from that territory as
we'll below as above the line of So 3V. In the same
spirit of nsensbility 10 the engagements OF honor'
the North again refused to incorporate the Prnc'pe
of the Missouri settlement into the compromise
Of 1885, The South offered the proposition but
the North rejected it; and then it was that ths
South, convinced that the North would adhere 70 no
compact when it came to work to its advantage
fell back upon fundamental principles and asserted is
eouslity under the Constitution. The principles OF
Federal nonnervention against slavery IN the ler-
ritores of State Equality and Popular Sovereignty
were embodied in the organic act OF Utah and New
Mexico but the South procured this concession OF ITS
r;chts by the sacrifice of large area OF the slave
so;, of Texas Thus the compromise OF lS5o, repeal
sd and snnued the compromise of lS2O (which had
been repeatedly violated by the Nortb if not in er-
nress terms yet by affirming another and an inconSs-
.,t nrinciple of settlement. It is rule Of legsiaon
,,d of l,w. that two inconsistent statutes cannot
.nd and that the last repeas the first in order OF
.;ms II WAS understood at the time Of the passage
of the Cornpromise Measures Of 1850, that they re-
ne,,ed the Missouri restriction and introduced new
nrncipe Of settlement, as is shown by the following
paragraph from speech the Kansas Neoraska Dill,
by Senator DduScli w"
Mr.. Fillmore:
Now Mr.. President, propose TO sho, hHf thus pr'n'
coIs unon uhieh the legislation Of lS20 rds 6"s'd,
ras ycpudatcd by the legislation o. ieoo. propose
10 show that the application OF the missouri oVp'o.
mise to State and Territory was INSISTED upon oy he
southern members of the Senate IN many, very many
cages that we asked nothing We sought nothing, but
tbe simple recognition of the Missouri Compromise
line rs carried still further out upon II. original prn'
cpe, and that it was refused 10 u. ana lad "'' Icrr'
,cJr tHpf
in utLcr disrceard of the Missouri CompromSe. II
can succeed in showing that shall then contend that
il is unreasonable that it is idle, 1t is absurd IL use
the terms in no offensive sense for gentlemen to call
upon w to maintain compromise whch mas been re-
pudlated and dsavowed by themselves.
So then, il any disgrace attaches to the repeal of
the Missouri restriction, Mr.. Fillmore shares pre-
eminenty in the ufamy for he gave The executive
sanction to the measure which annuled that settle
ment.
But rising to higher and stronger ground we main
tain that every person who supported or approve
the Kansas. Nebraska Bill assents to the proposition
that the Compromise of 1850 repealed the Compro.
mise of 1921; for the Kansas-Nebraska Bill ntirms
the proposition in express terms. Here is the
tisl clause Of that Bill:
"That the Constitution and all laws Of the United
States which are not locally inapplcable, shall have
the same force and effect within the said Territory Of
Nebraska elsewhere within the United States, ex-
cent the 9th section of the act preparatory to the ad
mission of Missouri into the Union, approved March
s. 1920 nchich being inconsistent cAh me principles
of non.inte,uentiou By Congrsss ,oih slarery IN The
States and Territories recognized 6y the fcesia.
t,on Of 1850, commonly called the compromisc mea-
,ures is hercby declared imperative and roid; it be-
np the true intent and meaning Of this act not to egs
late slavery into any Territory or State nor to eI:
clude it herefroln but to leave he people thereot
perfecy free to form aud regulate their domestic in
stitutions in their own way, suoect only u Tue Con-
stitution of the United States
1, being established by irresistible evidence that
the Comoromise of 1850, operated substantial abro.
cation of the Compromise of 1920 it follows necessa
rv that the Kansas Nebraska BILL which simply re.
;ted the fact of this previous repeal did not involve
snv pfraction of the Compromise of 1850. The Kan
,as Nebraska Bill simply applied the principle OF the
Comnromiss of 1850. Yet, MIR. Fillmore affirms that
tho Kansas. Nebraska Bill did violate the Conpro.
mise of 1885, and upon this ground he as'as tho bill
and its authors.
Itis mortifying to see person OF MIR. Filmores
nosition soop to the disingenuous artihce OF which
be ia convicted by the foregoing statement
I, ia aot surprising, however, since having taken
tbe stump in bis own interests, he is reduced to the
acessi,;es of other candidates of desperate fortunes
The South will not forgive the attempt to Gscredlt t'
character and impair its cause by false representa-
ton of the facts of history.
JAMES BARBOUR, ESQ.