The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1856-06-07

| press 0WeH IN SO many Ocielul column
every day, that in the repeal of the 9Th Sc,
tion Of the bill admitting Missouri into tn
Union, solemn compact or compromise be
tween the free and slave states on the sub
ject Of slavery was broken. That ther
never was any agreement in the case ha
been SO often proven that the subject ha
grown stale; but as the principle accusation
brought against the democracy is still Qo
want of better) that they are "compac
breakers" we shall once more spike tina
gun by publishing the following letter. which
we find in the Pittsburg Onion, from tht
pen of the Hon. H. NJ. Breckenridge:
Mr.. KEsSAS-SIR: have again and again
raised my voice against the strange fallacy
of a compact, or q compromise, in pursu
ance Of which Missouri has been supposed
to have been admitted into the Union
There is nothing which legally or morally
can support the idea. except in the PROPOSE
ton of Mr. Clay, that the Legislature Of
Missouri should pass law changing the con,
stitution Of the State in relation to the clause
forbidding the immigration OF free people of
color; and on this being done, the admission
was to be by virtue of a proclamation by the
! President. The mere statement shows the
absurdity Of the thing to every logical mind,
! and it would never have been made by Mr.
Clay, if he had not been convinced that all
! parties in Congress were disposed TO lay
hold of any excuse TO get rid Of trouble
some subject. The eighth section Of the
act declaring the line of &c deg 80 min. the
| boundary between free and slave territory,
was not the compromise on which Missouri
was admitted; for she stood rejected after
its adoption, and would have remained So
but for the proposition Of Mr. Clay.
The eighth section was opposed by almost
the entire North, as it was at first by the
South; but as a creature Of Cancellation, it
was sustained by the Administration Of Mr.
Monroe, in the hope Of solving the difficulty
and obtaining the admission Of Missouri; /;
but it had not the effect, for i. failed to ob.
tain that admission. This &C. Of ccncilia-
ton and surrender of right, on the part Of
the South, strangely enough, came to be
considered the compromise or compact, in
stead Of the real compact between Missouri
and the Federal government, on the subject
Of the free colored people. Here, then, was
a compact between two parties and one
which was carried out or fulfilled; while in
the other case, there were no definite parties
and no compact, but simple act Of lcgisla-
tion, in which there was no faith involved
iorbidding its repeal. At the time of its
passage, the Northern supporters of the
A administration had to excuse themselves
for the act, and those Of the South had to
defend themselves against the charge Of sur
rendering Southern rights, We have seen
by the letter of General Pnckney, of South
Carolina, published in the Inteitigencer two
years ago. They supposed at the time that
a 0nnld
have been followed by passage Of the law
admitting Missouri, but it was not; and yet
such is the strange perversion Of history
we hear at the present day from the pulpit,
the pre- IS, and on the floor of Congress, of
the violation of the faith Of compacts and
compromise, which in reality never had ex-
istence.
| intend, in this communication, to bring
the matter to 2 tsse, which VIII make my
proposition clear to the dullest comprehen-
sion. 1t will be practical test which viii
leave no room for equivocation or sophistry.
1t is admitted by every lawyer, that the best
mode Of constituting law, on which any
doubt may rest, is TO enquire into the prac-
tical application or action under 1t. Now,
the first opportunity afforded for the appli-
cation Of the I" SO called compromise, was
on the claim of Arkansas for admission into
min one would suppose that the Missouri
Compromise, if any such was Acknowledged,
would at once have settled the question, and
that the clause in her constitution establish
ing slavery within her limits would have
formed no objection. But this was not So
the compact or compromise was repudlated
by all parties. This may surprise some per-
sons, and is curious proof in how short
time loose declarations and constant repet-
ton of error comes to take the place OF the
real facts Of history.
The admission of Arkansas was opposed
in the same spirit, and for the same reasons,
that that of Missouri had been opposed, and
its admission claimed for the same reasons,
founded on the Constitution and the treaty
of cession, which had been relied upon in
the case of Missouri Not 4 word in favor
Of the compact or compromise, was said,
either by the North or South. The question
was distinctly put in the debate, to the
Northern opponents, by Mr.. Wise, " do you
admit the binding effect of the 'so-cailed
Missouri Compromise:'" Not that he held
to it, for he expressly repudiated it in the
next breath. Now, will quote the replies
of two Northern members to the pointed
question.
Mr.. CUSHING said az might content my
chusetts was not party to that compro-
mise. She never directly or indirectly as
sented to it. Most of her representatives in
Congress voted against it, Those of her re-
presentatves who, regarding that compro-
mise in the light Of an act of cancellation,
important to the general interests of the
Union, voted for il, were disowned and de-
nounced at home, and were stigmatized
even here, by Southern member, as over
compliant to the exactions of the South. "
And this is the sacred compact, about
which clcrgymen preached from the pulpit,
and with which our newspapers are filled
every day! But another Northern member
was more explicit, and used, almost verba-
tim, the language for which Senator Douglas
is now unsparingly assailed. The reader
will ask can this be possible ?-yes, it is
even so.
al am aware" said Mr. Hurd, "that it
will be, as it already has been, contended
that, by the Missouri Compromise, as it has
been preposterously termed, Congress has
parted with its right to prohibit the intro
duction of slavery within any part of the
territory of the Louisiana purchase south of
thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes Of
north latitude There are. to my mind, two
substantial and unanswerable objections to
the soundness Of that proposition. In the
first place, there was no compromise or COM
pact whereby Congress surrendered any
power, or yielded any jurisdiction and in
the second place, if it had done so, it was
mere legislative act, that could not bind their
successors. There was no compromise or
surrender on the part of the general govern
ment."
The subject could be followed up, showing
the uniform sentiment of the non slavehold.
ing States, down to the passage of Mr..
Douglas bill, when, all at once, they fell
desperately in love with the missouri
Compromise, {" which. before that time. had
heen treated with contemnt II was not nm