Washington telegraph., 1856-08-27
The Kansas Question and the Missouri
Compromise,

Since the publication of our last issue
we have received the Ameriican Organ OF
the I'd instant, from which very able
Journal we transfer the following article
We have held to, and shall continue tc
maintain, with whatever ability we may
be possessed of, the doctrine set forth In
this article We consider it the only safe
conservative ground offered to the South
to occupy The best proof which we can
adduce that it is so, is the fact that the
opposition press claim the doctrine of the
seventh section of the February Platform
as their own,-and this, too, in spite of
BUCHANAN letter of acceptance and
the publicly expressed views of DOUGLAS,
SHIELDS, RICHARDSON, and all Others
OF that peculiar school of politics. But
read the article and see how clearly the
editor of the Organ points out the path
which it is the duty of Southern men to
pursue:
The Richmond Enquirer.
A pressure OF other matters of higher
Importance, has prevented our noticing
TINS press, which, In Its fear OF losing the
SPOTS, by the defeat of Buchanan, has
sought to create the belief, In the Southern
mind, that the american party" and
especially Its file leader iu the present cam
palgn, desire the restoration of the Mis-
souri, Compromise, and aim to effect
1T a reference to that portion OF
the thirteenth section of the Ameri-
can platform, which condemns ssthe re-
opening Of sectional ayitatioa, b. the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise" has
been repeatedly made by the Enquirer
and its allies, with the vain purpose of
showing such desire and aim, in the Amer
lean party, whilst the remarks of Nr.
Fillmore at Rochester are in like manner
misconstrued by those presses, to intimate
the same desire and aim on the part of the
American candidate for the Presidency.
Superadded thereto, these reckless press
e5 have assumed that because Mr. Dunn,
OF Indiana, and some others who prefer
Mr. Fillmore to either Buchanan or Ere
mont, are in favor of the restoration of
that Compromise line, therefore the Amer
lean party propose its restoration There
Is no fairness or truth in the positions
these presses have assumed-they know
this as well as we dO-they know that the
American platform directly negatives the
idea OF the restoration of the Missouri
Compromise, and they know that Mir
Fillmore said nothing at Rochester which
justIfes their assumption that he favors
the restoration of the Missouri line.
The 18th section of the platform con-
demns, not the principle embraced in the
Compromise measures OF 1899, By which
the Territories of Utah and New Mexico
were allowed to come into the Union,
'',cih siacery or ritioWt 1t, as their con-
stitutlons might prescribe, 1t condemns,
not that principle in the Kansas Nebraska
act which allows these Territories also to
come into the Union with or without slave
ry as they might choOse-but it condemns
the ''re-opentng of sectional agitation
by an unnecessary clause of that bill Is
it not now universally admitted, and even
maintained by the anti-Americans, that
the Missouri restriction was superseded
by the legislation of 1850? Most un-
questionably 1t Is, nor do are deny this
posflon-on the contrary, We have repeat
edly affirmed that the legislation of IS5j,
on the Territorial questions, superseded
the policy embraced in the Missouri act of
1921.
Irdeed, the Kansas Nebraska act, on
Its, ace, In section IA, states In terms,
thdtthe Sth section Of the Missouri Cons-
prOaise act, aras Inconsistent aoith the
pri,ripte Of noa-interUention scith siace,y
IN tie States and Territories, as recogaiz-
Ell y the legislation Of 1851, commonly
caVd the Compromise Measures, and
,cds therefore declared inoperotiue and
roid
We do not controvert this position-on
the contrary, We agree to it and the
American platform, in no portion of it.
assumes a position antagonistic to til
Now ti0, the Legislation of 1850 having
virtually liysuperseded the policy of the Mis-
sour Cnpromise, was there any necessity
for the drect repeal of it?
Most ertaInly there was no necessity
for Its daect repeal; the repeating clause
assumes hat the legislation of 1851 su-
Perseded bat of 1920. If agitation fol-
lowed the ttrect repeal of the Missouri
.ct, and II hat repeal was unnecessary
because its 'olicy had been repudiated in
the legislatin of 1850, pray where is the
objection tdhe denunciation of that agi-
tatlon, and ,f the. unwise authors it p
We said inur weekly issue of 22d March
last, what now repeat, viz:
'Whateyr opinions may be entertained
of the conitutionality of the Missouri
Compromised of 1870, no man can af-
firm that If direct repeal in 1854, did not
not 're-opa the slavery agitation :, no
man can arm that such repeal was ne
cessary or cen expedient- The Compro-
mise measses of 1850 had resulted in
restoring hamony to the country. The
Ierritoriat cts Of Utah and Neto Meri-
co Left the Issouri Gomnrop,ise act nre-