The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1856-02-19

ed Il was precedent which obtained additional force
every year that II was acquesced In although the scqu
escenee all the time qualified by the habitua dseara-
ton that the original concession merely eongTsssio"
aicomPromise, and not a constitutional taw,
The southern States In which the concession was re-
garded as badge of degradation felt constrained to ao
quiesce that they might incur charge OF breach Of
faith The autslaysry exensioniss claimed as pre-
eedent establishing the power of Congress to legsla'e on
the subject OF slavery in the Territories but resisted It's up
peaon 10 any other than the specific Territory desgna
ted in the Missouri act the precedent which The
Wmot proviso sought be attached to the cessions
made by Mexico If Congress had the power to prohlo
slavery north of So deg 80 n the Wlmot proyisoists
argued as 1t was assumed they had upon the authority OF
the Missouri act which had been acqussced in for thirty
years they bad equal to prohibit south of that
parallel.
The consequence was that after an acquescenes of thirty
years in principle the difficulty Of retracing
the false step and renstang the principle of con-
gressoual non-ineryention attended with embar-
easements that were almost insurmountabe The first
effort cost the democratic party the loss of the presden-
tia election In ls4s but the impression made upon the
public mind in the discussions of that was not
lost
Inc CONSTITUTIONAL OF conRressioh"
venon adopted in 1850 10 regard to Utah and New
Mexico By the legislation Of that year oil parties dis
tncy repudated the obligation of the Missouri restric
ton, and prepared the way for repairing efecuay the
of $780, wping the line of 80 deg 80 min in
giving territorial government to Kansas and Nebraska
That line oberated and expunged by the legislation
of 1854 and thereby the false step Of 1920 retraced
and the constitution restored Its original supremacy
II will be remembered that Notwithstanding the uni
form reputation by the abolonss of the Missouri Com
promise settlement of the slavery question: applicable
to all territory became their shibboeth of strength
in opposition to the passage of the Nebraka BILL They
not only relied upon 1t as precedent establishing the
power of Congress to prohibit slavery in the
Territories brt the fact that had been acquesced in
the South for than thirty years, as compromise was
made the basis of most passionate appeals to the religious
feelings of those who could be induced to regard the bill
sacriegous violation Of pltghted faith
When it proposed in ls4s and 1885, to perpeuate
the Missouri line permanent settlement of the slavery
question by its extension to the Pacific the abotonists
denounced it pro-slavery When in 1854 it
was proposed abrogate the Missouri restriction and al
low the principle of nonneryenton to PREVAIL the same
abotonists denounced that proposition in like
pro-slavery measure.
1t is thus made apparent that at every stage of the
tional controversies which have disturbed the popular
mind for ten years, the Missouri Compromise has been
seized upon by the aboonsts either pro-slavery
antsavery measure just the view the other
suited the purposes of agitation The longer it remained
on the statute-book the more mischievous was the
which INSCRIPTIONS agitators made of it. Its FINAL
repeal became therefore necessary for the
c,rf NJ ~
original adoption.
The political contests that have occurred in the free
States since the passage of the Nebraska act have us
sted clearly than ever the disastrous consequences
OF the false step made in 1920 The leading issue in these
contests has been adopted from the Missouri ac-he ass-
ton of the right detrmne that Stare States shall
be admitted into The Union. Upon this issue fusion was
effected of the various elements of agitation which has
suited in aboonzng the House Of Representatives and
in forcing upon the country presidential contest in
which ndtionalsm and seeoaalism-uSoS and DIsuscS-
stand face face secdonalism triunphs the principle
of the Missouri Compromise will be resoredit will be
assertion of the constitutional right Of Congress reject
new State from the Union becagss Of its recognition Of
slavery.
If new State can be rejected because II recognises
institution lawful which already in fifteen Of the
older States the principle with equal propriet
eject from the Union those fifteen States The necessary
result Of the triumph of secopasm must be dsson and
such catastrophe will be the 6ua fruit Of that first sin Of
temporizug with principles which brought,
into existence the Missouri Compromise and in its train all
the horrors OF dismeubered confederacy If national
profit by the lessons of the past there will be federation
for any suggestion which could lower the standard of
party orthodoxy below that elevated position which
the passage of the Nebraska bill aud the repeal Of the Mis-
souri, restriction have placed the democratic party