Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-07-19


out to the British line by The Missouri Com
promise line of 1920; in Oregon it was settled
by the organic Territorial law of 184s; in Mex
leo, Utah and California, it was settled by the
laws of Mexico, in the District of Columbia
1t was settled by the laws of the state from
which the district had been acquired. This
constitutes the entire exten: of the United
States territories st that time-all quiet IN
der the operation of existing laws, and no
way open to the slavery question anywhere,
except by repeating some of those laws, and
that was a thing which the Congress of 1850
would not do, and did not do. Attempts were
made to repeal the Mexican anti-slavery laws
In New Mexico, Utah and California; Congress
refused to dot. Attempts were'made to extend
the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific
Ocean; Congress refused to extend it, At
tempts were made to confirm the Mexican
laws by the WilmOt proviso; Congress refused
70 adopt the proviso. 1t would pass no new
law upon the subject Of slavery, because, to
do that, it would require the repeal of some
existing laws, and thereby reopen the slavery
question. Congress refused to pass the Will
mot proviso, because the Mexican laws in the
territories to which it was applied had already
abolished slavery there, and the proviso,
while unnecessary itself TO the object of its
friends, was pestferous by re-Opening the sla-
very agitation. At the session of 1850 ard
before it commenced the question of slavery
legislation had been foreclosed throughout the
whole extent of our territories; fOreclosed by
previous legislation, and Congress refused to
reopen the question by repeating, sbrogsting,
or altering 10 any way that previous legisla-
tioL. This was the state of the Slavery ques-
tion and the Slavery agitation, when the first
Congress met under Mr. Pierce's administra
ton in the session of 1854. The agitation
was dead, legislation was closed up upon it (;
there was no way to re-open the Question but
- sbrogate or repeal some existing law no
way to get up agitation but by breaking down
law; and that was done. A bill was brought
in TO abolish the Missouri Compromise line,
pretexed upon the principles established by
the legislation of 1850. The prctext was a
libel upon the legislation of that year, and
especially upon The memory OF Mr. Clay, who
had taken a prominent part in that legislation,
1t was assumed by the authors of the repeal.
that the legislation established the principle
of non-interference with Slavery in territories.
1t was an assumption without foundation
contrary to fact-and contradicted by record
ed history. The principle established, so far
as any principle coul be established by mega
tive action, was exactly the contrary exactly
the principle of not interfering with existing
laws exactly the principle of not re-op, ming
the Slavery agitation by altering or repeating
any law that had fOrecosed the subject, aud
that was the principle declared in the platform
OF 1862. And thus the preteXt for the repeal
Of the Compromise was just as unfounded aud
gratutous, as the act itself was deplOrable
and mischievous. No citizens the authors
of that repeal find, not justification but con-
domination, in the legislation of 1850. And
the further pretext, (tor bad cause requires
many pretexts, and often contradictory and
inconsistent ones,) the further pretext that the
Compromise was unconstitutional and void, is
gratuitous and uufounded, and fagrantly con-
tradicted by the previous conduct of its au-
thors-sll of whom are on the record, in votes
or in speeches, for the validity Of that Com
promise, up to the time of the plot to destroy
il. They had voted for it in the Oregon Ter
ri:ora bill of 1S4S-in the California bill of
1850 in the Minnesota territorial act-and
above all, in the Texas annexation resolutions
of ls45.
This latter instance is an overwhelming argu.
ment n this csse and too little known to the pub
Iic and needs tue calculation Of preliminary state.
ment to develop its nature and give force to its
application. That statement Is this cOntempora-
neousy with the enactment of the Missouri Com.
promise was the retrocession Of Texas to Spain /;
aud not the Texas as Spain had held it, bounded
on the Red River, but as We retroceded it, extend
ing north to the Arkansas River, and to that part
of it which was north of SO degrees 80 minutes
north latitude Here, then, was room for Slavery
question, when Texas came to be annexed in l645
She was slavehodng country. Her constitution
aud laws admitted Slavery. The institution cover
ed her terrtory-extended to all her borders-conse-
Quenty extended to the Arkansas River; for her
boundary came TO that river in north latitude 81
and SS, and followed the river up to its source in
the Rocky Mountains. Here, then, was a case for
future question, which prudence required to be
Immediately provided for; and it was done. II
was clear that one half of the compromise line was
Rbrogated by the laws and constitution of Texas,
aud that the slave ins ution 70 the extent of that
sbrogation, was extended north beyond the parallel
36 deg. and 80 min, and that it would remain so
until the Texan laws should be atered-which al
iteration could only be made by herself If she should
be admitted without previously providing for the
To do nothing to yield to the abrogaton; to
reestablish the line TO affirm both the cOnstitu-
tiona power, and the political expedency of doing
so; and this was done not only in the abrogated
part, but in all its length and breadth in it's whole
length from the south west corner of Missouri to
the summitsof the Rocky Mountains; and in its
whole breadth, north and south, as far as the Uni,
" ARTICLE III-New States of convenient size
not exceeding tour in number, and having sufficient
population may hereafter, by the consent of said
State, be formed out OF the territory thereof which
shall be entitled to admission under the provisions
OF the Federal Constitution. And such States as
may be formed out OF that portion OF said terrific
ry lying south OF thirty-siX degrees thirty minutes
north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri
Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union
with or without Slavery, the people of each State
asking admission may desire; aud in such State or
States as shall be formed out of said territory
north of the said Missouri Compromise Line, Slave
rs or involuntary serViIude Except for crme) shall
be prohibited"
These were the words OF the Annexation Resolu-
ton aud they are a clear resenactment of the orig.
inSl Missouri Compromise and a re-enactment
made at the instance of the Free States, which
would not otherwise vote for admission And
now, who made that enactmentf answer, the
same party who made the first one-the South
comprehending every member Of Congress who
voted for the annexation Of TEXAS, and also Mr..
Calhoun, who drew the resolutions and PROMPTED
their passage, and hurried them of in the expirpg
moments OF Mr. Tylers administration for the &C
ceptance Of Texas. | do not read their names
the list is too long; but they may be seen in the
Thirty Years View, in the chapter which treats OF
the admission Of Texas. l will only say that the
names of many who deny the constitutional power
Of Congress to legslate upon Slavery in territory
the names OF many who figured in the destruc.
ton Of she Missouri Compromise-are in the list
and must be forever estopped by their own act,
from denying the power which they exercised. i
know their subterfuge. They say it was COM
pact with Texas. Granted, and so much the worse
for them. Out of the frying pan into the fire. II
could be only compact under tie Constitution
and as a compact with foreign power could new
err be altered without its consent. Ii vas a com
pact with Texas, aud also something more Il wss
a compromise between the Free and the Slave
States-A new compromises new constitution,