Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-09-15

expansion OF slavery S0utn OF inc MlSSouH |
line, and unless it expands ii North the En- |
quirer is manfestly in error.
But not only do the tendencies, or natural
laws Of trade, interest profit, &C., to which |
we have referred, sustain the theory on
which Mr.. Buchanan voted to annex Texas, |
and forbid the idea of expanding slavery into
the North, but subsequent position, taken
by the Enquirer, destroys his first position
most effectually. 1t says
"The Abolitionists have ever had control of a
majority of the popular vote. They now hold in
disputable ascendency in the House of Represent.
atiVes. In the Senate even the South is in mi
nority of one State; though fortunately conser-
vatve sentiment is still supreme in that branch OF
the Federal Legislature. The day is not distant,
however, when the sixteen free States will be rep
resented in the Senate by the political associates
of Wilson and Seward and when Congress will
be under the absolute sway Of Aboltionism.'
Ifthis last position be true, and the Abolition
lists have ever had, or even noso hold "indis-
putable ascendency in the House of Represen-
tatives," and if "the day is not distant, y when
the Senate, too, will be abolitonized, zoe do not
eractly see how Kansas is to be made a slave
and the tendencies to which we have referred
were all false and erroneous! Will the En-
quirer inform us h0tO 1t IS, that, with Bucha-
mans Texas-annexation theory-with the laws
oftrade, demand and supply againstit, and with
a present Abolition House of Representatives
and prospective Abolition Senate, the repeal
of the Missousi Compromise will expand slave
ry into the North?
The Enquirer vainly attempts to show hOw
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is to
practically beneat the South! Hear him
1.-THE only present chance of accession to the
strength of the South is by the admission of Kan
sas into the Union with pro.savery constitution.
In two years, at the farthest, that Territory will
assume the sovereignty of State, and in all prob
ability will adopt the institutions of the South.
Then the South viii recover its equality in the
Senate and will be competent to the protection of
it's rights. Though incapable of directing the pol
icy of the government to the end of slavery prop
agandism, (Which the South desires only for pur
poses of sedefence it will be fully equal to the
defeat of measures of Free-soil aggression. With
Kansas to back it in the Senate, the South can
compel the fulflment of the stipulations of the
Texas treaty, by resisting the admission of other
free States With Kansas to back it in Senate,
the South can stay the march of Aboltionism, and
maintain its own rights and independence for an
indefinite period"
But is there not a palpable difficulty in the
way now of carrying out the Enquirer's plan,
by reason of "the indisputa6le ascendency" of
the Abolitionists in the Housep How does the
Enquirer get Kansas into the Union in opposi-
ton to this Sndisputable Gscende1cy" of the
Abolitionists? We suppose that little point
is reserved for future articlel
Now, seriously and calmly, we would inquire
whether any sane man can really believe that
the Kansas n ebraska act has benefited, or can
benefit, the South? Nonsense.
Grown up men should take sensible and
practicable views of things. They should look
at them as they are, and not as they ought to
be. The Missouri restriction as lao, was a
mere nullity. 1t had no force whatever as
such. The act was not authorized by the con-
stitution,-6ut as an agreement between con-
ficting political interests and opinions, it had
inaugurated peace and quiet. Time had rolled
on its course for thirty years, when the aequi-
sition of more territory brought up again the
same questions which distracted the country
in 1S19-'2O. We need not review the contest
of 1850; we need only say that the contest
was adjusted by the Compromise acts of that
year, and which acts settled the question of
slavery in the seU Territories, on a different
basis from that geographical line of 1S19-'20-
by a1losoing the citizens Of the Territories, IN
framing their constitutions, preparatory to
their admission as States, to admit or exclude
slauery, as they might themselves decide.
This Compromise of 1850 inaugurated
aseso era on the question of slavery in the Ter
ritories-the Fillmore Administration, brought
about that Compromise, aided by the patriotic
portion of the Democratic party-the Fillmore
Administration was lauded to the skies, as
we'll by Democrats as Wings, for that Com
promise, and both parties resolved, through
their national conventions in 1852, that the
Compromise of 1850, "shoetld be a .fndHg"
The Missouri Compromise of 1920 rested on
the ground that Congress had the right to leg
islate upon the subject of slavery in the Ter
ritories, and, although this doctrine is express
~ laid down by Mr.. Buchanan, In his letter
to Sanford that the power Of Congress over
the question of slavery in the Territories was
"soUereign and crcJusi0e," and, although the
Democratic Assembly of Virginia, in 1878,
threatened the "last extremity if that Mis-
souri, Compromise should be disregarded"-
new and different doctrine was
adopted under the Fillmore Administration
in 1850! The doctrine of State equality"
it will not be denied, was distinctly Inaugural
ted by the Compromise measures of 1850,
and this doctrine no man of truth will deny,
is contained in the 9TH section of the American