Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1856-09-12
FRIDAY MoRN'NG, sEETEMnEn ~.
sUCCINCT STATEMENT OF TIE ARGu

FRIDAY MORNING, SEPTEMBER -.
SUCCINCT STATEMENT OF TIE ARGU-
MENT IN DEFENCE OF THE REPEAL OF
THE MISSOURI RESTRICTION.
The Democracy OF Virginia are driven to the sup
port Of tn" knnsas-Nebruska act by the denunca
tons which the opposition Lowell against this great
measure u justice ard atonement 10 the South. The
Fillmore party Of this Sa'e pretend that they dp not
wish to restore the Missouri restriction; but it il OBJ
vious that their efforts have other result. II
they succeed III inprcSsing the popular mind with
their peculiar views-if they convince the country
that the repeal of the Missouri restriction "ac
Of bad faith" and the origin of all the agitation which
dsturbs the Cnion the re.enaptncnt ol the Compro-
mise of lS3O will follow necessary consequence.
Lapse o: lime does not cancel wrong; aud il the
repeal Of the Missouri restriction involved brench
of compact, !he South uder perpetual obligation
to render atoneneIt the injured party 1t Is no an
swer to object That the ree-ubIishment II the Mis-
souri, restriction would be of dangerous consequence
,n the public peace That peace is already dis'urbed
and besides it is very absurd 10 argue that the repa-
| ration OF wrong will eXasperate the resentment
which that wrong has provoked. 1t is pain 10 every
intelligent person that Us the tendency OF the denun-
Citations Of the Karsas Nbraska bill is to destroy the
authority and security Of that nearure, the ultimate
! effect of the policy Of the Fillmore party will he
again to impose upon the South The burden mad ~
nonuy of the Missouri restriction. 1t is 10 avert tins
dcpiurabe omlanfy,as we'll 10 vndicse tbs virtues
and servi&es Of the authors al the Kanaas Nebraska
act That we deem it necessary to renel tho assaults OF
the Fillmore party tae repeal Ot the Missouri re-
striciiog.
! list. The distinguishing aud essential principle OF
tie Kansas Nebraska act, is denial Of the power ot
the Federal Government to impose unequal restltc-
tions on different States Of the conteeracy or indeed,
TO cncumbcr Il States right To admission into the
Union with any condition 10. warranted by the Con
s,iuliion. The MiS,o4Gi Compromise affirmed the
opposite j.inoiple ard an instance OF tile eNer-
c-e .! the very power denied to the Federal govern
inert. Therefore, II essential 10 he vId:cat"n
Of violated principle, "ai - rfoper stcne'nen! 10
the South, upon whom au iniquou4 All! aGconstltu'
tic!.a restriction had been iinposed that the Missou-
ri Compromise shoUh! Us repealed, and that "ur N.
s;i!u:icus L!.oald he allowed fair snd free develop
i..rn!.
The Know. .Ncthiu. Pai:t.ria of February 'J6.
teaches the doc:rius oi Federal uon.in;srvcmon.-
The Resolutions of the OdLine Wing Convention
of THIS city affirm the principle olthe
act, With what consistency i'll logic or w..h what mo
rI uropriety then can E:!.ayres friends in Virginia
protest a.ani tae TGud alton OF Their principles ana
the practical application "f their OWE theory H. as
.h.y maintain. every Statc has rich: I" determine
it, institutions and the Federal uo:ernIIcn can M
pos. no orii;ion unon il whatsoever, u ~ "b'
surd 10 condcu.n the repeal ot measure wh;ch lei
tercd the future sovereignty Of the territories anu
,l.scriminact Gppr-svciy against the properly anu
! priy;,..ra u IA" entire South
! ID But the Fillmore Party sttrm:.: 10 escape from
this absurd.y 10y comtenjn.: hAt the repeal "i me
Missouri restriction wa- "an net of bad faith As 1t
any :nnctiiy or obligation could attach 10 compact
| which wss made without authority, and wmcI ''o-
a,es the fundamental principles OF o:' government
If tha non intervention and S:se. EIuaIity pr'hcP'e'
ssser,,d both bv tl.o t.now Nothing and Wing i!"l'
f,rp,s te .ound in law and logic 1t results necessari'
IL tls, 10 compact :" H"rrga N =, III, - p.;"aP'oo
- voIi,l. In other words, il, u Tie Fillmore Party
conccdc, the :ssouri restriction Implied the exercise
II. ,o,yer NOT given 10 the Federal Government, and
involved IN inrrctin; II the essential aud nndanem-
tai equality oi the States; or |" s'PN '"s pfoPo'
:.: s,l further, if The Missouri restriction violated
the Constitution Of the United States it wns viated
and void from the beginning, and was properly 90
liberated isom the statute book. l'' repeal wa" dae
to the offended dignity of the States dHe 10 me out
raced rights of The South, and ars 30 the wounded
| spirit of the Constitutes
RI Aliny hos; :ye. ,,r the sake Of argument, that
the Mf,sosr. restriction was valid compact in la
ORIGINAL enactmrnt and It's repeal may still be Justified
| on .lc highes, grounds of good te!d and poifIca
propriety. For, the compact n binding IN ihe nrs'
Instance had hcou repeatedly rrpuda;ed by the very
marty ;;ch now c,ans the benefit ot ITS sanctiiy-
: Ev.n in III, instance of Mi,sourihe admission OF
which as n slave State w.s tho osensh!e considera-
,;ou of the cancesoioa Ly tile Souh-tle North re-
fused by il. vuio in Congress, to discharge its ob
cation, under the contract The ani!.sIsvrry ord'
rsrcs was enacted and i'll full force. and by its opera
ton slavery excluded from oil territory Norlh oi
no 3,y except within the limits Of Missouri; and
when Missouri applied for admission int" the Ino::,
the North cndeavured 10 impose the aboGA eondi'
lion upon it, in palpabe violation Of :he express s'
,u,.,;op Of the recent Compromise. Here was re.
nudia,ion of the Misscur Compromise By the North,
in the in.tcu. OF its original enactment.
Ard so the North has always derded and .Tamped
{; upon this "sacred compact The sodih' ever true
n its obligations, proposed IL s10d faith to lncorpo
rato ,he Missouri restriction in the government "i
orooop although it, operation exclusively i'll the
;r,.,as. Of abolltions,n but the North in the mere
,rootopue,s of insule power rejected the extension
Of the Compromise and substituted its peculiar VIZ
,oo, proviso Again, in 1850, the South proposed a
legislative declaration that the Missouri restriction
sI,nuId be operative 10 the Pacific ocean in accord
uo,e with the original and essential iden o! the Com
rrousr: but the North rcpudiaod ;5e ao,hpact, and
opprnuriated the whole o California above rs well
~ below the liGe o! ~ ~.
There a.e other instances ut violation OF the Mis-
souri, Compromise by The North, but these suffice TO
show that the "sancy" Of the compact is fiction,
ith Bur the Missouri restriction is o no force and OBJ
lipalion not only because it wss originally unconsti-
tutional aud void and not o:y because it has since
been violated and repadated by the North, but for
another independent and conclusive reason. lhe
Ccraaromise of 1870 was superseded and annuled
bv the Compromise Of 1854. The Compromise OF
1850 WAS a new settlement and adjustment between
the parties the Compromise OF 1920 and, OF course
to the extent tha the principles Of the latter Comp7o-
mise clashcd and coiicted with the principles OF the
former the Compromise Of 1920 was abrogated aud
rendered "inoperntyo and void Now, the Com
promise CT 1850 is utterly inconsistent with the Com
promise Of Inconsistent in principle and in dc.
tail in intent as wei! as in effect. For, while the
Compromise of 1870 affirmed the power OF Congress
to impose conditions upon a State and geographic
cul restriction upon slavery, the Compromise of 1850
| or S,otp nd tha %
Federal nou-infcryenGn with slavery i'll the terrific
res. Thus, the Compromise of 1850 superseded and
set aside the Compromise Of lS2O; and the Missouri
restriction repealed before the Kansas Nebraska
hill was introduced into the Senate.