Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-10-02
THURSDAY, OCT. 2, 1855.
Was the lIissO nrI Compromise Repealed
by tslc COmpromise of 1890

commenting on thls position OF Americans
in Tennessee, said, they
"Deny that the compromise measures of
1850, ever did or were intended TO repeal or
dispense with the line of SO degrees and 30
minutes. Our Democratic speakers have met
them by arguments the most conclusive that
the Measures of 1850 did repeal the Missouri
compromise, but we wish TO furnish docu.
ment to-day that must forever put this ques-
ton TO rest We want every speaker in the
State TO have it and read it in every address
TO the people. Ii there was a man in the
world who ought 10 know best whether it was
intended to repeal the Missouri compromise in
1850, 1t ,ught to be Mr. Clay. lie introduced
the measure himself and ought to know what
he intended. lie Is now de d, bat his express
declaration made on the g. b of February, 1850
still lives, and we shall close this article by its
insertion"
We have read the express declaration,
of Mr.. Clay referred to, and were struck
with the remarkable acumen displayed by
the Union and american in discovering in
it proof Of what Il really disprores, In this
instance the mental vision of our contem-
porary must either have been singularly
blinded, or il was deemed advisable to
blink for the nonce that portion of the
democratic platform which asserts that the
Democracy place their trust in the intel
ligence" of the people, and resort to the
policy ascribed to federalism, which "con-
ceives no imposture too monstrous for popu-
lar credulity.7 The express declaration"
of Mr. Clay proves concluSively that be
had no idea of repeating the Missouri Com
promise; and we republish it, word for
word, as it appeared in the UaiOn and
American, here it is:
''Sr, while was engaged in anxious considera-
ton of this subject the idea of the Missouri COM
promise, as it had been termed, came under my re.
view, was considered by me, and finally rejected,
as 10 my judgment less worthy of the common acs
ceptance of both parties of this Union than the
project which offer 10 your consideration"
but, ] wish to contrast the plan of accommoda-
ton which is proposed by with that which s
offered by the Missouri line, TO be extended to the
Pacific ocean, and to ask gentlemen from the South
and from the North, too, which is the most proper
which most just, to which is there the least cause
Of objection! What done, sir, by the Missou>
ri liney Slavery positively nterdicted north of
that line. The question OF the admission or excu,
sion Of slavery south Of that line settled There
provision that slavery should be admitted
south OF that line, In point OF fact il existed there
In ali the territory south OF SO degrees 80, en-
brseed in Arkansas and Louisians, sIavery was
then existing. Ii was not necessary il is true to
insert clause admitting slavery st that time. But /
IL there is power 10 iuterdct there is a power to
admit; and put il to gentlemen from the South, |
are they prepared TO be satisfied with the line SO
"a
and giving them security for the admission Of
slavery south Of that line!
When | came to consider the subject, and 10 /
compare the provisions Of the line Of SO degrees 80
the Missouri compromise line-wIth the plan
which have proposed for the accommodation OF !
this question said to myself, il offer the line OF
80 degrees So 10 interdict the que son Of slavery
north Of IT, apd 90 leave It unsettled and open south
OF il, offer that which is lusory to the SOUTH
offer that which will deceive them il they suppose
that slavery will be received souh OF that line. Is
il better for them-I said TO myself-s il better
Cor the South, that there should be non-action as
TO slavery both north and south OF the line-iar
better that there should be non.acion both sides
Of the ne than that there should be action by the
Introduction on the side, without action for the
admission upon the other side OF the line IL il not
sOt What is there gained by the South, il the
Missouri line extend TO the Pacific with the inter-
dction OF slavery north OF it, &c.
] hope then TO keep the whole OF these matters
untou uched by any legislation Of Congress upon
the subject Of slavery, leaving it open and undecid-
ed Non-actionb 10y Congress is best tor the South,
and hest for all the views which the South have dis
closed TO from time TO time As corresponding TO
their wishe-. know il has been said With regard
90 tie territories, and especially has Is been said
with regard 10 California, that nonslegislation up
on the part Of Congress implies the same thing as
tbe exclusion Of slavery. That We cannot help.
That Congress is not responsible for. If nature
has pronounced the doom Of slavery in these ter
Eitories-if she has declared, by her immutable
ave- that slavery cannot and shall not be intro
duced tbere--wbo can you reproach but nature
and natures God?-COngress you cannot Cons
gress abstains. Congress is passive. Congress is
non -aetug, south aud north OF the line; rather
81 Congress agrees TO the pau which propose, ex
tending no ne il leaves the entire theatre OF the
whole ceasi0n Of these territories untouched by leg
isiAhYe enactments, either 10 exclude ADMIT slss
very.
We hope the reader has examined this
express declaration" of Mr. Clay delber
ately If he has done so, and understands
the subject to which it refers, he will agree
with as that Mr. Clay did not seek to dis
turb the Missouri Compromise. That Com
promise had been applied TO territory ac-
quired by the purchase Of Louisiana, and
with that territory the bills reported by
Mr.. Clay did not propose to interfere. The
question Of slavery as TO it, had been de-
cided, and it was bis purpose 10 let it stand
untouched. But, a new question was be-
fore him-we had just acquired territory
from Mexico, and the disposition of it was
the subject in controversy. IL was his
earnest desire to dispose Of this subject in
such manner as 10 restore the country to
calmness and repose, and therefore whes
he proposed his new Compromise, for new
territory, in the language of a distinguish
ed Virginia friend OF his, Mr. Boris, be
knowing that the North had over and
again refused TO sEtsnd the line of SO deg.
so r.in.. beyond the point to which it was
eriginslly carried, on the ground that the
South had made the best of the bargain
he rejected that line altogether, and very
naturally endeavored to satisfy the South.
that il would acquire nothing by the ex-