The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1856-09-24
OBJ 4ailg 9onrnal
MR. CLAY's UNPUBLISHED LETTER ON THE
MISSOURI COMPROMISE

q the part he took in the compromise OF 1850
c was addressed to personal and political frienC
= in Virginia and has never been before publish
ed. 1t appears in the National Intelligencer, t.
whose editors it was submitted by the repre-
' sentatives of the gentleman-now deceased
to whom it was addressed:
ASHLAND, July Is, 1885.
DEAR SIR: have duly received your favor
= of the 8th instant, and feel greatly obliged by
the friendly sentiments and the constancy with
which you have adhered towards me. | re-
gret extremely that | can supply you with
no copy Of any speech that ever made on the
Missouri question. The debate was long
arduous, and, during the last agitation of the
question, l spoke almost every day for two or
three weeks on the main or collateral ques-
tions The set or prepared speech which |
made Of three or four hours duration was
never published. Of my share in the debate
there is, therefore, only a meagre account to
be cleaned from the papers of the day.
The question first arose in the session IF
1819-'20. When the bill for admitting Mis-
souri, into the Union was on it's passage, Mr.
Taylor, of New York, proposed to insert in
it, as condition on which the State was to
become member of The Confederacy, that it
should never tolerate slavery or involuntary
servitude. The argument by which that pro-
position was maintained by himself and others
was, that slavery is contrary to the divine law
and to the acknowledged rights of man, that
lit ought not to exist; that it is an admitted
evil that, if the General Government cannot
extirpate it in the old States, it can prevent
its extension to the new; that, being contract
ed within limited sphere, it will be less per-
nicious and more controllable; that Congress,
having the power to admit new States, may
prescribe the conditions of their admission;
and that in all preceding instances of the ad-
mission of new States some conditions were
lanneXed
To all this we replied that the General Gov
lernment had nothing to do with the subject
Of slavery, which belonged exclusively to the
several States that they alone were to Judge
Of the evil and the remedy; that every State
had such entire control over the matter that
those which tolerated slavery might abolish
lit, and those which never had it or had abol-
ished it might now admit it without any in 1
reference from the General Government that
Ialthough Congress had the power to admit
new States, when admitted, by the express
terms of the Constitution, they were on the
same footing in every respect whatever with
u
right to Judge for themselves on the question
of slavery; that if Congress could exercise
the power of annexing condition respecting
slavery, they might annex any other condi-
ton, and thus IL might come to pass that, in
stead of confederacy of States of equal pow
Ter, we should exhibit mongrel association |
that, IN the case of other new States, they
were not conditions upon their sovereignty,
but voluntary compacts, relating chiefly to the
public lands and mutually beneficial that the |
extension of slavery was favorable to the COM
fort of the slave and to the security of the |
white race, &c.
The proposition by Mr. Taylor (Which T
think had been made at the previous session.
was defeated by a small majority, and the bill
passed without the obnoxious condition.
Missouri assembled her convention, formed
a constitution, and transmitted it to Congress.
In that constitution she un ortunately insert
ed clause against free blacks and when, at
the session OF 1920 q, it was proposed to ad-
NIT her into the Union, the same party who
had supported the condition, taking advan-
tage of that exceptonable clause, now oppos-
ed her admission.
l did not reach Washington until January,
and when got there | found the members
from the slave States and some from others in
to reconcile the parties. Mr. Lowndes had ex-
hausted all his great resources in vain. Both
parties appealed to me, and, after surveying
their condition, | went to work. | saw that
each was so committed and so welded to its
opinion that nothing could be effected without
a compromise which should involve no sacrifice
of principle. | got committee of thirteen
appointed by the House, and furnished to the
Speaker (Mr. Taylor list of such members
as wished, embracing enough of the restric-
tionists to carry any measures, if they would
would agree with US. In that committee |
and, with its assent, reported to the
House a clause, by way of condition. to be
annexed to the act admitting her, substantially
like that which was finally adopted. 1t was
defeated in the House by Mr.. Randolph and
Messrs. Edwards and Burton, of North Caro-
lima, voting against 1t.
My next movement was to get joint com
mittee of twenty-four appointed by the two
Houses. That on the part Of the House was
chosen by ballot, and list which made out
were appointed, with few exceptions They
reported the resolution, now to be found on
the statute book, which was finally passed I'd
March, 1921, and settled the question. s.
Never did party put so much at hazard as
he restrctionists did on so small question as |
that was which arose on the second occasion,
growing out of the constitution of Missouri I
Never have | seen the Union in such danger.
Mr. King, of New York, was understood to =
concur in all the measures of the restriction-l
lists. He was member of the Senate, spoke
largely on the subject, and was most triumph
lntly refuted in one of the ablest speeches of 7
Mr.. Pinkney, of Maryland, that ever heard. !
Besides the topics employed in the first in +,
stance, on this second occasion the main effort
Of our opponents was procrastination; they :
urging that the matter should be put off until