Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1857-07-22
THE CHARLESTON MERCURY AND THE
MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

The Mercury holsters up its late Interpretation OF the
Missouri Compromise thus:
"In practice, the Missouri restriction intended
to operate and did operate, rs real substantive
boundary between the Southern and Northern States
between slave and free emigration. The territory
living south of the line of Go 90 being open to white
settlement and emigration only put the territory III
the position of Virginia, Kentucky any other OF
the Southern States All the territories of the Southern
States are open to the settlement Of white popua-
ton. Why do they not enter them? The reason H.
that white population will not settle in Il Suite or
Territory where slaves tolerated. They will not
consent to work beside the negro This prejudice (i
it may be callcd) is ustas applicable to Territory
us to State. White settlers will not emigrate to Il
Territory any moro than tO n State, where African
slavery is lcgalized."
We must say that this explanation appears wider
Of the mark thnn tho it seeks to subsantiato
It is certainly blundcr say that "the Tcrrtorybo-
low the line of $50 go being open to white settlement
only put in the position Of Virginia, Kentucky or
any other of the Southern states" Eli Thnyer hintcd
acolonzing Virginia with and there stood
n ready y-mude Southern population and II ready y-madc
Southern sovereignty toacet his scheme with crushing
power, had he dared to attempt it. If Eli Thayer
had engaged in plan of similar intent towards terri
tory South of $50 30 previous to the abrogation Of
that line, where would have been tho people, where
the power, where the authority to resist him
Our cotemporary next procecdsto argue (asit seems
to us against his own side Of the question, by taking
the ground that IN white population will not settle
Territory where slavery is tolerated" 10 what point
this kind of reasoning leads him, will be apparent
when it is remembered that aor, by the Repeal of the
Missouri Compromise, "African slavery is LOCALIZED"
in NIL our Territories but the position is wrong in
fact Witness the industrious colonization Of Kansas,
since the passage of the law laying it open to slavery
And how we ask did the South, even before the Re-
peal at all expect copro Southern territory except
by culonizing in advance Of the Freesoilers of the
North? Are not the rights of Southerners and the
rights of Northerners in regard to any Southern ter
rtory say New Mexico, precisely the same now as
they were before the Repeal' And was there even
tho presence of negro scrvtude thero to prevent Tho
latter from going and settling that territory had they
chosen so to do If the aversion to "working beside
ting negro" is the ecacious to Northerners
our cotemporary says it is, in tho name of Prudence
let tho Southern people be sending negroes to New
Moxico Mt once before tho North espes its advantages
and gets an even start with US. There is certainly
nothing else to keep them of, nor was there before
tho Repeal of the Missouri Compromise the ossmnl-
iion8 of politicians to the contrary notwithstanding
But it is unnecessary to press tho subject iurther
Wo arc with our high-toned cotemporary IN every
thing practical it has to suggest for tho extension OIL
our institutions.