Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-09-01
cOle pug. to whose eyes her mild and equal radi

soUhl CoNthOMlSE, AETIkASSAS NEBRASKA
ACT, STATE RIGHTS PARTY OF 1857.
The famous old Danish Vikings and marauders
who pillaged and scourged with FIRE and sword the
coast Of Kent, during the days Of King Allreds im.
mediate predecessors, invariably repeuted of taei
nisdeeds as the sands Of life ran low, and they al
ways sought, by the endowment, Of churches and the
erection Of monasteres and nunneres to replace
those which in their vigorous prime they had sacked,
burned and leveled with the earth. When too old to
wear srmor and to slaughter monks and ravish
nuns, they put on sack cloth, and patiently endured
all the senficted tortures of the Catholic Church.
as preparation for Heaven. BY this eleventh hour
piety they hoped to balance their accounts with ST.
Peter, and to slip into the right pew when they shuf
fed OF the mortal coil.
The born zeal of the Southern Wings and
know.Nothings, for the cause Of the South, now
that they no longer have the power and numbers to
injure her true interests, a. they did when they op
posed the annexation of Texas, and denounced the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, can be compared
to nothing but the repentance of the Danish Vikings
when they were too old and feeble to be capable of
father pillage and bloodshed. Mingled with the by
pocrisy and transparent trickery Of this last Know.
Nothing dodge, there is an exhibition of impudsncs
andswsgger worthy Of Jeremy Diddler and Robert
Macsire.
Not only nave they assumed to be the anointed and
elect of the defenders of the South but they have
dared to denounce the National Democracy as faith.
less to the South the question of slavery in the ter
rilories. Regardless Of the truth of history, they
have also followed the example of handful of row
ipCyh huf lam in md
have asserted that the Democracy of the free States
are abolitionists. 1t is to nail this charge to the
counter, to expose it's falsity, and to show that
it is utterly destitute OF single element Of truth,
that we have determined to write this article. To
dispose Of this groundless allegation with ss few
words as possible, let us sse what party was false
and what party was true to the South, when the
question of slavery in the territories was last before
Congress. BY this test we are willing to stand or
fall
Let it, therefore, be borne in mind, that when the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise was before Con.
gress in 1885, the Democrats in favor Of repeal
ing it, and large majority Of the Southern Wings
opposed it.
This Infamous and grossly unconstitutional Com
promise, was as insulting as it Was unjust to the
South. The Supreme Court of the United States, in
the celebrated csse Of Dred SCOTT vs.. SANFORD, II
Howard 1896, declared the Missouri Compromise null
and void. The Court declared:
al. Congress have right to prohibit the citizens
Of any particular State or States from taking up their
home there" lin the territories Of the United States
"while il permits citizens OF other States TO do
Nor has 1t right to give privileges to class Of cit
zsns which il refuses to another. The territory s &C
quired 70. their equal and common beneft-and, if
open to any, must be open to all upon equal and the
same terms.
"2. Every citizen has right to take with him
into the Territory any article of property which the
Constitution Of the United States recognizes pro-
ps..y Tho co,.,,,r,o, =, ~. r,,;,.d s,.,.. ..oo.
nizes slaves ss property, aud pledges the Federal
Government to protect it. And Congress cannot eI
ercse any moro authority over property Of that dee
orIption than II may consttutionaIly exercise over
property Of any other kind.
~. The act of Congress Missouri Compromise. J
therefore, prohibiting citizen Of the United State.
from taking with him his slaves when he removes to
the Territory in question to reside, is exerose '
authority over private property which ia moi war
rantsd by the Constitution"
Yet the Wing party of the South were In 1850 and
1885, loud and ferocious 10 their abuse OF the Nation
al na,o~-..:. no.. c. ~poeiing the Missouri Com
promiss-that vile and infamous restriction which
the Supreme Court has since branded as unconstitu
tionsl und unjust to the South When.n 1885, the
National Democratic party North and South labored
successfully to break down this restriction, the great
body Of the Whig party opposed its repeal.
The Kansss and Nebraska act Of 1855 repealed
this odious Compromise, and restored to the South
what the Supreme Court declared were "her const
tutonsl rights" When the act passed the House Of
Representatives, one hundred and thirteen members
voted for It, and one hundred sgainst 1t. Foryfour
Northern Democrats voted for the repeal Of the
Missouri Compromise, and not one Northern Wig.
Yet the WhiRs tell us that the Democroy Of the free
States are Abolitionists. They have been far more
loyal to the South, upon the question Of the Missouri
Compromise, than were their Southern Wing revers
,nd enemies In 1885 and 1856.
We shall not stop With vindication Of the North.
ern Democracy from the shameless assertions Of their
enemies. We shall carry the war into Africa, and
show up the rottenness of Southern Know Nothing.
ism, as late a. 1856. And as the Wings and Know.
Notbings of Virginia have been most active 10 oirou.
atpg the charge of treason to the South" against
the National Democracy, we shall weigh them in the
balance, and shew in what manner they were wanting
in loyalty to the South taking the repeal Of the Mis-
souri, Compromise as the test
gina do in 1856, to sgnslize their devotion to the
constitutional right, of the South They voted for
Fillmore for President, who thus boldly and openly
denounced the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
~ then thought that this exciting subject was q
rest and that there would be no further occasion
introduce it into the legislation of Congress. Terri
toral Governments bad been provided for all th'
Territory except that covered by the Missouri Com
promise, and had no suspicion that that was to b
disturbed. have no hesitation in saying, what mos
of you know already, that was decidedly opposed t
the repeal of that Compromise. Good faith, as vel
the peace Of the country, seemed to require that
Compromise which had stood for more than 80 year
should not be wantony disturbed. These were my
sentiments then fully and freely expressed, verbally
and in writing, to all my friends, North aud South
who solicited my opinion. This repeal seems to nave
| been Pandora's box, out Of which have issued al
the political evils that aiict the country, scarcely
leaving hope behind
They voted for their abolition associate and ally
Adams and Slade, although he declared that he Wa.
in favor of degrading the South by the continuance
of that which ths Supreme Court has declared unjust
and unconstitutional.
The very maignants who are now denouncing the
National Democracy and the Administration fo
"trsa.on to the SOUTH, in November last supported
a candidate for the Presidency about whose execu
tive appointments, willis. be was Prsident, the Lion
8. A. Smith thus spoke in Congress without contra
dction:
Upon this investigation find the following facts
First. Every man appointed to any important ofhc
by Mr.. Fillmore while President whoee reeidsRc
was North Of Mason and Dixons line, including thre
members of his Cabinet, was Fres-Soiler, and il
favor of the Wilmot Provso.
Second. One of the leading members Of bis Cabi
net, the Hon. Thomas Corwin of Ohio, Secretary Q
the Treasuary was q prominent Abolitionist.
Third. Every one Of the appointees before referre
to, who had taken any public position on the SLAYER
question, was known, al the time of bis appointment
to be in favor of the prohibition of slavery in tn
| Territories.
Fourth Mos. Of those from the same section re
tanned in Office by Mr. Fillmore, who had prsviousl
been appointed BY President Taylor, were Free Soil
ers or Wilmot Provisoists.
They chssrfully supported this man for the Pre'