Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1857-11-10
NOVEMBER 10, 1857.

the attention of our cotemporary to bis error and
frankly to state that we believe his embarrassment
arises simply from attempt to discuss what he ev
IDENTIFY does not understand. In all frsnkness we as.
sure our neghbor-"I wot that in ignorance ye did
it."
We freely forgive the ridiculous imputatiors OF
"The South We know that our cotemporary does
not believe in his moments OF calm reflection, that
We have 'gone over to Botts," are otherwise rea.
sonaby engaged in an attempt to "buiId up North
ern party in Virginia." &c., &C. We know that our
neighoor's temper and understanding have both been
severely tried by unsatisfactory attempts to
solve legal problems. We know that he entertains
plqus towards ourselves. We are not willing 10 re-.
gard bis invectives as indicating more than confu.
sion Of thought and somewhat ungovernable tenn.
per.
The position which we hold with regard to the Bad
ger amendment, is one which 1.-THE South" has moi
been abe to controvert. 1t is identical with that
pressed on the floor of Congress by representative
from Virginia, who wes so much opposed to that pro-
vso that he even refused to vote for the Kansas Ne
brsska bill, with the same amandmeut annexed
Neither The South nor its confedsrates have ever
dared to ases the purity of motive and the souudness
of logic which dictated aud justified that vote. After
the amendmdnt was adopted, it became indeed a Sc.
rous question of expediency as TO what course was
best adapted to the interests of the South The issue
had been made-msds by the action of Southern men,
and their colleagues had to coincide in refusal to
sert the unconstitutionaity of an act invasive of
Southern rights, or to couple such assertion with
an act injurious to Southern interests The issue was
made disadvantageously for the South in every
point of view. Southern men were driven to choice
of evils. We are willing to believe that each chose
that which be considered at the time, the lesser evil
But no such complete justification can be sdduced
for the conduct of those Southern Senators who thus
forced the South to choice of evils 1t will be re-.
membered that the Badger amendment was proposed
by Southern man-thst Southern men reported
favoraby to its adoption and finally voted for it's
insertion in the Kansas. Nebraska bill. We repeat
that we cannot recognise the necessity the exped
ency Of such proposal for compromise Ut was no.
thing ess) coming from Southern men.
The case was plain one. A law did exist anterior
to 1890, establishing and protecting slavery in the
territories of Kansas and Nebraska. A subsequent
unconstitutional enactment had operated, Illegally to
euePouo VIC pEoCtiCdl culOocy oit otthOuku u
not and could not repeal, the former law. Why was
it, then that the expressed decision of the unconsti-
tutionalty Of one law, should be accompanied by an
act to perpeuate legally its illegal consequence, by
refusal to revve put in force the law whose
cution had been suspended by means Of the uncon.
sttutional enactment1
"The South" desires to know how we would have
acted after the insertion of the Badger amendment
whether we would then have acted with Mr.. Millson
or with Mr.. Hunter! We acknowledge that the ques.
ton is of much difficulty; but, with the lights be-
fore u.s. inclined to think that in that instance
should have voted with Mr.. Hunter. Although
the insertion of the Badger amendment had rendered
Southern triumph impossible yet it seems to us that
it was still possible, by voting for the amended bill
to avoid an open Southern defeat. And although
Mr.. Mson thought otherwise, We honor the motives
which dictated hs course and the moral courage with
which he sustained his position But had we been in
Mr. Hunters place, we would have opposed to the
utmost that insertion of the Badger amendment,
which defeated the hope of triumph for the South.