Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-11-05

In an article in the Banner, which we briefly no


In an article in the Banner, which we briefly no
ticed yesterday, the following passage occurs:
The impolicy Of repeating the Missouri Compro-
mise act has been exposed OF various occasions BY
portion of the conservative press of the South They
thought the Kansas-Nebraska bin was an ill-advis
edmeasure. needlessly reopenng the vexed question
which had beensO wisely settled by the COMPROMISE
of 1850. While abstract question the existence
of the restriction might be considered an invasion of
Southern rights, yet the South had voluntarily es-
tabshed that restriction by the votes of her repre-
sentatives in Congress. Under its operations she
had obtained all that she barganed for-the admis-
sion of slave States formed of the Louisiana ter
rtOry into the Union upon equal footing with the
other States of the Confederacy Having yoluntari-
ly entered into this agreement, and having obtained
all that due to her under its provisions it was
not consistent with their idea Of justice and honor
10 ask recession of the contract it became
evident that nothing could be made out of it,
by observing its condition"
1t is because Of the habit of Southern Opposition
papers to accuse the Democratic party of agitating
the slavery question" by the passage of the
Kansas-NebrsskR act and the repeal of the Missouri
compromise lne-an accusation so persstenty made
that many persons seem to believe it-that again
enter our protest against the accuracy Of some Of
the Basaers statements in the foregoing extract.
We protest that the passage of the Kansas-Ne-
braska act and the repeal of the Missouri cemprO-
mise was not "re-opening Of the slavery agita-
ton" The agitation which preceded the pas
sage of that act has never been exceeded in
bitterness and intensity. The Southern Con-
Vention, which met in this city in june 1885,
while protesting against the eonstitutionality
of the restrictive line Of 1920, proposed final
settlement of "agtation," to waive such constitu-
tional objection and extend the line to the Pacific
The proposition was hooted at by the whole Oppo-
sition North and was voted down. The legislation
of 1850 certainly did nothing TO aIlay excitement
The fugitive slave law, although only a recognition
of a constitutional right, bitterly assailed
and caused as great agitation North as did the sub
sequent repeal of the Missouri compromise. Final
ly it was believed that the only manner in which
the "agitation" could be quieted was by leav-
ing the question of slavery to be settled by
the people interested, and by withdrawing the
whole subject from Congress. The Kansas Nebras-
ka act. containing section repeating the Missouri
restriction, was passed for this purpose. It
supported by nearly all the Southern members, with
enough Northern Democrats to carry the measure
That it did not succeed in quoting agitation al
ready vehement and INSCRIPTIONS is partly due to a
fanadcism north which will be satisfied only with
the abolition of slavery and which viii seize upon
any false preext TO increase the excitement which
1t ives and partly southern men, who by Justify
ing the clamor, held out hopes of southern aid to
northern fanatics. The history have related, Of
the of the southern Democracy, in proposing
to abide in good faith BY an extension Of an HncOn
stitutiOna restrictive line to the Pacifc-sn
arbitrary line, which. excluding her north, gave
her no rights south of it other than what she pos
sessd by the Constitution in the whole TerPit9rys
proof of her anxious desire for peace, and of the
injustice of those whe charge her with the offence
of the eauseess 'agitation" of the subect-an agis
ton which is her greatest annoyance and evil, and
which she would quell by any sacrifice consistent
with her rights and honor. 1t was MOI "a reopen
ing of the slavery agitationthe repeal of the Mis-
souri, Compromise. 1t was effort, in good faith,
TO que that agitation by removing the subject from
Congress and which failed because Northern fanati-
cism was not ready TO cease its war on the South.
There are other errors of inference in the extract
from the Banner. That under the operations of the
Missouri Compromise, the South obtained all
that she bargained for,v is certainly literally true
although not exactly as the Banner states it
The bargain was not, as the Banner states it, the
admission of slave States formed of the Louisi
territory but that IN al that territory ceded by
France to the United Safes a7lder The name of Lo,si-
ana lDbch Is north of diry-siz degrees and thirty
minutes north latitude not included ac.in The limits Of
the State contemplated By this act SLAVERY and inUoIul-
tIry ssrUauie herloiss than IN the punishment of
crimes 1oLeeof gs parties shall haze been duly comic
ted shall BE- and is hereby forever prohibited" The
South has got all she barganed for no doubt
She bargained to exclude slavery from territory
where she had the constitutional right TO plant it,
and sheIhas got that bargain The apology for abo
lition camOr founded repeal is baseess as every
one knows who remembers that slavery has not
been extended an inch north of 36 dg 30 mi since
the abrogation of the Missouri Compromise and
the fact shows conclusivey that abolition ca-
NOR on that head Is unfounded and ought to find no
apologistin the South.
Certainly the representation by the Banner that
by the Missouri compromise, the South "bargained
for and has obtained" the admission of slave
States formed out of the Louisiana territory, and
1haYing obtained all that she bargained for" sit was
not consistent with justice and honor to ask re-
csion of the contract as nothing more could
be made out of it," is not a fair statement Of bar
gain, by which the South gave up half her rights
without exacting security for the other half, a
candid judgment OF the course of the South, which
did not ask recession of the compromise until the
North had repudiated t,--which cancelled the bond
only after it was evident that it to be used to
exclde the section south of 39e so as well as north
of that line.
The whole agitation is the fanateism of the
North, wagng an unprovoked war on slavery. 1t
will continne, at least as long as it finds Southern
apologists.