The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-02-03


stances under which it became law, the
regard in which, at the time of its passage,
and afterwards, it was held, and whether it
really had, as is claimed for it, the "happy
effect of restoring peace to the country, and
strengthening the ties which bound the
States together"
HISTORY OF THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE.
In 1903 the United States acquired from
France the territory which is commonly
known as the Louisiana Purchase" and
in which, at the time of the acquisition,
African slavery existed-the number of
slaves, indeed, almost equaling that of the
whites, there being forty thousand of the
former and but fifty thousand of the latter.
By an act of Congress approved June II,
1872, that portion of the purchase CON-
prising the present State of Missouri, was
erected into separate territory, under the
name of the Territory of Missouri. Some
seven years after its organization, the Ter
ritory applied to Congress for an act ena-
bling her to form constitution and be
admitted into the Union upon an equal foot
ing with the original States. A bill origi-
mated in the House of Representatives for
that purpose, and passed, but with provi-
sion prohibiting slavery in the proposed
State of Missouri. This provision was
stricken out in the Senate, and the bill lost
by reason of disagreement between the two
houses. Here was the first attempt on the
part of Congress to dictate the terms under
which a sovereign State should be admitted
into the Union. 1t was vigorously resisted
in many quarters, and more especially in the
South, as being the exercise of unwarranta-
BILE power and an unjust discrimination
against the rights and interests of certain
portions of the confederacy. The public
mind was much inhamed. and shortly subse-
quent there arose the first violent excitement
which had occurred in the country upon the
subject of slavery. At the next session of
Congress (being that of l8l9-2W Missouri
renewed her application for an enabling act,
and bill similar to the one above men,
toned being introduced into the House of
Representatives, with the provision pro
hibiting slavery in the new State, immedi-
ately there sprung up an acrimonious sec.
tional debate. While upon the one hand it
was, with much ardor, argued that slavery
was an evil, and ought not to exist, and that,
though the general government could not
interfere with it in the old States, they had
the authority to limit its extension, by
prohibiting it in the States thereafter to be
admitted. 1t was, on the other hand, with
equal ardor and much greater force, con-
tended that slavery, whether an evil or not,
could only be controlled by the States
within which it existed-that by annexing
conditions under which only State could
come into the Union, the State was not only
shorn of its sovereignty, but the Constitu-
ton was violated, which provided that each
equal footing with the original States, and
that if Congress could impose condition
with regard to slavery, it might impose any
other condition whatsoever. The bill, how
ever, passed with the prohibition, and was
sent to the Senate. In the meantime the
whole country had become aroused (; public
meetings were being held,b both i'll the North
and South, and the people everywhere ex-
cited either in favor or against the restric
tive clause The North favored the restric-
ton, as general thing for the purpose of
obtaining, las declared by Mr.. Rufus King
of New York, the leader of the restriction
lists, and the prototype as to his views con
corning slavery of Mr.. William H. Seward,
the present distinguished Senator from the
same State,) the balance of power in the
management of the affairs of the Govern
ment. The South bitterly opposed it as
being an infringement upon their constitu-
tional rights. Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison, and other patriots of the revolu-
ton, were still living, and many of them
feared that the country would scarce sur
vive the shock through which it was then
passing. 1t was at this juncture of affairs
that the bill came to be considered in the
Senate. After long and angry contro-
versy, which tended the more to embitter
the different sections of the country, the one
against the other, compromise, known as
the Missouri Compromise, was adopted, at
the suggestion, originally, of Mr.. Thomas,
Senator from Illinois, by which the Enabling
Act was passed without any prohibition of
slavery, but slavery was thereafter pro-
hibited in all that country north of the line
of 3603 30, except that included within the
limits of Missouri.
THE EFFECT OF THE COMPROMISE.
1t may be proper here to correct an error
which appears in the report of the majority,
in claiming Mr.. Clay as the author of this
Compromise. MIR. Clay was at that time
Speaker of the House Of Representatives,
aud consequently not member of the body
in which it originated, and expressly dis
claimed the authorship of the measure, in
speech delivered in the Senate in 1850, and
in which be stated that he could not at that
time recollect whether or not he had even
voted for the compromise. But the act
having become law, let us see how it was
received by the country. 1t is known that
the South adopted the Compromise only as
last resort. She had claimed that Mis-
souri, was entitled to admission without
either conditions or compromises, but she
was the weaker party and yielded, as the
only means of bringing Missouri into the
confederacy, and of preventing what was
then deemed not improbable-a dissolution
of the Union. Many of her statesmen
deemed the act unconstitutional, end MIR.
Tyler, at that time a Senator from Vir-
ginia, made an able argument upon the floor
of the Senate to prove its unconstitutional
ty. 1t is matter of historical record that
President Monroe had prepared a veto
message upon the subject, but yielded his
constitutional objections. at the earnest an.