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


the admission Of Missouri on that account,
now exclude the whole class of the free
colored emigrant population from their bor-
ders, and without question, by Statute or
by constitutional amendment" (Benton's
view.) The resolutions Of the Senate how
ever, admitting Missouri were defeated 10
the House, and this within one year of the
adoption Of the s'sacred compact in pursu-
ance Of which it is now alleged Missouri
was admitted into the Union, aud slavery
prohibited north of the line $3.50. Further
than this, an amendment was offered in the
House containing, among other things, 9
clause that Missouri should duly be admitted
into the Union upon condition that she
should provide in her constitution that
neither slavery or Involuntary seryitude
should ever be allowed in the State, and this
was supported by nearly two to one of the
northern Representatives. 1t would seem
therefore that neither at the time of the
adoption of the Missouri Compromise nor
shortly after, was it regarded as sacred
compact to be observed inyiolate upon the
subject of slavery, and so to consider it
would be to convict the north of gross
violation of plighted faith. Shortly after
wards Missouri was admitted, not by reason
of or in pursuance of the Missouri Compro
mise, but under compromise effected
through the exertions of Mr.. Clay, (who
here first prominently appeared in the strug-
gle) and by which, before admission, Mis-
souri, had to declare that if there was any
provision in her constitution repugnant to
the constitution of the United States, she
would not attempt to enforce it. This was
merely to declare (what otherwise would
not have been differently " the paramount
character of the constitution of the United
States over any local constitution of any
one OF the States of the Union" Here
ended the memorable Missouri controversy
and though the storm for the time subsidized
it was only to be awakened when the first
opportunity should present. In the lam
guage of Mr.. Jefferson, it was hushed for
the moment, but there was only a reprieve,
not final sentence. In 1886 Arkansas
comprised within portion of the country
known as the Louisiana purchase, and south
of the line of $3.50, where slavery had not
by the compromise been prohibited, pre-
sented her constitution and asked admission
into the Union. Her application was re-
sisted by the anti.slavery men of the north
Notwithstanding the compromise and in
violation thereof if it be considered as a
compact. Upon that occasion Mr.. Swift,
of Vermont, said that although he felt
every disposition to vote for the admission
of the new State into the Union, yet there
were operative reasons under which he must
vote against it. On looking at the Consti-
tuition submitted by Arkansas, he found
that they had made the institution of sla-
very perpetual; and to this he could never
give his assent"
Mr.. Hand, representative from New
York, in arguing against the admission,
spoke as follows AZ am aware it will
be, as it has already been contended
that by the Missouri compromise, as it had
been prepostero,ssly termed, Congress has
parted with it's right to prohibit the intro
duction of slavery into the Territory South
of $3.50 north latitude. Here are to my
mind insuperable objections to the soundness
of that proposition. In the first place there
was no compromise or compact whereby
Congress surrendered any power, or yielded
any jurisdiction and in the second place,
if it had done so, it was a mere legislative
act, that could not bind their successors it
would be subjected to repeal at the will of
any succeeding Congress" Upon the ques.
ton of admission, forty-nine northern Rep.
resentatives voted in the negative, conclu-
sively showing that they regarded the Mis-
souri, compromise not in the light of a sacred
compact to the observance of which the
north as well as the south stood irreyocably
pledged. Itwould require too much space
to refer in detail to the various occasions of
slavery agitation in the country since the
year 1920, when the Missouri compromise
was enacted, and prior to the year of its
repeal. We might refer to the incidents of
the year 1886, when petition after petition
in relation to the abolition of slavery was
presented to Congress, and inaammatory
speeches made upon each presentation until
great and bitter excitement was wrought in
the public mind, and to the year 1889, when
SO great Was the agitation in reference to
the subject that at one time the members
from the Southern States withdrew in q
body from the floor of the House of Repre-
sentatiYes, as indications that the Missouri
compromise had failed to restore that peace
and harmony which it claimed for is by the
majority of the committee. We prefer,
however to bring upon the stand witness
whose yeracity will not be questioned. by the
Republican party and show by him that the
slavery question was far from being settled
some years prior to the repeal of the Mis-
souri, compromise. Mr.. Seward in a speech
delivered at Cleveland in 1848, used the
following remarkable language:
ssWhat then, you say, can nothing be done
for freedom, because the public conscience is