The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1861-01-26

WHAT CRlTTENDEN'S PROPOSITION REALLY Is.
An entire misapprehension pervades portion
of the public mind in regard to the identity OF
the proposition which Mr.. Crttenden has pre-
scented to the Senate with that portion of the
Missouri Compromise which was repealed by the
Kansas Nebraska act in 1854. For instance,
we have seen it recently asserted, in Journals
which ought to know better, that the adoption OF
Mr.. Crittenden's resolutions would be merely
1.-The restoration of the Missouri Compromise.
Nothing could be wider from the mark. Let Us
make this plain:
l. Forty years and more ago, the State OF
Missouri applied for admission to the Union with
a Constitution which authorized Slavery. For
two years this application was resisted by the
Free States, because of this Pro-Slavery clause
in her Constitution. The conflict convulsed
Congress and the country to their deepest foun-
datons, dragging the Union to the verge of dis.
solution, The contest was adjusted by Com
prc1iise. Now, what was it?
.. This new State of Missouri was carved out
of portion oil the territory acquired from
France when we purchased Louisiana. At the
time of the struggle of 1920, there were large
portions of this old Louisiana territory which lay
outside of the boundaries of the State OF Mis-
souri,. 1t was finally agreed that, upon condition
that Missouri should be admitted into the Union
rs SIaveholding State, Slavery should be for
ever prohibited in all the rest OF the old Louis
lana territory which lay north of the south line
Of the State of Missouri-which south line hap
peDed to be the parallel OF 81 80. And, there.
upon Congress admitted Missouri into the Union,
and in the Sth section OF the act Of admission,
forever excluded Slavery IRON all the territory
wing north of SO Q 30.
3. 1t will be seen, then, that the admission
OF Missouri as Slave State was the sole cOnsid
Grafton which the North paid for the perpetual
prohibition of Slavery above the parallel OF 30 :
80. 1t was to use a legl phrase, payment
down or in hand at the tluIc Of the transaction
The South, on its pa accepted the admission oil
Missouri as full considerations for its agreement
to the Anti-Slavery prohibition contained in the
act of admission. 1t was neither agreed, under
stood, implied, nor anticipated, either by the
North or the South, that tolerance OF prOtectio.
| II Slavery south of Sc 80 constituted any par
| Of the bargain Or compromise OF 1920. Nothing
Was said Or done in reguTd TO that matter, but i
WAS lett uidistHrbed precisely where the parties
| found it when the controversy commenced
| /. Now, Mr.. Crittendcn'5 proposition t.
| amend the Constitution is something totally dit
| ercnt from 1.-The restoration of the NJ ssoui
Compromise" True, he proposes to prohibi
Slavery in all the pational territory lying Nortl
| Of SO 30. But he also proposes to incolpo
| rate into the Constitution an article ,'ecogni=m!
asa protecting .Siarery, 10y Federal power, IN al
| the territory We now have, Of may hereafter dc
| gu;re SO,tth Of that Tine so far from dis bein,
Il revival of the Missouri Comps omisc, it woui:
he the incorporation of the Breckenridge PreSi
dental Platform, including Territorial Sla,
! Cote, into the Constitution Of the United States
We shall not stop now to discuss the merit
of this unconstitutional mode of amending ih'
Constitution-this clandesiine attempt to PIE
eipitnte the country into wars OF conquest 70
the establishment of eternal Slavery in all tn
regions lying between US and the equatoT.-
Suffice it to say, that neither persuasiOns no
| threats can induce the Free States to engral
such an article in.o the organic law of any Con
tedcracy of which they will consent to he part
and that any Northern Senator or Representa-
tive who shall vote to send it out to distract an.
insult our people vii! be branded by retribu
tive mark as indelible as thar which dsfgu,eC
the forehead of CAIN. 7. Tribune.
! TUr or GrTrSc,,v Tho al