New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1861-01-16
WHAT CRITTENDEN's PROPOSITION
REALLY rs.

An entire misapprehension pervades portion
of the public mind in regard to the identity OF
the proposition which Mr.. Crittenden 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Missouri Compromise which was repealed by the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..
Crttenden's resolutions would be merely " the
{. restoration of the Missouri Compromise"
Nothing could be wider from the mark. Let us
make this plain:
r Forty wears 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 conyulsed Con-
gress and the country to their deepest fOunda-
TONS dragging the Union to the verge of disso-
luton. The contest was adjusted by Compro-
mise. Now what was it
ii. This new State of Missouri was carved out
of portion of the territory acquired from France
when we purchased Louisiana. At the time of
the struggle Of 1870, there were large portions OF
this old Louisiana territory which lay outside OF
the boundaries of the State of Missouri. 1t was
finally agreed that, upon condition that Missouri
should be admitted into the Union as Slave
holding State Slavery should be forever prohibited
in all the rest of the old Louisiana territory
which Law north of the south line of the State of
Missouri-wbich south line happened to be the
parallel Of 36o so. And, thereupOn Congress
admitted Missouri into the Union, and in the 9th
section of the act of admission, forever excluded
Slavery from all the territory lying north OF
So 80.
ILL., II will be seen, then, that the admission
of Missouri as Slave State was the sole con-
sideration which the North paid for the perpetual
prohibition of Slavery above the parallel of 360
80. 1t was, to use legal phrase, payment
down or in hand at the time of the transaction.
The South, on its part accepted the admission OF
Missouri as full consideration for its agreement
10 the Ant.Slayery 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 or protection
Of slavery south of 36o 30 constituted any part
of the bargain or compromise of lo2O. Nothing
was said or done in regard to that matter, but
it was left undisturbed precisely where the
parties found il when the controversy commenced.
". Now, Mr.. Crittendens proposition to
amend the Constitution is something totally diff
fcrent from 1.-the restoration of the Missouri
"Compromise." True, he proposes to prohibit
Slavery in all the national territory lying North
Of 80 80. Iut, he also proposes 20 incorporate
into the Constitution an article recognizing and
protecting Sidrery, by Federal power, in all the
territory We now have, or may hereafter acquire
South Of that line. So far frop this being re-
yiyal of the Missouri Compromise, it would be
the incorporation of the Breckenridge Presidential
Platform, including q Territorial Slave Code, into
he Constitution of the United States.
We shall not stop now TO discuss the merits of
this unconstitutional mode Of amending the Con-
titution-this clandestne attempt to precpitate
the country into wars of conquest for the estab
EsLment Of eternal Slavery in all the regions
lying between us and the equator. Suffice 1t to
say, that neither persuasions nor threats can IN
duce the Free States to engraft such an article
into the organic law of any Coniederacy of which
they viii consent to be a part; and that any
Northern Senator or Representative who snail
vote 10 iend il out 10 distract and insult our
people VIII be branded by Tetrbutive mark Us
indelible as that which dis6gured the forehead of
Cain.