Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1861-01-23
WHAT cR1rrENDENs PROPOSITION Is.

An entire misapprehension pervades por-
tion of the public mind in regard to the iden-
| tity OF the proposition which Mr.. Crittenden
has presented to the Senate with that portion
OF the Missouri Compromise which was re-
pealed by the Kansas n Nebraska act in 1854.
For instance, we have seen it recently assert
| ed, in journals which ought to know better,
that the adoption of Mr.. Crittenden's resolu-
| tions would be merely ssthe restoration of the
Missouri Compromise" Nothing could be wi
der from the mark. Let us make this plain:
/. Forty years and more ago, the State of
Missouri applied for admission TO the Union
with 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 con-
vulsed Congress and the country to their deep
est foundations, dragging the Union to the
verge of dissolution. The contest was adjust
ed by Compromise. Now. what was it 2
III. 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 1920. there were large
portions of this old Louisiana territory which
lay outside of the boundaries of the State of
Missouri. Itwas finally agreed that, upon con-
dition 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 lay north OF
the south line of the State of Missouri-which
south line happened to be the parallel of 36 d.
Bonn. And, thereupon Congress admitted Mis-
souri, into the Union, and in the Sth section OF
the act of admission, forever excluded Slavery
from all the territory lying north of So 30.
III. 1t will be seen, then. that the admission
of Missouri as Slave State was the sole con-
sderation which the North paid for the per-
petual prohibit on of Slavery above the paral-
lei of &c 80. tit was, to use legal phrase, a
payment down or in hand at the time of the
transaction. The South, on its part accepted
the admission of Missouri full considera-
tion for its agreement TO the Anti-Slavery pro-
hibition contained in the act of admission. 1t
was neither agreed, understood, implied, nor
anticipated, either by the North or the South,
that tolerance or protection of Slavery south
Of 36 80 constituted any part of the bargain or
compromise of 1920. Nothing was said or
done in regard to that matter, but it was left
undisturbed precisely where the parties found
it when the controversy commenced.
". Now, Mr.. Crittenden's proposition to a
mend the Constitution is something totally diff
ferent from "the restoration of the Missouri
Compromise" True, he proposes to prohibit
Slavery in all the national territory lying north
of &c 30. But, he also proposes to incorporate
into the Constitution an article recognizing and
protecting Slavery, by Federal power, in all the
territory we now have, or may hereafter acquire
South of that line. SO far from this being re-
vival of the Missouri Compromise, it would be
the Incorporation of the Breckenridge Presi-
dental Platform, including Territorial Slave
Code, into the Constitution of the U. States.
We shall not stop now to discuss the mer-
its of this unconstitutional mode of amending
the Constitution-ths clandestine attempt to
precipitate the country into wars of conquest
for the establishment of eternal Slavery in all
the regions lying between us and the equator.
Suffice it to say, that neither persuasions nor
threats can induce the Free States to engraft
such an article into the organic law of any
Confederacy of which they will consent to be
a part and that any Northern Senator or Rep
resentatives who shall vote to send it out to
distract and insult our people will be branded
by a retributive mark as indeible as that
which dsfgured the forehead of Cain.-Trib.