New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-08-12
MISSOURI.
A BIASED HISTORY.

m
Missouri carries the reader back TO purely pas
+oraI ace The pcriod Of the Sansh domination
voc ono If potrarchal simplicity and tranquil nap
riross The pcoplc must then have enjoyed an
idool eouobili,y Moderns might, ana propaoiy
xxouId call the life dull. but there can DC no
question that it was innocent, moral wholcsohie'
aud far closer to the highest Christian mooei Vl"n
the SUCCESSORS Of those peaceful ana conservative
oId tolls have ever attained since. 1t is further
interesting 10 note that under the Spanish dom
nation there was little trouble with Indians and
that the cause Of this freedom from trouble was
the SPACIOUS and honorable policy pursued toward
the aboricines All persecution OF them was rig |
orouslv prohibited They were treated on terms
Of cnnaity They were made TO understand that
their friendship was valued. In trade they were
mot systematically cheated. They were invited to
rlant tfeir villages by the side Of the whltr
settlements. and frequently they did So Ana
since the white men did not coyet the lands OF
their red neighbors, the races lived togethcr III
pcace and amity. The quiet unambiuous en-
stcncc of these bygone times is described Win
rronhic force by Mr. Carr but when he advances
further and begins to treat OF more recent events
there is a change in the tone OF his chron'cie'
Ills feeling as a Missourian then begins TO DC
manifest and presently 1t is made apparent 'ha' nc
holds views on slavery and secession which render
/ 10
accurate His State sympathies are manifested,
to tho prejudice of history, in his presentation
Of all those events and controversies IN when III:
action of Missouri, when riGhtiully stated APP
pears ANYTHING less than creditable 10 inc ''"'o'
/ The Texas and New-MeXico anncxations Tor eN-
amrlc. are here described from point OF view
which is ANYTHING bat historical or exact. Inc
truth is that the Texas annexation ana the mexican
war were alike disgraccful to the United o'a'eS'
They were forced on the country py ulc Sia''
holders. who would stop at nothing provided they
conld obtain the means of expansion for the
peculiar institution" more unjust ana wan
tom yar was never waged than that with MEXICO
and it. involved principles adherence to whicn
would at the time of The rebellion, have rendered
il imnossbc for the Federal Government 10 pro-
test aqainst interference on behalf OF the oou'h
by any foreign power
Nh Carr defends this inquitous war, upon "iiiri'
though he cites Bancroft, it is evident that ne
has net consulted that authority; nor though
he cites Won Hoist also, has he followed 'haV
historian in his account of the Missouri Compro-
mise His view in fact, is largely that winch
was taken by the Southern politicians at the tne
He talks loosely and with little Judgment or
scnso of RESPONSIBILITY about the right OF inc
; United States to seek larger territory at inc
: expensc of her ncighbors, apparently without
; the least regard to the rlghuo Vi
, the latter As to the Missouri Compromise. he Is
certainly right in asserting that 1t was an uhplac-
teal and futile measure but he as certainly Shouiu
l have pointed out the CONTRIBUTIONS winch coni-
mcnded it to the Northern mind at the Tune Inc
North was Il long While in realizing the force ana
even desperation of Southern determination all"
This slow realization is due to the fact that whereas
tho action Of the South was spurred and auickencd
by selfintercst of the most specific character 'e
North was contcnding for principles which, whlic
= or The first consequence, did not, like the slavery
Il issue appeal directly to the pockets OF thclr al
= vocatcs. This one reason why for many year
"a the Southern policy and programme succeeded an'
- why the Northern States allowed themselves 10 d.
= pusbcd from concession TO compromise untii IL DC
u came apparent that the only result OF yieldlni
was to stimulate the greed OF the other sldc ah'
Of embolden its insatiobe demands
Is The responsibility of Missouri in the so-caiieI
~ Kansas tr ubes furnishes a topic regarding WIlc
- no doubt a great deal may he SAID Oh Doth slucs
- It is difficult for State TO police border so eX
ne tcnsive and perhaps it is impossible. But how
- ever that may be. there is no room for DOUBT a
- ~ to the fact that the couise Of the border ME
~ sourans who raidcd into Kansas was wantonly an
molicranfly aggressive, or that they reprosenic
The extreme slaycholding faction IN MS detci
Nv miuation that the voice Of Kansas should not d
- pronounced against the admission OF slavery
may be admitted TINT as the border disturbance
=. grew both sides were in turn guilty OF mdeoo
- crimes But it is not true. as Mr.. Carr here rel
~ rcsents that the Kansas immigrants stood on III
~ sane footing as the Missouri border rui.ans IN n
an sponsbil;y The border ruflians went out oil me
Ia way to bully and intimidate the settlers OF heisi
w boring Territory. The Kansas men began by d.
nm Tending themselves and their institutions an
40 when later they retaaed and carried the war int
ipori fnl, lie @
IT, first aggressons Mr.. Carr does not write histor
H. when he pretends TO put the Missourians and Il
ON Kansas Free State men ON an exact level. Th
nd cannot be done nor there any true parullclis
I'm between the Northern men who helped the defcn'
sv Of free institutions in Kansas by money ana oth
he contributions and the Southern men who urged
or the Missouri border ruifans TO the preparation
nv fresh outragrs No doubt there were irregularti
lly on both sides but it must always be borne III NH
"a that the ultimate object OF the defenders oi Ma
be sas was the Vindcation Of free ballot ana Ia
Ter count, whereas the hostilitles concerted Oh u
re- Missouri border were intended to obstruct al
he prevent the free constitutional expression OF ha
rsc ,s opinion It is perfectly obvious that the
his povcr would have been any border troubles hi
he Tho Southern element not abandoned all hope
nat carving Kansas as slave State by constitution
eat methods
come obicction NAV be taken to Mr.. Carr
or, treatment of the Mormon question Careful I
,o1 cent studies Of that question appear to settle
no that the Latter Day Saints were more SIM
al, AGAINST than SHINING in their solourns ana {
ov tempts at settlement in Missouri and llnnois.
cd is quito certain that the manner OF their eXpulS
as from Missouri was cruel and brutal IN the
,ev trcnc and hardly all doubtful that the po
mo- people were shamefully plundered by the ru'l''
cir who undertook TO drive them INTO exile. III ID
de their expulsion disgraccfu to the misSonra
lily who perpetratcd 1t, and not less SO 10 'ne 81"
nd Possibly If they had enpioScu '"e" ~" NJ.
aid power, as they aiterwara did III ih'no''' ,io
,ad mons might have come OH pe'vr' pu' "V '''' -
zen they were inexperienced, and Governor boses e
ld dnntl sa,r M rcasnn for hnndling them tenderI