New-York tribune., 1901-04-24


and defend the part which the authors husband
Archibald Dixon, Senator from Kentucky 0S52
1850 played in the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise. 1t he who the Senate tool
the first direct step toward the consummatior
Of this act, and while the chief responsibility
for il has rightly been placed upon other shou
ders, upon him has fallen small share of the
odium with which those who supported the re-
peal have been regarded at the North. Mrs
Dixon accordingly endeavOrs to show on the
one hand that his conduct in this matter was
determined by the highest motives. and on the
other that the repeal was not breach OF po-
lt;cal good faith on the part of the South and
its sympathizers but an act of simple justice
and sound craftsmanship.
In narrating from what appears to be adequate
personal knowledge Of the facts the detals Oh
Senator Dixon's connection with the repeal OF
the compromise. Mrs. Dixon not only clears up
an obscure point in his conduct, but also makes
positive contribution to history.
II is well known that in reporting Ganuary T.
1850 the bill for the organization of the Terri
tory Of Nebraska from the committee to which
it had been referred, Senator Douglas expressly
stated that the compromise not to be at
tackled. Your committee he said, do not feel
themselves called upon to enter into the discus
sion of these oontroverted questions. They in
volve the same grave issues which produced the
agitation. the sectional strife, and the fearful
struggle of 1880 So your committee are
not prepared now to recommend" either the af-
firnation or the repeal of the eighth section OF
the Missouri act When, however few days
later Mr. Dixon gave notice to the Senate of
an amendment TO the Nebraska bill effecting the
repeal of the Missouri compromise. Douglas ex-
pressed approval of the step, accepted the
amendment and incorporated it practically in
his territorial bill. How this sudden change Of
hsse was effected and what In the way of mo-
.i,es Law back of il have aIways been something
of a puzzle The whole transaction was sug-
sestive Of ways that are dark, and 1t was
promptly and fercely denounced as an under
hand move of pro-slaYery consplrators mrs
Dixon's account, however puts the matter at
least so far as Mr.. Dixon was concerned. in
very different light. She states explicitly that
he acted entirely upon his own responsibility
and without consultation with Douglas or any
one else ITO the best OF my belief and knowl-
edge she says Mr.. Dixon consulted no one
in this matter. A lifelong Whig, determined
States rights man. as well as a devoted Union
list as much opposed TO forcing slavery on
people who did not want il he was TO having
emancipation forced on the people Of Kentucky
by their convention. and a strict believer in the
equality Of the States he saw clearly what was
due TO the South and believed that the justice
denied her in 1850 could now be procured for her
from Congress-
He had nothing do with the passing of the
Nebraska BILL having, in fact. been prevented
by i'll health from taking active part in legis-
lative work while that measure was under dis
oussion He merely saw according to Mrs
Dixon in the bill reported by Douglas an oppor-
tunity for Congress TO do what he regarded as
an act of political justice, and his amendment
had no other motive or aim. 1t was offered
simply to satisfy his own conscience, and was
shown no except Mrs. Dixon. who wrote
it out from her husbands dctation. and Sen
ator Jones. of Tennessee. before notice of ii was
given to the Senate (January 16). There was no
taint of conspiracy about it, either in its origin,
its spirit or its aim AS regards Douglass ap-
proval and acceptance Of it. the account given
is much of the same kind. He had undoubtedly
desired TO avoid raising the question of repeal
from fear of its political effects in the North.
Mr. Dixon is quoted as saying: mo one appeared
more startled lat the amendment than Judge
Douglas himself. He Immediately to my
seat and courteously demonstrated against my
amendment suggesting that the bill which he
had introduced almost in the words of the
territorial acts for the organization of Utah
and Mexico, that, they being a part of the
compromise measures of 1850 he had hoped
that ], a known and jealous friend of the wise
and patriotic adjustment which had then taken
place. would not be inclined TO do anything to
call that adjustment in question weaken it
before the country" few days later, however,
Judge Douglas came to Mr.. Dixon and said TO
him that he satisfied that ii was his duty
las fair minded national statesman to CO.
operate in the repeal Of the Missouri compromise
restriction. In stating his reasons he spoke"
says Mr.. Dixon lin the most earnest and touch
ing manner, and / confess that / was deeply
affected The truth. in a word, appears TO be
that Douglas and his followers, though willing
enough TO attack the compromise. had not dared
10 think that the repeal Of it practicable
until Senator Dixon's bold and independent act
forced a decision upon them. One thing at
least, seems obvious from the facts given in this
volume, namely, that Douglass later statement
10 the public that the repeal merely made ex-
plicit what was implied in the compromise meas
ure OF 1850 afterthought.
Mrs. Dxon's defence of the repeal itself occu-
pies the greater part of the book and il has in
VOWED her in a very elaborate discussion. of
the events that led up and resulted from the
act of 1890 and of various aspects of the slavery
question 1t is impossible here to follow her in
detail. What she has to say about these mat
ters abounds in interest. though her narrative is
often dffuse, and is overloaded-in fact is mad
ded"-with extracts from Congressional debates
The interest is not lessened by the fact that the
impartiality at which she evidently aims is not
wholly attained. Indeed, the note of intense
personal feeling gives the book its most distinct
charm.