00000346 |
Previous | 346 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
THE BALANCE OF POWER. 315
'" Our country was then, [at the formation of the Union] bounded by the Mississippi, and little was to be apprehended, as the condition of the United States was, at that
period, an overgrown power derived from a slave population. But could it have been
foreseen, that a territory west of that river, larger than the old thirteen United States, would
have been added to our country, out of wMch new States, almost to infinity, could be formed,
with the privilege of holding slaves, lam persuaded that neither Massachusetts, nor any part
of New England, and perhaps none of the now free States then extant, would have consented
on such terms, to have come into tlie Union."
" Such was the manner in which Maine, already admitted into the Union under the
compromise of 1820, raised her voice against the admission of Missouri. Yet, at the very
same moment, the North had a majority over the South, of forty-three votes in the
House; which would not have been the case but for the magnificent domain that Virginia
had so generously, nay, so improvidently, given to the non-slaveholding power of the
North.
" There is one other feature in this Missouri business, which deserves a special notice.
After Missouri had been refused admission, and her cause seemed hopelessly lost, Mr-
Brown, of Kentucky, moved to repeal the line of 36° 30'. He said to the North if you
will not keep the bargain, then repeal it. If you will not fulfil your promise, then give
back the consideration for it. But even this demand was refused. The part of the
compromise by which she gained the admission of Maine and the vast territory beyond
the line of 36° 30', was held sacred by the North ; while the part they had promised to
perform was dishonored and repudiated by her! Though her gains were in violation of
the Constitution itself, and of the treaty with France, both of which her representatives
in Congress had sworn to support as the supreme law of the land, yet were they held
sacred by those representatives, and by ' the whole North for thirty years.' But the
admission of Missouri, though guaranteed by her promise and by the Constitution, was
repudiated by her."*
An able writer in the Southern Review of April, 1868, thus sums up the
whole question of " the Missouri Compromise of 1820," as drawn by him
from the " unimpeachable records."
" First, That the North took an unconstitutional stand in 1820, and thence extorted the
compromise by which the South gained absolutely nothing, except the recognition of a
constitutional right, and by which the North gained all the territory beyond the line of
36° 30' (in violation of the treaty of purchase with France), and the admission of Maine
into the Union without the admission of Missouri.
Secondly, Though the North thus extorted that compromise from the South, and held
fast all she had gained by it, she yet refused, at the very next session of Congress—she
openly and unblushingly refused—to fulfil the only stipulation she had agreed to
perform. Only one member of Congress—only one poor, despised, solitary member,,
could be found in all the faithless regions of the North,too honest to 'keep a Punic
faith' even with the South !
" Thirdly, Though the North refused to fulfil her part of the compromise, she still
refused to relinquish the terms she had extorted from the loyalty of the South to the
Union. On the contrary, instead of consenting to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
after refusing to keep it, she made that repeal the ground of her indictment against the
South, and poured out the vials of her wrath on the Northern Senator by whom it had
been proposed, as well as on all concerned in the deed; not even excepting the Supreme
Court of the United States, by whom the Compromise was declared to be unconstitutional.
1 Southern Review.
| Title | History of Maryland - 3 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000346 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | THE BALANCE OF POWER. 315 '" Our country was then, [at the formation of the Union] bounded by the Mississippi, and little was to be apprehended, as the condition of the United States was, at that period, an overgrown power derived from a slave population. But could it have been foreseen, that a territory west of that river, larger than the old thirteen United States, would have been added to our country, out of wMch new States, almost to infinity, could be formed, with the privilege of holding slaves, lam persuaded that neither Massachusetts, nor any part of New England, and perhaps none of the now free States then extant, would have consented on such terms, to have come into tlie Union." " Such was the manner in which Maine, already admitted into the Union under the compromise of 1820, raised her voice against the admission of Missouri. Yet, at the very same moment, the North had a majority over the South, of forty-three votes in the House; which would not have been the case but for the magnificent domain that Virginia had so generously, nay, so improvidently, given to the non-slaveholding power of the North. " There is one other feature in this Missouri business, which deserves a special notice. After Missouri had been refused admission, and her cause seemed hopelessly lost, Mr- Brown, of Kentucky, moved to repeal the line of 36° 30'. He said to the North if you will not keep the bargain, then repeal it. If you will not fulfil your promise, then give back the consideration for it. But even this demand was refused. The part of the compromise by which she gained the admission of Maine and the vast territory beyond the line of 36° 30', was held sacred by the North ; while the part they had promised to perform was dishonored and repudiated by her! Though her gains were in violation of the Constitution itself, and of the treaty with France, both of which her representatives in Congress had sworn to support as the supreme law of the land, yet were they held sacred by those representatives, and by ' the whole North for thirty years.' But the admission of Missouri, though guaranteed by her promise and by the Constitution, was repudiated by her."* An able writer in the Southern Review of April, 1868, thus sums up the whole question of " the Missouri Compromise of 1820," as drawn by him from the " unimpeachable records." " First, That the North took an unconstitutional stand in 1820, and thence extorted the compromise by which the South gained absolutely nothing, except the recognition of a constitutional right, and by which the North gained all the territory beyond the line of 36° 30' (in violation of the treaty of purchase with France), and the admission of Maine into the Union without the admission of Missouri. Secondly, Though the North thus extorted that compromise from the South, and held fast all she had gained by it, she yet refused, at the very next session of Congress—she openly and unblushingly refused—to fulfil the only stipulation she had agreed to perform. Only one member of Congress—only one poor, despised, solitary member,, could be found in all the faithless regions of the North,too honest to 'keep a Punic faith' even with the South ! " Thirdly, Though the North refused to fulfil her part of the compromise, she still refused to relinquish the terms she had extorted from the loyalty of the South to the Union. On the contrary, instead of consenting to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise after refusing to keep it, she made that repeal the ground of her indictment against the South, and poured out the vials of her wrath on the Northern Senator by whom it had been proposed, as well as on all concerned in the deed; not even excepting the Supreme Court of the United States, by whom the Compromise was declared to be unconstitutional. 1 Southern Review. |
