Richmond Enquirer

RICHMOND, FEBRUARY 17, 1820.

MISSOURI QUESTION—COMPROMISE, &C.

We have re-considered the remarks, which we penned for last Thursday's paper under some degree of excitement. We see nothing to regret; nothing to change in the sentiment or tone with which it was uttered. We still believe that under the constitution Congress has no such power over the territories; and that even if this impediment were removed, that it would be inexpedient and unjust to run the partition line at 36 deg. 30 min. on account of the comparatively small portion of territory, which would fall south of that line.

Under these impressions, we spoke of that compromise; and under the same impressions, we would strongly disapprove it.

It is with these sentiments that we lay the following extracts of letters before our readers—they are earnestly and ably written: but we candidly confess our conviction to be unchanged that this compromise is neither agreeable to the constitution nor to our interests. The writer speaks freely of Mr. King.

Extract of a letter from a gentleman in Washington, to his friend in this City.

WASHINGTON, Feb 12, 1820.

The Missouri question continues to occupy, almost exclusively, the whole attention of Congress. The debate is still going on in both houses, and God only knows when, or how it will terminate. It was but reasonable to suppose that after the vote of the Senate upon Mr. Roberts' proposition for restriction, the subject would not have been further discussed in that body—but Mr. King, of New York, who, during the debate, "had maintained a silence as mysterious, as it was unexpected, has contrived to recommence the discussion in a different shape; and yesterday, without the least expectation, or hope of producing any change in the Senate, delivered a speech, better calculated to delude and mislead our northern brethren, and more alarming to the friends of our Union (whether federalists, or republicans,) than any thing which has hitherto been written or spoken upon the subject.

Previous to his arrival in this city, a spirit of conciliation and compromise which was thought to be due to the universal excitement which prevails, seemed to be pretty generally indulged. The tone of his friends, however, was soon altered, and "Aut Caesar, aut nullus" adopted as their principle of action.

Having given notice of his intention to speak a day or two beforehand, no doubt with a view to be heard by the northern members of the House of Representatives, who crowded the Senate chamber for that purpose, much of his speech consisted of ingenious efforts to excite their prejudices, and enlist their pride in opposition to any and every thing which savored of compromise.

On other occasions he had expressed in his wish that the territory of Missouri belonged to the moon, or was given up to the residence of bears, tigers and other wild beasts. In his speech he denied the authority of this government to acquire Louisiana in the manner in which it had been obtained.

Disdaining to assume the mask of pretended religion, morality, or humanity, or calculating to gain greater advantages by throwing off all disguise, he openly and boldly treated the subject as a mere question of political power, and contended that no kind of interest ought to reconcile the people of the north to part with any portion of their power. He inveighed against that inequality of representation which is predicated upon our slave population, and exclaimed, "place freemen by the side of freemen, and we are willing to go all lengths with you."

He disclaimed all authority to impose the restriction, from any other clause or part of the constitution but that which declares that "Congress may admit new states into this Union," expressly admitting that all other parts of that instrument were inapplicable, notwithstanding he himself had contended for the restriction upon another clause, in a pamphlet purporting to be the substance of two speeches which he delivered last session, but which is not only very different from, but in some important parts in direct opposition to those speeches, one of which was actually made to demonstrate that such was the nature of property in slaves, that Congress could not rightfully interfere in the manner proposed with the children hereafter to be born of such slaves. He succeeded in defeating that part of the proposition, and the journals will exhibit his vote upon the subject.

Apparently determined not to be outdone by Mr. Clinton or his friends, two of whom (among the most conspicuous,) had contended in the Legislature of New York that slavery did not exist in the U. States, and that the Supreme Court would so decide. Mr. King contended that the constitution of the United States had not sanctioned slavery; that it had only forborne to interfere with it, and that if there had been no attempt to tolerate it beyond the limits of the old thirteen, he would have forborne to express his sentiments upon the subject, but declaring with his peculiar emphasis, that "his purpose was fixed." he said that one man could not make a slave of another, that a plurality of individuals could not do so: and for the same reason communities, however organized could not do it, that all laws or compacts imposing such a condition upon any human being were absolutely void, because contrary to the law of nature, which was the law of God, and above all human control: that these principles had been affirmed in the case of Somerset in England, and that similar judicial decisions had been made in Massachusetts, and I think in some other northern state—and he intimated in language too distinct to be misunderstood, that "it was not less the duty, than the right, of this nation, to maintain those principles."

He declared that if the restriction did not prevail, the northern people ought not to submit, and that as one of the original parties to the compact, he felt himself in honor bound to resist. All of which he expressed, not as ebullitions of passion, but as the settled and deliberate determination of a mind, steadfastly fixed upon the accomplishment of its object.

His friends, as well as those who are opposed to the restriction, were equally surprised by the undisguised boldness of his views. No one expected to hear as much from him—and if I am not greatly mistaken, several of his most intelligent friends are as much at a loss as we are, to penetrate his ultimate aim. They could not account for his determination to renew the discussion, at the time, and under the circumstances which he selected—all thought it unseasonable and inopportune, and some suppose it to have proceeded from some new councils with friends lately arrived.

It is known that during the past summer he visited Massachusetts, &c. it is suspected that much of the excitement in that section of country has emanated from his conduct, and that his speech may be intended as the watch word for the commencement of the measures which he and his associates may have determined upon.—I am constrained to believe that if he sees that he cannot be president of these U S. he would prefer to be the first man in a new confederacy to be formed out of New York, New England, &c. His policy evidently must be to keep the Missouri question suspended for another year, that he may derive every possible advantage from the excitement it is so well calculated to produce.

If he can be made president, which is probably his first object, he may be willing to preserve the Union.

The crisis is indeed a most inauspicious one, and nothing but the prudence and wisdom of practical men can avert the dangers which it threatens. If either party completely triumphs it is much to be feared that the other will not submit: and I am penetrated with the deepest regret and horror at seeing that too many on both sides view disunion with so little repugnance. Your Virginians yielding to the dictates of a pride natural to such high-minded people, are too apt to overlook consequences: however noble this may be in individuals acting for themselves, it is dangerous for a politician to yield himself up to the indulgence of such a spirit. You calculate that you would remunerate yourselves out of the public lands, but short sighted must he that politician who does not see that if the Atlantic states separate, the western states will become a separate confederacy, and then if you get those lands, it must be by hard fighting.

Your pride revolts at the idea of a compromise of any kind, and thus is it most completely rendered the instrument of promoting the views of Mr. King and his friends, who are drawing the highest advantages from the stand you are taking whilst it aids them also in their endeavors to put down those of our northern friends who in opposition to the popular current in their respective states are firmly identifying themselves with us on the present occasion. Is nothing due to the magnanimity of those gentlemen?

But what is the question which the proposed compromise presents? It is simply whether you will save any part of the country? By the compromise you would give up nothing which you can retain, while by seeming to yield to it voluntarily, you would by manifesting your own moderation, place your opponents so much the more in the wrong, there being a large majority in the house of representatives in favor of restricting the states as well as the territories. You have nothing to hope from that quarter, and I can assure you that there is a very decided majority in the Senate in favour of excluding slavery from all unsettled territory north of 36 degrees north latitude, and I believe if a compromise does not take place the exclusion will be general.

It it should not happen this year, from the disproportionate increase of non slave holding population, it must eventually succeed.

Washington, Feb. 13th, 1820.

DEAR SIR: The last mail from your city, has brought us such intelligence concerning the opinions and feelings of your legislature, in relation to the proposed compromise of our Missouri question, which is equally a source of gratification to Mr. King's party, and of the most unfeigned regret to the friends of the Union, as well as the sincerest admirers, and most devoted friends of Virginia herself.

While I cannot but respect the high-minded and honorable motives of your friends, I beg leave to say that I am apprehensive, that the nature of the desperate struggle for power which is now making here, is either not properly understood, or duly appreciated at Richmond.

It was not even understood here, till within a day or two ago when Mr. King throwing off all disguise made a speech in the Senate, that must damn him to everlasting fame. Nothing could more effectually promote his own ambitious views, or those of his friends, than the cooperation which you are affording them, for they are opposed to any compromise, lest by satisfying or appasing the public mind which has been so much excited by unparalleled artifices, they might be deprived of all the advantages which they promise themselves from the agitation of the question for one year longer. Their object is to consolidate in their favor, the whole weight of our non slave-holding population, which is numerically much the strongest portion. The representation from Virginia may enable them to succeed, and to prostrate those magnanimous representatives from the non slave-holding states who have patriotically hazarded their own standing in uniting with Virginia herself, to resist the present popular delusion, and to preserve the integrity of the Union, against all those abominable machinations to destroy it.

What has Virginia to promise herself, from such a course? What has she to lose by the proposed compromise? Nothing that she could retain without it. Owing to the vast extent of prairies, the soil, climate, and nature of the cultivation that must prevail—there is indeed, but a small portion of the country from which slavery is proposed to be excluded in which slavery would exist, were no exclusion to take place in the manner proposed. But is not something due to the prejudices of every portion of our country? Our fathers thought so, or our present happy Union would never have existed—shall we totally disregard that spirit of conciliation and compromise of which they have left us such an illustrious example? Mr. King stated in his speech and I suppose truly, that Mr. Jefferson himself, reported the article in the ordinance of 1787, which relates to slavery.

Your most patriotic and distinguished statesmen, no doubt in a spirit of conciliation, voted for it. Your state has Depend upon it, the present sent time powerfully appeals to the moderation of your present legislature—let not pride stimulate you to aid your enemies, and prostrate your friends. Considering the vast portion of the country obtained by the treaty with France, which has been, and is proposed, by the compromise, to be opened to the introduction of slavery, and its relative value to that portion from which it is proposed to exclude slavery; I refer it to your candor, to say whether the slave holding states have enough to complain of in the partition, to justify a resort to measures which may put to hazard the tranquillity and peace of this great nation. My foresight may be very limited; but my anticipations are fearful. I love Virginia, and on that account, as well as attachment to the Union, I do most sincerely deplore that unyielding disposition, which seems, under circumstances like the present, to influence your legislature. What is the nature of the compromise that excites so much sensibility among you? Nothing more than a mere simple act of legislation, repealable at any future time. I will add no more but my hope, that the same kind providence that has hitherto watched over the destinies of this nation, will still preserve us.