thern men supported his proposition and
carried it through Congress against the votes and the remonstrances of
the North.

The South, then, established and destroyed the Missouri Compromise.
The South wishes to have its provisions restored. Why, then, are you
not satisfied to have it put into the Constitution, and so make it
permanent and perpetual, if the North will consent to it? Are the
circumstances of the South so much changed? If it was equitable in
1820, _a fortiori_ it ought to be equitable in 1861. Territory has
been acquired since 1820, it is true, but it is all or nearly all,
south of the compromise line. Restore the Missouri Compromise and this
territory will be devoted to southern institutions. What territory has
been acquired since? Will gentlemen reply, "Oregon"? I insist that
Oregon was virtually acquired before. It only required the final
agreement upon a boundary line.

If there is any proposition in which the North can concur--any that
will restore harmony between the North and the South--it is the
restoration of the Missouri Compromise. If any other is proposed less
favorable or just to the North, I do not believe the people will adopt
it.

I am not insensible to the condition of the country. Neither are my
colleagues, nor the constituents they represent. But you must not
expect us here, in the worst emergency you can imagine, to forget or
throw away the rights of our people. If we consent to support this
amendment, it is as far as we can go. You ought not to ask us to go
farther.

Mr. DENT:--I will only occupy one moment. Maryland has spoken in
language which satisfies me. As I understand him, I concur in what my
colleague has said.

Now the nut is to be cracked. The majority report proposes to give up
three-fourths of our territory to the North absolutely, retaining the
little balance for the South. The amendment proposes to pick the
kernel out of the balance, and to leave the husks to us. To that we
shall agree when we are compelled to; not before.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Missouri:--The Supreme Court has already decided, in
terms which are not ambiguous, that Congress has no right, under the
Constitution, to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Now, our
brethren of the North propose to give us the Missouri Compromise. What
do they mean? Do they intend to give us a substantial right--one that
we can enforce and rely upon, or do they intend to keep it from us?
They are shrewd as well as honorable