deny that it was a compact, in any sense of the term.  But if it was, the record proves that faith was not observed—­that the contract was never carried into effect—­that after the North had procured the passage of the act prohibiting slavery in the Territories, with a majority in the House large enough to prevent its repeal, Missouri was refused admission into the Union as a slave-holding State, in conformity with the act of March 6, 1820.  If the proposition be correct, as contended for by the opponents of this bill—­that there was a solemn compact between the North and the South that, in consideration of the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, Missouri was to be admitted into the Union, in conformity with the act of 1820—­that compact was repudiated by the North, and rescinded by the joint action of the two parties within twelve months from its date.  Missouri was never admitted under the act of the 6th of March, 1820.  She was refused admission under that act.  She was voted out of the Union by Northern votes, notwithstanding the stipulation that she should be received; and, in consequence of these facts, a new compromise was rendered necessary, by the terms of which Missouri was to be admitted into the Union conditionally—­admitted on a condition not embraced in the act of 1820, and, in addition, to a full compliance with all the provisions of said act.  If, then, the act of 1820, by the eighth section of which slavery was prohibited in Missouri, was a compact, it is clear to the comprehension of every fair-minded man that the refusal of the North to admit Missouri, in compliance with its stipulations, and without further conditions, imposes upon us a high, moral obligation to remove the prohibition of slavery in the Territories, since it has been shown to have been procured upon a condition never performed. * * *

Mr. President, I did not wish to refer to these things.  I did not understand them fully in all their bearings at the time I made my first speech on this subject; and, so far as I was familiar with them, I made as little reference to them as was consistent with my duty; because it was a mortifying reflection to me, as a Northern man, that we had not been able, in consequence of the abolition excitement at the time, to avoid the appearance of bad faith in the observance of legislation, which has been denominated a compromise.  There were a few men then, as there are now, who had the moral courage to perform their duty to the country and the Constitution, regardless of consequences personal to themselves.  There were ten Northern men who dared to perform their duty by voting to admit Missouri into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, and with no other restriction than that imposed by the Constitution.  I am aware that they were abused and denounced as we are now—­that they were branded as dough-faces—­traitors to freedom, and to the section of country whence they came. * * *