Newspaper Page Text
2
interests and welfare as citizens of the various
S’ates of the Union. The commercial and
military advantages to the United States, from
the possession of that country, were so great
and important, that its acquisition was consid
ered a most an act of selt-protection. Wil! it
now be said that the people of Louisiana, pos
sees tbe right to deprive the remaining States
of the Union, of all the interests and advanta
ges which they have bought and paid for, out
of their own treasury, by withdrawing or sece
ding from the Union at will t
Louisiana is as free, sovereign, and indepen
dent ss any other State of the Union, and if
this rightexiet in any one State, it exists in all
without reference to the mode by which the
territory was acquired, out of which the State
is formed I apprehend that the people of the
United States did not for a moment entertain
tbe idea, that in admitting Louisiana into tbe
Union, they had thus perilled all the adysnta
ges of that important acquisition, by placing *'
in the power of a single State to deprive the
Union of commercial and mil tary advantage,
and resources, of inestimable value, purchased
by tbe joint treasure of all the Slates, and now
held by them as beyond the reach of any price
or consideration that could be offered tn ex
change for them. These remaiks apply with
equal ferce to all the territorial acquisition,
made by the United States, where States have
been or may hereafter be formed and admitted
into tbe Union, and the same principle unghi
be forcibly illustrated by reference tj the action
of the government on subjects of a kindreo
character, but it cannot be necessary, and I will
notextend hia view to any greater leng h.
When the right of a State to secede from the
Union at will is conceded, we have pul the exis
tenceof the government at the disposal of eaeh
State in the Union. The withdrawal of one is a
dissolution of the compact which holds the
States together; it is no longer the Union that
che constitution formed, and tbe remaining States
are absolved from ail moral obligation to abide
longer by their compact. I say moral obligation,
because the argument of the secessionists de
nies the exis tnce of any binding legal obliga
tion. By admitting the doctrine of the seces
sionists, we are brought lo the conclusion, that
our Federal Government, the pride and boast or
every American patriot, the wonder and admira
tion of the civilized world, is nothing more than
a voluntary association ; temporary in its char
acter, weak and imbecile in the exercise of its
powers, incapable of self-preservation, claiming
from its citizens allegiance, and demanding an
—theirtreasure—and yet, desti
pres«ving\heir liberties. If Uris'Ue VfieMrfir
theory of our government, what is the constitu
tion of the United States that we should esti
mate it so highly ? Where is its binding foree,
that we should ho'd to its provisions with such
unyielding tenacity 1 Individuals cannot vio
late their compacts, or set aside at pleasure their
mutual obligations, without the assent of the
other parties. Nations cannot recklessly disre
gard their treaty stipulations, without incurring
the consequences of violated faith. But our
constitution, the revered monument of revolu
tionary patriotism and wisdom, which we have
been taught to regard with reverential feeling, is
doomed to fall below the standard of national
treaties, and individual contracts. It has form
ed a Union founded upon mutual sacrifices and
concessions—made by the several component
parts for the greater benefits to be derived by
each, from the combined co-operation of all—
and now we are told that there is no obligation
to observe that Union, beyond the pleasure of the
parties toil—and that the constitution can be
annulled by the act of any State in the confed
eracy.
I do not so understand our government,! feel
that 1 owe my allegiance to a government, pos
sessed of more vitality and strength, than that
which is drawn from a voluntary obedience to
its laws. I hold that no government is entitled
to any allegiance that does not pass wise and
just laws, and does not possess the power to en
force and execute them.
lam fully aware of the fact that the effort is
now being made to render the denial of the right
of a State to dissolve the Union, odious in the
public estimation, by presenting to the public
mind, in connection with it, a frightful picture
of an armed soldiery and military despotism. 1
have no fears of the judgment that our enlight
ened countrymen will pass on this controversy—
and surely I could not complain of any conse
quence that should result from my avowal ol
doctrines which 1 have imbibed from the teach
ings of Mr. Madison, Gen. Jackson, J udge Craw
ford, and their republican associates. It does
not follow, however, as a necessary consequence
of the principles which I have laid down, that
military coercion is to be nsed again*t a State
that may attempt the exercise of this revolution
ary right.
Whilst I deny the right of a Stale to secede,
and thus dissolve the,Union, 1 would not at
tempt by the strong arm of military power to
bring her citizens back to their allegiance, unless
compelled to do so in defer.ee of the rights and
interests of the remaining States of the Union.
We should not recognise her separate indepen
dence nor could we allow our own interests to
be periled by sanctioning any alliance she might
be disposed to make with any foreign govern
ment. in our desire to infiict no injury upon a
wandering sister, we should not forget tbe duty
which the government owes to those vho re
main firm and true to their allegiance, and whose
ck * upon its protection and support should not
be i iy regarded. The laws ot self protection
wol require at the hands of the government,
that due regard should be had for the protection
of the rights and interests of the other States,
and to that demand it would be bound to respond.
If one of the States in a mad hour attempt to
secede from the Union, and the kind and indul
gent policy which I have indicated should be re
sjrted to, I have no doubt that in a very short
times such State would feel it to be both her du
ty and interest lo retrace her wandering steps,
and return to the embrace of the sisterhood.
This opinion is founded upon the high estimate
which 1 place upon the value of the Union to
each and ail of the States that compose it. It
would require the experience of only a short ab
sence, to teach the wanderer the benefits and ad
vantages from which she had voluntarily ex
iled herself.
Such are the general views which I entertain
on this subject,and I have freely expressed them.
I have discussed it aa a mere abstract question,
friends of the Union on the abstract question
of the right of secession, I apprehend that when
it assumes a practical shape, there would be
slight shades of difference as to the policy end
effect of our action. There are many who hold
to the doctrine of the right of a State to secede
from the Union, with whom we do not differ
practic. liy. They grant the abstract right ot
secession, but claim for the remaining States the
right to protect themselves from any injurious
consequences that might How from the exercise
of that abstract right by the seceding State. It
is only necessary io State the two propositions
to show that, in the end, the practical operation
of their principles would lead to the same results
that I would reach by the svme enforcement of
the doctrines which 1 have avowed. Our differ
ence is theoretical, and therefore constitutes no
impediment in the way us our cordial co-opera
tion.
We all hold that just and wise laws should be
enforced and executed, whilst we are prepared
to oppose acts of injustice and oppression by all
the means in our power, and to the rupture ot
•very tie that binds us to any government. No
government, however wisely and honestly ad
ministered, can be maintained in the absence of
binding obligations on its citizens to obey its
laws and power io enforce their execution on
recusant parties. Hence. 1 cannot consent to
the docirine that our government is destitute of
these powers essential to its vitality and exis
tence. The claim which I have urged in behalf
of the Fe ’eral Government cannot be abandoi ed
without endangering the whole frame work of
our admirable system —noris theie any serious
danger to be apprehended from its improper exer
cise. Its true strength, based upon the exis
tence of these powers, is to be found in the jus
tice and wisdom of its legislation ; these are the
true and only safe avenues to the hearts and
affections of the people, wherein are found the
strong pillars ot support to a free government.
1 do not entertain the idea, for a moment, that
our government can be maintained by the strong
arm of military power, when it ceases to bestow
the blessings upon the people for which it was
formed. Whenever it becomes the instrument
of wrong and oppression to any portion of the
people, by unjust laws and degrading legisla
tion, it will cease tu be the Union formed by our
revoluntionary fathers, and possessing no further
claims upon our alligiance and support, should
that period ever unfortunately arrive, we will not
fail to prove ourselves as true to the principles of
liberty and equal rights as our honored and vene
rated fathers ; nor will we stop to look to the
provisions of a violated constitution for the
mode or measure for the redress of our griev
ances.
1 have so tar considered ihe question in refer
ence to the doctrine us the constitutional right
of a State to secede without just cause, at her
own will and pleasure, and I think 1 have shown
that it is unsupported either by principle or
authority. On the other hand, I admit the right
of a State to secede for just cause, to be deter
mined by her self Being a party lo the com
pact, winch the constitution terms she has the
right, which ail other parties to a compact
possess, to determine fur herself when, where
and how, (he provisions us that compact have
been violated. It is equally clear that the oth
er parties to the compact possess a correspon
ding right to judge fur themselves, and there
being no common arbiter to decide between
them, each must depend for the justification of
their course upon the justice of their cause*, the
correctness of their judgment, and their power
and ability to maintain tbeir decision.
The right of a State to secede in case of op-
Cresaion, or “agro«s and palpable violation*’ of
er constitutional rights, as derived Irom the re
served sovereignty of the Slates, I am prepared
to recognize. In such ease, each State, in ihe
language of the Kentucky and Virginia resolu
tions vl IB9S-’99 is to be the judge, not only of the
*• infractions, ’ but 4 the mode and measure of
redress.” It is tbe just right of the people to
change their form of government when, in their
opinion it has become tyranical, in a mode not
provided forin the constitution, and is therefore
revolutionary in its character, and depends for
its maintenance upon the stout hearts and
strong arms of a free people.
In connection with this branch of the subject,
a question arises, which, in the opinion of some,
is ot considerable importance, it is, whether or
not the citizens of a Slate thus resuming her
sovereign powers would be liable to the charge of
treason in con umring to the requirements of
their State government. I refer to this particu
larly only in consi eration of the importance
attached to it by others. From what 1 have
sad, it will clearly appear that 1 hold that they
would nut be. In my opinion, no man commits
treason who acts in obedience to the laws sod
authorities ot a regular organised government,
as we recognize our State governments tu
But there is a question, gentlemen, involved
ta your interrogatories which rises in magnitude
far above auy which 1 have yet considered. It
involves the impurtau* inquiry, whether in the
ereoUH. buu receding* trom the Union? and
tt» Executive of the United State, tnaSnc a
requisition for troops to coerce her hack 1 * if
elected Governor of Georgia, woul 1 obey tha*
requisition. Thw question ‘
Ucai one—l sincerely trust and hope it never
will. Under tbe existing laws ot the United
States, the President has no power to order out
the militia to coerce s seceding State. Neither
the Act of 1795 nor the Act ot ISU7 would a, ,
ply in such an emergency. Those Acts appiy to
cases where individuals, acting without the
authority of ary Slate government, resist, by
foree. the laws ot the United States—to riots
and insurrections—to such eases as we weie ap
prehensive a few months since might be tuatu
fested tn opposition to the Fugitive s ave Law
in portions of tbe Northern States. That thia is
the true coustructicn to be placed upotulbese Act*
wiU be apparent from the conduct of Gen.
Jackson in a former period of our history, when
tbe Mate of South Carolina threatened to se
cede from the Onion. He then found it necessa-v
to invoke th< aid of addition.! legislation by
Congress. His appeal to the then Congress
resulted in the passage of the iaw tanuiiarlv
kaowu as “ the Fotao Bill; “ but that Act
being temporary in its object and character, has I
lost all of its vitality, and long since ceased to
be of force, having expired by its own limitation,
in the contingency involved in your question,
it would be necessary that the President, if his
views of right and policy led him to coercion,
should ask of Congress additional legislation,
and it would be for them to determine whether
:r not they would grant it. If a
secede, and the President should 1?
Congress such legislation and Co "« r ®®®
Fical an 1 I 'ini' prepared to answer it fully,"free- !
p It would be the n est fearful
l ssue d that Berthe people of this country have
been called on to decide since the days of the
i ..i,,n-so momentous, so vital to the inter
re-tft>f the people of Georgia, that I should feel
Mund to ascertain the will of that people before
I acted. I should endeavor to be the Executive
of the will of the people of Georgia. To as
certain that will, I should convene the Lcgis
ature of the State, and recommend to them to
call a convention of the people, and it would be
tor that convention, representing the people uptgi
that naked issue, to determine whether Georgia
would go out of the Union, and ally herself and
peril her destinies with the seceding State, or
w hether ehe would remain in the Union and
abide the fortunes of her other sisters. And
as Georgia spoke, eo would I endeavor, if her
Executive, to give power and effect to her
voice.
But if a collision of arms betwesn the S tales
composing our glorious confederacy should ever
come, it requires no prophet to predict the result.
The Union would fall beneath the wight of revo
lution and blood, and fall, I fear, to rise no
more. It was formed in the hearts of the Ameri
can people—it can only be preserved in their
hearts. When any very large portion ot its in
habitants look upon it as oppressing and degrad
ing them—when they ceave to revere it as the
legacy of Washington and the inheritance of the
blood of the revolution, its vitality will be gone,
and empty parchments, though aided by military
force, can never hold it together, lienee, we
see the abolitionists of the North denouncing it
as “ a covenant with hell,” and hence we hear
the disunionists of the South inflaming the
heats of the people against it, announcing that
they have been degraded and oppressed by it,
and preparing eventually to overthrow it. They
are wise men, they understand the workings
of the human heart, and they well know that
when I he heart feels that wrong, indignity and
insult have been heaped upon a man, unless he
be indeed a craven spirit, a blow will follow.
Prepare the herts oi the people to hale the Union
of their fathers, and the battle is won—they
are ready to fight against it. He nee, believing
as 1 do, that the late compromise is such, in the
Platform, 11 as she can
in honor abide by,’ lhav - nSW-ei iry iitisu t .
my power to stay this ceaseless and ruinous agi
tation North and South, and to keep the consti
tution and the Union where our fathers erected
them —firmly on trie foundation of the people’s
hearts.
I am, very respectfully, your ob’t serv’t
Howbll Cobb.
Messrs. John Rutherford, N. Bass.,R. A. L.
Atkinson and others.
For the Chronicle and Sentinel.
Mr. CaHaouu’s Position in 1847.
I send you a copy of Mr. Calhoun’s speech
and resolutions, taken from the Union newspa
per of the 19th of February, 1947, from which I
made some extracts in an article I sent you a
few days since. Its publication at thia time is
called for, that the people may understand what
was considered the true position for the South
to take, relative to this slavery question. Mr.
Calhoun, whose eagle eye looked above and be
yond the present, saw in the future that the only
hope for the South was to plant themselves upon
the Constitution and demand of the North the
surrender of two growing and cherished propo
sitions one was the exclusion of slavery from the
territories, better known as the Wilmot Proviso —
and the other was the declaration that no more
slave States should be admitted into this Union.
In the adjustment, both were given up, and the
principles of Mr. Calhoun’s speech and resolu
tions, followed almost to the letter. The Con
stitutional Union [atty might very successfully
rest the issue now pending upon thenroposit on,
that if in the Compromise measures any princi
ple is to b: found antagonistical to Mr, Cal
houn’s doctrines, yea, they might go farther, and
say that if those doctrines ate not affirmed and
practically illustrated by the adjustment, they
would yield the contest. And, I now boldly
challenge any friend of the Southern Rights
party to point out any doctrine or principle in
the Compromise measures inconsistent with Mr.
Calhoun’s opinions in the speech of February,
1847. I trust every man in Georgia will read this
speech, and read it attentively! it is the true doc
trine, and it was, and is successfully vindicated
and upheld in the measures known as the ad
justment. Notice his views about the Missouri
C impromise, which some of the fire-eaters of
this State pretend to believe would have been
a panacea for all our evils. The very doctrines
he contended fur, wo obtained, and now those
that pretend to be his greatest admirers think it
goodcausefora dissolution of the Union, and
clamor for the very thing he repudiated. From
all which, 1 think we may charitably draw this
conclusion; that the men of the South, who
are seeking to dissolve this Union, whether
openly or secretly, on account of the late Com
promise measures, would have b'jen dissatisfied
under any and all circumstances. What they
asked for in 1947, they obtained in 1850, and yet
some of them have felt a want of independence,
in this Union for 25 years, which Mr. Calhoun in
his speech as late as 1847, designated as "glo
rious."
It is a serious question with the people of
Georgia to ask themselves, what do these rest*
less, dissatisfied disturbers of the public peace
and quiet want? From their present position in
connexion with their past opinions, you have no
security that they will be satisfied if you grant
their demands. One thing is, I think, clear, and
that is they desire a breaking up of the Govern
ment, and they are not choice in the means they
have selected to effect their object. If they want
the courage necessary to tell their own people
Mfr dW.
tion, they affect to believe has been Imposed up
on them, where will they stand, when South
Carolina rushes madly into the vortex of disun
ion. Jvsrics.
The Slavery Question.
Mr. Calhoun here rove and said : “Mr. President,
I rise to offer a set of resolutions in reference to the
various resolutions fro o the State Legislatures upon
the subject of what they call the extension of slavery,
and the proviso attached to the House bill, cal cd
the thrse ini lion bill. What I propose before I
eend my resolutions to the table is, to make a few
explanatory remarks.
“ Mr. President, it was solemnly asserted on this
floor some time ago, that all parties in the non-slave
hold'ng States had coma to a fixed and solemn de
termination upon two propositions. One was, tlist
there should be no further admission of any Stat s
into this Union, which i ermitted by their Constitu
tion the existence of slave y ; and the other was,
that slavery shall not hereafter exist in any of the
Terri ories of the United Slates; the effect of which,
would be to give to the non-slavebohling States, the
monopoly of the public domain, to the entire exclu
sion of the slaveholding States."
Since that declaration was made, Mr. Presi
dent, we have abundant proof that there was a
satisfactory foundation for i’. VTe have receiv
ed already solemn resolutions passed by seven
of the non slaveholding States—one half of the
number already tn the Union. lowa not being
counted—using the s*rongeet possible language
to that effect; and no doubt in a short space of
time similar resolutions will be received from
all of the non-slaveholding States. But we
need not go beyond the walls of Congress, the
subject has been agitated in the other House,
and they have seut up a bill •* prohibiting the
extension of slavery" (using their own lan
guage) “ to any territory which may be ac
quired by the United States hereafter." At the
same time, two resolutions which have been
moved to extend the Compromise line from
the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, during
the present session, have been rejected by a
decided majority.
Sir, there is no mistaking the signs of the
times; and it is high time that the Southern
States, *he slaveholdiug States, should inquire
what io now their relative strength in this
Union, ami what it will be if this determination
should be carried into effect hereafter. Sir,
already we are in a minority—l use the word
“ we” for brevity sake—already we are in a
minority in the other House, in the electoral
college, and. 1 may say. in every department
of this Government, except at present m the
Senate of the Unit d States —there for the
present we have an equality. Os the twenty,
eight Slates, fourteen are nou-slaveholding,
and fourteeu arc slavebolding, counting Dela
ware, which is doubtful, as one of the non
s'aveholding Slates But this equality of
strength exists only in the Senate. One of the
clerks at my request has furnished me with a
statement of wbal is the relative strength of
the two descriptions of States, in the other
House of Congress, ai.d in the electoral col
lege. There are 228 representatives, including
lowa, which is already represented there. Os
these, 138 are from the uon-slavebolding Stales
and 90 are from what are called the slave
S a.es, giving a majority in the aggregate to
the former of 48. In the electors! college there
are 168 votes belonging to the non slaveholding
States, and 118 to the slaveholding, giving a
majority of 50 to the non slaveholding.
Wa. Mr. President, have at present only one
petition in the Government, by which we may
make any resistance to this aggressive policy
which has been declared against the South;
or any other that the non slaveholding States
may choose to take And this equality in this
body is of the most transient character. Al
ready lowa is a Slate; but owing to some
domestic calamity, is not yet represented in
this body. W hen sbe appears here, there will
be an addition of two Senators to the Repre
sentatives hereof the non slaveholding States.
Already Wisconsin has passed the initiatory
stage, and will be here at the next session
This will add two more, making a clear major
ity of four in this body on the side of the
non-slaveholding States, who will thus be
enabled to sway every branch of thia Govern
men’, at their will and pleasure. But sir, if
this aggressive policy be followed—if the de
termination of the non-slavebolding States is
to be adhered to hereafter, and we are to be
entirely excluded from the territories which
we already possess, or may possess—if ibis is
to be the fixed policy of the Government. I
ask. what will be our situation hereafter f
Sir, there la ample space for twelve or fifteen of
ths large:: description of States in the Territories
bei -ag-.og lo die Unued States. Already a law is in
course oi pass.ee through the other House, creating
one >orth of W isconsiu. There is ample room for
another North ol lowa ; and another Norta of that ■
and then that large region extending on this side of
the K.eky Mountains from 49 decrees, down to the
fexau line, which may be set down fairly as an
area cf twelve and a h- If degrees of latitude—that
extended region of itself is susceptible of having
six, seven, or eight large Stalls. To this, add Ore'.
*“?. waK! \ extends fn m 49 to 42 degrees, which
ci-e * nd 1 Ol,ke * w y moderate
Waos-m TJ 1 ' 11 1 M -' i! “'- 1B ’Jdiuoo .o lowa and
already ourv-w'^*,-? Up< “ the To,ri “*y
from Me. 00-mxv^^r o '''; 3 *equi«i>ous
these United Sutre Hw J sho "l ) ’ 10
There willbe baa foot ..J 1
we are to oetixe.l, limited, and torUer— tl
Mgbl co the pen at ihe mn-aUrehotd, n<
Twenty-fight • Double oar uatber! } w ’
the sa j e di rtiaa iu (ho other aud ln the
electoral collage I Fbe Govornaieo: wih t- e
entirely in the haaJsot the o xt-r arebokimg Sixes
—ar w helm ing I>.
Sir, if uhm Ma’-e of things ut' go an—rs this deter
miaeuoa, «o eoletaajy made, alo be in,
where ehnll we aland, aa ttr m Uua todeni gomru-
meat of ours is concerned 1 What, then, must we
do? We must look to justice —to our own interests
—to the Constitution We will have no longer a
shield even in equality here. Now, can we rely
upon the tense of justice of tLis body ? Ought we
to rely upon thia ? These are the solemn questions
which I put on all sides.
Sir, look to the past. If we are to look to that, 1
will not go into details, we will see from the begin
ning of this goverament to the present day, as far
as pecuniary resources are concerned —as far as the
disbuisement of revenue is involved, it will ba
found that we have been a portion of the community
which has substantially supported this government
without receiving anything like a tantamount sup
port from it. But why should I go beyond this
vsry measure iUelf? Why go beyond this deter
mination on tbe part of the non slaveholding States,
that there can be no farther addition to the slave
bolding States, to prove what our condi ion is ?
Sir, what is the entire amount of this policy? I
will not say it is so designed—l will not say from
what cause it originated. 1 will not say whether
blind fanaticism on one side —whether a hostile
feeling to slavery entertained by many not fanatical
on the other, has produced it; or whether it has been
the work of men, who, looking to political piwer,
have considered the agitation of this question as the
most effectual inode of obtaining the spoils of this
government. I look to the fact itself. It is a policy
now openly avowed to be persisted in. It is a poli
cy, Mr. President, which aims to monopolize the
powers of this government and to obtain sole posses
sion of its patronage.
Now, 1 ask, is there any remedy ? Does the
Constitution afford any remedy ? AnJ if not, is
there any hope ? These, Mr. President, ere solemn
questions—not only to us, but, let on say, to gentle
men from the non-slaveholding States, to them
Sir, the day that the balacce between the two sec
tions rs tbe country —the slaveholding States and the
non-slaveholding States—is destroyed, is a day that
wil! not be far removed from |)olitical revolution,
anarchy, civil war, and wide-spread disaster The
balance of this system is in the slavehoiding States.
They are the conservative portion—always have
been the conservative portion—always will be the
conservative portion; and with a due balance on
their part may, for generations to come, uphold this
glorious Union of ours. Put if this policy should
be carried out; if we are to be reduced to a hand
ful ; if we are to become a mere bail to play the
Presidential game with; to coant something in the
Baltimore caucus; if this is to be the result; wo !
wo! I say to this Union !
Now, sir, 1 put again the solemn question, does
the Constitut on afford any remedy? Is there any
provision in it by which this aggressive policy ; bold
ly avowed, as if perfectly consistent with our insti
tutions an i the safety and prosperity of the United
States!—may be confronted ? Is this a policy con
sistent with the Constitution ? No, Mr. President,
no! It is, in all its features daringly opposed to the
Whfltfait? Ours is a Federal Con
stitution. The States are I’J "85H8HRTOfftW, a ' IRJU BW
the people. The twenty-eight States—the twenty
nine States (including lowa) —stand under this gov
ernment as twenty-nine individual, or as twenty
nine individuals would stand to a consolidated pow
er. It was not made for the mere individual pros
perity of the State as individuals. No, sir. It was
made for higher ends. It was formed that every
State constituting a portion of this great Union of
ours, should enjoy all its advantages, natural and
acquired, with greater security, and enjoy them
more perfectly. The whole system is based on
justi'e and equality—perfect equality between the
members of this Republic. Nor can that be consis
tent with equality which will make this public do
main a monopoly on one side—which in its conss
qu nces, M ould place the whole power in one section
of the Union to be wielded against the other section
of the Union ? Is that equality ?
“ How do we stand in reference to this Territorial
question—this public domain of ours? Why, sir,
what is it? It is the common property of the
States of this Union. They are called the Territo
ries of the Uni.ed States. And what are the United
States but the States united ? Sir, these Territories
are the property of the States united ; held jointly
for tbeir common use. And is it consistent with
justice—is it consistent with equality, that any poi
tion of the partners outnumbering another portion,
shall oust them in this common property of theirs—
shall pass any law which shall proscribe the citizens
of other portions of the Union from emigrating
with tbeir property to the Territories of the United
States? Would that be consistent —can it be con
sistent with the idea of a common property, held
jointly for the common benefit of all ? Would it be
so considered in private life ? Would it not be con
sidered the greatest outrage in the world, and which
any Court, on the face of the gl.be would at once
overrule ?
“ Mr. President, not only is that proposition gross
ly inconsistent with the Constitution, but tbe other
which undertakes to say that no State shall be ad
mitted into this Union, which shall not prohibit by
its Constitution the existence of slaves, is equally a
great outrage against the Constitution of the United
States. Sir, I hold it to be a fundamental principle
of our political Fystem, that the jpeoplo have a right
to establish what Government Hey may think
p.oper for themselves ; that every State about to be
ccme a member of this Union has a right to form its
own government as it pleases ; and that in order to
be admitted there is but one qualification, and that is,
that the Government shall be republican. It is not
ej expressly prescribed by the instrument itself, but
by that great section which guarantees to every
S'.ate in this Unions republican form of Government.
Now, sir, what is proposed? ft is proposed, fro n a
vague, indefinite, erroneous and most dangerous
conce, lion of private individual liberty, to overrule
this great common liberty which a peop'e have of
training their own Constitution! Sir, the individual
right of men is not nearly so easily to be establish
ed by any course of reasoning, as his common liber
ty. And yet, sir, there are men of such delicate
feelingen the subject of liberty—there are men who
cannot possibly bear what they call slavery in one
t ection of the country— (and it is not so much slavery
as an institution indispensable for the good of both
races) —men so squeamish on this point, that they are
ready to strike down the higher right of a communi
ty to govern themselves, in order to maintain the
absolute right of individuals in all circumstances,
to govern themselves.
“ Mr. President, tbe resolutions that I hare pro
posed, present in exact terms these great truths,
I projxjse to present them to the Senate ; I propose
to nave a vote upon them ; and I trust there is no
gentleman here who will refuse a direct vote upon
these propositions. Il is mainly that we eball
know the slate of things.
“ It is due to our constituents that we should insist
upon it; and I, as one, will insist upon it that the sense
ol this body shall betaken; the body which repre
sents the States in their capacity as communities,
tnd the members of which are to be their special
guardians, It is due to there should
Upon that expression much depends. It is the only
stand which we can bare, it is the only position
which we can take, which will uphold us with any
thing like independence—which will give us any
(chance) at ail to maintain an equality in this Union,
on those great principles to which I have had refer
ence. Overrule these principles, and we are nothing I
Preserve them, and we will ever be a respectable
portion of the community.”
Sir, here let me say a word as to the Compromise
line, I have always considered it as a great error—
highly injurious to the South, because it surrendered,
or mere temporary purposes, th 'se high principles of
the constitution upon which I think to stand.
lam against any Compromise line. Yet I would
have been willing to have continued the Compromise
line. One of the Resolutions in the House, to that
effect, was ofTared at iny suggestion. I said to u
hiend there, [Mr. Burt,] “Let us not be disturbers of
this Union. As abhorrent to my feelings as is that
Compromise line, let it be adhered to in good faith;
and if the other portions of the Union arc willing to
t-tand by it, let us not refuse to stand by it. It has
kept peace for some time, and in the circumstances,
perhaps it would be better to keen peace as it is.”
But, sir, it wus voted down by an overwhelming ma
jority. It was renewed by a gentleman from a non
slave bolding State, and again voted down by an over
whelming majority.
Well, I sec my way in the Contitution. I cannot
in the Compromise. A Compromise is but an ?ct of
Congress. It may be overruled at any time. It
gives us ni security. But the Constitution is stable.
It is a rock. On it I can stand. It is a principle on
which we can meet our frien.is from the non-slave
holding States. It is firm ground, cn which they
can better stand in opposition to fanaticism, than on
the shifting sands of Compromise.
Let us be done with Compromise; Let us go back
and stand upon the Constitution!
Well, sir. what if the decision of this body shall
deny to us thia high constitutional right, which in my
opinion is as clear as any in] the instrument itself—
the more defined and stable, indeed, because deduced
from the entire body cf the instrument, and the na
ture of the subject to which it relates ? What then ? ,
That is a question I will no! undertake to decide. It
is a question for onr constituents—the slaveholding
States. A solemn and a great question, Mr. Presi
dent. And if the decision should be adverse at this
time, I trust and do believe that they will take under
solemn consideration what they ought to do. I give
n ? advice It would be hazardous and dangerous
for me lo do so. But I may speak as an individual
member of that section of the Union. There I drew
my first breath. There are all my hopes. lam a
planter—a cotton planter. lam a southern man and
a slaveholder—a kind and a merciful one, 1 trust—
and none the worse for being a slaveholder. I say,
for one, 1 would rather meet any extremity upon
earth than give up one inch of equality —one inch of
what belongs to us as members of this great repub
lic ! What! acknowledged inferiority! The sur
render of life s nothing to sinking down into acknow
ledged inferiority !
I have examined this subject largely—widely. I
think I see the future, if we do not stand up now;
and in my humble opinion the condition of Ireland is
merciful and happy—the condition of Hindostan is
peace and happiness—»he condition of Jamaica is
prosperous and happy, to what the Southern States
will be if now they yield!
Mr. President, 1 desire that the resolutions which 1
now send to the table be read.
[The resolutions were read as follows.]
Revolved, That the territories of the United
States belong to the several States comprising this
Union, and are held by them as their joint and com
mon property.
Resolved, That Congress as the joint agent and
representative of the S ates of this Union, has no
right to make any law, or do any act whatever, that
shall directly, or by its effects, make any discrimina
tion between the States of this Union, by which any
of them shall be deprived of its full and equal right
in any Territory of the United States acquired, or to
be acquired.
/fcreired, That the enactment of any law which
should directly, tr by its effects, deprive the citizens
of any cf the States of this Union from emigrating
with their properly into any of t e Territories of the
United States will make such discrimination, and
would, therefore, be a violation of the constitution,
and the rights of the States from which such cit zens
emigrated, and in derogation oi that perfect equality
which belongs to them as members of this Union, and
would tend directly to subvert the Union itself.
“ Resclved, That as a fundamental principle in
our political creed, a people in forming a Constitution
have the unconditional right to form and adept the
Government which they may think best calculated
'o secure their liberty, prosperity and happiness ;
and that in conformity thereto, no other condition is
imposed by the Federal Constitution on a State m
order to be admitted into this Union, except that its
Constitution shall be Republican ; and that the im
position of any other by Congress would not only be
n violation cf the Constilu ion, but in direct con
tact with the principle on which our political sys
tem rests.”
McMillan and thb Wilmot Proviso
Much has been said by the Southern Rights
wire pullers of this county against the vote of
Mr. Cobh on the Oregon bill, containing a
provision excluding slavery from that Territory,
In fact, this is about the only thing they have
been able to say against Mr Cobb in the present
campaign, and that they only use when “bush
ing it ’ among the old" Whigs, as its raiher a
delicate topic to before a Democrat who
supported Polk, equally guilty with Cobb)
up?o the day of his death, and then swore
that he had been the greatest President since
the days of Washington!
W e wish to ask :nese gentry what they are
going to do about this matter in the case of our
old friend Mac. their candidate If Mr Cobb
gave the vote, it is “as true as preaching” ±at
Me MiHan endorsed it. We will give a scrap
of history tor the especial ’chewing” of these
gentleman and tne information of the good
people of this county: Ata meeting of tho
Democratic party of Elbert county, in tne year
IW. after the passage of the Oregon bill,of
•J"** deling Mr McMillan wx, k member.
iu-.r • lbstan «e. w "
xoice : « dj P-eJ. with one d ;S « n ti n<
: Tax; um 00-re® of OUI a w
guished Representative, Howell Cobb, upon
the slavery question, has been faithful to the
South, and meets our hearty and cordial ap
proval.
Look at that, what say yen Juror ? ”do you
like him ?” Perhaps some of you may say no,
notsnch resolutions wa passed—try it if you
fancy the experiment, and we will bring the doc
uments to prove, not only that it was passed,
but that your candidate voted for it. We
hope you will take this article along in your
next crusade against “Cobb am the Pro
viso !” Washington Oazttte.
C PTT’E’ TTTT?'I?T7°T V”
1 W JuJuixla X
CHRONICLE & SENTINEL
BY WILLIAM S. JONEF.
TWO DOLLARS PER ANNUM,
INVARIABLY IN ADVANCE.
DAILY, TRI WEEKLY & WEEKLY.
Offictin Railroad Bank Buildings.
DAILY PAPER, P erannum (icntbymail,) JO
TRI WEEKLY “ . *
WEEKLY PAPER J 00
AUGUSTA, GA.:
WEDNESDAY MORNING, AUGUST SO.
SAMUEL BARNETT, Associate Editor.
Constitutional Union Nomination.
FOR GOVERNOR.
H°N. HOWELL COBB
CONGRESS.
For Representative from 8 tlx District i
HON. ROBERT TOOMBS,
ms
FOR
THE CAMPAIGN.
As we are disposed to contribute all in our
power to the establishment of sound principles
uueees. ef-Tp. Cobbtituttoxal Übiok
Pabty,” we propose to send the
WEEKLY CHRONICLE <fc SENTINEL,
till the 15th of October, on the following
TERMS i
For 100 copies, (each mailed to the address
designated)... 25 Dollars.
“50 “ " " ....15 ■■
30 “ “ “ ....10 "
“ 15 » <■ •< .... 5 <■
9 “ ” “ .... 3 “
“ 3 “ •' “ .... 1 “
“ Single copies.. 50 Cents,
ty The Cash must always accompany the
order.
This will afford our friends throughout the
State an opportunity to place the paper in the
hands of thousands of voters, who would not
otherwise probably read a paper. And if they
estimate, as we do, the importance of the pre
sent canvass, they will promptly adopt the ne
cessary measures to aid us in our effort to en
lighten the voters of Georgia as to he dangers
which threaten the Constitution and Union.
T RAVEL LING AGENTS.
-Mr. J. E. Wbbls and Mr. A. P. Burnt, will an
as Travelling Agents for tbe Chronicle & Senti
nel and Southern Cultivatob. Any assistance
that our friends in tho various counties may furnish
the segentlemen, toward increasing our circu jfion,
will be thankfully received.
Jj- Public Discussion.—At a meeting of tbe
citisens of this place, held to-day, irrespective of
parties, it was agreed, that a public political discus
sion should take place on SATURDAY, the 23d
inat, at which time Judge Dough ertt. Judge Hil
lter, Hon. W. 3. Dawson, Hon. A. H. Stephens,
T. F. Jones. Esq, W. Harris, Esq., Hon. R.
Toombs, and perhaps Judge McDonald, are ex
pected to be present, to take part in the discussion.
There will be a BARBECUE prepared. All are
invited to come. John Scott,
F. A. Graves, J. A. Clark,
J. L. Gbesham, H. H. Clapp,
Com. of Invitation.
Social Circle, Ga , August 11, 1851.
IjiP The Union Party ot Hulloch county are
requested by Seriven county to meet tho Union Par
ty of said county, in Convention, at No. 6, C. R. R.,
on WEDNESDAY, the 10th of SEPTEMBER next,
for the purpose of nominating a Candidate to be run
by the two Counties for Senate. At which time and
place these friendly to the Union will nominate a
Candidate for the Representative branch of the Stale
Legislature for Seriven county. Come one, come
all, lo save the Union.
Many Union Men.
Sylvania, Seriven Co., Go , Aug. 13. aul9-3
Union papers please copy.
Mr. Toombs lit Jackson,
Thk Hon. Robert Toombs will sddrovs tho citi
xens of Jackson connty, and all others who may at
lead, *LJefferson, oa MONDAY next, the 2Ath I—
the tirst aay ot t/ouri.
Mr. Toombs in Burke.
Tbe Hon, R. Toombs will address tbe peepleof
Berks county, at Alexander, on SATURDAY, tbe
30th day of August, inst. The public are invited to
attend.
Mr. Stephens In Morgan.
The Hon. A. H. Stephens will address the peo
ple at Madison, Morgan county, on TUESDAY next,
the 26th inst. The pnolicxre solici'cd to attend.
To Correspondents,
We must repeat the suggestion to Corres
pondents to exercise patience. Be assured
that wo wdl despa'ch your esteemed favors as
rapidly as our limits will permit.
Mr. Cobb's Letter.
The letter of Mr. Cobb, to the Macon Com
nii'teo, will attract the readers’ atten ion. It is a
plain, frank and manly expose of hisprinciph a
and should be read by every voter. We shall
conclude Jit to-morrow, and regret the ne
cessity of dividing it—its length, however,
rendered it indispensable.
Invitation to Gov. McDonald.
It will be seen by reference to the card of
Mr. Cobb and tbe list of his appointments to
address the people, that he has extended an
invitation to Gov. McDonald to meet him and
engage in the discussion “on equal terms "
He cannot therefore escape in future under
the excuse that he has not been invited.
Mr. Cobb in Angnsta.
As we anticipated, Mr. Cosb was greeted
by a large and most respectful audience, Sa
turday night—7 to 800 persons of all classes—
who paid him the deference of a most attentive
hearing. He had spoken in the forenoon at
Appiing, rode over twenty miles, arrived here
al 7j P. M . and at 8 was on tbe Stage speak
ing. Os course it could not be supposed he
was in the best possible condition for a speech.
Notwithstanding all this, however, he rivited
tbe audience for about an hour and a half, in
one of thecxlmest, most dispassionate, closes’
reasoned, clearest and soundest speeches we
have heard this campaign—delighting, and
convincing every body, but the DisunionisH,
of nia consistency and patriotic devotion to the
country. And if there was any man among
them whose honest judgment was permitted to
exercise full sway, w« hazard the assertion
his faith was shaken by the powerful and well
directed argument of Mr. Cobb. It was a
telling speech upon the voters.
After Mr. C. had concluded, Mr. Toombs
was called np, and although lie was quite in
disposed from a severe cold and consequent
hoarseness, his numerous admirers would not
be pot off. but must hear from him then. He
yielded, in a few minutes warmed np with bis
subject, and wielded his keen Damascus blade
with a skill peen iar to himself—every blow
told with powerful effect, and he dealt them on
a 1 ! sides in his happieit vein
When he concluded tbe audience dispersed.
Sulcid e.
John J. Smith, a young man about twenty
one years of age. who had been driving th>
Stage on the Greenville line for some foonths,
committed silicide yerterday at tbe United
Sta es Hotel, by taking laudanum It is sup
posed from :he best information, that be swal
lowed it about 6 o'clock, A. M., and as he
locked himself op in his room it was not dis
covered till about 2 P. M„ entirely too late to
afford any relief. No cause is known for the
act. He seems to have been little ko iwn.
and nothing is known of the whereabouts of
his friends and relatives, except that a letter
was found in his trunk, -ddrereed to him by
B. F. Downs, Fort Kearney, who purportsto
be his brother in law.
Hopkins L. Tcbnky.—The most gratifying j
result in the Tennessee election is the defeat 1
of this ultra demagogue for a seat in the Le
gislature from Franklin county We suppose
he desired a decision upon his course as U. 3.
Senator, and more efficient and decided rebuke
no man ever received. Franklin county usual
ly gives a Democratic majority of 800, and
this year gave Trocsdalx, tbe democratic
candidate for Governor 787 majority. Tbe
vote for Akudsb, Union democrat, stood 1002,
and 544 for H. L. Toknby. Teis was glory
enouga for onk day.
Tnr first bale of new Cotton was received
io Hamburg loyeeday 16th, from the plantation
W. J. Walkxr. of Edgefield Dis'..; quality
fair: sold to Messrs Salb, Lark die Co., at
8 coats.
Ths Constitutionalist »» 'on-Interven
tlon*
This policy of “non intervention,” so far
at least as New Mexico and Utah were con
cerned, was at length successfully carried out.
Success was the hinge ■ which tho Constitu -
tionaliit turned. For yean it had advocated
'non i ntervention.” It got it. Now’ listen,
and marvel:
11 Tho Southern Democrats did not get Gon.
Casa their Northern President —nor any part of
California—but they get griy wonderful acquisition 1
non-intervention, witli a Northern interpretation,
pppl ed to Now Mexico aD d Utah.’’ — Constitution
alist, Sept. 17th, ISSU.
Teneatis risumt Can one believe his eyes
when he sees “non-inte vention,” tho old
friend and favorite Mhy of the Constitutional
ist, thus jeered at 1 And what a salvo.
Naked “non-intervention,” even the Constitu
tionalist could nottidieule, so it clothes it with
“a Northern interpretation.” Had not the
North interpreted it as folly before its success
aa after? In the opinion of that paper, “North
ern interpre ation” seems suddenly to have
risen in value, and become equivalent to “ju
dicial decision.”
But the discontent of the Consliiutionalist
was a growing discontent. Hear how he
characterizes a Compromise, founded, so far
as New Mexico and Utah ere concerned,
strictly on “non-intervention”—as “a jy Com
yromise.jlfi by which she (the South) is stain
died out of every foot of it (the Territory)
now and forever," (Censtitutionalist, Sept.
27, 1850.)
Was not non-intervention all you asked—all
you desired 1 Did you not, by yoar own
confession get it at to New Mexico and Utah?
Then all you asked and all you desired was,
that the South “should be swindled out of
every foot” of New Mexico and Utah “now
and forever.”
We don’t suppose you will accept the con
sequence of adhering to your own opinion.
Then confess that tbe Union wing of the
Democratic party' abides by the Democratic
policy on this the vital issue of the day, and
that the Southern Rights wing has abandoned it.
Having undertaken to give spice to hie
columns by a little variety, lest his readers
should be i urfeited with consistency—we next
find the Constitutionalist tending to what
pcint of the compass ? Why not only ridi
culing non intervention but actually demand
ibo “imtzrvibtiob” without the “bon.” Such
a change would have constituted an era with
an other paper. It seems to have been re
garded by the Constitutionalist as a tweedle
dum to twe«dle-dee distinction. After it bad
waited two years—
“ It became then the duty of Congress to give a
guarantee of protection to the slaveholder in his
slave property.”— Constitutionalist, Oct. 9, 1850.
“ /ntervention” (instead of “non-interven
tion,”) became at this time “the duty of Con
gress.”
In our only succeeding number we will show
that as in the opinion of the Constitutionalist
of one date, intervention became "the duty of
Congress,” eo in the opinion of the Constitu
tionalist of ano'her date, intervsntion transcen
dedthe cons titutional power of Congress.
In the opinion of that paper, (if it holds
opinions'! it therefore became “the duly of
Congress’’ to transcend its own Constitution
al powers. The evidence we shall adduce
will convict the Southern Rights wing of the
Democratic party of the same abandonment
of principle.
Wb have shown that " non-intervention’’
was all which the Constitutionalist, in its own
language, “asked" or “desired.” We ate now
to show that it was all which, in the opinion of
that paper, Congress had the constitutional
right lo grant.
This explicit doctrine that “ non-interven
tion” is not only the measure of the duty of
Congress, but the extent of its power, cuts off
every quibble of the Constitutionalist as to the
time aud extent of its application. It does not
leave one of his after-thoughts—hie ingenious
quibbles—as to time and circumstances—stand
ing.
Tho following are two of the Florida Reso
lutions which were advocated by that paper:
“ Resolved, That by the Constitution ot the Uni
ted States, Congress is only empowered to enact laws
needful fcr the preservation and dispotal of such
Territory at public domain.
Resolved, That Territorial Governments are not
known to the Constitution, are municipal or corpo
rate, and can rightfully claim or exercise no politi
cal or higher power than is derived from the ( organic
law of Congress by which they are founded?
44 We can see,” says the Constitutionalist,
A neither a word or a syllable in these resolu
tions to which any Southern man—aye, any
man North or South —who will construe the
Constitution fairly according to its term*, can
take just exception. TAa retolutiont are tru
tarns.—(Const., April 19, 1848.)
To say that “ Congress is empowered
t*» ‘ the pr»
disposal of eueb Territones a» public domain, ’’
is, in the opinion of the Constitutionalist, but
to repeat a truism. Territorial Governments
can exercise no higher powers than are derived
from Unngrese, the fountain of their powers.
Ihe Florid* Resolutions ‘‘.eiterate the prin
ciples embodied in the Resolutions oft the Ala
bama Democratic Convention on the same
subject. Our -eaders will remember tha’ we
most heartily and cordially endorsed them .”
The readers of this article will please ob
serve, that thia is co hasty, ill considered opin
ion of the Constitutionalist.
Laterstill, welind the Constitutionalist agree
ing “in the correctness” of Mr. Yasckvs
position, expressed in the following Resolution:
Resolved, That the doctrine of sroa-iaTiaVEN
tion” with the rights of property of any port’on at
the people of this confederation, bo it in the Stales
or Territories, by any ether than the parties mte
reeled in them, is the true republican doctrine re
cognised by this body.”— [Const. June 4,1848.
Perhaps the above quotation may throw some
light on the opinion once entertained, but now
repudiated, by the Constitutionalist on the Cali
fornia question.
But the most explicit position assumed by
the Constitutionalist was in the endorsement it
gavo Gov. Town’s letter, on which he ran the
campaign oft 1849. This letter fixes the posi
tion of the Constitutionalist and of the Demo
cratic party of Georgia upon this sobject, with
great clearness. It was twice published and
heartily endorsed by the Constitutionalist. The
Democratic party endorsed it by the election
ofitsauthor. The following question, amongst
others, was put to Gov. Towns:
“ Has Congress the right, under the Constitution,
to le delate on the subject of slavery in the Territo
ries?”
Mark the phraseology. It is nnt to “ legis
late” against slavery, simply, nor to legislate
• for slavery,” but to legislate "on the subject
of slavery.” The question, also, is not as to
the expediency of sueh legillation, but as to
the right of Congress “under the Constitu
tion.”
Gov. Towns repeats the question, and an
swers it.
“ Ist. Has Congress the power, under the Consti
tution, to legislate on the subject of slavery in the
Territories ?”
“ I THINK NOT.”
■* ll'hatever, therefore, is private property in
the State, remains so in a Territory. If this
is not true —Congress has absolute ard an
limited power, within the Territories, over
every species of property—a doctrine as ab
surd. as it is tyrannical and uncoaetilutional.'’
Upon this bitter denial to Congress cf the
right to legislate, that paper comments es
follows :
“ That letter,” says the Constitutionalist
enthusiastically, ‘that lxttkr expresses
sentiments that no true Georgian—no true
Southern man—should object to have go forth
as the sentiments of Georgia and the Sooth
They are such as become the chief magistrate
of our great and noble commonwealth. No
press in Georgia has yet dared to attack them,
or openly to ridicule and contemn them.”
(Constitutionalist, Sept 26th, 1849 )
Who would have expected that the Consti
tutionalist itself in one short year would have
op,,red to attack these sentiments” —nay,
“openly to ridicule and contemn them." Yet
we have furnished the proof that on Septem
ber 17th, 1840, (less than twelve months after
the above writing) it openly ridiculed and
contemned “non-ir.terven'.ion” —spoke of it
with a sneer as a "SF"wonderful acquisition I ’
characterised (Sept. 27th, 1850) a compromise,
certainly founded as to the greater part of the
Territory on non intervention as “a
by which she (th# South) is ricin
died out of every foot of it now and forever.”
’ and finally demanded (Oet 9ih, 1850) legssta
non on the subject of slavery, in the shape of “a
guarantee of protection !”
The CcmXitis:ie»cUwt “contends” on the
last named day. that “Congress in its recent
session was grossly derelict in its duty, and
grossly violated the rights of the slaveholder in
not giving the protection he required.” Al
though Congress had no “right under the
Constitution to legislate on the subject of slave
ry,” tbe failure “ to legislate on tne subject of
slavery ” was a gross dereliction of duty, and
violation of tbe rights of slaveholders. To
sueh inconsistencies was an old Democrat dri
ven. in order to fit him for co-operation with
the Southern Rights party.
It has not been for the asks of the Consti
tutionalist that we have traced its meanderings
upon this vital point of the Southern Rights
platform. It has been because that paper 1
is the representative of a class of papers, and 1
a party of men. Through it, as once enable 1
exponent of the opinions of the Democratic '
party—now the exponent of the shifting opin- 1
ions of a nameless party, to which a division '
of the Democratic party has united itself at
the expense of its principles—vre have endeav
or to show bow utterly false that division
of the party is to the policy of the party, and
the groundwork of its action, for a course of
years.
We have shown that the Democratic party
advocated non-intervention in ’47—in '4B, and
ran Cass upon it—in ’49, and ran and elected
Towns upon it—and that the Constitutionalist
backed it all. We have shown that the Con
stitutionalist and the Democratic party advo
cated "non-intervention” until they got it—and
that then that paper and a certain division of
that parly, not the party itself, came to the
conclusion thatty it we had lost even the very
Territory to which it was applied. It is not
the Democratic party—platform or policy—
that we are exposing. It is that portion of
the Democratic party which, in order to
co-operate ’’ ith the Southern Rights parly,
has abandoned the Democratic platform and
policy. It is those who, after getting what
they asked for, but have since discovered they
did not want, left the Democ atio platform,
because it left them no farther chance to
agitate. With what agility they leaped from
hat platform, to its antipodes, the above ex
racts, from one of their organs, the Conetitu
ionalist suffices to show.
The deprivation, by high hand, of our inte
rests in New Mexico and Utah, complained of
by the Disunion party, was effected by non
interventiou. Gov. Towns had asserted that
“Whatever is private property in the State,
remains so in the Territory.” In this assertion
he had been sustained by the Constitutionalist
and the Democratic party. On that principle,
intervention was unnecessary . If it is necessary,
however, then that principle must at least be
doubtful. The consequence of its denial is
thus portrayed by Gov. Towns, and endorsed
by the Constitutionalist:
“If this is not true, Congress has absolute and
unlimited power within the Territories over every
species of property—a doctrine ns absurd as it is
tyranical an unconstitutional.”
With this “ rednetio ad absurdum" from its
own columns, of its recent opinions of inter
vention, we close the subject of the Constitu
tionalist and Non-Intervention.
Reckless Assertions.
The Constitutionalist of yesterday con
tains the following para raph in reference to
the position of the Union party of 1832-33,
in relation to the Proclamation of Gen. Jack
son:
“On the other hand, the Union party did not
adopt the principles of the Proclamation. Not a
newspaper in Georgia, of either side, approved the
doctrines of that Proclamation, while some of the
Union papers bad the manliness openly to condemn
tuem. The public sentiment of Georgia was
unanimously, or nearly so, against the doctrines of
that Proclamation on the subject of State rights
and Fed‘.r al powers. The same may be said of
public sen imentin the other Southern States, where
the doctrines of the Virginia and Kentucky resolu
tions were received as the standard of plilical faith.”
The Italics are ours :
To show how much relianco is to be plated
on this statement, it is only ne-essary to sub
mit a few facts connected with the Legislative
history of that period.
The Proclamation of Gen. Ja«K:ON was
issued in December, 1832. In Dtovember,
1833, the Legislature of Georgia Wsembled,
soon after which, the Hon. A. H. Chappell
introduced into the Senate a series of resolu
tions condemning ths doctrines and princi
ples contained in that document, and declar
ing the right of a State to “secede.” On the
29th November, these resolutions’wore taken
np, (see Senate Journal, page 121) and Mr
Baxter, (now Judge B.) of Hancock, a
prominent and distinguished leader of the
then Union party, offered a substitute approv
ing in genera! terms of tho Administration of
Gen. Jackson, and opposing the doctrine of
Nullification as advocated by Mr. Chappell.
These resolutions of Mr. Baxter, however,
were not sufficiently explicit in the opinion of
Gen. Wm. B. Woffobd, of Habersham,
another distinguished louder of the then Union
party, and he offered the following as an
amendment to the substitute of Mr. Bax ter
Resolved, That this General Assembly doth high
ly disapprove the insinuations, censures, and denun
ciations dire *.ted against the venerable chief magis
trate of the United States, for his patriotic sentiment,
‘• The Federal Union, it must bo preserved;” and
lor those provident measures of bis administration by
which he succeeded in preserving that Uaion in a
most even-ful crisis, and in saving our beloved coun
try from all the dimes and horrors of a bloody civil
war. This General Assembly feels unfeigned grati
fication in affirming, that Andrew Jackson is entitled
to the gratitude, the confijence and the affections es
the people of the United S’ales, and more especially
of the people ol Georgia, fjr Ilia skill uod valor with
which, in the field, he has triumphant y defended
our national safety and honor, and the wisdom, pu.-i
--tw eoonomv and siwruv wtj, whiab. • «t» ‘
ha has maintained all (hose rights of the people which
have been confided to bis care.
So long as he shall continue to act on those repub
lican principles, and that sacred regard for the con
stitution, which have heretofore marked bis adminis
tration, he shall receive o :r most cordial support.
Immediately after the reading o f this amend
mentof Gen. Wofford, Dr. E. E. Jones, of
Morgan, introduced the following substitute :
Resolved, That we willingly accord to General
Jack on all the fame to which his military services
during the late wars so justly entitle him, and ap
proving all the acts of hie administration which have
been in strict accordance with the Republican prin
ciples of 93 and 99 ; at the same time we do disap
prove and condemn the doctrines maintained in the
proclamation and force bill, as destructive of State
rights and State sovereignty.
The vote was immediately taken on Dr.
Jones' substitute, which presented the qties
iun directly, of approving or disapproving
of the Proclamation, and stood, yeas 32, mys
48. All the Union men voting nay. Among
them were Dunagan, of Hall; Echols, of
Walton; Gordon, of Jones; Moncrief, of
warren: Walker, of Richmond, and George
W. B. Towns, (now Governor) of Talbot.
The Vote was then taken on the amend
ment of Gen. Wofford, and was, yeas 49,
uays 31. The Union men voting in the affirm
ative, and the amendment adopted.
A series of resolutions similar to Mr. Chap
fell’s, was introduced into the House by the
Hon. Mark A. Cooper, which was laid on the
table by avoeof 94 ayes to 64 nays. All ihe
Union men voting to lay them on the table.
See House Journal, page 165. This vote, it
will be recollected, was taken 0.-te year, want
ing a few days, after the Proclamation was
issued, and when every man had had ample
opportunity to discuss and weigh the princi
ples it set forth—principles which the Union
party of that day (which was largely in the
majority in Georgia) as the vole proves, en
dorsed and vindicated to the fullest and broad
est extent.
8o much, then, for the reckless assertion of
the Constitutionalist, that “ The public senti
ment of Georgia was unanimously, or nearly so,
against the doctrines of that proclamation on the
subject of State Rights and federal Powers.”—
So far from this being true, the records of the
Legislature prove that a majority approved the
doctrines of that proclamation. So also did
Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi
and Louisiana, approve the proclamation by
overwhelming majorities. In Alabama, reso
lutions were adopted pledging the people to
take up arms to put down South Carolina,
and strange as it may seem, some of the actors
are now open and avowed secessionists.
The statement of the Constitutionalist in re
ference to the Union press of Georgia is
equally unfortunate and unsupported by facts,
as a reference to the files of that day will con
clusively psove.
“ Democrats—supporters of Gen. Cass—should
not complain of that,”
On the 28th day of May, 1851, the Southern
Rights Convention made the following decla
ration :
“ By the acts of the late Coegress known as the
C-mpromue measures, tbe Southern States being a
minority in federal numbers, have been deprived,
by high hand, of all their interests io ths Territories
acquiied from Mexico.”
That this declaration is sustained by the
Constitutionalist with all its ability, we need
not prove. Its editor was one of the archi
tects of the platform.
To show that the Constitutionalist has un
dergone astounding changes of opinion on this
fundamental questi >n, is not the sole object of
this article. A large number of other presses
and public men are involved in a like incon
sistency—to use a very mild word—and as
they Ere men and papers of vast activity, the
lime will not be lost which is expended in
showing, at some pains, the changes—world
wide—of their position. Their former posi
tion was once held by the entire Democratic
party of the State. It may be well to show,
by indisputable proofs, who in the recent
changeof party lines have deserted their prin
ciples—loose Demo:rats who are acting wi'h
the Unioa party—or those who act with the
so called Southern Rights party. We promise
evidence on this subject eiesrer than light—let
our readers mark well whether we redeem
the pledge.
From the assertion of the Southern Rights
Convention that we have been deprived of all
our interests in the Territories acquired from
Mexico, it is evident that, in the opinion of that
Convention, we have of course been de
prived of our interests in those particular
Territories called New Mexico and Utah.
Waiving al! other points, let us proceed to
examine this. We shall hold strictly to the
present issue.
The bdis passed by Congress for the Terri-
tories of New Mexico and Utah, are passed
upon the basis of “non-intervention upon the
subject of slavery.” We presume that this
will not be disputed, but we shall presently
show the evidence, drawn from the admissions
of the ConslitationalMl itself.
It is by this legislation that our rights in
New Mexico and Utah have been lost, if they
have been lost at all. Let us examine the
opinions of the Constitutionalist, as to the duty
of Congress in legislating on this subject.
The Clayton Compromise proposed "non
intervention on the subject of slavery.” The
fol'owing was the comment of the Constitu
tionalist on its defeat:
“ It is with a deep feeling of disappointment that
we announce the intelligence of the defeat ol the
Compromise bill in the bouse. This is an appalling
calamity to tho country, and mus causa every heart
to beat quick with alarm, for the Union of the State;
is in danger.” — Constitutionalist, August 'id, 1848.
Such were the fee'ingiof alarm and disap
pointment produced at that time by the defeat
of the non-intervention policy. Its success
would at that time have been inexpressibly
gratifying. Nay, at a much later time. For
hear him upon ths Clay Compromise :
“But there are features of that Compromise, as
regards the Territories, which resemble too closely
those of the Clayton Compromise 'o entitle it to un
qualified denunciation from us. Those who de
nounced Mr. Stephens so unsparingly for defeating
the Clayton Compromise bill, and Toombs, H lliard,
Pendleton and others for aiding a>.d a etting him,
should be a little considerate of their own position
now. Clayton’s bill left the question whether
slavery could be rightfully held in the Territories to
be decided by the Federal Cc-urte. Under the
present proposed Compromise this too is lo be left
to judicial construction. This was satisfactory to the
advocates of the Chy ton Compromise in 1849.
Wuv should it not be now 2”— Constitutionalist,
May 22, 1850.
We may add—a fortiori— this was satisfac
tory to the Constitutionalist in 1848. It was
satisfactory to the Constitutionalist in 1850.
With some gusto wo repeat the question,
"Why should it not be now f’’
It will be seen that ‘‘non intervention” was
not a chance position of the Constitutionalist
It was its deliberate, well chosen, loug acted on
and long defended conviction. It was the
position of the Democratic party.
We have shownit to have been the posi
tion of the Constitutionalist, by extracts, in
1848, and in 1850. It was his position before
the year ’4B. It was his position between the
year '4B and ’SO. It was the portion and
policy of the Democratic party, and of the
Constitutionalist as one of its organs, in 1847.
The Democratic party in Convention passed
tho following resolution, viz: “The people
of the South do not ask of Congress to estab
lish the institution of slavery in any of the
Territories that may bo acquired by the United
States.”
The Democratic policy, then, in *47 was
non-intervention. In 1848 it was still ‘•non
intervention.” The editor of the Consrilttttoii
alist was a candidate on the Cass Electoral
ticket. Need wo prove that Gen. Cass ran i n
nor-intervontion ? Read the Nicholson letter.
What was the platform of the Democratic
party of Georgia in 1849? Non-intervention
still. We have not the resolutions at hand,
but it will not bo denied.
On what did Gov. Towns run ? On "non
intervention.” We shall before we close
furbish an extract from hie letter, and the
comment of the Constitutionalist upon it.
It may be looked upon as proved beyond
all hope of escape that whatever “non-inter
vention” means, the Constitutionalist was for
it, and tho Democratic party was for it.
Have we not upon that point redeemed our
pledge ? We throw in, however, ez-abundanti,
the following acknowledgment :
“ We have in the Democratic Conventions of
Georgia and in these columns zealously advocated
he propriety of Territorial Governments being given
to Calilornia and New Mexi:o, conformably to the
doctrine of non-intervention as to slavery. We
asked nothing better— desired nothing better lor the
South.” — Constitutionalist, October 23d, 1850.
Wo come next to the question—what was
meant bv non-intervention. We will give the
Constitutionalist the benefit of its own defini
tions. Wa copy the following from an edito
rial, under the caption of "Non-Action vs.
Non-Intervention. The President vs. the
Special Committee:”
“ If they (tho Committee of 13) report any meas
ure of adjustment it will be a nteasuro providing (or
Territorial Governments lor new Mexico and Dese
ret, without the Wilmot Proviso.
This is (Ac non-intervention policy.”—Constitu
tionalist, April 30th, 1850.
Non-intervention as to the Territories mean)
their organization “without the Ifilmot Pro
visa.” Did we not get it t
This might suffice fora definition, but we
will add a direct and explicit acknowledgement
that tho non-intervention policy, as to the Ter
ritories, was pursued in the Clay Compro
mise :
“ By the Compromise we get Territorial Govern
ments and non-intervention on the slavery question
lor tbe Territories Tbit is something. Democrats
—supporters of General Cass, should not complain
of that.”—Constitutionalist, May 19 x 1850.
tar.. tile ,r.t,„ constitutionalist
a Democrat t A supporter of General Cass,
r.ay, a candidate for Cabs Elector? Certainly.
Ought he not then to take hie own adviee ?
Whatever others may now do, he, for one>
certainly “should not complain of that.”
But the Constitutionalist (and the Demo,
cratic party of Georgia, of which he was an
organ) went much further than to say that
“non intervention” was all we needed—all
we deaired. That paper—and that party, the
consistency of the Union wing of which wo
now vindicate —held tbe farther doctrine that
Congress bad no Constitutional right or power
to intervene. Evidence to this point shall be
adduced in another article, clear and conclu
sive.
The Alberti Case and Price Case.
With the practical enforcement of the Fugitive
Slave law our readers are familiar. The Crafts
were assisted in escaping the vigilance of agents and
officers, and are now in England. Shadrach was
rescued from the officers, in whose charge he was,
by mob violence, in tho open day, and assisted to
escape into Canada. It cost the owners more than
they were worth to recover the few others who have
been restored to them. But we need not dwell upon
this branch of the subject as the facts connected with
it ere so generally known. Alberti and Price huve
been dragged f<orn their families and incarcerated in
gloomy dungeons, for merely assisting in the execu
tion of the law in a solitary instance. The former is
a grey headed old man nearly seventy years of age.
whom a Pennsylvania Judge bad sentenced to hard
labor in the Penitentiary for ten years, before tho
expiration of which time he will probably be called
from hie gloomy cell to his grave. How heavily thia
cruel and ferocious sentence presses upon the in
firmities of this unfortunate old man. His family
weeps st home, hie spirits sre weighed down and
crushed under the tyranny of a soulless fanaticism,
that disregards those tears end feeds with hellish de
light upon his torture.
Tne above paragraph is full of loose state
men s. The slave Betsey was not arrested
under the present fugitive slave law, but under
the old law. Her arrest occurred August 14,
1860. The present law passed the Senate
August 24, 1850. The paragraph quoted
seems to have been intended to excite preju
dice in relation to the present fugitive slave
law. It was not then of force. The then
existing law was fully and successfully carried
out. The slave Betsey was conveyed to Mary
land, and delivered to her master, Mitchell.
The indictment against Alberti and Price
was for kidnapping the child of Betsey. As
sisting in the execution of the present fugitive
slave law, or of the old law, had nothing to do
wi h it. The child Joel, was not, and is not
claimed by Mitchell as a slave; nor if a slave,
was there any power of attorney for his arrest.
The offence charged (that of kidnapping) is
ao offence under the laws of Georgia, punish
able by imprisonment in the Penitentiary for
from 4to 7 years. (Penal Code, 4th Division,
Sec. 51, Prince's Dig. page 626). To this
indictment they pleaded “ not goilty.” They
were found guilty by a jury of tbeir own
countrymen, for they were both Pennsylva
nians.
Tbe case proves nothing against the fugitive
slave law. It had no connection with ;t. The
arrest of the slave Betsey was not the offence
charged—tbe law under which she was arrested
was the olj law, and was successfully carried
out. Nor does the case prove anything against
the laws of Pennsylvania, for those laws, if
faithfully administered, are the same in kind as
the laws of Georgia. Convicted under a like
indictment, Alberti and Price would have
been, under our law, imprisoned io the Peni
tentiary. What the case does prove is, that tbe
law of Pennsylvania—no. tbe law of the Uni
ted Slates—was not faithfully administered. If
correctly reported, of which we have no assu
rance and do not believe, it proves that the
jury was corrupt, and the judge arbitrary and
tyrannical. For this, they—the judge and jury
—deserve the strongest reprobation. The
unfaithful administration of the law shows
that which every body admits—that there is
much prejudice and fanaticism upon the sub
ject of slavery at tbe North. The very letter
ou which the Constitutionalist is commenting
asierts “ that the anti-slavery soniment of the
North has become mare virulent by defeat, for
it was utterly defeated in the Compromise
measures.” Our object, and the object of the
Union party of Georgia, is to strengthen the
hands of those who strive to put down such
fanaticism. The Union contains many bad
men—who is ignorant of that? Each State
contains many bad men. It is thia faet which
gives rite to the necessity of Government, of
Courts, of Jails, and Penitentiaries.
As to the cost of recovering fugitive slaves
—the Court costs amount to ten dollars. All
other costs incuned by the owner are the pay
ment of his agents and his attornies' fees If
there be any costs arising from mob opposition,
orj like causes, they are (defrayed by the Go
vernment. If a negro escapes from South
Carolina and gets to Texas, instead of to
Pennsylvania, the owner must boar the ex
pense of sending an agent after him, and if
necessary, witnesses to establish that the negro
is his property. The Government cannot
diminish the distance between two States, and
the consequent travelling expenses of agents
and witnesses.
Who would have gathered any correct idea
of thiJ case, or of the fugitive slave law, from
the comments of the Constitutionalist 1 The
case only proves strong anti-slavery prejudice
at tho North—the very fact which rendered
the Untun Organization necessary.
Second Gun From Alabama.
A few days since, the disunion organs gave
us tho report of ths “ first Gun from Ala
bama.” and as that was quite abrupt alone, we
think its effect will be very much softened by
the “ second gun from Alabama,” which we
subjoin, from the Montgomery Journal of the J
11th inst.:
GREAT TRIUMPH!!
Five Union Members of Congress Elect
ed 11:
From tho returns received up to last night, we
have the assurance that five out of the seven Con
gresoioml Ditricta in this State have been carried
by the Sou-hero Rights Union party I
Abercrombie is elected in this District by 1,200
majority. The cfficial majority of Smith, io the 4th
District, is slated in a letter to us from Eutaw to be
50 votes White’s majority over Rice, in the
‘ Bloody Seventh,” is from 300 to 500 votes, and
poor Sam, la now li erally smelling of the bottom end
of his firkin I Cobb is elected in the 6th District by
a large majority. A post-bill from the Postmaster st
Tuscumbia states that Houston had beaten Hubbard
in the sth District.
Bragg, elected in the Ist District, and Harris in
the 3d,denied that they were disunionists. They
were, however, supported by that faction.
The Journal has a list of the members elected
to the Legislature io twenty-nine counties of
the Stale, comprising the strong holds of the
disunioniets, which gives 23 Disunionists and
38 Union men, leaving nearly all North Ala
bama and the northwestern counties to be
heard from, which will return nearly all Union
men. This is a most glorious triumph, and
differs slightly in its details, from the following
announcement in the Charleston Mercury of
the Bth inst.:
Alabama. — From telegraphic despatches and pri
vate iulbrmation, wo are led to believe that the recent
political contest in this State has resulted in the elec
tion of tbe Southern Rights candidate for Governor;
a Southern Rights majority in the Legislature, who
will elect a successor lo Senator Clemens, and also
the election to Congress in the first district of John
Bragg ; in the 2d, John Cochran ; 3d, S. W. Har
ris ; sth, David Hubbard ; 7th, S. F. Rice, all South
ern Rights men ; and of W. R. W. Cobb, (Submia
aion) in the 6th district. In the 4th dis riel, the re
sult is doubtful between Erwin (Southern Rights)
and Smith (Submiasionist.)
To estimate justly the value and extent of
this triumph, it is pruper to state, it har been
accomplished almost without organization, if
we except the fact that the Union party uuiver
sa'ly stood on the Georgia Platform. In the
firs', place, they had no candidate for Governer
and permitted that truckling demagogue Col
l er, to be re-elected—a man who has a' erupt
ed to reflect almost every shade of opinion on
the great questions of tho day. Ind ed so tor
tuous has been his career, that at times, he has
been claimed by all parties. Again, in the first
Congressional district,‘hey unfortunately nomi
nated the most unpopular man, C. C. Lang
don, in the district- Although an able advo
cate of the cause, such was the prejudice
against him, that he ran behind his ticket in (we
believe) every county. Not vi-hstanding this,
Braoo, his compatriot, although nominated by
the Secessionists and supported by them, had
to proclaim his devotion to the Union and re
' pudiate secession throughout the district, to se
cure an election Harris, who was elected in
I the 3rd district, by n very small majority, was
i forced to adopt the same policy.
We have no doubt, therefore, if the Union
party had properly organized—with an able
and efficient leader for Governor, and a popu
i lar nomination in tho first district, they would
have elected, a Governor, every member of
Congress and throe fourths of the Legislature.
So much for Alabama, the Union and the Geor
gia Platform.
“ We do not believe the Compromise ’just,’ be
cause the Southern States which contributed an equal
amount of treasure with the Northern States, and
double the amount of men, to tbe acquisition of the
Territories from Mexico, were, by that Cotnproir.ise,
excluded forever from participating in the benefits of
the purchase.”— federal Union.
The Federal Union, from which we clip the
above, is one of those journals that war vocife
rous for non intervention ; and it was because
of its vindication of the policy of non interven
tion that it denounce! so virulently all those
Southern men who opposed tho Clayton Com
promise, the chief feature of which was non
intervention. Indeed, so thoroughly was it
interwoven 'nto that bill, that the bill forever
prohibited legislation on tbe subject of slavery,
either by Congress or the Territories of New
Mexico, Utah and California. Non interven
tion was what Mr Crtaovs dcolrod and con
tended for, and all that his followers wished.
Only give them "nonintervention,” said they,
and Southern men could go with their slaves
nto the Mexican Territories and be protected
n their property. Well, they got non-inter
vention in the territorial bills of New Mexico
and Utah in its broadest extent, and now we
are told that “ tho Southern States are forever
excluded from participating in the benefits of
those territories.”
What v. commentary is this, upon the sin
cerity and honesty of a journal that seeks to
enlighten and direct public opinion! Tbe
Federal Union either did not believe what it
sa d when it advocated non-intervention, or it
does not believe what it no-« gays of the effects
of that policy, or it was ignorant, stupidly and
wilfully ignorant, as to what were the tenden
cies of non intervention One horn or the other
of this dilemma it must take—we care not
which. In either event, it will bo shown to bo
an unsafe guide to public opinion upon grave
and important questions, involving the dearest
rights of the South.
But the Federal Union is not alone in this
unenviable category. All, all those journals
and leaders of the Disunion party who advo
cated non intervention, and now assert that the
South is excluded from the Territories, are in
the same predicament, unless they and the
Federal Union shall affirm that their object in
advocating non-intervention was to exclude
tho South ; in which event they will stand be
fore the world convicted by their own confes
sion, of having attempted to practice a fraud
upon the Southern people, by persuading
them that non-intervention would secure their
rights, while they knew it would not, but would
exclude them from the territories.
The State of Things In Cherokee*
The fo'lowing are extracts from a letter
from Cherokee, Georgia. The opportuni.
lies of the writer for observation have been
ample, and we can vouch for him as one whose
judgment and knowledge of the canvass are
as reliable sb those of any man in that country,
“Avgobt 10, 1051.
“ At Cassville I bad an opportunity of seeing onr
friends from all Hie counties in tho upper part of the
State, and they gave the most flattering accounts (tom
all the counties. We shall carry every county in
this Circuit, I think, without any doubt. Our op
ponents do not have any hope of being able to carry
more than three, Murray, Chattooga and Forsyth,
and I know enough of each of these Counties to be
satisfied that they are calculating even in them with
out their boats. Gilmer, Union and Lumpkin will
give a majority for tbe Union candidates of 2,509
votes. Cherokee and Cobb will not be much short
of 1,000. Cass and Paulding will give nearly 1,000
majoti.y for the Union Floyd, Chattooga and Gor
don you may set down at 1,000, and Walker and
Dade at 800. You may make the addition. Our
majorities will not vary much from there figures.”
The writer speaks very favorably of Chas
tain’s success in his discussions with Stiles,
and winds up with the following aacount of the
reports from this section.
“ We have rumors and reportaof great changes in
Toombs’s and Stephens’s District against Cobb.”
It the reports, favorable to the States Rights
party from other quarters of the State, are as
groundless as tbe rsmors just above referred
to, they will vanish into thin air after the first
of October.
Tbe Latter Construed.
At an anniversary barbecue of the Richland
Rifle Company at Columbia, South Car -lina,
ou the Bth mat., the following toast was given :
“By Guignard Scott. The late letter of Ex-
Governor McDjnald of Gecrgia: A death blow to
Co operation Antecedent to seperste State action.
Henceforth the contest lies between Secession and
Submission.”
The key to this toast is to be found in the
word antecedent which we have italicised.
Gov McDonald’s letter means to Mr. Gura
nard Scott, what we doubt net it means to the
other people of South Carolina. " Co-opera
tion with Georgia antecedent to separate State
action is impossible. But secede and shed
blood. Light up the blaze of civil war. That
will bring Co operation.”
The “bugleman” from the west tells Caroli
na not to expect Co-operation antecedent lo
separate State action. Expediency is all that
he urges against such action, and bis argument
on that subject is at variance with his advice.
He tells her not to walk in it, but points out to
her the road to Co-operation.
Illinois W heat Cbof. —The Chicago Ad
vertiser says: .
The wheat crop io the northern ”
State will generally prove a' allure. The. u»l has
destroyed the winter, and the fly, stab or rot the
sp“nZ Thousands of acre, wtoch a short time atnoe
linked promising, and the farm-s anticipated a good
rield will sot be' worth harvesting. The farmere are
gtnerally much aatoarrasaed, and this serious draw
back, tbs fsiluie of tbe crops, will affect them ma
wriaffy. _
Kai vet e.
“ Now look at the platform of the Southern Rights
aarty, composed of Whigs and Democrats, end then
look at that of the Federal party, especially at their
4th Resolution, commonly characterised as ‘th-,
bloody fourth,’ and if you do not agree with us that
this fourth Resolution contains more fire-exting, more
disunion, more ‘ dir ruption of every tie that bind»
US to the Union’ than can be found tn all the South
ern Right! platform, wo shall be greatly deceived.”
Ihe above queer challenge is made by B
writer in the Constitutionalist, of the I Oth inst.,
under the curiously selected signature of
"Southern Rights.” This model Union man
characterizes the avowed determination of the
Union party to resist the legislation referred to
in the 4th Resolution of the Georgia Conven
tion of 1850, as “ fire-eating,” “ disunion,”
&c. The party which gave itself no name, be
proves to be singularly nn worthy of the name
he gives it. The only evidence he furnishes
lo show its title to the name of the “ Southern
Rights” party, is tho triumphant assertion that
it takes less decided ground its favor of South
ern Righuthan the other party. He wdl hard
ly dare to say that the grounds assumed by the
Union party are incorrect or inadequate.
Tue party whieh n.yles itself " the Constitu
tional Union Party,” be calls the “ Federal
Party,” and adduces as his curious reason for
this change of namj, that it inclines to “fire
eating,” “disunion,” and the “disruption of
every tie that binds it to the Union.”
That the Southern Rights party, so called,
is unentitled to the name—that the Union party
is not derelict in the discharge of its duties to
the South—are the points to which he chal
lenges attention. We have ever aimed to es
tablish the same great truths. Well may the
unnamed party piteously beg to be “saved
from its friends.”
The Medical Examiner and Record or
Medical Science. —Wo acknowledge the re
ceipt of the August No. of this ably conduct
ed Journal, through the courtesy of the pub
lishers. This No. is equal in ability and inter
est to any of its predecessors. It is edited by
F. G. Smith, M. D., John B. Biddle, M. D.,
and published by Lindsay & Blackuton of
Philadelphia, at $3 per annum in advance.
North Carolina Election. —The Wil
mington Herald of Wednesday concludes that
the Congreaional Delegation from that Stale,
will be as follows:
Ist District, Thomas L. Clingman.
2d do. Joseph P. Caldwell.
3d do. Alfred Dockery.
4th do. JamesT. Morehead.
sth do. A W. Venable.
Sth do. J. R. J. Daniel.
7th do. Wm S. Ashe.
Bth do. Edward Stanley.
9th do. David Outlaw.
Five Whigs and four Democrats, counting
Ciingmauwith the latter.
Southern Medical and Surgical Jour
nal. —The August No. of this valuable peri
odical has been on our table for some days,
and should have been noticed earlier but for
the fact that it was mislaid. It is freighted
with its usual variety of original and miscella
neous matter. This work is edited by Prof.
L. A Dugas, and published in this city by
Mr. James McCafferty, at $3 per annum,
in advance.
Mr. Cobb's Appointments.
Mr. Coos will address the people at tho following
places, and at the times designated:
At Marietta, Cobb co., Saturday, 23d August.
At Cassville, Cass co., Monday, 25th “
At Rome, Floyd co., Wednesday, 27th “
At Summersville, Chattooga, Friday, 29th August.
At Lafayette, Walker, Saturday, 30th August.
At Trenton, Dade, Tuesday, 21 September,
i At Ringgold, Walker, Thursday, 4th Sept.
At Calhoun, Gordon, Ssturday, 6th “
Al Spring Place, Murray, Monday, Bth Sept.
At Ellijay, Gilmer, Wednesday, 10th “
At Blairsville, Union, Friday, 12th “
At Dahlonega, Lumpkin, Monday, 15th “
At Cumming, Forsyth, Wednesday, 17lb Sept.
At Canton, Cherokee, Friday, 19tb Sept.
We are authorized by Mr. Cobb, to aay that Judge
McDonald is invited to attend these appointments
and to participate in the discussion upon equal terms.
At Lowell, recently, a case in Court was
peremptorily dismissed and the defennant die.
charged, on its being made evident that the
complainants were Atheists, disbelieving the
existence of a Supreme Being and of a fu
ture ste te of rewards and puniehmen s. The
Judge held that t. eir evidence and declarations
were utterly worthless, and entitled to no credi
bility.
The New American House, Boston. —A
full description of the American House, recent
ly opened by Lewis Rice, the Proprietor, was
published in the Boston Journal and Transcript.
The following brief account of it is condensed
from those papers:
TliAtmerican House is one of the finest architec
tural ornaments of rhe City, presenting n beautiful
front, of the Italian style. 3he main building ia 112
feet front on Hanover street, with two wings of six i
«*—*«•. ISO fee deep to Sudbury street, having jcANSSI
passage Between them of 20 feet in width, ilio-eteas
being sodisp?sed ns to admit ample lisht and'air from
all sides, the whole covering 27,000 feet es land,
erected and finished at a cost cl about $300,000. It
has 340 rooms and will accommodate 500 persons.
The Ladies’ am. Gentlemen's Parlors occupy the
whole front on the first floor, approached by wide
halls, with ample receiving rooms. A balcony ex
tends along the entire front, the entrance to which is
from the oriole windows in the parlors. It contains
a suit of splendid Bridal Booms, very chastely de
corated and richly lurnished, a peep at which (says
the Transcript) might possibly annihilate the stoicism
ol the most incorrigible bachelor.
The spacious Entrance Hall or Gentleman’s Ex
change, on the street level, extends through the cen
tre of tiro building, and measures 160 feet in length
by 30 in width.
Besides five main stairways leading to the upper
floor, there are several other flights in various parts
of 'he American House, so that in the case of fire,
or for any other cause, ample means of egreas are
provided.
< The immense structure has been built upon a
unique plan combining the utmost convenience of
arrangemeit with great elegance and thoroughness
of finish, and the introduction of all the desired mo
dern improvements, and it is probably the best calcu ■
latcd in all itsappointments fora large business house,
of any in the country. A number of our best city
artisans, mechanicsand furnishers, have contributed
their skill and taste to this noble pile, which of itself
sufficiently speaks their praise, as seldom is there
fo u nd in a single building so much of general per
fection.
For the Chronicle Sentinel.
RureoobD, Aug. 14, 1851.
Messrs. Ebitors:—l have recently noticed
several articles in the Disunion papers, rela
tive to McDonald’s prospects in this county,
that are calculated to create false impressions.
I think I haven right to know something about
the people of Walker, and if I am not more
deceived than I have ever been in any political
calculation, Cobb will recoive a majority of at
least four hundre 1 votes here. Col. Stiles has
been speaking here, aided by a multitude of
" picked up ” stump orators, who, I can as
sure you, are doing the Union cause much
more good than harm. lam now, and have
been, since I was capable of forming an opin
ion upon such subjects, a strong “ Southern
Hights man,” and as such I shall support Cobb
for Governor, and shall do all that I can to
secure bis election. I have known him too
long to believe that he is any thing but an ar,
dent friend to the South, and I know, if he is
elected, that he will so prove, should an emer
gency arrive to call forth an action upon the
subject. But I ales know that he is opposed
to demolishing the magnificent fabric of our
government for trivial causes. Our country
must necessarily, in its varied agricultural,
commercial and manufacturing relations give
rise to a multiplicity of conflicting interests,
which can only be adjusted upon correct prin
ciples bv compromises. The history of our
government has been a history of compromises
from its foundation down to the present time.
The compromise now before the country, to
the provisions of which Mr. Cobb wishes to
adhere, was the result of wise heads and pa
triot hearts combined, for the purpose of en
deavoring to allay the sectional tempest that
menaced to overwhelm us. He sanctions that
compromise for the reason that it “ bears heal
ing on its wings,” and assuaged the fearful
storm, once so terrific in its aspect. In that
be will be sustained by the people of Georgia
in October next. Walker.
Meeting in Greensboro’.
At a public meeting of the citizens of Greens
boro’, called for the purpose of adopting the
most suitable measures to keep the Small Pox
from spreading, the following preamble and
resolutions were passed, viz:
Whereas, reliable information has been brought to
us, that the Small Pox is prevailing in the vicinity of
Woodville, (in thia county) and in Oglethorpe, <ur
neighboring county ; and as we deem it not only the
part of prudence, but likewise of duty, to take every
precaution against the attack of this loathsome and
fatal disease, be it therefore—
Resolved, That we adept the first resolution of the
Lexington meeting, to wit: “ Thit we recommend
to this community to avoid all persons and places
where the least probability may exist of infection, and
as far as practicable, to remain at home, and to Keep
their slaves at home.’ ’
Resolved. That we request all persons residing in
the infected region, to remain at home until the dis
ease has absied. , . „ . . .
Readied, That the Inferior Court be requeued to
use such measures as it may deem legal and proper,
to prevent the spread of due conUginn.
Resolved That we request the whole community
to fe Srthwitb vaccinated.
Resolved, That the Commissioners of the Town of
Greensboro’ be requested to act with ell the power
w ith which they are elothed, to prevent the intro
duction of this disease.
William W. D. Weaves, Ch*mn.
Andrew J. Shannon, See’y.
Death or the Rev. Da. Olin.—The New
York Commercial Advertiser of Saturday af
ternoon, says:
On the eve of going to press, the telegraph brings
us the melancholy intelligence that the Bev. Dr. Olin
died at six o’clock thia morning, at his residence in
Middlebury, Ct. W'e have not time, to-day, to ex
press the regret, which in common with the whole
Christian community, we cannot but experience on
the deeaaae o< this great and good man. adM