Newspaper Page Text
2
“ Bat the true barriers of our iibertv is tb’s coun
try are our State Governments, and the wisest con
servative P-wer ever contrived by man is th»t of
which our Revolution and pr- sent Government found
os p.-messed- Seven een uiatinct States amalgama
ted into one as to their foreign concerns, but stogie
and independent as to their internal administration.
-Vol. 4; Page 162.
Again he says:
«• The capital and leading cb’ect of t•« Constitu
tion was to leave with States all authorities which
respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to
the United Stales these which respected citizens of
foreign or other States, to make ua several as to our
selves, but one as to ail others.” —Vol. 4; Page 373.
Speaking of the State and Federal Govern
ments, he says:
«• They are co-ordinate departments of one simple
and integral whole.”
•« The one is the domestic, the other the foreign
branch of the same Government.”
“ These two sets of officers, each independent of
the other, constitute thus a whole of government for t
each State separately ”
These prove that Jefferson did not
th'nk that each State was fully sovoreif" and
independent, but that the people of the United
States were one sovereign people, exercising
a common or national sovereignty on ® L,e ;
nera* Government, for general or national pur
po.e. ; .nd particular or W .overeijnty, by
u many co ordinate, that i», Stat. Govern
menu, for particular or State purpo.e. « 8
there are Stales. 1< •"? Con.titution, as Jeffer
son rays, a m«lr®* ted the /« ver « ! S*' 9l ,nlo
one State to t» 9 extent of the vested powers,
then the people of this one Slate, tn their cha
racter of oneness, must be either dependent cr
sovereign. They are not dependent, because
every dependency mu-t have a sovereign, and
tbev have no sovereign, unless each 8 ate is
the' sovereign of the people of the United
States, as a whole, which is a proposition too
absurd to be argued, and which no body as
serts. The people of this one State, then, are
sovereign, for the accomplishment of all the ob
jects for which the Constitution made the one ;
and all the sovereignty which they possess in
their character of uni y, the States cannot
possess in tbe:r character of severalty. To say
otherwise, would be to assert that two rights
adverse to each other, may exist at the same
time, or that each of two authorities can, at
the same time, hold sole possession of an uadi
vided object.
Let me now turn you attention to the au
thority of a person who was once your e real
Apollo. But 1 will first ®My, that for the pur
pose of weakening the authori-y of Jackson,
it has been recently sa d that he issued two
proclamations, taking back iu the second the
principles which he had issued in the first.
You and I know this is not true. My recol
lection is, that there was an article published
in the newspap re which was said to be au
thorized by the President, and that its object
was to explain some parts of the proclamation
supposed to be arsonierstood or misrepre
sented. No one can believe that a Statesman
of Jackson's age and character, would, in a
solemn proclamation, discuss the fundamental
principles of the Uni 'D, and then change his
opinions in a few weeks.
In the proclamation it is said:
‘•The States severally have not retained their en
tire sovereignty. It has been shown tbit in becom
ing parts of a netior, not members of a league they
surrendered many of their ess*Dtial rights of sove
reigntv. The right to make treaties—declare war —
levy taxes —exercise exclusive judicial and legisla
tive powers— a ere allot them functions of sovereign
power. The States then for ell these important pur
poses were no longer sovereign.”
u How then can that Slate be said to be sovereign
and independent, whree citizens owe obedience to
laws not mide by it, and whose magistrates are
sw>>rn to disregard those laws when they come in
conflict with those passed by another. What shows
conclusively that the State cannot be said to have
reserved an undivided sovereignty, is that they ex
pressly ceded the right to punish treason; not trea
son against their ae t arate power, but .raason against
the United States. Treason is an offence against
sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the
power to punish it.”
“In support of Jackson's opinion, I will
refer you to the oath of allegiance prescribed
to the officer® ano soldiers of the army in 1802,
under the sanction of Jefferson :
“I A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will
tear true faith and allegiance to the United States of
America, and that I will verve them honestly and
faithfully against their enemies or whom
soever.”
Allegiance is due to sovereignty, and if the
United Stares as a whole are not a sovereign
power, men the Btam*men of .hose days cotn
tnit ed a gross blunder, when they pul the
army under au oa’h of allegiance to sovereign
ty that had no existence. This for n of lhe
oath has been changed, to the present form to
support the Constitution, which is more plain
and comprehensible to common minds.
The oath to •opport tbe Conslitu ion, plain
as it seems to be, has rec ived a modern con
stroction. In the opinion of the Secession par
ty, when a citizen swea-s that he will support
the Constitution of the United States the oath
means that he must suppor it so long as it
ne * no support 4 but il lhe State, (provided
it Ik South of aud Dixon’s line) pro
posv, to overturn it, he must help her do it.
One of the Popes of Rome, in olden lime,
claimed it as being his right and io his power,
to release a mao from the obligations of an
eatb; indeed, from any moral onhgati n ; and
what was called an Indulgence was Ireq ien'iy
issued to authorize a person to commit mur
der or any crime, without sin or incurring
moral guilt. So, according to the doctrine of
the Secee-rion party, a State can, in the exer
cise of her sovereign po.ver, release a citizen
from bis oath lo sapport the Constitution, and
grant him an Indulgence to commit treason
against the nation without gu It. The condi
tion on which the Pope granted his Indul
gence, was a good round »um of monty ; the
condition on which the sovereignty of a State
may grant this la .ulgence, is Secession from
the Union.
I now come to the internal evidences of the
Constitution by which lam to establish my
propu<«niu(>, WUMA 1«, Uiai uie 3iaic» severally
are not fully soverei o, nut that <he S'ates in
their united Chirac er constitute a nation
which is sovereign to the fall extent of the
delegated powers.
What is the difference between a federal
Union and a national Vattol in his
work on the law of nations says, that seven!
•oveieign nations or Slates may unite under
one common Government, each retaining al!
its sovereignty, and then they form a federal
republic. But it is e a sential to the eiiitenc® of
each a republic, that each Sta’e retain ail her
sovereignty and that the common authority
hold each, a® a sovereign, responsible forth i
faithful observance of the compact of uni *n
ani observance •<* the laws, and nut individ
uals But when the compact of unianis such
that it establishes a common authority, which
is made supreme iu every SlMe, ard holds in
dividuals and not Slates, reeponrble for ’he
observance of tbe compact aud obedience to
the law, wi-h power to enforce obedience in
cespite cf S'ate authority, and to punish citi
sens of every SiMe lor treason agairiNt itself,
then the union k na ional and not federal
In a federal Union, the Government is one of
severe gn Siaie®, each acting iu her sovereign
capacity. Iu a national Union the Govern
ment is a Government of tbe people, wherein
bo Sta’e acts in her capaci y of sovereign.
Treason is a crime which can he committed
against sovereign authority on'y; but treason
•an be committed against the United State® ;
therefore the United Slates must possess sove
reign authority.
The Constitution authorizes foreigner® to be
oalurslißed under the law of 1802 which re
ceived the eanotion ofjtflarson A foreigner,
who emigrated to one of our territories, might
then be naturalized without ever having put
his foo*. in any one State. He would re
nounce the paramount allegiance which he
•wed Co his natural sovereign, and transfer it
to tha United State® ;ha take® the oath ol alle
giance lothem ; paramount allegiance can be
doe to sovereign authority only. This para
mouit allegiance must be due to the United
State- as a nation, or it must be due to them
severally. It cannot be due to them eeverally,
because he is not a citizen of any State and
none but a citizen of a State can owe allegi
ance to that State. It is impossible that para
mee«4 allegiance can be due to more than one
sovereign at the same time. There mav be
an inferior allegiance, such an in feudal times
the tenant owed to hi® itmr ediate lord, while
paramount allegiance was due to the king
There may be divided allegiance; such acm
Ben of a Blate owe® to the reserved sove
reignty of hie State aud to the vented lore
roignty of tbe United States, but paramount
allegiance cannot be due to two or more co
equal sovereigns possewing the tame attri
butes of sovereignty. Paramount allegiance
mean® tha highest allegiance: now, paramount
allegiance cannot be due to Georgia and to
each of the other States at the same time by
the fore : grer. To say so would be to say,
that It ere ia an all* glance which is higher than
that which is highest, which is absurd This
r ore’*ner, tuereloie. must owe al.egiance to
the United States as aeuvereign ua.ion.
The same may be »a<d ol the Mexicans,
who ii hab.t New Mexico, and who were
made citizens of the United States, by the
treaty with Mexico They are not cit aens
of any one Bute ; they have never been in
any State ; they owe to no individ
ual State; yet they are citisen®of the Unfed
States, and owe allegiance to some sovereign
Power; and a® that Power canuot be any one
Slate, it must be ail the State® in their nauona'
■Bit).
li Mr. Jefferson wa« not ritht. when he
•aid that lhe Couautu ion ama'gamaied the
S’B e® into one State for certain objects; f
the United States be not a sovereign na: on to
the extent that they were thus amalgama*ed ;
then, 1 a.«k you. in what condition are the peo
ple of the D strict ot Columbia? They owe
no allegiance to lhe District; that is not
eovemgn; they owe n.v allegiance to the
government; that i® but the agent us a sov
•reign; they owe no aileg’snee to any State ;
they are etna n® of no individual State; are
they a nou-deacripl claw of people; citizens
without a country—sutjecta wi host a ®ove-
ia .be itcood article of the Artklee of
Ceofederauor, it ie dechred mat each S:a<e
r«ta>M all na aorereifoiy, and all powers coi
delegated; but in the Coomtuuon it i, not
provided tha each State retains all her aove
reigni,. while it is provided that a!l powers
not delegated, are reserved to lhe Slat's
Wbjdid the Convention insert the one and
act the other ta tie Constitution f The
answer >a plain: th?y did no: it tend that a
State should retain all her sovereignty, but
did intend that the powers not delegated
aheuld be reserved.
I think it bas been abundantly proven, that
a State ss rot luily .overeign s but dial the
United States are a KaUon. sovereign to the
•iteut of tbe vested powers and tber.f re th.
doctrine of the right of seeeaaon by virtue of
undivided eov.reignty is no; tree.
Lot bi now turn more directly to tbe Joe
trio, of sreassvea The hts'enaa to wnom
1 have repeatedly referred, says it was a< ved
aths New York Convention.
•• Thai there .Kiild be reserved to the Si •of
New York, a right io -z’i.'Adrure tron tbe
V.roa. slier a certain number oi y era, ■ ihe
amtndmrn'e |rvp»ei • ould previous'v been tit
tsd to ■g. ser. I G u.snnon. Th • sweon, ho. er
waaoes. ... (VuL Z. p. 281.]
Tfcb urjeratieo u .trrsauutiis, that the >
I York Convention did not thir-k a State had a
■ right to secede, and did not wish i* to have.
One of the resolutions of the Nashville Con
vention ia as follows :
“ Resolved, That the Union cf the States is a
union of equal anl independent aovereign'ies, and
that the powers delegated to the Federal Govern
ment, te resumed by the sev ral States, when
ever it may seeui to them proper and necessary.
You assert the same doctrine »« your recent
letters; but Mr. Ca'houn, in a speech de leer
ed by him in the Senate, said that
‘•Such resumption “V. *com“unily
‘ ili — indi ’ idu
ally.”
You and the Nashville Convention say tba»
a 8 ate ha« a right lo r « 9 ume the delegated
ert Mr. Calhoun says this would be a
bJeTch of her compact; then putting your
doctrines together, and we have the novel
principle asserted that a State has a right to
viola e her compact Gen. Jackson, tn my
opinion, takes the correct view of this subject;
in his Proclamation he says :
“ The Constitution cf the United States then,
formsa Government, no. a league, and whet er it
be formed by compact between the States, or in any
other manner, its character is the same. It is a
Government in whhhali the people are represented,
which operates directly on the people individually,
not upon the States—t »ey retained all the powers
they did nut gra-.t. But each State having express
ly parted with so many powers aa to constitute
jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot
irorn that period possess any right to secede, because
such secession does not break a league, but destroys
the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is
not only a breach which would result from the con
travention of a compact, but it is an offence against
■he whole Union. To say that any State may at
pleasure sece Je from the Union, is to say that the
United Stat-a are not a Nation ; because it would be
i solecism to contend that any part of a nation might
dissolve i s connexion with the other parts, to their
injury or ruin, without committing an offence. Se
cession, like any other revolutionary act, may be
morally justified by the extremity of oppression ;
to call it a Constitutional right, is confoun ling the
meaning of terms, and can oily be done through
gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to
assert a right, but would paua; before th*y make a
revolution or incur the penalties consequent ou a
failure.”
“ Men of the best intentions and soundest view?
may differ in their construction of some parts of the
Consti uikn; but there are others cn which dis
posal naio reflect! >n can leave no doubt. Os this
nature appears to ba the assumed right of secession.
It rests as we have seen, on'he alleged undivided
sovereignty of a State, and on their having fort ed in
the r sovereign capacity, a com r act which is cal ed
the Constitution, from which because they mide it,
they have the right to recede. Both of these posi
tions are erroneous.”
This was Jackson’s opinion. Your opinion,
as expressed in your letter of tbe 3d July last,
to Cantrell, is juat tbe reverse. You say,
M A State, then, in my j idgment, has the right to
secede from the Union. Tha people of the seceding
State alone, in their sovereign capacity, have the
right to determine on the ne .easily of its exercise.”
In that same letter you say :
“ Tbe States nor the people thereof, no where re
nounced the right of re assuming lhe portions of their
sovereignty which they had con ce i«d in the Consti
tution, whenever the conditions o' the giant were
broken, ot wh ; ch they had not paxted with the right
to judge for themselves.”
And again, in that letter, you say that by
virtue of this right of Secession, tbe people of
a State—
“ May, in their sovereign capacity, depart in
pea*e, without revolution, without war, without the
shedding of blood.”
Putting al) your doctrines together, I mean
yours and those o' your party, including Mr.
Calhoun, and we find the following principles
asserted, to wit:
lat. A sovereign Sta;e has the right to violate the
compact. You say a State ba® tha right to secede ;
and Mr. Calhoun says it would be a breach cf her
compact
2d. When two or more parties eater into a com
pact, an u one party has 'be right input his construc
tion ujon it, and decide when it is I Token; and his
judg’’ ent is conclusive upon all the ot ler parlies.
3d. If a party voluntarily enter into a compact,
he has the right to withdraw from it at pleasure, and
as a consequence of this principle, if he entered into
the compact under duress, he is bound by it.
4th. A S.ate, by virtue of her sovereignty, may
ov-inurn th® Government without revolution.
s<h. When a party enters into a contract by
which he conveys away a r-ght, he can resume it
without regardto the other party, provided there is
no express agreement that he shall not resume.
6th. Two parties can noten’er iotoa compact that
shall perpetually hind them unless it is expressly
agree I that it shall.
This i®. certain y, a new law of contract. It
has long been a part of international law, that
when two sovereign St®te® or rations, enter
into a compact, it is perpetually binding on
both, unless its duration is limited by i;s terms:
for example, if two naiions enter into a treatv
by which it is agreed that the goods, wares and
merchandise of either shall be received in’o
lhe port® of the other on terms of the most fa
vored nations, this treaty would bind both par
lies without limitation of time, if there is no
thing in i s terms to limit it. There is not iing
in the con®tituiional compact which limits it®
dura’ion. it is t erelore binding without bmita
uon of time. The title of lhe Articles of Con
federation is in these words :
“ Articlbbof Confederation aid Perpetual
Uniob.”
In the 13. h article it is declared that—
“Tbe Union shall be Perpetual.”
And io lhe ratifying pan, each State did
solemnly plight and engage her fai’h,
“That the Union shall bs Perpetual.”
You will observe that thi® perpe uity is
guarantied to the Union, not to lhe Confe iera
.ion; that might be dissolved, but the Union
continue under some new ties. The preamble
tolhe Cons’iiution ia in these words, to wit:
11 We, the people of the United States, in order to
form a more ;<erleot Union, er.al libh justice, ensure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote 'be general welfare, and secure the bles
erdain awd eeraWieh this Conwrfttttton fortbfl ffßlltW"
States of America.”
The first object proposed is to form a more
perfect Union. Now, er, let me candidly ask
you, do you believe (hat the wise men who
made and adopted lhe Constitution, could
think that they would form a more perfect
Union by substituting a contingent Union un
der the Constitution for the perpetuity of the
confederation, by releasing each Siate from her
pledge of faith to maintain a perpetual Union,
and leaving her nt liberty to secede at p'easure
givirg u d fit I may so speaks a foe simple
title to the Union for a tenure at will ?
It ia not expressly declared inthe Consti’u
lion that the compact whali perpctuall/ bind the
parties, but internal onal law sa« s so. At.d
moreover, such a declaration would have been
out of place, a-the Union which was formed i®
I’Biioual, and c*nnot be dissolved but by rev »-
Uon. which bids defiance to Constitutions and
Government®.
I aiu sure you will noc admit the proposition
that one S a’c may rig ifully be expelled from
lhe Union against her wil , by the other State®
at their pleasure. Yet there i® no difference in
principle between this proposition and yours,
that one State st pleasure may secede from the
other® against their will. If one S:ate has a
right thus to secede from thirty, the®e must have
the same right to secede from her, unless lhe
sovereignty of one Stale is superior to tho
sovereignty of thirty ; or unless one parly to a
compact has m re right to judge of it than
thirty hive; or unless a S;a’e, when she acta
singly, ha® rights which she Insea by acting iu
concert with others, which last position you
will not asHume. a® you are inclined to a South
ern Coi feueracy, which cannot be effected
wi.hout ac ncert he ween n t e Southern States
to secede from the Northern.
The Union party admit that a State may se
cede, but m t upon constitutional principle®.
Secession is rev lution, and can be justified
upon those principles on’y which justify revo
lution. If a State secede, she throws off con
stitutional restraini® aud acts in defiance of it®
requirement®. She contends that those wh’’
were as much under constitutional obligations
as she, have violated them ; that wrongs have
been itifl cted on her by them, which abrogate
the Cvnstrution, and throw her back not up
on sovereignty, but upon lhe natural,
able right® of man She doe® not prerend that
in seceding, she rets in accordance with the
Constitution, but in disregard of a brokt n com
pact. The Constitution ha® nothing tn it which
provides for it® uwn over hrow. Ii does not
provide for the secession of a State from the
Union, but does provide for lhe admission of
one into it. Wi.atwa® intended, is provided
tor; what wh® not in ended, is not provided
for.
You conten i that secession is not revolution;
that a State may *• depart in peace ” at her
pleasure, without violating an- provision ot
he Constitu ion. You were President of the
Nashville Convention and appoved its proceed
mgs. What plan aid this Convention propose
lor secession withoot violating the Cons ru
lion T That tbe Sou hern Slates should meet
iu Congress aud agree to form a Southern Con
federacy, or enter i:. to some other compact wiib
each other I® that ia accordance with that
provision in the Constitution, which says “ No
Stale shall enter into any agreement or com
; act wi h another Siate,” without the const nt
ol Congress T Aud by vir’ue of whu authority
are these things to be done ? By virtue of
sovereignty ! '1 hat eminent writer. Vatrel,de
fine® a vereignty to be public authority; but
with your tarty, the word has a CMballistic
uiesmng; or >ather it i® a Delphic Orach,
which mean® whatever is des red. And among
other things, h mean* that if Sist® sovereignty
is thrown over the people, they can make war,
or do anything else against th® United States,
without persona re>p-H:sibiii’y.
In the hand® ot the s cession par’y. State so
vereignty is “a matked battery,” behind which
disunionists may standard t.re at the Palladium
of our libett es, as Wast ington calls tbe Umon
In the hands of the Union party. S.ate sover
e;gn y ie a political sanctuary, belore which
patriots® and to deiei d it.
Let me now present the subject to you in
another view. I offer the 'ohuwiug proposi
tion fur your considers ion :
Ist I’poa whaterer principle any one Sta'e may
rigbtfa’ly secede from the Uckyq ; upon that same
pi me-pie every other Stats may nyhifui'y secede.
<d. It upon tbe principle propreed, every State
cannot rightfully recede, then no one Scats can
rightfully secede.
You must admit these propositions, or deny
the co-tq allity of the States.
Your o.oc nne is that a State can. at any
nme, resuue rhe powers delegaied to the
United States ; that she is fully sovereign, and
by virtue of tha’ full sovereignty, has a rift:
io secede from the Union at pleasure.
I think it can be demonscrated. that none of
the oew Sta es. which were formed out ot lhe
Terri one® can possibly secece upon these
principle*. Florida is one us the new St t*s.
aud before she was a Stare, she wa® a depea
dem Territory- She could not make law® tor
her own government, except so far as Con
ere®-* gave audxnty ; and these laws, wbeu
ma • w ®re inoperaure nd Congress approv
* 1 s*°* I he u. a»a Terriior*. Florida pos
****ES?° at ail. Wh-n she
• for .d mw ., u 0 Cnwrew could bavt
«od k.p< a „ 1O , L . ril orlal eo „ d „
t.on o
Hbyibc to soveraigmy up th . aiomeDl
of h«r aJamioa, .bo couid del.g.i, Boat .
tori: wm u japosoibinty for tier u> d.i.g.t.
Uxu wcca «ko did bm f)—
There are no powers «>-»'ed in the United
States which Florida can returns, for she pos
Besses at this moment all the powers, which
she ever did possess; and it ia au mposs’bili
tv to resume a thing which she never had lhe
possession of, nor even the right of possession
She does nnt now, a*?d never did possess the
power to declare war ; make treaties, coin
money, and so on The powers which the
old States reserved, were vested in Florida
when ihe became a State ; and the powers
which the old States delegated to the United
Stars are withheld from her to tiiis day;
indeed, there is no authority upon earth to
invest her with the possession of these powers
without revolution. It folio ws, therefore, that
she is not now, as she never was, fully sove
reign It is impossible, then, that she can
rightfully secede from the Union, by virtue of
sovereignty, which she does not, and never
did possess. What has been said of Florida is
equally applicab'e to every other State which
was formed from a Territory. Then, as no
new Sta’e formed out of a Territory, can
take from the United States any power vested
in them, neither can any one of me old States
do it. Aa none of these new States can, in
the exercise of full sovereignty, secede from
lhe Union; neithercan an old State do it.
Your docrine of secession, therefore, cannot
be true.
According to ons of my propositions, the
orinciple upon which one State may rightfully
secede, every other State may secede. The
right to resist oppression, and defend our own,
belongs to every community. The new
States possess this right in as fu 1 perfection as
the eld States do, and in the exercise of this
righ’, (which when politically applied is some
times called the right of revolution) every
State may secede. Therefore the doctrine
of the Union party must be true.
There is a common error that the Govern
ment of the United States, is the agent of the
States severally; whereas, it is the agent of
the nation, that is, of that “one State” into
which Jefferson says the Constitution amalga
mated all the States for certain purposes.
That agent has been invested with powers by
the common consent of all the Sta’e®, and of
which no one State can direst it; and has
du tie* to perform which it cannot decline
Bat leaving the Government out of view, and
arguing the case upon your own doctrine, it
is easy to show, that you lav down a proposi
lion, and then contradict it by the conclusion
Your proposition is, in the language of the
Kentucky resolutions that in cases ol compact
“among parties having no common j »dge,
each has an rq :al right to judg* for itself, as
well of infractions as the mode and measure of
redress.” Your conclusion is, that if o”e
party does judge, lhe judgment is final and
conclude upon all other parlies: for .instance,
if South Carolina should say to the other
States, you have broken the Consiitutional
compact. Your proposition admits, but your
conclusion denies, to the other Stales, the right
to say, we have not broken the compact. If
South Carolina says, in my judgment secer
slon is my mode and measure of redress, and
1 will secede, then aga n, your proposition
admits, but your conclusion demes to the
other States the right to say ; if you attempt
to secede, you will violate your compact with
us, to our injury, perhaps lo our ruin ; there
fore, we will compel you to keep your com
pact. That I have given lhe true construe
tionto the Kentucky resolutions, above quoted,
which was drawn by Jefferson, may be in
ferred from this, that in his letter to E. Car
rington, he says, “when two parties make a
compact, the e results each a power of
compelling the ether to execute it.” This is
the right of wit protection, which extends
beyond So far did Pres dent
Monroe extend this right, that he announced
to the world, that no European monarch would
be permitted to esiaolish acu ony upon the
American Continent, because such a monarch!
cal establishment might endanger our Repub
lican institutions.
I believe it has long been determined in the
minds end feeling* ol ihe American people,
padicularly of the Sou hern oeople, not to
permit Spain tosed? Cuba to any natio i pos
seFs ng a strong Naval force : and especially to
Great Britain. The proximity of Cuba to the
Southern States ; its commanding position ;
the existence of slavery there, and the aboli
tion propensities of Britain; would make the
possession of that island by a nation, eo pow
erful upon the land and the seas, menacing to
the Union, and eminently perJous to the
South.
If the great law of self-preservation would
justify un in taking such a position, would it not
a'so justify the Union in resisting the secession
of a State, However sovereign a Sia e msy
bn. Spain and Britain are no less sovereign.
Would the cession oi Cuba imperil the Union
more than rhe secessi >n of a State ? Tenne«-
see is in the bosom of the Republic, if she
were to secede, many evils, known and un
known, would result to th** co-States. Sho
iivght then erect a throne and phee a monarch
upon it; an imperium tn imperio. Would
this not be more perilous to our republican
institutions, than a monarchical colony one or
•wo thousand miles off? If Alabama and
Louisiana secede, then as foreign nations,
they would command the mouth of the Mis
siauppi. the great artery of the West, and ih?
only outlet to the oceau for her vast commerce.
Would not this endanger the Western Slates
in the great vail y of the Mississippi, more
than the possession of Cuba by a fore'gn na
tion I If Alabama and Georgia secede ; then
Florida would be geographically separated
Nome huu Ireda of miles, from the Union with
which she is polit cally united. Must Florina
and her sister States subni ssively fold their
arms, and say. Thy will be done, O, thou
Sovereigns ! If South Carolina secede, then
-<he might, (rs some of the people there have
already intimated) throw herself into the arms
of Great Britain In that event, we might
soon see British cannon planted upon 'he
hill at Hamburg, and pointed at Augusta ;
while the lone Star of ‘he State dimly beamed
l .u - «iue. periiuuß, oenea i» •nu
’' CbtrM the American Eagle en(fure fKe-stgTHTn
peace f Woo d the people of Georgia have
no right to resist the display of a foreign
upon the banki of the Savannah ?
The right of a State lo recede by virtue of
her sovereignty, is no belter right than an in
habitant of a city has to burn bis house, by
virtue of his fee simple title lo it. And the
right of the United Sidles to present lhe
Sec* a.«ion of a State, is rhe same which the
o her nhabitants o r the city have to prev. nt the
incendiary from oeuing fire to his house, and
•hereby wrap (heir own in flames
If the doctrine of Secession is carried into
practice it is ru nous, and i " then y is dan
gerous. It teaches that the United Stites are
■o many countries united under a league,
that there is no common authority to which all
lhe people owe allegiance, hut a State is fully
sovereign io which the ci'izens owe undivided,
paramount allegiance. The man who hjlds
•his doctrine may feel very patriotic towards
his own Sta’e, but his pitnotism cannot em
brace the Un on Patriotism is lhe love of
one’s country, and he cannot look upon the
United Slates as his country, who does not
believe that they constitute a country or na
tion, nor upon the people as his countrymen
who owe no allegiance to his country. He
ran feel, therefore, no patriotism for the
Union no fraternal sympathy for the people.
What has b^er, the efT.-.ct of this doctrine
upon South Carolina! Laying aside her in
terrst real or supposed, her feeling for the
Southern Slates is cold as Parian marble, and
for the Northern, colder than an iceberg; bu’
fur her sovereign self, warmer than the sun
that shines» pon her.
These States cannot be held together by
ar i les and navies nor by the moral obligation
of observing compacts. The enduring ties of
ths Union are interest and patrio i«m. Your
doctrino breaks 'he tie of patriotism and
makes that of interest insecure-
If a man of the Secession party and a man
of lhe Union par y were to stand together up
on a mountain height in Georgia, the former
migh say in accordance with his doctrine,
See Tennessee »n the North and Florida iu
the South, the Sasannah in the East and the
Chatahoocbee m the West, these are the
boundaries of my country. The States be
'ondare no part ol mv country, nor are the
people thereof my countrymen.
Tha Un on man, in accordance wi h his
doctrine might reply if you wish to see the
boundaries of my country, behold the Cana
dian Lakes in lhe North, and the gu f ot
Mexico in the South, the A lantic ocean in the
East, and lhe Pacific in lhe Wes . Wnbin
these vast limits, the wide spread valleys, the
everlasting hills, the cloud capped mountains,
every fool of land and of wa'er is a pin of
my country, and all the mil'ions of peop'e
•‘woo walk beneath the tky ot Franklin, upon
’he land of Washington” are my courtrytnen.
If ever 1 raise my arm to strike down the
Star Spangled banner encircled ia all the gio
rios of the Union, it will b* when the gloomy
alternative is presented me, of suffering the
Star of Georgia to besuuk in degradation and
darkness, or to shine lonely in its own firma
ment. Examin xr.
Revolution In Mexico.
The Galveston News of the 29 h ult. after
givirg some items of Mexican news says:
Dr. J. B. Miller, who came pas-enger cn
the Uncle Bill, informs us that lhe news of a
general revolutionary outbreak in the States of
Tamau’ipas and Nt-w Leon was hourly looked
for when he lei*. Brownsville, and that .he m-n
who were concentrated near Rio Grande Cin
were reported to be principally Rangers, who
wera a: ached to the companies that were
recently disbanded on our Western frontier.
Os these th<*re were near 200 enrolled under the
command of Carabsjal. who were only await
ing the proper fme to cross the river and
participate in the revolutionary movement.
I' appears that no o her Mexican State than the
two already mentioned was expected to
engage in ibis revolution ; but every confi
dence was entertained that they would succeed
to the fullest extent of their purpose, wuh little
or no resistance on the part of the Federal
troops In fact, if resistance were made, their
numerical strength was so insignificant, and
they were posted at points so widely asunder,
that to accomptiM) iheir defeat was consid'
sred nothing more than mere “child’s play.”
This movement has been designed for some
tine, which we have before givee lutimalion
us, ard ail that has delayed a dsmoustation
un’il now was a determination on tne part of
re prime movers not •*> attempt a revolution
without being fully prepared to consummate it.
From ail that we can ga her, the p’ans of ope
ration have been well concocted by able
military men and staunch patriots ; and if what
is said io relation io the preparations ot the
revolutionists, iheir strength, &c.. be only
naif correct, there can be ben lit ie doubt of
their success.
From the informs ion we first received of
ths purposed revolution, we were of the opi
nion that it would stand a bet Her chance of a
favorable cosciueion to me revolung party,
han any of tne puerile and ill timed attempts
o revolutionize wh.ch had previously been
made in that quarter. That upinicn was
oased upon the isc: that they were, for the
first t.me, deliberately and judiciously project
in* their p'ans of operation, without any in
tention of going precipitately to work, before
everything was arranged for that purpose. We
ax enow mere strong iy impressed wuh abe
lief in the success cf the movement than we
were before, from the suggestions that are con
fidently made that the Texas Ringers, who
were recently disbanded, hive enlisted in the
cause. We are personally requainted with
many of those gal ant young men, and know
that they are the very “boys” for such an ad
venture. All that will be necessary to ensure
success to the revolutionists, with such reliable
auxiliaries as Texas Rangers are. will ba deter
mination of purpose, concert of ac*ion, and,
above all, rigid fidelity in every instance and
under all circums ances to their chivalrous
allies.
We have not learned who &ll ‘he principal
leaders in this movement are; but the name
of Gov. Cardenas, of Tamiulipas. occupies
a conspicuous place in the list, which is suffi
cient to give character lo ihu enterprise. By
the next arrival from the West we shall expect
something more definite.
THE WEEKH
CIIROMCLE & SENTINEL
BY WILLIAM S. JONEF.
TWO DOLLARS P Kll ANNUM,
INVARIABLY IN ADVASCI.
DAILY, TRI-WEEKLY dt WEEKLY.
Officein Railroad Dank Building,.
DAILY PARER.perannum (i.nlb, mail,) •’ DC
TRI WEEKLY " “ 40“
WEEKLY PAPER “ a 01>
AUGUSTA, GA.-"
WEDNESDAY MO LINING, ■■ SE FT, 10.
SAMVEL BARNETT, Aasoclate Editor.
Cott.titutlonal Union Nomination.
FOR GOVERNOR.
IION- HOWELL COBB
CONGRESS
For Representative from Bth. District i
HON. UP BERT TOOMBS.
Mr. Toombs’ Appoiwtmxhts. —The Hon.
Rubxrt Toombs will address toe peoph as
folio m;
At C vington, Faiday Sept. 12.
“ Atlaßta. HqxMhy n gkt, sept. 8.
jFarffc* Os Hullech candy m
requested by Striven county to meet the 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 those friendly to the Union will nominate a
Candidate for the Representative branch of the State
Legislature for Scriven county. Come one, come
all, to save the Union.
Many Union Mzn.
Sylvania, Scriven Co., Ga., Aug. 13. au!9-3
Union papers plesse copy.
YT Free Dinner to Kir. Toombs In
Burke. --Tse Constituticnal Union Party of Burke
County, will give the Hou. Robs ar Toombs u Freb
Barbbcuk, at B <ik Camp Cross Roads, on SATUR
DAY, the 20;h insL The citizens es Jefferson,
Emanuel and Burke counties are respectfully invited.
As ample arrangements will be made for the accom
modation of rhe Lidies the Committee heps to be
honored with their presence.
The Ho«i. A. H. Stzpbens,Charles J. Jenkins,
Gbo. W. Cbawpjrp, and A. J, Miller, are expected
to be present.
53” The Commute invite Free disouseion.
James A. McGruder, Wright Murphree,
Wm. C. Musgrove, Calvin McCullers,
George Price. R W. Belt,
Henry W. Jones, Wm. NNSWorthy,
Jeremiah Inman, R >bert F. Connelly,
Th >mas Peirce, He.iry P Jones,
Jams-* Gnffin Horman WiLiams.
T. A. Parsuus,
Committee.
JjpWe are requested to s’.ate that ANDREW
J. MILLER, Esq., will address the ci'izens of Co
lumbia county, at Appling, on TUESDAY NEXT,
the 16'h inst.
Cub'Yii lutcligeuce.
Knowing the doep anxiety of the public to
rend every thing from Cuba, we have during
the exci einent, with a view of satisfying a
very natural desire, devoted much of our
space to the subject of Cuban affairs. It is
proper however to remark, that we place very
little confidence in much that is publish J.
This incredulity ie based upon the far (hat
the sources of information are very r. .ertain
and often unreliable, and the ev jnces so
abu dant before our eyes of a A- position on
the part of the Cuban sympathisers in this
country, to magnify and misre; resent every
thiug, as their feelings or inclinations eugges
ted.
Among other statements, which we regard
as fabulous, are those in reference to the pris
oners taken with Lt fez— -one saying they
were condemned to ’he Spanish Mines for life,
or a term of years, and another that they hai
been executed. Our reason for disbelieving
both these statements is the fact that the Capt.
General of Cuba published over his own sig
&&Ii August, a Proclamation, of which the fU*
luwin? is a correct translation.
Now if the prisoners were captured on the
29th, they could not be either executed or sen
lo lhe mines without the perpetration of the
most perfidious and degrading fraud imagina
ble.
We are therefore of opinion that they have
not only not been executed or condemned to
service in the mines of Spain but that they
will be returned »o this country. The Prods
mation is in thene words :
“His Excellency proc'aims that the major part o
the pirates who had invaded the Island, uaviDß been
ez’eiinmate I through cha repeated and valiant hh
aaulis us th® army, an well as through the deeded
and active co-o eration of the country peopla; and
consideiing, liacwiae, that by th) unanimous confes
sion of all t oae who bad been taken and shot, they
had been deluded and deceived i.i being made to
believe thar the country had called for them, th if
lhe army would make common ca tee with them,
and that victory would be easy and certa.n; feeing
of opin on too, that in noothar mode could he mul
ritrde have been induc’d t embark in this enter
prise, and furthermore, that public vengence
been satisfied by the severe punishments already
inflicted, and that buinioi y now requires an exhi
bition of clemency—it is decreed:
“ st. That quarter will be grin'ed to any indi
vidual balo-ging to tne band of L p®z, who may aur
tender or ue ap; rehended by the army or the conn
try people, within the pace of Cur days following
the promulga'i n of this j rociamaiijn— after which
the general order of the 20th Ajr:l last will remain
in full fores and vigoi.
“2d. Any such individual, or individuals, who
may be attached to the band of the madman Lop z,
will be exempt from all punishment and will ba re
stored lo their country—if a foreigner.”
Miaatsstppi--The First Gan.
By telegraph c >the Charleston Courier, we
have returns of it e election he'd in Mississippi
on Monday and uesday last. Ist and 21 inst.,
for members of the Sta’e Convention from
thirty-six couutis —two thirds of the State—
which show the following gratifying resu't.
The thirty six counties e ect 71 delegates, of
theae G 4 are Constitutional Union men, and 7
are ° Disunionists.” “ Secdss : onistn” or” Fire
Eate s.” This renders it certain that the Union
party have carried the State by an overwhel
miog majority, and that Mr. Rhett's bug'e
man, Quitman, will be in a hopeless minority
in lhe contest with Foote for Governor of that
State. This is glory enough for one day.
The Union men of Mirs., adopted tbe Geor
gia Platform and maintained their position
thereon mor gai'an ly, while the Disunionists,
like their allies in Georgia, were for any thing,
every thing and nothing long They could not
deceive lhe intelligent and patriot.c voters of
that State. Ihe iseues therefore were precise
ly tbe same as those now before the people in
Georgia, and lhe result in this State will be
quite as overwhelming to the disorganiser* and
agitators. Georgians, the whole country looks
to you to respond in the angusge ot Freeman
and as becomes you, to your daughters, Ala
bama and Mississippi.
We are iod-bted to our much esteemed
friend, that sterling old Patriot, Judge John
Moore, formerly of Lexiog on. Geo., for the
following details of the result in Lowndes Co.
which, we judge from lhe letter accompany
ing it. filled lhe gallant old republican’s I eart
to overflowing. He is always to 5a found on
the side of .iberty aud the Constitution.
L9ng life to mm. and may an all w se Provi
dence vouchsafe that the evening of bis well
spent life may be as brilliant as his early man
hood was d s i.iguished for devotion to the
institu..ons secured by the blood and treasure
of his revolutionary sires.
Four of the candidates Cobb, Billups,
Harris and Youso. will be recognised as
Georgians, formerly from Oglethorpe and
Wilkes Couaties •
Joseph B. Cobb, Union, 744
Tho.uasC Bliiaps, “ 741
Barksdale, “ 741
W. L. Harris, Secessionist, 569
Geo. H. Yonng, •• 523
■ ■' Wynne. •• 554
Tb s election will produce a greater num-
ber ot converts from the secession ranks in
that State, to the cause of Union, than all the
arguments that could hav s been addressed to
them. Tbe most rab»d fireeaters of a few
months ago will now adect to become tbe
most ardent friends of the Union, but they
cannot gammon tne people. They bave seen
iheir tracks and will repudiate them and their
principles as enemies to the government of
their fathers, and therefore unworthy io be
trusted.
Sentenced to be hums.—Jas. A. Jobsson,
a youth, was found guilty of murder at the
late session of lhe Snoerior Court ia Baldwin
county, and sentenced to be hung oa the 24. n
October next.
Col. Henry L. Benning.
This gentleman has been nominated, and
has accepted the nomination of lhe Disunion
ists of tbe third district, as their candidate for
Congress. In announcing his nomination, we
took occasion to allude to his advocaey, last
year, of Disunion and a southern Confederacy,
and to express the opinion, that unless we
were mistaken inthe man, he would notnow dis
avow those That he continues to
avow tfaoin, ws haveabundant evidence from lhe
no ices of his speeches before the people of that
d net, b?ine extracts from which we propose to
auhju’n, with such comments as we deem ne
cessary. In a recent speech at Lumpkin,
Stuart county, says the correspondent of the
Columbus Enquirer:
“Col. Benning commenced hia by asserting
that the questions wh ch are now be ore the people
are not the same questions that were before tin in last
year. Thai he w.ia member of tbe Nishville Con
vention and recommended tbe holding of a Southern
Congress, and that if j t had met, and he had been a
member of it, h*' wqql.j have advised the formation
oi a Southern ConLderacy. He id not stale that
he abandoned this idea yet, but said that he was
upon the Georf»ia;platf ojrft - > it being the will of a ma
j rity of the pe< p’.e last year,—and be felt hirmolf
bound by that will, until— I suppose—he could change
it. He considered the Adjustment measures of Con
gress more unjust than the dumemoerment an 1 pani
lion of Poland by the combined powers of Austria,
Prussia and Ruasif That in 1843 he supported
Gen. Cass upm th® no i-intervint on principle, and
voted for him in tbe B< Itimore nominating Conven
ioo, and approved of ibe Resolutions of that Con
vention He denounced tbe Georgia Platform, as
’ eing coinmil ted to disunion up >n certain contingen
cies, which would inevitably happen in the course
us two or three years, one of which-the rep al of
'be Fugitive slave bill -he rid not consider a practi
cal question, and that tbe Southern Atlantic S ares
were not as much inreres’ed in its pr servati n as the
bordering slave States, and that it was of no benefit to
us I He said »hat Cuba would soon tpp’y for admis
sion into the Union, and that to refuse tier application
would be sufficient cause for disunion, according to
the Resolutions of <he Georgia Convention.
This is a pregnant paragraph. He adm ; ts
that he favored a southern Congress, designed
to estaoush a southern Confederacy, and on a
former occasion end perhaps on thb, he also
declared himself in favor of obliterating all
State lines and establishing a grand consolidated
government! as better calculated to subserve
'he rigbta/mterests and liberties of the people
confederacy of States And this is the
J&iididate of the ptfly who de-
ptfty the
Warty: When will wonders the hiato
of disunionists of Georgiaf Nor did
ne'biisavnw that he still favored the establish
ment of his grand consolidated southern Con
federacy.
He had the cool effrontery to deciare also
that be was on the Qeorgia platform, and yet
denounced the compromise as “mere unjuit
than tbe dismemberment of Poland, by the
combined powers of Austria, Prussia and Rue
via.” What a servile suomiasionist Col Bin
ning must be, to take bis position on the Geor
gia platform, which declares that the State can
acquiesce in the compromise, (a measure
which he regards unjust and monstrous)
wi*hout dishonor. Col. B. had forgotten
doubtless that the Convention that nominated
him, resolved lo acquiesce io tbe compromise
until it could be chaaged, and that tn his letter
ot acceptance he apprmed aid endorsed that
resolution. This is rhe position which ho oc
cupies on the Georgia Platform.
He was for non interventiou iu 1843, and
supported Gen. Casi, upon that principle, and
uow that he his obtained non intervention in
ibe adjustment, he is not satisfied. He was a
zeaLus advocate of lhe Clayton Compromise,
and with his party denounced ail who opposed
it as uneouud on ;he slavery question, and yet
he opposes the present compromise. We
suppose he was i r t<orant of the consequence
ol bis own policy. What a sagacious, far
•euing statesman!
Notwithstand.ng he i« on the Georgia plat
form he denounces it because it pledges lhe
State to disunion, if the Fugitive law be
repealed or essentially modified - Not as frank
and manly as bis friends Col. Stell and
Barksdale, who would vote for its repeal,
yet he considers it not a practical question, and
•he Southern A lantic Sta’es not much inter
ested in :t; heuce we suppose t e would be
pite inaiflerent on tbe subject of i s repeal
How very consistent! I revious to the ad
jastment, the absence of such a law was one
us the principal causes of grievance with lhe
vouthern and the refusal to enact it
by Congress, in their opinion, would be good
Ciuse for disunion ; and now they have got it,
its repeal will be a ma ter of little conse
quence. Another cause of objection to tha
Platform w is, that the refusal to admit a State
m'n the Union because of tha institution of
Slavery, was a contingency fur disunion,
h'traogo ti.at sue > objections shou d come from
a man who only lav: year favored disunion and a
southern Confederacy, and does not now disa
vow his predilect’on for the latter and asa conse
quence the former. Verily, Air Benninb oc
cupies a distinguished position on the Georgia
Platform.
“ He asserted tha' the Proclamation of 1832 was
written by Edward Livingston, and that Gen Jack
son signed it as President without ever having read
it —or knowing what was in it, and tbit he after
wards repudiated it. This was a very severe reflec
tion upon the sagaci'V, integrity and r atriotism of
Gen. Jackson. >uch a charge is win’ing in every
es-’en ial requisite cf truth to give it validity, —for
certainly a tn in must be very crelu’ous and enter
tain but a very poor opinion of Gen Jickson, who
can be made to believe, by bare assertion, that the
old Hero would have subscri *ed his Exec
utive document of such tremendo; s const q ienees
without h ving read it, or understandim? whit was
n it—it being undoubtedly 'be most important Exec
t-tivedo ument that ever emanated fntn an adtoinij
'ration since the ' inh of this G> vernin°nt. The
whole bisioiy cf Gen. Jackson’s life, from beginning
to end proves conclusively the futsi'y of (ha cli irt/e.
He wan equally severe upon the Democrane party ot
Ga. He said that they had lor a long 'ime
veers I think) known C« bb and Judge Lumpkin,
to be tinctured with tree soiii m and that the Chero
kee country was no as sound upon this subject as
-he might be. This was a hard lick upon the old
Jetnocrats who had supper ted Cobb aud I umnkin
fur < ffiee, and I don: see for my life how b's Demo
cratic friends here, can well digest this i»oriion of bin
speech, fur it directly charged ibcm, with having
knowingly and wilfullv supported and sustained a
free soder. He concluded by saying that the only
means of preventing South Carolina from goin? out
ol the Union, was to elect McDonald Governor.”
As to who wrote Geti Jackson’s Proclamation,
we of course do not know, nor is it important
at this p* riod of time ; it is suflioient that he ap
proved and signed it, and it is not even proba
ble that he did not earefu'ly scan so important
a paper. But that he ever “repudiated it,” we
know to be untrue, and no min is more familiar
with this tact than Mr. Benning, unless he in
wofuliy ignorant of a tranvacion, about which
he afl~ec:s to speak so authoritatively. Gen
Jackson never “repudiated' award ora sen
tence contained iu that proclamation; uo far
from it, ho distinctly reaffirmed it all—every
word of it, not only in the pr 3 .ended “Counter
in the editorial col'xnne of the
Globe, but also in his mersage to Congress in
which he asked for the passage of the Force
Bill for which Jjht Forsyth, Sr. voted. We
sp*ak advisedly, for we are aware that it
has been asserted that the editorial article in
the Globe of that day. which was inserted by
authority, and which the disunionists for effect,
call “General Jackson’s Counter Proclama
tion,“ repudiated or modified the Proclama
lion So far from its doing t ither. it reasserted
every principle, and was only designed and
intended to e&piaiti that certain pa-sages did
not autnorise tbeconstruction which had been
plarod upon them by certain politicians in
Virginia and e’-iwnere. This was all that
was intended by that editorial, and no impartial
man. wi > reads it carefully, will pretend to
assert that its does more, and we challenge
Mr. Benning to tbe proof.
We pass over 'Ge reflection cast by Mr
Bbvning on the fam*_>nd iu egrity of “Old
Hickory, ” sod invite lhe attention of the hardy
yeo aorvo r the Cherokee counties to lhe
charge a Bae against them of unsoun iness on
he southern q test on. Voters ofCherocee,
you owe it to y jurselves and to your section,
’.9 Bind mate yourselves against this foul asper
sion cut your loyalty to the South, and
you snould oot fail to overwhelm your tradu
cere.
Mr. Benning eoncludsd by reasserting that
piece of hignly concentrated peurility, that if
the people of Georgia wou d prevent South
Carolina from seceding, tnev mutt elect Mr.
Rhetts bogleman. Chirles J. McDonald!
Thus, while Mr. Rhett and his disunion
agitators and followers iu SoQ’b Caro'ina are
relying open the election of McDonald to
sustain that state in seceding, hie followers in
Georgia have lhe cool impudence te tell tbe
people, that 'he election of McDonald will
prevent secession by that State f
Alabama Legislature —Tne Florence
Gaxetie says tbe L*g:elature of Alabama is
composed in the Senate, of 24 Union men,
9 Secessionis’s; in the 63 Union men,
36 Secession's s. Majority of Union iten on
joint ballot 42.
This is truly a most extraordinary result un
der the circ imjtances, and con:lu?iveiy illus
trates the devotion of the people of Alabama
to the Constitutions and Union. Had die
Union party been properly organized with
proper nominations, they might easily have
elected a Governor, every member of Con
gress and four-fifths of ’he Legislature.
Thb Sugar Manufactubk —Tha Baton
Rouge Advicate learns tna: a citizen of that
p ace has di«eovered a new system for the
manufacture of sugar, by which he can, with
ordinary machinery now in use, make a sugar
perfectly white. Tbe molasses, which will be
in leas qualities than at present, will also be
changed into tha ordinary natural syrup.
Til? Issue«.--What are they!
Ist. The two parties n Georgia are undeni
ably at issue upon the character of the Cornyro
mite measures.
It may seem a work of supererogation to
prove this. But in dealing with the loaders of
tho Southern Rights party, there can be no
such thing as a work of supererogation.
The Georgia Convention, (whose platform
the Union Party adopts) asserted that Georgia
might “consistently with her honor, abide by
the general scheme of pacification?*
The Southern Kights Convention asserted
that “by the acts of the late Congress, known
as the Compromise measures,” the same
scheme of pacification above referred to, the
Sou hern States, (of which Georgia is one,)
“have bean degraded from their condition of
equality in the Union.”
The two parties th in are strictly and tech
nically at issue upon the character of the Com
promise measures, if language can make an
issue.
2nd. But wh le the Southern Rights party
Convention—their candidate for Governor—
their candidates for Congress, and their presses,
join issue every where wi h the Union party—
candidates and pres*, on this question of faM,
affect to consider its decision of no possi
ble practical importance. They assert that
while the character of the measures is acknow
ledged to be—the actios correspondent to
the decision of fact, is not in issue.
We say that it is.
Let politicians talk as they may, they cannot
control the legitimate effects of the decision
made by the people on this great question of
honor or dishonor—of equa'ily or inequality in
our condition in the Union. To abide by an
honorable adjustment, mav properly be called
—acquiescence To abide by a degrading
settlement, is not acquiescence t or pretermission
nor extraordinary so? bear a nee— it is submis
sion. Gentlemen may say that in revving the
issue of fact of last yesr. they do no: mean V»
revive the issue of action. They cannot help
reviving it. Who gave them rhe power to
make Georgia submit to acknowledged degrad i
tionf Georgia stands by the Compromise,
because she hss decided that it is consistent with
her' honor to do so. Let her refefse that <l3-
cision—• and she ought to reverse her acJon
What is more—she will reverse it. It is n«t
idle only, but disgraceful to sa/ otherwise. It
is disgraceful, if they do not mean what they
say It is disgraceful if they do.
W? say then that the question of action, as
well as the question of fact, is, necessarily—
whether the Southern Rights party will have it
so or not—at issue before the people of Geor
gia.
The question stands just where it stood last
year. The decision of Georgia on her own
course of conduct is no more authoritative than
her deci&ion on the character of ths Compro
mise measures. The one wag based on the
other. They must stand or fall together. The
action cannot stand, if the facts fall—the super
structure, after the foundation has been remov
ed.
We have no confidence in those who tell us
the decision of Georgia * ought not to be dis
turbed,” yet are endeavoring to overt! row
the ba-is of fact on wnich :t rests. On what
could we base confidence in such men ? Do
not they know, ihai if they could persuade Geor
gia she now stands degraded, they would be
utterly impotent to “ ram ice 1 up the conse
quence?” Would she consent »o remain so?
Dare they propose that she should ? The storm
would be above their quell. It is folly or
deception to pretend the contrary.
The only thing which now shields them
from the contempt of true hearted Southern
Rights men. ;a the conviction of their insincer
ity. Let them have power to act in legitimate
accordance with their convictions, and they
would not DARE TO SUBMIT.
We hn!d it clear then, that the issues of last
year (the one optn, (he other a nothered) arv
again before the people of Gjursia. They
were thus expressed by the Georgia Convention.
“May Georgia, continently with her honor,
abide by the general scheme of Pacification ?
if she may, then does her interest lie in ad
herence to it, or in reahtanco I” The Geor
gia Convention, asked about interest, if consit
lent With honor. It scorned to aak the ques
tion—“if she may not consistently witn her
honor, doe, her inte r eit lie in adherence to it,
or in resistance?”
It was for Gov. McDonald to assert she
may not adhere to it consistently with her hon
or, .and yet indijnant'y disci tim the imouta
tion that he will not “adhere to it.” If he be
sincere in this disclaimer, what link is wanting in
his perfect chain of title co be called a «übmis
sionist ? If he be insincer \ he is not even an
honest Di union man. We do not see how he
can eseape the dilemma ?
3J. A.(other isene, the Southern Rights party
have endeavored to rare with th s'rongest
assertivne that they have now no use for it, —it»
the assertion of what th*y call the right of Se
cession. The true Rupublican view of th ; s
right ha« been given in our colnmns, and in
that (<he correct view) we approve and ad
vocate it.
What ’he Southern Rights party calls the
right of Secession, is neither more nor less
than the undisguised rifht of Repudiation.
It is the right of each State ‘ in virtue of its
independence and sovereignty” to repudia'e
its moat solemn engagements at its own dis
cretion and without responsibility to the other
party. It is a doctrine so odious and despica
ble, that even in the most ordinary treaties be
tween nations, no civilized nation has ever
claimed it
The unusual importance and solemnity of the
Constitution established between the Sovereign
States of this Uni n, seems in the opinion of
the leaders of the Southern Righ's party to
have lessened its obligations, and rendered
repudiation, which in ordinary cases is difficult
and scandalous, in the present case easy and
innocent.
4th. As for the constitutiona’ity of the U. S
Bank —of Protective Tariffs and Inter
nal Improvements, on which the Southern
Rights party attempt, in their desperation, to
make issues, we have only to say that, if they
be the issues before tbe country, the party or
ators and presses shamefully neglect them.
We think they are ashamed nf the effort to
divert attention to them, made by their conven
tion.
Won’t Support the Constitutions
It is rather a significant fact iu the history
of the times, that the Legislature of Mississip
pi at the extra session, which called a conven
tion of that State, to rake into consideration
what course the S'ate should pursue in the
present crisis, rejected a proposition requiring
tne members of me convention to take an o» b
to support the Conaiizution of the United
Slates ! This proposition was submitted in the
shape of an amendment to the bill calling tbe
convention, and waa voted down, all the Di*
unionists votsrg agsmt the amendment, and
the Union men for it. Such an act on the
part of the Legislature of any State in thia
Union should not pataunnoiiced, or fail to make
a da a p impres-ion upon the public mind. No
movement could more clearly evince their set
tled purpose to disregard the CotiflUtatiuo of
the United States and lo destroy the govern
ment. If not, why no: take the oath? Such
an oath is n>t uncommon in Legiaiaturee and
conventions bu‘ on tbe contrary is almost uni
verse ly taken and observed, wherever there
prevails a loyal spirit to the government and
Constitution of our fathers. Can such thin/s
be, and not excite the indignation of a people
who cherish a fond regard for their govern
ment and its institutions? We think not.
Yet, notwithstanding, thia act on the part of
the disunionists of th* Legislature of Missis
sippi, the leaders and organs of that party, (nke
the leaders and organs of the same party in
Georgia, and throughout the almost entire
South,) have the cool impudence and effron*e
ry to proclaim to the people that they are de
votedly attached to the Union—better Union
men than the Union party ef’be South! If
iu the face of such facts, the people affect le
believe them, they are certainly the willing
victims of a delusion the most extraordinary
that ever possessed an intelligent and reflecting
poop e.
Differences of Optntoa--The Texas
Boundary Q«»don.
Thi Southern Rights Convention of May
28 h, 1851, referring to tho Texas question
sa d :
“ By tbe acts of tbe late Congress known as the
Compromise measures, the Southern States being
a minority in Federal numbers, have been roacsu
to surrender territaiy, unquestionably and legiti
mate y our own. to tbe use and enjoyment of tbe
hi eling States.”
Tne editor of the Constitutionalist was not
en!y a member of that Convention, but was a
member of the Committee that reported thia
resolution. Tne following was his opinion of
the Texas question, one year and six days be
fore :
“ A* to the Texas boundary question it is
cient w ray, that it is a ma tier of ,ree choice tor
Texas to decide to accept tne terms, or cot, ar she
please*, which are offered by tbe scheme ts Com
promise.
She m noc required—ana is not to be rose so to
part with any portion of her territory.”—-CaswU.
tutiomuist, Slay tbd, 1851.,
Mr. Tootnbi.--The C 'nstltutionalUt.
No one. we presume, was disappointed or
surprised at finding in yeaterdass’ Constitution
ahst. an article assailing Mr. Toombs for having
the temerity or presumption to make a speech
Tuesdar night,at the Masonic Hall, in com
pliance with the request of the County Conven
tion of the Union party, It was however, a lame
effort to make a little capital, and a plain state
ment of facts will entirely take the wind out of
the sails.
The disunion par’y proposed to give a bar
becue and ini ite several speakers of their own
party. With this view, a collection was taken
up, and Union men cal ed on to subscribe. A
proposition was then made to the Committee
of arrangements to unite in defraying the ex
penae of the Barbecue if free discussion was
permitted. This proposition was declined —
and the chief reason assigned for declining,
was that they expected a number of speakers
from a distance, aid if free discus-ion was
allowed, all their speakers could not be heard.
The other reasons were, that the Union party
had already had an exclusive meeting; and
that the Committee was not authorised to allow
free discussion- Here the mat er rested until
the day, Tuesday, when Mr. Toombi arrived
in tie city, expecting, under an arrangement
previously made between Mr. McMillan and
himself that 'ie would be permitted to speak.
That arrangement was, that each should ba
considered as invited to, or have the privilege
of attending, the appointments of the other
and participate equally in the discussion.
Toombs opening and closing at his appoint
ments and McMillan at hie. And under this
arrangement McMillan had spoksn on two
or more occasions at the appointments of Mr
Toombs. Mr. T having heard that the Com
mittee had refused to give him a heading, call*
ed in person on Mr. McMillan, and demand
ed the observance of the engagement. Where
upon McMillan placed the responsibility on
'he Committee, and they again declined, ex
cueinz themselves now on the plea that this
was a meeting of the people of the County
and net s» appointment of Mr. McMillan.
The previous excuse of the large number of
speakers from abroad was not then relied on,
because it so happened hat McMillan was
theoniyone present.
These facts will leave little doubt in the
mind of imperial men as to who backed out
and who feared discussion! The idea that
Mr. Toombs or hi friends fear a conflict with
Mr. McMillan in debate, is simply ridiculous,
and no man in Georgia who knows anything
of the two men and their capacities, doubts its
supremely ridiculous character.
It was the knowledge of these facts that in
duced the Convention of the Union party
which was in session that day, to invite Mr
Toombs o address the people at the Masonic
Hall, the compliance with which has so much
disturbed the Constitutionalist.
But that Mr. McM.llan and his supporters
may have no excuse for backing out a second
time the Uuion party will on the 4>h Saturday,
the 27ib day of this month, give Mr. Toombs
a Barbecue in this city, to which Mr McMil
lan will be invited. So that if Mr. McMillan
and iiia friends arc so anxious for a free discus
sion between the two candidate*, let him face
me music. There will be no dodging this time
aimer behind or by ihe committee
Tlie Clayton Compromise.
What was the Clayton Compromise, and
what were ts provisions? are q lestions fre
quently asked. Eor the information of that
class of our re id era who desiro to be informed
on the subject, we will subjoin iha sections
of the Bill which had reference to the question
of Slavery, premising that the ether jSec.ions
wer.i in the usual form of Bills for the organi
zation of Territorial Governments. Here are
he words of the Bill :
“Sac. 26. And be it further enacted, That the
legislative power of said Territory eh 11, until Con
grees shall otherwise provide, be ves ed in the gov
ernor, secretary, and j idges of the supreme court,
A?ho or a majority of them ahill have ower to pass
any law for the administration of justice in slid Ter
ritory, wh ch shall not be repugnant to this act, or
inconsistent with the laws and C institution of >he
United States But no law shill be passed interfer
ing with the primary di-p >sal of the soil, respecting
an establishment of religion, or respect 1 ng the pr> h : -
bitim or establishment of African slavery; and no
tax shall be itnpise ( upon the properly of the United
State*; n r shall the lands or other property of n'n
residents te taxed higher than ths lands or < (her
pr pe ty of residents AH the laws shall be submit
ted to the Congress < f the United States, and, if dis
approved, shall be null and void.”
And in tie 3ist section, after providing for
the organisation of Territorial courts, the so -
losing provision is found :
“Writs of e-ror and appeals from the final deci
sions of said supreme court shall be allowed, and
may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United
'tales, in he same manner and under the fame regu
lations as from ite circuit courts of the United States;
except onlv that, in all eases involving title tos'aes,
the paid wi its of error or appedsshall be allowed and
decided by the eaid supreme court, without regard
to the value of the matter, property, or title incontro
versy ; and expect also (hat a writ of error or arpeil
shall i e allowed to the Supreme Court of the
■Uy tMBWCT/W Ilf gwy thereof; ur-of mi
rice courts created by this act, or of any judges
hereof, upon anv wri of habeas corpus, involving
‘he questoo of personal freed im,” <Stc.
These, as tefore remarked, are the onlv sec
tions affecting the question of slavery, in the
Jlayton Compromise, which bill contemplated
the organiz tion of a Terr torial Govern ent.
for California an I New Mseico. They pro
hibited forever the Territorial Government
from pa sing any law on the subjoct of slavery,
and left t e southern d tvehoider, who might
go there, to test the right to hold slave proper
ty in the courts of the Territory, in the first in
stance, an I than by appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United States.
It will be recollsc’ed that Mr. Calhoun was
one of the Committee that reported the Clay
ton Compiom'we bi I to the Senate, and earnest,
ly and zaa'ous'y advocated its passage, assert
ing that it was all the South iesired, and de
c’ared that the Mexican laws were abrogated
by the extension of the Constitution of the
Un ted States over the Territory. This posi
tion was maintained by almost the entire Dem
ocratic party of that day, and by all of the pre
sent disuD'on party of the South.
No man has forgotzen how Mr Stephens
was denounced by the whole of what is now
the disunion party, for opposing the Clayton
Compromise, and yet they now denounce the
Compromise acts of tho last Congr-ss because,
say they, the South is excluded from the Ter
ritories by reason of the existence of the Mex
ican laws—laws which they then declared to be
null and void, and the position of Mr Ste
phens absurd.
Now to show how much batter the present
Compromise is than the Clay'on Bill wis, it is
only necessary to remind the reader, that the
Clayton bill not only settled no hing, and left
every thing in reference to slavery to be de
cided by the courts, but prohibited forever the
T? ritorial legislature from passing any law in
relation to slavery. Tne presen* Compromise
leaves the question open to be decided by the
people of the State when they form their
Cons itution whether slavery should exi«t oi
not. and it was further expressly provided (hat
whenever New Maxie » and Utah appl ed for
admission as States, they »houid be admitted
wi h or without s avi ry, as the people might
de ermine This is, and has been the position
oi all parties a he Sout i, since the foundation
of the government.
In conclusion, we remark that we challenge
the whole disunion pre«s of the South to con
trovert Miiccessfuily a single statement of fact
in the foregoing article.
•• That Suppressed Letter.”
The incident in relation to “ (hat suppress
ed let'er, ’ which occurred at Cassville, is thus
noticed by the correspondent of the Southern
Recorder.
After premising that Mr. Cobb’s positions
were so well known that it was unnecessary to
report hie arguments, he adds *.
“ But there isene thing, an incident that occurred,
I have though’ it well enough to mention. In seve
ral parts of his speech, Mr . Cobb alluded to the ff is
representations that bad been made snout hi o, die.,
and be called upon his oppo ents, if there was any
thing they wished to it.qu re about, or if they had
any charges againjt him, to come out, ‘ n -w is the
time,' and not wail until he was gone, die., that he
had nothing to conceal,” die. In ons of these in
»tan:e«, m wb.ch he called upon gentlemen to come
out, Ac , he paused for e>jvae time. Close by the
I writer, there was a knot of fire eaters or Southern
Rights men, and his attention was directed to them
by hearing “ that letter” “ that suppressed letter”
ottered by one or two voices, and suorVy alter one
of the party stepped up and said he wanted to “ see
that suppressed letter I”
Mr. Coon then turned to him and asked him if be
had “read bin letter to the Macon committee” *? The
fire-eater replied “Yea.’ “Then,” replied Mr.
C-bb, “ you have read that suppressed letter, and
did'nt know it!” 1 then at the moment glanced a.
the fire-eater, and from the manner in which he held
his head, be reminded me of a man who bad just
had his hat pulled over bis face. Mr. Co‘ b then
said that with the exception ot the introduction of
the letter to nis friend, Mr.-Hull, which is in sub
stance as follows : “ Dear Sir; I profcee to give you
my views upon the subject of secession, witbout en
tering into a engthy argument to sustain my posi
tion ” The w 'lole of the suppressed letter, wilh:ut
an alteration, and with the crossing of the t’s and
the dotting of the i’a as in the original, is contained
in hio Letter to the Alaejn Committee.”
Cumberland Tuinkll. The Murfrees
boro’ News, i as been informed by the con
tractor Cui, Bates, that the Tunnel on the
Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad will be
completed by the Ist of January next: * The
Col. seldom makes a wrung calculation about
anvthing he undertakes, however great the
(ask to be performed, and we have no doubt
bat the Tunnel will be completed about the
time specified. He deserves much credit for
•he mauner in which be has poshed forward
thw tremendous work.”
Personal.
Th< public will, I trust, pardon my calling
their attention to a matter purely personal,
which is rendered necessary by the pit ful at
tack made upon me, through tho column, of
the Conititutiinalitt, of yesterday, by J.mxs M
Smtthk, Had the circulation of that paper
been confined to tho circle where we are both
known, the article and author should have met
with the contempt so richly merited. As it
wil , however, be seen and read where neither
of us are personal'y known, it becomes neces
sary that I should notice it to correct some
miss'ateinents of facts contained therein.
As the readers of the Chronicle & Sentinel
are well aware, there has appeared in it, a se
ries of artie'es under the signature of‘•Doc
tor,'* marked with unusual ability, the last of
which was published on Friday, the29:h Aug.
as', w hich called forth the following note :
Auousta, August 29lti, 1951.
Ds. Wm. S. Joss-s.— Sis : I demand cf you 'he
usmeoftlie author of tho article ‘'Doctor, *' which
appeared in the Chronicle & Sentinel of this date,
inorder to demand of him personal eaiislaction.
Respectfully, your ob*t. Ser’vt.
James M. Smtths.
Th's note was brought into my office by
Mr James Gardner, Jr. When he presented
it, I inquired, who it was front? He replied
Mr. Smythe. Presuming it was a call for the
author of “ Doctor,” I renewed and immedi
ately replied to it, giving the name of the au
thor. Having folded and addressed my reply,
I handed i’ to Mr. Gardner, who immediately
rose from his sett, as I supposed, to retire,
when he drew from a side pocket what ap
peared to be a letter, and presented it, saying,
“ Here is another.” I inquired from whom 1
Ke replied, “The same gentleman,” and as I
received it, I understood him to remark, ‘‘You
can reply to it at your leisure,” and immuli.
aw'.ely atked uut of ihi room
I opened end proceeded to read the follow
ing no
Augusta, August29th, 1851.
Da. Wm. 9. Jcmbb—bir: Considering the article
“ Doctor,” which appealed in the Chronicle & Sen
tinel this moroing, oi such a character as to maks
you as tbu publisher of that paper, a party to the out
rage, I deinind of you that .aii.faelien, for insertin'
it in your columns, which is due from one gentle
man to another.
1 his will be handed you by my friend James
Gsidner, Jr., E-q.
James M. Smyths.
As soon a. 1 discovered the nature of it.
contents, I rose from my seat to call Mr.
Gardner io return it to him, but ho had past
sd out at the front door of the offi :e , a distance
of near six y feet l s aned with the determi
nation of following him into the street, but
after proceeding a fjw steps, returned ty my
seat, thinking it of no consequence.
It is proper to remark, that if I had even
suspected the character of the communication,
Ish uld rot have received it For 1 did not
imagine even that Mr. Smythe, who professes
to be so very anxions to obtain persinal
satisfaction, would have made such a call on
me, whose opinions on the suoject of duelling
he soieell knew, one too, who ha asserts is “a
mender of a respectable Church;" especially
after he had obtained the name of the author a
reputab'e gentleman, whom As knew to be
neither the member of a Church or opposed to
a resort to the coda duello. If the author of
Doctor had proved uoi to have been a re
sponsible and reputable man, he might have
had some excuse for a call on me.
Thus the nutter remained until Tuesday,
the 21 inst., when Mr. Gardner aga n called
and announced that he had a note for me.
I replied, you can take itbackti the author,
and inform him, he must seek some other
channel to convey it. He remarked, I had
received notes through him. I admited the
fact, and stated I was induced to do so alone
because I supposed they had reference to a
demand for the au hor of ‘‘Dootor." and I
did not wis t to interpose the slightest obstruc
tion to Mr. Smythe's obtaining his name. 1
should however receive no more through l im.
He asked the reason. I replied, none of the
c >urtesie< of life were exchanged between us
and 1 regarded It a violation of etiquette and
usage for one so si'uated, to bear anole to
another with whom he did not speak. He
dissented from the correctness of my opinioa,
and asserted that it was neither a violation of
etiquene or usage. I then peremptorily re
fused to receive it, and turned off an! left him,
and he walked out.
On Wednesday the 3d inst., Mr. W. W.
Montcomery, wi b whom I was entirely uuao
quaint d, appeared in tuy office, and as I un
derstood inquired if 1 was Dr. Jones. 1 re
plied, Yes. He remarked he desired to see me
and I walked aside with him, when he inform
ed me he had a note for me I inquired from
whom? He replied. Mr Smythe. 1 told him I
should not receive it- He then made some
remark about“geuileman,” which I did not un
dersand distinctly; when I informed him I
could not argue the question with him, but I
with Mr. Smvthe He asked if I bad any
obj tciion to the channel through which the
note came? I inquired his name, when he
hesitate ! seemed confused and I added, is it
Montuohery ? He said ys, and I replied,
not the slightest objection. He then remark
ed, he supposed Mr. Smythe would be left to
pursue what course he thought proper, to
which I replied, that was a matter for his cob
sideration, not mine.
I did nor even see the note which Mr. M. said
he bore, ana how he could iisve understood
me o say that I did not con-ider myself re
sponsible for the article of “Doctor,” I can
not imagine. / made no allusion whatever to
“Doctor" o' his articles. The power press,
however, was going at the time, which m kes
very considerable noise, and Mr. M. may have
misapprehended me.
Apologizing to the public again for tres
passing upon their indulgence with a purely
personal matter; with this brief narrative of the
facts, premising that I have given the sub
etmee (and generally as nearly as recollected
the precise words) of conversations, I take
leave of Mr. tSsrrsi, wi h the hope 'hat
he v ill wear gracefully all the laurels an
intelligent public will award him.
W. 8. Jones.
The Alberti Case.
Os all the shifts to which the enemies of tkis
Government have been compelled to resort, no
case so powerfully as this illustrates the depth
and venooi of their hatred. Published first in
the Richmond Enfuirer, under the caption,
“Northern Aggression— Case of Alberti," t
was re-published twice in this State by the
Augusta Republic. When that paper and tie
Conetitutionalist melted “ like two dew drops,
m'o one,” the same piece, a I ttle rectified,
was set forth in a Constitutionalist It Repub
lic—Extra, in flaming capitals. Thousands oi
these reports were scattered broad cast over
ihe Slate, ai d the question asked why the
Union papers did not publish this ill authenti
cated •' infernal transaction.” Unused to con
vict the accused without evidence—and to
spread as a case of “ Northern Aggression ”
oo the 8 >u(h,tha' wh.on, if correctly reported,
wa. at farthest in aggression by Pen sylva
niansona Pennsylvan an—with eyes not so
blinded by hatred of the Union and of the
North, as to see wh it was not to be seen—the
Union papers preferred to wait for a correct
statement of the tuih of the case
Yet even the ex parte review, published, ae
cordirg to its own statement, “ for the benefit
of tbs family of Alberti, and of couris one
aided and partial in its fare; even this review
could not satisfy the grudge of the
alist Sf Republic.
It must needs convert it not only into a case
of “ Northern aggression,’’ but endeavor
•hrough it to excite prejudice against tho fugi
live slave law. Dissatisfied with only going
the legitimate length allowed by an ex part.
sta ement of the ciae, it must aaeert that Al
berti and Price were “incarcerated in
gloomy dungeon*,” not because convicted of
kidnipping, but “for merely assisting in the
execution of the (fugitive slave) law in a soli
tary instance.”
At our article correcting its misrepresents
tions of tbe unau henticated report it had
spread by he thousand, it profested to be
“shocked.” Is it or not “ shocked,” now that
tbe authentic report is furnished it, at the mis
chief it has wrought by not waiting for the
truth? Is it not “shocked” to think that the
correction will fail to roach many already em
bittered by error, and by its own strong com
ments against the Government and the law?
Or does it glory that the mischief may bo
more extensively spread than the correction
can reach ?
Weihallsee. Will it strike off “ extras”
of the true as it did of the false statements of
the case ? We suppose it thought the case
fairly reported. Will it now show its fairness
by taking all tbe pains in its power to correct
its own hasty deeds ? Or will it prove itself
more anxious to promote discontent and
rouse boe'ility to the Government, than to do
sheer justice, or even repair; its own wrongs ?
It found room— made room— for tbe uoau
tbenticated and false report; will it find room
—make room—to spread the authentic and
true ?
The article in the Constitutionalist of yes
terday, which attempts to assail the authentic
report of the case published by ns a few days
ago, will receiYß our attention at an early day.
y ,j’ ■ .'Jjiss
Ths Adrnlsslan ot Calirjtn
Uton this master grievance of th
- measures, on which was baser
of tbe Convention in Georgia, w
calmly to sum up those arguments,
they are, which demonstrate that it I
no good ground for resistance to ths
Government.
We shall assume that any act of <
in order to warrant resistance, must, |
constUßtioaoC, be grossly o iprsssi 'e i
pie or practice. The Virginia Resolnti
that, even if an act was an infraction of < •
stitutron, it must be a deliberate, folpo
gerous iofrauiou, to warrant State i
tion.
We expect to show that ««is no it
at all of the Constitution, an 4 not gr(
ptessive ei her in principle or practic
believe that the whole country. No
South, and the people of Calif orn ' Ia |
cause of complaint at the delay of c oc
form a Territorial Government, tij,
tion of Congress may have been g
exercised in admitting her as a Stat
that discretion, if unwisely exercised,
exercised unconstUutional'y.
Upon the practical question of loss i
to the South, we have seen no argument .
clearly put or more ably maintained than u
found in the extract we are about to make
from the Constitulionalisl. In the paper of
May 22d, 1850. it defended tho proposed ad
m’ssion of California, upon the following
grou ds.
“But the Compromise proposes the admiss'on es
California with alt her boundaries, and with hsr
anti-slavery Constitution. There Xn-e grave ob|ec
tioos to ths manner in which she has been organized
as a State, and her Territorial limits ere snotra.ua
aad itnreascnable.
‘ But will curtailing her limits, curtail the area of
free soil, and exlead the srea ot slavery 1 That is the
practical qiesiion.
“Now it is well ascertained that ns part of Califor
nia North or South es any given line wi'l ever be
slave territory. It cannot be slave territory. It
cannot be made so against the interests and wishes of
tVe peep e They Have decided not lo have slavery
there as a socitl institution. The Democratic doc
trine io that the peep's are to be left free to decide
that question for ihem.elres.”
The objections lo tbe admission of California
are here distinctly set aoxfb. and the ireasjAfl
onvdi-r, tiSpse O'
no practical lose to the South, nltrany
of “Democratic dootrina," wlieh has ever
been as decided in favor of Southern Rights as
the doctrine of any other partv. We shall
upon the practical question, therefore, merely
expand and illustrate the foregoing argument.
The first objection to her admission (which
was the only objection made by theconv«ntioo
act of the ieo-gia legislature.) is the extent of
the territory of California. It is obvious, how
ovir, that if that argument is correct, which
proves that no part of it c .uld ever be slave
teirtory, the extent of territory is beneficial
rather than injurious to the South. A d'viaion
of the territory would have increased non
slaveholding power in tno Senate, by the ulti
mate admission of two or more B ates instead
of one.
It may be remarked in relation to the reeond
objection.—the manner in which California
was organized as a State—that this also could
not affect nor injure the South practically, if
the argument about tbe existence of slavery
there is correct. If any unfair or extraneous
i .fluence was exerted, (and it has been denied
and tbe proof challenged ) it muat be remem
bered, that it was exerted by a Southern Ad
ministration, — at the head of which was a
Southern Planter and Slaveholder, whose op
portunities of knowing the count-y, (whatever
hie opportunities of political knowledge,) were
certainly great. The blame (if blame be due)
should not be thrown on tho wrong yuarUr—
nor was the then President of the United
States false to his own section in policy or in
tention.
The great practical question, however, is
just what the Constitutionalist declares it to ba.
•• n'ould curtailing the limits of Californi i cur
■ail the area of free soil, and extend'll area of
slavery?”
In expansion of the arguments urged by it
and in addition to them, we would remark that
the following circums'ances rendered it moral
ly impossible for California ever to have be
come slave territory. In tbe first place, tho
country was remote from any other slave
country, and the difficulty and expense of ta
king slaves there very great. The character
of the soil rendered it unfit for slave labor—
which could only have been profitably em
ployed in the mining country- Confined to
the narrow space of the mining districts, and
surrounded nn all sides by free
facilities for e>cape, and tbe trouble
capture would bo unusually great.
lory was free when acquired.
already thrre were
probably averse to it.
most obvious
E nigration would tend therefore rethsr
crease than to diminish anti slavery sentiment.
These are facts and laws uncontrollable by
any human government.
The fact of ultimate admission into the Union
was well known, and the further faet that tho
question of slavery would than become aquas
lion for tho decision of the people. Wha that
decision would be, was rendered almost <
tain by the facts above mentioned as to
prevalent sentiment of the original populati
and the mejerity of emigrants. Their inter
would probably have combined with their
timent to induce the majority of voters to
elude the competition of slave Itbor.
Every one ramembers that this view es
practical question, was that taken by each
the adminisfations under which it cross, t
of which were Southern—tho one democra
the other whig. Slavery had once existei >■
the R 'public of Mexico, and by her own i
abolished as unprofitable. The country i
acquired without any hope or expectation
practical gain to the South, and its acquisil t
by some objected to on that ground.
These views (together with the present >■ i
future freedom of the people of Californ'i
introduce slaves if they should over see Gt
do so) seem to us to establish on an impreg
ble foundation the position of tbe Constituti' .
alist, that no part of California would '* evei
slave territory.” The application of the 5 -«
souri compromise line would have been ent ■
ly nnavailing.as the only pa-t of tbe territ
into which there was the remotest probabi'ir
slavery’s being carried, is north of that 1 ne
tbe narrow strip of territory below the l u.
would have furnished still more peculiar faci
■ties for escape, and as leaving vastly less t<
ritory open to slavery than is left open by
present compromise.
THE QUESTION OP PRINCIPLE.
We would remark in advance on this SB .
ject that tbe question of principle is not sf •
ted, nor should our action bo affected, by
motives of some of tho men who passed t
or any measure, provided principle was •
actually violated. We doubt not that some
the votes on this measure were actua ed
r ile and unfair motives, and that some of ' -
voters would have voted for a measure ac
ally violative of principle. What they wo
have done on an hypothetical case should
affect our action. They might reform bes
an actual case arose, or be displaced
better men. At any rate, “sufficient u /
the day is tbe evil thereof.”
Just here, too, we will make a single e<
ment on that often misapplied maxim—*'
time of peace prepare for war.*’ The o
preparation a brave and free people need
war— is arms and ammunition. Wetrust
day is far distant when the free people of y
South will need to have their courage etio -
lated in advance of use, or their hearts p
pared and drilled into the spirit necessary
maintain their just rights.
Tbe great principle which justified the
mission of California into the Union with I
anti slavery Constitution, is a principle wb
the South has ever held sacred and inviolat
It is one of those principles which Geor.
thought proper to incorporate in the retolutio .
passed by the late convention. This was 1.,
toe voice. So sacred is the principle, that e
solitary Southern StaU, has repudiated
Georgia seemed to do so, when she made
admission of California the ground for call
a convention. Os the fifteen Southern Sta
she alone assumed this ground. Thatfac
itself pregnant with meaning. Nor was
assumption of this ground the will of Georp s.
Bne neither spoke on the subject immedisi ■,
nor through Repreienta ves sleeted on that
sue.
Nor did eventhe unaathorixed voice wh -
spoke for her, bass resistance on sectier ;.
grounds. The proposition of the origin
bill, to call a Convention if she was admit',,
“with a Constitution prohibiting slave;
was voted down. The only ground for re-,
lanee in the bill as passed, was the sparcity
population —an absurd ground, if iniendee
a sectional one—as objectionable to New Y
as to Georgia.
Let us now compare what really happe
in tbe ease of California, with whataifki
gilimatcly hate bean expected. We shall
forget the want of a previous Territorial
gacization.
When the country was acquired, every e
knew that it would, in some way, be divid
and that the divisions woald beet length nd •