Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

‘♦'You misunderstand the reasons which (induced me to form this resolution, if you suppose it can be changed either by repeUt lig to me the unmerited commendation* of 100 partial friends, of the INFAMOUS and malignant FALSEHOODS of tkost who 1 jdespise too much to toll them, foes,” j The Governor is evidently in a bad hu mor with somebody ; and those who have approached great men have always found, often to their surprise and regret, that great men are but men. Gov, Taste well once ex ercised a deserved influence over the opin ions of others—but for years past he has had but little intercourse with the world, or with those about him. He has always held peculiar notions oh the subject of mopey and currency, and may be classed with the hard money, money-making, money-loving men of the present day. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should get out of temper, when he finds that there are those in the community around him who deny the au thority of his opinions, and assert their de termination to oppose Mr. Van Buren, his support to the contrary notwithstanding. The Governer tells us thnt he does not recollect that Mr. Van Buren has recom mended a single unconstitutional act! Now, to say nothing of the militia bill, and of Mr. Van Buren’s recommendation of its un constitutional provisions, what will Gov. Tazewell say of the proposition to place the State Institutions tinder the control of a federal bankrupt law ? Is that not uncon stitutional ? The proposition was so de nounced by Mr. Calhoun, and will be so denounced, we are sure, by Gov. Tazewell, unless he is under a hard- money mania. We are indeed surprised to hear a states man, so experienced as Gov. Tazewell, put his support of Mr. Van Buren on such grounds. Does he not know that Mr. Van Buren’s policy is to recommend nothing. — He is always exclaiming, “it was not I,” “I did’nt do it.” But the truth is that Gov. Tazewell has so long separated himself from the people, that he has lost his influ ence over them, as he will find in yielding to those who have provoked this letter is a means of controlling them. The people intend to elect old Tippecanoe, and it is useless for the Governor to get into an ill humor, or to use any hard names about it. He can’t prevent it, and it is the part of wisdom to submit with dignity : for submit he must, willing or unwilling. From the Reformer. MR. FORSYTH. Some days since we noticed the antici pated visit of Mr. Forsyth to Georgia, to reclaim the sinking fortunes of Loco Foco ism, to which theatre he had been called by the drooping spirits who are now endea voring to prop the Administration. In this dirty work, however, the office-seeking Secretary has been disappointed, by a pain ful malady which overtook him at Freder icksburg, Va., while on his way to Qeor gia, and he was compelled to decline the pleasure, but has taken the occasion to send his ‘'loving friends ” a Circular, not “hoping to find them in the same state of health,” but warning them against aboli ti on and its evil consequences. The Sec retary, either from the influence of his bod ily malady, or from that mental agony which a place man feels when anticipating defeat, has perpetrated a very weak and feeble Circular, and one for which the in telligent portion of his “valuedfriends” will not feel under many obligations, in their particular strait. He has not made the slightest attempt to defend the Administra tion on a single charge that has been pre ferred against it, but has contented him self with an account of the progress of abo lition in Europe, and concludes with a let ter from the Pope of Rome to his brethren in Spain, in which he denounces slavery. Severe as the Secretary’s “ disorder ” may be, we opine that the voice from Georgia, and the Union, will produce upon him who loves office so well, a disease,which will en able him to travel with more facility from Washington, than his recent effort has evin ced. Since the above was in type, we have received a letter from a gentleman now at the North, eontaning the following extract from his Washington correspondent: t “ Mr. Forsyth started for Georgia a few days since—got as far as Fredericksburg, Va.—heard that it was all up with him in Georgia—feigned sick—returned to Wash ington, and is now here, more sick at heart, than in body.” 0 From the Southern Recorder. Mr. Forsyth is out in a political circu lar, and we consider it the weakest effort of his life, whether its manner or its matter is the subject of criticism. It is most ordi nary in style, and its matter is absolutely sillier than the usual partizan flummery which floods the newspapers of the day.— The only thing creditable, so far as its composition may be regarded, in the whole affair, is the letter of the Pope of Rome to the Catholics of South America, which Mr. Forsyth gives us by way of an appen dix, and which shows very clearjy that the Pope is anti-slavery, and on that ac count is probably deemed by Mr. Forsyth highly objectionable as a candidate for the Presidency of these United States. He is a better writer than Mr. Forsyth, any way, and no more of an anti-slavery man than Mr. Forsyth’s political friends, Gov. Mor ton, Mr. Bancroft, Van Buren’s Collector, Brownson, another of Van’s officers, of Massachusetts, or Van’s leading N. York organs, the Era and New York Post, to say nothing of the Van Buren candidate for Governor, whom the Whigs of Vermont have lately so signally defeated. The Pope is no more anti-slavery than these po litical friends of Mr. Forsyth and Martin Van Buren, and thousands of others that might be enumerated ; and we see no good reason why Mr.Forsyth should be so piqued with the Pope, and yet so cordial, political ly at least, with scores of others who think with the Pope on this subject. But we have neither time nor room for further com ment on this bald and decrepit political es say. We leave the matter to be further discussed between Mr. Forsyth and the Pope, who have more interest in it a great deal than the people of Georgia. COMMUNICATIONS. No. 111. It is true that Gen. Harrison has advo cated llie doctrine, that the constitution be stows upon Congress the Internal Improve ment power, and in accordance with such opinion, has voted appropriations of money for national works. But it is not true that he is therefore a Federalist: In order to prove this by such opinions and votes, it would be necessary to show, that they have been uniformly entertained and given by federalists alone —that they have been adop ted and advocated by the federal party ex clusively, and never have been entertained by the republicans, nor could be, by one professing the republican creed. The Ad ministration of the elder Adams is general ly referred to as being most federal in its mea sures, and dangerously latitudinous in its constructions of the constitution. Now, during this Administration, not a single act was passed by congress in the exercise of the internal improvement power. It is not denied, however, that Mr. Adams con ceded the power to Congress. But so did Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Gen. Jackson, and Mr. Van Burfti. We find the following sentiment in the last annual message of Mr. Jefferson. He is speaking of an expected surplus of revenue. “ Shall the revenue be reduced ? or shall it not rather be appli ed to the improvement of roads and canals, &c.” Mr. Madison, in his last annual message, made use of the following lan guage : “ The importance which I have attached to the establishment of a univer sity within this district on a scale and for objects worthy of the American nation, in duces me to renew my recommendation of it to the favorable consideration of Congress. And I particularly invite again their atten tion to the expediency of exercising their existing powers, and when necessary of re sorting to the prescribed mode of enlarging them, in order to effectuate a comprehensive system of roads and canals, such as will have the effect of drawing more closely together every part of our country, and by promo, ting intercourse and improvements, increas ing the share of every part in the common stock of national prosperity.” The following is an extract from one of the messages of Mr. Monroe. “Good roads and canals will promote many very impor tant national purposes. They will facili tate the operations of war, the movement of troops, the transportation of cannon, of pro visions, and of every warlike store, much to our advantage and the disadvantage of the enemy in time of war. Good roads will facilitate the transportation of thp mail, and thereby promote the purposes of com merce and political intelligence among the people. They will by being properly di reeted to those objects, enhance the value of our vacant lands, a treasure of vast re source to the nation. To the appropriation of the public money, to improvements having these objects in view, and carried to a certain extent, Ido not see any well founded consti tutional objection.” In these extracts from the messages of Presidents Jefferson, Mad ison and Monroe, it will be perceived that the constitutional power over the subjects of internal improvements, and the expedi ency of using it are distinctly and unequiv ocally recognized and conceded. Were they federalists or republicans ? By whom were they placed in power ? Mr. Jefferson was the founder of what has been termed the republican party, as contradistinguish ed from th efederal. Mr. Jefferson’s sup porters were termed the republicans. Mr. Adams’ the federalists. Mr. Madison, af ter Mr. Jefferson, was the great leader of the republican party, and ( though opposed by Mr. Van Buren,) was placed -n power by its adhesion and support. Mr. Monroe was the candidate of the same, and so dis pirited and broken down was the old federal party that he was run and elected for both of his presidential terms without opposi tion. Do the editors and partizans of Mr. Van Buren recollect’these facts, while charging General Harrison with federalism, for en tertaining the same opinions ? Do they act a fair and honest part in the game which they are playing ? Is it manly and honora ble to tell the people that the General is a federalist for the above opinions, and yet tell them Jefferson, Madison and Monroe were republicans. Why do they not tell the whole truth ? Why do they not inform their readers and friends that the opinions of Gen. Harrison upon the subject under consideration, were the same as those of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison and Mr. Mon roe. By doing this they know that they would convict themselves of absurdity, or calumny, and that the people knowing the whole truth would repel with indignation their shallow reasoning, their impotent conclusions, and their unjust and libellous attacks upon an able statesman, a success ful commander, and a virtuous, honest, and patriotic citizen. I could show, were it necessary to tax the time and patience of the reader with the extracts, that Gen. Jackson repeatedly vo ted as a member of the Senate of the Uni ted States, for objects of internal improve ment by Ihe General Government- So 1 did Mr. Benton, Richard M. Johnson* *nd many others of the “Democratic party.” It is strenuously, pertinaciously, and ma lignantly urged against Gen. Harrison, that he voted for the celebrated bill of 1817. “ To set apart and pledge as a funff for In ternal Improvement, the bonus ams United States share of the dividends of the National Bank.” This is charged upon General Harrison as an unpardonable crime, without the’ least regard whatever to the feelings of oldi friends or recent al lies. One migh have supposed, that the relationships lately established between the Administration, and a distinguished 1 Senator from South Carolina, would have wrested from the former, this special weapon of attack. But not so. The game has become so desperate that it must be used even, if, in the thrusts which are so desperately and wantonly made—Mr. Calhoun must receive the deep est wound. What is the history of this bill of 1817 ? Who was its originator, and un der whose aupices was it carried through both houses of ihe National Legislature. Unfortun atelv for the present position of Mr. Calhoun and his pretensions to politi cal immutability and infalihility he was the patronymic of this bill, and to the shame and confusion of the slanderers of Gen. Harri son, let it be known, that two thirds of the members of the Republican party were its constitutional sponsors. It was absolutely considered at the time to be a republican measure, and as proof of the fact, it not only received the votes of two thirds of the republicans, Mr. Forsyth and Col. John son being among the number, but it was opposed by the votes of more than two-thirds of the Federalists. We will now look for a moment to the career of Mr. Van Buren, to see what has been his course in reference to the subject matter of this disquisition.— There is no necessity to go as far back as 1817. We can catch this upright and consistent democrat in the federal folds of this system some years later. We find him in 1822, voting appropriations for the Cum berland road, and also for the establishment of United States toll gates upon that road. No one can deny that this was the highest and most doubtful exercise of power over the subject of internal improvements, that has ever taken place under the constitu tion. But Mr. Van Buren it will be said has changed his opinions. Beit so. Up on what question has he not changed his opinions whenever his purposes required’ it. This is one of the many objections that may be urged against him. Mr. Van Buren’s present opinions upon this subject, can- be no recommendation of him to the South, even', if that section of the Union is opposed to the power in question, upon both constitutional grounds and expediency. There is not the least probability, that Congress will seek to use it, as heretofore, except for purposes to which there could be no objection from any quarter. While Gen. Harrison stilT entertains his former opinions, opinions held in common with many of the old lion hearted Patriots of the revolution—those who fought and bled for the liberties which we enjoy, he nevertheless believes that as the States and private enterprize have done and are doing so much for Internal Im provements, it would now be most expedient for Congress to abandon the exercise of the power for all public works, but those of a character essentially necessary, and the ac complishment of which, comes neither with in the province nor the means of the States. This is no desertion of former opinions, no right about face Van Buren manouvre for political effect, but a wise and statesman like view of the subject—a salutary con formity of the legislation of Congress to the actual state of affairs ; a just and proper abandonment of the use of a constitutional power now rendered inexpedient because no longer necessary. I think I may now safely say, (whatev er views the reader may entertain on the constitutional question) that Gen. Harri son’s opinions and votes in favor of Internal improvements, can by no means convict him of federalism. If they make him a federalist, they place him at least 1 in very good company. They put him down by the side of some, wh6 saw the flame as it as cended from the sacred altar of ’76 ? who threw into it the incense of their hearts, that it might ascend to Heaven in invocation of the God of battles to shield us from danger and to crown us with victory—they place him by the side of the wise and grey head ed fathers of the constitution who framed and devised it, and who knew how to ex pound it, and under whose counsels and auspices we have gone on from infant great ness, to the strength and glory of manhood. And the people will soon place him where, by bringing back the government to the measures which originated in the wisdom of those ancient fathers, he can shake to the flying winds, the innovations and experi ments, the delusions and usurpations, by which that strength has been temporarily shackled and that glory obscured only to burst forth with increased and I trust un fading splendour. MADISON. Washington, Wilkes County, Ga. September 23, 1840. TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWS. Sir: —The frantic agonies, and malignant howlings of the organs of the present Adminis tration, are cheering evidences of the signs of the times. The people have aroused themselves from their slumbers of years, and the hissing of the crushed vipers, the pimps and parasites of power, attest the mighty energy which they have brought to the rescue of the country. After every public, free discussion of men and mea sures, the defeated minions of the present dying faction, retreat yelling and howling back to their dirty kennels, like whipped curs, and pour forth their treasured venom through those common sewers of filth and falsehood-—the Van Buren press of this State. But it is all in vain—their organs are known and appreciated by the pub lic. They have ceased to exert power for good or evil. Nobody looks for any thing but false hood from them sand nobody is ever disappointed. Their only hope left, is to bring down other chan nels of public information to a level with them selves ; but they have miscalculated the intelli gence of the yeomanry of the land. They have no longer power left to betray or deceive them. Let every patriot rejoice thereat. One of the favorite topics of these scavengers of party, to gull the public, is abolition. They evade the great issue formed by the country against the Administration, though they have ruined the currency of the country—plundered the treasury —punished virtue, rewarded vice— annihilated our commerce—destroyed our credit at home and abroad—lifted up free negroes on a level with free white men, at the ballot box and in courts of justice—and recommended a stand ing army of 200,000 men, to silence those whom they cannot buy; they evade all these, and still cry, ** Abolition ! abolition !! abolition !!!” What are the facts 1 Harrison voted with us on the Missouri question ; he now, and at all times, declared the measures of the abolitionists weak, presumptuous,, and unconstitutional. That if slavery be a sin, it is our sin ; if an evil, it is our evil. That the non-slaveholding States have no constitutional or other right to interfere with the question in any way ; his conduct has at all times corresponded with his declarations. All of which is sufficient to satisfy any honest South ern man. Van Buren, on the other hand, has supported, by his votes and declarations, every unconstitutional principle for which the abolition ists contend. No abolitionist contends for the right, in Congress to interfere with slavery in the States ; but they do assert, Ist, That Congress has power to abolish sla very in the District of Columbia; 2dly, In the Territories ; 3dly, To prevent the commerce in slaves, be tween the different States and Territories. Van Buren yields every point. He has de clared Congress has power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. He voted on the Mis souri question, that they possessed that power over the Territories; and he voted in the Senate of the United States, on the Florida question, in favor of preventing the internal trade in slaves. Freemen of Georgia ! be not deceived. Ixx>k on this picture and upon that, and say at the bal lot box, which of the two is the abolitionist. Your fellow’ citizen, TALIAFERRO. TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDE PENDENT PRESS. Sir. —lt has been my peculiar pleasure, to read your very witty remarks in your last paper, in reply to my castigation of the 10th inst. However you may mani fest a disposition to evade and throw off the responsibility of defending your favor ite candidate for the Presidency, in all his “deeds of misrule and disgust,” by throw, ing yourself upon the platform of dignity and privileged order, I am happy to assure you that sush slang will not satisfy the un prejudiced anxious searchings of the peo ple after truth—those who are the advo cates of a free and independent govern ment, looking with no ordinary degree of hatred to every thing which borders on a. rislocracy, or has in the least the appear ance of subverting that noble principle which is contained in our declaration of rights, “ that all men are created free and equal.” Upon this broad basis is placed the only hope of the future security of a people who were born to be free, and made so, by the straggles, the efforts* and the blood of or forefathers, and who have, the most of them, long since slept with their fathers in the land of silence. And pos sessing, I trust, a feeling of high respect for the liberties of a people, with whom I was bred and born, I deemed it no very great departure from the track of duty, when I assumed the responsibility ofdirect ing them to the quick sands of danger, and with all‘the true and patriotic feelings of an American, warned them to flee the wrath that threatened the temple of liberty. And as far as you are concerned, it was perfectly a matter of indifference with me, whether your opinions were taken into con sideration with those who may have read the controversy between us, believing that your political ethics were made up of such a strange combination of materials, that it would require all the Nullifiers and Demo, crats of the age to unriddle them. In fact I did not seek your opinions—and to use your own very courteous and classical man ner of expressing it, I “would not give a button for your opinions on any subject whatever.” In reference to your epithet of “ small fry” which you have thought it necessary to call to your aid, by way of disentangling yourself from the net you have fallen into, I have very little to say—but in the lan guage of a great man,on a similar occasion, I remark, that “respect for the public, and for myself, allow me only to say that like other similar missiles, it has fallen harm less at my feet, exciting no other sensation than that of scorn and contempt.” If you intend the appellation, as applying to hum ble parentage, I admit the correctness of the epithet—l sprang from parents poor, but I trust honest —who gained their living by the “sweat of their brow,” and occupied no better dwelling than that thrown togeth er by the handsof industry—presenting not to the passing stranger the appearance of a costly dome, but the more humble hovel of a “log cabin,” with the “string of the latch always out.” If this admission will answer your purposes, I am perfectly wil ling that your vanity should be fully satis fied, by making any use of it which your dignified character may permit you to do. For, be assured, that it has been a point “nearest my heart,” to live with an eye sin gle to the good of my country at large — the respect of the community around me— the honor of a young and growing family— based upon a good name, of which, I trust, I have many living witnesses. But, the appellation of small fry seems applicable in another sense, in which it affords me no little pleasure in using it.— You remark, that you had “committed an error in condescending to notice Dr. Price’s questions.” No doubt of it—the people of Wilkes, who have been carefully exam ing the controversy think so, but it seems that you did not become informed of your condescension soon enough to escape the frying which 1 gave you. Those who were present at Mallorysville,well remember the singling out, in a public crowd, our humble self, and then and there applying the lash —why did you not argue your questions bd fore your own people, and tell them the wondersofthe Administration without deal ing with small fry, or “condescending,” to notice “every little upstart itching for no toriety,” at a public meeting of your party, where the controversy between us should not have been called in question. Sir, you have discovered your mistake too late— you seemed not to have had sagacity suffi cient to see your “error in condescension,” until you had fallen into the “fryingpan',” and now it shall be my prerogative to deal with you “as seemeth good and if I have been so fortunate as to be “thrown out up on the surface of the great political waves,to catch minnows and other small fry,” I am particularly cheered with my success in getting you entangled in the net, as one of the species so beautifully described by your own pen. Sir, your case as connected with this controversy, very much reminds me of an old friend who was not very stead fast in matters of truth. The old gentle man was not, by the way, particularly fond of smallfry, which will more readily appear in the sequel, and atone time sta ted that he had eaten eighteen shad —the brethren hearing of this remarkable coinci dence, arraigned the brother before the ec clesiastical tribunal—the charge was made and proof adduced ; the old veteran, how ever, strong to his purpose, insisted on the correctness ofhis statement. Being ques tioned as to the possibility of such a thing, he stated, that he had “fryed them all up into a double handfull f!” The application is with you. I now come to the discussion of the ques tions propounded to you—though I almost feel it unnecessary to touch them again, as yow have virtually admitted the correct ness of my charges against Mr. Van Bu ren, by entirely passing over them in si . lence ; but as there are other and more im portant matters of fact involved in this con troversy, than tllie mere settlement of it between us, I shall again revert to them, and argue them singly. 1.. Can you sustain the charge, that Gen. Harrison is an Abolitionist ? To which you reply, in a very vague manner, that Gen. Harrison, considers it “a calumny to be called friendly to slavery —calling it an evil, moral and political.” Well, here is strongproofof Gen. Harrison’s abolitionism. Was Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Mon roe, Madison, and hundreds of other public men, Abolitionists ? You will answer me ■ emphatically, No! Did they not possess opinions similar to those of Harrison ? Yes—then, why were they not termed Ab olitionists ? Because at that day, such charges were not found to answer the ends of a few designing politicians, and corrupt demagogues, for the purpose of proping up a sinking dynasty. But fearful, that some hold may be taken, I will quote the express words of Gen. Harrison, so often harped upon by the opposition presses, to show how utterly farthey fall from proving him an abolitionist through that medium. He says, “ I am accused of being friendly to slavery. From my earliest youth up to the present moment, li-have been the ardent friend of human liberty. At the age of eighteen, I became a member of an aboli tion society, established at Richmond, Vir ginia.” Let the anxious enquirer after truth observe when this letter was written, and the circumstances under which it was penned. The letter was written in 1822, upwards of eighteen years ago, when Gen. Harrison was a candidate for Congress from the State of Ohio—he living in a non slaveholding State, and being opposed to slavery himself, which his yarmest advo cates do not deny, found it necessary to re fute a charge made against him, for elec tioneering purposes, the purport of which was that he was friendly to slavery, because he voted with the South on the. Missouri question. His reasons for voting with us on that question are plainly and emphatical ly expressed in his own language, which I shall quote. After stating his connection with the society in Richmond, which was to procure the “freedom of slaves by every legal means.” He says: “ I deny that my votes in Congress, in relation to Missouri and Arkansas, are in the least incom patible with these principles. Congress had no more legal or constitutional right to emancipate the negroes in those sections of Louisiana, with out the consent of their owners, than they hawe to free those of Kentucky. These people were secured in their property by. a solemn covenant with France when the country was purchased from that power.” Now I ask any candid mind to point out any thing improper in this ? Does it not bespeak a bold and fearless spirit—a spirit which skulks from no contest nor evades question. But, says he, “I became a menu ber of an abolition society at the eighteen, in Richmond, Virginia.” WWIt let us examine this also. The opponents of Gen. Harrison are very careful and ju dicious, when using this as an instrument of opposition, not to inform us what was the nature and object of this society, No, they keep this in the back ground,—and deal largely in epithets—it was called an abo lition society, that is all sufficient for them. I will explain what I understand to be the object of it, it was to obtain the release of such slaves, “ and procure their freedom by every legal means,” as were kidnapped and brought there by dishonest scoundrels w were flooding the country with them, and making slaves of them, whose title to them were as flimsy and thread-bare as the charges made against Gen. HaiVlson—in deed he was the “friend of human liberty” —the battles fought and the victories won in the cause of his country, all, all, pro claim him to be the “ardent friend of hu man liberty.” Another feature in this picture, to the fallacy of applying it to Geii. Harrison to prove him an Abolitionist is, that it was formed upwards of fifty years ago— and that in Richmond, Virginia, a slave holding State, and slaveholders members of it. Is it not a fact beyond contradiction, that at that time such a being as an Aboli tionist, according to the modern term, would have heen as strange a sight in Richmond as a Baboon in a pulpit—such principles as are now held and propagated by the Ab olitionists were not dreamed of fifty years ago when Gen. Harrison was a member of the society referred to. It carries contra diction in the very face of it. But coming down to a later period in the history of Gen- Harrison's public life, I quote from his Vincennes speech to show his opinions in reference to the Abolitionists and their schemes of horror and death—and after reading them, let him that would dare cir culate the foul slander, take care that he does it not in public—least his veracity may be called in question, and his devotion to Party become stronger than his love of country. He says: “ I have now, fellow-citizens, a few words more to say on another subject, and which is, in my opinion* of more importance than any other that is now in the course of discussion in any part of the Union. I allude to the societies which have- been formed, and the movements of certain individuals, in some of the States, in rela tion to a portion of the population in others. The conduct of these persons is the most dangerous, because their object is masked under the garb of disinterestedness and benevolence; ana their course vindicated by arguments and propositions which in the abstract no one can deny. But, however-fascinating may be the dress with which their schemes are presented to their fellow citizens, with whatever purity of intention they may have been formed and sustained, they will be found to carry in their train mischief to the whole Union, and'horrors to a large portion of it which it is probable some of the projectors, and many of their supporters, have never thought of; the latter, the first in the series of evils which are to spring from this source, are such as you have read of to have been perpetrated on the fair plains of Italy and Gaul by the Scythian hordes of Atilla and Alaric ; and 6uch as most of you ap prehended upon that memorable night, when the tomahawks and war-clubs of the followers of Te cumseh were rattling in your suburbs. I regard not the disavowals of any such intentions upon the part of the authors of these schemes, since, upon the examination of the publications which have been made, they will he found to contain every fact and every argument which would have been used if such had been their objects. lam certain that there is not in this assembly one of tliese deluded men, and there are few within the bonnds of the State. If there are any, I would earnestly entreat them to forbear, to pause in their career, and deliberately consider the conse quences of their conduct to the whole Union—to the States more immediately interested, and to those for whose benefit they profess to act That the latter will be the victims of the weak, injudi cious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional efforts to sen e them, a thorough examination of the sub ject must convince them. The struggle (and struggle there must be) may commence with horrors such as I have described, but it will end ■ with more firmly riveting the chains, or in the utter extirpation of those whose cause they ad vocate. Am I wrong, fellow-citizens, in apply, ing the terms weak,"presumptuous, and uncon stitutional, to the measures of the emancipators 1 A slight examination will, I think, show that lam not.” In his Cheviott speech, he says : “ If 1 am correct in the principles here ad vanced, I support my assertion, that the discus sion oh the subject of emancipation in the non slaveholding States, is equally injurious to the slaves and their masters, and that it has no sanc tion in the principles of the Constitution.” I now call upon those who are the gratu itous distributors of the charges made gainst Gen. Harrison calmly and dispas sionately to ask themselves, how it could be possible for Gen. H. to have been an Abolitionist 50 years ago, and still be one, and yet use such language and apply such epithets as are used in the quotations above? A further elucidation of this part of my sub ject! is unnecessary. I hope that honest hearts and better heads will bestow the meed of praise where it is mostly deserved. 2. Did not Mr. Van Buren oppose the admission of Missouri into the Union, be cause of slavery ? This you did not deny —you cannot deny it successfully ; but as I have before me a preamble and resolu-