Newspaper Page Text
suppoited, ami the Democrats opposed
it, it was again rejected, 36 voting for it;
of whom 113 wi re Whig- and -J Demo*
crnls; am! 72 voting again:-'. it; ot v. limit
61 were Democrats ami 11 YY lugs.
The old constitution of i’enn ylvuiiia
did not cxprcs.-ly exclude negroes from
the right of suffrage. In the convention,
Mr. John B. Sterigere, a leading De
mocrat, offered a resolution proposing,
among other things, an amendment de
claring that “every free white male” of
the age, &c. shall enjoy the light of snl
frage; and afterwards Mr. Andrew Bed -
ford, another Democrat, proposed a simi
lar amendment. The committee oil that
part of the Constitution, a majority heiag
Whigs, reported the section admitting
“every freeman,” &c. to the right ol mil
frnge, omitting the word while. The
committee of the \\ hole, to which the
proposition was referred, reported in fa
vor of leaving the Constitution, in that re
spect, us it then stood. Mr. Thnihleus
•Stevens and Mr. John Dickey', both lead
ding Whigs, proposed amendments ad
mitting negro suffrage.
The subject was not acted on fursnine
weeks, during which seventy-one memo
rials were presented against negro sui
frage, (id hy Democrats and 5 hy V> higs;
and 3d in favor of negro suffrage, 3 by
Democrats and 30 hy Wings. Oncol
these memorials was from the negroes ot
Philadelphia, which the convention re
fused to print, 44 Whigs and 6 Demo
crats voting for the motion.
When the subject again came up Mr.
Benjamin Martin, a Democrat, moved to
amend by inserting the word “white” be
fore the word “freemen,” thereby exclu
ding negroes. The reporters show that
Messrs. Brown, Cummin, Fleming, Ful
ler, McCuhen, Martin, l\vne 4 Stcrigere,
Sturdi vant, and Woodward, Democrats,
and Judge Hopkinson, Whig, supported
the amendment, uml that Messrs. Aguew,
Biddle, Chandler, Cbnuncey, Darlington,
Dickey, Forward, Maclay, Montgomery,
and lteigard, W higs, anil Messrs. Earl
and Furelly, Democrats, opposed it.
The amendment was adopted after sev
eral days’ discussion, 41 W higs and 4
Democrats voting against it.
Mr. Scott, a Whig delegate, then of
fered an amendment proposing to vest
in the Legislature pawertoadmit negroes
to the right of suffrage after the year
1860, which was rejected; 33 Whigs and
41 Democrats voting for it.
Five successive attempts were made hy
Whigs to admit negroes of the light of
suffrage, which were voted down, the
Whigs giving for them from 26 to 30
votes, and the Democrats nevermore than
three. Finally the total exclusion was
carried bv a vote oi 88 in 33; and of this
•33, no less than 30 were Whigs.
NEW YORK.
The State of New York, under the
rule of a Whig Governor and Legisla
ture, presents a mollifying contrast to
Democratic and patriotic Pennsylvania.
It was a coalition between the W higs and
Abolitionists, which secured the elec
tion of the present Governor and Lieu
tenant Governor, (lie latter of whom, if
not the former, isjan avowed Abolition
ist. One of the first acts of the combined
party, after trey acquired a complete as
cendency ovei thej .Stale Governor, was
to turn out the State Printer, a thorough
Democrat, who had always vindicated
the constitutional rights of the South, and
put in his place Timrlow Weed, a noto
rious ami most active Aholitioni.-t. The
assneiuttails of this man and other active
Whigs in Albany, are shown hy a peti
tion to the New Yjo.ik Legislature at the
late session, which begins thus: “That
under the original! Constitution of the
State,Wi dniqiialilticalioil was made ol
electors on aeCounjt of color;” and ends
ns follows: Your petitioners, therefore,
respectfully requesjt your honorable body
to take the necessary preliminary mea
sures (bv the passage of a law) to enable
the people of the State to abrogate the act
of disfranchisement] of the colored people
contained in the cut) ol the first section of
the 2d article of the constitution.”
This paper was, signed hy Thurlow
Weed, State Printer, Israel Smith, Loan
Commissioner, appointed hy Gov. Se
waid, Horace Greedy, Editor es the “Log
Cabin,” a small paper sustained hy the
Whigs during the present season, 11.
Huffman, one of the proprietors ol the
Stale paper, four negroes, and 80 to 100
other persons, nearly all Y\ higs. Os the
very few Democrats! who signed it, there
was not one pormincut man of the party.
But this is nothing compared with the
action of the united Whig and Abolition
parties in the Legislature.
Mr. M Him, a relative of the late dis
tinguished Democratic member of Con
gress of that name, offered in the House
of Representatives of that Slate the fol
lowing resolution, viz:
“Resoloed , That this Legislature has
seen with deep regret, and decidedly dis
approves and condemns the efforts of
many misguided’individuals in the Nor
thern States, to interfere, with our rights
and in violation of the principles on which
the Constitution of the United Stales was
established, with the domestic institutions
of our sister States ik the South: thereby
disturbing the domestic peace of the
States, weakening the bonds of our Union,
and sowing the seeds of its dissolution.”
One of the Whig members having the
floor, made a most violent speech against
this resolution, denouncing the Adminis
tration of the General Government and
the Democratic party; and to cut off all
chance of a reply, concluded by deman
ding the previous question, in which lie
was sustained by his party. Under this
g”k r . so unceremoniously applied, the j
resolution was voted down by 41) yeas to
57 nays, every yen but one being a De
mocrat, and every nay a Whig.
But the Whig Abolition majority rlid
not stop here; they proceeded to pass an
act new standing as a law upon the stat
ute book of New York, intenued to pro
ve at the recovery of, and practically
emancipate, every Southern slave who
may be able to reach that Stale !
‘This act was originally introduced iu
!t > the House of Representatives. Air.
Roosevelt, u Democrat, moved to amend
I u so ns to provide, that “so far ns re
-1 spects the penalty of imprisonment in the
I Stale prison, it slutli not be construed to
j r\ end to tiny claimant ot a lugitive'sluve
i who shall have obtained the certificate ol
a judge or other officer, nuthorizing the
removal of such slave, pursuant to the
act ol the Congress of the United Stales
in such ease made and provided.” This
amendment was adopted by a vote ot 47
to 37. Os the 47 yeas, 40 were Demo
crats and 7 \\ higs. All ol the 3/ nays
were YY lugs. The bill then passed by a
vote of 51) to 24. Os the 59 yeas 49
were Whigs and 10 Democrats, while the
24 nays were all Democrats.
The bill then went to the Senate. The
provision exempting Southern men front
! the penitentiary when they proceed ac
cording to the law of Congress in the re
emery of lliei.i property, did not suit the
spirit of Abolition. In the Senate, there
fore, the united Whig and Abolition ma
jority struck out this provision, and iu
acried the sixteenth and seventeenth sec
tions, as they now stand in the act, the
latter of which in conjunction with the
Sih section, imposes on any man, wheth
er tiie owner of the slave or not, or wheth
er he proceed according to the act of
Congress or not, a penalty of §SOO, and
confinement in the Penitentiary for a
term not exceeding ten years, for remov
ing a fugitive from labor in any other
manner than that prescribed in this State
law. Thus amended, the hill passed the
Senate bv a vote ot 15 to 4. Os the 15
yeas, 13 were Whigs and 2 were Demo
crats, while all the nays were Democints.
When the hill was returned to the
House, Air. Birdseye, a Whig, moved to
concur in the amendment of the Senate,
and Air. Roosevelt, a Democrat, moved
to lay the motion on the table. Air.
Roosevelt’s motion was negatived, and
.Mr. Birdseye’s prevailed, by a vote 0f42
J to 31, all the yeas being Whigs, and all
i the nays being Democrats, save one.
Thus, ail tiie Whigs in the New York
I Assembly, save one, voted to punish eve
ry Southesn man who shall attempt to
recover his slave property in that State,
even though he may proceed in strict ac
cordance with the laws of the United
States, with a tine of§soo, and ten years’
confinement in the penitentiary, while
every Democrat voted against it. And
this monstrous act, which attempts at a
blow to annihilate one of the provisions
of the Constitution, inserted for the pro
tection of Southern property in slaves,
received tlie signature of the Whig Gov
ernor of New York, and now stands upon
the statute book of that State as u law!
No man can doubt that the object of
the Abolitionist in procuring the passage
of this act was to prevent altogether the
recovery of fugitive slaves, who have
made their way to that State. Holding
that the ntaster can have no legal prop
erty in his slave, and anticipating that
some of their sect will he found on every
jury, they believe that no verdict will ever
be obtained by a master, and that every
slave apprehended as a fugitive from la
bor will liiially go free; and so deter the
master from resorting to other means for
rediess, not excepting those provided for
by an act ol Congress, they hold up to
him, in terror, heavy fines and imprison
ment in the penitentiary!
Acting under the same fata! influence,
the W ing Governor of New York has as
sumed a principle in relation to fugitives
from justice never before heard of, vve be
lieve, and more fatal to the interests and
safety of the Buutli than even the jury
act, which lie approved. Last year three
individuals from Now York, being on
board a vessel at Norfolk Virginia, stole
a slave from his muster and carried him
to New York. The Governor of Vir
ginia demanded of the Governor of New
York to cause the thieves to be delivered
up for trial, ns provided by the Constitu
tion and laws of the United States. This
the Governor of New York refused to do,
on the assumption that, by the Jaws of
New York, there can lie no property in
human beings; that bv those laws the
stealing of a slave is no crime; and that
to justify the delivery of a fugitive from
justice, tiie act with which lie is charged
must be made a crime in the State to
which he lias lied! It is in vain that the
Constitution of the United States recog
nises a property in sin we; it is in vain
that the Judiciary of tlie United States
universally recognise (his kind of proper
ty; the Governor of New York, though
sworn to support the Constitution, when
called upon to execute one of its provis
ions, declares that he cannot consider
slaves as property ! It is in vain that the
Constitution declares, in so many words,
that “a person Cll A RG El) in any State
with treason, fclonv or oilier crime, who
shall flee from justice and be found in
any other State, shall, on demand of the
Executive authority of the State from
which lie fled, be delivered tip to be re
moved to the State having jurisdiction of
the crime,” without conferring on the
Executive authority of the State to which
lie fled power to go hack a single step be
yond the charge; yet, the Governor of
New York has assumed the power to de
cide that the act charged is no crime, and
under cover of that usurpation lias refu
sed to obey the mandate of the Constitu
tion! So much of Governor Seward’s
letter asshows the ground of bis refusal is
heieto annexed, m iked G.
We cannot shut our eyes to the fact,
this extraordinary assumption by the
Whig Governor of New York, which, so
far ns that Stale is concerned, annuls a
provision of the Constitution designed for
the benefit of the South, is the fruit of
that union between AY higs andAboli-j
tionists, from which Bo obtains lii3 office
and derives his power ! Elected by Abo
lition votes, aed relying upon tlum for
re-election, new principles are sought af
ter mid new constructions adopted, fatal
to the rights of tiie South and the institu
tions of the country, to avoid offending
the wild fanaticism which in that State
holds the balance of power.
See, fellow-citizens, w hut, in the State
of New York, Uns Been the effect of the
coalition between the Whigs and Aboli
tionists. To steal your negroes has be
come no crime! Citizens of New York
iimy steal them from your plantations or
houses in the niglit, and carry them home
in their ships; if you seek to punish the
thieves, you are told it is no crime! If
you seek to recover your stolen property,
a New York jury, following the example
of their Whig Governor, tell you there
can be no property in a man! ami ifyoa
seek redress in the Federal courts, or
otherwise, you arc menaced with fines
end the penitentiary ! It is thus that the
Whig Governor and Legislature of that
State proposes to keep your stolen prop
erty and to screen the thieves from pun
ishment !
Now look at the Democracy of that
State: Every man of them in the House
of Assembly, and all hut two in the Sen
ate, voted against this infamous act. Not
only so, Lint at the close of the session
they adopted, and incor
porated m their “address to the Demo
cratic electors of the State ol New York,”
the following resolution, viz:
“Ilcsntvcd That the Federal majority,
in passing a law at the last session, inflic
tinga penalty of five hundred dollars on
any person who attempts to recover a fu
gitive slave—a measiiredesignedto catch
Abolition votes—and at the same time
giving their support to General Harrison,
who voted in the Ohio Legislature to sell
poor white men for slaves—furnished an
apt illustration of their principles and
their consistency, and if the bill had pas
sed as it was originally prepared by the
judiciary committee, and in which form it
was urged upon tlie House, the Federal
candidate for Vice President might have
been sent to tin* State prison for ten years,
provided one of his slaves had taken ref
uge i:i the State and he had attempted to
recover him, in the manner prescribed hy
a law ofCougress.”
OHIO.
From this theatre of outrage and had
faith under Whig authority, it is pleasant
to turn to the conduct of the Slate of
Ohio under Democratic rule. Passing
j over the strong resolutions adopted hy
| the Legislature of that State in 1839, we
j come directly to apnore decisive act ex
hibiting the determination of her Democ
racy to maintain the compromises of the
Constitution and preserve peace and good
feelings with the slaveholding States.
•Suffering from the acts of the Aboli
tionists enticing away the slaves from the
countiies bordering on the Ohio river,
concealing and sending them to Canada,
the Legislature, r.f Kentucky resolved to
send Commissioners to Ohio to ask for
the passage of more effective laws by
the latter Stale, to put an end to the evil.
In their communication to the Governor
and Legislature of Ohio, dated January
26th, 1839, the Kentucky Commissioners
thus set forth the grievances of which
their State complained, viz:
“In calling the attention of the Legis
lature of Ohio to the subject of the fore
going resolution, ami soliciting for it their
respectful and deliberate consideration,
the undersigned would remark, that the
injuries sustained by the citizens of Ken
tucky. inhabiting the countries bordering
on the Ohio river, adjacent to this State,
by the Joss of their slaves, has ceased to
be confined to a small number of per
sons. Facts within the present, knowl
edge of tiie Representativssof those coun
tries, and communicated to the Legisla
ture in numerous memorials of the peo
ple, leave no doulit that losses are felt to
an alarming extent, threatening in the
absence of more efficient legislation, not
only to lessen the value, hat to endanger
materially the tenure of that species of
property in many of the counties of the
Commonwealth, and to excite disaffec
tion and disturbance among citizens of a
common confederacy who should feel
themselves allied by the strongest lies oi
fraternity and friendship.
“Late devclopements, moreover, of a
character so conspicuous as to require
from the undersigned no more than a bare
allusion to them, have attracted the at
tention of the gooil citizens, both ofOliin
and Kentucky, to the existence of an or
ganized plan of operaton, by means of
which, after the slaves of the citizens of
Kentucky are enticed from their owners,
they are first concealed and aftervvaids
conveyed through the State of Ohio to
the British Northwestern dominions, with
such secrecy and despatch as to elude, at
once, detection and pursuit.”
Response to the call of a sister State,
the Ohio Legislature immediately took up
the subject, and a hill was reported “re
lating to fugitives from labor or service
from oilier States.”
During tiie progress of this bill in the
House of Representatives, Air. Loyd, n
Whig, moved an amendment to the ef
fect, that the individual claimed as a
slave, shall have the right of trial bv jury
etc. which was rejected. The hill passed
the House by a vote of 52 to 15. Os the
52 yens, 40. were Democrats and 12
Whigs. Os the nays, every man was a
Whig.
After resolute opposition by some of
the Whig members, the bill passed the
Senate by a vote of 26 to 10. Os the
yeas, 19 were Democrats and 7 Whigs;
of the nays, all were Whigs.
The act was approved by Air. Shan
non, the Democratic Governor of the
State, and thus became n law.
In this just and noble manner did the
Democratic State of Ohio evince her re
i gnrd for the Federal obligations, and the
j interest of her sister Slates. It is in the
j prevalence of such a spirit that we tire to
look fur the perpetuity ol tiie Union, the
i inviolability of State rights, and the pres
jervntion ol individual liberty.
RESULTS. ’
You cannot fail to have perceived the
striking fact, that wherever in the North
the Whigs have the ascendancy, there
Abolition is strongest; but wherever the
Democrats govern, there the rights of the
South, and the compromises of the Con
stitution, arc sacredly regarded. You will
have perceived, that in the various State
Legislatures, the Whigs as a party liuve
cbuntcriaiiced, aided and abetted the Abo
litionists, while the Democratic party
have- opposed them.
While most of the States where the
Whig party bear the sway, have adopted
Abolition resolutions, no Democratic
State, as far ns vve are informed or be
lieve, lias adopted or countenanced such
proceedings. And while the Democratic
State of Ohio, by the action of both her
Legislative and Executive Departments,
has taken the most effective steps to pro
tect the rights and property of her sister
States, the State of New York, while un
der Whig rule, has resorted to measures
of wrong and outrage towards the South
of the most aggravated description.
FURTHER CROOK.
Is any other proof wanting to show the
close union between the Whigs and the Ab
olitionists of the North? Wo have in their
combined action iri reference to the next Pres
idential election?
it is known to you that the Whigs and
Democrats have each held their naiiooai con
ventions within the last few months, in ref
erence lo the next election of President of the
United Slates. The Democratic Conven
tion held at !ial(iiilore in May last, in which
there were delegates from the noii-slavchnkl
j io.g Stales of Ahiine, New Hampshire, Ver
| moot, Ahi-sacln, -setts, Rhode Island, New
York, New Jersey, Pensylvania, Ohio, In- j
ditma, and Michigan, (us well as from most
,of the Southern States,) regarding this one
i of the most important'questions ofihe day,
j did not pass it by in silence. The ‘commit-j
! tee appointed “to prepare resolutions, dcelar-
I atoi v ofihe principlesnflhe Republican p.ar
ty of the Union,” consisting of one member
from cadi of the State;- represented in ihe
convention, ami the chairman of v. hie 1 1 com
mitl.ee was the honorable K. 11. Gillct oft
New York, repotted the following amongst
other resolutions, viz:
“dlesolvcd, That Congress has no power
under I lie Constitution, to interfere with or
control the domestic institutions of the sev-!
erat Slates, and that such States are the sole
and proper judges of every thing appertaining I
to their own olliiirs, nut prohibited bv tiie j
Constitution; that all efforts of tfio Abolition- i
isis mothers made lo induce Congress to iri- 1
lerfere with qiiesiions'-of slavery,’ or to ‘take
incipient steps in relation thereto, are calcu
lated lo lend to the most alarming and dan
gerous consequences, and that all such efforts
have an inevitable tendency to diminish tiie
happiness of the people, and endanger the
stability and permanency of the Union, and
ought not to he countenanced by any friend
loour political institutions.”
The question vvas taken on ibis resolution,
r,s on all the others, separately, and it was
adopted unanimously—every Democrat from
the non-slave bolding as well ns lltesiavehold
ing States, voting for it. Can any Southern
man a..k a stronger assoiauee, that the great
majority of the Democratic party of tire
North are ready and anxious to coiitinuo to
us the protection of the constitutional guar
antee?
Now lei us inquire, when: is the resolution
of corresponding character, to be found in the
proceedings, tit her ofihe National Whig
Convention held at Harrisburg, or Baltimore? !
We answer enphotically, no where. Neither \
of those conventions adopted any resolution \
upon the subject; and why did they not ?• ‘
Can any sue of von resist the conclusion, j
that it vvas to avoid giving offence to. or losing 1
the support of the Abolition branch ofthtir
party ?
Every movement ofihe combined party
since lias tended lo confirm this conclusion.
Every Abolitionist and every Northern i
W hig in Congress, supports the nomination
of General Harrison. Os the Executive
committee appointed by the concurrent action
of the Whigs and Abolitionists in that body
to promote his election, there are three pledg
ed Abolitionists, and three Northern Whigs
associated, we are sorry to say, with thiee
Southern Whigs. The nomination of Har
rison itself is well known to have been coin
ed by a coalition between the \\ higs and Ab
olitionists. Many ofihe delegates to the Har
risburg Convention had already been in their
several slates the leaders of Abolition move
ments. Such were Jamc-s F. Simmons, the
chairman of the committee in the Rhode Is
land Legislature, which reported the Aboli
tion resolutions. Win. Claike, Geo. Cham
bers, Win. Darlington, .Inn. Dickev, E. T.
McDowell, James Merrill, and E.O. UiCgart,
vvholnok sin active part in favor of the Aboli
tion movements in the convention to abend
the Constitution of'Perinsylvaiiia.
ABOLITION TRIUMPH.
In deed, the results oft he Harrison Conven
tion were every where hailed by ihe Aboli
tionist as a signal triumph. Henry Clay,
Abolition aside, was known to be “the first
choice ofihe convention; but be had render
ed himself obnoxious to the Abolitionists by
his denunciationsol'iheir marl projects in the
Senate of the United Slates, in addition to
which lie was a slave holder. For those rea
sons, the Abolitionists in the convention set
themselves at work to defeat bis nomi nation,
and succeeded; whereupon, a shout of tri
umph arose from the whole of the Inimical
sect.
The Liberator, tlioir nrgnn in Rosidn, said:
“vve regard this as another important! sign of
the times, ns a signal defeat of the sfa veocra
cy power in that convention. Had', it not
been fiir Abolitionism. Henry Clay would
undoubtedly have been nominated. We
have faith to believe that no slaveholder will
ever again be permitted to lill the rjiesiden
lial office in this Republic.” -i
Pile Emancipator, their organ fib Now
Y ork, said: “Praise to God for a gre M anti
slavery victory. A man of high tah-.nis, of
gieat distinction, of long political services, of
boundless personal popularity, lias b.con\open
ly rejected for the Presidency of this Repub
lic on account of his devotion to slave t v
Setups monument of progress there,” “a
slaveholder is incapacitated dir the Presiden
cy of the United Slates,” &c.
The Philanthropist, their organ nt Cirnein
naui, declared that the Abolition Editors ail
regarded the “rejection of Air. Clay, and the
selection of Genernl'Hnrrison, as to some ex
tern a concession to the spirit of liberty in the
North.”
The Oberlin (Ohio) Evangelist said: “the
nomination of William Henry llmrison for
President of tile United Slates, and the rejec
tion of Henry Clay, shows that a slavehold
er can never again expect to he President of
this free Republic.” ”lt may now he re
garded as n settled matter that Henry Clay,
uor any other slaveholder, can ever be I’rcsU
dem ofihe United Slates, even supposing the
party to which he belongs to he the majority.”
‘•For what has been gained we w ill render
thanks to Gyd, and for what is yet needed to
he gained, we will trust in the Same God, and
in the faithful and diligent use of the same
means which have prevented the nomination
of a slaveholder for President this tin, e.”
(Jn a subsequent day, the Liberator said:
“It is needless lo multiply proofs that the de
feat of llenry Clay at Harrisburg, was deem
ed by Abolitionists generally a clear demon
slraiton of the growth of ami slavery in the
free States.”
Not only ihe Abolition presses, but Aboli
tion societies and conventions, joined : n the
chorus of triumph at the exclusion of a slave
holder from nomination, solely because he
was a slaveholder.
The Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society,
! at their annual meeting
“Resolved, That vve regard the refusal of
j die 11 arrishurg Convention to nominate lien
ryClay as a candidate for the I’rri-idency, as
a signal and glorious triumph of truth over
error, of liberty over slavery,” &c. &c.
The Exei otive Committee of the National
Anti-Slavery Society, at the late meeting of
the society m New York, used in their report
the following language, viz: “We declare
our entire conviction that the cause itself
for which the society was formed, and to
which it is, therefore, merely secondary, is
advancing in the public mind with great rap
idity and power. The rejection of Henry
Clay, a slaveholder and defender of slavery,
is a way-mark in our history.” This is the
very first evidence they adduce of the ad
vancement ol’iheir causa, to which they add,
among others, “the peaceful delivery of that
pottion of the Hon. YYillianr Slate’s speech
presses the abolition of slavery in the District
efColumhia, with its insertion in die colrnus
of the National Ittlelligenaer, w hich,” they
say, “shows the beginning of a change in the
’feelings of slaveholders.” Nor do the com
mittee omit lo notice, as another evidence of
the ath ante of their enure, the act of the
New York Legislature to width tie have tc
fi'rrtd. Thev-sny, “Air. Birney had the op-|
por unity of speaking at length on the s. id jet t
in the Representatives’ lialPnf the State of
New York, before a committee ar.d in the
presence of a large number of the members
of die Stale Legislature, now in session,
which removed some of the misapprehensions
ns to the jury bill anil some other measures in
agitation.”
The ilariisburg nomination is nothing
more nor less than one of the boasted fruits
ofihe coalition between the Northern Whigs
and Abolitionists, which I as produced their
joint action in the State Legislatures in pass
ing resolutions and nets destructive to rights
and interests ol the South, and dangerous to
the pence and union of these Stales. If this
coalition shall succeed in obtaining control of
the Governments of Pennsylvania, Ohio In
diana, and Illinois, and if all those Stalls
shall pass laws similar to that passed I v
New York, and their Executive aulhorilhs
shall adopt the course of action, what securi
ty will the slnveholding Stales have for their
property? Every slave w hn can succeed in
passing the limits of those States, will le
practically free. ‘Thieves will steal your
slaves and he protected with their plunder
thonghout ail those States bordering on the
slavclkolding region. The Constitution of
die i nitc-d States and the laws of Congress
for the protection of your slave property will
not only be made void, hut it will’ lea
crime to execute them. The lands of the
Smith, after the withdrawn! ofihe hands that
cultivate them, will lose more than half their
value, and abject-poverty, if not absolute des
olation, will be the late of vast regions oka
now productive and growing eountiy.
WHO ARE OUR FRIENDS.
What party is it which is battling the cause
of the South in Ohio and Pennsylvania? It
is the Democratic party. Should they be
■ overpowered by tiie coalition of Whigs and
Abolitionists, what will be the consequences?
The just and liberal act of Ohio will be re
pealed, and the plunder law of New York
will be substituted in its place, while its Go
vernors will protect the plunderer. The Ste
venses, the Seigeants, the Dennys, and their
Abolition associates, in the convention of
Pennsylvania, who were baffled by the De
mocracy, will use the power of the Legisla
ture ami Governor to accomplish tire object
heretofore unsuccessfully attempted. All
barriers w bielt protect our interests, the comi
ty (and neighbors, the obligation of compacts,
every principle, every law, and every insti
tution which obstructs this fell spirit, will be
swept away, and vve shall be compelled to
struggle unaided, for the preservation of our
constitutional rights, if not our existence as
Stales.
Under these circumstances, can any man
shut his eyes to the fart, that the mass ofihe
party which rapport General Harrison in the
non-slaveholding states, is practically the en •
uetny ofihe South, whatever may be the
feelings of many of the individuals which
compose it? Is any one so blind as not to
perceive, that the consequences w hich have
immediately followed their entire ascendency
in the Stale ol New York, w ill inevitably fol
low their ascendency in every other non
slavehnlding State? Does not every one
know, that t he same strength w hich will give
Harrison the vote of those States, will also
tlitow their Executive and legislative autho
rities into the hands of 1 1:c Abolitionists and
their allies? Are not the triumphs of Har
rison and anti-slavery in those States to be
achieved by the same men, by the same
presses, by the Same arguments? And is
not t he cause ofihe one, to all political interns
iha cause oft lie other ? No intelligent man,
after surveying.the field of political action,
can doubt it. On the other it a ml, is not the
cause of Democracy in those Suites the cause
of anti-Abolition, the cause of the South, of
justice, and of the Constitution; and will not
its signal triumph secure the slaveholding
States in all their peculiar rights anti inter
ests?
r i’<> ns it seems amazing, that under these
circumstances, the. South does not, as oue
man, declare In favor of the Northern De
mocracy. Mr. Jefferson said, that the “De
mocracy of the North is the natural ally of
the South;” and never vvas the iru'.lt ofihe
declaration, or the importance ofihe alliance,
more manifest than at this moment.
We beg every Southern man, to whatever
party he may belong, to answer to his own
bosom the following questions: