Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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: