Newspaper Page Text
TIIE SOUTHERN SENTINEL
Is published every Thursday Yloming,
IX COL I'M HI'S, CIA.
BY WILLIAM H. CHAMBERS,
EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.
To whom ull communications murt be directed, post paid.
Office on Randolph Street.
Terms of Subscription.
One copy twelve months, in advance, - - $2: 50
“ “ Not in advance, -3 00
“ “ Six “ “ “ - 150
!-’£?**_ Where the subscription is not paid during the
year, 15 cents will be charged for every month’s delay.
No subscription will be receives! tor less than six
months, and none discontinued until all arrearages arc
)>a]d, except at the option ol the proprietor.
To Clubs.
Five copies twelve months, - $lO 00
len “ f< “ 10 00
XJUT The money from Clubs must in all cases ac
company the names, or the price of a single subscription
Will be charged.
Rates of Advertising.
One Square, first insertion, - - - $1 00
“ “ Each subsequent insertion, - 50
A liberal deduction on these terms will be made in favor
of those who advertise by the year.
Advertisements not specified as to time, will be pub
lished till forbid, and charged accordingly.
Monthly Advertisements will be charged as new Ad-
Vcrti icmcnts at each insertion.
~ ( Legal Advertisements.
N. B.—Sale3 ol Lands, by Administrators, Ex
ecutors, or Guardians,are required by law to beheld on
the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10
hi tile forenoon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court
House in the county in which the land is situated. No
tices of these sales must be given in a public gazette
sixty days previous to the day of sale.
Salesof Negroes must be made at a public auction
on the first 1 uesday ot the mouth, between the usual
hours ot sale, at the place of public salt's in the county
Where the Letters Testamentary, of Administration or
Guardianship, may have been granted, first giving sixty
Days notice thereof in one of the public gazettes of tins
State, and at the door of the Court House, where such
sales aje to be held.
Notice for the sale of Personal property must be given
in like manner forty days previous to the day of sale.
Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an estate must
bu published forty days.
Notice that application will be made to the Court of
Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must be published for
FOUR MONTHS.
Notice for leave to sell Negroes must lie published for
four months, before any order absolute shall be made
thereon by the Court.
Citations tor Letters of Administration, must tic pub
lished thirty days—for dismission from administration,
monthly six months —for disntissiou fxoiu Guardianship,
forty days.
Hulls for the foreclosure of a Mortgage must be pub
lished monthly for four months —for establishing lost
papers, for the full space of three months —for com
pelling titles from Executors or Administrators, where a
Bond lias been given by the deceased, the full space of
THREE MONTHS.
Publications will always be continued according to
these legal requirements, unless otherwise ordered.
SOUTHERN SENTINEL
Job Office.
HAVING received anew and extensive assortment
of Job Material, we are prepared to execute at
this office, all orders for JOB WORK, in a manner which
can not be excelled in the State, on very liberal terms,
and at the shortest notice.
We feel confident of our ability to give entire satisfac
tion in every variety of Job Printing, including
Jlooks, Business Cards,
Pamphlets, Bill Heads,
Circulars, Blanks of every description,
Hand Bills, Bills of Lading,
Posters, <SfC. Jpc. dj*r.
in short, all descriptions of Printing which can lie ex
ecuted at any office in the country, will be turned out
with elegance and despatch.
County Surveyor.
TIIE undersigned informs his friends and the Planters
of Muscogee county; that lie is prepared to make
official surveys in Muscogee county. letters addressed
to Post Office,Columbus, will meet with prompt Atten
tion. WM. F. SERRELL,
County Surveyor.
Office over E. Banian I A. Co.’s store, Broad Si.
Columbus, Jan. 31,1850. 5 ly
NOTICE.
‘PIIE firm nameof “M. 11. Dessau, Agent,”is changed)
I from this date, to M. H. DESSAU.
Columbus, Feb. 7, 1850. 0 tl
JAMES FORT,
Attorney at law,
HOLLY STRINGS, WISS.
July 4, 1850. 27 Om
Williams, Flewellen & Williams,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA.
May 23, 1853. 21
Williams & Howard,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA.
ROBT. R. HOWAfei); CIIAS. j. WILLIAMS.
April 4,1850. 14 ts
J. D. LEONARD,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
TALBOTTON. GA.
WILL attend to business in Talbot and iiiti adjacent
counties. All business entrusted td liis bare will meet
With prompt attention.
April 4, 1850. 14 ly
KING & WINNEMORE,
Commission Merchants,
MOBILE, ALABAMA;
Dec. 20, 184‘J. [Mob. Trib .] 15 ts
THIS PAPER
IS MANUFACTURED BY Tilt
Rock Island Factory,
NEAR THIS CITY.
ColuntbUs, Feb. 23, 1830. 9 ts
Marble Works,
fcnst side Broad Si; near the Market HrtuSc,
COLUMBUS, GA.
HAVE odnriitnlii’.On hand all kinds of Grave Stones
Montitiientx, ‘Tombs and Tablets , oi American
Italian and Irish Marble. Engraving and carving
Hone on stone in the best possible manner; and all kinds
Os Granite Work at the sndrtcst notie’e.,
JOHN H. MADDEN.
P. S.—Plaister of Paris and Cement, always on hand
For sale.
Columbus, Mnrfeh 7, 1850. 10 ts
NORTH CAROLINA
Mutual Life Insurance Company.
LOCATED AT RALF.IGH. N. C.
rix|lE Charter of this company gives important adVan
..l tagestd the assuited, over most other companies.
The husband can insure his own life for the sole use and
benefit of his Wife and children, free front any other
hlaiins. Persons who insure for. life participate in the
jirdtits which are declared annually,, and When the pre
niiUiU exceeds S3O. may pay one-half in a note.
Slaves are insured at two-thirds their value tor one or
five years.
Applications for Risks may be made to
JOHN MUNN,
Agent, Columbus, Ga.
Office at Greenwood &. Co.’s Warehouse.
Nov. 15,1840. ts
WANTED.
“I AAA lb? - RAG3 - Dash paid for clean cot
IVV/tIM/U tou or linen rags—3i cents per pound,
when delivered in quantities of 100 pounds or more ; and
3 cents when delivered in small quantities. For old
hentp, bagging, and pieces of rope, H cents, delivered
either at Rock Island Factory or at their store in Co
lumbus, in the South comer Kootti ot Oglothonie House.
D. ADAMS, Secretary.
Columbus, Feb, 28,1850. 9 t t
TO RENT,
TILT, the first day of January next. The old printing
office room of the “Muscogee Democrat ”
Apply at this office. Its.
M Globe Hotel,
BUENA VISTA, MARION CO., GA.
BY J. WILLIAMS.
March 14,1850. 11 ts
JUST receivela
A LARGE lot of Miscellaneous and School Books.
Also a large and beautiful assortment of Stationery,
fine Letter and Note Paper. Envelopes, &c.
dIGRAFFENRIED & ROBINSON.
April 13
VOL. I.
O ! Sing that Song Again To-Niglit.
O! sing that song again to night,
The songs of other years ;
They’ll bring again some past delight,
In sunshine and in tears ;
They guild the gloom of present carer—
They tell oi joys to come;
Then sing the songs of other years,
Os friendship and of home!
Oh! sing the songs we used to sing
In youth’s unclouded day,
When like the birds of early spring,
We caroled hours awav !
When life was like a rainbow beam—
A ray of golden light,
A zephyr o'er a waveless stream—
An ocean of delight.
My heart is sad—then sing to me
( rhe songs we love so well,
The pleasing thoughts thev bring to me
No feeble words can tel l :
But sing of pleasures and of pains,
In some melodious lay;
And touch the lute to pensive strain?—
I would not have them gay.
There is a pathos in thy voice—
A sadness in thy tone,
‘1 hat makes the weary heart rejoice—
A sweetness all thine own.
Then sing the song* we loved so well,
And sing them o'er and o’er;
I ever leel the magic spell
Ot those sweet songs'of vore.
TO THE WHIGS OF MUSCOGEE.
‘1 he following communication, intended
lor the \\ liig party, showing the position of
that party on the Southern question, during
the session of the last Legislature, and writ
ten by a YV hig, who never faltered, was at his
request, handed by me to the Enquirer
for publication—they refused to publish it.
Though the piece is long, read it, and then
ask yourselves these questions—why this re
hisal? why did they refuse to publish Toombs’
speech? why is it, you see no report of de
bates on this interesting and all-important
subject in that paper ? why is it, of the many
primary meetings that have been held in
every part ot this and other States, you have
seen hut two published, advocating opinions
adverse to those of the Enquirer ? why this
one-sided upon these vital questions—
questions upon which the people claim all the
information they can get, over which they
may ponder well, and after mature delibera
tion make up their opinions advisedly ? Has
it come to this, that you cannot be trusted to
read and investigate for yourselves? Does
truth and justice ever shrink from investiga
tion ? Ido hope tiiat those who rogjly wish
to be advised on these important subjects,
will not confine their reading to tire papers
of either party. Read what both say, and
judge for yourselves.
A. S. RUTHERFORD.
Milledgeville, July 30, 1850.
The Editors of the Columbus Enquirer :
Gentlemen : It is with much regret 1 have
noticed the d’irision and excitement among
the Whigs of Muscogee, and elsewhere, upon
the Southern question—and my regret is still
more that such should be the case, when 1
think there is or ought to be so little cause for
it, unless, indeed, a large and respectable
number of the Whigs desire and have deter
mined to abandon their “ old position.” A
position assumed hy the YY hig party of Geor
gia ever since its formation—which its mem
bers of Congress and those in tire Legisla
ture have maintained and acted upon up to
the present time—and a position, too, ac
quiesced in and occupied by all conservatives
in the South, not only of the Whig party, but
also of the Democratic party, for the last
thirty years. I repeat, it is w ith pain I have
w itnessed the disposition of a portion of our
party to abandon their old platform and as
sume a nens and dangerous ground, and as an
“ old pannel” Whig, I must say a word or
two before this disposition is more strongly
evinced.
Warmly attached to the Whig party, and
approving, cordially, its past course upon the
slavery or Territorial question, I am not pre
pared, and I cannot, at the first blast of the
bugle, either from Mr. Clay or Mr. Any-body
else, desert the old platform of the party,
when I have found it so sure and so safe, both
in securing the South from harm, and in pre
serving the peace of the Union—and 1 don’t
intend to do it either. Neither am Ito be
frightened or driven from it, because Demo
cratic ultras, South Carolina Nullifiers, and
all who were once mad, have come to their
senses, and now agree to fall back to us upon
it. And, as a Whig, who has devoted his
whole life, from boyhood up, to the mainten
ance and building up of his party and its prin
ciples, I must ask you to let me have a hear
ing, and give this communication a place in
your columns—that the people of the country
may see and know who are wrong, if there
be fault any where for (his division.
I think, Messrs. Editors, you w ill at once
do me the justice tti sav that 1 have at no time
given any evidence of being an agitator or
factionisf, so far as the settlement of this
slavery question is concerned) When certain
Democratic ultras and discontented Whigs
wore attempting to create an excitement in
Georgia, upon this subject last tear, and
when they were attempting to break down
Messrs. Stephens and Toombs, terming them
‘‘not Southern enough,” “traitors to the
South,” &c., because they were disposed to
be prudent or conservative, and not disposed
to go to extremes, and kick up a fuss, un
necessarily, we were familiar in our inter
course then, and you know’ that as a Whig
and a friend of these gentlemen, and having
much confidence in them; the course of these
discontents w ere looked upon by me in com
mon with the YY'hig party generally, with the
scorn and contempt they merited. Relying
upon the past course of the YY'hig party, as
a guaranty of its disposition to stand by the
just rights of the South—well knowing the
strong disposition of its prominent members
to go as far as the farthest, w itliout endanger
ing the Union, to obtain more than the Mis
souri line, but in no event to take less than
the Missouri line, and then only to take that.
as a “ Compromise” to save the Union—and
; believing that at the proper time Messrs.
Toombs and Stephens would be found on
this, our old platform , I, for one, was content,
I and had no sympathy in common with the
discontents of last year.
But how is it now’? Are the Whigs now
united upon the Missouri line, as they were
twelve months ago, and for thirty years back ?
Are they disposed to stand now upon their old
! and honorable platform—that “ old position,”
®!)e Soutl) cm Sentinel.
j Mr. Jackson terms it, upon which all good
and conservative men of all the South, have
so long stood and have been content to stand
as a Union measure ? Or arc many of them
J disposed now, in the hour of trial, or of need
to the bouth, to abandon it, and declare to the
world that they are willing to “ give up” and
“ take the best we ran get 1” I fear the latter
jto he the case. And if it be so—if there be
j forming in Georgia a party, (from either or
j both ot the two parties,) acknowledging the
supremacy of a lawless majority of Free boil
ers, in Congress, and having a disposition to
| submit unconditionally and quietly to its iner
ey, and to “ the best we can get,” whether it
be just or unjust, constitutional or grossly
unconstitutional; I will say at the onset that
I have no sympathy with any such party,
; though it may even be dabbed with the here
tofore popular name of the “ Union party,”—
and I trust that Heaven may never smile
: upon such a party in Georgia or any where
! else. I prefer rather to stand by iny own
sunny South in this her day of trial, and re
main obscure and “unknown” ail my life,
than to join or have any thing to do with such
a party, even though to do so would raise me
to the highest point of admiration in the
i Union. But I am wandering from the ob
jects had in view when I commenced penning
■ this communication to you. And they were
i first to assert that not only the Whig party
of the South, but all other parties of the
South, except a few’ factionists and disutiion
ists, have all along, and for the last thirty
years, adopted the Missouri line as the basis
for a compromise between the North and
South—and as a division of the slave and
free Territory. It was adopted and agreed
upon when Missouri was admitted as a State,
it was again adopted when -Texas was an
nexed and admitted as a State—it was again
proposed and voted for by the South w hen
the Oregon-question was before Congress—
and it has been again proposed and voted for
du ring the present session of Congress by
the Southern members of Congress. My
further object was to assert and prove that,
even up to January and February last, in
maintaining and carrying out their old posi
tion, the old and leading, and conservative
members of the Whig party of Georgia, and
a few conservative members of the Demo
cratic party in the Legislature, also stood by
the Missouri line, and w’ould offer “ that,
and nothing else,” and that they exemplified,
in a most unmistakeable manner, their dis
position to stand by “ that, and nothing else,”
to the very last.
Let us refer to the record, and see how it
was. But before doing so, however, let me
say, Messrs. Editors, that when the last Le
gislature assembled, Southern ultraism was
running very high upon the slavery or terri
torial question, and a large majority of the
members seemed opposed to any Compro
mise, or acted as if they w’ere. They were,
to use a figurative expression, for “ fifty-foiu
forty—or Jight.” And it was composed of
nearly all the Democratic party—and a re
spectable number of Whigs, headed by Gart
rell in the House and Smith in the Senate.
The other and moderate party (or Union par
ty as I find some of the YVhigs, no doubt
recollecting 1832 and 1833, are getting very
fond of that name) were for “ 30-30, or the
Missouri Compromise” —and it w r as composed
ot It higs and three or four Democrats in
each branch of the Legislature—and w r as
headed’by Messrs. Charles J. Jenkins, A. 11.
Kenan and Alexander McDougald in the
House, and by A. J. Miller in the Senate.
And as it may not he amiss to give a more
full account, for abetter understanding of the
matter, 1 will here remark further, that the
Legislature had not been in session many
days before there was a consultation among
the ultras, both YY’higs and Democrats, (and
l have it from high authority that some of
our Columbus people were concerned in it,)
and the result w’as the Gartrell and Clayton
resolutions w’erc introduced. These resolu
tions having been throw’ll out as a “feeler”
and the “ party” (of ultras) finding they
“ took” very well, these resolutions w’ore then
referred to the Joint Committee on the State
of the Republic, and that Committee report
ed other resolutions, w ith a bill to provide for
the calling of a State Convention, in the event
of the happening of certain things. It is to
the report of the Committee on the State of
the Republic, the attention of yourselves and
readers is called—and let us now see w hat
was the course of these two parties.
Upon referring to the Journal of the House
of Representatives of the last Legislature,
commencing at page 484, and ending at page
520, I find that on the24th of January “the
House took it]) the special order of the day,
w’hich was the Report of the Joint Committee
on the State ot the Republic, to whom w'as
referred those portions of the Governor’s
message and the several hills and resolutions
relating to the subject of slavery.” And the
Bth resolution having been read, w hich is as
follows:
Bth. Resolved, That in the event of the
passage of the YY’ilmot Proviso by Congress,
the abolition of slavery in the District of Co
lumbia, the admission of California as a State
in its present pretended organization, or the
continued refusal of the non-slaveholding
States to deliver up fugitive slaves as provid
ed in the Constitution, it will become the im
mediate duty of the people of this State to
meet in convention to take into consideration
the mode and measure of redress.
Mr, YY offord moved (o amend the same, by
inserting after the words “ YVilmot Proviso by
Congress,” the following ‘ over territory south
of thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes, known
as the Missouri Compromise line.”
And after discussion, the vote was taken
upon this amendment, offered by Mr. Wofford
—and “ upon agreeing to the amendment,
upon the call of Mr. Carlton, seconded by
Mr. McDougald, the yeas and nays w r ere re
corded, and are yeas 42, nays 81. And as it
is only necessary to give the yeas upon these
questions, to sustain the position 1 have as
sumed, viz: that the moderative and conserva
tive} and “ Union” portions of the Lcgisiature
took their “ old position” upon the Missouri
line, and w’ould “ offer” or “ agree” to noth
ing else—below the yeas alone will be found,
and they are as follow s:
Those who voted In the affirmative, are
Messrs. Anderson of Wilkes, Andrew’s, Ar
nold, Avery, Barrett, Blount, Carlton,* Clark,
Dawson, Farmer, Gresham, Griggs, Hodges
of Randolph, Jenkins, Sanford, Shaw’, Snel
ling, Waldhour, Welborne, W T offord,* Wor
rell, Johnson, Jones of Warren, Kenan,
McAllister, McDougald, Neal, Peniek, Perk
jns, Pickett,* Reynolds, Richardson, Riley,
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING, AUGUST 15, 1850.
Robinson* of Fayette, Robinson of Macon,
Terrell of Coweta, Terrell of Putnam, Trippe,
YValker, YVcstmoreland,* Wooldridge, Yopp.
Those marked thus * are Democrats.
And Mr. Jenkins having offered, as a sub
stitute for the Bth resolution above alluded to,
the following resolution, viz:
Resolved, That should it become necessary
to resist any of the above enumerated or any
other encroachments of the Congress of the
United States, concert of action among the
slaveholding States will he desirable, and may
be hopefully anticipated from the action of
the proposed Convention at Nashville, after
Die adjournment of which it will he proper
for the people of Georgia to meet in Conven
tion lor the purpose of considering their
recommendations and the subjects to which
they refer.
It also w'as rejected, by yeas 40, nays 72,
the same party as above, w ith a few others,
voting for it. So it seems that notwithstand
ing the Nashville Convention has been de
nounced as “treasonable” and a disunion Con
vention, and its friends as “ traitors” and “ a
miserable crew’”—the resolutions for sending
delegates to that Convention w ere not only
agreed to without even taking a vote, by both
parties in the Legislature—but Messrs. Jenk
ins, Kenan, McDougald, Wooldridge, Wor
rell, Stephens, Tucker, and others, thought it
best to let that Convention settle the matter
as to the calling of a Convention of the peo
ple of Georgia. I w ould not have alluded to ,
this subject in this communication, Messrs.
Editors, but in common with other and good
Whigs, and being a law-abiding man, and
one who went in for obeying the Legislature
—and also, for sending delegates to the Nash- j
villc Convention to put down the- spirit of fac
tion, or disunion, if that w'as the object of ■
any of its delegates, I must confess that 1
have been rather restive under the wholesale j
denunciation lately thrown at us—and that
restiveness and indignation lias been heighten- j
ened, when I reflect, that w e did nothing hut j
what we had the right to do, as freemen— j
and what W’e had so unanimously been recom
mended to do by both and all parties, repre
sentatives of the people, and in their legisla
tive capacity too, hut a month or two before.
How ever, enough of this —and let it pass.
But was the effort above, to maintain our
“old position,” and to adopt the Missouri line,
the only effort made by our friends? No.—
Again, on the 25th January, Mr. Wofford
moved to reconsider the vote rejecting his
Missouri Compromise amendment—but it was
lost, yeas 51, nays 73. Again on the 25th
January, Mr. Tucker moved the same amend
ment. “The Speaker decided the amendment
out of order —whereupon Mr. McDougald
appealed from the decision of the chair —the
chair was sustained in its decision, uud the
amendment again failed.
But did the struggle for the Missouri line
end here ? No. On page 5171 find the House
took up the “bill to authorize and require the
Governor of the State” in the event of the
contingencies mentioned in the Bth resolution; j
when Mr. Wofford again proposed his Missou- ‘
ri line amendment—the chair decided it out of
order—Mr. Wofford appealed from the decis
ion ol the chair, and Mr. McDougald demand
ed the yeas and nays. The decision of the
chair was not sustained—the vote w’as then
again taken on the Missouri Compromise line,
and it was again voted down by the ultras, by
yeas 40, nays 07.
But was this all that was done upon the
subject in the House ? No. For on the 29th
of January, I find that Mr. McDougald, (w’ho
with others voted for the resolutions and bills
on their final passage,) determining not to be
misunderstood, and objecting particularly to
that part of the bill making the admission of
California, a cause for the call of a State Con
vention, entered a protest upon the journals
of the House, The protest concludes thus:
“To have voted against the bill in its totali
ty w’ould have forced us to abandon our posi
tion clearly in violation of the Constitution of
the United States. We feel assured that
California and New Mexico, as new’ States,
sooner or later will be admitted into this Un
ion. We demanded, for the slaveholding
States, as our line, the parallel of thirty-six
degrees thirty minutes north latitude to the
Pacific Ocean, usually termed “ the Missou
ri Compromise.” To this, a majority of this
House w’ould not assent. This line w r o are
willing to take as a Compromise, because the
South has heretofore, without tarnishing the
honor of her free sons, abided by it. In con
clusion w'e most solemnly protest against any
measure or mode of redress, the inevitable
tendency whereof leads to a dissolution of
this most “perfect Union,” formed and ordain
ed by “the people of the United States, in or
der to establish justice, ensure domestic tran
quility, provide for the common defence, pro
mote the general welfare, and secure the bless
ings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
until such lime as the action of Congress
clearly indicates a deliberate intention by the
free States to disregard the guarantees of the i
Constitution and to trample upon the rights !
of the people of the Southern States to their
property in slaves.
January 28, 1850, Milledgeville, Georgia, j
House of Representatives.
Alex McDougald, David Reid,
Jas. A. Nisbet, J. YV. Yopp,
Y. L. G. Harris, Robt. Griggs,
E. H. YV ohkell, J. H. Johnson,
E. W. Hodges, John Shaw,
M. M. Mint/., T. Hines,
J. P. Penick, J. Dubionon,
J. C. Waldhour, J. W. Manning,
J. YV. Terrell, E. YV. Arnold,
Adam Jones, J. R. Clark,
Henry Favor, Harrison Riley,
R. J. Farmer, A. T. Mclntyre,
YY 7 . T. YY offord, A. C. YY'alker.
YVm. G. Andrew’s.
YVe concur in the views expressed in the j
foregoing protest, but voted in the negative on
the final passage of the bill, constrained to do
so by the objections herein specified.
Y\ H. Perkins, T. F. Wooldridge,
YY 7 . H. Robinson, J. B. Neal.
So it seems that it w r as deemed by those i
gentlemen in January last, that a demand of
the “Missouri line to the Pacific Ocean for the
slaveholding States” was not a disunion mea
sure, but a measure to preserve the Union !
If it has changed since, I should like to know’
the modus operdndi; I have heard, during all
my life, that “men changed, but principles did
not” —and I have never as yet seen or heard
of the reverse being the case. Perhaps this
is one of the new inventions of the day, and I
am behind the age—“if so, I should, indeed, !
like to be enlightened!
But, Messrs. Editors, I am not a lawyer, j
neither do I desire to argue upon this subject
as a lawyer, or any other captious disputant.
I wish to get at the facts and to state the mat
ter as it really w as. And for the purpose of
doing so, let us see how the different gentle
men talked or spoke upon the subject in the
Legislature, while this Missouri Compromise
amendment was pending. And for a proper
understanding of things, I will remark, that
the Federal Union and Augusta Constitution
alist proffered to give impartial sketches of
the debates in the Legislature upon several
questions—and from hearing several speech
es they sketched, I thought these reports w’ere
generally tolerably correct. At all events, if
there w'as any bias that would lead them to
give an incorrect sketch, it was against their
reporting any thing like a disposition on the
part of the YVhigs to stand up to the rights of
the South—for these Editors then were at
tempting to prove that the moderate “Missou
ri line” party w’ere not disposed to go far
enough —or stand up strong enough for the
South. Now let us see how the Ylissouri
men and others, talked upon the subject—l
quote from the “sketch” in the Federal Union.
The debate being upon Mr. Wofford’s
amendment, known as the Missouri Compro
mise line.
Mr. Wofford said he had offered the
amendment not to create debate or excite
ment. He believed Congress had no right to
legislate on the subject of slavery—the North
believed differently. It was right, therefore,
that a compromise should be made. The Mis
souri line had been regarded as a compromise.
It conceded nothing. It w'as a position to
which the South ought and would adhere.
Mr. Nisbct suggested that this resolution
should be adopted and an additional section
adopted, embracing the amendment of Mr.
YVoflbrd.
Mr. Ramsey contended, that the Bth reso
lution should he adopted as reported by the
Committee.
Mr. McDougald favored the amendment.
It yielded nothing.
Mr. Wiggins opposed the amendment of
fered by the gentleman from Cass.
Mr. Jenkins advocated the amendment.—
He said that this W’as a practical as well as a
constitutional question ; that if one portion of
the Union always resorted to a separation up
on every violation of the constitution, the
country would always he kept in a state of
excitement; that the true policy of the State
was to maintain its old position; that it w’ould
weaken that position by seeking to roll back
the enrrent of past events, and illustrated his
view's by reference to Mr. Polk’s protest on
signing the Oregon bill. He concluded by
urging .that this question should he regarded
in its practical character, and treated in such
a manner as to secure w hat all desired, a per
petuity of this Union.
Mr. Griffin opposed the amendment and
took the ground that the South ought never to
have taken the Missouri line—was opposed to
restricting the convention, &c. &c.
Mr. Gartrell opposed the amendment, and
replied with great ability, to the views pre
sented by Mr. Jenkins. He denied that one
portion of the Union should quietly submit
to the violations of the constitution imposed
upon it by another. He protested against
such doctrine. His forefathers had taught
him a different lesson. Let the South submit
now, and she will be called upon to submit
again till all her rights are trampled under
tiie feet of her oppressors. The South has
ever been the submitting and begging party.
In the name of the people of Georgia, he en
tered his protest against such doctrine and all
future submission. He w’as no disunionist;
the resolutions on the table contemplated no
disunion. This was a raw head and bloody
bones, got up for effect with some, but it w’ould
not divert him from his course. He was
willing to abide the action of a convention.
He then contended that the amendment
conceded the question at issue between the
North and South—the lights of Congress to
legislate on the subject of slavery—and ad
verted to the fact that the rejection of Mr.
Burt’s resolution by Congress, shews that the
North have repudiated the Missouri Compro
mise, and are faithless to their engagements.
Mr. Lawton opposed the amendment, and
gave liis reasons for doing so.
Mr. Nisbct again insisted that the amend
ment w’as grossly inconsistent with the reso
lutions. They affirm that Congress has no
right to legislate on slavery, and this amend
ment concedes the right.
Mr. Howard said all indications of popular
feeling shewed that this w hole subject should
he referred to the convention, and he w'as
therefore opposed to any instructions to that
body. He then contended it w'as too late, for
the South to fall back upon the old Missouri
Compromise. That Compromise had been
repudiated by the North. The South had
ever adhered to all her compacts, the North
to none of hers. He repudiated the doctrine
of admission, and insisted that the only way
to preserve the Union, that created by the con
stitution and the only Union worth preserving,
was for the South to stand upon her rights,
boldly and fearlessly to maintain them.
The House here adjourned to 3 o’clock.
3 o’clock, P. M.
Mr. McDougald entered into a protracted
argument to show that there was no inconsist
ency between the amendment and the resolu
tions already adopted, and that it was the true
policy of the South to present the Missouri
Compromise as the basis of adjustment, and
maintain it. Here, he said, was common
ground upon which all could stand. He would
take it, if England, Austria, Russia, and all
the ministers of the world should-oppose, and
if it was necessary to fight, he would fight
for it.
Mr. Jones replied at length, to Yfr. McDou
gald. He said he desired to preserve the Un
ion; that if he wished to dissolve it, he w’ould
take half-w'ay measures, dodge responsibilities j
and invite further aggressions. His plan was
to take a bold and decided stand, and fearless- i
ly defend it. This might preserve the Union !
-“•but even this was hoping against hope. 3710
amendment w'as a half-way measure. It invit
ed aggression. He was opposed, too, to the
amendment, because it instructed before hand
the Convention. He then reiterated and en
larged upon his objections previously urged to
the amendment.
The Bth resolution still being under consid
eration, on the next day—
Mr. Kenan said, he belonged neither to the j
House of York or Lancaster; he stood on the
constitution —-the Missouri Compromise. He
regarded the ordinance of 1787, as the Jeffer- j
sonian ordinance, as a Southern measure. It
had been sanctioned by Monroe and Calhoun, i
! and Crawford and lately by Mr. Polk. This
question as a constitutional one, he regarded
i as settled. °
Is not this enough, Messrs. Editors, to show
! how matters stood only a few months hack,
j But let us now refer to the Senate’s journal—
and commencing at page 473 and ending on
page 491, we will find the same fight made for
the Missouri line there, that we saw in the
House—both upou the passage of the Bthres
olution. and also upon the adoption of the Ist
section of the bill providing for the State Con
vention. Mr. Chisolm having offered the
same amendment as that of Mr. Wofford, it
was again voted down several times in the
Senate.
The following 13 Senators voting for it, and
30 others voting against it.
On the adoption of Mr. Chisolm’s amend
ment, the yeas were as follows:
Yeas —Messrs. Anderson, Elias Beall,
Blackshear, James E. Brown, Chisolm,
Grubbs, Thomas Johnson, Andrew J. Miller,
! James A. Miller, Murphy, Quarterman, Wof
| ford and Woods.
But let us, also, look at the debates in the
Senate, and see how the subject was created
there. Mr. Chisolm’s amendment being under
consideration—
Mr. Chisolm said, that the Missouri com
promise line had heretofore been recognized,
and insisted that the Senate should still re
cognize it, and that he did not regard it as
inconsistent with the previous resolutions.
Mr. Love admitted that the Missouri line
; had been recognized by the South, but it had
| been repudiated by the North, and he was
i not now for holding on to what would be of
|no use to the South. He was for taking bold
| and decided ground, and believed this the
only way in which the South could maintain
her rights, and secure the federal Union.
Mr. Clark also opposed the amendment,
and gave a clear and succinct history of the
compromises on the subject of slavery in the
formation of the constitution, of a similar
compromise at the time of the reception of
Missouri into the Union, of the repeated con
flicts between the North and South, on this
agitating theme, and deduced from this his
tory that all those compromises had been
violated by the North. He then contended
it did not become us now, craven-like, to beg
those who would not abide their engagements,
to stand upon our previous concessions; but
it did become us to plant ourselves on the
constitution, and to assert our constitutional
rights. The resolution merely contemplated
a convention of the people. It was for them
to decide whether they would abide or reject
the Missouri compromise. In the present as
pect of things, he would not consent to pre
scribe that basis. He then contrasted the
condition of the North with that of the South,
and contended that the former enjoyed all
the benefits of slavery with none of its evils,
that it was fattened at the expense of the
South, and that the South had all the means
| of independence; and that in a pecuniary
view she could do better by herself than in the
Union. It was the inheritance of a common
ancestry, and its dissolution he should regard
as a common evil.
Mr. Murphy advocated the amendment,
and said this was no party question. It was
one designed to secure Southern rights—con
stitutional rights. None denied these rights ;
none denied that they were secured by the
constitution. The only difference was, as to
the time and manner of asserting them. He
admitted that our constitutional rights were
the same after, as before the Missouri Com
promise. He admitted that that Compro
mise had been repudiated by the North. She
had instructed her representatives to extend
the prohibition of slavery south of the line.
He was willing to instruct our representa
tives to extend slavery north of it. The
North had the numerical strength, and could
override the South. Under these circum
stances he contended that it was not incon
sistent for the South to lay down the line
recognized by our fathers, North and South,
make that the basement of adjustment, and
resist with force any infringement south of
that line. Mr. M. admitted that no portion
of the world had larger facilities for an in
dependent, prosperous and happy government
than the Southern States; yet this dissolu
tion would be attended with trouble, and he
should regard it a serious evil. But if it must
come, said Mr. M., let us take our position on
the old line, and maintain it, and then none
can blame us, be the consequences what they
may.
Mr. Spurlock opposed the amendment—
gives his views, &c.
Mr. Miller denied the inconsistency of this
amendment with the previous resolutions.
He insisted, that while we should maintain
that Congress has no right to legislate in the
territories, against the South, we should not
ask Congress to legislate for the South. His
position was that Congress should hold its
hands off. He then argued, that inasmuch
as there was a disposition to acquiesce in the
Missouri line, and the resolution required the
Governor to order a Convention, if Congress
passed the Wilmot Proviso embracing but a
single acre south of that line, that the amend
ment should prevail. He had never cyphered
out the value of the Union. It was beyond
the powers of his arithmetic. He was for
adhering to the line of 30-30; he would unite
with none, Whigs or Democrats, in pressing
slavery north of that line, and would unite
with any in resisting its restriction south of it.
Mr. Smith replied to Mr. Miller, and con
tended that the adoption of the amendment,
to say the least, would not only be inconsis
tent, but would place the State in a ridiculous j
attitude. He also replied to Mr. Murphy. ;
He then entered at large upon the discussion
of the various questions involved in the issues
between the North and South, and closed by i
urging upon the Senate, as its imperative
duty, to take prompt and decided action in
resisting the encroachments of the North.
Here the Senate adjourned.
In the afternoon, Mr. Joseph E. Brou;n
had the floor, and offered the amendment.
He said the time had arrived, when the
South must either submit to aggression, or
resist, regardless of circumstances. He re
garded this Union as one of the noblest struc
tures ever built by human hands ; but much
as he revered it, he would rather see it sunder
ed than that the South be deprived of an j
equal participation in its rights and privileges.
Mr. Wofford advocated the amendment,
and said that he was an old man, and should
endeavor to follow the counsels of the father
of his country, and would not address himself
to the passions but the reason of Senators.
He nevertheless spoke with great zeal and
energy—regarded this agitation as unneces->
sary; insisted that slavery could not be af
fected by Congress; like all other things it
would regulate itself and that it was protect
ed by the constitution ; that the people in the
territories could change their constitution and
tolerate it if it was to their interest. He said
he was surprised to find Democrats opposed
to the Missouri Compromise; cautioned them
against straying from the old democratic path,
and appealed to Whigs and Democrats, one
and all, to quiet the agitation that pervaded
the country.
The subject being further discussed the
next day
Mr. Chisolm then took the floor, and de
livered a long speech in favor of his amend
ment, embracing the whole field of debate,
and concluding with an ardent appeal for tho
Union.
And what itoo's aft this prove, Messrs. Edi
tors ? Does it not prove what I have asserted
in the first part of this communication, viz :
that there is, or ought to be, no 1 division
among Whigs, and other true friends of the
South, unless, indeed, a portion of them are
: disposed to “ give up,” to “ back out,” and to
| abandon their “ old position” and put off in
j hoi haste for some new and less safe ground
lor the South— and abuse all xcho do not go
off’ with them 1 And does it not prove, also,
that so far from the Missouri Compromise
men being factionists and disunionists, they
are now doing nothing more than maintaining
the rights and honor of the South, and stand
ing upon their “ old position,” the old Union
ground { Who can doubt it, when one turns
back and sees how all good and true and
moderate statesmen have talked of the matter
lor thirty years past. Who can doubt it,
when such moderate, conservative and talent
ed Southrons as Charles J. Jenkins, tell as
that it “is a practical f as well as constitution
al question,” and that “ the true position of
the South is to maintain its old position.” Who
can doubt it when we have Andrew J. Miller,
the most prudent and cautious of public men,
declaring in the Senate, that he was for the
Missouri line, he was “for adhering to 30-30,’*
and that whilst he “ would unite with none,
Whigs or Democrats, in pressing slavery north
I of that line, yet he would unite with any in
resisting its restriction south of it.” And
who can possibly doubt its having been, btd
a few months ago, the old Union position,
when we hear Mr. McDougald, who has all
along claimed, if not boasted, that be was as
good, if not the best Union man and Democrat
that ever buttered, and who seems to bate’ the
chivalry, arid the idea of any conweefion,
even in thought, with them, as badly a*s a dog
with the hydrophobia hates water. I repeat,
who can doubt that it was the old Union
ground last February, and one upon which
all ought now to stand, when our representa
tative, Mr. McD., in the plenitude of his
unionism, and his abhorrence of any thing
resembling a “ Fire-Eater,” could utter the
following sentiment, viz: that “it was the
true policy of the South to present the Mis
soriti Compromise as a basis of adjustment
and maintain it” —that “it was common
ground upon which all could stand”—that
“ he would take it if England, Austria, Rus
sia, and all the Ministers of the world should
oppose, and if it was necessary to fight, ho
would fight for it!” If, gentlemen, after the
above, any one, and particularly a citizen of
Muscogee, or of Southwestern Georgia, cau
doubt the positions I have assumed in this
communication, then they have “ eyes to see
and will not see,” and “ ears to hear and will
not hear.”
But, Messrs. Editors, I will try to bring
this communication to a close. It is already
too long, much longer by twice, than 1 de
sired. But I neither wish to see the old Whig
party of Georgia destroyed, nor do I wish
to see a portion of its old members abandon
ing their old position—one so well calculated
to beat back Abolition, and at the same time
give general satisfaction to the South. Much
less am I disposed to stand by and see some
of the best men of the country, very many
of them the most substantial piembers of the
Whig party, abused and vilified and charged
with being “ factionists,” “ disunionists,” and
“ agitators,” for merely standing on the “ old
line,” and not agreeing to abide by any kind
of Compromise that may be offered—and
with all the facts before me, I could not offer
less than this. And, sympathizing with that
class, I would respectfully ask you to insert
this, what may be termed “ A slight History
of the Past” in your next —and if we should
hereafter continue to disagree upon the pro*
i per course we shall pursue, no doubt there
I will be less feeling or excitement upon the
j subject among the Whigs, and particularly
in Muscogee, it wi 1 be seen that, however
you may differ with them, you are willing to
give them a “ fair chance” in your paper. For
however bitter you may feel, and express
yourselves towards those who have been
“first upon the heel-tap and then upon the toe”
within the past two years upon the slavery
I question—however you may speak of those
j who abused Mr. Stephens much, two years
| ago and since, and who have called him a
I “ Traitor to the South” for opposing the Clay
! ton Compromise (similar to Mr. Clay’s,) and
! going in for the Missouri line, and who now
are thing the very same thing, themselves!
However much you may now abuse those
who were but a few months since opposed
to the Missouri line, and were denouncing
those as “ not Southern enough,” “ submis
sion ists” and “ unsound,” who were for it,
and who now as flippantly denounce all as
Traitors, who are not for it. I repeat, how
ever much you and others may feci disposed
to quarrel with all such, I can see no cause
for a quarrel among Whigs, unless indeed a
portion of them are anxious to abandon
in hot. haste “the old position.” And if
such be the case, though it may be a flue
looking “Omnibus” and those who get in it
will have a smooth and easy ride, and to high
ojfice if they want it, for awhile, whilst those
who stay out will have to take an Ox-cart,
I shall most certainly stay out, and with the
CAUSE I shall be struggling for, will great
-1 y prefer to be one of the people, and one,
too, RIDING IN AN Ox-CART.
And, Messrs. Editors, to close this com
munication, and at the same time to express
what I honestly conceive to be the disposition
of at least ninety-nine out of one hundred,
of every reflecting man of those favoring
and now advocating the Missouri Compro
mise line in Georgia—and I have travelled
and learned much lately, I will say that I
understand them to occupy this position:
Ist. They are “for the Missouri Compro
mise line ” It is the “ old contract,” one of
thirty years standing—it is simple, and has
worked so well, and as they don’t know any
thing about the operation of Mexican laws,
they don’t want any other, and are not dis
posed to offer or express themselves, at this
time, satisfied with any other. They some
what fear this new compromise is a “cat in a
meal tub.”
2dly. While entertaining these views, they
are, nevertheless, no disunionists, and are not
disposed to think seriously of such a thing,
so long as our rights are secured, and they,
arc ready to acquiesce in any Compromise or
NO. 33.