Newspaper Page Text
tii i: .southern
Is published every Thursday Morning,
XX COLUMBUS, OA.
BY WILLIAM H. CHAMBERS,
BDfTOil AXO PROPUIETOU.
To whom all coinmuiucaliiuis must be directed, poet paid.
Ojjice on Randolph Street.
Term') of Subscription.
Qua copy twolvo months, in*advance, - - £2 50
Not in advance, -3 00
w “ Six “ “ - 150
\\ here the subscription is not paid during the
year, 15 cents will la.* charged lor every month’s delay.
No subscription will Ito received f>r loss than six
months, and tioim discontinued until all arrearages are
paid, except at the option of the proprietor.
To Clubs.
Kirc copies twelve months, ... §IOOO
Ten “ “ “ 10 00
ZAP The money from Clubs must in nil cares 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 s[>eeilie<l as to time, will bo pub
lished (HI joi ‘nd, and charged accordingly.
Monthly Advertisements will bo charged as new Ad
vertisements at each insettion.
Lejal Advertisements.
N. B.—Sales of Lands, by Administrators, Kx
e.cut<rs, or Guardians, are required by law to bo held on
the first Tuesday in the month, between the hours of 10
in the forenoon, and 3 in the afternoon, at the Court
House in tho county in which, the land is situated. No
tices of those sales must he given in a public gazette
Mx rv days previous to the day of sale.
tvalcN of NkijKoiis mu -t he made at a public auction
On the first Tuesday of the mouth, between the usual
hours of sate, at the place of public sales in the county
where the Letters Testamentary, of Administration or
Guardianship,may have boon granted, first giving sixty
Imys notice thereof in one of the public gazettes of this
State, ami at the door of the Court House, where such
sales are to be held.
Notice for the sale of Persona! property must be given
in like manner forty* days previous to the day oi sale.
Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an estate must
be. publisher! forty days.
Notice that application will bo made to the Court of!
Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must bo published for
roc a .MONTHS.
Notice for leave to sell Xi.nitons must be published for
Fvrj: months, before any order absolute shall be made
thereon by the Court.
Citations for Letters of Administration, must be pub
lished thirty days—for dismission from administration,
monthly six months —for dismission fiom Guardianship,
rr.TT DAYS.
Ror.Es for the foreclosure of a Mortgage must be pub
lished monthly for four months —for establishing lost
papers, for tlio rci.r. space of three months —for com
pelling titles from Executors or Administrators, where a
Bond has been given by tile deceased, the full space of
THREE MONTHS.
Publications will always be continued according to
thceo legal requirements, unless otherwise ordered.
SOUTH F.RN SFNTINEL
Job Office.
nAVIXG received anew and extensive assortment
of Job Material, we arc prepared to execute at
this ollieo, all orders for JOB WORK, in a manner which
can not be excelled in the State, on very liberal terms,
and at the sliorre-t notice.
We feel confident of our ability to give, entire satisfac
tion in every variety of Job Printing, including
Books, Business ('arils,
Pamphlets, / till I frails,
Circulars, Wanks of every description,
Hand Pills, Bills of Ijailing,
Posters, tj*<\ djv. fye.
In short,a?! descriptions of Printing which can ba ex
ecuted at any olliec in the country, will be turned out
with elegance and despatch.
Comity Surveyor.
r |MIR undersigned informs his friends and the Planters
I of Muscogee county, that he is prepared to make
ellicial surveys in Muscogee county. letters addressed \
to Post Office,Columbus, will meet with prompt atten
tion. WM. F. SEKRELL,
County Surveyor.
Office, No. 4 Telegraph Building, Broad St.
Columbus, Jan. 31,1850. 5 ly
W. & W. F. WILLIAMS,
ATTORNEYS at law,
OOLl’jftl'US, GKORGI A.
WILEY WILLIAMS. WM. IN WILLIAMS.
Oct. IT, 1850. 21 B
JAMES FORT,
ATTORNPY AT LA FT,
HOLLY SPRINGS, MISS.
July 1, 1350. 27 Cm
Williams & Howard,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
COLI’MBrSj GEORGIA.
ROP.T. R. HOWARD. CIIAS. J. WILLIAMS.
April 4, 1850. 14 ts
.!. 1). LEONARD,
ATTORNEY AT LAW,
TAI.BOTTON, GA.
WILL attend to business in Talbot and the adjacent
c,unties. All business entrusted to his care will meet
with prompt attention.
April 1, 1850. 14 ly
KING & WIN.NEMORE,
Commission Merchants,
MOBIT.F, ALABAMA.
Dec. 20,1540. [Mob. Trib.] 15 tl
GODFREY A SOLOMONS,
Factors ami Commission Merchants,
BAYAXXAH, GEORGIA.
JAMES n. OOP!"KEY, E. W. SOLOMONS.
It E r E 11 K N CEL
JtEV. J AS. JC. EVANS, REV. SAMVEL ANTHONY, I
Savannah. Talbot ton.
Jlltit;WAY A. (11'NnY, N. OVSEI.V fc SON,
Columbus. Moron.
July 25 30 Cm. j
THIS PAPER
is manufactured by run
Rock Island Factory,
NEAR THIS CITY. j
Columbus. Feh. 23. 1850. ‘J tt
_ NORTH CAROLINA
Hutual Life Insurance Company.
LOCATED AT RALEIGH, N. G.
G|T!IE Charter of this company gives important silvan- .
1 tagesti* the assured, over most other companies, j
The hiisbaml can insure his own life for the sole use and ,
t*enetit of his wile and children, free from any other j
claims. Persons who insure for life participate in the j
profits which are declared annually, and when the pre
mium exceeds §3O. may pay one-halt in a note.
Slaves are insured at two-thirds their value tor one or
five, years.
Applications for Risks may be mmh'to
Agent. Columbus, Ga.
fTy” Office Ft Greenwood <Sn Co.’s W arehouso.
Nov. 15,1810.
WANTED.
lAA AAA !'*• RAGS. Cash paid for clean cot
11 ‘ V/ * * ton or linen rags—l cents, per pound,
when delivered in quantities of 100 pounds or more : and
31 cents when delivered in small quantities, toroid
hemp,bagging, and paces of rope. If cents, delivered
either at Rock Island Factory or at their store in Co
lumbus, in the South corner Room ol'Oglethorpe House.
D. ADAMS, Secretary.
Columbus, Feb. 28,1850. 9 tl
a. a Globs Hotel,
jML BUENA VISTA, MARION CO., GA.
BY j. WILLIAMS.
March 14,1850. ts
Marble Works,
East side Broad St. near the Market House,
COLUMBUS, GA.
HAVE constantly on hand all kinds of Grnre Stones
Monuments, ‘Tombs and Tablets, of American
Italian and Irish Marble. Engraving and carving
done on stone in the best possible manner; and all kinds
„f Onmta Work .1. I(ADDEN
p. g.—Plaister of Paris and Cement, always on hand
for sale. .. r
Columbus, March 7, ISeO. 10 tt
YOL. I.
Speech of lion, L. Clieves,
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
! Delivered in the Southern Conven
tion at Nashville, Nov. 14, 1850.
V\ e meet on a melancholy occasion. It is
to devise the means of defending the South*
; ern States against a great and alarming dan*
: gor, with which we are not threatened by a
| foreign foe or a common enemy, but by our
fellow citizens, whom fraternal feelings, whom
fidelity to plighted faith, and whom gratitude
for great benefits—which, more titan all oilier
causes, have made them groat, wealthy, and
powerful—should have made our hearty
friends and our devoted allies in all adversity.
Instead of which wo find them our most un
just oppressors, our bitter and unappeasable
enemies. Having deprived us practically of
all power under the common government
which hound us together, they arc aiming at
the subversion of our dearest tights, the de
struction of our most valuable property, and
the desolation of our country.
Our enquiry will, of course, boos South
ern Eights, Southern Wrongs, and Southern
Dangers. The general rights of the South
ern States are those of equal, independent,
unabridged sovereignties. Our independent
sovereignty was asserted from the beginning
of the government, and maintained triumph
antly, within a few years after the adoption of
tin’ constitution of the United States. The
old federal doctrines of strong government
and constructive powers were put down.
In the south and west there was but one
voice on the subject. Such was the devotion
to State independence, such the generous spirit
of the south and west, as expressed in the !
resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky, in 1798,
that, had not the dangers then contemplated,
though not amounting to a tithe of those by
which we are now threatened, been averted
at the polls, it would have been done by force.
The base idea of taking “ the best we could ;
get,” entered into no mind. The only qnos- J
lions were, what were our rights, our whole j
and unabridged rights, and how they should j
be maintained. The universal public scorn j
would have scathed, with the power of the !
vivid lightning, the dastard who would have j
consented to accept compromises, or talk of
taking a fragment of those rights as “the best
we could get.” Mho would then have dared
to propose submission to our equals ? Who
would then have been mean enough even to
deliberate on such degradation ? But the
noble spirit of that day seems to be extin
guished, and unless it can be roused, you are
destined to become “ the basest, meanest of
mankind.” You will suffer the most con
spicuous infamy that ever characterized a
people. You will cease to be a people, and
your homes and hearths will be occupied by
those who are now your slaves.
The danger, however great, which we suf
fer is, nevertheless, from our own creature.
The States have all sovereignty. They have
only granted to the Union, as their agent, in
trust, the execution of certain limited func
tions. This great and portentous power
which now lumgs over us, would he dissipa
ted like a cloud, if it only covered constitu
tional ground. It surprises us, on investiga
tion, to see 1 ow little sovereignty is vested
in a government that now looms, as the sail
ors say, immensely large. It has no distinct
identity. It has not even a name of identity.
It has no power, under the Constitution, to
at qu’re by conquest o: - otherwise an inch of ter
ritory, except for the seat of government, and,
with the consent of the States, for forts and
arsenals. This was the doctrine of the fed
eralists, who are the present free soilers, when
Louisiana was acquired, and it is a sound
constitutional doctrine. The appropriation
of that territory, in the form of now States,
was merely by the acquiescence of the several
independent States in whom it was vested.
It is no more authorized by the constitution
of the Union than was the Missouri compro
mise, which excluded slavery beyond the line
of 3l deg. 30 min., which is wholly founded !
on the acquiescence of the several states. — !
‘lime,with that acquiescence, has given validity ;
to these transactions. According to sound con- !
stitntional law, California is not, and cannot
be a State, without the acquiescence of each
and every State of the Union. Whether she
is a State or not, may yet he a question, be
fore “ the great argument” pending between
the South and the North shall be finally con
cluded.
But admitting that California is a State,
and tluTt, according to the forme of the Union,
her admission is valid ; her introduction, mi
ller all the circumstances, with the exclusion j
of slavery, is the most prominent of the re- j
cent wrongs that the South has suffered. It j
was tyrannical—it was fraudulent—it was i
insulting. The territory was acquired by |
your blood and treasure, to, a much greater ;
extent than by those of the section of coun
try which has bereaved you of all share in
it. Can any tyranny be greater than to rob
you of it ? You bad as full and clear a right ;
to it, in equity and law, as you have to the :
soil of the States which you occupy and cul
tivate : and the miserable pretences under
which you have been excluded from it, only
increase the injury by the insults which they
constitute. It is said that the admission ot
California is not inconsistent with the Con
stitution, by which is meant merely that Con
gress has the power to admit anew State
into the Union. The highest violation of the
Constitution is to employ the use of its forms
to violate its spirit. The great object of such
institutions is the security of the rights of the
citizens. Now, the admission of California
was expressly with a view to destroy your
property in the territory, and to make it in
strumental in destroying slavery within all
the States. Is it not farcical, then, to say it
was constitutional l Had they come into
your domestic territory and turned you out
of vour homes, it would not have been a
clearer violation of right, or more unjust,
though the violence might have been greater.
The manner, too, eminently bore the im
press of tyranny. The military power, of
which all free States arc, or ought to be
in the highest degree jealous, was the im
mediate instrument used for its accomplish
ment. A subordinate officer, in regular rank
not exceeding, I believe, the grade of a col
j onel, calls upon a population, contemptible in
number, disqualified iu character, whether
recent squatters or the simple and ignorant
conquered people, to perform the great work
of statesmen, to appropriate to their own use
a vast territory equal to the aggregate extent
of many of the largest States of the Union,
j embracing all our ocean border, all our
forts and harbors on the great Pacific, to one
foot of which not one, nor all of them had a
right. Does the history of. nations, from the
earliest record to the present time, furnish any
thing like a parallel to it ? Was ever a peo
ple treated with such utter contempt by one
branch of their government I
These grave and learned legislators form a
constitution and demand admission into the
l nion, and begin by a violation of the Con
stitution of the Union in making a claim to
two representatives instead of one, and con
trary to an express article of that instrument,
which required that the mode and manner of
their election should have been previously
prescribed by the Legislature of the State.
Their haste was too great even to wait for the
establishment of a Legislature. In better
times, when your old, well tried and establish
ed citizens respectfully applied for admission
into the Union, such extravagances were not
dreamt of, nor would they have been tolerated:
yet Congress admitted this monstrous defor
mity, with none of tho probationary tests
which had always before been required,
with a haste which forbade all investigation,
bv the people of tho Union, of tho physical
character of the community, or the fitness of
the people to form a State, or the manner in
which these pretended rights had beeen exer
cised. The miserable juggle of non-inter
vention was played off. It was alleged that
Congress had no power to control the small
and motley population which wantonly pre
sumed to do this great political act. llow
false, how impudent an assertion ! Congress
had undoubtedly a right to govern and dictate
the mode and manner of their admission into
the Union, whether they had the power to
make California a State or not, which, as has
already been shown, is at least very ques
tionable. All other States have gone through
a probationary course; but California, even
in its swaddling clothes, in hasto and with
violence, is forced into the Union with all
these and many more imperfections on its
head, under the absurdity of non-intervention.
Os this puerile fancy any man of common
sense would be ashamed. Yet I understand
that the paternity of it belongs to a distin
guished gentleman, who very modestly as
pires to be put at the head of the Govern
ment of the United States, and that his prin
cipal claim on the Southern States is founded
on this great invention. Statesmen, now-a- I
days, invent principles to suit occasions as
readily as our eastern friends invent instru
ments for the paring of apples, or the making
of pins, and though without their usefulness
or merit, wo as readily adopt them. One
might suppose they had been diligent students
at the Academy of Lagado. It has been as
serted by this distinguished gentleman that
the meagre group of Californians had a right,
uncontrollable by Congress or any other pow
er, to form themselves into a State, and, of
course, appropriate to their own use this vast
territory, the whole ocean coast, and the most
valuable mines in tho world; and if this great
inventor be right, there are no rights of do
main reserved to the United States; for ac
cording to him they are a sovereign people.
Is it not monstrous, even iu language, to hear
such an assemblage of persons as these were,
called a peotde, by which is meant a State,
and to say that, before their admission into
the Union, they could exercise a sovereignty
over a large portion of the continent ?
California did not belong to them any more
than it did to the Grand Turk. It was con
qneredby the people of the United States, and
ceded to tho people of the United States in
sovereignty. The sovereignty thus ceded
was vested either in the United States as a
consolidated body, or in the States collective
ly as independent sovereigns. If the former,
the population of California could not budge
an inch except under the authority of the
government of the United States, which had
all tho powers of an absolute sovereign over
them. If the latter, then the like powers
were vested in the States, under whose ac
quiescence the government of the Union
could control them, as was done in the case of
Louisiana. If this Senator he right as to the
[lower of the population, they could have ro
anuexed the territory to Mexico, instead of
tho United States. Why not ? According
to him, they were not under the control of
tho United States, or any other sovereign.
The true question is, was California fairly
admitted into the Union The negative of
this proposition has, l think, been abundantly
proved. But Igo on. A large portion of
the small population of the territory was de
cidedly opposed to the formation of u State,
and desirous of a territorial government; but
they were silenced by the grossest misrepre
sentation. An agent of the general govern
ment was sent to California to co-operate in
the formation of a State which should ex
clude slave labor. He was a secret agent, so
far as the people of the Union or the legisla
tive power of the Union was concerned. No
one doubts what lie was sent there for, or
what he did, notwithstanding the arts with
which the transaction was covered* No trace
of his instructions can lie discovered; all
that we can learn is, that he understood
the views of the President and his cabinet;
and notwithstanding all denials to the con
trary, no one doubts that his business was to
advance the great work of bringing this terri
tory into the Union ns a non-slaveholding
State. Was not this a gross fraud upon the
South ? In better times tho President and
his ministers would have been impeached for
this gross abuse of power, and if justice had
been done, would have been dismissed from
office. To lull the South into security or ac
quiescence, it was asserted with the utmost
confidence in Congress, and by all the agents
and presses of the free soilers, that the South
had no interest in the question, ns slave labor
could not he employed in the territory. Now
this is an absolute falsehood. There is no
portion of the United States in which slave
labor could be so usefully and profitably em
ployed. Mining is the proper labor of slaves,
and for that purpose where they have existed,
1 they have been employed in all countries and
I times.
On this point the slave owners would have
! thought for themselves, and soon have dissi
j pated the error and misrepresentation. But
they were met by another misrepresentation,
j which, I think, shall prove to have been equal
| ly as false, by those who had the power to
i make their opinion prophetic: that slaves
entering the territory, would be, by tlfat act,
! emancipated under the Mexican laws, which
! were alleged to be of force in the territory.
By this assertion, coming from such a source,
: the slave owner was intimidated ; and before
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, THURSDAY MORNING, DECEMBER 5, 1850.
lie had time to look around him, the contri
i vanco of a free state estopped him. The
j slaveholding States were thus deprived of
; vast advantages which their slaves would
: have yielded them. These advantages have
been enjoyed by all the vagabonds of the
world, and even by foreign convicts. Now,
this opinion 1 believe to have been as un
founded as that the territory was unfitted for
slave labor.
The alleged law of Mexico was declared j
by revolutionary and military governments,
in which the people of Mexico had no agen
cy. Tho first act simply declared that slave
ry was abolished. Within a very short time,
(this fact proving tho ephemeral, unstable and
unauthoritaiive character of those gentlemen,)
under anew constitution, as it was called,
taking no notice of the first, treating it ns if
it had never existed, it was repeated that slave
ry was abolished, and that tho owners should
bo compensated for their property. This
compensation was equitably, and, I think, in !
legal construction, a condition precedent, of
the performance of which there is not a tithe
of evidence. Can slavery then be said to
have ceased in Mexico? California was a
distant territory unconnected with Mexico,
(except, perhaps, by military compulsion,)
with probably not a slave in it ; for all the !
negroes in Mexico did not exceed six or eight
thousand, and they wore in the ports of Vera
Cruz and Acapulco, and the hot regions in
tho vicinity of the sea coast. Throughout
Mexico generally, it is said, a negro was as
rare a siglit as in London or Paris. Peonage
there substituted African slavery and was, in
itself and still is, practically, an abject state
of slavery. The validity of such a law, un
der all the circumstances, in California it
self, among the original population, may be
considered very doubtful. But, admitting it
to he a valid law, enacted by a just, free and
established government, it could not be al
lowed in a conquered country, to contravene
a great and fundamental institution of the
conqueror. Such was slavery in the United
States when California was ceded. When
the union of the States was consummated, I
believe there was but one State in which
slavery did not exist, and in almost every
pago of tho constitution it is recognized and
guaranteed. It is represented on the floor of
the House of Representatives—it is taxed in
the imposition of revenue. The restoration
of slaves, as property, is guaranteed. Unlike
all other property, it is made a prominent and
visible character of the State. Is it not, then,
a great and fundamental institution of the
conqueror, having no reference to particular
States or localities, but embracing Massa
chusetts as well as Louisiana ? If prejudice
could he laid aside, in the investigation, would
it not be admitted that it could no more be
affected by a law of the conquered country
than that which secures to all the people of
tho States the freedom of their religious opin
ions ? Now, tho unquestionable laws of
Mexico would deny this right, if they were
obligatory in the ceded territory; yet, it
would bo deemed little short of insanity to
assert such a proposition. When the con
stitution of the United States was adopted,
(and that is the era to which wo are to look,
in seeking for the true meaning of the instru
ment,) the whole civilized world recognized
and protected this property in all places and
under all circumstances where other property
was protected. In a decree of the greatest
and ablest administrator and expounder of
national law that tho ago produced, (Lord
Stowell, better known as Sir William Scott,)
lie says, “ Let mo not bo misunderstood or
misrepresented as a professed apologist for
tho practice, [the slave trade,] when I state
facts which no man can deny, that personal
slavery arising out of forcible captivity is co
eval with the earliest periods of tho history of
mankind; that it is found existing, (and as
far as appears without animadversion,) in the
earliest and most authentic records of the hu
man race; that it is recognized by the codes
of the most polished nations of antiquity ;
that, under the light of Christianity itself, tho
possession of persons so acquired has been,
in every civilized country, invested with the
character of property and secured as such
by all the protection of law ; that solemn
treaties have been framed and national mono
polies eagerly sought to facilitate and extend
the commerce in this asserted property; and
all this with all the sanctions of law, public
and municipal, and without’ any opposition,
except the protests of a few private moralists,
lil'lc heard and less attended to in every coun
try, till within these very few years, in this
particular country
This decree was delivered in ISI7, more
than a quarter of a century after the consti
tution of the United States had been in com
plete operation, and confirms all the princi
ples of our political compact with our sister
•States on this subject. But the frec-soil
States, with an inexpressible arrogance and
fury, simply reply, that there can lie no pro
perty in man ; while the laws of God, both
in the Old and New Testament, the laws of
all mankind and the constitution, falsify in the
most palpable manner this their fundamental
proposition. They say that there is a law
above the constitution ; that if the scriptures
sustain the institution of slavery they are a
lie ; and the laws and practice of all nations
and of all times they do not even deign to
notice. It is thus seen that no property is
more distinctly and favorably recognized by
all laws, human, divine, municipal and nation
al ; that with us it is eminently a fundamental
and national institution. But this pretended
law of Mexico, the mere fume of revolution
ary anarchy, having no relation to, or opera
tion in California in its conquered state, can
not invalidate all the sanctions which secure
this property ; which, let it always be remem
bered, does not depend on the laws of par
ticular States, but on the constitution and
laws of the Union. The authority of the
States, it is true, has been employed in some j
instances to prevent its entrance into them, j
and, I admit, has not been questioned; but if j
it were anew and open question, it is difficult |
to sec how it could lie sustained. Ido not
mean to contend that its retention in those
States could not he prohibited: but I am,
| perhaps, leaving the direct consideration of
; the question before us, which is, the effect of
tho supposed law of Mexico on this property I
; within this territory. The law of nations !
1 giving a temporary and limited operation to j
; such a law within the conquered territory, is
j only protective of the conquered inhabitants,
and there ends. It is a charitable limitation
j of the rights and power of the conqueror; a
! mere limitation of unquestionable right and
. power. It has no pretensions to control the
rights and interests of the conqueror. There
will not be found in all the libraries of the
law, or in the narrations of history, any pre
; tension of that kind. The language of Bur
j lamaqlli, is; “Even were wo to strip the van*
| quished entirely of their independency, we
may still leave them their own laws, customs
and magistrates, in regard to their public and
private affairs of small importance,” and we
may not —and, in strictness, there is neces
sarily some positive act, express or tacit, to
allow this operation, even this limited opera
tion of the laws of the subdued people. Is
there any doubt but that in the fullness of the
power of the conqueror even this limited
operation of his power does not oxist ?
It only exists as a conservative favor, not a
right I confidently helievo that no enlarged
legal mind, capable of taking a comprehen
sive view of national law, would for a mo
ment recognize tho operation of this law on
the security of tho property of slaves car
ried into California before it was admitted
into the Union. But if it were admitted that
this law would have the alleged operation,
what would have been the duty of a just and
paternal government; a just government,con
sulting and protecting all the l ights of all tho
people; of a government such as a free people
ought to consent to live under and sustain ?
Undoubtedly, to have immediately invalidated
such a law. But so shadowy a pretence has
been made an instrument to deny to almost
half the nation the fair employment of their
property. Wo need not ask why; because it
is audibly declared that the object is to des
troy that property, to abolish .shivery, to fence
the slave States around by what they call free
States, and to imprison this population within
limited bounds, so that its labor may become
unprofitable, the property less valuable, and
its management more difficult and hazardous,
and thus to persecute the holders until they
shall abandon it.
It is unnecessary to enumerate more of the
atrocities which are exhibited by this act of
legerdemain, (the admission of California,)
for it would be a gross abuso of the language
we speak, to call it a regular act of an estab
lished government of modern civilized times.
But the magic is as clumsy as it is wicked.
It can deceive no one. It lias neither sem
blance nor reality. It would disgrace tho
wand of Prospero.
The hideous features, however, of this po
litical deformity are nothing when compared
with the dangerous spirit which abides within
it and the motive which governs it. They aro
no less than the entire and speedy abolition
of slavery. Now, let any man contemplate
the character and extent of this proposition.
Language fails to portray it. None but a
Northern fanatic, or a torpid Southron, can
hear it littered without a feeling of horror.
Some idea of it may be gained byrecalling
the sufferings, the massacres and the banish
ment, in poverty and misery, of tho white
proprietors of Hayti, and tho present rule of
his sable majesty, tho emperor Faustin the
First. Tho beautiful and prolific South and
South-west is to bo desolated, its white inhab
itants massacred, or flying from their abodes
in beggary and misery, unsheltered from the
pitiless storm, and without the comforts or the
subsistence of life. The country possessed
by some emperor bearing and exulting in the
euphonious title of, perhaps, Cully the First, i
Such, or worse, if worse lie possible, will
be the inevitable effects of our glorious
Union” in the hands of “les amis des noirs,”
an ominous name, of which tho very sound
would seem to affright the southern mind
from its propriety, if it were not absolutely
torpid.
Nor let those of tho South who have no
direct interest in slave property, hug to their
bosoms tho sweet unction that they can evade
the common fate. Every southern interest
must perish with tho slave institution. Hou
ses, lands, stocks, moneys at interest, must all
bo submitted to this fate. These horrors
hav? nothing appalling to the minds of free
soilers. An appeal was made to the greatest
man of this diabolical fraternity, a man now
no more, but whose spirit still lives. He was
told of these horrors, and particularly of the
destruction of the masters. His reply was,
“Let them come, though five hundred thou
sand lives should perish.” This is more dia
bolical than the declaration of some Marat
or Robespierre, in tho fury of tho French
Revolution, who said, “Thousands of lives
are a small sacrifice for the establishment of
a principle.” But it is said it is not intended
to disturb tho security of slave property in tho
established States. This is absolutely false.
They have declared a thousand times that
their great end and aim is universal emancipa- !
tion. Nor can they limit their operations, for,
as John Randolph pithily said, fanaticism has
no stopping place. It may not be the view
of all the free-soilers to bring about these ca
lamities ; but they are sowing the tempest and
we must reap tho storm which the moderates
will have no power to control. In fact, do
they not all declare that their object is the
utter abolition of slavery throughout the
Union? And if their views really went no
further than to pen it up within restricted
limits, do they not thereby disturb the secu
rity of the property, when they render it less
profitable, less valuable, and more difficult of
management? What their object is, and what J
they believe they have already accomplished, j
is declared in tho following extracts taken (
from two public journals of great circulation j
and authority.
The New York Sun, a neutral paper, of j
larger circulation than any other journal in j
the United States, has the following, touching
the recent acts passed by Congress:
“Undoubtedly there will be clamor and
clatter from the extreme and fanatic Southern
members—it is to be expected—but the final
result may be written down with certainty.
Their decision [i. e. the acts passed by Con
gress] will be the doom of slavery in the Uni
ted States. Its final suppression is near at
hand, and may be looked upon as one of the
most triumphant battles ever fought and won,
yet recorded in the world's history. It will
have been a victory without bloodshed, a vic
tory of principle over habit and association —
of right over wrong.”
The above opinion of a Northern paper
will not be weakened in it3 force by the fol
lowing from the London Times, a paper that
can hardly be supposed to have any interested
motive in misrepresenting the true character
and inevitable tendency of the measures of
the late session. The Times says:
“Slavery may, in consequence of these mea
sures, be considered as doomed in the United
States, and men now living may see its utter
extinction within the white territories of the
; Republic; An obstinate opposition to this ‘in
evitable tendency on the part of the South may
delay, but cannot ultimately prevent this result.
Another consequence may, indeed, attend their
opposition which possibly their a niter and pre
judice will not allow them to contemplate.”
Wo suppose by this is meant, the horrors
of St. Domingo. The next great atrocity
committed on the constitution and the rights
of the States is, the excision of the territory
of the State of Texas. This is worse, in my
judgment, than the affair of California. The
most sacred principle of the constitution is
the inviolability of the State sovereignty.
The constitution does not authorize the smal
hfit interference of the General Government,*
except, perhaps, in tho vague clause which
secures to enh State a Republican form of
Government A State may violate every
article of tho Constitution, and there Is not
in that instrument any power of interference
granted to the General Govern ulO-Ut. If one
state were to make war upon another, no
right of interposition is given to that Govern
ment. Incidentally, through the judiciary,
the practical exercise of state sovereignty
may he controlled; but only where the rights
of individuals are concerned, and the judg
ments of courts are to be executed. In all
cases which affect the sovereignty of states,
their relation to tho General Government is
the same as between two independent, equal
sovereigns. This view may, perhaps, be con
sidered as.zrcw. lam not aware that it is so.
But be that as it may, the constitution maybe
searched in vain for anything in derogation
of it. It may be asked, what power, then,
exists to control a state in (he exercise of
unjust power? The answer is, none, but that
to which all sovereigns arc subject. Thank
God! the framers of the constitution did not
contemplate any control of tho sovereign
States. Nor can Congress pass any law
abridging this sovereignty. To prove to de
monstration how little power Congress has to
acquire territory, it is only necessary to quote
tho following section of tho Constitution:
“The Congress shall have power to dispose
of, and make all needful rules and regula
tions respecting, the territory or other proper
ty belonging to tho United States; and no
thing in this Constitution s/util be so construed
as to prejudice any claims of the United States,
or of any particular State.”
This clause proves that the framers of the
constitution admitted no power i:i the gov
ernment of the Union, even to make laws
respecting the acknowledged and indubitable
territory and property of the Union, without
this special authority; and the saving clause
seems to provide, with great, but just and wise
jealousy, against the possible encroachments
of the government of the Union. After read
ing this clause, with what reason and propri
ety can it be urged that Congress shall ac
quire of itself, and under tho constitution, so
vereign rights over a conquered territory ?
Let any provision in the constitution bo point
ed out in which there is even a squinting at
such a power. If the territory cut off from
Texas did not belong to that State, it certainly
did not belong to the political entity called the
United States, but to tho independent States
of the confederacy, as independent States,
per mi el per tout. But though this argument
cannot be refuted, it will bo met with tho rc
lmke of power, and will be no stumbling
block in the way of those who are governed
by a law above the constitution. I shall
speak of tho right of Texas hereafter as an
indubitable right. But suppose it to be doubt
ful ; who shall decide the question of its vali
dity ? It is tho right of a sovereign; and
where shall we find any power in Congress
to decide on questions of the sovereign power
of the States? Certainly not in tho constitu
tion of the Federal Government. In tho
President? Unquestionably so fearful and
despotic a power is not invested in him. But
who, then, shall decide ? I answer, it is a
question of sovereign right, to be decided by
equal sovereigns, by negotiation and agree
ment between Texas and the other States. It
never was intended to make tin* government
of the Union an absolute despotic power to
decide such controversies. It was a govern
ment granted with fear and limited by jeal
ousy. But to show how feebly such consid
erations govern tho chief magistrate whom
accident has put abovo us, how little of a
statesman and how poor a lawyer he is, we
find him, by his more will, superseding tho
authority of Congress, if it has any, deciding
the question, and threatening to enforce a title
thus adjudged, by arms. Ilia authority to use
military force in a question of sovereign right,
he strangely finds in a law most clearly inten
ded only to enforce the execution of judicial
judgments in personal and individual contro
versies.
Now,as to the right and title of Texas. Tex
as claimed the territory, under the constitution
of tho State, ns a conquered territory. The
United States acknowledged the boundaries
which she claimed.
The treaty of annexation was executed with
a map of the country exhibiting these born -
daries, made in the topographical bureau of
the tJ. States, lying before the negotiators at
the time; and the U.S. agreed to use their power
and influence to establish these boundaries, as
nearly as they could, in their negotiations \\ itli
Mexico. I know it may be said that these
boundaries were not expressly recognized in
the treaty of annexation ; but the reason for
it was that the U. States, while it recognized
them tacitly, would not agree likewise to guar
antee them in extenso. That tlieU.S. distinctly
recognized them is proved by the memoir at
tached to tho map, which states that “The
present boundaries of Texas are defined by
an act of the Texan Congress, approved Dec.
ID, 1830, to be as follows:
“Beginning at the mouth ofthe Rio Grande, j
thence up the principal stream of said river
to its source; thence due north to the 4'2d
degree of north latitude ; thence along the
boundary line, as defined in the treat\ be
tween the United States and Spain, to the’ be
ginning.” The reason for not expressing
specifically the boundaries of Texas is given in
a letter of Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of State,
to Mr. Green, our representative in Mexico,
dated April 19, 1844, in which ho says: “To
make the terms of the treaty [of annexation] as
little objectionable to Mexico as possible, the
Government of the United States had left the
boundary of Texas without specification ; so
that what the boundary should be might be
an open question, to be fairly and fully dis
cussed and settled according to the rights cf
each and the mutual interest and security of
the two countries.” Thus there is not the
shadow of doubt that the Government of the
United States recognized the boundary claini-
ed, as the basis of the negotiation on the part
ot Texas in the stipulated negotiation with
Mexico. Every act of our government, un
til the expiration of Mr. Polk’s administra
tion, confirmed this. Our army took pos
session of the bank of the Rio Grande, as
Texas tenitoryvand when it was assailed, de
fended it as such. The President, in his mes
sage to Congress, called the advance of the
Mexican army beyorul<he Rio Grande an in
vasion of our territory, that is, of tho territo
ry of Texas. Congress, by a very largo
majority, declared war on that ground, ami
by that war the territory in question was de
fended as tho territory of Texas. It was
acknowledged by Mexico by a treaty of ces
sion to the United States, the ostensible bel
ligerent power and tho trustee of Texas for
the purpose. But the title of ‘Texas was
good, independent of this cession. If the
territory in question was not actually a bat
tle-field, the enemy retreated beyond it, be
fore the release of Santa Anna, by his order.
The Texans claimed it in the most solemn
manner; and actual possession has never
been deemed necessary to support a title, by
nations, to remote territory. Great Britain
bus not in actual possession, and never in any
maimer put foot ou, a great portion of the ter
ritory of her foreign dominions, £?o of Russia,
and so of other governments.
Tho abandonment by Santa Anna and the
officer next in command, supported by eight
or nine years’ distinct and unabatod claim, U
in itself sufficient. But the question is be
tween the United States and tho State of Tex
as. Now, the United States have, again and
again, in every shape, acknowledged the
boundary claimed bv Texas, both before and
after the war with Mexico; and sh.J’ fie bo
permitted to dispute it? In the strictest law
between individuals*, tho party standing in the
place of tho United States would be estopped
from making a demand in opposition to tho
claim of the other party. To attempt it
would be deemed a gross and infamous fraud.
Can it be less so in a nation ? The pretence
is that it formed a part of the old province of
New Mexico ; but this was distinctly known
to the United States anterior to all her ac
knowledgments of the title of Texas. Re
sult s, the attempted usuipatiou isnot confined
to the territory ionnerly included in Nov/
Mexico, hut is to embrace a large portion of
the undisputed territory of Texas; and for
this, no pretence of right is even suggested ; no
motive is assigned ; hut the government de
sires to have it. The motive is, nevertheless,
perfectly obvious. It is to further the policy
and the plans of the abolitionists. It is to en
viron the slave States. Wo have seen that
the government of the United States has no
power to acquire territory. Let us now look
a little into the means resorted to for the pur
pose of accomplishing this object. We seo
the military again employed in fraudulent at
tempts to establish another free soil State.—
That failing, the President, without consult
ing Congress, determines the question of
right most uncourteously, as well as without
the shadow of authority in him to do so, threat
ens the uso of tliebaj'onet, and through Con
gress, offers a bribe to Texas; and with tho
sword in one band and a bribe in the other,
dictates to a free and sovereign State tho dis
memberment of her territory, prescribes pre
cise limits to tho excision without consulting
her, and fixes a very short time within which
she is to submit. The greatest tyrant in the
world could not have proceeded with more
indecency, or with grosser insult. Will
Texas submit ? lias she no self-respect left ?
Is sho not pledged to tho Southern States
to preserve this territory for the purpose of
sustaining the equilibrium of tho Union, and
will she now consign it to a purpose which
will destroy it ? Who brought Texas into
the Union ? The South. Who expended
their blood and treasure to sustain her inde
pendence and to defend her from the menaces
of Mexico and the bloody revenge of that
nation? The South. And Texas, for this
paltry bribe, is to desert those who supported
her in the hour of distress and peril—and, to
subserve the ambition and fanaticism of those
who would have sacrificed her, she, an in
dependent State, is to submit to the dictates,
tho fanaticism and ambition of her own worst
enemies, to give up her lands to a vast extent,
and her natural boundaries and her honor. No
State in tho Union, with so short a history, is
entitled to a more brilliant fame. But let her
submit to this insulting and degrading dicta
tion, to use no harsher term, and where will
she stand ? This assault upon Texas is, at
the same time, a deadly blow at all independ
ent State sovereignty; and without that
safeguard, there cannot be conceived a great
er despotism than the government of the U.
States is likely to become. Indeed, it is so
already, if the views I have presented have
any foundation in truth. But in the case of
Texas, as in that of California, the great deed
of iniquity is tho object and the ultimate ten
dency of the measure. Is it not avowed that
the purpose of it is to environ the slave
States with institutions at war with tho se
curity and value of tho property of those
States, as well as the destruction of the pow
er of those States in the confederacy ? to
humble you, to govern yon, to stab you tu
the heart ? I dismiss the subject of Texas.
‘The next aggression is the abolition of the
slave trade in the District of Columbia ; and
this will he, perhaps, a question of constitu
tional difficulty with some minds. It Would
seem, however, if tho constitution is to he
constructed like other instruments, that the
law is constitutionally unauthorized. The ter
ritory belongs alike to all the States ; all the
citizens of all the States have a right to bring
their property into it, and to use it therein for
all the purposes of which property is suscep
tible. It will not be asse/ted that Congress lias
the power to prohibit the introduction, within
the District, of .the manufactures of Massa
chusetts, or the cotton and rice of the South
ern States. Now, it cannot he averred with
truth, that there is any property more sacred,
or better protected under the constitution,
than the property in slaves. The constitu
tion is imbibed with none of those prejudices
against this property, which has grown essen
tially since its adoption, as well in Europe as
in some of the United States. llow, then,
can it be pretended that the owner of this
property shall be precluded from the use of
it in the leading characteristic of all proper
ty, namely, the sale of it? Certainly, I
would say that prejudice and not reason can
make any distinction. But in discussing the
constitutionality of the law, we do not meet
the great ground of objection which is the
purpose and example of tho law. Here, as
in the preceding grievances, the object is the
advancement of abolition. Is it not noto
rious that it is intended and valued merely as
an entering wedge, that it is to be followed up
by the abolition of the property in the Dis
trict, and that these arts shall form examples
for other acts of interference with this proper
ty ? Congress has the power to regulate
commerce between the States. We shall no
doubt very soon hear of a proposition in
Congress for regulating the slave trade be
tween the States ; and the surplus slaves of
Virginia and North Carolina will not be al
lowed to pass to the new and unsettled coua-
NO. 49.