Newspaper Page Text
POLITIC AL .
EXTRACTS FROM THE SPEECH OF
MR. WEBSTER,
At Bullii’o, X. Y., -May, 1851.
Gentlemen ! I contend, and always have
contended, that after the adoption of the Con
stitution, any measure o f the Government cal
culated to bring more slavery into the United
States iras beyond, the power of the Consti
tution, and against, its provisions. That is
my opinion, and it always has been my opin
ion. It was inconsistent with the Constitu
tion of the United States, or thought to be so,
in Jefferson's time, to attach Louisiana to
the United States. A treaty with France
was made for that purpose. Hut Jefferson’s
opinion at that moment was, that an altera
tion of the Constitution was necessary to
enable it to be done. In consequence of
considerations which I need not now recur
to, that opinion was abandoned, and Louis
iana was admitted by law, without any pro
vision or alteration in the Constitution. At
that time I was too young to hold any office,
or take any share in the political affairs of
the country. was admitted as a
slave State, and became entitled to her rep
resentation in Congress on the principle of a
mixed basis. Florida was afterwards ad
mitted. Then, too, i was out of Congress;
I had been in it once; 1 had nothing to do
with the Florida treaty, or the admission of
Florida. My opinion remains unchanged,
that it was not within the original scope or
design of the Constitution to admit new
States out of foreign territory; and that, for
one, I never would consent; and no matter
what may he said at the Syracuse Conven
tion, or at any other assemblage of insane
persons, / never would consent, and never
have consented, that there should be one foot
of .stave territory beyond what the old thirteen
Stairs had at the time of the formation of the
Union. Never, in ver. The man cannot
show his face to me and say he can prove
that I ever departed from that doctrine, lie
would sneak away, ami slink away, or hire
a mercenary press, that he might cry out,
what an apostate from liberty Daniel Web
ster has become. (Laughter and cheers.)
He knows himself to be a hypocrite and a
falsifier. Hut, gentlemen, 1 was in public
life when the proposition to annex Texas to
the United States was brought forward. You
know the revolution in Texas, which divided
that country from Mexico, occurred in the
year 1835 or ’So. 1 saw then, and I do not
know that it required any particular fore
sight, that it would be the very next thing
to bring Texas, which was designed to be a
slaveholding State, into this Union. I did not
wait, i sought an occasion to proclaim my
utter aversion to any such measure, and 1
determined to resist it with all my strength
to the last. Mow, gentlemen, it is not for
your edification, I am sure, that I now re
vive what I have before spoken in the pres
ence of this assembly. I was in this city in
the 3’oar 1837, and long before 1 left New
York on that excursion, in the course of
which l went to the South and returned here,
my friends in New York were kind enough
to offer me a public dinner as a testimony of
their public regard. I went out of my way,
on that occasion, for the purpose of showing
what I anticipated in the attempt to annex
Texas as a slave territory, and said it should
be opposed by me to the last extremity. And
in Niblo’s Garden, in March, 1837, 1 made a
speech. Well, there was the press all around
me. The Whig press and the Democratic
press. Some spoke in terms commendatory
enough of my speech, but all agreed that 1
took pains to step out of my way to de
nounce in advance the annexation of Tex
as as slave territory to the United States. I
said, on that occasion:
“ Gentlemen! we all see that, by whomso
ever possessed, Texas is likely to be a slave- j
bolding country; and 1 frankly avow my on- ‘
tire .unwillingness to do anything that shall
extend the slavery of the African on this con
tinent, or add other slaveholding .Slates to
the Union. When I said that 1 regarded
slavery as a great moral and political evil,
I only used language that has been adopted
by distinguished men, themselves citizens of
slaveholding JStates. I shall do nothing,
therefore, to extend or encourage its further
extension. We have slavery already amongst
us. The Constitution found it amongst us.—-
It recognized it and gave it solemn guaran
ties. To the full extent of these guaranties,
we are all bound in honor, in justice, and by
the Constitution. Ail the stipulations con
tained in the Constitution in favor of the ,
slaveholding States which are already in the
Union, ought to be fulfilled, and, so far as de
pends on me, shall be fulfilled in the fullness
of their spirit, and to the exactness of their
letter. Slavery, as it exists in the States, is
beyond the reach of Congress. It is the con
cern of the States themselves. They have
never submitted it to Congress, and Congress
has no right or power over it. I shall con
cur, therefore, in no act, no measure, no
menace, no indication or purpose which shall
interfere, or threaten to interfere, with the
exclusive authority of the several States over
the subject of slavery as it exists within their
respective limits. All this appears to me to
be a matter of plain and imperative duty.
But w hen we come to speak of admitting new
States, the subject assumes anew and en
tirely ditFereut aspect. Our rights mid our
•duties are then both different. The free
States, and all the States, are then at liberty
to accept or reject. When it is proposed to
bring new members into the political part
nership, the old members have a right to say
on what terms such partners are to come in,
and what they are to bring along with them.
In my opinion, the people of the United
States will not consent to bring in anew,
vastly extensive, and slaveholding country,
large enough for half a dozen or a dozen
States, into the Union. In my opinion, they
ought not to consent to it.”
Gentlemen! I was mistaken. Congress did
consent to the bi inging in of Texas. They
did consent, and l was a false prophet. Your
own State consented, and the majority of the
representatives of New’ York consented. 1
went iuto Congress before the final consum
mation of the deed, and there I fought, hold
ing up my hands, and proclaiming, with a
voice stronger than it now is, my remonstran
ces against the whole of it. But you would
have it so, aud you did have it so. Nay, gen
tlemen, I will tell the truth, whether it shames
the devil or not [Laughter.] Persons who
have aspired high as lovers of liberty, as emi
nent lovers of the Wiimot Proviso, as emi
nent Free-soil men, and who have mounted
over our Leads, and trodden us down as if
we were mere slaves, they are the men that
brought Texas into this country, insisting that
they are the only true levers of liberty ; and
yet that is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, and I declare it before
you this day. Look to the journals. With
out the consent of New-York, Texas would
not have come into the Union, under either
the original resolutions or alterwards. But
New York voted for the measure! The two
Senators from New-York voted for it, and
turned the question, and you may thank them
for the glory, the renown, and the happiness
of having five or six slave States added to
the Union. [Great sensation ] Do not blame
ine for it. Let them answer who did the
deed, and who are now proclaiming liberty, j
crying up their free soil creed, and using it 1
for humbug and trading purposes.
Gentlemen ! who aided in bringing in Tex- j
as? It was all fairly told to yon, both before- j
hand and afterwards. You heard Moses and !
the prophets, [laughter,] hut if one had risen
from the dead, such was your devotion to that
policy at that time, that you would not have
heard him or listened to him for a moment.
J do not, of course, speak of the persons now
here before me, but of the general political
tone in New \ork, and especially ot those
who are now Free-soil apostles. Well, all
that I do not complain of; but l will not, now
or hereafter, before the country or the world,
consent to he numbered among those who in
troduced new slave power into the Union. I
did all in my power to prevent it. [Ap
plause.] Then again, gentlemen, the Mexi
can war broke out. Vast territory was ac
quired, and the peace was made; and, much
as I liked the war, I disliked the peace more,
because it brought in these territories. I wish
ed for peace, indeed, but I desired to strike
out the grant of territory on the one side, and
the payment of the twelve millions of dollars
on the other. That territory was unknown.
1 did not know what it might be. The plan
came from the South. 1 knew that certain
Southern gentlemen wished the acquisition
of California, New Mexico, and Utah, as a
means of extending slave power and slave
population. Almost every thing was un
known about the country. 1 did not fall into
their idea much ; but seeing a quarrel, and,
as 1 conceived, seeing bow much it would
distract the Union, l voted against the peace j
with Mexico. I voted against the acquisi- j
tion. 1 wanted none of her territory—Cali- \
fornia, New Mexico, nor Utah. They were
rather ultra-American, as 1 thought. They
were far from us, and 1 saw that they might |
lead to a political disturbance, and I voted |
against them all, against the treaty and against I
the peace, and l am glad of it, rather than
have the territories. Seeing that it would be
an occasion of dispute, that by the contro- |
versy the whole Union would be agitated,
Messrs. Berrien, Badger, and other respecta
ble and distinguished men of the Jjouth, voted
against the acquisition, and the treaty which
secured it; and, if the men of the North had
voted the same way, we should have been
spared all the difficulties that have grown out
of it. We should have had the peace, with
out the territories. [Applause.] Now, there
is no sort of doubt, gentlemen, that there
were some persons in the South who suppos
ed that California, if it came in at all, would
come in as a slave State. \ou know the
extraordinary events which immediately oc
curred. You know that California received a
rush trom the Northern people, and that an
African slave could no more iive there than
he could live on the top of Mount Hecla.
Os necessity it became a free State, and that, ;
no doubt, was a source of much disappoint
ment to the South. And then there was New
Mexico and Utah. Y\ hat was to be done
with them ? Wh}\ gentlemen, from the best
investigation I had given the subject, and the
reflection 1 had devoted to it, I was of the
opinion that the Mountains of New Mexico
and Utah could no more sust iin American
slavery than the snows of Canada. I saw it
was impossible. I thought so then; it is
quite evident now. Therefore, gentlemen,
when jjt was proposed in Congress to apply
the Wiimot Proviso to New Mexico and
Utah, it appeared to me just as absurd as to
apply it here in Western New York. I saw
that the snow hill?, the eternal mountains, and
the climate of those countries would never
support slavery. No man could cany a slave
there with any expectation of profit. It. could
not be done; and as the South regarded the
proviso as merely a source of irritation, and
by some as designed to inflate, 1 was not
willing to adopt it; and therefore 1 saw no
occasion for applying the Wiimot proviso to
New Mexico or Utah. I voted accordingly;
and who doubts now the correctness of that
vote? The law admitting those Territories
passed without any proviso. Is there a slave,
or will there ever be one, in either of those
Territories? Why, there is not a man in the
United States so stupid as not to see at this
moment that such a thing was wholly unne
cessary, and that it was only calculated to
irritate ami to offend. And lam notone who
is disposed to create irritation, or give offence
to our brothers, or to break up fraternal friend
ship, without cause. The question was open
whether slavery should or should not go to
New Mexico or Utah. There is no slavery
there: there is not the shining face of an
African there. If is utterly impracticable and
utterly ridiculous to suppose that slavery
could exist there, and no one, who does not
mean to deceive, will now pretend it can ex
ist there.
Among the many good stories told of
that ecclesiastical wag, Sydney Smith, the
following is one which we believe has never
appeared in print, and which we give upon
the authority of a gentleman representing
himself to have been present at the occur
rence.
Mr. Smith had a son, who, as is frequently
the case with the ofTshots of clergymen—(we
suppose from a certain unexplained antago
nism in human nature) —
—ne in virtue’s wap did take delight,
But spent his days in riot most uncouth,
And vex’d with mirth tiie drowsy ear of night.
Ah, me ! in sooth he was a shameless wight,
Sore given to revel an ungodly glee!”
So fast indeed was this young gentleman,
that for several years he was excluded from
the parental domicil. At length, however,
the prodigal repented, and his father took
him home upon his entering into a solemn
engagement to mend his ways and his man
ners. Shortly after the reconciliation had
taken place, Mr. Smith gave a dinner-party,
and one of his guests was Sumner, the pres
ent Bishop of Winchester. Before dinner,
the facetious clergyman took his son aside,
and endeavored to impress upon him the
necessity of his conducting himself with the
utmost propriety in the distinguished compa
ny to which he was about to be introduced.
“Charles, my bov,” he said, “I intend plac
ing you at table next to the bishop; and 1
hope that you will make an effort to get up
some conversation which may prove interest
ing to his lordship.” Charles promised faith
fully to do as his father requested.
At dinner the soup was swallowed with
the usual gravity. In the interval before the
fish, hardly a word was spoken, and the
silence was becoming positively embarrass
ing, when, all of a sudden, Charles attracted
the attention of all at table to himself, by
I asking the dignitary upon his right if he
i would do him the favor to answer a scriptu
ral question which had long puzzled him.
Upon Doctor Sumner’s promising to give the
best explanation in his power, the questioner,
with a quizzical expression of countenance,
| begged to be informed, “How long it took Ne
buchadnezzar to get into condition after he
returned from grass ?”
It is needless to say that a hearty laugh
echoed this professional inquiry on every
side, and how unanimously young Smith was
voted a genuine chip of the old block.
Scnitljmi Bmimd.
COLUMBUS. GEORGIA:
FRIDAY MORNING, SEPT. 3,1852.
Change of Publication Day.
Our next week’s paper will be issued on Thurs
day morning. We make this change, at some
expense to ourselves, for the accommodation of our
subscribers in Stewart, Randolph, Early, and
Baker counties. Changes in the mails have ren
dered this change in our publication day necessary.
Education in Columbus.
Wo call the particular attention of our readers to
the advertisement of Prof. Millar, in to-day’s pa
per. A great many people write bad bands—
“shocking bad hands”—so bad that neither they
themselves, nor any body else can make them out.
The Professor is prepared to correct the “habit” and
they owe it to community to avail themselves of his
assistance.
Messrs. Plane and Mallary are about to open
their Schools, and as it is important for pupils to at
tend at the commencement of the session, we refer
their patrons to their respective advertisements.
Life Insurance.
Life is exceedingly uncertain at this season of the
year. John Munn, Esq., is prepared to insure its
continuance for a mere pittance. See his adver
tisement.
Acknowledgments.
Tließt. Rev. Stephen Elliott, Jr., will please ae
eopt our thanks for a copy of his Address on Hor
ticulture, delivered before the Southern Central Ag
ricultural Society in October last.
Like all the productions of this eminent Divine,
the Address is distinguished for its taste and elo
quence. The Bishop has the enviable faculty of
“painting the Lily and giving perfume to the Violet ”
But amid all this profusion of beauty, the Horticul
turist will find in the Address, more praet eal informa
tion on the subject of Southern Horticulture, than in
any work which has yet issued from the Southern
press. We hope to see it universally copied into
our Agricultural papers.
Miss Pauline Ridgeway lias presi nVd us with
two apples grown by her grandfather, in Chambers
county, Ala , which measured thirteen inches in cir
cumference. She will please accept our thanks for
her kindness.
The Late Freshet—Damage to the Crop.
The Chattahoochee river has been higher than it
was ever known to be at this season of the year.—
The Coweta, IJpatoie, Oswichee, and other “bends,”
have been submerged, and thousands of acres of the
best fields of corn and cotton on the river, have
been irretrievably ruined. The creeks running into
the river have been out of their banks. Much of
the swamp lands have been flooded, and many Mills
and Bridges swept away. Our Factories have been
idle since Saturday last—indeed, the raging billows
of tiie Chattahoochee swept through tlie lower sto
ries of the “Variety Works,” and “Winter’s Pal
ace Mills.” No serious injury, however, is appre
hended from tiie rise in the river at this place.
Fair of the Georgia and Alabama
Agricultural Society.
We understand that tiie prospects for a great gath
ering at the Fair of this Society, to come off, in this
city, on the Glh and 7tli of Oct., is very flattering.
The premium list has never been excelled at ti e
South, except by the Southern Central Society.—
The citizens have become aroused to tlio importance
of those Fairs, to the prosperity of our city, and ar e
rendering tiie Society efficient aid for tiie premiums,
&c. Surely, if the citizens of Macon can afford to
give four or five thousand dollars, two years in suc
cession, for tiie Fair of tiie State Society, we c. n
render a pittance to our own Society, which em
braces all tiie counties around us, both in Gcoigia
and Alabama. The location for the Fair is an ex
cellent one. The Court House and its spacious
grounds. We hear from all quarters, notes of pre
paration. There will be a fine display of Stock, and
we have heard some mysterious crowing among the
feathered bipeds, which indicates a poultry show. —
We also learn that the Ladies will make a splendid
display of their handiwork. We understand the
Amateur Band has volunteered its services for the
occasion, and take it altogether, we shall look for a
gala time. Friends from the country, come and see
us, on the Gth and 7th of October !
Soule on the American Fisheries.
“We tender our acknowledgments to the eloquent
Senator from Louisiana for a copy of his able and
eloquent speech upon this subject. As it throws
much light upon it, we will give it a brief notice.
By tiie treaty of 1818, the United States “re
nounced forever any liberty theretofore enjoyed or
claimed by their inhabitants to take, dry, or cure
fish with’ii three marine miles of any of the coasts,
bays, creeks, or harbors of his Britannic Majesty's
Dominions in North America,” not included in
certain boundaries specifically defined in the treaty.
Under this clause of the treaty, tiie British au
thorities insist that England has a right to draw a
line from headland to headland, and to capture ail
American vessels engaged in fishing inside of said
line.
Mr. Webster says, in his comments upon the
treaty, that “it was undoubtedly an oversight in the
Convention of 1818, to make so large a concession
to England, since the United States had usually
considered that these vast inlets or recesses of the
ocean ought to be open to American fishermen as
free as the sea itself, to within three miles of the
shore.”
This unguarded language of the Secretary of
State, Mr. Saule regards as a surrender of the whole
subject of controversy, and ably and conclusively
contends that the words of the treaty “are most
clear and precise ; tiie very terms, the appropriate
terms, for expressing that which it was intended they
should convey. Had our negotiators spoken of
bays and harbors, without specifying what bays and
harbors they meant we should remain excluded from,
there might be room for doubt and for dispute.—
But they did not so speak. On the contrary, they
distinctly pointed to the specific places of exclusion,
the bays , creeks , and harbors of his Majesty's Do
minions.
The question then recurs, how far does His Ma
jesty's Dominions extend over the sea? The answer
is in part contained in the following splendid descrip
tion of the sea, which is only equalled by the in
spired Psalmist:
“ The earth,” says the Psalmist, “was given to the
children of men ; but the sea is of God alone.” The
sea is, from its very nature, unsusceptible of human own
ership. The idea of ownership implies that of exclu
sive possession—and of consequence, the right of using
the thing owned, at will—and not only that, but the
right ot excluding others from its possesion, and the ne
cessity of so excluding them, that the possessor may
make his ail the advantages it can yield. The sea has
none of the characters that could constitute it in owner
ship ot any man or nation. Its immensity, its fluidity,
must forever prevent its being subject to possession. It
may be turned to profit, it is true, but by each, and by
all of the human species, without itsenjoyment by some
impairing or diminishing its enjoyment “by others. Its
capacity is incommensurable. There is no volume that
can exhaust it. Thousands of fleets inay be sunk in it
to-day, and to-morrow it will again ingulph millions of
others, without ever being filled or notably compressed.
There are no signs, no marks through which to attest
its occupancy. Even those frightful, though majestic
leviathans that now plough it over, in all directions,
leave not beliind them any trace of their passage. The
rolling wave paddled back, as they move on, wafts
away from its surface the last vestiges of their march.
To make a thing yours by possession, you must pos
sess in continuity the same thing. Identity in the thing
owned constitutes one of the main elements of posses
sion. Afield, a forest, maybe upturned, and altered,
and transformed ; they will still be the same field, the
same forest. Not so with the ocean, so unceasingly
changing in its form, place, and surface ; now sinking its
upper layers in the uttermost recesses of the deep, and
then upheaving others from her lowest bed to the sur
face, as it to spread them to the light of Heaven in glo
rious exultancy. Its inexhaustibility renders itsexelusive
enjoyment not only useless, but impossible. Yon may
take from it for years and ages, with thousands and mil
lions of men ; you may seize upon its pearls, and its cor
als, and its salts, and its fishes—you but envelope its
powers of production and multiply the yielding* of the
mine from which you draw, fly the decrees cf God,
the ocean is of ail men. Nations may undertake to ex
plain and interpret those decrees ; they cannot abrogate
them.
Mr. Soule however admits that the rights of the
territorial sovereign over the sea, extend, by fiction
of law, as far as his power can physically reach. —
The rule of law is, terra dominium finitur übi fin
finitur artnorum vis, the domain of land ends
where the force of arms terminates ; that is, within
cannon shot, or three marine miles. In this con
struction, Galiani, Ilubner, Kluber, Vattel, Azuni,
and Grotius, all concur.
These limits to maritime jurisdiction, according
to the learned Senator, were sanctioned by the trea
ty of 17S0, were acknowledged in the marine regu
lations adopted by Tuscany, in 1778, by Venice in
1779, and are re-affirmed in those published by
Russia in 1757, and by Austria in 1803; and indeed
in every convention which lias been signed since the
closing of the last century.
If such be the measure of supremacy to which a
nation may pretend over a littoral sea, we have a
meaning for the words “ coasts, bays , creeks , or
harbors of His Britannic Majesty's Dominions in
North America,” as used in the treaty of ISIS.—
They include only those which communicate with
the ocean by straits less than six miles wide, all oth
ers are part of the ocean, which, by the decrees of
God, is the property of all men.
The question is lure entirely solved and put at
rest. It only remains to ascertain how distant be
the headlands at the entrance of the Bays of Fundy,
of Chnleurs, and elsewhere in which seizures of
American vessels have been made. They are, as all
the world knows, more than six miles wide, and are
as free to American fishermen as to those of Great
Britain; and ail captures made in them are against
law, and good cause of war, unless satisfaction is ten
dered by the Government of England.
The learned Senator further supports his argu
ment by the fact that the American fishermen have
enjoyed the right of fishing in these waters, from
time immemorial. lie says:
It is not denied, is it, that tiie liberties which England
now attempts thus violently to wrest from us have bcon
I r iet e and by our fishermen from time immemorial?—
They were liberties acknowledged in the treaty of 1733,
a- pre-existing to it; liberties ictained against most in
si lions and daring pretensions at the peace of Ghent,
where they were not even suffered to be drawn into ques
tion ; liberties enjoyed before and after the convention of
1813 ; liberties allowed, though under an ungracious,
but unadmitted profler of iavorand grace, in 18-15 ; and
yet, all at once, without pevious remonstrance, or the
least notice, this, our lung possession, this, onr solemnly
stipulated right, without whoso recognition the peace of
1783 could have never been concluded; which our ne
gotiations protected against the attaint of a query or a
doubt in 1814 ; which oar envoys thought they had on
nerved and strengthened by the convention of 1813;
which Lord Stanly, through sufferance, at least, consent
ed to let us enjoy after 1845, a* we enjoyed it before, is
to be brutally torn away trom us. as usurpation and en
croachment upon waters from which it would seem we
are to be excluded ; our vessels are captured, condemned
and sold before an explanation is sought and obtained,
or asked and refused; and ali this in the midst of the
most profound peace, and when England is incessantly
receiving at the hands of our Government most profuse
tokens and manifestations of condescendence.
The object which the British Government has in
view, in arraying within sight of the fishing grounds,
the imposing armaments, whose appearance has cre
ated such alarm, is thus forcibly portrayed by Sena
tor S >ule :
There is that, with nations whose fortune it is to have
thrived and prospered under the assumption and exercise
ot rights which were not theirs, that they grow infatua
ted with their too easily earned successes, and become
rash, and daring, and reckless; ever ready to jump over
abysses of difficulty in pursuit of a cherished object, and
in the extravagant conceit that whatever they wish to
attain it is in their power to grasp, and that whatever
tb.ey grasp is legitimately theirs. Such is England.—
She knows where, lies the secret and the great fountain
of your power. She loathes to see those naval nurse
ries of yours, almost stuck to her shore, those hives of
whizzing seamen pitched upon the waters of what she
would have you call her sens, and her gulfs, and her
bays, as so many advanced posts watching over tire
deep, that none may dare to claim its mastery, and hold
it n thraldom. She cannot but look with extreme jeal
ousy and concern on the growing pro-perity of this
country She may think that it were well for her, if
she could bar its progre-s, while it has not yet reached
its acme. Who can say that in some of those wild
dreams that come, at times, o.erthe mind and darken
the intellect of nations, she has not conceived that by
timely interposing, she might perchance slacken our
march, arrest the tide of our fortune, and assign limits
to our greatness? 1 will not say that she Ims. Still,
how are we to conciliate her well known sagacity
with the intention attributed to her of coercing us into a
treaty by so insulting a premonition of her purposes and
designs >. Depend upon it, Mr. President, she has been
emboldened by her late triumphs in the Nicaragua and
Mexican questions; and she may expect to deter us
from holding on to onr rights in the fisheries, as we
w.u-e deterred, it is said, by ominous warnings, from en
tertaining the proffer, lately made to persons in high
places, of ilei impatient to throw themselves in our lap.
If this be true, it is a burning disgrace to the
statesmanship of the Administration. Very differ
ent lessons might have been learned from the pve
ccden's so nobly set by their lion-hearted pr deces
sors.
In this short sketch we have done great injustice
to Mr. Soule. His speech abounds in eloquence, in
learning, in statesmanship, and exhibits a patriotism
which knows no sectional limits when wrong and
outrage are perpetrated upon any American citizen.
Such is the common feeling of State-rights politicians ;
while they are prompt to repel wrong, especially
upon .their own section, they will also uphold the
rights even of their enemies, if they are covered by
the Constitution of their country.
Mr. Hilliard’s Speech.
We regret that a misunderstanding as to when
Mr. Hilliard proposed to address the people, and the
inclemency of the weather, prevented a great many
| persons from attending, and that the audience which
| assembled at Temperance Hall on Friday night last
; was small. It doubtless acted as a damper upon the
! spirits of the speaker, as we regretted to notice a
great want of enthusiasm on his part, as well as in
the audience, and an absence of the flow of harmo
nious periods, and flashes of brilliant fancy which
usually characterize the forensic efforts of the Hon
orable Gentlemen. It may be, however, that his
cause was difficult to manage; at any rate, we as
sure onr citizens that if they have never before
heard Mr. Hilliard, they can form no proper opin
ion of his oratorical ability, from his speech on that
occasion. He did great injustice to himself.
Y\ hen we entered the Hall, Mr. Hilliard was
laboring through the Baltimore Conventions. He
laid much stress upon the fact that the Whig Plat
form was adopted before the candidate was nomina
ted. He neglected, however, to inform his auditory
that sixtv-six votes were given against it, though he
laid much emphasis upon the fact that on the vote
upon the Democratic Platform “a few voices were
heard in the negative.”
He was not less labored and lengthy in his com
ments upon the position of Pierce and Scott, before
j the two Conventions. “Scott,” he said, “stood
prominently before the Whig Convention from the
, beginning of the ballotings, and was never fur a
moment abandoned by bis supporters until be was
unanimously nominated, by the united voice of a
; great party ; while Pierce was not thought of until
; Cass, Buchanan, Douglas, and indeed all the great
men of the party, had failed to carry a majority of
two-thirds, and was only selected to save the Democ
racy from dissolution.”
Here, again, the Speaker’s memory was greatly
at fault. He did not even allude to the fact that
the “supporters” of Scott were the peculiar friends
of Wm. 11. Seward, while Pierce was tendered to
the Democratic Convention by Virginia, eagerly
seized upon by the other delegates from the South,
and only accepted by the delegates from the North
when they had lost all hopes of the nomination of
either one of their favorite candidates.
Having finished this branch of his subject, the
brilliant orator turned to the consideration of the
personal claims of the two candidates,and ftice'ious
ly ashed, “who is Franklin Pierce?” This was
the first happy hit the Speaker had made, and was
greeted with great applause. Having heard the wit
ticism in 1844, we did not enjoy the joke. The an
swer to the query and the few sentences that fol
lowed gave us no little satisfaction. He said he
was “a Northern man with Southern principles,”
and after making a comparison between Van Boren \
and Pierce, the point of which we did not appro- j
date, he indignantly exclaimed, “such a combination
was unnatural; birth, education, and association
render it a moral impossibility; all Northern men
are necessarily opposed to slavery ; you had as well
call a nutmeg a nutmeg , because it came from
Connecticut , and expect us to believe it, as to try
to impress us with the belief that Franklin Pierce,
the Yankee of Yankees, is friendly to the South
and her institutions! It is a moral impossibility.” —
These sneering allusions to the North, were of course
very kindly received by a number of Northern gen
tlemen, supporters of Scott, who had the pleasure of
listening to the brilliant orator. \Ye thought of
Fillmore, who, he assured us in another part of his
speech, “was so pure, so conservative, so firm, so
patriotic, that had he been nominated, he would have
given him his cordial support,” and of Webster,
“the greatest inti Meet of the age, whose whole life
had been devoted to the country.”
The Speaker now paused and addressed himself
to the hopeless task of proving Pierce's unsoundness
on the Slavery question. Tt.is was a grave ques
tion, and we gave the Speaker our undivided atten
tion. We knew that Pierce, by his votes and
speeches in Congress, had “stamped with disappro
bation, in the most express and unequivocal terms,
the whole abolition movement,” had even voted to
rejeet petitions to abolish slavery and the slave trade
in the District of Columbia; had quarrelled with
llale and defeated him for high office because he
opposed the annexation of Texas to the Union as a
•slave-holdfhg State ; that he had opposed Atwood,
the regular nominee of the Democracy, and defeat
ed him because lie wavered in bis support of the
Fugitive Slave law, and was denounced and abused
by every Abolition paper in New Hampshire as a
politician “whose whole public career lias been char
acterized by the most devout hatred for all such her
esies as “free men,” “free territory,” or even “free
speech” on the Slavery question—(see Granite State
Whig, July 18, 1852;) find we expected, of course,
that he would at least allude to some of these well
known incidents in the life of Gen. P., and attempt to
break the force of them upon the Southern mind,
hut he never even hinted that such things had an
existence. If this lie the result -f ignorance, there
is great need that Mr. Hilliard should ask “who
is Franklin Pierce ?” He evidently is an entire
stranger to the man. But if it was a designed over
sight, we ask, in all candor, was it fair, candid, or
just? I
Mr. Hilliard, however, instenJ'of referring to
these records, read page after page from the re
cords of the Legislature of New 1 lampshire, from the
proceedings of Abolition meetings, sixteen in num
ber, he said, held in the S‘ “ from messages of
Governors, etc., etc., um-| er ,,,qrq tl> .patience Was j
exhausted, and we It/ n mind to i,,,vc the roonU
and sue out a warrant/ him fol . publishing in
cendiary documenting strange and
unaccountable, he <tU* Pierce in any
shape or form, with a solitary meeting, or message ,
or record, from which he read! He was engaged,
we thought, and so did the audience, (for a good
many left, and most all got tired,) in shearing a pig,
and got much noise and no wool. All this array of
testimony was adduced in order that the Speaker
might give an unfair; illiberal, and unjust interpreta
tion to the following resolution :
Resolved., That we re-affirm the sentiments and opin
ions of the Democratic party, and Democratic statesmen
of the North, entertained from 1776 to the present dav,
in relation to slavery ; that we deplore its existence, and
regard it as a groat moral and social evil ; but with, this
conviction, we do not consider ourselves m ire wise than
Washington, Franklin, and their associates, and, that
patriotism, common honesty, and religions principle,
alike bind us to a sacred observance of the compact
made by those men.
This resolution, it is said, was passed in .Tune, 1846,
by the Democratic State Convention of New Damp
shire, and was reported by a committee, of which
Pierce was a member. The evident intent of the
resolution is that though Northern statesmen always
have been opposed to slavery in its moral and social
aspect, they were bound by ‘'patriotism.'” by ‘'com
mon honesty,” and “ religious principle ,” to respect
and defend tlie political rights of the South, guaran
tied by the Constitution. Mr. Hilliard, however,
took a different view of it, and triumphantly asserted
that the “compact” made with Northern statesmen
by Washington and Franklin had no reference to
slavery in the territories, but was confined to the
limits of the States. This is the ground always as
sumed by the Abolitionists. We never before heard
a Southern man make so fatal a concession. We
hope it was an inadvertence on the part of Mr.
Hilliard. We are sure lie cannot seriously main
tain so dang, rous a doctrine.
He also dwelt at much length upon the opinions
of the statesmen of the North, and very conclusive
ly proved that the great body of the present gen
eration arc tainted with abolition. He would not or
could not see that the object of the above resolution
was to correct the prevailing errors of Northern
sentiment on the subject of slavery, by reference to
the more conservative opinions of a former age,
when Daniel Wf.ester voted in a minority of six
iti favor of referring Abolition petitions.
Turning from Pierce to Scott, Mr. Milliard
pronounced him a sound man on the slavery ques
tion. lie was born in Virginia, was married in
Virginia, and made very felicitous allusions to a love
scene between him and his lady-love beneath an
“old oak tree,” and concluded by attempting to
quote a stanza from that beautiful ballad, “Wood
man, spare that tree,” but did not get further, how
ever, than the first line. He made no allusion, how
ever, to Scott’s Abolition letter to Mr. T. P. At
kinson, of Feb. 9, 1843, upon which the whole
weight of the charge of Abolitionism against Scott
rests. Our readers will find a short extract from
that letter, in our last number, in which Gen. Scott
unqualifiedly asserts the right of the Abolitionists to
petition Congress, and to have their petitions re
ceived, referred, and reported upon ; and surrenders
to Congress the right to legislate at discretion on the
subject of slavery in the District of Columbia. We
give in to-day's paper ano her extract, in which
Gen. Scott asserts that he became early impressed
in favor of a gradual emancipation of slaves; and
urges upon slave-holders that they are under high
moral obligations “to employ all means not incom
patible with the safety of both colors, to meliorate
slavery , even to extermination.” This omission was j
the more inexcusable as he laid much stress upon the
imputed declaration of Pierce that he regarded j
slavery as a great moral and political evil, and de- j
plored its existence, and even called upon the friends
of Calhoun to witness that that illustrious statesman
had declared that whoever admitted slavery to be a
moral evil, was an enemy to slavery. That was a j
double-edged sword which cut both ways; the sharp- ,
er edge, however, was turned towards the orator, as ,
his candidate is a Southern man, who is perfectly j
acquainted with the institution of slavery, and has
had none of the influences of “birth, education, and
association” to contend against in forming his opin- j
ion of Southern institutions.
Mr. Hilliard did not so much as allude to the
Tariff, Internal Improvements by the Federal Govern
ment, U. S. Bank, Distribution of the publie lands, or
any other of the great political issues which have so j
long divided the American people, and upon which ,
it js well known Fierce and Scott occupy diamet- I
rically opposite ground. It may be that this silence
was designed. Mr. Hilliard could not endorse
Gen. Scott’s soundness upon these questions; and
to defend federalism must have been regarded by
him as a hopeless task before a Georgia audience.
Mr. Hilliard’s description of Gen. Scott’s mili
tary career was brilliant and effective, and meets
with our hearty applause. We accord to him the
highest praise for valor, skill, and success, lie has
borne the Hag of the country in triumph over many
a hard fought field—and his praise is in every land.
We would not strip a laurel from the wreath that
crowns his brow. But we confess that we were
shocked with the indecent levity with which he re
ferred to the military career of Gen. Pierce, a career,
which however brief or unfortunate, lias earned for
him the epithet of the gallant Pierce, from Scott
himself, and which a grateful country will award to
him in spite of all the jeers of all the politicians in
America. We do not pretend that Gen. Pierce
is a great captain ; it is not claimed for him by his
friends ; even he himself modestly declared, says Mr
Hilliard, that he was not cutout for a General.—
Ills countrymen, however, will remember that when
the party with which Mr. Milliard has acted for
many years, had used every effort to dampen the
fire of American patriotism, especially in the North,
and had well nigh put it out, that Gen. Pierce vol
unteered as a private soldier, raised a regiment
even in New England, wher the war and all engag
ed in it were denounced, rushed to the rescue of the
illustrious Scott, then contending with superior
numbers in the arduous march upon Mexico, led his
command upon the breast-works of the m any, at
j Contreras, and in the hottest of the fight, liis horse
fell under him and crushed his leg upon thepedregal.
That though utterly unable to endure the fatigue of
another battle, he engaged in the hard fought field
of Churubusco, and never quit bis post until, sinking
under his injuries, he fainted upon the field of blood.
And the reward which brave men think he deservis
! for this heroic and self .sacrificing devotion to his
country, is to be taunted as a poltroon by tricky pol
j iticians. A brave people ought to hiss down such
allusions to the patriotic achievements of a gallant
man. We have extended these remarks too far.—
We seldom trespass so long upon the patience of out
readers.
Internal Improvement by the Federal Gov
ernment—The Platform ot Georgia
Parties.
The sixth resolution in the platform of the Whig
National Convention, and of the Webster party in
Georgia, is in these words :
The Constitution ve ts in Congress the power to open
and repair harbors, and remove obstructions from navi
gable rivers; and it is expedient that Congress shall ex
ercise that power “whenever such improvements are ne
cessary ijor the common defence, or for the protection
and facility of commerce with foreign nations, or among
the States such improvements being in every instance
national and general in their character.
On the 12th day of January, 1829, a Protest
from the State of Georgia was laid before the Senate
of the United States with due Solemnity. The ob
jects and purpose of this solemn act are thus char
acterized in the following resolution, which received
the cordial and unanimous support of the State
[lights party of that day :
The State of Georgia, influenced by a sense of for
bearance, and re-pect for the opinions of the other States,
&c., having, in her sovereign cha actor, protested ag:d a:
the tariff, and by inference, again -t its dependent mea
sure, Internal Ijtprov. mknts, as being an infraction
anil
and in perpetual testimony thereof, deposited that pro
test and demand in the archives ot the Senate ot the
United States.
Contrast the two platforms. The last js (fee
Georgia platform, aliojm if by our noble State in the
palmy days of her renown, while the great Craw
ford yet lingered among us, and the name of Troup
was like a blast upon a bugle-horn. This laerel
platform denounced the Tariff and Internal Improve
ments as infractions of the Constitution, and was
placed in the archives of the Senate, by Georgia, “in
justification of her character, to tl e present gen -ration
and to posterity; if Congress, disregarding this pro
test, and continuing to pervert powers, granted for
clearly defined and well understood purposes, to
eff ctuate objects never intended, by the gr at parties
by whom the Constitution vv: s framed, to be intrusted
to the controlling guardianship of the Federal Gov
ernment, should render necessity measures of deci
sive character for the protection of the people of the
State, and the vindication of the Constitution of the
United States.”
On tlie other hand, the first platform is the last
of the steps by which politicians have attempted to
degrade our gallant State from her high and great
position of leader of the State Rights party to the
mean and grove ling position of follower of Feder
alism and Fedeia’ists in the persons of Daniel
Webster and Winfield Scott. It was construct
ed, at least comm nrled to the people of Georgia, by
Worrells an 1 Andrewses This platform insists
that “revenue ought to be mainly derived from a du
ty on imposts,” and that sound policy requires spe
cific duties, whereby “suitable encouragement may
be assured to American industry.” While it bol
dly asserts that “the Constitution vests in Congress
the power to open and repair harbors, and remove
obstructions from navigable rivers.”
Why even the National Democratic party in
their platform, repudiate these Federal heresis.
Their second resolution is in these words :
That the Constitution docs not confer upon the Gen
eral Government the power to commence and carry on
a general system of internal improvements.
We freely admit that the professions of the De
mocracy do always correspond with their practice.
But the candidate of tlie Democracy is eminently
sound upon this subject. We think the records of
the country will bear us out in the asset tion, that
Franklin Fierce never voted for an internal im
provement bill in his life J and indeed, this is one
of the chief objections to Fierce in the Notthwcst
On the other other hand Webster and Scott are
known to entertain the wildest and most extravagant
notions on this subjtet.
One of the chief issues in this Presidential elec- ‘
tion is the constitutionality and expediency of inter
nal improvements by tlie Federal Government. The
only enquiry we propose to make is, as to the effects
of the policy upon the South. Indeed, in all that we
write in the present canvass, we write not as Whigs,
not as Democrats, but as Southern Bights men, and
we demand a careful perusal of our articles from i
all of like faith. How much then has the South
paid toicards internal improvements ? How much
has been expended in the South on internal im
provements by the Federal Government ? These
are very important enquiries, and ought to be satis
factorily answered by every Southern man before he
votes for candidates who favors this stupendous
scheme for the expenditnre of the public money.
“Before the year 1824, the only appropriation of any ;
considerable size for internal improvements was |
$607,000 for the Cumberland road, east of the Ohio j
river. About that time, the North became stronger
by anew apportionment of representation, and the
unfortunate concession on the Missouri question, en
couraged her to new encroachments upon the South.
From 1824 to 183d inclusive, the Federal Govern
ment gave for internal improvements to the free
States $3,194,441, or sll 43 per ten miles square,
and to the slaveholding States only $957,100, or
$1 57 per ten miles square. From 1834 to 1845,
inclusive, the North received $7,231,639, or >ls 9•>
per ten miles square, and the South $1,1 1 1,500, or
$1 92 for the same erea. In the first period the
North received from the Treasurer seven two times
as much as the South; in the next period, eight
times as much.”
It will thus be seen that up to the year 1545,
there had been spent upon roads, harbors, and rivers
(exclusive of the Mississippi and Ohio, which are
common to both sections) the sum of $15,201,223 ;
and that of this sum, the South received $4 51 to
improve each ten miles square of her area, or $2,-
757,816 in all; while the North got $2,805 for each
ten miles square; or $1,1.43,807 in ail; that i* } our
three times as much as the South received. (§ eu
44 Sen. Doc 184g—7.) Now when it is remember
ed that all these large sums of money are raised by
a tax on imposts, and that the South, being the
great importing section of the country, pays about
two thirds of the revenue of tiie Government, how
can any Southern man advocate tho claims of ( . and j.
dates who not only advocate the constitutionality of
internal improvement, but insist that it is expedient
to exercise it. It is doubtless expedient for the
North, but it is death to the South ; and no man
can with any propriety claim to be a Southern
Rights man who will vote for cither Webster
Sott. I hey and their parties stand on the same
platform. It is a Northern platform to which every
Southern man ought to lay his axe.
I WRITTEN FOR THE SENTINEL.I
Mr. Lomax:
You edit an independent paper, and for that rea
son I am one of your subscribers, because in V our
paper [ expect to see every shade of opinion from
your correspondents. You are no mercenary par
tisan, bound to exclude from your columns all that
may dare to differ with, and consequently offend, vour
readers. For this reason yours is the only paper I
take. Ido not know one other whose Editor ought
to be estimated at a shilling in any market where
virtue and independent public spirit are estimated,
riieir principles are in their subscription list, their
advertising columns, and their public pap vote. The
spoils is their God. The idea of admitting into their
columns anything savoring of independent political
opinions would throw tlie whole fraternity, Editors,
compositors, pressmen and devils, into fits. It would
knock the offices into pit.
W ith you I have a right to hope the case is differ
ent. 1 hope you exclude from your columns noth
ing decent, and in that hope 1 seek through your
courtesy to intrude on the State rights men some
opinions which I fear do not accord with yours,
though I have not entertained them lightly, or with
out serious reflection. If you differ, “strike, but
hear tnc,” and let me be heard.
-Mr. Pierce, Mr. Scott, Mr. Webster, and Mr.
Cobb, are now fairly in the field. I include Mr.
Cobb, because I look on his nomination, through his
faction, of an opposition Pierce ticket, as intending
nothing more nor less than to evidence Mr. Cobb’s
strength in Georgia. It is a bold experiment, and I
apprehend the persons e gaged in it, and their chief,
are already convinced it is delicately small, and
growing beautifully less. Satis de hoc.
My object is to enquire wh it ought the Southern
Rights men to do in this disgraceful and dirty con
test for the spoils. Murk, I do not mean the outhern
Rights party. Tdo not address it. It asserts rights
to make a merit by deserting them. I mean South
ern Rights men, who, .when they assert rights, are
ready to peril all—life, fortune, and fame in their de
fence—whenever, wherever, and by whomsoever they
are assailed. Men who are willing to give the South
what Mr. Kossuth calls material aid.
What ought Southern Rights men to do in tho
approaching Presidential election ? To answer this
question lot me glance back on the last few years,
up to tills time.
In F b., 1850, the Legislature unanimously de
clared that if Free Soil crossed 36 min. 30 deg. we
must disrupt; for the few who opposed what they
called the extreme measures of the then I.egisla
■BU’i’T'fiiade 3b*nun. 30 dog. their fighting line—even
Col. Murphy.
W hen the compromise measures were passed, wo
denounced them as infamous, tyrannical, unconsli
’Vsr> a” 1 m”j ’ lit * disgraceful and degrading to
the South, and urged secession. Mr. Toombs, Mr.
Stephens, and Mr. Cobb combined, to form the
Union party, and under the cry of Glorious Union,
Augustus got the Government, Antony the Senate,
and Lepidus nothing. Tlie Union party was dis
solved, and the Southern flights party vamosed.
The Democratic party convened at M illedgeville,
and sent delegates to Baltimore, and nominated an
Electoral ticket. The Union party met, and did
nothing. The Cobb faction, under tbo name of
Union Democrats, met and sent delegates to Balti
more, where they were suffered. Pierce and King
were nominated, and the Cobb faction, to weaken
Fierce and King, started an opposition Fierce ticket.
Scott was nominated at Baltimore by Whigs, and
Webster at Philadelphia by Whigs—and all, Fierce,
Seott, and Webster, are compromise men. Now, I
can see no reason why a Whig may not vote for
Scott or Webster, but before God and my country, I
cannot see how a Southern Rights man can vote for
Fierce, trliD e chief merit is that he is, and lias been
a compromise man, and supports that series of meas
ures which we denounced as infamous, tyrannical, un
just and unconstitutional, and disgraceful and de
grading to the South. Yes — there is one way. Sur
render all pretensions to patriotism, surrender self
respect, and all right to the respect of others, con
sent to have the finger of scorn pointed at you a*
the basest of the base, and then go and vote for a
friend and supporter of tlie Compromise!
I know many of you purpose to vote for the Dem
ocratic Electoral ticket to ..-rush tlie Cobb faction. —
Do not disgrace yourselves to effect so small an ob
ject, if it were necessary, but it is not neces arv. —
Mr. Cobb and his faction are consigned to infamy.
Every body is now eool, and every body now knows
that Mr. Cobb is triply steeped in trickery—he be
trayed his country, he betr. yed his party, and then
he betrayed the Whigs. Let him rot—his faction is
but the scum and dredge of the two old parties,
the worst men from both. Then, hold off; you can
show your strength better by not voting, and cm-fi
the supplemental mercenaries more effectually.—
There are 100,000 votes in the State; if you will
hold off, you can reduce it to 80,000. Fierce will
get 20 or 25, Seott 20 or 25, Webster 25 or 30.
and the Cobb faction 2or 3,000. You will show
yourselves as strong, I hope stronger, than either of
other parties. You will preserve the prestige of
hones'v, anu true patriotism, and the power of fu
ture good. Vote for Pierce, and you merge your
selves with a body you cannot respect, lose your
identity and self-respect, and with it all power ot fu
ture Usefulness. Then, come out from among tliQ
wicked—hold off—thi re can be no election in Geor
gia by the people, no matter which course you pur--
sue, and the vote of the State will be lost. Dm
Legislature cannot elect—because there can be no
Legislature without a Senate—there can be no Senate,
for the Senators elected in 1851 were elected to,
represent districts—the change of the Constitution
has abolished the districts, and Senators cannot rep
resent non-entities. Moreover, the Senate must
consist of 99 members under the amended Constitu
tion, and if the last elected Senate were to attempt to
represent counties, they cannot form a quorum.
Again, I say, Southern Rights men, hold off 1
TEPON.
General Fierce—North and South.
What Half. Says. —John P. Hale, in his recent
letter declining to become the Freesoil candidate for
the Presidency, speaks thus of the position of fl>°
democratic party, and of Gen. Pierce :
Every demand of slavery has been complied vvith
every threat, however insolent, has been met with cra
ven and cowardly submission, until, emboldened by
success, she has nominated her candidate tor tne i re-i
----dency, who bases his claims to public favor on the gtoun
that no act or record of his life has ever been found w
opposition to her demands.
A Letter from Gen. Pierce. —W e copy in
another place the correspondence between Mr. De*
Leon and Gen. Pierce, in relation to a “campaign
story,” which the Whigs have been making much
of in the South. We never had the smallest re
spect for the story, an 1 have taken no notice of it.
Gen. Pierce's publie life has been marked by con
sistency, candor and directness, and lie is too litt.a
chargeable with ambition to allow us to suppose tlu*
those qualities were only a mask and deception.
They were undoubtedly the sincere expression of bi*
native character, and we are bound to Lae bis p 1