Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE GEORGIA CITIZEN. UNION NOMINATION, FOR GOVERNOR, HON. HOWELL COBB, OF CLARKE. UxNIONCONGRESSIOXAL CANDIDATES. FIRST DISTRICT. CHARLES H. HOPKINS, OF M’INTOSH. SECOND DISTRICT. JAMES JOHNSON, OF MUSCOGEE. THIRD DISTRICT. ABSALOM 0. CHAPPELL, OF 8188. FOURTH DISTICT. CHARLES MURPHY, OF DE KALB. FIFTH DISTRICT. E. AY. CHASTAIN, OF GILMER. SIXTH DISTRICT JUNIUS HILLYEII, OF WALTON. SEVENTH DISTRICT IION. A. 11. STEPHENS, OF TALLIN FERRO. EIGHTH DISTRICT. ROBERT TOOMBS, OF WILKES. rnion Senatorial Nominations. Districts. Counties. Nominees. 6th. Montgomery and Appling, John Mcßae, 10th. Laurens and Wilkinson, James Ross, 10th. Harris and Troup, David Road, 17th. Houston and Pulaski, Hugh Lawson, 26th. Monroe and Bibb, S. W. Burney, 32nd. Butts and Pike, N. B. Johnson, 40th. Cass and Paulding, Lewis Tumlin, 41st. Cherokee and Cobb, M, G. Slaughter, *l9th. Sumpter and Dooly, Dr. J .Tomlinson 3d. Mclntosh and Glynn, R Spaulding 7th Bulloch and Scriven, Peter Cone, Bth Bryan and Effingham, J L McAllister. 9th Burke and Jefferson, P B Connelly. 11th Telfair and Irwin, Geo. Wilcox. 12th Decatur and Thomas, .] P Dickinson. 13th Early and Randolph, R L Wolfe. 15th Lee and Baker, R Rieves. 18th Talbot and Merriwether, WN L Crocker. 34th Greene and Morgan, N G Foster. 35th M illies and Lincoln, B B Moore. 31 st Fayette and DeKalb, J M Calhoun. 47th Floyd and Chatooga, J Waters. 14th Muscogee and Stewart, Samuel Flournoy, 44th. Lumpkin and Union, John Butt. The Banner of Union. Hold the Union of the States as the basis of your peace and happiness.—Madison. In confirmation of the correctness of the position here assumed, read the following from the sages of the past: If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, anti the controversies which are now debated and settled in the hall of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle, and determined by the sword. —Jackson. If there be any among you who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its repub lican form let them stand, undisturbed, as monuments of the safely with which error of opinion may be tolerated, when reason is left free to combat it—Jefferson. The Unity of our government, which con stitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence—the support of your tranquility at home—your peace abroad, of your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberality which you so highiy prize.—Washington. The fourth resolution of the Georgia convention Df December, 1850, reads as follows : “Fourthly, That the State of Georgia, in the judg ment of this convention, will and ought to resist, even (as a last resort) to a disruption of every tie which binds her to this Union, any action of Congress, upon the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, or in places subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, incompat ible with the safety, the domestic tranquility, the rights and the honor of the slaveholding States, or any act suppressing the slave trade between slaveholding States, or any refusal to admit as a State any territory hereaf ter applying, because of the existence of slavery there in ; or any act prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the terrirories of Uuih and New Mexico ; or any act repealing Or materially modifying the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves/’ “ Should, however, the time ever arrive when the Conditions of her remaining in the confederacy are deg radation and inequality , I shall be prepared with her “to resist, with all the means which a favoring Provi dence may place at her disposal,” even “(ns a last re sort,) to a disruption of every tie which binds her to the Union,” any and every power whieh seeks to put upon her such debasing terms. Nor am I particular by what name this resistance may be characterized—whether accession, revolution, or any thing else—for no one can for a moment doubt, that should this fearful collision come, the issue will be decided only by the arbitrament of the sword. Where constitutions end, revolutions be gin.”—Hotcell Cobb. The Banner of Disunion. 1. Secession. —The rightful remedy. 2. Disunion, with or without Co-operation— The only remedy lor an insulted State against Federal Tyranny. 3. “Loyalty to the Union, is treason to Liberty.” 4. Separate Secession—Our right and our remedy—Co-operation but the inevitable consequence. 5. Ex-Gov. McDonald—HlS CAUSE. OUK CAUSE; SUCCESS TO HIM AND AN NIHILATION TO HIS FOES. “For our own part we are for secession—for resistance, open, unqualified ‘resistance.’ ‘The argument being exhausted we must stand to our arms.’ ’ — Macon , ( Ga.) Telegraph. ‘We abandon the Union its an engine of in fr.mous oppression. We are for secession, epen, unqaliied, naked secession. Hence* foith we are for war upon the government; it has existed but for our ruiu, and to the extent of our ability to destroy it, it shall exist no long er.’— Columbus (Ga.) Sentinel. ‘ It will then, there can be no alternative, de termine upon resistance. * * It may be that the Convention will decide upon separate K action by the State, in other words, immediate secession.’— Milledgeville (Ga.) Federal Union. ‘ Our own first choice will be for secession, and our votes and efforts will be steadily given to effect that end. * * * We go then for secession— quietly, if let alone, forcibly if made necessary. * * * The only effectual remedy the case admits of, is for the Southern Rates immediately to get out of a Government, that has not only failed to ■protect \A\<Ax property but has become the agressive Job ber of it.— Columbus (Ga.) Times. ‘The deed is done that must inevitably re sult in a dissolution of the Union at no distant day.’— Jackson Mississippian. ‘ Ihe deed is done!— The equality of the Union is destroyed ! * * * * SLAVERY AND TIIE UNION CANNOT LONG CON TINUE TO EXIST TOGETHER. The can non of Northern Abolitionism and Southern Submission have responded to each other, and now the alternative is presented to us of resist ance or submission. We declare for the former, and never will we bow at the footstool of North ern power. ‘We recommend State secession; it is a constitutional, peaceful and safe remedy. * * * We see but two ways—secession or sub mission. * * * Let our legislature at once recall our Senators and Representatives, and call a State Convention, and let the issue be presented fairly to the people— secession or submission.’ —Natchez (Miss.) Free Trader. ‘ We will vote for secession ; get a majority to vote with US, AND THEN WE WILL SEE WHO WILL fight.'— Natchez Free Trader. ‘ W e must and will secede from this Union. Either we must submit to disgrace , and soon to Abolition, with all its horrors, or we must prevent it. There is but one way to prevent it, and that is by secession. — Woodville (Miss.) Republican. ‘ I am not appalled by the cry of disunion.’ ‘There are things more terrible to me than the phantom of disunion.’ ‘lf the demands here set forth be denied, and that denial manifested by any act of the General Government, we ought forthwith to dissolve all political connection with the Northern States.’— Hon. A. G. Brown, ‘■ Resolved, If we have to choose between submission to these acts, [the compromise acts] and secession, we prefer the latter.—ll. Barton. ‘ If we cannot obtain concessions in Califor nia South of 30. 30., and amendments to the Constitution , I do not hesitate to express it my decided opinion, that prompt and peaceable se cession is the only remedy for the aggrieved States.— Quitman. Mr. Riiett said in his disunion speech at Fort Moultrie:—“The prospects, however, are cheering. Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi are coming. QUITMAN and McDONALD are blowing a bugle in the Wesl, which will be heard in the extremities of Yankeedom. He did not dread the RESULT; the CAUSE was good, and nothing would tempt the North to oppose it but internal ditisons.” From the Athens Banner. Mr. Cobb’s Reply to the Jlacon Com mittee. Athens, Aug. 12, 1851. Gentlemen :—I dul not receive your letter un til my return from the lower part of the State about the first of the present month, and have not therefore, replied to it, at an earlier day. As I have received communications from oth er parts of the State, on the same, and kindred subjects, [ have dete ined in this replv, to consider the questions volved at some length, as I desire that it may b onsidored as respon sive to the various communications to which 1 have referred. Your letter propounds the two following in terrogatories : Ist. “ Do you believe that a State by virtue of her sovereignty, has the right peaceably to secede from the Union, or is it your opinion, that the general government has the Constitu tional authority to coerce her to remain in the Union ? And should a call be made upon the militia to aid in attempting to coerce a seced ing State, would you,if in the executive office, obey such requisition ? 2d. “ Do you believe that the late acts of Congress, termed the ‘‘Compromise,” were con stitutional, just and equitable ?’* I shall consider these questions in the inverse order in which you have proposed them. In order that I may be distinctly understood, in reference to the late acts of Congress, term ed the “ Compromise, ’’ I consider it proper to make a brief reference to each of the six bills, which composed that compromise; and shall, in that way, be enabled to give the most satis factory answer to your second interrogatory. The bills establishing territorial governments for Utah and New Mexico, rest upon a great constitutional principle, which has always re ceived the warm and cordial support of south ern men, and by none advocated with more zeal, than those now politically associated with yourselves. That principle-AccorcflJtght of the people to determine for s..vniseives, whether or not slavery shall constitute a part of theirsocial system.” In these bills on the slavery ques tion, is found this provision—“ And said Terri tories shall be received into the Union with, or without slavery, as their constitution may pre scribe, at the time of their admission.’’ If this important principle, so long contended for by the South, and so long resisted by the North, be now repudiated by the South, then these bills are obnoxious to the objections urged against them by the disunionists; but if the South be content to abide the operation of her own cher ished doctrines on this subject, then these bills are in strict conformity with the requirements of the South, and should be entirely satisfactory to us. It is too late to talk about the repeal of the Mexican laws, after the almost unanimous support by the Representatives of the South of the Clayton Compromise Bill, which no more repeal those laws, than the bills we are now considering; nor were our Representatives in their advocacy of the Clayton compromise Bill more united, than were their constituents in their approval of the votes of those Repre sentatives. The eight Southern Representatives who voted against that bill, on the ground, that they required the repeal of the Mexican laws, were denounced as traitors to the South, for making the demand, by those who are now most noisy in their complaints against South ern Representatives, for not requiring the repeal of the Mexican laws. I voted for the Clayton Compromise Bill, and I was universally sus tained in Georgia in that vote. AY hy is it, that I am now condemned for my support of those bills by the men who then approved of my course ? The Clayton Compromise Bill contained no express guarantee for the admission of slave States it the people desired it—whilst these bills pledge thetaitli of the government to ad mit these territories as States, with, or without slavery, as the people may determine when they come to organize their State constitution. ♦These hills receive the support oj a majority of the Representatives of the South. Your own Representatives from Georgia, were unanimous upon the subject. The only violent and decid ed opposition made to them, proceeded from the abolitionists and free soilers, who saw in the provisions to which I have I referred, the repu diation of their favorite doctrine of congression al interdiction of slavery in the territories, and the recognition of ourowu favorite doctrine, of leaving to the people the decision of the question —whether or not they would have slavery among them. The bill to settle the disputed boundary be tween the U. S. and Texas, rests upon equally sound and constitutional principles ; its provis ions simply contain a proposition from the Gen eral Government to the State of Texas, to settle the boundary between she U. S. and the State of Texas, by adopting a certain line as that boun dary ; and in consideration that Texas will yield the claim which she had made to the ced ed territory, the U. S. agrees to pay her the sum of ten millions of dollars. There was no threat—no coercion on the part of Congress to compel acquiescence in their proposition. It was a matter for the calm and patriotic judgment of the people of Texas to determine —and the terms were agreed to by her, with unparallel ed unanimity. It is equally true, and unjust to the brave and patriotic people of Texas to impute their action on this subject, to the fear of Federal power, or the equally offensive con sideration of bribery and corruption. As I would not tolerate such an imputation upon the citizens of our own State, under similar circum stances, I will not indulge in the ungenerous and unfounded reflection upon the honesty and integrity of our young and prosperous sister. This disputed boundary was thus settled be tween the United States and Texas, in the only mode, in my judgment, in which such an issue could ba determined between the General Gov ernment and a sovereign State of the Union. I am aware that the charge is sometimes made, that this bill seized on the slave territory of Texas, and appropriated it to free soil. Noth ing could be farther from the truth. The only direct effect resulting from this measure upon the slavery question, was to remove the prohi bition upon slaver} in that portion of the ceded territory, being above 36 30, which was put up on it in the articles of annexation, when Texas was admitted into the Union. This bill removes that prohibition, and submits to the decision of the people of the territory when they come to organize their State Government—the question whether or not slavery shall constitute a part of their social system. This bill, like the others which I have considered,received the warm and cordial support of a majority of Southern Repre sentatives, and encountered its bitterest opposi tion from the freesoil Representatives of the North. The only remaing bill affecting our territo rial acquisition, was the one for the admission of California as a State into the Union. This measure was objectionable to Southern men, though it finally received the support of nearly one-third of the Representatives of the South. In common with a majority of the South, I en tertained objection to this bill; I preferred that a territorial government should have been pro vided for California, as was done for Utah and New Mexico. It would have been the more regular and appropriate mode of disposing of that portion of the territory; but the failure to do so. I do not regard as a violation of the constitution, or the rights of the South. In the admission of California, Congress exercised a power expressly conferred upon it, by the con stilution, “to admit new States into the Union;” and though our judgments do not wholly ap prove of the exercise of that discretionary pow er in this instance, it constitutes no such cause of complaint against the government, as would jus tify the resistance which lias been indicated by the enemies of the Compromise and the advo cates of disunion. The principle upon which California was ad mitted into the Union, with her constitution prohibiting slavery, lias ever received the sanc tion of Southern statesmen. That principle de nies to Congress the right to look into the con stitution of a State asking for her admission into tbe Union, farther than to see that it is repub lican in its form of government. Whether slavery shall exist there is a question, not for tbe consideration of Congress, but to be deter mined by the people when they frame their State constitution. The doctrine was clearly expressed in the fol lowing resolution, introduced by Mr. Oallioim into the Senate of tbe United States, in 1847. It was the annunciation of a sound constitution al principle, and I am prepared to maintain its correctness : “Resolved , That as a fundamental principle in our political creed, a people, in forming a constitution, have the unconditional right to form and adopt the government which they may think best calculated to secure liberty, prosperity and happiness, and that in conformity thereto, no other condition is imposed by the federal constitution on a State, in order to her ad mission into this Union except that its constitution be republican, and that the imposition of any oilier by Congress would not only be in violation of the consti tution, but in direct conflict with the principle on which our political system rests.’’ The bill for the suppression of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, was objected to by Southern men, principally on the ground of the penalty which it provides. That feature is taken from the laws of Maryland, and it will be remembered, that all that now remains <>f the 1 district, was orig nally a part of the State of Maryland. In 1810 the State of Georgia pro hibited the introduction of slaves within this State for sale, under a penalty of a fine of five hundred dollars, and imprisonment in the peni tentiary for four years, for each slave brought into the State for sale. This law was repealed in 1842, and re-enacted in 1843, and again re pealed at tbe session of 1849. The penalty for the violation of the District law is the liberation of the slave; which is, as I have said, the same penalty provided by the Maryland law for a vio lation of their Act upon tbe same subject. There was, as far as I could learn, but one voice among the people in the district on this subject. They all desired it. The Fugitive Slave Bill, is the only remain ing measure of the compromise to be consider ed. I wish it was practicable, without extend ing this communication to too great a length, to incorporate into it. the leading provisions of the bill. It must suffice, however, to state, that it was prepared by one of the most extreme ad vocates of Southern Rights in Congress. It con tains every principle that was demanded by the South, and I have yet to meet with the first man who claims more at the hands of Congress on this subject, than this hill grants. Congress in the adoption of this bill, has, in my judg ment, exhibited a willingness and determination, fully to discharge the obligation which the con stitution imposes for the delivery of our fugi tive slaves. I have now rapidly referred to each of the compromise measures, and you will see, that whilst in the language of the Georgia Conven tion, 1 do not wholly approve of all these meas ures, yet I see in them no violation of our con stitutional rights—nor is there, in my opinion, anything which forbids on the part of our peo ple, an honorable acquiescence in the measures. Such was the decission of the people of this State last fall, as recorded by their delegates in the convention of last November. If I did not regard the settlement as fair and honorable, I would not he found among the advocates of the Georgia Platform. It is not simply because Georgia has decided the question, that I main tain her decision—hut because she has made a wise, just and patriotic decision. If l thought that Georgia had made a decision which sub jected her citizens to terms of inequality and degradation, I would, as a loyal citizen, submit to her will, until I could induce her, if in my power, to abandon so humiliating a position; and such, I presume, is the position of every honor able nian within her limits ; it is, therefore, right and proper, that the people should know not only, who will submit to the decision of the •State, but also, who approves and will sustain that decision. Your first interrogatory, directs my atten tion to the question of secession, and you have put the issue upon the right of a State to secede from the L n;on without just cause. As this right is claimed bv many as a constitutional right, and by all of those who advocate it in its modern acceptation, as consistent with consti tutional obligations, I shall consider it at some length iu reference to its constitutional bear ings. W hen asked to concede the right of a State to secede at pleasure from the Union, with or without just cause, we are called upon to admit that the framers of the constitution did that which was never done by any other people, possessed of their good sense and intelli gence—that is to provide in the very organization of the government for its own dissolution. It seems to me, that such a course would not only have been an anomalous proceeding—but wholly inconsistent with the wisdom and sound judgment which marked thede. liberations of those wise and good men, who framed our Federal government. Whilst I freely admit that such an opinion is entertained by many, for whose judgment 1 entertain the highest respect, I have no hesitation in declaring that the convictions of my own judgment are well settled, that no such principle was contemplated in the adoption ofour constituiion, to subject the perpetui ty of the Union to the will, and indeed, I may add, the caprice of each State, it is a most remarkable fact, that a principle of such vast importance, involving the very existence of the republic, should have been left an open question, to he decided by inferences and metaphysical deductions of the most complicated character. When one rises from a carelul study of the constitution of the United States, ho feels impressed with its wonderful adaptation to the wants and interests of this growing people. Not only does he find wise and judicious pro visions and guarantees for the state of the country as it then existed, but with prophetic wisdom its framers seem to have penetrated the future, accommodating the government to the necessities and requirements of its present increased population and extended resources. 1 am not prepared to admit that the men who exhibited so much care and foresight in reference to all the va rious parts of this complicated machine—would have left to vague the existence of tbe important arul vital poivcr now claimed for each State, of dissolv ing at pleasure, the Union which had costs them and their compatriots much toil, and labor, and anxiety. If they had intended to provide for the destruction of that noble structure, whieh they were then erecting with all the care and wisdom of able statesmen and devoted pa triots, by such simple and obvious means, as the with drawal of any State from the confederacy—they would have manifested their intention by some plain and pal pable provision of the constitution. Such a course would have been characteristic of the honest practical and enlightened statesmen of the convention. Their failure to do so carries the stiongest conviction to my mind, that no such principle was recognized by them. In connection with this view of the subject, the inqui ry forces itself upon our minds, if each State reserved the right to withdraw at pleasure from the Union, why was there so much difficulty encountered by the friends of the constituiion in obtaining its ratification by tbe different States ? There were few, if any, who were opposed to the formation of the Union, after the consti tution hud been submitted to the States for ratification, provided they could engraft certain amendments upon it. The policy of adopting the constitution, on condi tion that these amendments should be acceded to, was urged with great earnestness in the conventions, and among the people of several of the States, hut was final ly abandoned on the ground that it would boa condi tional ratification, and therefore inadmissible. Un this point I must refer to the opinion expressed by Mr. Madison, who has been called “ the father of the constitution ,’’ and to whose exposition of that sacred instrument the republican party have been accustomed to look with such implicit confidence. Mr. Madison says: “ Mv opinion is, that a reservation of a right to withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under the form of the constitution within a certain time, is a conditional ratification ; that it does not make New York a member of the new Union ; and con sequently, that she would not he received on that plan, Compacts must be reciprocal; this princi ple would not in such a case be preserved, thf. constitution requires an adoption in toto and FOREVER.” If the right was reserved to each State to withdraw, it would have been an act ofsuperogation on the part of New York, or any other State, to declare in advance, llmt she woidJ *' v 11 e t it the amcmlmcn's she proposed to thllw'-gstitution were not adopted. If the right existed, it oft.* be exercised as well without as with the eondii j<, J annexed to her ratification of the constitution, and the assertion of it would have been a useless interpolation and a nullity. It was not so re garded, however, at the time, by those who had been active participants in the framing of the constitution. Mr. Madison considered the reservation of a right to withdraw from the Union as “ a condition that would vitiate the ratification.” lie says further in writing to Mr. Hamilton on this subject: “ The idea of reser ing a right to withdraw was started at Rich mond, and considered as a conditional ratification, which was itself abandoned as worse than a rejection.” If the opinion of Mr. Madison, which I have here re ferred to, be well founded, it puts an end to this contro versy. There can bo no doubt about the fact, that he did not recognize the right of each State to secede from the Union at pleasure. In addition to the facts which I have just considered, there is a strong illustration of the opinion that prevailed among the framers of the constitution on this subject, in tbe action of the States of North Carolina and Rhode Island. These States re fused to come iuio the Union lor some time after the ratification of the constitution. They were not opposed to the formation of the Federal Union, but like some of the other States, they were unwilling to adopt the con stitution as it then stood. If it had been a recognized and undoubted principle that each State was bound to remain in the Union, only so long as it suited its own convenience, no one doubts that these States, instead of withholding their assent from the constitution, after it had been adopted by the requisite number, would have come at once into the LTiion, with the intention of im mediately withdrawing from it, upon the refusal of the other States to adopt such amendments as they desired, but regarding the effect of their ratification of the con stitution in an entirely different light, from the seces siouists of the present day, they adopted quite a different policy. So far as we can gather light and information from the opinions and actions of the men who framed and adopted the constitution, it all goes to strengthen and confirm the conviction I have already expressed against tiie existence of any such right. The political history of the country from the time of the Declaration of Independence to the adoption of the constitution, is confirmatory of the correctness of the opinion I have expressed. In the original articles of confederation, it is more than once declared that the subject was to form a perpetual Union. Those arti cles of confederation were found too weak, and ineffi cient, to carry out the great purposes of the people in the establishment of a general government, and hence it was, that in its language, was the present constitution adopted for the purpose of forming “a moiuc perfect union.’ It would be a reflection, both upon the integ rity and wisdom of the framers of the constitution to say, that they abandoned “ a perpetual Union ” to form a more a more perfect one, and in doing so, adopted a temporary , conditional Union. Such, however, is the construction placed by the secessionist upon the action of those great and good men, to whoso energy, wisaom, and patriotism, we are indebted for our present noble and glorious Union. Tbe policy ofour government during its whole exis tence, is no where impressed either upon its domestic or foreign policy. It lias for more than half a century pursued the even tenor of its way, growing in strength and increasing in usefulness, taking deeper and deeper hold upon the hearts and affections of the people ; illus trating the great American principle of free govern ment, and reflecting upon its inspired founders the highest and brightest honors. Whilst Ido not pro pose to illustrate these views by a detailed review of the action of the government, I cannot forbear to refer to one portion of our history, which is strongly corrobora tive of the correctness of the position I have assumed. When the people of the United States determined up on the purchase of tho Louisiana territory, and effected that desirable object at the cost ofa considerable amount of money, aud by the exercise of a questionable consti tutional power, it will not be said, that they did so for the benefit of those who then inhabited the country, nor indeed for those who might subsequently remove there. They were prompted to the acquisition of that vast and valuable territory by considerations of public polioy, af fecting their interests and welfare as citizens of the va rious States of the Union. The commercial and milita ry advantages to the United States, from the possession of that country, were so great and important, that its acquisition was considered almost an act of self-protec tion. AY ill it now be said that the people of Louisiana, possess the right to deprive the remaining States of the Union, of all the interests and advantages which they have bought and paid for, out of their own treasury, by withdrawing or seceding from the Union at will ? Louisiana is as free, sovereign, and independent as any other State of the Union, and if this right exist in any one State, it exists in all, without reference to the mode by which the territory was acquired, out of which the State is formed. 1 apprehend that the peo ple of the U nited States did not for a moment enter tain the idea, that in admitting Louisiana into the Union, they had thus perilled all the advantages of that important acquisition, by placing it in the power of a single State to deprive the Union of commercial and military advantages and resources, of inestimable value, purchased by the joint treasure of all the States, and now held by them as beyond the rcaeh of any price or consideration that coaid be offered in exchange for them. These remarks apply with equal force to all the territorial acquisitions made by the United States, where States have been or may hereafter be formed and admitted into ihe Union, and the same principle might be forcibly illustrated by reference to the action of the government on subjects of a kindred character, but it cannot be necessary and I will not extend this view to any greater length. AN lien the right of a State to secede from the Union at will is conceded, we have put the existence of the government at the disposal of each State in the Union. The withdrawal of one, is a dissolution of the compact which holds the States together; it is no longer the Union that tire constitution formed, and the remain ng States are absolved from all moral obligation to abide longer by their compact. I say moral obligation, be cause the argument of the secessionists denies the ex istence of any binding legal obligation By admitting the doctrine of the secessionists, we#r,re brought to the conclusion, that our Federal Government, the pride and boast of every American patriot, the wonder and admi ration of the civilized world, is nothing more than a vol untary association ; temporary in its character, weak and imbecile in the exercise of its powers, incapable of self-preservation, claiming from its citizens allegiance, and demanding annual tribute from their treasure —and yet, destitute of the power of protecting their rights or preserving their liberties. If this be the true theory of our government, what is the constitution of the United State, that we should estimate it so high ? Where is its binding force, that we should hold to its provisions with such unyielding tenacity? Individuals cannot violate their compacts, or set aside at pleasure their mutual ob ligations, without the assent of the other parties. Na tions cannot recklessly disregard their treaty stipula tions, without incurring the consequences of violated faith. But our constitution, the revered monument of revolutionary patriotism and wisdom, which we have been taught to regard with reverential feeling, is doom ed to fall below the standard of national treaties, and individual contracts. It has formed a Union founded upon mutual sacrifices and concessions—made by the several component parts for the greater benefits to be derived by each, from the combined co-operation of all —and now we are told that there is no obligation to observe that Union, beyond the pleasure of the parties to it—and that the constitution can be annulled by the act of any State in the confederacy. I do not so understand our government. I feel that I owe my allegiance to a government, possessed of more vitality and strength, than that which is drawn from a voluntary obedience to its laws. I hold that no government is entitled to my allegiance, that does not pass just and wise laws, and does not possess the power to enforce and execute them. I am ful'y aware of the fact that the effort is now be ing made to render the denial of the right of a State to dissolve the Union, odious in the public estimation, by presenting to the public mind, in connection with it, a frigliful picture of an armed soldiery and a military des potism. I have no fours of the judgment that our en lightened countrymen will pass on this controversy — au<l surely 1 could not complain of any consequence that should result from my avowal of doctrines which I have imbibed from the teachings of Mr. Madison, Gen. Jackson, Judge Crawford, and their republican asso eiutc-s. It dous not follow, however, as a necesfptry consequence of the principles which I have laid jjfnvn, that military coercion is to be used against a State that may attempt the exercise of this revolutionary right. AA’liilst I deny the right of a State to secede, and thus dissolve the Union, I would not attempt by the strong arm of military power to bring her citizens back to their allegiance, unless compelled to do so in defence of the rights and interests of the remaining States of the Union. AA T e should not recognize her separate independence, nor could we allow our own interests to be periled by sanctioning any alliance she might be dis posed to make with any foreign government. In our desire to inflict no injury upon a wandering sister, >ve should not forget the duty which the government owes to these who remain firm and true to the>. allegiance, and whose claims upon its protection and support should not be lightly regarded. The la—sos self-protection would require of the hands of the government, that due regard should be had for the protection of the rights and interests of -lie other Suites, and to that de mand it would be bound to respond. If one of the States should ir a mad hour attempt to secede from the Union, and the kind and indulgent policy which I have indicated should be resorted to, I have no doubt that in a very short time sneh State would feel it to be both her duty to retrace her wandering steps, and re turn to the embrace of the sisterhood. This opinion is founded upon the high estimate which I place upon the value of the Union to each and all of the States that compose it. It would require the experience of only a short absence, to teach the wanderer the benefits and advantages from which she had voluntarily exiled her self. Such are the general views which I entertain on this subject, and I have freely expressed them. I have discussed it as a mere abstract question, and in that light I regard it. Whatever differences of opinion may exist among the true friends of the Union on the ab stract question of the right of secession, I apprehend that when it assumes a practical shape, there would bo but slight shades of difference as to the policy and ef fect of our action. There are many who hold to the doctrine of the right of a State to secede from the Union, with whom I do not differ practically. They grant the abstract right of secession, but claim for the remaining States the right to protect themselves from any inju rious consequences that might (low from the exercise of that abstract right by the seceding State. It is only necessary to state the two propositions to show that, in the end, the practical operation of their principles would lead to the same results that I would reach by the enforcement of the doctrines which I have avowed. Our difference is theoretical, not practical, and there fore constitutes no impediment in the way of our cor dial co-operation. We all hold that just and wise laws should be en lorccd and executed, wliilst we arc prepared to oppose acts of injustice and oppression by all the means in our power, and to the rupture of every tie that binds us to any government. No government, however honestly and wisely administered, can be maintained in the ab sence of binding obligations on its citizens to obey its laws, and power to enforce their execution on recusant parties, lienee, I cannot consent to the doctrine that our government is destitute of these powers essential to its vitality and existence. The claim which I have urged in behalf of the Federal Government cannot be abandoned without endangering the whole frame-work of our admirable system—nor is there any serious dan- ger to be apprehended from its improper exercise. Its true strength, based upon the existence of these powers, is to be found in the justice and wisdom of its legisla tion •, these are the true and only safe avenues to the hearts and affections of the people, wherein aro found the strung pillars of support to a free government. I do not entertain the idea, for a moment, that our gov ernment can be maintained by the strong arm ofmilitary power, when it ceases to bestow the blessings upon the people for which it was formed. Whenever it becomes the instrument of wrong and oppression to any portion - of the people, by unjust laws and degrading legislation, it will cease to be the Union formed by our revolution ary fathers, and possessing no further claims upon our allegiance and support, should that period ever unfor tunately arrive, we will not fail to prove ourselves as true to the principles of liberty and equal rights as our honored and venerated fathers ; nor will we 6top to look to the provisions of a violated constitution for the mode or measure for the redress of our grievances. I have so far considered the question in reference to the doctrine of the constitutional right of a State to se cede without just cause, at her own will and pleasure, and I think I have shown that it is unsupported either by principle or authority. On the other hand, I admit the right of a State to secede for just causes, to be de termined by herself. Being a party to the compact, which the constitution forms, she has the right, which all other parties to a compact possess, to determine for her self when, where and how, the provisions of that com pact have been violated. It is equally clear that the other parties to the compact possess a corresponding right to judge for themselves, and there being no com mon arbiter to decide between them, each must depend for the justification of their course upon the justice of their cause, the correctness of tbeir judgment, and their power and ability to maintain their decision. Ihe right of a State to secede in case of oppression, or “a gross and palpable violation” of her constitutional rights, as derived from the reserved sovereignty of the States, lam prepared to recognize. In such case, each State, in the language #f the Kentucky and Virginia i resolutions of 1798-’ is to be the judge, not only of the ‘‘infractions,’’ but “ the mode and measure of re dress.’’ It is the just right of the people to change ■ their form of government when, in their opinion, it has become tyrannical, in a mode not provided for in the constitution, and is therefore revolutionary in its charac ter, and depends for its maintamanee upon the stout i hearts and strong arms of a free people. ■ In connection with this branch of the subject, a ques tion arises, which, in the opinien of some, is of consid erable importance. It is, whether or not the citizens • of a State thus resuming her sovereign powers would be liable to the charge of treason in conforming the ac . quirements of their State government. I refer to this . particularly only in consideration of the importance at tached to it by others. From what I h ive said, it will clearly appear that I hold that they would not be. In my opinion, no man commits treason who acts in obe dience to the laws and authorities of a regular organized government, such as we recognize our state governments to be. But there is a question, gentlemen, involved !d your f interrogatories, which rises in magnitude far above any which I have yet considered. It involves ib& impor tant inquiry, whether in the event of a State seceding from the Union, and the Executive of the U. States making a requisition of troops to coerce her back, 1, if elected Governor of Georgia, would obey that requisi tion. Ibis question may become a practical one—l sincerely trust it never will. Under the existing laws of the United States, the President has no power to or der out the militia to coerce a seceding State. Neither the Act of 1795 nor the Act of 1807 would apply in such an emergency. These Acts apply to eases where individuals, acting without the authority of any State government, resist, by force, the law’s of the United States—to riots and insurrections—to such cases as we w’ere apprehensive a few months since might be mani fested in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law in por tions of the Northern States. That this is the true construction to be placed upon these Acts, will be ap parent from the conduct of Gen. Jackson in a former period of our history, when the State of South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union. lie then found it necessary to invove the aid of additional legislati jp bv , Congress, llis appeal to the then Congress the passage of the law familiarly known as Force Billbut that Act being temporary IT> its object and character, has lost all its vitalitv, M<i long since ceased to be of force, having expired by ts own limitation. In the contingency involved in you’question, it would be necessary that the President, if his views of right and policy led him to coercion, shoiid asks of Congress ad ditional legislation, and it would be for them to deter mined whether or not they wolld grant it. If a State should secede, and the President should recommmeml to Congress such legislation anq Congress should grant it. then your question w ould l-eeome practical, and 1 am prepared to answer it fuay, freely, and frankly. It w’ould be the most fearful iue that ever the people of this country have been e.tJled on to decide since the days of the revolution—so momentous, so vital to the interests of the people of Georgia, that I should feel bound to ascertain the will of the people before I acted. I should endeavor to be Gie Exccuticc of the will of the people of Georgia. To ascertain that will, I should convene the Legislature of the State, an’d recommend to them to call a conv-ntion of the people, and it would be for that convention, representing the people upon that naked issue, to determine whether Georgia would go out of the Union, and ally herselfand peril her des tinies with the seceding State, or whether she would re main in the Uni< *t and abide the fortunes of her other sisters. And. as Georgia spoke, so would I endeavor, if lierExecu .ve, to give power and effect to her voice. But if a collision of arms between the States com ing >ar glorious confederacy should ever come, it re quires no prophet to predict the result. The Union would fall beneath the weight of revolution and blood, and fall, I fear, to rise no more. It was formed in the hearts of the American people—it can only be preserv ed in their hearts. When any very large por tion of its inhabitants look upon it as oppressing and degrading them—when they cease revere it as thc legacy of a revolution, its vitality will be gone, and empty parchments, though aided by military force, can never hold it together. Hence, we see the abolitionists of the North denouncing it as “ a covenant with hell,” and hence we hear the disunionists of the South inflam ing the hearts of the people against it, announcing that they have been degraded and oppressed by it, and pre paring eventually to overthrow it. They are wise men, they understand the workings of the human heart, and they well know that when the heart feels that wrong, indignity and insult have been heaped upon a man, unless he bo indeed a craven spirit, a blow will follow. Frcpare the hearts of the people to hate the Union of their fathers, and the battle is won—they are ready to fight against it. Hence, believing as I do, that the lute compromise is such, in the language of the Georgia platform, “as she can in honor abide by,’’ I have used every effort in my power to stay this cease less and ruinous agitation North and South, and to keep the constitution and the Union where our fathers erected them—firmly on the foundation of the people's hearts. I am, very respectfully, your ob't serv’t, HOWELL COBB. Messrs. John Rutherford, N. Bass, R. A. L. Atkinson and others. Correnponltim Misrepresentation Corrected—Col. Tift and Mr. Cel>l>. Albany, Ga. Aug, 15, ISSI. Editor Citizen: —l find in the Albany‘Patriot’ of the Bth inst. an editorial article in relation to the discussion in this place, between Col. Tift and Mr. Cobb, on the 23d of last month, as follows : “ In our discussion with Mr. Cobb, we read in his presence, an extract from his Savannah speech, in which he contended that the compromise was fair, just, and honorable to the South. We showed that this was contradicted by the voice of the whole South ; that the Georgia Convention did not approve of it, and that many citizens of the Northern States acknowledged that the South was wronged. We stated, that in this respect, Mr. Cobb was a stronger advocate of the in terests of the North than some of her own citizens, and that if we wanted an advocate of Northern interests, we should by all means elect Mr. Cobb. Mr. Cobb rose to reply, trembling with apparently suppressed rage, and ‘puked up,’ as a listener quaintly remarked, a torrent of invictive against Noithern-boru men, who might question the policy, or attempt to counsel any Southern man.’’ Now Col. Tift knew, when he penned the above, that he was misrepresenting Mr. Cobb, and I suppose that he thought sufficient time had elapsed for others to for get what Mr. Cobb really did say, in reply to his abuse, on that occasion. In Mr. Cobb's tour through South Western Georgia, he repeatedly refused to meet per sons of the opposite party upon the stump for good and sufficient reasons, which he gave in his letter to a Committee at Newton, in this county. That Commit tee in reply to Mr. Cobb, (a Committee of the leading Southern Rights and McDonald men in this county) states that if he would meet Col. Tift in discussion, they would endorse any thing he might say, as the rep resentative of Mr. McDonald. Mr. Cobb took the matter into consideration w • consequence of the assurance given hnn bv ,\’ c * mittee, and connected with it. the fact of (* o] r ing the Editor of a paper devoted to McDon.U , his party, he concluded to waive the rule he had on former occasions and give the Col. a chance v*** under the circumstances, I will ask any candy’ °*’ “>■ w.c„i. Tift fZTcz ; f conduct the discussion in a fair, open, and ly manner, and have confined himself to the con ationof the principles involved in the issue descending to ]o<v personal abuse. At Newton on } day previous, nothing occurred to mar the good’ fe!r * existing between the debutants. Every thing wm “fr as it should do—and the political enemies of Mr. C H, expressed themselves highly gratified at his dignifi-a and courteous bearing. At this place, on the folkmi Jl day, Mr. Cobb opened the discussion in a speech of * hour, m which he laid down his positions and so f 0^ # tied them by argument that they could not be over thrown, by all the sophistry of his opponent and i did not attempt it. ‘ l * Now I will defy any one who listened to Mr. Cobb during that opening speech, to point out the first r* r sonal reflection upon Col. Tift, or any th ng calculated to wound the feelings of any of his (Mr. Cobb's) polj t j. cal opponents. When he spoke of Mr. McDonald he did so in the most courteous language—he never tpok* of the Southern Rights party, but as being compo*! of ‘honorable gentlemen.’ CoU Tift was allowed one hour and a half to reply. When he arose he was evidently ‘off of his foot,’ (don’t get scared. Col I will not tell any thing, but what I can get hundreds of witnesses to testify to,) he knew that Mr. Cobb's posi tions were too well fortified for him to assail, success, folly. He knew he could not overthrow them. Well what did he do? AA hy he attempted an argument failed—and then pitched into Mr. Cobb ‘like a thousand of brick, with a tirade of personal abuse. He open ed, by saying that Mr. Cobb had taken a great deal of pains to enlighten the people upon the Compromise measures, when in reality they were not in the issues. W e had nothing to do with them. The people of Geer. gut had, in Convention, decided that they would abid* by them; and then commenced abusing them, by sav ing they wore degrading to the South, that they robbed the South of her right in the territories—that we had gained nothing by the compromise—that the admis sion of California was unauthorized by the Constitution. He repelled with apparent indignation, the idea that he orany of the Southern lights party were disunion*. He said that they stood on the ‘Georgia Platform’ they were the true Union men, and that Mr. Cobb and his party were the worst enemies to the country—that the U nion party was formed for the purpose of breaking down the old Democratic party, that if the Union par ty had never been formed there would have been none of this excitement—that Mr. Cobb had deserted the Democratic party, else why did he oppose Mr. Mc- Donald who he knew to be a Democrat, and who was nominated first. He charged Mr. Cobb with being a lederalist and a Consolidationist. He said he had proved recreant to the South, while acting as Speaker of the house, by appointing Abolitionists upon Com mittees. He classed him with Seward , Giddings and Hale, and virtually called him an Abolitionist, bt sides telling the people that if they wanted an advocat* of Northern interests they should elect Mr. Cobb. r’ Mr ..Cobb arose to roply in a speech of half an he ran over the lew arguments which Col. Tift had undertaken to advance, in his usual courteous man ner, but when he came to the personal abuse, which had been heaped upon him by liis opponent, he did ‘tremble,’ with some kind of excitement. lie apolo gized to the audience for his warmth, said it was con trary to his feeling and practice to bring personalities into discussion : but he had heen personally assailed, and lie would repel it. He appealed to the audience wheth er he ever had, by any public act proved recreant to his native State, or to the South! A loud and triumphant NO! rang out from the assemblage in answer! Ha said that he was born, and raised at the South, that lie had always lived at the South—that all his sympa thies were with the South, ard all his interests wer* identified with her prosperity; and that thecharg* made against them of Abolitionism, and being th advocate of Northern interests came with a very bad grace ‘from one who had not yet throwuoffhis North ern swaddling clothes.’ This, Sir, was the head anJ front of Mr. Cobb’s offending, this was his‘torrent of invective against Northern born men.’ The plural number was not used. No reflections were intended to bo cast upon any one but Col. Tift himself, and 1m knew it when he wrote the editorial I have quoted. He wished to prejudice ‘Northern born men’ again** Mr. Cobb, by making them believe that he said some thing lie diJ not say. I have quoted almost r ertim the language used by Mr. Cobb, and I challenge Col. Tift to deny it. We have ‘Northern born men’ her*, who listened to the discussion and who believe that Mr. Cobb served him just right; that he who was born at the North, educated at the North, whose relations live at the North, and who has children educating at the borth, should not charge a native born Georgian, and a slave holder with being an Abolitionist, without subjecting himself to the penalty of having his birth place thrown up to him. Truly yours. ARISTIDES. Letter to the Editor. Fort Early, Dooly Cos. July *29, ISSI. Dear Citizen : —Governor McDonald, in his letter of acceptance, says, ‘this day I have received a letter informing me of my nomination for Governor of Geor gia, in a Cenvention composed of both Wliigt and Democrats.’ I have been told a majority composing tbe Convention were Whigs. AVhy then do so many ultra Disunion AATiigs swallow this bitter pill of De mocracy glossed over with pretended friendship to the Union in the shape of McDonald , who once ruined our State by his management of onr finances l For the very reason that the Union AA'higs take down the Democratic pill Mr. Cobb, because he is a Union man on the one hand, and Mcdonaid a Disunionlst on the other. I rejoice that it is not worse with us than it was on the 25th of November last, notwithstanding the at tempts being made in various quarters to juggle ns out of many Democratic Union voters, and thereby to make the people of Georgia contradict what they said in November 1850 —by deceiving them into the support of the friend and ally of the notorious Disunionist of S. Ca. B. S. Rhett. Gov. McDonald, the Union Disunion man—who sat in Convention recommending a Southern Congress , refusing to unite with the sister State* of one of the happiest republics that ever existed, to nominate officers who are indispensable and without whom the Government would cease to exist, is the patient Submissionist to the imaginary wrong done us by the General Government, as will be sera by reference to an article in the Georgia Citizen oftlie 26th July. inst. In the Southern Rights Disunion Convention of the 2d Congressional District, only T counties out of 12 were represented, those not represented t* in ? Union counties; this augurs badly for our opponent*, in the above district. The old Democrats of Lee, son* of them tell me that the county will vote largely for Cobb It has been said by the Fire-Eaters, that Bak er and Dooly will give two hundred majority each for McDonald. Well, this is more than any body knows, for the public mind is unsettled, and the result will de pend much on whethe r we suffer them to cheat the pee* pie to believe they are as good Union men as tee, for these counties are Union to the core if they can g tl light. Baker is doubtful, though Judge Warren *a>. signs are favorable. I hear cheering news from sotn® parts of Dooly, that some of the hot beds of Democ racy are getting light, and will sustain the Vnion and her Cobb. The Federal Union. Georgia Telegraph and Alb* ny Patriot , are throwing mist over the eyes of oar hon est people. These papers that praised Mr. Polk for *‘Cn ing the Oregon Bill, with the proviso to it, and cad Mr Cobb a traitor for voting for the same hill with a J ll4 jority of the Democrats, South. Mr. Calhoun the ie der of the Southern Rights party voted for the Cla) tt,n Compromise Bill, with Cobb and a majority of P crats South, for which they say Mr. Cobb is a tra to the South. (See Congressional Journal and a ’ papers, -47-48-49, and -51.) Mr. Cobb voted for late Compromise, better for the South then any P vious measure or Compromise, with a ma j or ''b M Southern Democrats. For this he is denoun a traitor to the South in company with Stephen- Tombs, hence a majority of the Democrats . traitors and ia company with Tombs and Step Is it not a principle of Democracy that majorities