Newspaper Page Text
UNION NOMINATION,
FOR GOVERNOR,
im. HOWELL COBB,
OF CLARKE.
UNION CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES
FIRST DISTRICT.
CHARLES 11. HOPKINS,
OF u’INTOSH.
SECOND DISTRICT.
JAMES JOHNSON,
OF MUSCOGEE.
THIRD DISTRICT.
ABSALOM 11. CHAPPELL,
OF 8188.
FOURTH DISTICT.
CHARLES MURPHY,
OF DE KALB.
FIFTH DISTRICT.
E. W. CHASTAIN,
OF GILMER.
SIXTH DISTRICT
JUNIUS IIILLYER,
OF WALTON.
SEVENTH DISTRICT
IION. A. H. STEPHENS,
OF TALLIAFERRO.
EIGHTH DISTRICT.
ROBERT TOOMBS,
OF WILKES.
FOR THE STATE SENATE, 26tH DISTRICT, MONROE
AND 8188,
DR. SIVA MS W. BI'RMY.
jjp-'XB.lirtito
From the Greenville { S . C.) Patriot.
The Right of Secession.
The separate and distinct American Colonies
became alarmed at the encroachments of tin
mother country and united themselves into one
nation for the purpose of resisting the encroach
inents on their liberty. They all sent deputies
to the Continental Congress in 1774. Their
opposition and resistance and remonstrances
were all made as a united people as one nation.
It was as one nation and one people that they
threw off the British Government. They de
clared their independence in 177 C, not through
their State Legislatures, but as a united people.
in one Congress, representing and speaking for
make this Union, which was already to be per
petual, ‘‘'more perfect'’ It will thus be seen
that the Union e.\i>ted anterior to the Inde
pendence of the States, and that, the people of
the States were indebted to the Union for their
independence. But when their independence
was thus secured, they were under subjection to
that Union which achieved it, and were bound
to obe\ its constitutional laws and mandates.
They were not sovereign as States, but a-
Slates owed obedience to the Government of the
l nited States. Inasmuch, however, as the
Government of the Union could operate only
on the States, in the capacity as States, under
the old articles of conf> deration, it was deemed
proper to change that Government and have it
operate on the people of the States. This wa
done in the present Federal Constitution.
But it is argut-d by the secessionists that be
cause this Federal Constitution was submitted
to the people in the several States for their adop
tion, and was so adopted, they have the right
now to repeal that adoption whenever they be
come tired of the Union and the Federal Consti
tutioii. In other words, that they adopted it as
sovereigns, and as sovereigns have a right to
throw-it off whenever they please! We think
it is very cl< ar that the States were r.ot sover
eigns were not “supreme rulers without con
trol,’’ at the time the Federal Constitution was
adopted by them. We think this is manifestly
self-evident, from the fact that they were, as
already stated, bound in the must solemn man
ner to obey the Congress of die United States,
which had the sole power of making war and
peace and doing many other acts of sovereign
ty * „
If, however, we were to admit, for the sake
of argument, that the States were sovereign
when they adopted the Constitution of the Uni
ted States, this would not prove that one of
ail the States. It was as a united people that
they carried on the war of the Revolution and
achieved their independence. The colonies did
not separately send ministers to treat with
Great Britain. Doctor Franklin and his asso
ciate embassadors were appointed bv the Gov
ernment of the United Colonies, of States, and
wore accredited as American ministers. The
peace made w ith great Britain, and the acknowl
edgment of our independence were not submit
ted to the States for ratification and adoption
but to the Congress of the United States. The
treaty with France, by which the independence
of the States were recognized and the war pros
ecuted, was made by Congress and tiot the
State Legislatures. So, too, was the treaty
with Holland and other European powers.
The old articles of confederation were made
by Congress to establish a “perpetual Union,*’
and the Federal Constitution was formed by
“the people of the United States’ in order to
them had a right to secede from the Union, or
repeal or repudiate the Federal Constitution
A man tnay be at liberty to enter into a con
tract or not, as he pleases, but,after he has put
his signature to the paper he has no right to
rescind or secede from the contract w ithout tin
consent of the otln-r contracting parties. There
may be thirteen sovereigns, or thirteen States
as independent of all earthly power as States or
sovereigns can be, and yet if thev voluntarily
enter into a contract or treaty, or form a Gov -
ernment for their mutual interest,protectioii and
safety,all are bound by it and none can with
draw from it without the consent of the others.
If disputes and difficulties arise, as to the con
struction of the agreement or Constitution, or
the exercise of powers under it and there In
no common arbiter provided for, as the Federal
Court in the Constitution of the United States,
or if the dispute or question be such that it can
not be brought before the tribunal for decision,
then tiie construction of the majority mu-t go
vern, and ought to govern, according to all rules
of rea-on and right.
Suppose, however, say the secessionists, that
a majority should exercise their power in viola
tion of the compact, and to the destruction or
great prejudice of the minority, what is to be
done ? Self defence, self preservation is said to
be the first law of nature, and the minority
must defend themselves, and resist to the best
of their ability. This right to resist intolerable
oppression is, however, higher and beyond all
constitutional rights,and we degrade ourselves
by resorting to paper and parchment to find it.
instead of drawing the sword and pointing the
cannon. The aggrieved State, <,r oppressed
l < ‘Cll-t, r decide, for themselves, wh- tii
er luey wilt He justified, by their own interest or
saf-’ty, and in the eyes of the world, in taking
up arms. This decision they should not make
in haste or passion, nor without considering its
probable results ; but when made, they should
stand bv it as our fathers didin the revolution.
If the oppressions of the Federal Government
are intolerable for a brave and honorable peo
ple to bear them, let South Carolina result to
revolution, and call it by its proper name and
take its consequences. But the very fact that
there are fourteen other States, having a com
mon interest in this matter, who are not dis
posed to act with her, ought to satisfy her that
she is wrong, and will be ruined if she proceeds
in her revolution.
Eloqurat Warning against Disunion-
Tin* following is an extract from an eloquent
speech delivered in the House of Representa
tives, in 1842, by Eobeit Barnwell Rhett, of
South Carolina, w ho at the present moment, is
the leader of the disunionists of the South.
There has been a wonderful change since that
time in the opinions of Mr, R., but the senti
ments he then uttered remain true, and will
be coidiaily endorsed by every man of reflec
tion.
•‘But to make the will of all the law —by con
stitutional arrangement to protect the weak,
and enable tbe weak as well as the strong to
rule themselves, and thus to secure the blessing
of liberty and free government to all that is
the mighty problem which has puzzled the
statesmen and patriots of all ages, and which
has, at last, been so wonderfully solved in our
Constitution. This constitution was the result
of a long train of events —of peculiar times and
circumstances, a wisdom and virtue quickened
by the intenest thought, and matured by the
sternest trials. Gentlemen’nav,succeed in ov -
erthrowing it—for there- - > bh* mg man is
not capable of depL”g # . g but let
them not indulge tiie - ...a nope that, when ov
erthrown, they can re-establish it. Centuries
rolled over before the birth of this constitution;
and it may take as inany more to find a people
either capable-of appreciating or administering
such a Constitution. Once fallen, like the de
cayed cities of the old world standing amidst
rums and deserts, it w ill be fallen forever. It the
Union were to be dissolved to morrow it could
not be ruim-d. Aware of the difficulty ot es
tablishing the Constitution, and its complete
ness when honestly administered, to accomplish
the great objects for which it was created, the
people of the United States have ever frowned
upon all attempts to alter or abolish any of its
essential features. Whenever any party has
fairly developed designs hostile to its integrity,
they have been overthrown. To what but this
constitution must we attribute the glorious dis
tinetion we possess, as the happiest and freest
people in the world ? and what are all our trou
bles and contentions with each other, but prov
deutiai rebukes for departing from its wise and
just provisions ?
Sir Igo for the constitution as it is. I want
no change in its provisions; but if there is to
be any change, 1 want those changes to be in
favor of popular liberty. Instead ot strength
ening the legislative power —from which all
usurpations on the. Constitution have origina
ted and which now threaten to overthrow it—
let the legislative power be still further restrain
ed. by limitations more clearly defined ; let the
veto principle, on which the Constitution is built
be enlarged, in order that great majorities—an
increased number of wills—may be required to
make laws for the people and thus a near ap
proach may be made to the naked theory ot a
tree Di mocratic Government —that very man
shall rule himself. I detest the dominion of one
man—a king. I detest more the dominion ot
many, because more heartless aud irresponsible;
but, above all, I fear and loathe and despise
more than I fear, the dark, faithless, remorseless
tyranny of a caucus majority—first.the tools and
tuen tiiu victory of some bold, bad man, who
uses tiie ingii aspirations of the people for lib
erty to overthrow tiie Constitution ot his coun
try* aud lift himself on its ruins. Sir, republics
are naturally shoi t lived. They aim at a higher
standard of equity, in government, and require,
therefore, a higher virtue to administer them;
and being open to the aspirations and am
bition of ail, tlu-y must necessarily be liable to
more frequent and desperate contest for power,
and darker conspiracies against their integrity;
and et u> never forget the sad lesson all history
leaches that every free government the sun has
shown upon has been overthrown in the names
of liberty and the people. ’’
Some of those who “’ill read with some aston
ishment the fervent admiration of the American
Constitution, and his eloquent depreciation o! its
overthrow, will attempt perhaps to modify tiie
inconsistency of Mr. Rhett’s position, by saying
that he went for the * Constitution as it was.”
Secession anti its Oddities.
The South has some queer politicians among
them, such as the editor of the Richmond En
quirer, who daily attacks South Carolina for iu
t,mdiug to secede from the Union, but v\lio as
often tell her, if she does secede, “ we will keep
hands off, if the Federal Government lets you
alone; but if she don’t, will buckle on our ar
mor and fight for you.” Indeed, the Enquirer
tells us, this is State Rights Democracy athwart
the Potomac. Southern Democracy holds, if
these be its exponents, so much to the right of
secession, that in cas<* Massachusetts should se
cede because of the Fugitive Slave Law, Presi
dent Fillmore could not bring down Uncle Sam’s
guns to cannonade the seceder into the line
again. States are sovereign. This great Gov
ernment of thirty-oie* States can be broken into
fragments, of right, nyoneof them; and in
case one breaks tin.* \ ‘e, the whole cannot lay
their finger upon tin M-'ss'ppi and Ar
kansas may shut u* >f Waters, and
Missouri, all tlir ...■ . , and West must stay
shut up! Y. .:kvo no right to break through.
Louisiana may from the Mississippi outlet and
inlet, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, lowa, 11-
lionois, Michigan Indiana, and Pennsylvania,
and these States cannot, of right, get out to salt
water ; bein'*’ a sovereign, independent State,
that a whole regiment ot States can t,, ot right,
compel Louisiana to grant to them salt air and
s;!t water ! This will do. 1 here is nothing
like humbug. We, in this progressive age, arc
infinitely ahead of our stupid toretatliers.
If South Carolina has a right, at will, peacea
bly to break up this Union, the Enquirer, as it
seems to us. is guilty only of impertinence iu
interfering with the intent of so sovereign a State
so to do. Her right are absolute, and her will
is supreme; and to condemn her for the exer
cise of her right is certainly to interfere with the
judgment and the concerns of a sovereign State.
She is the best judge for herself.and sovereigns
want no foreign interference. But has it never
occurred to the Enquirer, that tiie maintenance
of the right to do a wrong thing is the mainten
ance of the wrong, and that to preach the l ight
of Disunion to a State so disloyal to the Union,
is practically to preach Disunion. The will for
Disunion, beyond all doubt, exists in South Car
oliißi. To teach the right is then but to encour
age the will. — N. T. Express.
Southern Policy,
Senator James, of Rhode Island, who is very
extensively engaged in manufactures,has given
to the Southern States advice, which if they
would consult sound policy, would be adopted.
He says :
“If she will accelerate her pace, and keep
away from the North, and achieve and maintain
the relative power and influence she truly de
serves, she must do as the North does. She
must ct-ase to purchase from abroad every man
ufactured article she wants, from a steam en
gine to a penny whistle, and make them for her
self, and if need be, for others. There is no
branch of business, especially at this moment,
that is more worthy of her attention than the
manufacture of cotton ; there is none in which
she can so readily engage, none more profita
ble. There is none to her half so important,
no one that would so rapidly increase her
wealth and population, enhance her political
pow er and influence, and enable her to cease to
be tributary to the North.’’
It would undoubtedly be to the interest of the
South herself to manufacture. She has the ma
terial in tiie raw state, and every facility for the
construction of factories. It is ascertained (?) we
believe, that slave labor can be employed with
advantages in manufactures; and thus the
South possesses the ability to make herselfcom
pletelv independent of the North, if she will on
ly apply herself to the work. In some of the
Southern States the process has been commenc
ed with every prospect of success. Instead,
then, of sitting down, and grumbling at the
prosperity of the North, or threatening to dis
solve the Union for imaginary wrongs commit
ted against her, let the South arouse and put
forth her energies, and she will grow in wealth,
prosperity, and population. Her people should
clothe and feed themselves, and thus be truly
independent. This is sound policy as applied
to nations, States, or individuals. —Baltimore
Clipper.
From the Columbus Enquirer.
Attention—Coffin Regiment.
In the Senate of the United States, on the Ist
of March, 1847, Judge Colquitt, your com
manding officer, made the following speech.
You can read it verbatim et literatim, in the
Congressional Globe, 2d Seas., 29tb Congress,
and page 544.
“Mr. Colquitt trusted that the patriotism of
the entire country was sufficient to crush, any
sectional or political attempt to sever this Union
If this fearful crisis should arrive, he had con
fidence even in the patriotism of the great Em
pire State of New York, to prevent a ctmibina
nation of politicians becoming strong enough to
sever this Union. lie would say as a Southern
man, ‘let it come,’ but still he had an abiding
confidence in the patriotism of the people of this
Union, that the crisis would be averted. lie
felt the blood curdle in his veins, at the pros
pect of such threatened horrors! And why,
why should the subject be here introduced? The
old thirteen States have been bound together
by the Constitution, and why should this agi
tating question be here introduced ? It was
politicians who charged upon the South a de
sire to acquire more slave territory, but who, he
asked, had said it ? They took the ground that
any territory, to be acquired, might be slave ter
ritory or free, and that the Federal Government
had no right to pass any laws to impose condi
tions of that nature—that was the ground they
occupied—the South neither claimed that it
should be slave territory, or refused their sanc
tion to its being free —they claimed that it
should be left to the people who shall occupy it.
If the Federal Government should make such a
declaration as this, the people of the States to
be formed out of the territory to be acquired,
couid get together and change it at their pleas
ure.
“They had the right to expect, that the South
would not enforce on the South such a restric
tion. The South loves this Union, aud as he
had remarked before, if a blow was to come, it
would not come from the South. Every sec
tion of this Union should be prepared to frown
it down. If, however, propositions of a mis
chievous character were brought in here, the
South would insist on her rights.
“Mr. C. deprecated the commencement of
civil strife in the Senate chamber, and expressed
tiie hope, that every thing would be offered up
by all sections of this Union, on the common
altar of their country. The South was prepared
to sacrifice every thing but honor. He hoped
‘the question would be postponed at least for a
session. He thought that after the campaign of
1848, there would be less strife of this sort. But
he repeated, that if they must acton these ex
citing subjects, he was much mistaken if the pa
triotism of the country would not be sufficient
to preserve the Union, and maintain the honor
of the South.”
What say you, gentlemen, to this speech ?
Did your “gallant colonel” state truly your po
sition in 1547 ? He was then in the Senate of
the United States—sent there to watch and de
fend the rights of the people of Georgia—what
did lie then say those rights were in ttie territo
ries about to be acquired ? Did lie say that the
Mexican anti-slavery laws should be repealed ?
No such thing. But as aSouthern man, and a
Georgia Senator, who undertook to speak for
the whole South.he proclaimed to the South and
the world and that the South “took the. ground
that any territory to be acquired might be slave
territory or free, and that the Federal Govern
ment had no right to pass any laws to impose
conditions of that nature. The South,” said he,
“ neither claimed that it should be slave territo
ry. or refused their sanction to its being free.
They claimed that it should be left to the people
who occupy it.”
Now, in the name of all that is sacred, has
not the South got all that your bold andchival
rious leader demanded ? Was not the “ mis
chievous proposition” of the \\ ilmot Proviso
voted down? Was not every proposition for
Congressional interference on the subject ot
slavery, likewise voted down, and driven from
the halls of Congress? Was it not expressly
enacted, that the question of slavery should be
left to the people of the territories, and that
when they applied for admission as States into
the Union, they should be admitted either with
or without slavery, as they should determine for
themselves? Has the South lost anything,
much less her “honor,” if Judge Colquitt was a
true man in setting forth her demands? And
as ho certainly has got all he demanded, ought
not his ‘ blood to curdle in his veins” again,-at
the “prospect” of the “horrors” of severance of
‘‘this Union?'’ Yea, more, ought not “ the
blush of shame to mantle down his cheeks,” and
all those who stood behind at that time, at ev
ery word they now utter agaisnst Mr. Cobb for
defending those measures of Congress, which
expressly guarantee all that he and they then
demanded ?” MARION.
Indivisibility of the Union.
w e are indebted to the Lynchburg Virginian
for opportunely bringing to notice, at this mo
ment, the precise language of the Preamble to
the original Articles of “Confederation” agreed
upon by the Delegates of the old Thirteen
States, as follows:
“Whereas the Delegates of the United States
of America in Congress assembled did, on the
fifteenth day of November, in the year of our
Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy
seven, and in the second year of the Independ
ence of America, agree to certain Articles of
Confederation and Perpetual Union between
the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts
Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl
vania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the
words, following,’’ etc.
Os these “Articles” the 13th was as follows :
“Every State shall abide by the determina
nations of the United States in Congress assem
bled, on all questions which by this confedera
tion are submitted to them. And the Articles
of this Confederation shall be inviolably observ
ed by every State, and the Union shall be
perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any
time hereafter be made in any of them, unless
such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of
the United States, and be afterwards confirmed
by the Legislatures of every State.’’ ‘
The clause of Ratification, embracing as well
he Preamble as all the Articles, which was in
the following words :
“And whereas it has pleased the great Gov
ernor ot the World to incline the hearts of the
Legislatures we respecttully represent in Con
gress to approve of and to authorize us to ratify
the said Articles ot Confederation and perpet
ual Union, Know ye, that we, the undersigned
Delegates, by virtue of the power and authori
ty to us given for that purpose, do by these
presents, in the name and behalf of our respect
ive constituents, fully and entirely ratify and
confirm each aud every of the said Articles ot
Confederation and Perpetual Union, and all
singular the matters and things therein contain
ed ; and we do further solemnly plight and en
gage the faith of our respective constituents
that they shall abide by the determinations
which by the said Confederation are submitted
to them; aud that the articles thereof inviolat
bly observed by the States we respectfully rep
resent, and that the Union shall be Perpetual-”
Ten years afterwards, in the year seventeen
hundred and eighty-seven, the more fully to
secure and carry out the objects of the Con fed
rration, a prominent one of which was the'-'-per
petual Union ” of the States— another Conven
tion was called, by which the present Constitu
tion of the United States was framed and sub
mitted to the States, and by them solemnly
concurred in and approved. The preamble to
that Constitution commences in these words :
“W e, the People of the United States, in order
to form a moke perfect union, establish jus
tice,” etc.
In their first convocation (says the Virginian)
the States resolved that the Union should be
“ perpetual They met a.second time to make
that Union “moee perfect.” Having consented
to the Articles bjuidiug tbe Union by a “perpet
ual*’ covenant, And llav'hpg gone into a second
Convention, the prime object of which was to
make that “Union” more perfect, no State had
aright to make any reservation in passing upon
the Constitution. And, if the right to make
reservations had passed out of tiie power of the
States then, a fortiori is it now out of the power
of a single party to the covenant to violate and
dissolve that covenant.
§Tliis is precisely consonant, as the reader will
perceive, with the opinion expressed by Mr.
Madison to Mr. Hamilton, whilst the present
Constitution was undergoing ratification by the
States, that the ratification of the Constitution
by a State, with any condition whatever, must
vitiate the ratification, and that the Constitu
tion required an adoption in toto and forever. —
Nat. Jnt.
South- C auolin a Mo v emk\ts — Professor
Lieber (of the Columbia College) has written
a letter to the Grenville Union celebration, in
which he shows, from Grecian, German, and
Dutch history, that such a secession as is con
templated in South Carolina was never thought
of in any more League, much less under a
Government.
YVm. Gregg, Esq., a name well known also
for practical results, dwelling upon the alarm
ing crisis that exists in South Carolina, says
her evils are overrated. He adds:—
“ It strikes one that South Carolina has be
come so heated up that she is scarcely in a
situation to do herself justice, much less those
whom she regards to be her enemies and op
pressors. 1 ain aware that there is a had spirit
at work in the Eastern States—a religions ha
tred to an institution which they do not under
stand. They are a sensible people, who have
suffered themselves to run mad about anabstrac
tion. If they continue in there mad career,
they will make the issue, dissolve the Union,
and save u-> the trouble and odium of breaking
up the Government.”
Dissolve the Union!— Our attention ha>
been called to a very curious piece of histon
relating to the threat of the dissolution of the
Union. tt is aijtaFi c-iy, nut without profit to
those who have W‘d it. It was first heard in
the Congress olipp 74. The student of histon
who examines tne Non-Importation and the
Non-Exportation Agreement ol that Congress,
will he struck by a singular exception in th<
Nun-Exportation Article, The Agreement it
se.it was designed to secure a redress ot Ameri
can grievances from the Government of Great
Britain, by a suspension of commercial inter
course. The Non-Exportation Article hound
the colonies anil the people not to export an
American community to Great Britain, Ireland,
or the West Indies, with this remarkable quali
fication, “except rice, to Europe.” How came
this exception there? The staple of South
Carolina in that first Congress, when the sting
gle with Great Britain was impending, and LJ
nion was all-important to its succeesslul issue,
threatened “to withdraw from the Congress,
and break up the Association, unless South
Carolina could be permitted to export rice and
indigo. ’ This proceeding occasioned a sus
pension of business ot the Congress for two or
ihree days. Finally it was determined to
complete the Association without conceding the
South Carolina demand, and thereupon her
delegates, except one, withdrew. They were
invited to return, and a compromise was pro
posed, to allow the exportation office, but not
in indigo. I have consulted Pitkin’s Statistics,
and l find that the export of rice, in 1770, was
about 100,000 barrels, valued $1,530,000.
I find no mention of indigo. The compromise
was agreed to, and the words “except rice to
Europe,” added to the Non-Exportation Article.
Phis was the first utterance ol the disunion cry,
and this was its first result. —Sat. Eve. Post.
Coming to their Senses. —The New York
•Journal of Commerce says that the New School
Presbyterian General Assembly, which recent
ly assembled at Utica, New York, refused to
take any action in regard to •!: fugitive slave
law. A resolution pronouncing tlie require
ments and provisions of said law, “entirely op
posed to the impulses of humanity, to the prin
ciples of justice, and to the precep's of the
Bible,” was rejected, with only three dissenting
voices.
Tiie Journal in announcing the fact adds: —
“The conservative course pursued by this
Assembly, is an encouraging sign of the times,
and should be duly appreciated. The Old
School Presbyterian church has always been
sound on this subject, breasting itself firmly
against fanaticism, but enjoining a faithful
observance of relative duties between master
and slave, according to the Scriptures, and
relying rather upon tin* influence of'Christianity
for the gradual extinction of the system, than
upon any direct efforts for that end. It has
found the advantage of this course, in a large
increase of numbers and influence.
Retaliation.
The N. Y. Express says: “A Virginia planter
writes us in the strongest terms of indignation
at the treatment Southern men have received
at the Wor id’s Exhibition, and he promises re
taliation whenever Englishmen shall visit his
own section of the State. He says :
“If this is the way in which we are to he treat
ted in England, it is well that we should know
it. And Englishmen will find that, in a matter
ofthis kind, two can play.
“I shall take upou myself the respo-dbilitvof
treating the first John Bull f meet with as some
of my friends have been treated by his ungentle
manly countrymen.”
The Express hopes that its correspondent will
do no such thing, but treat the rudeness displayed
towards our countrymen with the silent con
tempt which they themselves exhibited for it at
the World’s Fair. The Express, referring to
the recent mani'estations o c the English towards
Americans, says: “We seem to be deemed good
enough to purchase goods made from our own
raw cotton, English railroad iron, when we have
an abundance of the raw material at home, and
of all the fabrics which are made up in England ;
but morally we are put at the very bottom ut the
depths profound by our pure and immaculate
neighbors in Great Britain.”
It. is somewhat strange that those politicians at
the South who readily perceive the value ot En
couragement to Home Industry when employed
against Northern rev lers of Slave institutions, do
not concur in its expediency when applied against
composed confessedly of avowed and red
not abolitionists.
Sentiment at the North. —A gentleman of
South Carolina, on his first visit to the North, writes
from ttie interior of New York to the Greenville
Patriot as follows :
‘•J was told before I left home, (and believed it,)
that 1 should have my feelings, as a slave-holder,
constantly engaged by the abolition sentiment
which was said to be universally prevalent here.
But I must confess I have been most happily de
ceived, I have met with but one man who lias, in
a manner at all diagreeable, approached me on the
subject of slavery, and he was denounced by all
who knew him here as a miserable fanatic, while
the general sentiment, in this locality at least is
what it should be.
From the Greenville (S. C.) Fat riot.
The Sign of the Times.
The reaction goes bravely on. Secession
is on the wane. The signs are all right. Char
leston will not become a second Moscow. The
State will not secede.
Charleston has spoken in a voice which will
be heard and needed throughout the length
and breadth of the State.
In Barnwell, the citizens have had a public
meeting, and passed a resolution agaiiist seces
sion. In Darlington, the meeting was addres
>rd by Chancellor Da kg an, and his brother
Julius, and Mr. Evims, a son of Judge Evens,
in favor of secession, and by Dr. Zimmerman
and J. D. Ashmore, Esq., in opposition to it.
Our correspondent says the whole crowd’
were almost unanimous in their opposition to
secession.
In Chester, th.s meeting was addressed by
the lion. R. B. Rhktt in favor, and Col. Mo
Auley against secession. An overwhemling
majority of the person present sustained their
gallant Colonel and luithfui representative.
Col. John IS. Preston, a distinguished
member oi the Legislature from Richland, has
come out in opposition to secession in an ad
mirable letter written to the meeting in Barn,
well. Col. Booker, a member o! the con
vention I rum the same District, and a man ot
greal influence, has done the same in prel’y
strong terms.
In Fairfield, the lion. J. A. Woodward, a
representative in Congress, has exp.esseu
himself in opposition to seperate secession in
a letter to the people ot Charleston. A corres
pondent of ours from Fail lield says he candid
ly believes a majority are opposed to secession.
He likewise informs ns that Mr. Rhett re
ceived “ poor encouragement” when he atten
ded the Meeting in that District. Not more
than one man in live applauded him.
The anti-secession party in Sumter District
are going to hold a mass meeting, and our cor
respondent says that no secessionist will be
elected to the Southern Congress from that
District.
From the Natchez Courier
The Vote on the Compromise Measures,
\Ve have been repeatedly asked to publish a synop
sis of the votes upon the various adjustment bills, so
that it might be plainly seen what portion of the old
parties voted for and against each, and from what sec
tion of the Union they received support and opposition.
Thinking that such a statement may do some good in
the course of the canvass, by at least furnishing the
groundwork for information and for dispelling preju
dice, we have compiled the following, inasmuch as
the fugitive slave bill was confessedly a Southern mea
sure, and allowed to pass by the Northern members
with just as stringent provisions as the South could af
lix to it, we have not made a summary of votes upon it.
it passed in the Senate without opposition, huvmgf been
ordered to a third reading by 27 yetia to 12 ny&s. In
the House it passed by 109 to ?G. It would have un
questionably received a larger support from the North
tiad it been necessary to its passage. Many members
from that section confident of its success, preferred to
dodge a direct vote, while many others paired off.—
The four other bills are thus against which ultiaisin at
the South contends so strongly, and proposes such re
medies. Let us see how and by whom they were
passed,
1. The Texas Boundary and New Mexico Tkr
iutokial Bill.
This measure originally passed the Senate in the
shape of two distinct bills, the one embracing the
boundary question the oilier relating to territorial gov
eenment.
1. The Texas boundary bill passed the Senate Aug.
9, 1850, by a vote of 39 to 20. Ayes, northern whig
7, northern deincrats 11 —southern wbigs 7, southern
democrats 5. Noes, northern wbigs 3, northern demo
crats 2—abolitionists 3—southern whigs 2, southern
democrats 10. Classified according to parties, the
vote stood—whigs 14 for, 5 against it; democrats 16
for, 12 against; abolitionists 3 and all against it. Ac
cording to sections the vote stood—North 18 for, 8
against; South 12 for, 12 against. Senator Foote vot
ed for this bill; Senat ir Davis against it.
2. The New Mexico bill passed the Senate Aug.
15,1850, by a vote of 27 to 10. Ayes, northern whig
1, northern democrats 10—southern whigs 7, south
ern democrats 9. Noes, northern whigs 6, northern
democrats 3, abolitionist 1, (and not a southern vote!)
Classified according to parties, the vote stood —whig 8
for, 6 against; democrats 19 lor, 3 against; abolition
ist 1 and against it. According to sections, the vote
stood—North 11 for, 10 agaiust it; South 16, unani
mously for it. Senator Davis did not vote. Senator
Foote was in favor of it, but paired off with one of its
northern opponentn.
These two measures were jointed together by the
House. An amendment was further added, providing
that‘no citixen of the United States should be depriv
ed ol his life, liberty or property in said territory, ex
cept by judgment of his peers, or the laws of the
land.’
This junction and amendment was concurred in by
the Senate Sept. 9, 1850, by a vote of 31 to 10. Ayes;
northern whig 1. northern democrats 11—southern
whigs 12, southern democrats 7. Noes; northern
ivliigs 5, northern democrats 2, abolitionists 2, soutnern
whigs 0, southern democrats 1. Classified according
to party, the vote stood—whigs 13 for, 5 against; demo
crats 18 for, 2 against; abolitionists 2 against. Ac
cording to sections, the vote stood—north 12 for, 9
against; south 19 for, 1 against. Amendments svas of
fered by abolitionists to strike out the word ‘citizen.’
and substitute “person,’ hut they all failed. Senator
Foote voted for concurrence. Senator Davis did not
vote.
lathe House the vote was taken upon the passage
of the hill Sept. 6, 1850. It passed 108 to 97. Ayes;
northern whigs 24, northern democrats 33—southern
wh gs 25, southern democrats 26—abolitionists none.
Noes; northern whigs 40, northern democrats 13—
abolitionists 14 —southern whig 1, southern democrats
29. According to parties, the vote stood—whigs 49
for, 41 against; democrats 59 for, 12 against; aboli
tionists 14 unanimously against it. According to sec
tions, the vote stood —north 51 for, 67 against; south
51 for, 30 against. The entire Mississippi delegation
voted in the negative.
It will thus he seen that on every one of these votes
in both Houses, a majority of each of the two great
parties voted in the affirmative, while the whole aboli
tion vote was'iuvariably given in the negative. It will
be seen that southern Senators were unanimously for
the New Mexico bill and equally divided upon the
Texas bill, while on the question of accepting them
joined together with the amendment spoken of, they
stood 19 to one in favor 1 In the House, a majority of
northern members voted against the measures, while
five-eighths of the (southern members voted iu its
#>vor 1
ii. The Utah Bill.
This measure passed the Senate August 1, 1850
without opposition. It had been ordered to a third
j reading the day before by a vote of 32 to 18. The
i vote stood— A'J". ; northern democrats 11, southern |
wlrgs 8, southern democrats 14. Noes; northern I
whigs 10, northern democrats 3, abolitionist a 3, south
ern whigs 2. According to the parlies the vote stood
—whigs 8 for, 12 against; democrats 24 for,3 against;
aboliiionists 3 unanimously against it. According to
sections, the vote stood—north 11 for, 16 against
south 21 for, 2 against.
Mr. Jefferson Davis voted for this bill. Senator
Feote did not vote upon it, although iu its favor.
This bill passed the House Sept. 9, 1850, by a vote
of 97 to 87. Ayes ; northern whigs 10, northern demo
crats 31, southern w higs 24, southern democrats 32.
Aoe; northern w higs 43, northern democrats 13. abo
litionists 14, southern whig; none, southern democrats
15. According to parties the vote stood—whigs 34
for, 43 against; democrats 63 for. 28 against: aboli
tionists 14 and of course unanimously against. Ac
cording to section the vote stood—north 41 for, 60
against; south 56 for, 15 against.
It will thus be seen that for this measure a vart ma
jority of southern members voted, four to one, in one
House, and ten to one in the other ; against it in each
House live-eighths of the northern members voted. It
will also be seen that a majority of w higs voted against
it in each House, and a large majority of democrats for
it; in the one bod}’ nearly three-fourths, and in the
other eight-ninths.
It will also be remembered that Mr. A. G. Brown
voted against this bill, against the vast majority of his
political friends and the southern members, and in
company with five-eighths of tlie northern members,
and the unanimious squad of abolitionists; and this he
did five minutes after declaring that ‘so help him God,
he was for resistance T Poor Mr Brown 1
ill. The California Bill.
This measure passed the Senate August 13, ISSO,
by a majority of 34 to 18. The vote stood — Ayes ;
northern democrats 15, abolitionists 4. southern wbigs
5, southern democrats 1. Noes; southern whigs 4.
southern democrats 14. According to parties, the
vote stood, wbigs 15 for, 4 against; democrats 16 for,
14 against. According to section the vote stood—
north 28 for it; south 6 for, 18 against. Against this
bill Senator Foote voted.
This bill passed the House Sept. 7, 1850, by a vote
of 150 to 56. The vote stood —Ayes ; northern whigs
64, northern democrats 45, abolitionists 14, southern
whigs 17, southern democrats 00. Noes; southern
whigs 10; southern democrats 40. According to par
ties the vote stood —whigs 81 for, 10 against; demo
crats 55 for, 46 against. According to sections the
vote stood—north 123 for , south 27 for 56 against.
Os the slaveholding States, Maryland and Delaware
voted unanimously for it; Missouri voted 4 to 1 in its
favor; Tennessee 7 to 4; Kentucky 7 to 3; while
votes were thrown for the bill from Virginia and North
Carolina.
iv. Suppression of the Slave Trade in the Dis’t.
This bill passed the Senate Sept. 16, 1850, by a vote
of 33 to 19. The vote stood— Ayes ; northern w higs
8, northern democrats 16, Abolitionists 3, southern
whigs 4, southern democrats 2. Noes ; southern whigs
7, southern democrats 12. According to parties the
vote stood—whigs 12 for, 7 against; democrats 18 for.
12 against. According to sections—north 27 for it;
south 6 for, 19 against.
This bill passed the House Sept 17, 1850, by a vote
of 124 to 59. The vote stood — Ayes; northern whigs
62, northern democrats 47, abolitionists 11, southern
whigs 2, southern democrats 2. Noes; southern
whigs 14, southern democrats 45. According to par
ties the vote stood —whigs 61 for, 14 against; demo
crats 49 for, 45 against. According to sections the
vote stood —north 820 for. south 4 for, 29 against.
It will thus he seen that on the last two bills, a ma
jority of both the old parties voted P r each while south
ern members from each party likewise voted for them.
It may as well be noted that upon the slave trade
district bill, ail amendment was offered to sub-titute a
fine for the breach of its provisions, in place of liberat
ing the slave. Senator Foote voted for th s amend
ment, which however failed. Senator Davis opposed
the amendment, declaring that though lie was not
equally, yet he was utterly opposed to Loth amend
ment and bill.
Political Anecdotes.
The Lowell American recently stated as a fart,
Iha t once upon an election day, in a town of Coos,
in New Hampshire,—the moderator of the meet
ing called out, ‘ Gentlemen, bring in your vo’e
or Capt. Peter Barnes for representative!” Cpt.
Peter Barnes bad all the votes but one The
moderator seized this one, held it up between i,is
thumb and forefinger, and exclaimed, ‘ Who put
in this fedeial vote!” No one \v s willing to own
it. ‘T thought it must be a mistake,” said the
moderator, then dropping the vote on the tl Mir de
dared Capt. Peter Barries unanimous'y elected.
The Worcester/Egis appends the ioliowing:
“it was once said the democratic molerator n!
town meeting in Westfield Matthew Ives—an
nounced the result of the balloting for selectmen
in the following manner:—"Gentlemen, 1 have
Counted the votes, and on; ticket is elected!”
But this illustration of respect for the elective
rights of ihe people, (says the 80-ton Democratic
.Standard,)is shaded by an incident that occurred
a few years ago in Maine, when Kent was the
whig candidate for Governor, and Park the demo
cratic candidate. In one ot the towns not tar
from Bangor, the chairman of the selectmen an
nounced the result a- to!lows: “Gentlemen, the
Honorable Gorham Park has 13 4 vote-, the feder
at candidatel?—a darn'd sight inure than I thou go’
he’d get?”
Liberty of Conscif.nce—The Secretary
of War. — A court-martial was recently held
at Fort Columbus New York, for the trial of a
soldier who is a Roman Catholic. The charge
preferred agaiust him was that he refused to at
tend a Protestant place of worship. His name
was James Duggan, and for this crime he was
sentenced to forfeit to the United Smtes 83 a
month of his pay for six months, and to spend two
months in solitary confinement and on bread and
water, the other months at hard labor, with ball
and chain to his leg:
This sentence, which was approved by Gen.
Wool, came up tor revision before tlie Secre
retary of War, Huu. C. M. Conrad, and was
by him sei aside, as will be seen by the follow
ing.-
War Department,
Washington, July 25, 1851.
Sir : Complaints have been made to this
Department that a soldier at Fort Columbus,
who is or was a Roman Cathoiic, was ordered
to attend a Protestant church, and <*n his refu
sal to obey the order, he was puni-hed lor dis
obedience of orders. It is doubtful how far an
officer has the light to compel officers and men
under his command to attend divine service ;
it is evident, however that no one ought to lie
compelled to attend a church of any other per
suasion than that to which he belong'*.
Every means of persuasion should be em
ployed to induce soldiers to attend some church,
but they should be permitted to select the one
they prefer. And when they profess to have
conscientious sciuples about attending any par
ticular church, all compulsory measures vio
olate the rights of concience, and should he
avoided.
Very respectfully your, obediant servent,
* C. M. CO NR YD,
Secretary of War.
Brevet Major General John E. VY 001.
Every friend of civil and religious liberty
will cordially respond to the letter of the Sec
retary of War. He has viewed this act in its
proper light, and set an example which we
hope will be followed in all future time. YV e
are of those who hold that a soldier is bound to
obey his superiors in every thing relating to
order and discipline, but at the same time we
are totally opposed to the exercise of arbitrary
power in the matter of conscientious religious
convictions. YVe believe that private Duggan
has as much right to enjoy his religious convic
tions, and to act up to them, as any officer in
the army and that to punish a man tor decli
ning to give up to his officer his religious be
liefis a gross violation oflaw. Mr Duggan acted
in accordance not only with the Constitution
and laws of America, but with enlightened
public opinion. \\ r e are thankful to Mr. Con
rad for veiling aide this unjust sentence, an ;
for throwing the weight of his nt,ne
•nfiuence ot h.s position on the side of civil °
religious liberty. c ‘ Xil and
Boston Atlas.
Comsponilentt.
LETTER FROM ('OLnißfT^^
Colcmbus, Ga. Aug. 25, 185 J
Dear Doctor :—The wire- workers of the F
mg party used every effort tn tbeir power on
last, to bring out the people of this city to
.heir -<W Bull Apis” of ,hi. s4, lwi ,|
well knowing that it would beau impowibility*..,
crowd together, without mixing him with someth' ** *
an attractive nature. * in 2
On Saturday morning, large handbills were .
up in all parts of the city, calling upon all lslt J “° k
able to the cause of Cuban independence, to asse ‘n’
that evening in Temperance Hall, f or th e p . lr
expressing their sympathies for that down- trod T* ‘
pie, and that B. K. Harrison, Candidate for
. .. senator
wou.d deliver an Address, upon that and kindred su J
jects. A Urge and respectable number were
** a matter of course. Col. John Quin was
the chair, explained the object of the meeting. u ‘/
trodueed B. K. Harrison, orator of the evenino U
Mr. H. bowed quite genteely, coughed, took a
drink of water and commenced. I shall not atteni’ - •
give you the whole of his speech, but such parts only
as had the most impression upon the assembly ji„
sj>oke from notes, and said he hoped the people wou
not think fur a moment, that it was a party meetis*
(someone whispered, ‘pull in your sign’) that he w oß y
not say anything of a party nature, boasted of his p t .
riotism and hinted that all his folks were incliucd that
way. About here he made some high strikes, got be.
fogged, scratched his head, took a drink, looked at h*
notes and took a fresh start. The Spaniards, lie
were a blood-thirsty people, and Spain as a nation, de
voured every thing that attempted to interfere wit her
but she couldn’t devour us, (great cheering) piy ac .
atheinas on the head of the Captain General fur sliuot
ing fifty Americans without a trial or a htarin- _
1 he American Consul, he said, was, he thought, m> i.
ing but the tool of the Administration. 1 know }[ r
O.veo. said he, we were raised together, schoolsd to
gether, and he was the constant companion of my
youth, but, said he, Mr. Owen has committed an a.;
which dese. ve the scorn and contempt of the human
race. Here, uo doubt, he expected to hoar great ap
plause, but he he was disappointed, for when he held
up to public scorn and contempt, the confiding play
mate of Ins youth, without a trial or a hearing all
honest, friendly hearts sickened, and thought moments
tube hours, until he brought his heartless language to a
close. Callous indeed must be the heart of him, she
can look back on his boyhood days and damu his con
fiding playfellow.
Mr. Baker of Ala., Flournoy and others were loudly
called for, but did not respond. Craw ford (of Niu.h
villt Convention notoriety,) made a few remarks, also
Mr. Williams and Alford of Ala. Resolutions wm
then offered aJopted, w hen on motion the (Juba vote
catching. Fire-Eating, ‘Bull Apis’ meeting adjourned.
Yours, &c., SONNY.
For the Georgia Citizen.
That Subscription.
** We, the Undersigned, opposed to the Pol
icy of the present Fecc-Soil Administration ,
and in favor of the Independence of Cuba, pro
pose to fire fifty Guns in honor of the massa
cred patriots, <fcc.’’
Tite above is from the heading of a subscrip
tion which was pretty generally circulated in
our city Tuesday last, that being the dy ou
which our citizens, irrespective of party, were to
meet and express their sympathies in favor of
those who are now struggling for freedom in
Cuba. I do not think it worth while to wy
anything respecting the party, who by such
means obtain money under false pretences—
for as a party, it is in keeping w ith their lying
and fraudulent system of tactics, during tlm
present campaign, but I would call th*atten
tion of some who signed the paper, to the im
position practised upon them by the circular,
who in several instances, exhibited only the tail
of the reptile, keeping his head and fangs con
cealed; or in other words, stating the applica
tion of the money without saying anything re
lative to that part of the heading, censuring and.
belying our Government.
Moderate men of the self-styled “Southern
Rights’’ party —deprecate, and disown, having
any know ledge of the matter, but if they will
affiliate with disunion Yankees, (who perhaps
have “left their country for their country's
good") and “ wool dved Free Soiltsts,’’ they
must expect to partake of the odium attached
to such a paltry trick.
COMMON DECENCY.
The Cause in Dade.
Extract of a Letter to a Gentleman in this city,
dated,
Trenton, I)ade, Aug. 26th, 1851.
Dr. Sir: —And now, sir, first of all, I have
to say that the “Union must be preserved” and
our folks, although living in a dark corner, seem
to be determined to do all in their power for
the salvation of this great Republic of ours.—
The question with us seems almost to be a one
sided thing, every body is for the L nion (with
a few exceptions) and at the election, Cobb wd
Chastain will, in this county, carry every thing
before them. Ido not believe that Mr. Styles,
th c Fire-Eating candidate for Congress, will
get more than fifty votes in this county. Mc-
Donald will probably get more votes than that*
as he will get some votes because he was one*
Governor, and we have some hard shelled Dem
ocrats, who think it a sin unpardonable, to vote
against him. Our county will vote about four
hundred, of that number I think you may safe
ly say that Cobb will get three hundred, Chas
tain three hundred and fifty.
Now l must beg leave to say something aboo
Mr. Styles and Gov. McDonald’s visit to lb
place. Well, the? were here, even here in tw
mountains, and Mr. Styles made a speech.
he made a speech to us bare foot and wool *
folks, and told us all about having been on *
foreign mission, and how the folks away otr
there doue, and that he had passed through con
tending armies, shielded by the stars and stripy
unscathed, and lie -aid he was for the lm° n
too but that the Georgia Platform men weretM
disc nionists. He said they had set the tun*
and place to secede; but the most of all. was n
said secession was not the remedy —disunion
was not the remedy neither was submission t
remedy. The Constitution had been intr nged
upon ; the South had been robbed and dcg r *
ded, and the remedy was to preserve the Co n
stitution, but failed to tell us how, and alter *
had said all he thought necessary, he woun “P
by telling us that the present so called Cod
tutional Union party was the same as
of the Revolution —(hts own words) fir?t 0
then Federalists, then Whigs. Now oll b ,
tional Union men—you have no idea thee
this had among our folks. Both parties,
is Whig and Democrats were almost fun°.
Mr. Styles only escaped a drubbing by .
that he did not mean what he said, atter
made this acknowledgment The m'Jl i
of words, General P followed w.tU a
erable splurge, advocating the right o
sion peaceably, as did Mr. Styles.
man P. when a candidate for Gener.
among us and passed himself off here so
Union man. Away with all such deffi , j oDt
Then followed the Governor who said ne
of the men who believed that Go’ - ’
right to peaceably secede, and it elec
eraor he should endeavor to a<^nl ' nl> f tr fT^e( i th*
of the State impartially, and rather e g
question. Though the old man sa> t>oT , T inc6
yet what he did say was sufficien ,
our folks that though he eameiß t