Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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