Newspaper Page Text
CHRONICLE & SENTINEL
BY WILLUU S. JONES,
omoi II RAIL ROAD BARK BOILDIBO
DAILTt TIII.WKKKLY <SI WggKLY.
*BRMS—Daily Paper, to o» per
annum, inedvarcj,* *r
Daily Paper. id...td to the country,*••• * 1 \
Tri-Weelr’/caper, “ “ “ „ '
WeeliV (a mammoth sir*) » A !
CA&A SYSTEM. —In no case will an orderJ or
h> naner be attended to. anises accompanied With
fS money, and in ereJy instance whan the ume ior '
whtohthe subscriptionmay be paid, expires j.efcre
thereceipt of funds to renew the same, j.the paper
will be discontinued.
For the Chronicle <f- Sentinel
LINES TO MISS MARY D. * * * •
The coloring of thy dreams are bright,
And may no sadder ray
Appear upon they horizon
To chase those dreams away.
But may thy life glide smoothly on,
As a translucent stream
Rejoicing in iti onward course—
Thus ever may you dream.
Or as* calm ethereal sky,
May thine existence be
With notone cloud of care or pain
Tc mar thy gsyety.
None more deserves pure happiness,
Fair girl, I wnn, than thou ;
Furs lofty thoughts dw3ll in thy heart
And beauty on thy brow.
And when thou art enjoying
Barth’s richest, brightest things,
A ealm contented mind and all
That peace which beamy brings.
Oh then forget me not, dear girl,
Though dark my destiny,
Whatever change's fate may bring
I’ll ever think on thc3.
VIBOINIA.
Columbia Co. Geo., Sept. 7, 1851.
For the Chronicle 5f Sentinel.
TO HON. CHARLES J. ReOONALD.
t Concluded.]
Let me now present the subject to yon in
soother view. 1 offer the following proposi
tion for your consideration :
Ist. Upon whatever principle any one State may
rightfully secede from the Uuion ; upon that same
principle every other State may rightfully secede.
2d. If upon the principle proposed, every State
cannot rightfully secede, then no one State can
rightfully secede.
You must admit these propositions, or deny
the co-equallity of the States.
Your doctrine is that a State can, at any
time, resume the powers delegated to the
United States ; that she is fully sovereign, and
by virtue of that full sovereignty, has a right
to secede from the Union at pleasure.
I think it can be demonstrated, that none of
the new States, which were formed out of the
Territories can possibly secede upon these
principles. Florida is one of the new Sts tes,
and before she was a State, she was a depen
dent Territory. She could not make laws for
her own government, except so far as Con
gress gave authority ; and these laws, when
made, were inoperative till Congress approv
ed them. Then, as a Territory, Florida pos
sessed no sovereignty at all. When she
applied for admission, Congress could have
refused, and kept her in a Territorial condi
tion to this day.
Having no sovereignty up to the moment
of her admission, she could delegate none ;
for it was an impossibility for her to delegate
that which she did not possess.
There are no powers vns'ed in the United
States which Florida can retume, for she pos
cesses at this moment all the powers, which
she ever did possess; and it is an impossibili
ty to resume a thing which she never had the
Soesessioo of, nor even the right of possession
ihe does not now, and never did possess the
power to declare war ; make treaties, coin
money, and so on. The powers which the
old States reserved, were vested in Florida
when the became a Stale ; and the powers
which the old States delegated to the United
States are withheld from her to this day ;
indeed, there is no authority upon earth to
invest her with the possession of these powers
without revolution. It follows, therefore, that
she is not now, as she never was, fully sove
reign. It is impossible, then, that she can
rightfully secede from the Union, by virtue ol
sovereignty, which she does not, and never
did possess. What has been said of Florida is
equally applicable to every other State which
wtT formed from a Territory. Then, as no
new State formed out of a Territory, can
take from the United States any power veste d
in them, neither can any one of the old States
do it. As none of these new States can, in
the exercise of full sovereignty, secede from
the Union; neither can an old State do it.
Your doctrine of secession, therefore, cannot
be true.
According to one of my propositions, the
principle upon which one State may rightfully
secede, every other State may secede. The
right to resist oppression, and defend our own,
belongs to every community. The new
States possess this right in as full perfection as
the eld States do, and in the exercise of this
right, (which when politically applied is some
times called the right of revolution) every
State may secede. Therefore the doctrine
of the Union party mu9t be true.
There is a common error that the Govern'
ment of the United States, is the agent of the
States severally; whereas, it is the agent of
the nation, that is, of that “one State” into
which Jefferson says the Constitution amalga
mated all the States for certs'n purposes.
That agent has been invested with powers by
the common consent of all the States, and of
which no one Stale can direst it $ and has
duties to. perform which it cannot decline.
But leaving the Government out of view, and
arguing the case upon your own doctrine, it
is easy to show, that you lay down a proposi
tion, and then contradict it by the conclusion.
Your proposition is, in the language of the
Kentucky resolutions, thatin oases of compact
“among parties having no common judge,
eachhasanequal right to judg? for itself, as
well of infractions a9 the mode and measure of
redress." Your conclusion is, that if one
party does judge, the judgment is final and
conclusive upon all other parties: for instance,
If South Carolina should say to the other
States, you have broken the Constitutional
compact. Your proposition admits, but your
conclusion denies, to the other States, the right
to say, we have not broken the compact. If
Sonth Carolina says, in my judgment seces
sion is my mode and measure of redress, and
I will secede, then again, your proposition
admits, but your conclusion denies to the
other States tbs right to say ; if you attempt
to secede, yon will violate your compact with
us, to our injury, perhaps to our ruin {‘ttrne
fore, we will compel you to keep your com
pact. That I have given the fT uo construo
*u l " e resolutions, above quoted,
wntcb was drawn by Jefferson, mav be in
ferred from this, that in his letter to E. Car
rington, he says. “when IWQ parties make a
compact, there results lo each a power of
compelling the other to execute it.’’ This is
the right of self protection, which extends
beyond compacts. So far did Pres dent
Monroe extend this right, that he announced
to the world, that no European monarch would
he permitted to estaolish a colony U p OD lt)e
American Continent, because such a monarch],
cal establishment might endanger our Repub
lican institutions.
1 believe it has long been determined in the
minds and feelings of ihe American people,
paitieutarly of tbe Southern people, not to
permit Spain tecede Cuba te any nation poa
sese’ng a strong Naval force: end especially to
Great Britain. The proximity of Cuba to the
Southern States; its commanding position ;
the existence of slavery there, and the aboli- i
tion propensities of Britain; would make the i
possession of that island by a nation, so pow- i
erful upon the land and the teas, menacing to i
the Union, and eminently perilous to the
South.
If the great law of self-preservation would
justify us in taking such a position, would it not
also justify tbe Union iu resiating the secession
of v State', However sovereign a State may
be, Spain and Britain are no less sovereign.
Would the cession of Cuba imperil the Union
more than the secession of a State f Tennes
see is in the bosom of the Republic, if she
were to secede, many evils, known and un
known, would resalt to the co-States. She
might then erect a throne and place a monarch
npon it; an imperinm in imperio. Would
this not be more perilous to our republican
institutions, than a monarchical oolony one or
two thousand miles off? If Alabama and
Louisiana secede, then as foreign nations,
they would command the mouth of the Mis
sissippi, the great artery of the West, and the
only outlet to the ooeau for her vast commerce.
Would not this endanger tbe Western States
in the great vail ay of the Mississippi, more
than tbe possession of Cuba by a foreign na
tion ? If Alabama and Georgia secede ; then
Florida would be geographically seperated
some hundreds of miles, from ihe Union with
which she is politically united. Must Florida
and her sister States submissively fold their
arms, and say, Thy will be done, O, thou
Sovereigns ! If South Carolina secede, then
she might, (as some of the people there have
already intimated) throw herself into tbe arms
of Great Britain. In that event, we might
Boon see British cannon planted upon ihe
hill at Hamburg, and pointed at Augusta ;
while the lone Star of the State dimly beamed
by the side, perhaps, beneath the British Lion.
Could the American Eagle endure the sight iu
peace ? Would the people of Georgia have
no right to resist the display of a foreign flag
upon the banks of the Savannah ?
The right of a State to secede by virtue of
her sovereignty, is no better right than an in
habitant of a city has to burn his house, by
virtue of his fee simple title to it. And the
right of the United States to prevent the
Secession of a State, is the same which the
other inhabitants of the city have to prevent the
incendiary from setting fire to his house, and
thereby wrap their own in flames
If the doctrine of Secession is carried into
practice it is ruinous, and its theory is dan
gerous. It teaches that the United States are
so many countries united under a league,
that there is no common authority to which all
the people owe allegiance, but a State is fully
sovereign to which the citizens owe undivided,
paramount allegiance. The man who holds
this doctrine mays ol very patriotic towards
his own State, but his patriotism cannot em
brace the Un on. Patriotism is the love of
one’s oountry, and be cannot look upon the
United Staies as his country, who does not
believe that they constitute a country or na
tion, nor upon the people as his countrymen
who swe no allegiance to his country. He
can feel, therefore, no patriotism for tbe
Union, no fraternal sympathy for the people.
What has been the effect of this doctrine
upon South Carolioa? Laying aside her in
terest, real or supposed, her feeling for the
Southern States is cold as Parian marble, and
for the Northern, colder than an iceberg; but
for her sovereign self, warmer than the sun
that shines t pon her.
These States cannot be held together by
armies and navies, nor by the moral obligation
of observing compacts. The enduring ties of
the Union are interest and patriotism. You r
doctrine breaks the tie of patriotism and
makes that of interest insecure-
If a man of the Secession party and a man
of the Union party were to stand together up
on a mountain height in Georgia, the former
might say in accordance with his doctrine,
See Tennessee in the North and Florida in
the South, the Savannah in the East and the
Chatahoochee in the West, these are the
boundaries of my country. The States be
v ondare no part of my country, nor are the
people thereof my countrymen.
The Union man, iu accordance with his
doctrine might reply, If you wish to see the
boundaries of my country, behold the Cana
dian Lakes in the North, and the gulf of
Mexico in the South, the Atlantia ocean in the
East, and the Pacific in tbe Wes?. Within
these vast limits, the wide spread valleys, the
everlasting hills, the cloud capped mountains,
every foot of land and of water is a part of
my country, and all the millions of peop'e
“who walk beneath the sky of Franklin, upon
the land of Washington” are my countrymen.
If ever 1 raise my arm to strike down the
Star-Spangled banner encircled in all the glo
rios of the Union, it will bs when the gloomy
alternative is presented me, of suffering the
1 Star of Georgia to be sunk in degradation and
i darkness, or to shine lonely in its own firma
i ment. Examinbr.
i
Revolution in Mexico.
The Galveston News of the 29ih ult. after
giving some item* of Mexican news says:
Dr. J. B. Miller, who came passenger on
the Uncle Bill, informs us that the nows of a
general revolutionary outbreak in the States of
Tamaulipas and New Leon was hourly looked
for when he left Brownsville, and that the men
who were concentrated near Rio Grande City
were reported to be principally Rangers, who
were attached to tbe companies that were
recently dUbanded on our Western frontier.
Os these there were near 200 enrolled under the
command of Carabajal, who were only await
ing the proper time to cross the river and
participate in the revolutionary movement.
It appears that no o her Mexican State than the
two already mentioned was expected te
engage in this revolution ; but every confi
dence was entertained that they would succeed
to the fullest extent of their purpose, with little
or no resistance on the part of the Federal
troops. In fact, if resistance were made, their
numerical strength was so insignificant, and
they were posted at points so widely asunder,
that to accomplish their defeat was consid
ered nothing more than mere “child’s play.”
This movement has been designed for some
time, which we have before given intimation
of, and all that has delayed a demonstation
until now was a determination on tne part of
its prime movers not to attempt a revolution
without being fully prepared to consummate it.
From all that we can ga her, the plans of ope
ration have been well concocted by able
military men and staunch patriots ; and if what
is said in relation to the preparations of the
revolutionists, their strength, &c., be only
half correct, there can be but little doubt of
their success.
From the information we first received of
the purposed revolution, we were of the opi
nion that it would stand a bettter chance of a
favorable conclusion to toe revoh'ng party,
than any of the puerile and ill timed attempts
to revolutionize which had previously been
made in that quarter. That opinion was
based upon tbe fact that they were, for the
fii. : time, deliberately and judiciously project
g their plans of operation, without any in
tention of going precipitately to work, before
everything wr arranged for that purpose. We
are now more strongly impressed with a be
lief in the success of the movement than we
were before, 4.0 m tbe suggestions thu. are con
fidently made that the Texes Rangers, who
were recently disbanded, have enlisted in the
Giuse. We are personally acquainted with
ta. ay of those gallant young men, and know
they are the v«J “boys” tor such an ad
v, nture. All that will be necessary to ensure
sucoess to the revolutionists, with such reliable
auxiliaries as Texas Rangers are, will be deter
mination of purpose, concert of notion, and,
above ail, rigid fidelity in every instance and
under ell circumstances to their chivalroue
allies.
We have not learned who all the principal J'
leaders in this movement are; bnt the name (
of Gov. Cardenas, of Tamanlipas, occupies t
a conspicuous place in the list, which is suffi
cient to give character to the enterprise, fijr *
the next arrival from the West we shall expect I
something more definite. I
Chronicle emit Sentinel. ■
■ ■ —1
AUGUSTA, G-A? |-
WEDNESDAY HOKNIMO,..SEPT* 10.
SAMUEL BARNETT, Associate Editor,
Constitutional Union Nomination.
-I i
POR GOVERNOR. ,
HON- HOWELL COBB
CONQFESS.
For Representative from BHa District«
HON. ROBERT TOOMBS.
Outside
%~3» See First and Fourth Paobs of Daily.
Js* We are requested to state that ANDREW
J. MILLER, Esq., will address the eitisens of Co
lumbia county, at Appling, on TUESDAY NEXT,
the 16th inst.
No Mail last evening beyond Wilming
ton, N. C.
The Admission of California.
Upon this master grievance of the Com
promise measures, on which was based the call
of the Convention in Georgia, we desire
calmly to sum up those arguments, trite as
they are, which demonstrate that it furnishes
no good ground for resistance to the General
Government.
We shall assume that any act of Congress
in order to warrant resistance, must, if not sw
constitutional, be grossly oppressive in princi
ple or practice. The Virginia Resolutions held,
that, even if au act was an infraction of the Con
stitution, it must be a deliberate, palpable, dan ■
gtrous infraction, to warrant State inte'posi
tion.
We expect to show that this is no infraction I
at all of the Constitution, and not grossly op
pressive either in principle or practice. We
beltevo that the whole country. North and
South, and the people of California, had just
cause of complaint at the delay of Congress to
form a Territorial Government. Tho discre
tion of Congress may have been unwisely
exercised iu admitting her as a State. But
that discretion, if unwisely exercised, was not
exercised untonstitutionally.
Upon the practical question of loss or gain
to the South, we have seen no argument more |
dearly put or more ably maintained than that j
found in the extract we are about to make
from the Constitutionalist. In the paper of
May 2‘2d, 1850. it defended the proposed ad
mission of California, upon the following
grounds.
“But the Compromise proposes the admission of
California with all her boundaries, and with her
anti-slavery Constitution. There are grave objec
tions to ths manner in which she has been organized
as a State, and her Territorial limits are enormous
and unreasonable.
“But will curtailing her limits, curtail the area of j
free Boil, and extend the area of slavery 1 That is the
practical question.
“Now it is well ascertained that ns pert of Califor
nia North or South of any given line will ever bo
slave territory. It cannot be slave territory. It
eannot be made so against the interests and wishes of
pesp o. They have decided not to have slavery
there as a social institution. The Democratic doc
trine is that the people ars to be left free to decide
that question for themeelves.”
The objections to the admission of California
are here distinctly set forth, aud th 9 reasons
why, notwithstanding those objections, there is
no practical loss to the South, nor any violation
of “ Democratic deetrim,” which has ever
been as decided in favor of Southern Rights as
the doctrine of any other party. We shall
upon the practical question, therefore, merely
expand and illustrate the foregoing argument.
The first objection to her admission (which
was the only objection made by the convention
act of tho Georgia legislature,) is the extant of
the territory of California. It is obvious, how
ever, that if that argument is correct, whioh
proves that no part of itcjuld ever be slave
territory, the extent of territory is beneficial
’ rather than injurious to the South. A division
of the territory would have increased non
-1 slaveholding power in the Senate, by the ulti-
P mate admission of two or more States instead
I of one.
i It may be remarked in relation to the second
objection,—the manner iu which California
| was organised as a State—that this also could
not affect nor injure the South practically, if
i the argument about the existence of slavery
there is correct. If any unfair or extraneous
influence was exerted, (and it has been denied
and the proof challenged,) it must be remem
bered, that it was exerted by a Southern Ad
ministration, —at the head of which was a
Southern Planter and Slaveholder, whose op
porlunities of knowing (As country, (whatever
his opportunities of political knowledge,) ware
certainly great. The blame (if blame be due)
should not be thrown on the wrong quarter—
nor was the then President of the United
States false to bis own sectioa in policy or in
tention.
The great practical question, however, ia
just what the Constitutionalist declares it to be.
"Would curtailing the limits of Californi i '■ if *
tail the area of free soil, and extend i » area of
slavery?”
In expansion of the arguments urged by it,
and in addition to them, we would remark that
the following circumstances rendered it moral
ly impossible for California ever to have be
come slave territory. In the first place, the
country was remote from any other slave
country, and the difficulty and expense of ta
king slaves there very great. The oharaoter
of the soil rendered it unfit for slave labor—
which could only have been profitably em
ployed in the mining country. Confined to
the narrow space of the mining districts, and
surroonded on all sides by free territory, the
facilities for escape, and (he trouble el re
capture would be unusually great. The terri
tory was free when acquired. The inhabitants
already there were unaccustomed to slavery—
probably avorse to it. The tide of emigration
flows much more rapidly from a free than from
a slave State, for the most obvious reasons
Emigration would tend therefore rather to in
crease than to diminish anti slavery sentimeht.
These are facts and laws uncontrollable by
any human government.
Tha farst of altimats admission into ths Union
was well known, and the further faet that tha
question of slavery would fAea become a ques
lion for the deoision of the people. What that <
decision would be, was rendered almost cer
tain by the facts above mentioned as to the
prevalent sentiment of the original population, <
and the majority of emigrants. Their interests
would probably have combined with their sen
timent to induce the majority of voters to ex \
elude the competition of slave labor. i
Every one remembers that this view of the
practical question, was that taken by each of i
the administrations under which it arose, both <
of which were Southern—the ohc democratic, <
the other whig. Slavery had once existed in \
the Republic of Mexico, aud by her own act (
abolished as unprofitable. The country was <
acquired without any hbpe or expectation of i
practical gain to the Sooth, and its acquisition j
by some objected to on that groand.
These views (together with the present and i
future freedom of the people es California to
introduce slaves if they should aver see fit to
do so) seem to os to establish on au impregna- 1
ble foundation the position of the Constitution
alist, that no part of California would “ ever be 1
slave territory.” The application of the Mis
souri compromise line would have been entire
ly unavailing, as the only pa-t of the territory
| into which there was the remotest probability of
slavery’s being carried, is north of that line, as
the narrow strip of territory below the line
would have furnished still more peculiar facil
ities for escape, and as leaving vastly less ter
ritory open to slavery than is left open by the
present compromise.
THE QUESTION OF PRINCIPLE.
We would remark in advance on this sub
ject that the question of principle is not affec
ted, nor should our action be affected, by the
motives of some of the men who passed this
or any measure, provided principle was not
actually violated. We doubt not that some of
the votes on this measure were actuated by
T ile and unfair motives, and that some of the
voters would have voted for a measure actu
ally violative of principle. What they would
have done on an hypothetical case should net
affeet our action. They might reform before
an actual case arose, or be displaced by
better raep, At any rate, “sufficient unto
the day is the evil thereof.”
Just here, too, wo will make a single com
ment on that often misapplied maxim—“in
time of peace prepare for war.’’ The only
preparation a brave and free people need for
war—is arms and ammunition. We trust the
day is far distant when the free people of the
South will need to have their courage stimu
lated in advance of use, or their hearts pre
pared and drilled into the spirit necessary to
maintain their just rights.
The great principle which justified the ad
mission of California into the Union with her
anti-slavery Constitution, is a principle which
the South has ever held sacred and inviolable.
It is one of those principles which Georgia
thought proper to incorporate in the resolutions
passed by the late convention. This was her
true voice. So sacred is the principle, that no
solitary Southern State, has repndiated it.
Georgia seemed to do so, when she made the
I admission of California the ground for calling
a convention. Os the fifteen Southern States,
she alone assumed this ground. That fact is
itself pregnant with meaning. Nor was the
assumption of this groand the will of Georgia
She neither spoke on the subject immediately
nor through Repre. entatives elected on that is-
I sue.
Nor did even the unauthorized voice which
spoke for her, base resistance on sectional
grounds. The proposition of the origina
bill, to call a Convention if she was admittec
“with a Constitution prohibiting slavery”
was voted down. The only ground for resis
tance in the bill as passed, was the sparcity of
population—an absurd ground, if intended as
a sectional one —as objectionable to New York
as to Georgia.
Let us now compare what really happened
in the case oi California, with what might le
gitimately have been expected. We shall not
forget the want of a previous Territorial or
ganization.
When the coantry was acquired, every one
knew that it would, in some way, be divided,
and that the divisions would be at length aJmit
ted into the Union as States. This has been
the history of every territory owned or acquir
led by the United States. It was equally fore
known that the people applying for admission
into the Union wonlJ choose for themselves on
'he quoation of slavery. These were the
necessary, inevitable incidents of the acquisi
tion. Every body foresaw them. Every one
knew that the whole country would be divided
and admitted into the Union as States; and that
these States would determine th-iir own etetus
as to slavery. Who did not know that (As sole
Constitutional restriction on their admission
was, that thoir form of government should be
republican ?
And vot pretexts the most shallow and so
phistical, facts legitimate and anticipated, have
been seized upon by designing men for the
purpose of promoting sectional strife. The
admission of a State into the Union, with a
Constitution prohibiting slavery, has been called
for the first time iu our history, the enactment
by Congress of the Wilmot Proviso. Congress
has done the same thing again and again. If
this be to enact the proviso, then Congress has
a half dozen times enacted it, and as often en
acted slavery.
The people of Cali r ornia, without previous
territorial organization, formed a State Consti
tution, and applied for admission into the
Union. If thero was foreign interference (and
it has been distinctly denied) in the matter, it
was interference by a Southern President and
large slaveholder, caused by a conviction that
there was no practical gain to the South by
retaining California in the territorial Stato.
When the application was made, there was no
constitutional impediment to the admission.
To say that the Constitution requires territorial
pupilage, or a specified number of inhabitants
is to talk ignorantly, or at random. The num
ber of inhabitant, in California was greater
than in some States which have been admitted.
Some have been admitted without a territoria!
organization. All this, however,proves nothing.
Whatever the custom had been, if uniform
and unbroken, it was not obligatory upon Con
gress. It was a matter of mere Congreaaional
discretion. If California had applied, and been
ad milted with a pro-slavery Constitution, the
objection would never hays bean heard— or
weald have come from the other aide of the
Potomao. When Texas was admitted under
a construe ion of the Constitution till then
unheard of, did the Southern States object?
Does it now become any State to nritt the
exercise of a discretion clearly vetted in Con
gress by the Constitution f
Congress may have used that discretion un
wisely. The objections, however, were com
mon to the North and the South.
Why has the South any peculiar objection,
unless it be in the fact that the Constitution of
California is anti-slavery t II this weie a valid
objection, then was Congress under obligation
to keep her out until if could be learned wheth
er Bbe would not, at some future time, apply
with a pro-slavery Constitution. In order to
any practical benefit, even from th : s false
principle, the admission would have had to be
postponed, either indefinitely, or to such time
as that the application should be made with a
proper Constitution. Persons forget the dif
ference between a country already elaveholding
and a country remote from slavery, and filling
up rapidly with a population, ready for admis
sion as a State. Congressional interference,
if proper in principle, would have to be long
continued and arbitrary to be of practical ad
vantage. Nothing short of an inspection of
the Constitution to see whether slavery was
tolerated therein, and the expressed determina
tion on the part of Congress to keep the
applicant out until it was, would suffice to
meet the exigeucy. It short, it would have
required positive in teryention of the most
decided character.
The great principle, then, which prevented
any Southern State from making the anti
slavery Constitution of California a ground
for resistance, was deeper than the Constitution
itself, though not inconsistent with it.
Why was it, then, that the Sduth did not
unite with Georgia to make the admission of
California a ground of resistance ? and that
the Georgia Legislature concealed their true
motive in assuming it?
“It was because the South still stood by the old
and true Republican doctrine of the right of the peo
ple seeking admission into the Union to form their
own Constitution. They are the people to be go
verno.l by the Constitution they propose. No people
alien to them have the right to interfere. This was
tin great principle declared by John C. Calhoun in
1847, not only to be founded on the Constitution of
the United States, but to lie at the bottom of all Re
publican Government. It is incorporated in the
Constitution of the United States, which lays no
other restriction on the state-seeking admission than
that her form of government shall be Republican.
It has been held by the entire South up to the present
time. It was disputed by the North in the case of
M issouri. It was then held by the South, almost at
the cost of olojd, and its acknowledgment obtained
for that single State at a great price—no less than
the surrender to free soil of the whole territory
then owned by the United States north of 36 deg.
36 min. The same principle was declared by the
Demi -ratio Convention of Georgia in 1819. ltwas
affirmed by the Legislature of Georgia in 1850.
It has remained for pretext hunters of the present
day, basely to repudiate the principle for the first
time, because for the present its operation is against
us.
"One more point and we have done with California.
Who do our representatives who opposed its admis*
sion now advocate acquiescence? Because they
believed her admission unwise, they opposed it. As
good citizens—as men sworn to abide by the Con
stitution of the United States—they are bound to
acquiesce in the constitutional law of the land, by
which the was admitted notwithstanding their op
position.
"On any other piinciple the minority in every re
public would be always in arms against the govern
ment. It is thtir duty to oppcoe the passage of a
bill unleso they believe it wise. It is equally their
duty to submit to it when passed, unices they believe
it unconstitutional or else so grossly oppressive as
to warrant the overthrow of the Constitution itself.”
Undeniable Issues.
Are the so called Compromise measures an
adjustment at all ?
The Union party and Gov. McDonald are
clearly at issue on this point. The Union pa-ty
dec'ares that, t#"*" Whilst it doss not wholly
approve, it will abide by it (the Compromise)
as a permanent adjustment of the sectional
controversy.”
Gov. McDonald says: EP*"I know of no
adjustment by Congress of the Slavery and
Territorial questions. The measures so called
contain not a single element of an adjustment.”
Are the so called Compromise measures con
sis'ent with the honor of the Soalh ?”
The Union party answers the question af
firmatively.
The Southern Rights party (in conven
tion) says that by them the Southern States
“ have been degraded from their condi
tion of equality in tho Union.”
Mr* Stell--A Miserable Kxcusei
We are informed that some of the friends
of Col. Stkll, in their pitiful efforts to
escape the force of the testimony adduced by
us, to convict their candidate of hiving
expressed a willingness to vote for the repea
of the Fugitive Slave law, take advantage o
our error in saying Col. Tidwell was solici.
tor of the “Flint" instead of the “Coweta Cir
cuit." This is a most pitiful subterfuge and
shows what contemptiblo tricks small politi
cians will resort to when cornered. From the
manner in which Col. Stell whines under the
application of the lash, we imagine he knows
who Col. Tidwell is, where he lives, and of
what circuit he is solicitor.
By the way, speaking of Col. Stell and his
candidacy, reminds, us of seeing an exposure
of his plagiarism, in his letter accepting the
nomination, from a letter of Gov. Taoer, and'
daring the session of the last Legislature, from
the distinguished Irish orator Philips. Verily,
he is a most appropriate caadidate of the die
unionists of the 4th Congressional district.
We shall endeavor to lay these fine specimens
of fine composition before our readers next
week, and leave the gallant Colonel Stbll to
the verdict of the people.
Judge Beverlt Tucker, one of the Faculty
of William and Mary College, Va., who fignr*
ed in the Nashville Convention, died a few
days since, aged sixty seven years.
Fibs. —About 7| o’clock P. M., on Saturday,
the steamboat E. P. McNiel, lying opposite this
city, was discovered to be on fire, but the flames
had so far advanced as to render all efforts of our
ciuzcns to save her unnecessary. The McNeil
belonged to our friend C. M. Fackler, and was
covered by insurance to the amount of 610,000
in the Loxlngton (Ky.) and Madison (la.) In
suarance offices. His loss is about 61,000.
1 his was no doubt the work of en incendiary, aa
there had been no fire about the boat for several
months.— Memphis hlagle Is? inst.
The Cuban Cause. —The performance this
evening, for the benefit of the Cuban cause,
will take place at the American instead of the
Orleans theatre, as previously intended. The
play of the •• Lady of Lyons,” and other -at
tractions, ere presented. See advertiaemeu
Pic, 4th inst. |]
Another Letter. \
Gov. McDonald takes peculiar pains in hi ß
last letter, to defend himself against the charge
of favoring resistance to aggression, or righting
the wrongs of the South. Ha does not desire
“to subvert the Union ” in which Georgia
holds an unequal and degraded rank. He de
dares the Constitution to be " the chord
which binds the Union together.” "If that in
destroyed, the Union is gone.” How many
infractions will it take to destroy its nnity, and
make it no longer binding? The Convention
which nominated him pointed out not less than
four or five.
We hope some of his friends will oxplain
how it is that public speaking is any reflection
on “ the intelligence and honesty ” of the peo
ple—which letter writing is not? Perhaps the
Ex-Governor’s ideas upon this subject have
been insensibly clouded by the notion that he
writes better than he speaks.
We give below a part of bis letter:
" My opinions have been fully and unreservedly
put before the public, and I consider the people suf
ficiently enlightened to judge of them. Unless gar
bled they arc not subject to misrepresentation. 1
have been twice before the people, for the same office,
and I made no speeches then. I have the same abi
ding confidence in their intelligence and honesty of
purpose now, that I had then. I trust that they will
not be swayed by the calumny, that, in endeavoring
to sustain the glorious Constitution of our ancestors
and their rights, I have a covert purpose to subvert
the Union. The Constitution is the chord which
binds the Union together, if that is destroyed the
Union is gone.
" 1 am not disposed to execute a power of attorney
to any friend to discu.'s with Mr. Cobb. Freedom
of speech is guaranteed to every citizen, in the Con
stitution, and I am not dispo.ed, even by implication,
to restrict it. But should any triend, claiming his
constitutional right, think prop or to discuss with him,
that there may be no mistake, I insist that he shall
not represent me as holding opinions different from
those which I have written, and take care not to al
low an inue to be made which has already been set
tled by the people of Georgia, and which cannot arise
in the present canvass.
Charles J. McDonald.”
Heeting of the Constitutional Union
Party,
At a Meeting of a portion of the Constitu
tional Union Party of Richmond County, at
the City Hall, on Monday the Bth inst., Porter
Fleming, Esq. was called to the Chair, and
L. L. Antony, requested to act as Secretary.
The object of the meeting, to wit, making
the preparatory arrangements for the Barbecue
to be given to the Hon. Robert Toombs, on
the 27th inst., having been explained by the
Chairman, on motion of A. J- Miller, Esq., it
was
Resolved, That the Chairman of this meeting ap
. point a committee of two from each district ol the
county t rtceive contributions and make the requis
ite arrangements for the proposed Barbecue.
Resolved, That the Chairman al-~o appoint a com
mittee of five to invite the Hon. Robert McMillan,
and other Speakers for the occasion, Southern Rights
as well as Constitutional Union, and so arrange the
order of discussion.
Resolved, That tie Chairman appoint at this lei
sure a committee consisting of two from eich ward of
the city, to act as an executive committee during the
campaign.
Under the first Resolution the Chairman ap
apointed the following gentlemen:
Tarver’s Diet.—A. W. Rhodes, James Brendon,
J r -
B.idgo Diat.—Middleton Sego, Jacob A. Dove,
Ireland Diet. —Robert Wiggins, L. A. L. Bois
-1 clair.
Rock Dist. —James Lovsll, John A.Bohler.
First Ward. —W. H. Pritchard, John Foster.
Second Ward.—A. Lafitte, L. Levy.
Third Ward.—Robert May, John Cashin.
Fourth Ward.—J. B. Hart, A. Phillip.
Under the second resolution the following gentle
men were appointed.
Col. H. H. Camming, Robert F. Poe, erq., Hon.
f W. W. Holt, Edward Thomas, e?q., Tboutus Skin
ner, esq.
On motion the meeting adjourned.
Poster Fleming, Chairman,
i L. L. Antony, Sec’y.
Large Lemon.—We were yesterday pre
sented by Mr. Lamback, with a Florida grown
Lemon weighing f of a pound.
For the Chronicle 4" Sentinel.
' To James M. Smythe, Assistant Edit r
of tbe Constitutionalist.
, NO 2.
You, also, are one of the Jacobins of the pret*.
[ ent day, who aro making secret efforts against
' the freest, happiest, best government on earth*
You, too, are engaged in the mad crusade against
the only temple of liberty in the "wide, wide
world.” You, too, would lay your unholy hands
upon your country’s flag, and trail its proud co
lors in the dust.
, And yet, you have not tho manliness to avow
your purpose. You profess friendship for the
Union, and, at the same time, you would light its
funeral pile, did you dare do it, and then face the
indignation of tho American people. You say
you are for the Union, and, at the same time,
• you denounce it as an odious and tyrannical Freo
, soil Government. You dare not come out and
r avow open disunion. The voice of Georgia, last
fall, through her convention, taught you that
he who was prepared to lay his sacrilegious
hand upon the legacy bequeathed us by the blood
of our fathers, was an object of scorn and con
tempt. Deeply imbued withaspi it of hostility
. to the American confederacy, now, as you were
less than one year ago, you and your party now
rais9 the false cry of a love for the Union at the
very time that you are prepared, under the garb
I- of friendship, to strike a dagger into its vitals.
You shall not wear the cloak of friendship to
this government while seeking to destroy it,
a so long as 1 have a hand to aid in tearing away
§ the flimsy gauze under which you seek to con*
- ceal your mania for disunion, disorganization
and destruction. If you have a particle of man
hood in your composition—if there is a spark of
, independence in your bosom—if you do not seek
as Judas did his master, to betray your country
8 with a kiss, cvne out boldly and csy you a*e lor
9 disunion, and let the people again overwhelm
l you and your political kith, as thoy did beiero
the meeting of the convention, when you raised
i the banner of dissolution, and invited the 6ons
, of patriot fathers to rally under its bloody folds.
h Anti-Jacobin.
* Fiax Annihilator Company.—Some citi
t zens of the United States of high standing
t having, after negotiations during the summer,
obtained from the patentees in England the
1 right of fabricating and vending Phillip*’*
celebrated Fire Annihilator, they have, in css
junction with other respectable gentlemen
t here, formed an association for carrying into
effect, in the most vigorous and extensi* o
raaaner, their laudable and interesting object.
r The members of the company have been in
conference in this city several days past, and
tbe result of their meeting, we understand,
has been the appointment of the Hon. Elisha
i Whittlesey as President of the Company. aw*
1 P. T. Barnutn, Esq., of world-wide celebrity.
1 as General Manager and Seoretary. Such an
[ organization gives to the publio every guaran
tee of good faith.
) The nniversal respeot in which Mr. Wbif*
tlesey is held throughout our country, and hi*
known probity and talents, will command cou
i fidence in every purpose to which he gives
I the unction of his name and connexion. A*
for Mr. Barn ana—the leaat visionary and the
mostpraotieal, sagacious and energetic of
i the son* of Yankeedom, which ia as mnch as
to say of "all tbe world and the rest of man
i kind”—whatever he takes in hand ia bonud to
i succeed.
The Company have already entered on
measures for the fabrication of annihilators
fast as possible, until they shall be oommensa-