Newspaper Page Text
federal union.
FEDERAL UNION.
MILLEDGEVILLE, £EPT* 22, 1831.
OCTOBER ELECTION.
FOR GOVERNOR,
WILSON LUMPKPi
GEORGIA LEGISLATURE.
Candidates to represent Baldwin county.
FOR THE SENATE,
JAMES C. WATSON.
FOR THE HOCSE,
EZEKIEL E, PARK,
WILLIAM W. CARNES.
Report.
“The Government of the
United States has no right
to interfere in the Jot'in of
government adopted by’ the
Cherokee Indians, so far as
it relates to the government
of their awn people.”
off’ Our friends throughout the Stale trill confer
.1 favor by furnishing vs with accurate returns of the
elections with the least possible delay.
Read the first page of to-day s paper.
£y a private letter we learn—“It is said that McLeod,
Trott and Worcester, three of the Missionaries, have
en sent from Gwinnett to the Penitentiary and will be
i i Miliedgerille n a few days.”
GOV, GrLMER—WILSON LUMPKIN—
CHEROKEE GOVERNMENT.
Nothing which wc or our neighbors can now
cj^v, will Irn-e much influence on the last approach-
fag election. But as it has been a part of our duty
?'^correct the errors of tlie Georgia Journal during
•he whole campaign, we cannot, even at this late
period, suffer it to do the most manifest injustice to
Mr. Lumpkin—nor to eulogize Mr. Gilmer, where
zio praise is due to him. We therefore proceed a-
• ■Tin to the correction of our neighbor’s observa-
fi ons.
In 1827—18-28, Dr. Fort and Mr. Lumpkin, two
(7ark-men, were members of Congress, who took
h very active part in endeavoring to “arrest the
permanent location” of the Indians (by destroying
their independent government,) within the territo-
ral jurisdiction of the States, and particularly of
Georgia. George R. Gilmer was a member of the
ame Congress, and said, he was “very indifferent”
the subject.
Dr. Fort introduced a resolution instructing the
.7 -tiiciary committee “to enquire if any of the In
dian tribes within the territorial jurisdiction of the
S'ates, have organized an independent govern
ment, with a view to a permanent location within
Ihc States; and if they find that an attempt of the
kind has been made, to enquire into the expediency
of' reporting to this house such measures as they
mav deem necessary to arrest such permanent lo
cation.”
This resolution was afterwards referred to the
committee on Indian Affairs. On which reference
r» debate arose.
The last Georgia Journal, in commenting on this
subject, has shewn its usual disregard for candor
and fair argument. We find two leading proposi
tions assumed by the Journal, which are very easi
ly controverted: —
1st. That Mr. Gilmer has pursued the interests
Georgia, “even at the risk of collision” with the
general government.
*2d. That in the report on the above resolution,
aubmitted bv Mr. Lumpkin, from the committee
on Indian Affairs, it is stated, “that the government
of the United States has no right to interfere in the
form of Government adopted by the Cherokee In
dians; so far as it relates to the government of their
awn people”—and the Journal adds, that “this opin
ion isopposed to the principles entertainedby Geor-
ions and principles entertained by Georgia.” Wc pro
ceed to shew, oiU of Mr. Gilmer's men mouth, that lie en
tertained the same opinion which the Journal says 18 op
posed to the Georgia doctrines. This opinion of Air. Gil
mer, that paper saw convenient to suppress. By the sub-
jo ned comparison, we shew tiiat the opinion i» Air. coi-
mer’s speeches, taken from two papers, and the opinion in
the report, for which Mr. Lumpkin is so loudly censured,
are precisely the same in purport, if notin tcords.
Gilmer's Speech.
1 ‘They, (the Indians)
like other people, are the best
judges of the kind of gov
ernment which will most
conduce to their happiness.
“Let them in that res-
pert,pursue whatever course
they may judge most for t heir
g.xxl. The government has
never interfered in their
manner of ruling them
selves.”
Where is the difference between the opinion of Mr. Gil
mer, and the opinion of the repor t ? He is for allowing the.
Indians the widest latitude—for giving them the rights
possessed, by “other people" in this matter. But, says
tbe Journal, the opinion expressed in this report, is op
posed to the opinions and principles entertained by Geoi-
gia “on the subject of the India * tribes.” But wc haie.
shewn that Mr. Gilmer’s opinion and the opinion of the
report are the same. Therefore, Mr. Gilmer’s opinion is
“opposed to the opinions and principles entertained by
Georgia on the subject of the Indian tribes. 1 hus it
appears by the facts of the case, and tile Journal h rea
soning upon tliem, that Mr. Gilmer has nothing to boast
over Mr. Lumpkin in this matter. What will the Jour
nal say to this? Will it praise Mr. Gilmer and censure
Mr. Lumpkin for the very same opinions? Are these the
political ethics of the Journal? But why did the Journal
suppress this opinion of Mr. Gilmer? Was it fan? Was
it honest? Let the people judge. , .
But this report contains the true doctrine and u it n«U
been uttered uv a Troup-man, the Journal would have
f extolled, ns much as it now condemns it. The Journal
contradicts itself- It says, “the Indians in a State, are
dependent on the State." The Cherokees are in the 8tate
of Georgia, and therefore dependent on Georgia. What
right then lias the General Government to “interfere" in
their “form" of government? Georgia has that right
and will the Editors of the Journal say, that both the li
nked States and Georgia have this right? As soon as
Georgia assumed her right of legislation, did not the Pre
sident reuse all control over the Indians? Did not Gilmer sanction.
every day losing ground and forfeiting the confidence
once reposed in lum by the people.
Do we not now find every department of the general
Government sustaining the rights of Georgia on the Indi
an subject? What member of Congress first urged this
sub ject u non the consideration of that body ? Was it not
Wilson Lumpkin ? Did he not in a friendly and courte
ous manner, consult the rest of the Delegation from
Georgia in both branches of Congress, and submit his
views to them beforehc moved in the business? and was
he not met by all (except Dr. Fort) with a coldness al
most approachidg to sneers ? But has not Mr. Lump
kin persevered till his views have been sustained by the
nation? After Mr. Monroe recommended the removal
of the Indians beyond the Mississippi, if it cannot be
shewn that Crawford, Troup, Forsyth, Cobb, Gilmer
&e., or any one of their party, ever advocated the plan
now in successful operation the removal of the Indians—
until it was done by a Clark man—then whodeaeryes the
most credit for the bright prospects before us, so brilliant
ly set forth in tbe Georgia Journal sometime in June
last? We say Wilson Lumpkin deserves tlie most
credit.
Wc give tlie whole report made on Dr. Fort’s resolu
tion, mentioned in the Journal and inserted above. We
will not garble it, by picking out one or two sentences
that may be tortured into “strange opinions"—as the
Journal has done, to suit its owns views. The people
will see in this Report, as in every thing else coming
from Mr. Lumpkin, that the claims of Georgia have been
urged and pressed upon Congress by him, on all occasions
that qffered. This report, will be found in another
part of our paper. It will shew how faithfully and
ably’Mr. Lumpkin stood by tills subject in Congress.
We might fill sevemlpapers with Mr. Lumpkin’s speech
es and actings on this Indian subject. But let this suf
fice. They are familiar to I he people. They have them
by heart—and on the first Monday in October, they will
not forget them.
himself request the withdrawal of the United Slates
Troops? Flow then can the Journal have the hardihood
to say’, it is a ll strange opinion’’—contrary to the Georgia
doctrine—that “the Government of the United States
has no right to interfere" with the Cherokees. It is most
extraordinary’ that men should disavow their own setiti
meats to injure an antagonist! The Journal must be hard
pressed indeed, when it holds one doctrine in one sentence,
and a different doctrine in another sentence, of the same
article.
Having thusclearly refuted the leading positions of the
Journal, wc proceed to shew that its censure of Air.
Lumpkin is ns unmerited as its praise of Mr. Gilmer.
The Editors st Ue the proceedings on Dr. Fort’s resolu
tion in such way as would induce their renders to believe
that Mr. Lumpkin’s remarks quoted by' them, were h
reply to Air. Wood’s of Ohio—Whereas they were in
reply to Mr. Gilmer himself, w ho seemed disposed !c
throw cold water on the whole subject of die resolution.
The great object of Dr. Fort and Mr. Lumpkin, w-as to
prevent the Cherokees from proceeding in a regular form
of government, as they might thereby’ become more per
manently attached to the soil ami become more trouble
some neighbors. Air. Bartlett, with a design to defeat
this leading object of the resolution, moved to strike out
liie words—“to arrest such permanent locitv
cua on tlie subject of the Indian tribes.’
^ We proceed to shew, as briefly as our limits will
jVrmit, that Mr. Gilmer has feared to “risk a colli
sion” with the General Government—that if the
■opinion expressed in the report, £# opposed to the
principles of Georgia, then that Mr. Gilmer sup
ported tlie same opinion—and that consequently lie
must lie opposedto the principles entertainedby Geor
gia. We shall further snetv that this opinion is
correct, and the General Government has not tlie
right of interference, Stc.
1 st. Wc say that whatever high pretensions Mr.
Gilmer may have set up, as a member of Congress,
i r tins, as the Governor of Georgia, quailed before
this subject, and shrunk from a collision with the
g.-noral government. We do not wish to be un
derstood as considering that there is great political
virtue in that kind of bravado, which seeks colli
sion with tlie government. But when men set
themselves up as game-cocks, it is rather ridiculous
to see them raise their hack feathers, at the first sight
of an antagonist. As the Journal has attributed
this disposition to Mr. Gilmer, as a bright feather
in his cap, neither its Editors, nor Mr. Gilmer, can
complain, if we shew his imbecility am] fearful quo-
kings, when he and his friends had the fairest op
portunity for such a bold and noble enterprise. We
shall, before we quit the subject, see that lie has
plucked this one poor feather from his own cap.
To establish this position we need not quote do
cuments. The recollection of Mr. Gilmer’s fear
ful forebodings, fiaring almost the whole of the last
session of our legislature, is fresh in the minds of the
people. Who Was so fearful that Mr. Haynes’ Bill to
survey &. occupy the Cherokee territory would pass
into a law? GfcORGE R. GILMER, Governor
of Georgia! Why was George R. Gilmer so fear
ful of the passage of that bill? Because he believed
it would produce collision with the General Govern
ment, and he was afraid to “risk it.” Who was
exhibiting privately to members of the Legislature,
Tetters from Washington, to influence their course
on this bill ? GEORGE R. GILMER, Governor
of Georgia! And why? Because ho feared to come
ljito collision with tne General Government; and
had not even independence enough to communicate
his objections openly to the Legislature!!—Who was
in constant dread and apprehension that a majori
ty of the Legislature would not go with his friends
against that bill? GEORGE R. GILMER, Gov
ernor of Georgia! And why? Because he feared
to come in collision with the General Government!!
Whose friends used their utmost exertions, by
speeches, votes, and every kind of management, to
defeat that bill? Tlie friends of GEORGE R.
GJ LMER, Governor of Gedtgia! What reason did
they assign for their opposition ? The fear that it
•on hilil produce collision, with the General Govern
ment. But we need not dwell on Mr. Gilmer’s
sof painand solicitude, and (we doubt not) sleep
less nights—We need not repeat all the anxious
fears of his friends, that he would be compelled ei
ther to veto that Bill, or to come in collision with
the General Government. The Journal knows
them—the Legislature know them—and almost the
whole people of Georgia know them.—And yet,
this is the fearless champion, who, is so anxious
t*torisk a collision with the General Govornment!!”
It reminds us very much of General Hull’s procla
mation and surrender.
Ve co'ue to the Journals second proposition, that the
nfjgtfgn Eluded to in th® report, is “opposed to U>e opi&-
permanent locniion,” In alliv
sion to this motion to strike out, Mr. Gilmer said—“He
! did not believe the Indians would be any more attached
to the soil, after they had gotten a constitution than they
were before, and therefore he felt very indifferent whether
the amendment were adopted or rejected." In reply to this
remark of Mr. Gilmer, Mr. Lumpkin said, “ from what
had just fallen from his colleague, (Mr. Gilmer) he per
ceived that that gentleman did not attach the Same impor
tance to this subject which he did. His own chief in-
mieement tor supportmg^nc ncsomtmn naa tieen rnm'M
might be spared the painful spectacle of seeing the State
authorities take this matter into their own hands. He
sought to p* event the occurrence of any thing like collis
ion between the States and the General Government.”
Mr. Lumpkin and his friends have never affected to be
pleased with conflicts licfwcen the States and the Gener
al Government. They have uniformly sought and we
have no doubt will uniformly seek, to pursue a harmoni
ous course—a course, wliich will procure for the State
all their rights, while it will yield to the general govern
ment as much and only as much as Iielcng to it. But when
a man is set. up by himself or his friends, as a political
Hector, who talks loud—boasts what, great things he can
do—that, he can nullify the whole United States, and
Gen. Jackson to boot—he cu’s but a paltry figure, when
a letter or tico from one of Old Hickory's Cabinet officers
drives him entirely from the field, and makes him tremble
at, the dreaded “collision.” And what has Governor Gil
mer—this bold champion of the RESERVE OK THE
GOLD MINES—This profound financier, who dreads
the consequences of riches “suddenly obtained" by poor
men—this Governor, who would make INDIANS wit
nesses against WHITE ATEN—what has he done? Did
he not, during the last session of our Legislature “take
counsel from his fears" and shrink from a “collision" with
the General Government—Was lie not afraid to “risk W"
Did he not do this at a time when wc bad every reason
to believe the General Government friendly to our views'
No doubt the Governor acted on one of his favorite max
ims—It is safest to avoid responsibility.
We now proceed to shew f at according r o the Jour
nal’s own views, Mr. Lumpkin does entertain the Geor
gia doctrine—In a speech delivered on the Indian que;-
tionduring the same session of Congress, Mr. Lumpkin
uses almost the same language used by the Journal—cer
tainly the same in meaning—but, if any thing more ex
plicit and unequivocal. Wc compare them.
■Mr. Lumpkin.
“Wo (“the Government")
■ a ve taV en the guardiansl ;>
diem (Indians) and ‘rep-
• d ; hem as minors, orphans,
oid persons wh< a>e .»nyi-
uible of managing :1
>wn estates; and lie exer-
i :se of this power ha -he ’e-
ofve '’een consul, red as
ip;! ima.r., andhaslieen ac-
quies ed in by tlie Indians,
t-y the Slates, and by for
eign nations.”
Afr. Lumpkin further adds that the General Govern
ment had acted so inefficiently on this subject that .he
parties began to look to their own sovereignty to reme
dy the deficiencies of the Government—and strongly
urged upon Congress to take some energetic steps to
place die whole subject in its proper attitude, &c. &c,—
It will then be seen at once, from the above comparison
between Mr. Lumpkin and die Journal, iha„ if the Jour-
nal entertains the Georgia doctrine—Wilson Lumpkin al
so entertains the Georgia doctrine—for their views are
the same. And will the Journal quarrel with a man for
agreeing With it ?
Did our space permit us to place this whole debate be
fore the People of Georgia, it would be plainly seen that
Air. Gilmer was very lukewarm and “indifferent" on the
whole subject of Dr. Fort’s resolution. Does Air. Gil
mer act from the principle of fhc Journal, to oppose a sul^-
ject, because it is supported and urged by Clark men!
If there is any subject upon which Mu Lumpkin de
serves, as he has won, the confidence of the people of
Georgia, it is upon this very subject of our Indian claims.
The Journal knew this—and therefore made a most im
potent, but seemingly plausible, attack upon Mr. Lump
kin’s strong hold. But the honest old Farmer is not thus
to be beaten upon his own field. The Journal knows
that Mr. Lumpkin on this very subject, has received the
warm-:—tlie universal thanks of the people. The Jouma 1
says Mr. Lumpkin’s whole public fife “lias been an enig
ma to the people.” “ EnigmaP*—that is a puzzle—n.
doubt die Georgia Journal has been puzzled to see a
Clark man remain so long in office. This has indeei.
been a glorious enigma—one which has not puzzled ;t.
people as much as the Journal—an enigma by which AJ
Lumpkin has constantly increased in public esteem an :
popularity-—till he has been invited from a high station
the highest in die State. For upwards ofIwenty-fiviytSi
lie has served liis State with credit to himself; benefit r
he State, and approbation from the people. We shoo
call it a glorious enigma indeed, that for upi\ ard of aqua; -
er of a century a man should be constantly growing i-
the estjju&uon tf a grateful people.— while his opponent
Journal.
“Those tribes arc consi
ered as dependents existin g
as separate and wondenu.
communities, by the no -
mission of the Government
on which they are depen
dent. This is the Georgia
doctrine.”
TIIE GOVERNOR’S ELECTION.—We invite the
attention of our fellow-citizens to that most important
enquiry; “ What are the principles' which shall distin
guish parties at the approaching Governor’s election?”
We are sure that the great mass of the people of Georgia
of both parties, arc patriotic: and wc solicit them calmly
and seriously to deliberate on the principles which ought
to govern them in choosing their public officers. If the
people arc capable of judging what measures ought to be
f mrsued, and what ought to be avoided, in advancing the
ugliest interests of the State, they should elect no man
wlio is opposed to tlie policy which they approve and
There arc several measures of the first magnitude,
deeply involving the great interests of the State, in rela
tion to which Mr. Lumpkin and Mr. Gilmer, widely dif
fer. Mr. GILMER believes, that INDIANS OUGHT
TO BE ADMITTED AS WITNESSES IN OUR
COURTS, IN OASES AFFECTING THE RIGHTS
OF WHITE PERSONS. Causes fully known even
to those who arc most ignorant of public affairs, have
created in the breasts of the Indians, a rancorous and
deep-rooted hostility to the people of Georgia: and with
a few exceptions, they are a race of ignorant and deprav
ed savages, having but a weak sense of moral obligation,
or of the sacred sanction of an oath: and are very igno
rant, and very careless of a future state of rewards for
the virtuous, and of punishments for the wicked. These
are the hostile, ignorant, depraved barbarians, whom
Governor Gilmer would introduce into the sacred halls of
justice, to testify against white men—against his fellow-cit
izens, whose safety he is bound by the most solemn ob
ligations to protect. This is not merely a theoretical
opinion of his excellency: Ke has exerted-the extraordin
ary influence of the highest office in the gift of the people
of the State, to impose on them this disastrous policy.
Let every man who would dread to subject his property,
his repmation, his liberty, and his life, to the awful haz
ards of HOSTILE INDIAN TESTIMONY, unite
with us in removing from tlie executive office, a man who
lias exercised its high authority in attempting to intro
duce a policy so subversive of justice, so fatal to the safe
ty of the people of the State,
Mr. Gilmer believes THAT THE GOLD MINES
OUGHT NOT TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG
THE PEOPLE; but to \m. RESERVED TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE. Let every man
who is entitled, or whose relation or friend is entitled to
a uraw nr a g*«iu umic, ict rrm y man wno wouiu de
light iii seeing this noble patrimony of all the people of
the State, poured into tlie laps of the poor, as well as in
to the coffers of the rich; let every man whose benevo
lent heart would exult in beholding the independence,
and comforts, and joys of wealth, more generally diffus
ed among his fellow citizens, unite with us in excluding
from the high and influential office of Governor, the man
who could be insensible or indifferent to the happiness
of his fellow-citizens, and who could attempt to defeat,
the humane and patriotic policy of diffusing the wealth
of the gold mines among the people. Let every mat'
who loves purity in our government, who would preserve
it. from the corruption which is engendered by an over-
fl wing Treasury; from the absorbing influence of a
monied aristocracy; let ever}’man who would guard and
perpetuate our liberties, unite with us in dismissing the
man who has exerted the influence and authority of the.
hi"h station of Governor, confided to him by tlie people,
•n attempting tointroduce a system, which, if he had suc
ceeded, must have destroyed their invaluable jxlitica!
privileges.
Mr. Gilmer lias de.nied the right of the people to con
trol the government, and to choose their officers. When,
in 1824, the people, by vote throughout the State, instruct-
ihe legislature to pass a law giving to the people the
elect'on of electors of President and Vice-President, Afr.
liner, then a member of the Senate, refused to obey
these instructions,and endeavored to withhold from the people,
the right which they claimed, of electing these high officers.
Let every man who believes that the government is the
gan of the people, and ought to }-ie!d to their control,
mite with us in withdrawing jiolitieid power from 'lie
•’..indsof a man, wh'- 1 a attempted to raise the govern-
lent above the author> ‘y of the people, by and for whom it
w as created—who on a great question of vital impor-
’ moo, has endeavored to disappoint the wish, and to de
feat the right of the people.
On these important questions the people of Georgia
tave a common inie> es;—and what shall prevent their
initing, under the influence of a common moti re, in elect-
ng a statesman, who will cherish and protect these great
nferests, and who will respeci and defend these unalien
able and sacred rights ? Such a statesman they will find
in the virtuous and patriotic WILSON LUAiPKIN.
The Journal might as well argue that Aaron Burr that this miner genera), having the control of the
... i ° , • i Fa * i A inAnao nrl rtvprcporfi rrm ilolinr* f no nmnliiia
should have been elected President or Vice-President
after hi s trial for treason, because he had not snebeededm over
throwing the government. If a man has erroneous prin
ciples, he is not to be trusted. There is no other republi
can doctrine than can stand the test. Gilmer’s principles
arc erroneous—his judgement weak, his purpose feeble.—
Therefore he ought not to be trusted—Therefore he ought
not to be governor.
fCjR We too understand that certain of tlie family
compact who has a hold occasionally upon the purse
strings, has been riding to private houses, wiping out cer
tain nullification tracks, on the subject of ll»e Baldwin
Election. What says the Journal to this?
BALANCE SHEET—GOVERNOR’S ELECTION.
'l’hc Journal has made Mr. Lumpkin eveiy thing but
a Governor!—This good work is reserved for the people
a few days hence. But according to the Journal’s char
acter of Mr. Lumpkin, the editors of that paper ought (if
they could by law) to give Air. Lumpkin, at least three
votes a piece. First—they say, lie is Troup man. That
is good to them for one vote. Second—they say, he is-a
Gilmer man. Tiiat is good to them for one more vote.
Third—they say, he is a nultifier. That is good to them
for another vote. The Journal editors are Troupers, Gil-
merites, and Nullifiers—therefore if they believe what
they say, they ought, (to be consistent) to support Mr.
Lumpkin. But Mr. Gilmer is a Troup man, Gihnerite,
and NuUifier—Tliis puts the Journal editors on the fence.
Let us see if we cant strike a balance and turn tiicm over
to Lumpkin.
Wc give five good reasons why we should vote against
Mr. Gilmer.
1st. He is a QXIKERITS, which includes ma
ny objections.
2d. He is a IHJLLIFIER.
3d. ii nscoraaa&srDSD the re
serve or THE GOLD IMfX&ES.
4th. Hew ;-cr INDIAMTSTO TESTIEST
AOAIHST WHITE 2HEH.
5th. He votes against the known will, and express in
structions of the People.
5 against 3
Balance in our favor—2.
Now’ we shall vote for Air. Lumpkin for the following
good and substantial reasons:
1st. He is no Gilmerite.
2d. He is no Nullifitr.
3d. He is opposed to reserving the gold mines*
4th. lie is opposed to Indian witnesses.
6th. He yields to the will of the people.
fith. He is a plain straight-forward Republican.
7th. He has served his State faithfully for upwards
of twenty-five years—and has been tlie most useful mem
ber of Congress in bringing our Indian relations to their
present favorable condition. .
We might say much more—But here are four reasons
more in his favor than tlie Journal has given against him,
and all tlie Journal’s reasons against him apply with
truth agaiust Gilmer. So we have 7 against 3—4 in our
favor.
A word as to the'rumor that Mr. Lumpkin approves of
Mr. Gilmer’s Alessage. We have no doubt tlie Journal
has heard this. But we do not credit the information.
We cannot believe it—because, in one of the most mate
rial points against Mr. Gilmer, Mr. Lumpkin expressly
contradicts it. In a letter to us, he says—“1 airi utterly op
posed to the reserving the gold mints for public use. I hart
ALWAYS considered that RECOA1A1ENDATION not
only UNWISE, but IMPRACTICABLE.” Here tlie
Message is directly alluded to—“thJt recommendation"—
in Mr. Gilmer’s Message. We have very little doubt
but this statement was got up, at thu late hour, for politi
cal effect. Where i3 the evidence to support—a mere say
so—contradicted by Air. Lumpkin’s positive denial? ,
As to the foolish charge that Air. Lumpkin is a Troup
man and nulUfier, it is really too childish for serious refu
tation. Because he said ironically that Troup “would
stand by his arms”—meaning that he would vote right on
the Indian question, though he was too weak to debate
on it—the Journal says—Lo, Wilson Lumpkin is a Troup
man!! Profound logic! If you approve Troupes con
duct on any one point—you are a Troup man—says the
Journal. If you reprobate his doctrines and expose them,
you are a slanderer and hypocrite, as tlie Journal would
L».v« os «ut in the last paper. What a profound
reasoner and very candid paper is tliis same Georgia
Journal 1
THE LAND BILL—GOLD MINES—GILMER
AND INDIAN TESTIMONY.
The Journal admits that “this Bill can be altered by
the next.Legislature.” Ifit. can and Gov. Gilmer and
his friends Lave the majority, what is to hinder tliem
from reserving the gold mines ? Not the opinion
»f tnc Governor—for lie is in favor of the reserve. The
Journal says that consistency will prevent Gov. Gilme r
fMim sanctioning any Bill to reserve the mines—and that
because “tlie majorit y of the people had spoken in regard
to the Gold mines, the Governor abandoned his opinion
to adopt that of the people.” One or two remarks will
shew this to be a gross error. In 1829, the first year of
Gov. Gilmers administration, the Legislature passed
an act to repeal the act of 1825, reserving ores, mines, and
minerals. Yet in October 1830, in the face of tliis ex
pression of the people's will, through the Legislure, Gil
mer recommended as follows—“the nublic interest re
quires that the lots of land, which contain gold, should be
exempted from distribution by lottery" In the same mes
sage he recommends that Indians shmdd be admitted as
witnesses in our courts—though he could nni be ignorant
;;.at this was, and is, most obnoxious to the peopled
Georgia. In 1824, Governor Gilmer, in the Senate vo
ted against giving »i.e election of Electors to the peojde.
chough the people by a majority of 10799 had express'y
instructed him lo do so. Yet this is the man the Journal
says is so very consistent in yielding to the will of the peo
ple!! What will the Journal say next—or rat.
what will it not say ?
Bur the strangest, of all the strange reasons in faror of
the Governor, is that because he has been restrained by
the Legislature, from carrying his obnoxions principles
mo practice—therefore, he ought to be trusted again.—
Vv e ,uive always thought that it was the duty of a Gov
ernor to govern, and not to be placed in office merely to be
■rctrued nimself. The people want public servants w ho
an carry the public will into effect, because they have
ananty ns well as disposition to do so. But we might
’S well have no Governor, if he is only put into the chair
run counter to the people’s will, and be constantly
■ vernded by another department of the Government.—
1 he. Journals argument amounts to tliis—No matter.
w wea b c > wicked, corrupt or erroneous in Judgement the
vec iuve may be—since all these deficiencies mav be
COrrcCtCti ^ anothcr Department of the
THE GOLD MINES.
We should like to understand the plan which
Gov. Gilmer ha devised for the management of
tlie Gold mines, when he recomme-nded that they
should be reserved to the State. If his Excellency
would condescend to enlighten the people on this
subject, perhaps he might effect a partial revolu
tion in public opinion. Perhaps he might then re'
tire from public office, with some small part
of tiiat flood of popularity, whose full tide bore
him triumphantly into the executive chair. Per
haps the full development of his scheme, altho’ it
could not diminish the resentment of an insulted
and injured people, would have attached more
closely to his interest, that monied aristocracy,
whose full purses he would have gorged with Cher
okee gold.
Was it the intention of his Excellency, to lease
out the public mines ? If he could rent the gold
mines, as he does tlie Indian improvements, by pri
vate contracts made by an agent appointed by
himself, he would have ample means of rewarding
his friends, and of softening the opposition of his
enemies. With such patronage at his disposal, an
artful Governor could seldom lliil to secure his re-
election.
Or was it the intention of his Excellency, that
the gold mines should be leased at public outcry,
to the highest bidder? From such an auction the
poor would be excluded : and the mines could be
rented only by those wealthy men, who could bring
large sums ol money into the market, and who were
able to employ numerous slaves in working them.
The recommendation that the gold mines should
be rented out, (if at public outcry,) gives to Gov.
Gilmer a strong claim to the gratitude of the mo
nied aristocracy.
Or was it the plan of his Excellency, that the
gold mines should lie retained under the immediate
control ol the government, and be managed as
public property, by public agents? To work a
thousand mines, (which is probably less than the
real number in the Cherokee country,) at least ten
thousand slaves would be required." This calcula
tion allows but ten laborers to each mine. Is the
state to become the owner of ten thousand slaves?
Over these slaves, there must be a thousand over
seers. Estimating five hundred dollars as the av
erage value ol' the gold that ought to be collected
by each hand in a year, the revenue yielded by all
the mines ought to be, five million of dollars per
annum. With such a number of mines, detached
from each other, with such a host of laborers, and
such a multitude of overseers, handling such an
enormous amount of public gold, who can imagine
the scenes of disorder and anarchy, of theft and
plunder, which the mining region^vould exhibit?
It is not in the nature of things, that the public
property should he managed with as much vigi
lance, and industry, and economy, as are usually
employed in the management of private estates —
In the business of digging for gold, the great vaiue
ol the mineral and the facility with which it may be
concealed, present peculiarly strong temptations to
to dishonesty. A single mine, owned and worked
as private property, cannot be protected by the
ceaseless vigilance of a prudent proprietor, against
the dextrous artifices of insiduous plunder—what
quantities of gold would.be purloined from a thou
sand mines, held and worked as public property!
Was it the wish of Gov. Gilmer, that the gold
mines should be reserved to tlie state, and worked
on a plan, which w’ould engender more crimes, a
hundred fold, than now disfigure the face of society
throughout the state? If this was his scheme, he
is entitled to the gratitude of every dishonest man
in the state.
On this plan there ought to he a general super-,
i intendant of mines, attached to the executive de
partment of the Government: and it is obvious,
states thousand overseers, regulating the supplies
of an army of ten thousand labourers, annually re
ceiving and handling millions of public gold,
would be one of the most influential officers of the
government. His only compter, under the Gov
ernor, would be the President nf the Central Bank;
the latter would have the principal agency m se
lecting the borrowers of thost' immense masses of
nrold, which the former would annually tying into
the Treasury. Let an ambitious and intrigiuno-
governor have the power of appointing these
officers, and for electioneering purposes, he will
have the control of all the means of influence which
may be at their disposal. On this scheme ve
might have a splendid government; but the pat
ronage and power of the executive would he in
creased a hundred fold. The governor and tlie
monied aristocracy with Whom he might be con,
nected, and those unworthy men who fawn ou
wealth, and power would enjoy all the emoluments
of the government: the equal rights of the people
would be violated, and their liberties would Le
gradually, but certainly extinguished.
The policy recommended by Governor Gilmer—
his attempt to reserve to tlie state, all the gold
mines in the Cherokee country, is unfriendly to the
individual interests,and to the general happiness of
the people; because it attempts in language of in
sult, to prevent the distribution among tliem, of
a noble fund which might carry independent, and
comfort, and wealth, into the family of many a
poor man! and because it has a tendency to confine
the influence and emoluments of the government,
to a monied aristocracy, and to introduce a vast
system of plunder, of profligacy, of intrigue, and
of bribery, direct and indirect: to destroy the e-
qual rights, and to extinguish the liberties of the
people.
TROUP'S LETTER.—The Georgia Journal j
has abandoned its imbecile argument on this sub* |
jeet—pronounced a flaming euloginm on Governor
Troup—and set itself up as our Father confessor
in religion and morality. We plead to the jurisdic
tion of its reverence, both for want of authority and
qualification. We would barely remark, once tor
all, that the Journal appears with a very had grace,
before the public, when for want of sound argument,
it attacks the religious professions of those who arr
opposed to it in politics. With the religious creed
and practice of the F.ditors of the Journal, we claim
no right, as we have no disposition, to interfere.
They, with ourselves, will, one day, appear before
a tribunal which will judge us all—wliose judge
ment will, most assuredly be righteous. 5 Tiil then,
we leave those Editors to that freedom of religious
liberty guaranteed by our constitution; with the
assurance, tiiat in our and their present imperfect
state, we shall neither apply to them for spiritual k
consolation, nor for the purity of our political creed. |
The Journal has not only taken us under its re-
ligious tutelage, hut has volunteered as the defend
er of the Clark party—and has had the presump
tion to gibe us with “insulting so large a number .o
our men party.” And for what? Because we havt
dared to expose, in their true colors, the odious doc
trines of George M. Troup, whom Mr. Jeff mo-..
emphatically called “the hot headed Georgian!” .
The Journal too expresses “Amazement!! mrr-
tificatum!!! and pain!!!! at our remarks on what A
calls “the character of Governor Troup.” We
have no warfare against Governor Troup’s private
character. And if tlie Journal really feel what it
affects, these feelings cannot be new lo it—lor it
knows that we have uniformly reprobated his dis
union doctrines. The real causes of this amazing,
mortifying and painful trio of punishments, thus
inflicted on the tender nerves of the Journal—are:
1st. That those Editors could not answer our ar-
srument.* 2d. The efforts they knew our exposi
tion must produce among the friends of the Union,
of both parties. We have no doubt, our neigh
bors feel “amazement,” at the horrid, but just pic
ture of those doctrines, when properly developed—
“mortificationthat they have been exposed in a
form so visible and undisguised before the people—
and “pain,” for the loss of popularity, they inusi
5
I
occasion, and the just abhorrence in which such
doctrines have been, and will continue to be held
by all the lovers of the Union in Georgia, including
many of his former political friends.
As to the “insult” offered to “our own party”—
we have been long in the habit of insulting them
in this way—and the confidence they repose in us,
and the increasing avidity with which they receive
our humble efforts against Troup, Gilmer, Nulli
fication and disunion, afford the best evidence of
their fondness for such insults. We are sure they
will not thank the Journal for volunteering as their
champion—and for its insolent libel upon their prin
ciples, in saying “that a large number of the Clark
party would note prefer Troup for Governor to any
other man in the State,” they will thank the Jour
nal about as much as they do Mr. Crawford for sav>
ing that the Clark party'is a “mongrel-party, made
up of the worst materials.”
The Journal very modestly invites us to recant
our opinions of Governor Troup; and says, that
we “cannot act otherwise, if we are sincere in what
we say, that our heart is sometimes melted by our
charity for our fellew creatures.”—This humble ap
peal of the Jounal to the exercise of our charity, is
the most reasonable thing in this paltry article-
seeing that nothing but the most far-streched char in
ty can palliate his enormities, and that he therefore
stands so much in need of it. But there is a slop
ping place-for even this tenderness—“Ephraim ts
joined to his idols—Let him alone.” We know
that “charity covers the multitude of sins”—and
that Governor Troup has as many political sins to
cover as any other American. It would require
a dangerous stretch of charity to cover his political
iniquities, until they are atoned for by long and sin
cere penitence. Whenever this is done, we pro
mise the Journal, that we shall most cordially ten
der the feelings of charity and. the hand of political
felloicship to the Ex-Governor—and if the Journal
will do the same, we will tender to them our most
sincere congratulation, and offer them the like good
feelings of fraternity. Until this is done, we should
be traitors to our principles—to the high duties wo
owe to our patrons and our countiy—if we should
suffer our charity for the gross heresies of one man
to compromit our duties to the State and the com
munity at large. We must therefore, in this, as in
other matters, begthe Journal to pardon us in exer*
rising our judgment of our moral and religious ob
ligations. So far from recanting, we feel the most
thorough moral and religious conviction, that we
are rendering sonje service to our country in re
peating the picture drawn by Troup of our Gov
ernment. Look at it again, Georgians. Not ad
verting to any future acts of oppression threatened,
but on account oflawspreviously enacted,& at that
moment inoperation, Troup describes the Govern
ment of the Union as a curse, resembling the odi
ous despotisms of Turkey or Persia.* governments
in which th® tyrant may instantly deprive any of
his subjects, of property, of liberty, and of*life,
without a trial, and without the pretence of a crime:
as a many headed monster, regardless of the pray
ers and entreaties of our people: as a cormorant,
that fattens and fastens on our substance: as £
fierce and consuming fire, which hums only to des
troy. What is then to be the effect of thi3 des
cription of the fruits of tbe Union? Asfar as Troup
is believed by the NulHfiCrs, the effect must be, to
extinguish it! their bosoms the last spark of love
for the Union, which might yet linger there: to
kindle in those bosoms the flames of a most violent
hatred for a Union, whose government brings on
nought but disgrace^ afld degradation, act?