Newspaper Page Text
(Constitutramilißt & Btjrablit.
JAMES GARDNER, JR.7) "
AND / Editor*.
JAMES M. SMYTHE, )
Judge Berrien’s Address,
[From the Southern Hera/d, Supplement, Sept. 25.]
TO THE PEOPLE OF GEORGIA
In the exciting discussions of the present can
vass. I have hitherto taken no part. Severe and
protracted domestic affliction has almost entirely
denied to me the privilege of intercourse with
my constituents, from the moment of my return
to the State, in April last, up to the time in which
I write. Meanwhile, the press, and a host of
patriotic orators, ol every shade of political opin
ion, who have traversed the State in every di
rection, from its centre to its extremities, nave
been engaged in enlightening the public mind,
on the various topics which belong, or are sup
posed to belong, to the crisis in our national af
fairs which is alleged to exist. If no ether effect
has been produced by these efforts, they have at
least resulted in creating an unusual degree of
excitement, division, and bitterness of feeling,
among certain classes of our citizens.
I have not witnessed this state of things with
indifference or unconcern. On the contrary, I
have contemplated it with deep and painful in
terest. I feel that we are wasting, in domestic
strife, those energies which ought to be reserved
for the constitutional assertion of our constitu
tional rights, in that hour of trial, which union
among ourselves may avert, but which our intes
tine divisions are only calculated to accelerate.
Compelled to decline, for the reasons which I
have stated, the numerous calls which have been
made upon me to join in these discussions. I
have been obliged to content myself with the
declaration that my opinions on the various sub
jects connected with the slavery question, as
these have been delivered in the Senate of the
United States, and in public addresses, remain
unchanged. I have uniformly recommended ac
quiescence in the decision of the people of Geor
gia in Convention, and have urged the indispen
sable necessity of union among ourselveß, for our
protection against future aggression.
Standing thus, on the ground marked out by
the Convention in December last—having vin
dicated your rights in the Senate of the United
States, and been cheered by the repeated ex
pressions of your approbation—having through a
long course of public service, at all times mani
fested an unfaltering devotion to the Union, and
uniformly, and before the public sentiment of
Georgia had been declared in Convention, hav
ing often and publicly repelled the idea that dis
union was the proper remedy for the wrongs of
which we complained, I was content, so far as 1
was personally concerned, to await the result of
oiscussions in which I could not participate, in
the consciousness of having, to the best of my
ability, discharged my duty to you, and of hav
ing thus, however imperfectly, manifested the
gratitude which I felt for the long continued
confidence with which you had honored me.
This position 1 have not been permitted quiet
ly to hold. In the seclusion whicn circumstances
have forced upon me—with my anxiety con
stantly excited by domestic claims requiring all
my care and attention, 1 have been met by de
nunciations of infidelity to the State, of whose
interests I am declared to be an “ unsafe ” repre
sentative. Stating their understanding that I
am a candidate for re-election, the nominating
Convention of Richmond have not merely in
structed their Representatives to vote against
me, which it was their right to do, but by reso
lutions, formally adopted, and ostentatiously pub
lished, have announced to the people of Geor
gia, that serious doubts concerning my opinions
on the compromise measures, are entertained by
many intelligent and patriotic men—so serious
as to render my re-election impolitic and unsafe.
Now, the gentlemen composing this Conven
tion, are, for aught I know to the contrary, very
worthy and respectable persons. I desire to
think so. * I do think so, of such of them as are
known to me. These resolutions, I would fain
believe, were adopted without any very careful
consideration of their import and extent. I
would hope that these gentlemen were not
aware of the serious and utterly unfounded im
peachment of my personal integrity which they
were preferring—that, like many proceedings in
such conventions, the party purpose to be ac
complished was agreed upon, and no very careful
consideration given to the terms which were
employed to carry that- purpose into effect.
However this may be, one of two conclusions
is inevitable. If these resolutions were carefully
examined and adopted, without understanding
the serious charge which they preferred, the in
telligence of tiiose who so examined, and with
out such understanding, adopted them, is not
merely questionable. If with an understanding
of the false and unfounded charge which they
preferred against my integrity, they deliberately
ushered them to the world, they have violated
the plainest and most obvious principles of jus
tice, and have manifested an utter disregard of
the obligations which man owes to his fellow
man. It this is strong language, it is the lan
guage of a man whose integrity has been wan
tonly impeached—who is falsely accused of such
insincerity in the declaration of his political
opinions, and such consequent infidelity to the
State, as renders him an “ unsafe ” representa
tive of her interests—l do not mean to practice
upon the maxim, that those who give blows,
should make up their minds to receive them. It
is indeed difficult to repress the expression of the
feeling which such imputations are calculated to
excite in the breast of one, conscious—ah, let me
add, proudly conscious—of having labored through
the whole ol this unhappy controversy with a
sole view to the preservation of the peace and
harmony of the Union, and to the vindication of
the constitutional and cherished rights of a State
which is, at once, the home of his affections, and,
humanly speaking, the boundary of his hopes.
But while exercising the right of self-defence, I
will endeavor to restrain the expression of this
feeling within the limits prescribed by the re
spect which is justly due to those to whom I ad
dress myself.
The obvious course, on this occasion, is to in
quire—
-Ist. VVliat it is which these resolutions, either
directly or indirectly assert!
2d. How far, in either aspect, they are consis
tent with truth? There is, however, a prelimi
nary remark.
The Convention have proceeded in this matter,
on their understanding , that I am a candidate for
re-election to the Senate of the U. States. Now
I pray to enquire by what means this understan
ding was obtained? 1 have made no such an
nouncement to the public. 1 have not (if my
situation had permitted, I would not have) can
vassed the State, to solicit any man's vote. As
suredly, I have made no such announcement. I
have presented no such solicitation to the gen
tlemen composing this convention. I repeat
the question then—How was this understanding
obtained? I think I have in my possession the
means of answering it. I think I can trace the
source of this understanding to a gentleman, who
has for some time past been employing himself,
not merely in efforts to defeat my re-election, if
I was a candidate, but to prevent me from be
coming so—acting in direct opposition to the
known wishes, and asl believe, to the express in
junctions of the gentleman whose advancement
ha professed to be desirous of promoting. The
proof of this, and the correspondence resulting
from it, may, if it becomes necessary, be given
to the public. At present, it is sufficient to say,
that to a question whether I intended to be a
candidate, propounded to me by that gentleman,
in terms little consistent, as 1 thought, with or
dinary courtesy, and which I considered (to use
no stronger expression.) as a very improper at- ;
tempt to pry into my private views, by one who 1
was employing himself in efforts to drive me i
from the position which I held, I replied by the
enquiry, whether the question propounded to 1 1
me, was asked by the authority, or with the i
knowledge and consent of the gentleman for i
whose benefit it purported to be made. To a
question which I considered intrusive, from the
manner in which, and the person by whom it
was presented, I did not reply by saying that I
was not a candidate, and hence, as I believe, the
inference that I was. I think Ido not err in
attributing to this source, the understanding of
the convention, nor if I may be allowed to con
jecture, in supposing that irritated feeling exert
ed by that correspondence, found expression in
the resolutions which lam considering—l will
only add that when I do become a candidate, I
shall of course leel it to be my duty to make it
known, and especially, to gentlemen disposed to
deal so fairly with me, as the nominating Con
vention of Richmond, and the gentleman refer
red to?
I recur to the enquiry, what it is which these
resolutions either directly or indictly assert.
They assert directly,
That it is inexpedient to sustain any aspirant
to political office, concerning whose opinions on
the compromise measures, serious doubts are en
tertained—and,
That my course has excited such doubts in the
minds of many patriotic and intelligent men—
doubts so serious as to render my re-election at
this juncture, “impolitic and unsafe.”
1 make no remark on the first of these proposi
tions—but when it is applied to me, by the as
sertion that these serious doubts are entertained
concerning my opinions on these measures, so
serious, that the interests of the State cannot be
safely entrusted to my care, every man must feel
that the truth and sincerity of my public and
reiterated declarations of those opinions, are call
ed in question, by a most offensive impeach
ment of my integrity.
This is the inevitable inference from these re
solutions, taken in connection with the fact oi
the repeated declarations of my opinions,to which
1 have refered. Do the members of the Conven
tion themselves believe what they have thus in
directly asserted? I acquit them of such outra
geous injustice. I have looked over the list of
their names, and find that very few of them are
known to ine, but I hazard nothing in asserting
that there is not a solitary member of that Con
vention, to whom I am known, either personally
or by reputation, who in the retirement of his
closet, left to commune alone with God, and his
own conscience, would venture to avow to him
self his belief of the truth of the charge which he
lias thus contributed to prefer against my per
sonal integrity.
What then, was the motive of this extraordi
nary proceeding l —l do not say that the mem
bers of that Convention, have been influenced by,
and participated in the movement of which I
am about to speak; that they have, however, un
consciously lent themselves to it, is obvious.
Ever since the Senatorial election in 1847 there
has been a concerted movement to destroy my
public standing before the people of Georgia.
The individuals engaged in it were not numer
ous, but they were active, and some of them had
control ol the press. Failing to find in my
course in the Senate, any act which they could
use for the purpose of crimination, they resorted
to the extraordinary alternative of withholding
from my constituents, the knowledge of any
thing which 1 had done, which might be reward
ed by their approbation. From some of the pres
ses of the political party with which I was as
sociated, my name was studiously excluded—or
if its insertion became unavoidable in a report of
Congressional proceedings, the part which I had
taken, however prominent, was cither entirely
omitted, or imperfectly reported. Now I cannot
say that I am a busy member of the Senate, but
the record of its debates will show that I have
taken my full share in its proceedings, anil yet
there have been portionsof time, in which I have
been actively engaged in those debates, during
i which, the fact of my being a member of the
body, could not have been ascertained, by reler
i ence to those presses. This singular mode of
destroying a man in public station, by withdraw
ing him from the notice of his constituents, while
others were prominently put forward, has been
the subject of remark to me on several occasions.
The struggles of 1850, in Congress, and in the
State, at length occurred, and have seemed to
present an occasion for increased activity in this
movement. In the session of our Legislature in
1840, some measures of a very marked character
had been adopted in anticipation of the result of
those which were pending in Congress. When
that result became known in the State, there
were some—a very few, as I then believed, and
as the event has shown—whose excited and in
dignant feelings would have led them to ex
tremes. It is the part taken by me in these
transactions in Congress, and in the States, which
is now to be adverted to, to determine on the
justice of the charge preferred by these resolu
tions. 1 will state it briefly, appealing to the
Congressional records, and to the recollections of
those to whom I addressed myself, tor the cor
rectness of that statement.
At an early period of the session of Congress
in 1850, the resolutions of the Legislature ot Geor
gia were sent to the delegation. They claimed,
as their predecessors had always done, (whether
Whig or Democratic counsels predominated in
that body,) equality in the distribution of the ter
ritory acquired from Mexico. It became the du
ty of the delegation to endeavor to give effect to
tne wishes of their constituents, and I am not
aware of any diversity of opinion as to the right
fulness of the claim which they preferred. In
common with my colleagues, I resisted the ad
mission of California as a State. While the
several measures relating to the newly acquired
territory were embraced in the bill, I endeavored
to obtain such modifications of it as would en
i aided me to vote for it. It failed in the Senate as
a combined measure, by no act of mine, but by
i a disagreement between its friends relative to
, to the boundary of New Mexico, as the records
of that body will shew. When a separate bill
' for the admission of California was presented,
the delegation united in opposing it. They may
have differed as to the grounds on which they
rested their opposition, but all, I believe, con
curred in the act.
For the bills establishing territorial govern
ments in Njw Mexico and Utah, I rested upon
the belief that we were bound by the treaty
with Mexico to relieve the inhabitants of the
former from the military government to which
they were subjected, and to emancipate the lat
ter from Mormon rule.
I gave not only my vote, but my cordial sup
port, to the bill providing tor the settlement of
the conflicting claims of Texas and the United
States, for the following (among other) reasons,
which I will state, without discussing them :
1. I thought the peace and harmony of the
Union were endangered. There was a part of
the army of the United States in New-Mexico,
whose commander exercised civil authority with
in the limits of the territory claimed by Texas.
That State had provided for the extension of
her laws over the whole territory which
she claimed, and for a military power to
sustain her officers in the execution of them.—
In this state of things a collision seem
ed inevitable; and not believing that ours
was a Government of force, or which could
be sustained by it, or could survive the strife ot
arms between a State and the United States, I
was anxious these conflicting claims should be
peacefully adjusted.
2. Justice to the inhabitants of New-Mexico
required this, or some similar adjustment. By
the boundaries which had been established for
California and Utah, a very small portion of ter
ritory, lying west of the Rio Grande, remained
to New-Mexico. Santa Fe. her chief city, and
the principal centre of her population, lies east
of it, and thus, it the jurisdiction of Texas had
been extended to the Rio Grande, New-Mexico
would have been limited to a narrow strip of
land west of that river, the population of which, i
for a long and indefinite period, would not have i
authorized the creation of a State, to be in <
terms of the treaty with Mexico, “incorporated <
into the the Union of the United States.” i
3. I belived that Texas, one of the sovereign 1
States of the Union, invested with all the rights
and immunities of any other State, had in virtue
of her sovereignty, an unquestionable and an ex
clusive right to decide for herself, on the pro
posal to be submitted by the United States—
that the interests of that State, and of the
Union, required that it should be made and ac
cepted, and that the exercise by Texas of her
unbounded right, could not authorize the inter
ference of, or give any just cause of offence to
any other State. That is certainly not a per
fect right which con not be exercised indepen
dently and free from the control of any another
State, seeking to dispute it on the ground of its
supposed interference with her interests. We,
in Georgia, would have realized the truth of this
proposition, if any other State had attempted to
interfere between us. in the cession made by
Georgia to the United States of the territory
which now constitutes the States of Alabama
and Mississippi. It has, moreover, appeared to
me strange, that those who claim this right of
interference by other States, in the adjustment
between Texas ami the United States, do not
perceive how directly such claim conflicts with
their own denial of a like right of interference
in the case of a State withdrawing from the
Union, for causes which she may determine to
be just.
4. I considered that this adjustment was emi
nently conducive to the interests of the slave
holding States. Texas is a sparsely populated
State, of great territorial extent, containing with
in her limits large bodies of rich lands yet un
cultivated. New States, in which slavery shall
be allowed, may, by the resolution of annexation,
be carved out of that portion of her territory ly
ing South of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes
north latitude, and admitted into the Union. It
is important to us that these States should be
created as soon as practicable. Two, four or six
Senators, added to those now representing slave
holding States, would essentially change otr con
dition in that oody, and this can only be ac
complished by the speedy settlement of Texas.
That has hitherto advanced slowly, owing to the
great amount of her public debt. Men of pro
perty have been unwilling to remove to a State
where the alternative would be presented to
them, of a repudiation of the public debt, or
a heavy taxation to discharge it. The adjust
ment removes this obstruction, by enabling Tex
as to discharge her debts, and its effects are al
ready visible in the increased emigration to that
State. The admission into the Union of these
new States, whose institutions and interests
would be identified with our own, Beemed to me
to be a consideration of paramount importance
to the South—incalculably more important than
that of withdrawing from the jurisdiction of
Texas, and subjecting to the legislation of Con
gress, a slip of land lying east and west between
the Rio Grande, and the meridian of one hundred
and three degrees west from Greenwich, and
north and south, between thirty-two degrees
and thirty-six degrees, thirty minutes, north
latitude. For these and other reasons, I voted
for the adjustment with Texas.
In common with my colleagues, I opposed the
bill to abolish the slave trade in the .District of
Columbia, after an ineffectual attempt had been
made to substitute a pecuniary penalty for the
emancipation of the slave, and with them I vo
ted for the fugitive slave bill.
These are the several measures constituting
what is familiarly known as the compromise.—
My votes on each of them, and the reasons given
lor those votes, are on the records of the Senate,
have been published to the country, and are, I
i trust, expressed with sufficient clearness to ex
j elude any “ serious doubts” as to my opinions
concerning any of them.
j Thus far, then, 1 have I hope, shown that the
I accusations of the Richmond Convention, wheth
er direct or indirect, are equally groundless. On
my return to the State, I found an unusual degree
of excitement prevailing. The Governor, acting
upon his construction of the Legislative mandate,
had called a convention. There were three
different opinions on this subject. There were
those who thought and contended that the Con
vention ought to meet and instantly adjourn, in
order to mark, in a manner not to be mistaken
their disapprobation of the act of calling it. —
Others, indignant at the wrongs which they im
puted to the Compromise, and at the repeated
aggressions of which they complained, advocated
the adoption of strong measures of resistance.—
There wasa third class who opposed themselves
' to all violence, but who, nevertheless thought
that Georgia had cause of complaint—that the
assembling of the convention would afford a fit
occasion fora calm, deliberate consideration of
those causes—and who advocated a frank, manly
remonstrance to our sister Stales.
For myself I thought that the call of the con
vention by the constituted authorities of the
State, ought to be treated with respect, and that
we had causes of complaint which ought to be
considered by that body, but I did not think that
these should lead to disunion. On the contrary,
in all my public addresses and private conver
sations, as well before as after the meeting of the
convention, I repeated the opinion which 1 had
expressed in the Senate, and uniformly repelled
the idea that disunion was the proper remedy
for our grievances. I think no one will deny
this, or will venture to say that my opinions
were expressed in terms which would adiuit of
any, the slightest doubt.
The Convention met. Those who advocated
the propriety of its instant adjournment, if they
still retained their opinions, were disappointed.
Those who were in favor of extreme measures
of resistance, it there were such, were overruled.
Ihe Convention proceeded to deliberate calmly
and seriously on the several matters before them,
i and adopted a report and resolutions, which they
published with a journal of their proceedings.—
Repudiating secession as a remedy, they declar
ed that, although Georgia had found “‘matter for
objection” in, and did not “ wholly approve”
the compromise, she would nevertheless " abide
by it,” impelled by an earnest desire to perpet
uate the American Union, and to restore that
peace and harmony upon which its value to her
self, her confederates and mankind, essentially
depends.” The convention did more. They
complained of “the aggressive spirit of Repre
sentatives of the non-slaveholding States," which
they had long combatted; and to bring this spir
it to " their several constituencies,” addressed to
them “ the language of calm and frank remon
strance, rather than that of defiance and men
ace,” to recall them to the faithful discharge of
their duty, as faithful confederates, by an appeal
to their reason and their moral sense.”
I took an early occasion to bring the action of
the convention to the notice of the Senate of the
United States, declaring my desire, as one x>f the
Representatives of the people of Georgfe, to
give effect to their opinions, expressed in con
vention legitimately assembled, adding that it
“ represented the conservatism of the State, and
was composed of men as anxious for, and devo
ted to the preservation of the Union, as could
be found within her broad and extended limits;”
and my argument on that occasion was intended
and calculated, so far as I could do it, to give effect
to the action of the Convention. Is there any
indistinctness, any want of directness and clear
ness in this expression of my purpose—any loop
hole on which to hang a doubt—a serious doubt ?
and if not, do the nominating convention of
Richmond mean to question my sincerity to
impeach my integrity?
What possible motive could I have to express
what I did not feel l The convention thought
with me, that we had cause of complaint; that
disunion was not the proper remedy lor our
grievances—that a calm, manly, remonstrance :
should be addressed to our sister States, to recall ■
them to their duty. These were my sentiments,
expressed before the Convention met. Was it'
not natural that I should adhere to them, when i
they had been confirmed by that body ?
I have endeavored to meet this accusation in
every aspect which it can be presented. The
resolution of the nominating convention, is how
ever, obscurely expressed. They entertain
doubts concerning my opinions on the compro
mise measures. The doubts referred to, may re
late either to the measures themselves or to the de- <
cision of the Convention of Georgia , to abide by |
them.
If they refer to the first, the answer is plain
and obvious. I voted for all those measures, ex
cept the admission of California, and against that
I not only voted, but spoke, and assigned my
reasons at large. Is there any room to doubt
what my opinion is, on all, or any of those mea
sures? The nominating Convention may not
agree with me in opinion, but they cannot doubt
what my opinion is.
Does it apply to the last—to the decision of
the convention of Georgia to abide by the com
promise ? Is this the doubt which it is meant to
express ?—whether I am disposed to conform to
this decision? Why should I not? The opin
ions stated in their report, were my opinions,
and had been publicly expressed by me, before
they were adopted by them. They have been
steadily adhered to since. The declaration that
these are my opinions, and that this is. and has
been my determination is repeated now. If any
man professes to doubt the sincerity of these de
clarations, what Christian obligation forbids me
to say, that such a man professes to doubt what
he knows to be true, and to believe what he
knows to be false ?
I commit these resolutions to the judgment of
the people of Georgia—nay, I submit them to the
calm and frank re-consideration of those by
whom they were adopted, in the confident be
lief that they cannot fail to acknowledge, at
least to themselves, the injustice which they
have done-me.
A word more. lam not among those who
discern in the signs of the times, any immediate
danger to the Union; but the scenes through
which we have passed and are passing,admonish
us of the perishable nature of all merely human
institutions. Its security is to be sought in a
vigilance which shall never slumber. We must
be watchful of ourselves, as well as of otheis.
With the manly assertion of our rights, we must
unite the faithful fulfilment of our duties. Our
first great duty is to cherish a spirit of union
among ourselves. Dangers may spring up in
our midst. Our passions may mislead us, and
the selfishness of others, may subject us to perils
from without. An element of discord between
thejmembersofthis confederacy,unhappily exists.
The institution in which it originates is vital to
us, while to our confederates, it is only important
as an element of political power. It belongs to
an enlightened patriotism to allay the animosi
ties it is calculated to excite. To cherish a spirit
of Union among ourselves, is to adopt the most
efficient means of perpetuating our union with
our confederates. We may not expect an entire
exemption from future aggressions. If unhappi
ly they should come, prudence and patriotism
admonish us to resist them in a manly and tem
perate spirit. Submission will invite their re
newal. The free soil party is active, enterpris
ing and increasing in numbers. Without being
presently ranged under their standard, the ad
vocates of the Compromise in the free States,
unite with them in opinion, and share their
feeling of opposition to what they denominate
“the extension of slavery.” Content with their
recent triumph, they sing pmans to the Union,
and will, when this question shall again occur,
be identified with the free soilers, —while we,
having nothing more to yield, and no reasona
ble expectation of any thing to gain, must sub
mit to legislative exclusion from territories here
after acquired, without the form of compromise
to soothe the wounded feelings of freemen. This
, result can only be avoided by perfect union
among ourselves.
On the other hand, unrestrained violence, in
• resistance to aggression, will produce divisions
among us. You need only look at the contest
1 which is raging in this State, with a bitterness—
• which not content with the political ostracism
of its victim—would remorselessly trample on
' his reputation, and that too, between those who
; have been heretofore familiar friends, and whose
, interests are at this moment identical. To be
• convinced of this truth, if a few men of excita
' ble temperament, and excited feelings, had not
in the fury of their indignation, raised the cry of
disunion, startling the apprehensions of others
and arousing the spirit of devotion to our Con
■ stitutional Union—which is the master political
feeling of the Southern heart—we should
i throughout this distracting controversy, have
I stood Bide by side, ill a united, temperate, manly
' assertion of our rights. Thus then, while sub
-1 mission invites to the renewal of aggression
from without, intemperate violence, and threats
1 of disunion, produce divisions among ourselves,
having a similar tendency. These are the rocks
which endanger our ship of State—the Scylla
and Charybdis, which it is our duty to avoid.
This is probably not the moment when these
counsels will receive the deliberate and impar
tial consideration to which I think they are en
titled. They will not be acceptable to ultraism
In any quarter. Especially they will be de
nounced as savouring of disunion, because, al
though yielding an unqualified acquiescence in
the compromise,they do not pronounce its eulogy.
I deplore the feeling which prompted the sug
gestion, not from any merely personal considera
tion, for I retrain the power of placing myself be
yond the reach of proscription, and will cheer
fully do so, rather than unite in perpetuating it,
; or tail to fulfil my duty to you, which demands
a frank expression of opionion in a crisis like the
present.
But are these sentiments inconsistent with an
ardent devotion to the Uniou? Nay, do they not
spring from it? Does any one ask whether I
; am a Union man? Does he wish to learn wheth
er I have ceased to love and revere the memory
of him who gave me birth—whose youthlul
sword was (lashed in the achievement of those
liberties, which union was established to secure?
Does he mean to inquire whether I have forgot
ten the lessons of my childhood, as they fell
from his lips? Is it his purpose to ask wheth r
I intend to close a life hitherto devoted to the
public service, by infidelity to those sacred prin
ciples, which with whatever ability God has
given me, I have labored to maintain?—Bound,
irrevocably bound—wedded as lam to the pre
servation of the peace and harmony of the Union
by every social and sacred tie—by the obliga
tions which 1 owe to a patriotic and generous
people, who through evil and through good re
port, have still sustained me—by, an affection it
may be, too ardent for that noble State, which
from infancy to age has been the scene of my
most cherished enjoyments—beneath whose soil,
are the graves of my parents and my children,
where I too must shortly rest, and which is at
once the home and the hope of those who sur
vive. Does he mean to enquire whether, reck
less of these ties—faithless to these obligations—
insensible to these feelings—l would raze the
temple of freedom, erected by our fathers, and
bring upon this favored land, all the horrors of
civil, intestine, it may be servile war? Let the
unpretending story of a life which, from infancy
to age, has been passed among you, return the
answer—l have none else to give.
But from various quarters, the question is
propounded to me, will you act with the Con
stitutional Union party? and it shall be answer
ed frankly.
I adhere to the decision of the Convention.
With these representatives of the sovereignty
of Georgia, I have a lively recollection of “the
aggressive spirit of Representatives of the non
slave-holding States,” with which “‘we have long
combatted,” and feel with them, that the sources
of this turbid stream lie beyond the Halls of
Congress—that “they are to be found in the
midst of their several constituencies”—l agree
with them, that the meeting of the Convention
afforded a fit occasion “for the sovereign people
of Georgia, to commune with the sovereign peo
ple of those States,” to remonstrate calmly and
frankly with them, and “to recall them to a
sense of their duty as confederates.” And al
though I find in the compromise measures, as
they did, “matter for objection and matter for ap
proval,” though like them, I do not “wholly ap
prove” them, yet like them, I will “abide by it,”
and will unite with any party, or portion of my
fellow-citizens, whose conduct, as a party, shall
conform to a spirit thus manfested by this patri
otic body. Like them, “impelled by an earnest
desire to perpetuate the American Union,” I
am anxious to “restore that peace and harmony
on which its value” depends—and with them,
am willing to “let by-gones be by-gones,” in
the cherished hope that “brighter hours will
come." If these opinions and these feelings
make me a Constitutional Union man, here then
is the pledge of my fealty.
But if beyond this, I am required to say what
the Convention have not said—to affirm what
they have expressly contradicted—if, in the face
of the long continued manifestations of an aggres
sive spirit on the part of the no-slaveholcing
States, which the Convention denounced in the
language of calm, yet manly remonstrance, it is
exacted from me to say that Georgia has sus
tained no wrong—if while they declare, that
there is in the Compromise such “matter for ob
jection,” that they cannot “wholly approve it,”
I am required to say, not only that there is in it
no matter for objection, and that I wholly ap
prove it, but also that it is fair, just and equitable
—a source of triumph and gratulation to the peo
ple of Georgia—then I have to say, non hacc in
fcedera —I cannot enter into these bonds. I will
not make war upon the Convention. This is
neither their language nor spirit. It is in direct
conflict with all they have said or done. I can
not “swallow my own words”—l cannot unsay,
to propitiate the favor of a party, what under the
obligations of my oath, I have said in maintain
ing the rights of the State. I cannot stultify my
self, lest I should invade the province of that re
verend gentleman, and gallant soldier, and ac
complished statesman, who does me the favor to
sit in judgment on my “capacity.” I cannot en
title myself to the forgiveness, which in such a
truly gentle and patronizing spirit, is vouchsafed
to my “aberrations.” I cannot hope to remove
the serious doubts of the many patriotic and in
telligent men, who have unburdened themselves
to the nominating Convention of Richmond.
No, fellow-citizens, when I accepted, with pro
found gratitude to those who bestowed it, a seat
in the Senate of the U. S. I made no surrender of
my privileges as a free citizen of Georgia. I re
tained my rights as a man, and could not divest
myself ol my obligations as an accountable being.
Dragged before the public to repel an unfounded
imputation on my personal integrity, at a mo
ment like this, it is both my right and my duty
to speak the truth, “ without fear, favor, affec
tion, or the hope of reward,” unawed by the
menace of party proscription, and unseduced by
the hope of conciliating opposition. To the de
cision of the people of Georgia, as it has been an
nounced by their representatives in Convention
assembled, I yield a cheerful obedience, and will
cordially unite with any party who will adhere
to it, with fidelity, by whatsoever name that par
ty may be distinguished. By that decision, the
people of Georgia, impelled by an earnest desire
to perpetuate the Union, and to restore the peace
and harmony, so indispensable to the accomplish
ment of that object, agreed to throw a veil over
past aggression", the existence of which they did
not deny, but asserted—to aryuiesce in the com
promise, not wholly to approve it —not to eulogize
it—not to proclaim it as a triumph to the South
—above all, the Convention did nothing to au
thorize the formation, under its auspices, ofapro
srriptivtparty. They opened wide the portals of
the temple of freedom, and called to their frater
nal embrace, all who would cordially and faith
fully unite with them, in maintaining the prin
ciples which they proclaimed as essential to the
preservation of the Union.—l am unwilling
to believe that the great majority of those
who are ranged under the standard of the
Constitutional Union Party, are not actuated
by the same just and liberal spirit—l will
not (>ermit myself to think that the pros
criptive spirit so very strikingly exhibited by
the Richmond fraction of that great party, is
characteristic ol their associates. Consider fora
moment what it is they have done, apart from
the calumny of which they intended that I
should be the victim. The most distinguished
citizen of their county—one who has served
them with eminent ability, and a fidelity which
no man will call in question—who has a strong
er hold on the affections of their people, and of
those ofthe State at large, certainly than any
other man in Richmond, probably than any oth
er man in the State—who would justly occupy
an elevated position in any assembly of the
State, or of the Union—a man, the purity of
whose private life is beautifully illustrated in his
public conduct—alike (in the better sense of
that celebrated phrase) “ without fear and with
out reproach”—without fear, but to do wrong,
and without the reproach of doing it—this man
too has been politically ostracised, so far as it
was in the power of the nominating Convention
of Richmond to banish him from public service.
His crime was a refusal to vote in opposition
to his conviction of right in the election of a
Senator to Congress—to affiix by his vote the
stigma of disunion upon a man, whose devotion
to the Union, he had known from his childhood.
This election may, or may not occur at the next
session of the Legislature. If the latest pre
cedent in the election of the same individual be
followed,it will not. There are moreover many
other subjects for legislative action, in which
Richmond has a common interest with other
parts of the State, excluding from our considera
tion her own peculiar interests, in which this
rejected individual would be their most efficient
representative. It is no disparagement to the
actual nominees, to assert (they would them
selves admit) his higher qualifications—and yet
because they choose to prefer a charge, which” he
knows to be groundless, and which 1 have shew
ed to be without even a plausible foundation,
against an individual who they understand is to
be a candidate, without any authority for that
understanding, this one consideration is made to
over-ride all others, and the sentence of political
ostracism is pronounced—without doubt, an ap
peal to the people of Richmond, would reverse
that sentence, but they know that this appeal
will not be made. It is pretended that their
purpose w-as to advance this individual to a seat
in the Senate of the United States in my stead?
They know or might have known, that even
with my acquiesence, he would not accept it.
His crime then is a refusal to believe, or to act
as if he did believe, what he knows to be un
true. Is this patriotism, or proscription—fidelity
to the public, or personal hostility ?
I have done. My purpose in this address has
been not to enter into the present contest—not
to engage in the discussion of the distracting
questions, which have in my judgment been very
unnecessarily brought into it—but to defend my
personal character. The official station with
which you have honored me, is a highly grati
fying manifestation of the confidence of a free,
intelligent, and patriotic people, and I value it
accordingly—but incalculably more valuable to
me, than any office which the State, or the
Union can bestow, is that conscious integrity,
which under every vicissitude of fortune, has’
been the solace of my life. If a faithful and
zealous vindication of your rights is deemed in
consistent with your interests, I can retire from
official station, without other regret than that
which arises from the lesson which it will im
part to the future representative of Georgia in
the councils of the Union. But the consciousness
of having done my whole duty to you, and to the
country- at large, throughout this distracting con
troversy is mine, irrevocably mine. Os that, no
man may deprive me. I will defend it with my
latest breath, as the richest legacy which I can '
bestow upon my children, and with an un
wavering determination, (God prospering my
efforts to preserve it for them. A noble hearted
son of Erin, recurring to the memory of his
giandsire, and prospectively to the fortunes of
his child, thus gave vent to his feelings: i
“He dying bequeath'd to his son a good name, i
■Which unsillied, descended to me—
For my child, I've preserv'd it, unblemish'd by .
shame, 1
And it still from a spot shall bo free,” <
That feeling is mine. Associated with it, is the
sentiment of ardent gratitude, with which I sub- ,
scribe myself, \
Respectfully and gratefully.your fellow-citizen, J
JNO. MACPHERSON BERRIEN.
Rockingham, Habersham Ct’y. Sept. 18,1851. ]
augusta^gaT^
SATURDAY MORNING, SEPT. 27
THE LARGEST CIRCULATION IN THE STATE
For Governor.
CHARLES J. MCDONALD.
District F or Congress.
1.-JOS. W. JACKSON, of Chatham
2 HENRY L. BENNING, of Muscogee
3—DAVID J. BAILEY, of Butts.
4.—JOHN D. STELL, of Fayette.
5 WILLIAM H. STILES, of Cass.
6 THOMAS F. JONES, of Newton.
7 DAVID W. LEWIS, of Hancock.
B.—ROBERT McMILLAN, of Elbert.
Representatives for Richmond Conntr.
WILLIAM R. FLEMING,
WM. SCHLEY.
SEE FIRST PAGE. ~ ~
Judge Berrien.
To the exclusion of other matter prepared for
this day’s paper, we give entire the address of
Judge Berrien to the people of Georgia. It de
serves a careful perusal, and we hope our sub
scribers. after reading it themselves, will hand
the paper to their neighbor, as it is very doubt
ful if it will make its appearance in any Consti
tutional Union-loving paper in the State.
Wives op the Scarlet Degree.— The Bal
timore Sun of the 20th inst. says: At the last
meeting of the I. O. O. F., Grand Lodge of the
U. States, prior to that which has just adjourned
in this city, a select committee was appointed
of which Mr. Colfax, of Indiana, was president
to prepare an appropriate honorary degree to be’
conferred on wives of scarlet degree members of
the Order in good standing. Such a degree was
reported by Mr. Colfax, last week, and it is un
derstood to have caused considerable debate.
The representatives of the Grand Lodge and
Grand Encampment of Nothern New York were
unanimously for it. Those from Southern New
York were against it. A majority of those from
the Northwest were for it. It was however, on
Saturday, finally adopted by a vote of 47 to 37.
We understand that those receiving it will be
known as “The Daughters of Rebecca.” The
bdage proposed will be green and scarlet.
The State Fair at Rochester.— The State
Fair, which closed at Rochester on Friday last,
was probably the largest assemblage of people
ever held in Western New-York. The receipts
are said to have exceeded those of any previous
fair by about three thousand doilais. The pre
miums amounted to only five thousand dollars,
and the receipts were $14,000. It is reported
that there has been some disagreement between
the Rochester Committee and the Executive
Committee. The Rochester Committee, in con
sideration of holding the fair there, engaged to
pay five thousand dollars towards the expenses
of fitting up the ground, but an expense of two
thousand dollars has been incurred for invited
guests, &c. This it is contended the Rochester
Committee did not agree to pay, but the Execu
tive or State Committee insist they shall pay it.
11 is added, the Rochester Committee have all
the funds received in their possession, and will
probably pay all the bills before they part with
them.
The harvest is rapidly progressing (says the
Winyah Observer of Wednesday last,) and never
have the planters had a better scuun for their
work. It is as dry as a bone and the cool weath
er which we have been experiencing for the last
fortnight, has indeed been most grateful to the
laboring negroes. In conversing with several of
the managers of the largest plantations in the
neighborhood, we understand that they will fin
ish their work about the Bth or 10th of October
next.
Pennsylvania Finances.— We learn from a
proclamation of Governor Johnston, announcing
the precise amdunt of State debt paid, that in
the two years and a half in which the sinking
fund has been in operation, the sum of $095,122
98 has been paid. A floating debt of canal, rail
road and motive power debts, contracted prior to
the close of 1848, amounting to upwards of $374,-
000, has been also liquidated. The entire in
debtedness of the State on the Ist December,
1848, was $40,848,098 41; on the Ist instant it
w-as $40,116,302 44, including a special loan of
$400,000.
Destructive Gale at Newfoundland.—A
gale, more destructive in its effects, took place
on the coast of Newfoundland, on the 27th ult.,
than has oc.urred for the last fifty years, involv
ing great loss of life and property. In Bay For
tune, and on the Southern shore, the gale was
most fearful. Forty-four sail were driven ashore,
chiefly fishermen. Four boats, from St. Peters,
were missing, and it is feared that they were
lost, with all hands.
As an evidence of the progress of civilization
in the Sandwich Islands, the San Francisco pa
pears state that the Theatre Royal, at Honolulu,
has been opened, and that the performance had
been well patronized.
Florida Cotton Crop. —Extract from a let- ,
ter received in Savannah, from an intelligent
and well informed gentleman, who writes from
Tallahassee, under date of September 19th.
“ The crop of Cotton is not turning out very
well. There will be a diminution from last
years receipts of 331 per ct.”
A notice from the Presidents of various In
surance Companies is published in the Phila
delphia papers. They decline insuring vessels
that carry lime either on or under deck. The
frequent losses by fire caused by lime on board
of vessels, render this step absolutely imperative.
New Books.
have received from Messrs. T. Rich
ards & Son, the following valuable publications,
which should grace the library of every gentle
man.
The Literature and the Literary Men of Great
Britian and Ireland, by Abraham Mills, A. M.
author of Letters on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres )
&c., 2 vols., octavo.
The History ofthe Restoration of Monarchy
in France, by Alphonse De Lemartine—l vol. ac
companied with a portrait of the author.
Drayton, A Story of American Life. AlWi
part 12, London Labor and the London Poor, by
Mayhew.
The above works are from the press of Messrs.
Harper & Brothers.