Newspaper Page Text
Consttaturaalfist K Hrpublir.
JAMES
and > Editors.
JAMES M. SMYTHE, ) j
TERMS.
llailt, per Annum, in advance. $8 00
IV.-Weuki.T, per Annum . S 00
W liur. per Annum, if raid in advance 2 00
Theae term* Are offered to new mibwrlbers, And to old
f übscriber* who pay up All arrearages.
lu no cam will the Weekly paper be aent At $2, un
less the money aerompaniet tke order.
In n- cam will it be sent At $2 to an old subscriber in
orr»»r».
gy* When the year paid for at $2 expiree, the pap* r i
it not discontinued. or p»td for in adTance, will be »ent
on the cld term*. $2 SO if paid at the office within the
year, or $3 if paid at the expiration of the year.
Postage mnat be paw on all communications and
letter* e f business.
TERMS OF ADVERTISING
Ono square (12 linos.) 50 cents the first insertion, and
:rfg aents for tlie next 6 insertions, and *« cents tor
each subsequent i nsertion.
Conti act* made by the year, or for a lest period, on
reasonable terms.
LEGAL ADVERTISEMENTS
Sheriff'* Levies, 30 days. $2 50 per levy ; 60 days. *6.
listen tor's. Administrator's ana Guardian's Sales, Real
Estate, (per square, 12 lines) . .$4 75
I)n. do. . Personal E5tate......... 3 26
Citation tor Letter* of Administration 2 75
Do. do. Dismiasion 4 DO
Notice to Debtors and Creditors 3 25
Four Months' Notices 4 00
Rules Nisi, (monthly) tl per square, each insertion.
y ALL REMITTANCES PER MAIL, axa At Of*
BISK.
Mr. Oobb'a Reply to tho Macon Committee.
ATHENS, Aug. 12th, 1851.
Gentlemen j—1 did not receive your letter
until my return from the lower part of the State,
about the first of the present month, and have
not, therefore, replied to it at an earlier day.
As I have received communications from other
prts of the State, on the same, and kindred sub
jects, I have determined in this reply, to consider
the questions involved at some length, as I de
sire that it may be considered as responsive to
the various communications to which I have re
ferred.
Your letter propounds the two following inter
rogatories :
Ist. 11 Do'you believe that a State, by virtue of
her sovereignty, has the right peaceably to se
cede from the Union, or is it your opinion, that
the general government has the constitutional
authority to coerce her t« remain in the Union 1
Ami should a call be made upon the militia to
aid in attempting to coerce a seceding State,
would you, if in the Executive office, obey such
requisition ?
2nd. “Do yon believe that the late acts of
Congress, termed the “ Compromise” were con
stitutional, just and equitable ?”
I shall consider these questions in the inirerse
order in which you have proposed I hem.
In order that 1 may be distinctly understood,
in reference to the late acts of Congress, termed
the “ Compromise,” I consider it proper to make
a brief reterence to each of the six hills, which
composed that compromise; and shall, in that
way, be enabled to give the most satisfactory an
swer to your second interrogatory.
The bills establishing territorial governments
for Utah and New Mexico, rest upon a great con
stitutional principle, which has always received
the warm and cordial support of Southern men,
and by none advocated with more zeal, than
those now politically associated with yourselves.
That principle is, “the right of the people to de
termine for themselves, whether or not slavery
shall constitute a part of their social system.”—
In these bills on the slavery question, is found
this provision—“ And said territories shall be re
ceived into the Union with, or without slavery,
as their Constitution may prescribe, at the time
of their admission.” If this important principle,
so long contended for by the South, and so long
resisted by the North, lie now repudiated by the
South, then these bills are obnoxious to the ob
jections urged aguinst them ’ y the disunionists;
but if the South bo content to abide the opera
tion of her own cherished doctrines on this sub
ject, then these bills are in strict conformity with
the requirements of the South, aud should be en
tirely satishictory to us. It is too late to talk a
bout the repeal of the Mexican laws, after the
almost unanimous support by the Representa
tives of the South of the Clayton Compromise
Bill, which no more repeals those laws, than the
bills we are now considering; nor were our Rep
resentatives in their advocacy of the Clayton
Compromise Bill more united, thau were their
constituents in their approval of the votes of
those Representatives. The eight Southern Rep- i
reaeutatives who voted against that bill, on the I
f round, that they required tho repeal of the i
lexical! laws, were denounced as traitors to the (
South, tor making the demand, by those who are r
now most noisy in their complaints against a
Southern Representatives, for not requiring the ii
repeal of the Mexican laws. I voted (or the q
Clayton Compromise Bill, and I was universally c
sustained in Georgia in that vote Why is it, c
that I nin now condemned for my support of c
those bills by the.men who then approved of my ii
course. • - c
The Clayton Compromise Bill contained no t
express guarantee for the admission of slave States, j
if the people desired it—whilst these bills pledge «
the faith of the government to admit these terri- 1
tories as States, with, or without slavery, as the
people may determine when they conic to or- <
gamze their State Constitution. These bills re- '
ceived the support of a majority of the Repre
sentatives sf the South. Your own Represen
tatives from Georgia, were unanimous upon the
subject. The only violent and decided opposi
tion made to them, proceeded from the abolition
ists and free soilers, who saw in the provisions
to which I have referred, the repudiation ol their
favorite doctrine of congressional interdiction ot
slavery in the territories, and the recognition ol
our own favorite doctrine, of leaving to tlie peo
ple the decision of the question—-whether or not
they would have slavery among them.
The bill to settle the disputed boundary be
tween tlie United States and Texas, rests upon
equally sound and constitutional principles; its
provisions simply contain a proposition lrom the
General Government to the State of lexas, to
settle the boundary between the territory of the
United States and the State of Texas, by adopt
ing a certain line as that boundary ; anti in con
sideration that Texas will yield the claim which
she had made to the seceded territory, the Uni
ted States agrees to pay her the sum of ten mil
lions of dollars. There was no threat—no eoer
f the pai tof Congress to compel acqui
in tneir proposition. It was a matter for
n and patriotic judgment of tHe people of
:o determine —and the terms were agreed
er, with unparalleled unanimity. It is
_ untrue, and unjust to the brave and patri
otic people of Texas, to impute their action on
tills subject, to the fear of Federal power, or the
equally offensive consideration of bribery end
corruption. As 1 would not tolerate such an im
putation upon the Citizens of our own State, un
der similar circumstances, I would not indulge in
the ungenerous and unfounded reflection upon
the honesty and integrity of our young and pros-
This disputed boundary was thus settled be
tween the United State and Texas, in the only
mode, in my judgment, iii which such an issue
could be determined between the General Gov
ernment and a sovereign Stale of the Union. I
am aware that the charge is sometimes made,
that this bill seized on the slave territory of Tex
as, and appropriated it to free soil. Nothing
could be farther from the truth. The only di
rect effect resulting from this measure upon the
•lavery question, was to remove the prohibition
upon slaven’ in that portion of the ceded territo
ry, being above 36 30, which was put upon it in
the articles of annexation, when Texas was ad
mitted into the Union. This bill remove* that
prohibition, and submit* to the decsion of the
people of the territory when they come to or
ganize their State government-the question
whether or not alavery shall constitute a part of
their social system. This bill, like the others
which I have considered, received the warm and
cordial support of a majority of Southern Repre
sentatives, and encountered it* bitterest opposi
tion from the free soil Representatives of the
North.
The only remaining bill affecting our territo
rial acquisition, waa tne one for the admission of
California as a State into the Union. This mea
sure was objectionable to Southern men, though
it finally received the support of nearly one
third of the Representatives of the South. In
common with a majority of the South, 1 enter
tained objection* to this bill; I preferred that a
territorial government should have been pro
vided for California, as was done for Utah and
New Mexico. It would have been the more
regular and appropriate mode of disposing of that
portion of the territory; but the failure to do so,
I do not regard as a violation of the Constitution,
or the rights of the South. In the admission of
California, Congress exercised a power expressly
conferred upon It, by the Constitution, li to ad
%iit new States into the Union and though our
judgments do not wholly approve of the exercise
of that discretionary power in this instance, it
constitutes no such cause of complaint against
the government, as would justify the resistance
which has been directed by the enemies of the
Compromise and the advocates of disunion.
The principle upon which California was ad
-1 mitted into the Union, with her Constitution
\ prohibiting slavery, has ever received the sanc
tion of Southern statesmen. That principle de
nies to Congress the right to look into the Con
stitution of a State raking for admission into the
i Union, farther than to see that it is republican
in its form of government. Whether slavery
shall exist there is a question, not for the consid
eration of Congress, but to be determined by the
• people when they frame their State Constitution.
, This doctrine was clearly expressed in the fol
i lowing resolution, introduced by Mr. Calhoun in
to the Senate of the United State, in 1847. It
• was the annunciation of a sound constitutional
principle, and I am prepared to maintain its cor
• rectness:
“Resolved, That as a fundamental principle in
i our principal creed, a people, in forming a consti
tution. have the unconditional right to form and
adopt the government which they may think best
calculated to secure liberty, prosperity and hap
piness: and that in conformity thereto, no other
' condition is imposed by the federal constitution
on a State, in order to her admission into this
; Union, except that its constitution be republican,
I and that the imposition of any other by Congress
I would not only be in violation of the constitu
> tioii, but in direct conflict with the principle on
, which our political system rests.”
i The bill for the suppression of the slave trade
in the district of Columbia, was objected to by
f Southern men, principally on the ground of the
■ penalty which it provides. That feature, is taken
from the laws of Maryland, and it will be re
, merabered, that all that now remains of the dis
trict, was originally a part of the State of Mary
land. In 1816, the State of Georgia prohibited
the introduction of slaves within tliis State for
sale, under a penalty of a fine of five hundred dol
lars, and imprisonment in the penitentiary for
four years, for each slave brought into the State
. for sale. This law was repealed in 1842, and
re-enacted in 1813, and again repealed at the
i session of 1849. Tne penalty for the violation
. of the District law is the liberation of tlie slave;
I which is, as 1 have said, the same penalty pro
vided by the Maryland law for a violation of
' their Act upon the same subject. There was. as
far as I could learn, but one voice among the
jieoplc of the district on this subject. They all
desired it.
eral ri _• A • _ Ol T1!11 J 4l. mxltr eonio in. I
The Fugitive Slave Bill, is the only remain
ing measure of the compromise to bt* considered, i
—1 wish it was practicable, without extending
, this communication to too great a length, to in
corporate into it, the leading provisions of the
, hill.—lt must suffice, however, to state, that it
was prepared by one of the most extreme advo
cates of Southern Rights in Congress, ft con
tains every provision that was demanded by the
South, and I have yet to meet with the first man
who claims more at the hands of Congress on
this subject, than this bill grants. Congress in
the adoption of this hill, has, in my judgment, ex
hibited a willingness and determination, fully to
discharge the obligation which the constitution
imposes for the delivery of our fugitive slaves.
I have now rapidly referred to each of the com
promise measures, and you will see, that whilst
in the language of the Georgia Convention, I do
not wholly approve of all these measures, yeti
see in them no violation of our constitutional
rights—nor is there, in my opinion, any thing
which forbids, on the part of our people, an hon
orable arquietcence in these measures. Such was
the decision oi the people of the State, last fall,
as recorded by their delegates in the convention
of last November. If I did not regard the settle
ment as fair an honorable, I would not be fount
among the advocates of the Georgia Platform. It
is not simply because Ueorgiana-'idecided the
question, that I maintain her decision hut be
cause she ha. made a wise, just and patno ic de
cision ’ If I thought that Georgia had madeade
cision which subjected her c.t.zens to terms of
inequality and degrade ion, I would, as a loyal
citizen, submit to he. will, until l could induce
her if in my power, to abandon so humiliating a
position; and such, I presume, is the position of
every honoiable man within her limits; ft is
therefore, right and proper,That the people should
know not only who will submit to the decision
of tae State, but also, who approves and will sus
tain that decision.
Your first interrogatory, directs my attention
to the question of secession, and you have put the
issue upon the right of a State to secede from the
Union without just cause. As this right is claim
ed by many as a constitutional right, and by all
of those who advocate it in its modern accepta
tion, as consistent with constitutional obliga
tions, I shall consider it at some length in refer
ence to its constitutional bearings.
When asked to concede the right of a State to
secede at pleasure from the Union, with or with
out just cause. \ve are called upon to admit that
the framers of the constitution did that which
was never done by any other people, possessed
of their good sense and intelligence—that is to
provide in the very organization of the government
for itt oi on dissolutUm. It seems to me, that such
a course would not only have been an anomalous
proceeding—but wholly inconsistent with the
wisdom and sound judgment which marked the
deliberations of those wise and good men, who
framed our Federal Government. Whilst I free
ly admit that such an opinion is entertained by
many, for whose judgment 1 entertain the high
est respect; 1 have no hesitation in declaring that
the convictions of my own judgment are well
settled, that no such principle was contemplated
in the adoption of our constitution. If it was the
purpose of the framers of the constitution to sub
ject the perpetuity of the Union to the will, and
indeed, I may add, the caprice of each State, it
is a most remarkable fact, that a principle of such
vast importance, involving the very existence of
the republic, should have been left an open ques
tion, to be decided by inferences and metaphysi
cal deductions of the most complicated character.
When one rises from a careful study of the con
stitution of the U. States, he feels impressed with
its wonderful adaptation to the wants and inter
ests of the growing people. Not., only does he
find wise and judicious provisions and guarantees
for the state of the country as it then existed, hut
with prophetic wisdom its framers seem to have
penetrated the future, accommodating the gov
ernment to the necessities and requirements of
its present increased population and extended
resources. lam not prepared to admit that the
men who exhibited so much care and foresight
in reference to all the various parts of this com
plicated machine —would have left to vague con
jecture the existence of the important and vital
power now claimed for each State, or dissolving
at pleasure, the Union which had costs them and
their compatriots so much toil, and labor, and
anxiety. If they had intended to provide for
the destruction of that noble structure, which
they were then erecting with all the care and
wisdom of able Statesmen and devoted patriots,
by such simple and obvious means, as the with
drawal of any State from the confederacy—they
would have manifested their intention by some
plain and palpable provision of the constitution.
Such a course would have been characteristic of
the honest practical and enlightened statesmen of
the convention. Their failure to do so carries
the strongest conviction to my mind, that no such
principle was recognized by them. In connec
tion with this view of the subject, the inquiry
forces itself upon our minds, if easli State reserv
ed the right to withdraw at pleasure from the
Union, why was there so much difficulty encoun
tered by the friends of the constitution in obtain
ing its ratification by the different States i There
were few, if any, who were opposed to the for
mation of the union, after the constitution had
been submitted to the States for ratification, pro
vided they could engraft certain amendments
upon it. The policy of adopting the constitution,
on comlition that these amendments should be
acceded to, was urged with great earnestness in
the convention, and among the people of sev
eral of the States, but was finally abandoned on
the ground that it would be a conditional ratifi
cation, and therefore inadmissible. On this point
I must refer to the opinion expressed by Mr.
Madison, who has been called “Me father of the
i const UvtumP and to whose exposition of that sa
cred instrument the republican party have been
• accustomed to look with such implicit confidence.
Mr. Madison says:
“My opinion is. that a reservation of a right to
withdraw, if amendments be not decided on under
the form of the constitution within a certain trine.
i it a conditional ratification; that it does not make
t New York a member of the new Union; and con
sequently, that she would not be received on that
■ plan. Compacts must be reciprocal; this prin
! ciple would not in such a case be preserved. The
constitution requires an adoption in totoand korev
• F.R."
• If the right was reserved to each State to
t withdraw, it would have been an act of superero
-1 gation on the part of New York or any other
• State, to declare, in advance, that she would
withdraw or secede, if the amendments she pro
i posed to the constitution were not adopted. If
• the right existed, it could be exercised as well
I without as with the condition annexed to the
t ratification of the constitution, and the assertion
■ of it would have been a useless interpolation and
r a nullity. It was not so regarded, however at
the time, by those who hud been active pertici
i pants in the framing of the constitution. Mr.
, Madison considered the reservation of a right to
i withdraw; from the Union as “a condition that
• would vitiate the ratification."’ He says farther
i in writing to Mr. Hamilton on this subject:—
“• The idea of reserving the right to withdraw was
; started at Richmond, and considered as a condi
tional ratification, which was itself abandoned as
■ worse than a rejection.”
i If the opinion of Mr. Madison, which I have
• here referred to, be well founded, its puts an end
to this controversy. There can be no doubt
. about the fact, that he did not recognize the right
of each State to secede from the Union at her
• own pleasure. In addition to the facts which I
have just considered, there is a strong illustration
■ of the opinion that prevailed among the framers
of the constitution on this subject in the States of
North Carolina and Rhode Island. These States
refused to come into the Union lor some time
after the ratification of the constitution. They
were not opposed to the formation of the Fede
ral Union, but like some of the other States, they
were unwilling to adopt the constitution as it
then stood. Jfit had been a recognized and un
doubted principle that each. State was bound to
remain in the Union only so long as it suited its
own convenience, no one doubts that these
States, instead of withholding their assent to the
I constitution after it had been adopted by the re-
I quisite number, would have at once come into
the Union, with the intention of immediately
withdrawing from it upon the refusal of the
other Stales to adopt such amendments as they
desired, but regarding the effect of their ratifica
tion ofthc constitution in, an entirely different
light, from the secessionists of the present day,
they adopted quite a different policy. So far as
we can gather light and information lieu: the
opinions and actions of the men who framed and
adopted the constitution, it all goes to strengthen
and confirm the conviction I have already ex
pressed against the existence of any such right.
The political history of the country from the;
time of the declaration of independence to the
adoption of the constitution, is confirmatory of
the correctness of the opinion I have expressed.
In the original articles of confederation, it is
more than once declared that the object was to
form a perpetual Union. Those articles of confed
eration were found too weak, and inefficient, to
carry out the great purposes of the people, in the
establishment of a general government., and ,
hence it was, that in its own language, was thej
present constitution adopted for the purpose of
forming “ a moke perfect Union.” It would j
be a reflection, both upon the integrity and the
wisdom of the framers of the constitution to say, !
that they abandoned “ a perpetual Union' , to found |
a more perfect one, and in doing so, adopted n tem
porary, conditional Union. Such, nowever, is the
construction placed by the secessionists upon the
action of those great and good men, to whose en
ergy, wisdom, and patriotism, wc are indebted '
for our present noble and glorious Union.
The policy of our government during its whole
existence, looks to the continuance and perpe- |
tuity of the Union. Its temporary and condi
tional existence is no where impressed cither j
upon its domestic or foreign policy. It has for
more than half a century pursued the even tenor
ofits way, growing in strength and increasing
in usefulness, taking deeper and deeper hold up
on the hearts and affections of the people; illus
trating the great American principle of free gov
ernment, and reflecting upon its inspired found
ers the highest and brightest honors. Whilst I
do not propose to illustrate these views by a de
tailed review of the action of the government, 1
cannot forbear to refer to one portion of our his
tory, which is strongly corroborative of the cor
rectness of the position I have assumed. When
the people of the United States determined upon
the purchase of the Louisiana territory, and ef
fected that desirable object at the cost of a con
sdierable amount of money, and by the exercise
of a questionable constitutional power, it will
riot be said, that they did so for the benefit of
those who then inhabited the country, nor In
deed for those who might subsequently remove
there. They were prompted to the acquisition
ol that vast and valuable territory by considera
tions of public jrolicy, affecting their interests
and welfare as citizens of the various States of
the Union- The commercial and military ad
vantages to the United States, from the posses
sion of that country were so great and impor
tant, that its acquisition was considered almost
an act of self-protection. Will it now be said
that the people «f Louisiana possess the right to
deprive the remaining States of the Union of all
the advantages which they have bought and
paid for, out of their own treasury, by withdraw
ing or seceding from the Union at will ?
Louisiana is as free, sovereign and indepen
dent as any other State in the Union, and if
this right exists in any State, it exists in all,
without reference to the mode by which the
State is formed. I apprehend that the people of
the United States did not for a moment enter
tain the idea that in admitting Louisiana into the
Union, they had thus perilled all the advantages
of that important acquisition, by placing it in
the power of a single State to deprive the Union
of commercial and military advantages and re
sources. of inestimable value, purchased by the
joint treasures of all the States, and now held by
them as beyond the reach of any price or con
sideration that could be offered in exchange for
them. These remarks apply with equal force
to all the territorial acquisitions made by the
United States, where States have been or may
hereafter be formed and admitted into the Union,
and the same principle might be forcibly illustra
ted by reference to the action of the government
on subjects of a kindred character, but it cannot
the necessary, and I will not extend this view to
any greater length.
J7b be concluded To-morrow ]
' " »■■■ ip
AIGLSTA, GA.
TUESDAY MORNING, AUGUST 19. J
For Governor.
CHARLES J. MpDONALD.
1 For Congre Jt—'E ighth District,
ROBERT McMILLAN, of Elbert.
i THE LARGEST CIRCULATION IH THE STATE.
• ■.■■■■ ■ • ■ 'V -*■: -
The Alberti Case.
> At the request of friends, we have published,
j in handbill form, a large edition of this celebrated
trial in Philadelphia, and are now prepared to fill
i all orders. Price $1 per H)0 copies, $4 for 500,
, and $7 per 1000. This is a document which
5 should be widely circulated in the South; as no
1 Union paper in Georgia has, as yet, published it.
Mr. Cobb’s Letter in reply to the Macon Committee
t —His Speech on Saturday Evening—Mr. Toombs’
Speech on the same occasion.
f We promised on Saturday, at the close of our
- brief notice of Mr. Cobb’s letter to the Macon
1 Committee, to publish it entire with some fur
ther comments. We commence the publication
o of that- letter this morning, and will conclude it
r to-morrow.
j For the sake of brevity and convenience, we
- shall now notice both his letter and speech in
t this article. We shall also pay our respects, very
' briefly, to Mr. Toombs, as we desire to dismiss
his speech as speedily as possible to get at the
documents, over the publication of which he
> frets and fumes with such amusing and impotent
| In his letter and speech, Mr. Cobb says, “that
. the bills established territorial governments for
f Utah and New Mexico, giving to the South her
* long cherished doctrine of non-intervention. He
says Georgia demanded that, and got it- He
| states that it is declared in the territorial bills,
that ' 1 the territories shall be received into the
Union, as States, with or without slavery
their constitutions may prescribe at the time of
their admission.” That is true. But Mr. Cobb
does not say in his letter, nor does lie say in his
speech, that propositions made both in the Senate
and House of Representatives to declare the right
of the people of the South to move upon, use and
enjoy the new territories with their slave proper
ty, without difficulty or disturbance, were voted
down and rejected ! Mr. Cobb does not tell the
Macon Committee, nor did he tell his bearers at
the City Hall, that the Northern members gene
rally held, that the South is excluded from the
territories by the Mexican anti-slavery laws, and
that, for this reason, these propositions referred
to, were offered in the Senate and House. The
rejection of them is proof that while the North
was willing to yield a nomituil non-intervention, as
a kind of healing plaster for the wounded honor
of the South, they were determined that the terri
tories shoultl be closed against us. Mr. Cobb talks
about the North having been driven from the
passage of the Wilmot Proviso. Now, Mr. Cobb
knows very well, that the Wilmot Proviso was
given up for two reasons; first, the object to be
effected by the Proviso could be a3 effectually
accomplished by claiming the existance of the
Mexican laws and refusing to repeal them ; 2nd, for
fear the South would withdrawn from tire Union,
and Northern interests would greatly sutler as a
necessary consequence. All that we need fur
ther say upon this point is, that the South did
not contend for such non-intervention as we have
got. She contended for a fair non-intervention,
I not a cheat —a contemptible delusive mockery!
! Mr. Cobb said in his speech that the South
was entitled to an equal participation in the ter
ritories, (Mr. Toombs had said the same before
him.) He did not tell the people that they had
got any of the land! That would have been a
little too bare-faced!
Mr. Cobb in his speech and letter, referred to
the Clayton Compromise, and said we got as
much and even more, by thes« bills, than we
; would have got by that. Wc do not believe it,
but it would take a long article to pojnt out
! the difference and contrast their merits, hence,
we pass them for the present, as it is not mate
rial to the question of right and justice between
the two sectious. We notice one remark, how
ever, made by Mr. Cobb in reference to the Clay
; ton Compromise. He says that he voted for
it and was universally sustained in Georgia for that
: vote. Mr. Stephens on the other hand, says he
hilled it, and that he was universally sustained in
j Georgia 1 Remarkable men these 1 But we
pass on from the contemplation of these poli
tical phenomena!
Mr. Cobb says, that the poeple of Texas agreed
to cede their claim to the dismembered portion
ofTexas, which was added to free soil New
Mexico, and that they did it without threat, or
bribe. Most if not all of our readers will remem
ber that Mr. Fillmore did threaten Texas with the
army and navy of the Union. They will re
member, also, what Mr. Stephens said about the
firing of the first Federal gun against tire. Tex
ians. We leave Mr. Cobb and Mr. Stephens to
settle their small difficulties upon this point be
tween themselves. We have no doubt if they
were to call on Mr. Toombs, as umpire, he would
tell them to bury them beneath the masked bat
tery !
Whether the ten millions paid (mostly out ol
Southern pockets) for a part of a slave State to
convert it into free soil, was a bribe, or not, each
man must determine for himself. Mr. Cobb
says, Georgians have no right to complain, for
we voted a large territory to the General Gov
ernment. Very true, but not to make lree soil of
it! '
He says there was some irregularity in the
admission of California, but her admission was
constitutional.
He overlooks altogether the mission of Mr.
King, who told the people ofCalifornia,/or God’s
sake take in all California as a free State and leave
no territory for us to quarrel about. This Execu
tive interference of General Taylor, through Mr.
King, Mr. Cobb overlooked or perhaps forgot.
The Constitution says, Congress may admit
new States, not create them. Mr. Toombs said
Congress matte California a State. Here is anoth
er jioint of difference that can be easily recon
ciled between Mr. Toombs and Mr. Cobb
through the potential agency of the aforesaid
masked battery!
Mr. C. said Congress refused, at one session, to
give the people of California a territorial gov
ernment, and they established a State govern
ment in self-defence. He overlooked the lact,
or forgot to say, that the Northern meptbers re
fused to allow them a territorial government
without the incorporation of the YVilmot Provi
so ! When the people of California put the
Wilmot Proviso in their Constitution, the North- i
ern members then , to a man, said amen ! to her j
application for admission; and Mr. Cobb says
amen! as loud as any of them'l
Mr. Cobb says that the feature of the slave ;
trade, bill which makes a slave free upon a vio- '
lation of the law, was taken from the laws of
Maryland. He ought to have stated that that
law existed in 1796. Things have changed since
then. The public mind, at the South, is more
sensitive now, dll the slave question, than it was
then. Maryland had a right to pass such a law.
Congress passed it to please the Abolitionists!
It was a concession to them, and an insult to the
South. If such was not the fact, why was the
proposition to substitute a heavy pecuniar)' fine,
in the place of the emancipation of the slave, ke
jected ?
Mr. Cobb says the Fugitive Slave bill was all
the South could ask on that subject. So it was,
but how has it practically operated? We need
not dwell on this. Os what value would it be to
a man to have a guarantee from his neighbor,
that he might pass through his plantation, when,
every time he should undertake to go through,
his neighbor would npeet him with a pack of fe
rocious dogs and put them upon him ?
Mr. Cobb says Governor McDonald holds that
the Southern States have been degraded from
their eqiility in the Union, and yet submits.
Well, the Georgia State Convention admitted
that we had been wronged, and yet submitted.
That body submitted when it might have resisted.
Judge McDonald is compelled to submit, wheth
er he wishes to do so or not. He is a State
Rights man—Georgia is a sovereign State—she
has spoken in her highest council, a Convention.
All State Rights men bow to her decision, how
ever much they may regret it. That is the dif
ference between them and the Georgia Conven-
tion.
We did not understand the two or three last
remarks made by Mr. Cobb, in reference to his
vote for the Wihnot Proviso. Some little noise
in the rear of us caused us to lose a few of his
words. We understood him to say distinctly,
however, that he did vote for the Wilmot Provi
so. Mr. Toombs, in one of his addresses some
two years since, charged him with voting for
the Wilmot Proviso. Most of the leading pa
pers that now support him for Governor, charg
ed him with it—called him a traitor to the South,
and assailed him in a variety of ways, and with
almost unprecedented virulence. But that ‘‘mask
ed battery ” is a wonderful instrument. It con
verts criminality into innocence, and treachery
into patriotism. It is a pity that Benedict Ar
nold could not have lived till now. If he could
have done so, and had joined the Constitutional
Union party, his posterity would no doubt erect
a monument to the memory of Mr. Toombs,
wfth the wools, masked battery, glittering on its
sides.
Mr. Cobb devotes nearly three columns and a
half, ip the Athens Banner, to answering the
questions put to him on the subject of the right
of State secession, governmental coercion, and
his response, if Governor, to a call upon him for
troops to assist in coercing a seceding State. Our
brief article, of Saturday last, will enable us to
curtail our comments now.
Mr. Cobb divides the question on the right of
State secession into two parts. First, secession
without cause. Second, secession for cause. The
greater portion of his letter is taken up in en
deavoring to show that a State has no right to
secede without a cause.
Well, a State would be a fool, in its govern
mental capacity, to secede without a cause. We
cannot imagine the solemn act of a State seced
ing from the U uion without a reason for it. Hence
we shall only notice such parts of Mr, Cobb's ar
gument as applies to secession for a cause. He
says the government made no provision for its
ou-n dissolution. It would have di :.e a very
foolish thing if it had, when, In it* infancy, just
fresh from the fields of the revolution, it was
seeking t« bind all its sovereign members in a
fraternal and happy compact for their mutual
good forever. The States loved each other then.
They breathed the magic air of an inspiring pa
triotism, that filled their hearts with purity and
justice, and lit them up with golden hopes of
happiness, far on in the ages of the future. But
that could not impair the right of either one,
when the others should oppress it, and, with
haughtiness and hate, trample upon its sacred
rights. The truth is, the right of a State to se
cede is a reserved right. Look into the Consti
tution and sec the powers delegated to Congress,
and the prohibitions put upon the States. The
States delegated po power to Congress to prevent
their secession, nor did they subject themselves
to any prohibitions to prevent it. Hence, as
sovereigns, they reserved that right. This is
the argument in a nutshell.
Mr. Cobb quotes from Mr. Madison against
secession. Why, when Mr. Madison said “ The
Constitution requires an adoption in toto and
forever/’ he said nothing but the truth; but it
is a Constitution which requires justice.
When a man dad woman enters into the mar
riage state, they enter into it for life. There is
nothing said about a separation for cause. Yet
separations can and do often follow causes.
Mr. Cobb refers to Louisiana: says she was
bought and paid for by the ocher States, and asks,
if they are to be deprived, by her secession of the
advantages derived from her membership.—
Doubtless he refers to her possession of the
mouth of the Mississippi River. Now put this
case to the test. Louisiana secedes from the
Union. This is no cause for war. She becomes
an independent government. The governments
contiguous to her have nothing to do but to enter
into negotiations with her to secure the advan
tages which a navigation of the Mississippi Ri
ver will afford them. International comity
would, doubtless, in addition to prudence , dictate
to Louisiana to grant them proper terms. Thu*
lar there would be no cause for war. Our case
is made out. We need go no further to imagine
difficulties which plight never exist. Mr. Cobb
says: “ When the right of a State to secede from
the Union at will, is conceded, we have put the
existence of the government at the disposal of
each State in the Union. The withdrawal of
one is a dissolution of the compact which holds
the States together; it is no longer the Union
that the Constitution formed and the remaining
States are absolved from all moral obligation to
abide longer by their compact.”
Compare this statement with the following:
“ Whilst I deny the right of a State to steed*.
and thus dissolve the Union, 1 would not attempt
by the strong arm of military power, to bring v^ r
citizens back to their allegiance, unless com°pe!l.
ed to do so in defence of the rights and interest, of th>
remaining States of the Union.'’' Here is some in
consistency. In the first of these paragraph,
Mr. Cobb seems to think that the withdrawal ol
I one State breaks up the \chdle concern.
In the second, he seems to think that the others
will go on in the career of Union aM government!
But we leave this.
Mr. Cobb says of a seceding State.
SHOULD NOT UECOGSIZE HEB SEPARATE INDEPEN
dunce, nor could we allow our own interests to
be perilled by sanctioning any alliance she might
be disposed to make with any foreign govern
ment.' 5 m .
Tim exhibits the most deadly opposition to the
right of secession. All governments recognize
the independence of other governments unless
they are their implacable foes. Mr. C. says-.
Ido not so understand our government. I feel
that I owe mv allegiance ro a govermmu pot.
sessed of more vitality ami strength, than that
which is drawn from a voluntary obedience to
its laws. I hold that no government is entitled
to any allegiance that does not pass wise and
just laws, and does not possess the power to en
force and execute them.”
Compare this with the following": “It was
formed in the hearts of the American people— it
can only be preserved in their hearts.’’
Some difference here again. But we pass tLis.
Mr. Cobb admits the right of a State, to judge
of infractions of the Constitution, and even to
secede, but he puts the exercise of these rights
upon the ground of revolution, and says the
seceding State will have to depend upon its pow
er and ability to maintain its course of action.
If this doctrine hecomes the sentiment of
Georgia, and the other Southern States, it wi/rf
prove to them a death blow and a snare of run t
from which there can be no possible escape a feif
years hence. State sovereignty will be to them
only a pale corpse-light so exhibit the tomb of
former independence.
Mr. Cobb tells us in his letter, and proclaims it
in his speeches, that, if elected Governor, and
called npon for troops to aid in putting down
South Carolina, he would submit the question to
the people of Georgia and act in accordance with
their expressed will. His followers under
take to defend him upon this declaration.—
To us it is exceedingly obtionable and
blast his prospects with utter ruin. By this
we intend no reflection upon the people
of Georgia. We do not believe they would in
struct him to aid in butchering the people of
South Carolina. No, the very thought of thei i
smoking blood, shed in defence of Southern rights
and honor, as well as their own, would turn
our people to madness against the anti-slavery
myrmidons of the North. Why then is the sen
timent so objectionable—simply, because Mr.
Cobb was not prepared to say tliat he would refuse to
grant the requisition for troops, for so infernal a
purpose. He ought to have said, in his reply,
that he would refuse to order the citizen soldiery of
Georgia into any contest so marked with tyranny
and corruption. He ought to have said, that if
the people of Georgia should prove to be so aban -
doned and degraded as to call upon him to do so,
that he would put off the robes of otfioe wit )■
which they had clothed him, and put on sack -
doth and ashes in their steod.
People of Georgia, Mr. Cobb is a consolidation
ist, an enemy to State rights, ami an unfit per
son to become your ruler. His election will pre
pare you for the rod, yea, for the yoke of your
Northern foes. We hope that God Almighty, if
man should fail to influence you, will enable you
to understand better the tine nature of your rights
and the danger that surrounds you, than to ele
vate him to the highest office within your gil t.
Do so, and the broken fragments of your power,
your abject, degraded, and servile dependance
upon Northern masters, will remind you in a fu
ture of hopeless wretchedness, of the folly and
insanity of the act. The great length of these
remarks, upon the letter and speech of Mr. Cobb,
makes it proper that we should defer, till to-mor
row the notice which we promised, in the out-set
of this article, to take off the * masked battery ’’
architect. We shall not flatter him, nor fawn
upon him. nor crouch to him, nor wink at his
faults. He needs chastisement. It is only post
poned.
Kentucky Election—Tiie Asulai4t or
Lexington District Democratic. —This Dis
trict, which so long was represented by Henry
Clay in Congress, has, for the first time, now
elected a democrat—John C. Breckinridge, who
is represented as a gentleman of splendid talents,
and estimable private character. This gave him
a great advantage in popularity over Leslie
Combs, the whig candidate, who, although he
has never been a member of Congress, is con
sidered a liacknied and worn out politician, how
ever much he is esteemed in private life.
Flax vs. Cotton.—Dr. Leavitt, of Maysville
Ky., the inventor of the new process for making
linen trom unrotted flax and hemp, has shown to
the editors of the New York Tribune some sam- j.
pies of linen yarns of excellent qualities—fine ’M
enough lor shirt linen—which he says can be |
produced as cheap as cotton yarns of the same
fineness. He showed, also, samples of the raw
material in the various stages of preparation, and
the editors say, so far as they can judge, he makes
out a Very clear case. This process is entirely
different from Claussen’s invention.
Swindling.— An individual, calling himself
Lindenwold, obtained a valuable watch and
several articles of costly jewelry from the
store of Messrs. Hayden and Gregg, on Friday
and Saturday last, under the pretence of sub
mitting them to parties for whom he intend
ed purchasing them. He was detected in an
attempt to leave the city, and was com
pelled to restore the articles, with the excep
tion of a ring valued at seventy-five dollars,
which he had sold for foity, for the purpose, it is
presumed, of travelling expenses. Os this amount
but twenty-five dollars remained, which he
handed over, and was then warranted for the ba
lance, and committed to prison. s where he still
remains.— Ch. Murcury, 18 th insl. j iSCNgjI
Direct Importation. —As will be perceived
elsewhere jn this morning’s issue, the John Ra
venel arrived on Saturday morning and the Phile
na yesterday from Liverpool, with large and
highly valuable cargoes; and we learn that the
barque Susan, Captain S. Hawes; sailed from Rio
Janeiro for this port on the 10fh ult., with a cargo
consisting of four thousand bags of Coffee and
seven hundred hides. It may be reasonably ex
pected that she will be here in * day or * w °i .**
the barque Cyane, which sailed j® company with
her, arrived at New York on Thursday last.
Charleston Courier , 18th inst.