The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-01-24

Tor 4. e. eXunguiShSu . dom, &C; tsal
guilty" over crown !"the common Uesence''
neglected. The common Welfare" sacri.
feed or " thu blessings of Liberty % sur,
rendered Have you the presuiap;ion to
c jure up these phantoms--or behind what
mons .Os apiIgy, sir, will You screen the ar
| dacity ot your conduct
| When we ask for the ca use of your OUT
rage, You point your finger to a bill for erec-
ting the Territory Of Orleans into Sac
You say II is gross violation of the Const,tu-
| ton.
You say. That "the violation of con race
by me OF the parties may be considered IS
exempting the other from its obligations ~
and that It Is a settled principle of morality,
mat no person can be obliged beyond his
ioten at the time OF the contract"-Do voa
then, sir pretend to preach upa dissolution
OF the Union on such grounds as these ?
Who is to be judge of these constitutional
breaches You say. each state is to be the
jndgc-fpr that it is " the right of all. I" as
1t is che duty of some, to prepare defini-
&c y for separati9n"--thae i, srAen eAch
| state chuses to tly to separation.
| And do you say, that the states are thus TO
NY Gil, whenever it pleases each of them TO
| think thlt here has been a breach ot the con-
trace! How then woaid the Union have
wihstood hose unconstitutional acts; the Ali
en- and Ssdtian Laws! Virginia and Kentuc-
murmur OF dissolution and disuninn was rot
once heard. Is this the way in which nu,
Sir, watch over the palladium of our p It'll
Cal safety and prosperity? The ,igb-t ing
| OF Heaven blast those political Uzzaa
who on such grounds would PROSTATE tn. ,rk
| OF our G ,venant
The punishment denounced by George
| Washing on has already fallen upon you -
| with such powerful and obvious motives to
1 Union. nh Of
while experience shall not have demonstra-
ed ITS impracticabiiity, there will always be
reason to dtstruss The patriotism of those
| VINO IN any quarter may endeavor to weak
en- its ban So Who then can forbes,r dis
tr'usHng the patriotism of Mr.. Josiah O1in4
cy?
But if the Bill 7oere breach of the Com
s'ltution, is it of so vital nature, as TO rem Il
the bands asunde, Ii lets new State IN
to the Union 1t admits new partner into
the Confederation 1t weaksns, by djstri
button, the power of the old United Sta. es
you say-and should, therefore, disturb heir
Jeaiouiy But where were these same feelings.
when Kentucky and Vermont we're let n -
When Tennessee and Ohio were atlmittedf--
viii they b. reused when the Indian and
M Is ippi Territories .sill be erected intr,
Hta'es! Massachusetts was once the 18th
Star the Consteilation-she is now bnt
the II h.
way was not all this opposition made to
the initiation OF Ohio and hel young sisters
For, what mighty mischief wilis e ult to Mas
sachusetts or Virginia, by making either Of
them the l8tn ms, cad of the I7tn Star in the.
American Union On the other hand, what
+ De"ehts VIII not How from the acquisition OF
! Louisiana to ne other states the other CON-
tracing partners? The key oft the Western
Country /, ours The trade of Ohio Kentucky.
ennessre, and Pennsylvania. are placed on.
nim oaslS--and what is Of more i,uoor-
lance IN IN view 1t me subject, The bands
/ or the Union are more firmly knit topether
! he Western Sta IS possess the "indispen-
S'otr o"fl>%s," for their predictions. Thcy
| viii now nave n inducements to secnre them
by hy'ng III from the Union "of hy an =
pos &te aud unnatu al conneXio with any
'ore'gp power These benefits flow from
me acquisition of Louisaha---yet in what
| way would you have treated THIS territory it
! sehe would yon have e,ernally held her
IS a prov;nce--ln the bands of colonial SER
Vi'ude Is there any other way to secure.
'er atiachmen. and the advantages, ~ n
ne gives to the Western States but TO in.
corporate her intoth he Un,one Ina word
are you sure Of linking the Western s. atest r.,
be Union, without making Orleans itself a.
State 50
And, Sir, if your British prejudices will d
NIT OF such suppOsi,;on what would on,
do, II Canada were ever 10 become ours by
cempulsion or Consent! Would YOU retatTa
her IN state of vassa age F? Or, wou d on,
incorporate her into the Union ?
But say YOU, the case OF Loui4iana is diff
feren' rom that of Ohio or Tennessee o. anv
or New S,ates--and why j? becauS Sc
were within the ii'nits of the old II. S-,,t.
Dir. The constitution says tha Nr7u S atec
may be admitted by the Congre 5 into his
Union -and where is The QUALIFICATION to-
thus admission DJes il say, that no ne "
STATE is o be let in. unless it be carved ont;
OF tue old err tor belonging tn the Union ?
! No-but MIR. Q'incy SAYS so.
Dir, the grounds which YOU have now Ia
Ken, are by no melis new. The arguments
which you have urged, were pressed by your
party, IN the debate on the Louisiana IRA
,y IN lSO1--par icuiarly by the Me. rs.
Grlswoids. But the merit OF pronoun. np.
that the dissolution was dissolved. and the.
states must look out for themselves. is *
ciusively your Mi her the sophi.try of
Griswold nor the asper,ty of Thatcher. yerg..
ed into the region of treason.
In Iho'e Debates yon will find the follow.
ing answer by I'm Randolph
3" He understood the gentleman from ".
YORK as denying that there existed in he
Uni ed states, as such a Capacity to acquire.
territory that by the constitution tbcy
were restricted to the limits which exisrcd
at the time OF its adoption. IL this position
be correct, IL undeniably follows that hose
limits must have heet, occ,r,,ei,,