Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-02-17
APPEAL TO THE CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES
rConciuded I

= & -
in 1908, arose from causes, which were COM
mon to the people, not only Of New England,
nut of all the commercial states, as was mani
feyed i'm New York, Philadelphia, ard else-
where. By what process Of fair re asoning then
can that opposition be referred TO, or connected
With plan, which is said 10 have originated
in 1904 aad TO have been intended 20 embrace
merely northern coniederacy? The objection
TO the Louisiana treaty was founded on he just
construction Of the compact between sovereign
states Ii was believed in New England, that
new members could not be added 10 the confed.
eracy beyond the territorial limit, OF the con-
tracing parties without the consent OF those
parlies. This was considered as fair subject
of remoustrance, and as justifyins proposals
for an amendmeu, of the constitution. Blu, so
far were the Federal party from attempting 10
use this as an additional incentive to the pas
sions OF the day, that In report made To he
Legislature Of 1913 by committee Of which
Mr. Adams's :excellent friead' j. sIAH Quincy,
was chairman, Louisiana having at this time
been admitted into the Unionl il is sxprs SLY
stated, that 'they hare moi been disposed TO
connect thiS great constitutional question
Nth the trdncienf cd!amifieS Of the day,
from which it is in their opiRion very apparent
Iy distinguished both IN its eau,e and conse-
stitulicnal question, they have confined hem.
selves TO topics aud arguments draw from The
constitution, with The hope Of limiting .he
further progress Of the evil, rather Than with
the expec ta,ion Of immediate relief during
the continuance of existing influences in the
national administration This report was &C
oepted; aud thus the 'proirct' instead OF be.
ing used as fuel 10 the flame. is DE- ,iberaely
taken ont of it, and presented to the people by
the leaders as resting on distinc' cnnsdera-
tons from The "traucient calamuies, and Tor
which present redress ought neither TO be
sought, or expected.
To the embaI GO imposed in December, 1907,
nearly all The delegation of Massac huseIts was
opposed. The pretexts for imposing it were
deemed by her citizens mockery OF her sui,
feiipgs. Owning nearly one third OF the ton
mage in the United States, she felt tia, her
voice ought to be heard in what related TO It's
security. Depending principally on her for
eign trade aud fisheries for support, her si.ua-
ton appeared desperate under The operation Of
this law in its terms perpetual. ltwas hitr
ageravation Of her sufferings to be told, That
its object was TO preserve these interests. No
people, at peace, IN an equal space of time, ev
err endured sevoer 2rvation. She could not
consider the annihiation Of her trsde as in
cluded in the power to regulate it. 10 her
lawyers, statesmen, aud citizens in generl il
appearrd q direct violation OF The constr utIon.
IL was universally odious. The disahe ion was
not confined to he fed-, al party. NJ Adams,
it is said, and not con'radc,ed, announced II
his letter to the members Of Congress, that 60
vernment must not rely upo" its own tri'nds.
The interval from 1907 to 1922, was filled up
by a series Of restrictive measures, which kept
alive the discomfort and irritation OF the popu>
lar mind. Then followed the war, under cir
cumsiances which aggravated the public dis
tress. In its progress, Massachusetts was de-
prived Of ga,risons for her ports-w'th linz
Of sea coast equal in extent TO one third OF that
Of all the other maritime STATES, she was lef,
during the whole war, nearly defrnceiess. Her
citizens subject to an iucessant alaim, portion
of the country invaded, and taken possession Of
"a conquered territory. Her own militia ar
rayed, aud eucamped al an enormous expense;
paw and subsistence supplied from her nearly
exhausted treasury, and reimbursement refused
even 10 this day Now, what under the pres
sure and excitement Of these measures, was
the conduct Of the federal party, the devoted
maiority,' with the military force OF the State in
th.i hands; with the encouragement to be deri
yrd from a conviction that the Northern States
were IN sympathy with their feelings, and that
government could not rely on its own friends?
Did they resis, the lawsl Not in solitary in
stance. Did they threaten a separation OF the
States? Did they array their forces with a
show Of such disposition! Did the govern
ment or the people OF Massachusetts in any one
instance swrrve from their allegiance TO the
Union. The reverse of all This is truth. A.
bandoued by the national government, because
she declared, for reasons which her highest
tribunal adjudgrd to be constitutional, to sur
render her militia into the hands Of military
prefect, although they were always equipped,
and ready AND faithful under their own officers,
she nevertheless chung to the Union as TO the
ark of her safety, she ordered her well trained
militia into the field, sia,ioned them at the
point of danger, betrayed their expenses from
her own treasury, and gsrrisoned with them
the national forts. All her taxes and excuses
were paid with punc,uali'y and promptoess, an
example by no mans followed oy some OF the
,,a,es. in which the cry for var had been loud.