Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1840-03-24
THE CONTRAST.

So soon as it was ascertained by the Van |
Buren, press that Gen'l. Harrison was favor
ite with the people, and that they we're moving
in all portions of the Union to his standard,
when his political principles were known-ma-
ny of the Van Buren, presses, not all Of them,
only those who were the most dishonest and
unprincipled, attempted to defraud and deceive
the southern people by charging him with be-
ing an abolitionist. Their viliany was soon
detected; and the bare charge instead of in
juring GenL Harrison, by calling forth investi-
cation, has enabled his friends to show his true
position on that subject. He has ever opposed
the abotionists, and that too in non-slave-
holding State, denouncing them as incarnate
devils But the matter did not end here-the
charge against Genl. Harrison instituted a
comparison between him and Martin Van Bu-
rem in relation to the part each had taken upon
the question of abolition; and the result is
most unfavorable for MIR. Van Buren,.
In 1919 an attempt was made by the abol
tionists in the north to weaken the political in
fuence of the South; and in this struggle be
south the tworival candidates for the presider
cy took an important part. MartiE Van Blu
rem was member of the New-York Senate
and GenI. Harrison was Representative i,
Congress from the State of Ohio. BY tn
constitution Of the United States the Repre-
sentation in Congress from the slaveholdin
States is founded IN part upon the'slave popula
ton. This was wise and equitable provis
ion, and shows the compromising spirit i
which the constitution was framed by tn
honorable men who achieved our independence
II was an equitable provision because tn
white population IN non-slaveholding State
will at all times be denser than in the slave
holding States; and if representation wer
based alone upon white population decide
advantage would always be in favor of the fol
mer. When Missouri applied for admissio
into the Union the abotionists, or as they al
generally termed Missouri restrctionists relu.
ed to admit Missouri, except upon the tern
that she should be non-slaveholding State.-
This question involved two important primo
ples-frst, it was an attempt to limit the nun
Der OF the slaveholding States, thereby increa
ing the political power of the north as ne
States came into the Union,-and, secondly,
was a direct invasion Of the rights of Stat
for it was aquestion exclusively for the Peep
Of Missouri alone to decide whether they won
be slaveAolding State or not. Upon this In
portant issue Gen1 Harrison voted with Il
South, and in favor of admitting Missouri in
the Union lolhom the reStriction-and in 4
Senate of New York Resolution was intr
duced to obtain the sentiment of that Sta
upon the subject, by way of instruction to the
Senators in Congress. The resolution in
vnr of the principles of restriction was pass
and the vote of Mr.. Van Buren, was given
favor Of The resolution! This historical ia
may be found in the biography of Van Bure
written by his friend to advance his polite
interests. Now mark the result, Mr.. Van B
rem by acting with the majority in violation
the rights Of State and in disregard
Southern interests advanced in political distir
tion---and General Harrison, for manly d
charge Of bis duty in supporting the doctriI
of State Rights and the political influence
the South, for time incurred the displeasure
his constituents and lost his seat in Congress
His talents and honesty dissipated the pref
dice which his independent conduct had rais'
against him and he was afterwards honored
thesame State. with seat in the Senate
the Uaited States.
Let honest men, whatever may nave De'
their prejudices against Gen1 Harrison, act
honest men should act who, have duty