Independent Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1843-09-30
from the Columbus Times I
EE-TRADE.
State Observation-Disclosures

D'H'e ht9"e y CH|OH-4N WtPCahOa.
The question is frequnlly asked, how is
it that the State Right and Free. Tlate
men Of 1882, and the Union men Of The
same year, arc now united in supporting
the same men for Office; sufficient repy
is ready, by asking how it is that NuQi-
fer oil 1882, is now hand and glove with
Webster, Adams and Clay; old tried and
firm opponents Of the doctrine of TrouD
and the Sale Rights and Free-Trade as.
sOciations of Georgia. Can any one unril.
de the question? Mr.. Clay says in his
last speeches emphaicaly, he las never
changed his opinion but upon one isolated
question, namely, the Bank. Was he an
opponent of the doctrines of the Trou9
rarty? Yes. Was he a protective tariff
adyo cato Of The Maysvile road? Yes
Was he an advocate Of the force RilI?--
Yes. Did he believe Congress had the
right to abolish slavery in The District Of
Columbia and the Teri tories? 1t is sad
he did. Who doubts these iats1 Who
that preIends to a knowledge of parties
that says he was MOI? None. Then The
question is, is he now the same? dacs he
hold the same dJctIincs! lie says he ha'
never changed-marh him land con;c.
qnenty he holds the same opinions. Wei,
now for the answer. How is it that the
NulHiier and Union man Of 1882 can hear
tily, unilcdIy and consistently support Mr..
j. c. Calhoun for President? Calhoun
was in favor Of multiplying the act of Con-,
gress known as the Tariff act, he believed
it was unconstitutional and waged war
against it in every manner and by every
possible way. Clay supported the act
The Slater rights and Free-trade party of
Georgia believed with Calhoun, that null.
cation was the proper remedy top put
down the tariff: the Uui0n party differed
with them in this respect, and preferred
the ballot Doc rather than resort to the
bayonet. All, both State rights men, u
MON men and Nulifers, believed the tar.
if odious, and opposed it as party firmly
zealously and unItedly. | speak OF Stale.
right men differing from the NuIiGefs,
and use the term alluded to, such as held
the opinions of Crawford, Wilde. Nisbe',
Meriwether, 1roup, etc. etc. Both par.
ties in Georgia. still profcso to be anti.
tariff, and hold The same dsctrines as 10
the tariff, etc. Which is the great qre'-
ton before the people at this time, that is,
a tariff under the frce-trade doctrines OF
1882, or tariff as Mr.. Clay wishes, that
will afford protection sufficient, olc.!-
Who do We naturally suppose would he
most likely to support Mr.. Clay, who was
opposed to all the doctrines, without re-
serve, of the State-righs and | may also
add, of the Union party, with the eXcep'
ton of their opinion of reference to the
ballot box on the tariff question: While
Mr.. Calhoun was the head of the State.
right and Free trade patty, and waged
war in the United States Senate against
the tariff, battIed for the principles of JET
ferson, and rendered himself, by those We
ry acls of proud and mighty efforts, IN
popular with the northwestern and east
ern tariff States, and for the sake OF The
Free-lrade and State-right party and DOC
trines, blasted as his prospects for tne
Presidency were at the time-chooSns
rather to bear the reproach ola NlI!ner
than be placed in the presidential cnir
by an abandonment Of his rrinclPes--ilno
Union party and Stateright men agreeing
with him in all his doctrines except as ~
the means of arreStng the tariff ac'-'n0
NuIltiers agreeing with him in every Pa',
ticuIar. Now, Mr.. Clay is the same u
1918 as he was in 1882: Mr.. Calhoun
the same IN 1913 as he was in 1897 WIN
has changed! ask the q eSt!on s en-.
phalicalIy, who has changej! has W.
Clay? The answer from his own lips ~
No. Has Mr.. Calhoun? He says W. w.
Did the State,right men support Mr.; . Ca,
houn in 1892 Yes. Did the Nnll''i MA
support Mr.. Calhoun in 1927 Yes. ,n p
The Union men support him in Preier'"'N