The North-Carolina standard., 1844-09-18

raising the cry that the friends of Col Polk are
unfriendIy to the Union, and that those who ad-
vocate Texas annexation are disposed to effect It
even at the expense of dissolut on of the Union
This charge has been repeatedly met and put
down. Rebuke after rebuke has been given to
these assailants of the integrity and patriotism of
the democratic party. They have been told that
it +" isFALsE, come from what quarter it may, TO
ascribe to MS or to the democratic party of the
South, hostility to the Union, no matter what may
be the result of our Texas negotiations" !" and that
Col. Polk and the democratic party ego for the
Union and Te10s-TeIGs and the Unson-but
for the UNION, Texas or no Texas" But we have
another rebuke to administer, and we take 1T
from the mouth of leading Federalist We
quote from letter very recently written by James
Lyons, Esq of Richmond, the Federal Wing
EIectOr for the Eastern District of Virginia.:
"I am aware that the Treaty is denounced for
the manner in which it was negotiated and the
motive from which it is said to have sprung, and
the CRY OF DISUNION HAS BEEN RAILS
ED TO DAMN THE WHOLE CAUSE" !.
al utterly condemn even the talk of disunion for
any i'll which has yerbeen experienced but do
! NOT BELIEVE THAT THE TREATY
SPRUNG FROM ANY PURPOSE OF DIS
IN,
men are traitors or should be hung if they do talk
of it and still less agree, that the friends OF
annexation at the South shall be involved In one
sweeping denunciation as Disunonists or rapaclous
speculators." "There are greater evils than dis
union. One of these is the abolition Of slavery In
the South, and another is despotism-that des-
potsm of the mind, which shall deny men, under
the penalties OF reason the right 10 express thelr
opinions about their rights and their government.
O'Connel in the Richmond Penitentiary is more
free than the citizens of such Republic. But
why should the friends Of Texas at the South be
put under the ban with the cry Of frdisunon? Be
cause few indiscreet talk of disunion if they
fail in obtaining Texas, which they do, notbecause
of the loss of Texas merely, but because, II lost,
1t will be the objection of the antisayery men to
the extension of the Influence of the slayehodIng
country ? Their threat, if understand it is not
to dissolve because of che loss of Texas, but be-
cause if lost, it will be anti-slavery grounds.
This is foolish and rash, and Injuries the men who
indulge in but is il any worse than dIsunon In
mder language openly expressed or broadly In
timated the Norh2 Is it not as criminal TO talk
of disunion if Texas be admitted it she be not
admitted: and WHY is 1T THAT LlTILE
OR NOTHING IS SAID OF THE NORTH
ERN DISUNIONISTS, WHILE STREAMS
OF DENUNCIATION ARE POURED UPON
THE SOUTH OR THE PROUD LITTLE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA2 con-
fess see more danger in this temper than in idle
THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS / Be
lLlEVE WILL STRENGTHEN THE UNION
AND PREVENT DISSOLUTION, WHILE
THIS DENUNCIATION ENDANGERSs 1T,
CAS- 1T WILL DESTROY OUR PARTY,
IF PERSISTED IN.) judge others by my
self as well as by what they tell me of themselves,
land 1 confess that MY OWN BLOOD, KIN
| DIES AS, KNOW THAT OF MANY
| OTHERS DOES, AT THESE DENUNCI-
IATIoNs. regard the people at.the North as
brethren of the same family, bound TO US BY all
the ties of interest and consequently; but am
Southern maB and Southern man With SouIheEn
feeIingsi and CANNOT BUT FEEL KEEN
LY AND DEEPLY THE EDENUNCIATIONS
WHICH AREPOURED OUT UPONSOUTH-
ERN MEN, BECAUSE THEY ADVOCATE
A MEASURE WHICH THEY BELIEVE
| is TO STRENGTHEN AND AID THE
SOUTH, AS 1T WILL ENRICHAND THUS
STRENGTHEN THE NORTH. LET THIS
HABIT OF DENUNCIATION, THEN, BE
DISCONTINUED"
Why is ii, as Mr.. Lyons asks, whilst certain
politicians can find so much to condemn in the
"proud little State ofSouth Carolina" that little
nothing is said Of the Northern diswnioHists ?'
Wherefore is the Independent dumb about John
Quincy Adams, and Francis Granger, and Viii.
liam Slade, all abolitionists and the declared op
ponents of annexation, on the ground that such a
step would amount to a virtual dissolution of the
Union !? Has he no righteous denunciations for
those ofhis yankee brethren who are plotting trea-
son2 Or indeed has be considered we'll the i'm
port and bearing of the charges of fdisunion which
week after week, he pours out uponthe democrat
ic party2 Has he not seen Thomas Loring writ
ing against Thomas Loring? Destroying what
ever of political good he may have heretofore ef
fectedf Writing himself doaOns For what was
he, a few short months since, but an active MEM
Der of the democratic party-that very party now
denounced by him as the "chivaIry" of ha-
tired and treason to the Union2 And who, four
years ago. did he voluntarily choose as his candi-
date for Vice-President? Why the very gentle;
man, James K. Polk, whom he now designates as
hthe leader of the disunion party And whom does
he include in these loud and strong denunciations2
The whole democratic party, such men as An
drew Jackson, James K. Polk, John G. Calhoun,
William H Haywood Romulus NJ. Saunders,
Thomas Richie, and others, in times past and now
the very props and pillars of the Union Andrew
Jackson a plotter of treason, and an enemy to the
Union of these States The bare supposition car
ries the Lieupon front Look at his whole history
Follow him from the hour when his young but
vigorous arm dealt destruction upon the enemy in
the war of independence, up to the last brilliant
burst of the second conflict with Great Britain,