Independent Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1844-06-08

nndlng cause Of attach in The IT,,
IN Tie acceptance Of Office for ,h nea'yI o.
of making The treaty, the GIob '.e p0rpas
PEELED TO seek some other pretet,c. i" =. s'N'
tack, and hence it alleges ina, his H ,0faL
MIR. Packenham was written AZ Il" III
efec,ual way not only of deEaa, ~; mon
present treaty, but of defeating the Ne
alton altogether" VIC aaass'
Now if the Globe and those os -.
is the organ, believe that MIR. c. IuO@a
purpose is to use the rejection of ,ha I ".a.
as means Of dissolving the Uo;"aus'
advancing personal objects, and ,h.e @a
sire to defeat his purpose, it i, m "'y =.
that all that is required of them 'i !. ~
Iailiy the treaty. They aIle"a : 10 .
his object is to defeat the treaty. Aas
their power to defeat his object Nv %. ~
tanning the treaty: Why do ihey ny !, w. ~.
tain the treaty. The Globe exnIai Iv'" :
says "We have no doubt tbe I.. u
Mr.. Packenham) was written , w's 70
view of packing Mr.. Van Buren, a a., 9s
the hope of breaking him down i II Ia a
North" A moments considera,io~a W. NY
show how preposlerous this cha,~a W"
Mr. Calhoun's opinions on the snS;.Ss
slavery are known. The Globe ss. %S
that the letter was written the dav .s.'
the Globe editorial article in favor :, T ~
remuneration of Texas was DubI H. Wy
and under a belief that the article II w.
Globe expressed Mr.. Van Bureu,s yi. ~s
Now, is it not preposterous to sunn..
that Mr.. Calhoun would write le,,a,s.
claring his own opinions, for The purn%.
Of breaking down Mr.. Van Burenl N,
Van Buren, is not responsible for M,
Calhoun's opinions and, if he were. N,
Calhoun's opinions were known-hsy
were expressed again and again in Con,
gress, before the Globe, by The most ID
some adulations, endeavored to Obnin
from him and his friends the priniiupd
Congress-they we're explicitly declared
in his letter Withdrawing his hume Iron
the Baltimore Convention. Ye, the Glhs
then rejoiced that the publication of lha,
letter would benefit Mr.. Van Buren, ~
How. then, can their publication injun
Mr.. Van Buren, now?
We recur also 10 the history Of this lsl.
ter to show that the imputaiion is mali.
ciously untrue. The correspondents
shows that Lord Aberdeen's letter. 10
which Mr.. CaIhoun's is a reply, was writ.
ten in consequence of communications
made to him by Mr.. Everett, under The ia.
structions of Mr.. Upshur. Mr.. Upsh,
had required Mr.. Everett 10 ascertain The
purposes of England. aud he was induced
to do so, because of the declarations made
in the anti-Slavery Convention, and BY
the Ministers of the Crown, in both Hoa.
ses of Parliament. Lord Aberdeen's |et
ter was an official avowa of the purpose
of England to exert her influence to aOo!
|ish slavery everywhere, and especially in
roxas, asserting that they had endeavoTed
to induce Mexico 10 make the abolition Of
slavery condition Of the acknowledged!
Of the independence Of Texas. A copy
Of that letter was delivered TO Mr.. Upshui
who did not reply to il, because the fatal
accident on board the Princeton deprived
The country Of his valuable services; bu.
no one who knew him, or who has read
his letters communicated 10 the Senate,
can believe that he would have answered
otherwise than il was answered. When
Mr.. Calhoun came into Office, copy vas
delivered to him by Mr.. Packenham, aud
he replied to it, as he was bound to do
The only issue made was on the right Of
England TO exert her influence for the abo
lition of slavery in Texas or in The Unilst
Staiss. Lord Aberdeen asserts the right
Mr.. Calhoun denies it.
The Globe asserts that Mr.. Calhouns
Of the rights of the slavehOd'
ing States to be protected against the H.
reference of England, will injure Nj
Van Buren,, and justify Northern Senaior'
in voting against the treaty, and thus Of
rays Col. Benton and Mr.. Van Buren, on
The side Of the abolilionists. Is not this
done to conciliate their votcl The deci''
ion of the issue thus made involves The
question of how far the people Of the
slaveholding States are to be protected IL
heir right of property guaranteed to then
BY the constitution? If ii be conceded
now that Great Britain has the right to in'
erfere at all. the next assumption will 30
hat, having the right, she may Judge OF
he manner Of interference. Mr.. Calhoun
las met the issue in the only way IN
which it should be met, by denying the
light altogether. The most striking tea
ure in this coalition is the manner in when
he Globe assails Mr.. Calhoun and vindl'
:ates Mr.. Adams for the treaty Of lSls'
I'he assertion Of the Globe is that "Mf'
calhoun was a member of Mr.. Monroes
cabinet, and one of the majority, it IS
tated, who prescribed the terms Of ina,
purchase, and as part of those terms cedeO
wav the tarriiorv IF TeYoc oyar.rlIling,