Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1844-05-22


The Spectator too is denounced as "pfelcnd-
ing devotee 10 the Democratic cause" Do
you really believe that that paper is but pie.
lending to support the democratic parly7 What
evidence have you of it Is it its devotion 10
Mr.. Calhoun, and its detestation of Mr.. Clay
and his Tariff cliquel But what we regret
more than all else, is the statement which You
make in the last Journal, that the bill reducing
the Tariff OF 1912, was laid on the table "on
motion Of a Democrat" This looks unfair-il
looks as if you were determined to conceal the
truth whenever it is calculated to injure the
Wings. The Democrats have acted badly
enough on the Tariff question, God knows, and
therefore we have dropt Van Burue; but they
have not acted SO badly as the Wings. The
bill proposing reduction of the Tariff, was
laid on the table, by vote of los to 99-of the
So who voted against laying it on the table SO
were Democrats. and was Wing Chap.
poll OF Georgia, was the only Raig in the UHI.
TED STArEs-North, Souith. East, or Vest, who
voted for The REDUCTION Of the Tariff: Weput
il TO your candour, if any onewould ever have
suspected such to be the fact, from your notice
oft in the Journall And for even This one vote
the National Intelligencer has deemed it pru.
dent to dpologise, by saying that Mr.. Chappell
,oould not have voted for the redmtion of the Tia.
riff had he not been bound by prerious pledge.
After this the Richmond Whig g" may well say,
that the support of the Tariff is one Of the prln-
ciples of the Wing party-well may he say so,
when but ONE Whig can be found in all Con-
grcss, who is in ta1or Of a reduction of the Ia.
riff, aud his vote has 10 be apologised for, even
at the expense oftrnth. Is further proof want
ing Of your having deserted your party, your
principles, your candidate, and your country
for Clay? We quote your own words. You
call on the Wings "to suffer no false 1aporings
about local afairs-no bragggar: notions of
Southern Chiuatry-NoTHISG to divert their at
tenion from the great end and aim Of their
organization-the redemption Of the country
from Locotocoism under euery conceivable dis
guise. What matter whether it appears under
the disguise of Van Burenism, Of Tylerism,
CALHoUNIsM, or Stewartsm7 Isitnot the same
UNCHANGED ABomINATIoN 7" Will you state
how long it has been since you were possessed
of so cordial detestation of this unchanged
.abomination," under the disguise Of " Calhoun!
ism p" What are the "loeal affairs" upon
which YOU fear "Southern Chivalry" will ex-
pend its "braggart notions" and "false vapor-
ings7" The unimportant question OF Sta0ery
we suppose.
We intended to notice briefly, Mr.. Clay's
objections to the Annexation; but we have not
time. We will do so in the next Advertiser.
Ifyou reply to this, will you be Kind enough
10 publish it entire7
CAROLINA.
Since writing the above, we have obtained a
copy of Mr. Clay's Speeches. and have ex:
amined the two referred to by you. Neither
speech is upon the fright Of Petition" But
from one we find that be is opposed to slaUery,
and from the other, that he is in tavor Of the re-
ception of ofpetitions. Let him speak for himself.
"It is well known to the Senate, that Ihave
thought that the most jndicious course with
Abolition Petitions hasno of late been pursued
by Congress. have believed that it would
have been wisest to have receiued and referred
them, ,oits0M opposition, and to havereported
against their object in calm and dispassiouate
and argumentalive appeal TO the good sense Of
the whole community"
Il desire no conceament of my opinions in
regard to the institution of Slavery. 1 look
upon it as great sniL, and deeply lament that
we have derived il from the parental govern
meni, and from our ancestors. l wish every
slave in the United States was in the country OF
his ancestors"
Will you now say, he is NOT in favor ofthe
reception of Abolition Petitions. He is a slave
holder himself, and supports our domestic in
stitutions." We quote your own words. Or
will you now admit thar lie is in favor of their
reception. and then turn round and denounce
Mr.. Calhoun and the whole South for object
ing to it Will you inform us also, whether
Mr.. Clay, whilst in the Senate, uoted for OF
against the reception Of those which were pre-
senled7
We see it stated in the New York Herald
that Mr.. Freliughuysen was an Abolitionist
Is it true, and what are his present views?