Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1845-10-10

The Fayetteville Observer of last Wednes
day, alnuses US not little. The editor evil
IDENTIFY feels and shews that he committed 2
false step when he wrote that article, in which
he charged that blight of dishonor would at
tach TO our name, (meaning the United States,
for expressing weak nation, merely because
she Is weak, and that annexation was deep
disgrace to the United States. The editor
now feels convinced, no doubt, that such SEN
timents as these cannot be swallowed even by
the Federalists of North Carolina, and is there.
fore DESTROYS of hiding the whole glst of the
discussion. beneath multitude of little qub-
bles,e ntirely foreign 10 the subject. This seems
10 be the only object of his last article. We
have had occasion several times, recently, to
place the peculiar brightness of the Observers
wit, in such light that it will not be lost TO
the world. This week, we must again do
him this service, and by way Of doing so, we
would like to know~if the sapient editor of the
Observer, could tell US the difference between
chalk and cheese. We're not joking. We
should like TO be informed on this point. For
IT ne answers inthe affirmative, we would then
like to know of him, if there is any difference
between foreigner and a citizen of the Uni
ted States. If he can perceive the difference
between the former two articles, then there is
some hope that he will be able to make the
latter discrimination. We say that we are
citizen Of the United States. This is suscep-
tlble of proof in a court Of law. Still the OBJ
server continues to call US foreigner.
The Observer says that our pretending to
discover bubbles in his paper 'was but pre-
Iude to its [meaning the Journal own quo-
bling and pettifoggery." Well done, s.de-
cency!" But really, this seems somewhat
childish and only betrays the Editors soreness.
1t is really too funny to argue point with
person who both denies and admits your posi-
tons. The Observer says that those citizens
of the United States, who went to Texas, and
who assisted in achieving the independence of
that republic from Mexican tyranny, did so as
citizens Of the United States, whilst in the
very same article he admits that those of them
that might have been captured by Mexico, had
she been successful, would have been proper-
~ treated by her as Texans, and that the Uni
ted States would have had no "right" to in
terlere in the matter. Surely this is admitting
all that we contended for. We asserted that
those quondam citizens of the United States
who participated in the Texan revolution did
so as citizens Of Texas. The Government
of the United States interfered in no manner
or shape. If individuals were willing to mi.
CRATE TO Texas and take the chances of war,
what had the Government of this country to do
with the matter. There are a number Of ma
tives Of the United States, now in the Pro-
vince of California. Suppose the inhabitants
OF that Province see proper to resist the autho-
rlty OF the Mexican government, and declare
an independent State; and supnose
The natives of the United States now lvino
Ihere, were to take part in the struggle, would
the observer say that the United States had
ln'eriered in the affairs of a neighboring State
We have yet to see one iota of proof CT tn.
charge which the Observer SO ssdeliberately',
made, that we had oppressed "weak nation. I
because ste is weak The charge has been made
0y an American paper, published in our midst.
and we dohope that the people of N. Carolina
Will ever bear in their minds the source ffom
which this alike unfounded and nnwarranted
'aiumny has emanated. The Observer has
RED to dodge and bubble himself out of the
dilemma in which this aspersion of his country
has placed him but has most signally failed
Let him and that party who support him re-.
'oncile his course with the behests of honor
md patriotism if they can.