Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1847-03-04
1Uatthnon & Gtote Iollrnol.
E.P. WALTON, Jls., EDITOR.
Montpelier, Thursday, March A.


Montpelier, Thursday, March A.
THE GREAT QUESTION.
MIR. CALMOUN's POSITION.
Before proceeding to note the now develop
mcnts on the subject of Slavery, we wish the
reader to remember that ttCo votes were taken in
the House upon the Three Million Bill, which
were precisely alike in the result, though several
of the members changed positions upon the two
questions. The first vote was on the TEST CUES
TIoN as to Slavery-to wit, upon adopting the
Wilmot proviso and this was the vote given by
States IN our last The second vote was upon
passing HE bill; and that was given in the last
Patriot, from which it seems that few Northern
Wings voted for the Wilmot proviso and against
the bill, and that few Northern Locos who vo-
ted against the provso, subsequently voted for
the bill 1t appears therefore that ALL Of the
Northern Wings were in favor Of the Wimot
proviso, but that few of them were against
trusting Poll; with the three millions even with
this restriction.
We now turn to the proceedings in the Senate.
On the l9th ult. the resolutions Of New Iamp-
shire and New Jersey, against the admission of
new Slave States, were presented, whereupon
Mr.. CALHOUN arose and addressed the Senate,
in solemn tones, in behalf OF Slavery. He OPEN
ed By saying that seven of the free States had
already announced a solemn determination to
admit no new slave States-a matter in which
all the free States would concur; that the House
had adopted the Wimot proyiso, and that twice
had it rejected propositions to extend the Mis-.
souri, compromise line to the Pacific. 1t was
high time, then, for the South to inquire to her
strength in the House she has but 90 members
out Of 22S-in the electoral vote she is in mi
nority of 50-ln the Senate she has an equality
which Iowa will oyerturn. Mr. G. then went on
to show that there is territory enough for at least
II new free Stiles, exclusive of Mexico, but
none for slave States and he therefore argued
that ere long the Senate would have two free
votes to one slave vote What, then, can the
South do, is the next thing to be considered. -
Mr.. Calhoun rises as the champion of Slavery to
answer. He has cut Off Mr.. POLK on the Mex
lcan Wnr-he is now TO cut off another Southern
Presidential asprant (BEYroN,) by heading him
on this great Slavery question. Evidently, Mr..
Calhoun is and means to be, the leader of the
ultra Slayocratc interest. He spoke as follows
Speech Of Mr.. Calhoun.
Sir, what is the entire amount Of this policy
! | will not say that it i, 80 designed. | will not
say from what cause 1t originated. | will not
,,thp ind IL
er hostile feeling to slavery entertained by una
ny not tanatlca on the other, has produced it
whether 1t has been the work of men, who, look
ing to political power, have considered the agi-
iallon OF this question rs the most elfecua mode
Of obtaining the spoils of this government.
look to the fact itself. 1t is policy now openly
avowed to be persisted in. 1t is policy, Mr..
President, which aims to monopo.ize the powers
of this government and to obtain sole possession
of It's patronage.
+ Now, ask, is there any remedy? Does the
constitution afford any remedy? And if not, is
there any hope? These, Mr.. President, are SOL
emn questlons--not only to us, but, let me say
4 to gcnteman from the non-slaveholding States
to them. SIR, the day that the balance between
the two sections OF the Countrywide slavehol.
ding States and the mons uveholding States
is destroyed, Is day that will not be far remov.
ed from political revolution, anarchy, civil war
and widespread disaster. The balance of this
system is in the slayeholding States. They arc
the conservative portion always have been the
conservative portion always will be the conser.
vatlve portion: aud with due balance on THEN
part may, for generations to come, uphold this
glorious Union of ours. But if this policy sboulo
be carried out-lf we are to be reduced to
handiul-lf we are to become a mere bali tc
play the Presidential game wh--to count some
thing in the Baltimore caucus -if this is to be
the result-wo. wo | say to this Union
Now, sir, put again the solemn question
does the constitution afford any remedy? Is
there any provision 10 it by which this aggressive
policy-body avowed. as if perfectly consistent
with our Institutions and the safety and prosper.
ity Of the United States may be confronted
Is this policy consistent with the constitution
No, Mr.. President, no! 1t is, in all its features
garingly opposed to the constitution. Whist i:
: it? Ours Is federal constitution. The State:
are its constituents, and not the people, The
twenty-elght States-the twenty nine States lin
GLIDING Iowa stand under tins government as
twenty nine individuals or as twenty nine indi
dryiduals would stand to a consolidated power
, Ii was not made for the mere individual prosper
ity Of the States as individuals. 1t was made fol
hi her ends. 1t was formed that every STATE
. constituting portion Of this great Union oil
ours should enjoy all It's advantages, natural anC
: acquired, with greater security, and enjoy then
justice and equality-perIect equality between
The members Of THIS republic. Nor can that be
consistent with equality which will make thi,
public do main II monopoly on one side which
IN It's consequences, would place the whole pow
or IN one section Of the Union to be welded
\ galnst the other sections of the Union! Is tina
, equality?
i How do we stand in reference to this territori
al question this public demain of ours 4? Why
sir, what is it? 1t is the common property of t6t
: States of this Union. They are called "the ter
!, ritories Of the United States" And whit arr
:. the u nited States but the States united Sir
! these territories are the property of the State
= unlted held Jointly for the common use. AM
Is 1t consistent with aslice--ls 1t consistent il,
= equality that any potion OF the partners, out
numbering another portion, shall Dust them Il
this common property of theirs shall pass an
u law which shall prescribe the citizens of olhe
y portions Of the Union from emigrating with thei
property to the territories of the United States
, Would that be consstent-can il be consisten
u with the idea Of common property, held joint
II for the common benefit of all? Would il be S
considered in private life? Would it not b
considered the greatest outrage in the worll
u and which any court on the face of the globe
i would at once overrule'
o Mr.. President, not only is that proposition
~ inconsistent with the constitution but the Ohe