Democratic banner., 1849-07-23
II The following communication has
been on file for two weeks, and laid over on
account of the crowded state of our COL
umnS,

account OF the crowded state OF our col:
umns.
For the Banner.
Mr.. EDITOR: A writer in the Record Of
the 9th ult., over the signature of "W. NJ"
makes a quixotic charge upon one Of your
editorials of a former date, On the subject
Of the "Wilmot Proviso." He leads off
with this declaration: "We intend no per-
sonal d~isrespect to that writer when we say,
that there is not one tenable position in his
letter, not one proposition but violates eth
er facts, cr the rules of logic, or the rules
of law" Now, Mr.. Editor, l have care
fully read the article to which wv. M.'re-
fers, and also, his criticisms, and sofar from
being satisfied that he has m'ae good his
positions, have come to the conclusion, that
he has himself violate j Scts, the rules of
law, the les of logic, and the rules ofcom-
mon sense. One would suppose from the
Wanting manner in slioioh w. M has sta
ted his proposition, thst'he pretended to be
well versed in law and logic, but I doubt
very much.if he ever read two books on
elementary law in his life, certainly not one
on constitutional law, or if he ever saw a
treaties on logic.
The writer first attempts to show that
Jefferson was in favor of the Proviso, and
asks these questions:
"Does the gentleman deny that Mr.. JEFF
ferson approved the ordinance of l7S79 if
not, then he must admit him to be in favor
of what he approved, and of course a pro-
visoist." "Does the writer not know that
one of the charges which Jefferson made
against the King of England was, that the
king had forced negro slavery upon the peo-
pie of America, and assigned that as one of
the reasons for dissolving the connection
with the mother country ?"
Well, suppose he did, does that make him
a provisoist? We suppose this writer knows
enough about historyto admit, that the Dec
%laration of independence was long prior to
our Constitution, and if he does not know
that much, we assure him such was the
fact; and that there was not a prominent
man in the South, who was not opposed to
the introduction of African slaves into the
country. And further, that there is not
now in the South, a prominent man who is
not opposed to the further introduction of
African slaves into the country. John c..
Calhoun is certainly opposed to it, for he
has on several occasions voted to make the
African slave traffic piracy. But does that
make John c. Calhoun and all the promi:
net men of the South "provisoist? If the
same opinion entertained and expressed byI
Jefferson, made him a "provisoist," it ought
to make Calhoun one too and no one can
come to any other conclusion, who has not
studied logic from the same treaties that
Nv. M has-i.e. Col. Benton's speech.-I
We also suppose that the writer knows, Cor
ought to know from the way he vaunts his
lao and logic that the ordinance of 's7I
was prior to our constitution ; that at that
time, the Yankees, the present provisoists,
we're busily engaged in the African slave
trade, and that the South, and particularly
Virginia, being opposed to the further in
PRODUCTION of African slaves, Mr.. Jefferson,
as a means of lessening the market for these
African importations, wrote the ordinance
OF "a, and not, as is often asserted, of 's7,
to be applied to the territory north of the
Ohio river, for the sole purpose of prevent
ing these philanthropist of the present day,
from selling their importations into that ter
ntory. all this occurred prior to our pres
emit constitution. Yet, this logician s%eizes
noid OF this, to prove that the "Wilmot pro-
Vlso" Is constitutional, and that Mr.. Jefer-
son was in favor of its adoption under the
Constitution. And that too, in defiance of
'enerson's letter to Dir. Holmes, in which
ne said that the proposition, to prohibit the
removal Of slaves into the territories, fell
upon his ear like a fire bell at night; and
that the removal of the slaves from the
states into the territories would not make
hnA