Southern patriot. (Houston, Chickasaw County, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1849-08-29

ening slavey, knowing that IT'S only
effect would be. 70 eXasperate the
| North. and bring the whole slave ques-
ton once more into Che yoriex Of pol
tiles "-Hllycr
i OCTWe quoted the above sentiment
lin our paper Of the sth Inst with the
I following comment TO witt
This sentiment comes from the
editor Of the Aberdeen Independent
Ia New York Yankee, who was a
sub-electot in the canvass Of lS4b in
| New York. He has come to the South
but from this declaration, we infer
that he has not adopted southern no
tioBs on the slavery question. Fur
| Their comment is unne cossaTy.
Hillysr replies on the 18th Inst.
BY charging US with coming or copy
ing falsehoods, and denounces our
differences as being untrue.
Very well. Let's see where the
falsehood rests.
Our first assertion was, that this
sentiment (who schemed &c.) came
from the editor Of the Aberdeen indie
pendent. We repeat the charge and
say that Hillycr is its responsible au-
thor. PROOF. We find it mne
cessarily dragged into the reply ofthe
Editor, to Gen Davis's card, which
he has since repeatedly recognised
as his Well so far upon whom
rests the ialsehood? Giles NJ. Hill
liver.
| Our next assertion was that he
was New York Yankee Who are
recognized to be Yankees, BY the
whole southern people? Those who
come from the north. Where did he
come from? From the North, as we
are assured and as we verify believe
from New York. Well thus far upon
whom rests the falsehood? Giles NJ.
Hillyer.
Our next assertion was that he was
sub-elector in the canvass Of 1914.
This assertion we had repeatedly
Iheard-had seen him questioned as a
sub-elector in the columns Of news
paper, and had never heard it contra
dicted specifically, by any one, not
even Hillyer himself until the 18th
/ Inst He had issued enc or two num-
bers before he denied it through his
paper. With these lights before us,
we had the right to take it for grant
ed that he had really been a subelec-
tor. Virtually he admitted it. as it
is q principle universally regarded as
correct, in law where q charge is made
against an individual in his presence
and he fails TO contradict it, the charge
lis as sumed to be correct. But he
denies itnJw after il had been re-
peOtedly preferred against him and if
vve receive his assertion for truth, il
merely convinces us that he was a
much smaller'man where he came
from, than we were disposed to give
him credit for being
Our next assertion was that he had
come south.
/. Surely ty the denial Of this asser-
, ton, he does not mean to say that he
/ is a Southener by birih-That he
/ had never been from the South
Then if our second assertion is cor
rect, the last is eaqually correct
4. And this throws the falsehood from
, us. Where does it fall! Upon the
. censor editor.
E The next is our inference, that he
had not adopted southern notions on
the slavery question.
The sentiment from which we drew
! our inference directly, as we distinct
g " avowed was this: "Hho schemec
! The annexation Of TeTGs for the pur,
: pose Of STRENGTH SLA
n VERY KNO WING THAT ITS
+ ONL 7 EFFECT WOULD BE TIC
, EKASPERATE THE NORTH
] and bring tss rhOle slaUe question
once more into he UOrter Of politics