The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1850-08-24

honored with the confidence Of the pc O.
ple.sven advocated the acquisitions de-
claring that only five States could be
erected in the domain thus acquired;
while others Of the same party, less
open and candid, but as bold, reckless
and indifferent TO Southern interests,
urged the acquisition, after they must
have known it would be destl Dying to
Southern political power. The loss Of
political power, with disgrace; or cast
ing away all hope of preserving a
Southern equilibrium Of States, were
the alternatives presented 10 the democ-
racy Of the South, and they hesitated
not which to elect. Southern interest
they yielded, without a moments hesita-
Ition, to preserve their political power,
and vast territories yer acquired, which
by their geographical position, nature
and climate, we're unfit for slave lahor i.
But, moi Notwithstanding the chances Of the
South's drawing further power from
these territories were 50 distant and
small; yet, their President, as though
he intended to close the question upon
llhe South forever and at once, coloniz.
ed, at the public expense, q regiment of
free settlers, in that portion Of the terri
tory which was best suited 10 slave la
Dor.
The democratic party Of the South at
the close of the Mexican war, insisted
ON the acquisition Of territory, notwith-
standing their own party at the North,
had declared the WiImot Proviso should
be applied 10 it all. Reckless as to the
consequences, either as to the Union, or
Southern interests, the acquisition was
insisted on, and came cut,
Thus was the Mexican territory a C
CURED to the Union by the Southern
democracy, knowing al thevmust, that it
would ensure 10 the sole benefit Of the
free States; as it was so stated by the Or
gan Of their party in this State and their
leading politicians. Simultaneous with
the acquisition of territory, rose the
question Of the Wilmot proviso, between
the free and the slave States. The free
States contending for the application of
the previso-the South insisting on non
intervention. To oppose the p%roviso
and support non-inlerventioN, were the
cardinal principles of the Southern dem.
ocracy, who were ever ready to heap
denunciations on The head of every one,
who doubted the wisdom Of their meas.
ures or their fallibility as mortaIs. Act.
ing under the advice of their leader,
the supporters Of, as we'll as tho Missouri
compromise is condemned as coEtaihing
the Wilmot proviso, in their speeches
and 10 their Southern Address, written
by a Senator Of South Carolina. The
same doctrine was held in this State, in
l849. Those Southerners who opposed
the Clayton compromise, which contain
ed the non Intervention principle, be
cause they considered. it conceded the
right TO the Territorial legislatures 10
exclude slave property, were denounced
by the Southern democracy, as traitors
TO the South; but, is it not almost be-
yond the pale Of credibility. that these
leaders and their organs, should now be
%denouncing those Southerners who sup.
port a bill containing the principle o
non-intervention, with a prohibition
against the territorial legislatures legis
lating against the introduction Of slave
property Well may the Democrat,
Southern Senator from California havr
been surprised at the change, which, il
one short year had come over the spiri
Of the dream ofthe Southern democracy
The "Seven Sleepers" Of the legent
who went t%osleep when the Pagans wer
prosecuting the Christians, and awok
when the Christians were persecutin
) the Pagans, could not have been NOR,
surprised at the change, than must hav,
Y beeen the democratic Senator from Ca
i%fornia. The only difference betwee
+ the illustrative case is, thai the Cir.
needed twenty generations, while Soul
ern democracy re0uired OnlU ono xroe