The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-07-22


trines of the inherent right of the inhabitants OF
a territory to self government and instant adms-
sion as States, what would have been the fate
Of our country! governed by majority Of Mex
lean and European foreigners! What would
have been the fate of the South with this aug
mentation of seven millions Of free soers--fra-
ternizing with her three millions of Africans
What was thus written for the Louisville Journal,
was written without any compensation from any
of its editors or proprietors or any other person,
and without any connection whatever, except
that of personal acquaintance If the editor
of the Union calls that an apprenticeship, he
might call by the same term the contributions
Of Judge Roane and other able men in Virginia
to the editorial columns Of the Richmond En-
quirer, when conducted by the present editor of
the Union-contributio MS which made that repu-
tation which the editor of the Union brought to
Washington--and has lost.
AS for the Democracy Of the senior editor Of
with that of the editor of the Union. When he
was denouncing the Constitutional treasury we
were supporting it.
We were the first to take that public stand
for free trade in the Northwest, which was fol-
lowed by its adoption by the Democratic party
of that region. And none labored more in that
cause than we. Nor have the speeches and
writings of any man of the party, on that subject
had wider or warmer reception We were
among the first, if not the the very first there to
move in favor of the annexation of Texas
Both of the editors of this Press therefore are
happy on this occasion to prove themselves as
true to their country as party. Both of them
have rejected their party candidates, as all the
South can now see, how wisely. We have
therefore no pretensions to the new ORGANISING
But representing as we do both parties in the
constitutional and conservative South, we think
we would be very proper umpires to decide
where party Cabinets and party organs differ
particularly when we shall speak the voice, as
we shortly shall, Of the largest constituency of
any paper here.
Asfor the fling at the close of the article Of the
Union (Which like most insects carries its sting
in its tail rather than its head9 we can excuse
it as n natural eruption of temper from one who
has lost the confidence not only of it's section,
but of its party, and instead of having the sane
ton of majority of the Southern members of
Congress is managed by little coterie with
Northern head and Southern members
"THE SOUTHERN PRESS"
Our attention has been directed to an article
in the Southern Press Of Thursday, in which
is quoted from the Union, and the in
nuendo, if not the direct assertion, made that we
contend that the prohibition of slavery north of
36 deg. SO min. by the Missouri Compromise
was not taking jurisdiction over slavery by Con-
gress, and that to recognise slavery south of
such line would be taking jurisdiction over that
nstitution-that we regard Southern men who
assert the power of Congress to prohibit slavery
rs patriots, while we would call them ultraists
and disunionists if they contend that Congress
nay recognise it. But for greater certainty, we
quote the article of the Southern Press entire:
Let the South be consistent, if she would be
strong. Every Southern man now knows that the
principle of the Missouri Compromise has been re-
Gently changed at the Nashville Convention. They
were unwilling to take the Missouri Compromise as
i was adopted in 1920, and subsequently recognised
by the Texas resolutions. They have adopted
he Missouri Compromise line, and insisted on the
adoption OF a principle which is not to be found in
he Missouri Compromise itself. In doing this,
hey have abandoned that adjustment under which
hey seek to shelter themselves. They have brought
Onward a new principle, although they pretend
hat their demand is sanctioned by the acquiescence
4 the people for thirty years past: The Missouri
Compromise, as they have brought it forward, is
new and distinct proposition, which admits the
ain line, provided it recognises it south Of that
inc, thereby giving to Congress the Jurisdiction
over the subject of slavery. Union."
"The Missouri Compromise oflS20 prohibited
slavery north Of sc deg. 80 min That was not
aking jurisdiction over slavery by Congress- But
Congress recognises slavery south of such line,
hat is ne,c principle-thai is taking jurisdiction
Southern men are patriots who assert the power
f Congress to prohibit slavery, but are ultraists
nd disunionists if they contend that Congress may
recognise it
Such is the obliquity of reason and servility Of
pirit that conducts the Southern champion of the
plan to his conclusions.
Now, If the inference be right that the above
j..
must be permitted to say that they are utterly and
entirely without foundation, and that the author
IF them must have known they were without
when he made them. From the first
of the Missouri controversy up to
he present time, we have denied that Congress
had any rightful authority to take jurisdiction of
The question Of slavery; and from the adoption of
the Missouri Compromise up to the present time,
we have always, and upon all suitable occasions,
declared that it was a violation of the Constitu-
ton, because Congress did, in adopting that mea-
sure, wrongfully exercise the power to exclude
and forever prohibit slavery north of given line,
running through the national territory Congress
had no right to do this--a fact which we have
proclaimed from 1890 to the present time; and
the editors of the Southern Press know well
that we have proclaimed it oftentmes during
the last three months. They know that we
have contended again and again that Congress
had no Constitutional right to prohibit or es-
tablish slavery anywhere, or to take jurisdc-
ton over that institution north or south of
$50 3O, or of any other line whatever. 1t is not
true that We have ever considered it patriotic in
Southern men to assert the power of Congress to
prohibit slavery, and that Southern men are ultra
lists and dsunionists if they contend that Congress