The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-12-20


the demand for law to protect them in doing
it, might be considered law to establish slavery
there This, then, is the assumption made by a
Georgia Convention, that there was no right to
take slaves to the new territories. The assump-
ton is not expressly made, but is implied
Well, if it be true, il puts different face on the
admission of California. Il wou,A have been
asking too much of the magnanimity and frater-
nifty of the North, to make gin 10 the South
for mere love and affection, of any considerable
part of so rich a territory. But the South was
rather stupidity chivalric, and foolishly prodiga,
in pouring out her share of blood and treasure
to acquire it. The cost is about two hundred
and fifty millions in cash, and the loss in killed,
wounded, and missing, of some twenty thous. nd
men. If the South has furnished more than her
quota Of all this, for the patriotic and fraternal
purpose of acquiring territory for the North,
why then, we don't wonder that the North loves
the Union so deeply, for the South is not such
friend as is to be met with every day, even in
this benevolent world of ours MOI do we Won
der that, if such romantic friendship for the
North exists in the South, that the love of Union
is so intense in a Georgia Convention What
selfish and narrow. minded men the ultras must
be, even to dream of disturbing such disintcr-
ested friendship
But alas for The vulgar realities of life. The
South never had any such superfne Quixotism
1t was not so declared as the object or the con-
sequence of the war. II was not so understood
by the multitude of volunteers from the South
ern States. And when it was announced by
Northern legislatures, it was answered with Il
volley, broadside, cannonade of sulphur and
saltpetre resolutions from the Southern States,
the smoke of some Of which, is all that remains
But after permitting the basis of its argument
and action to be revealed, and which, if well
founded, is quite sufficient for acquiescence, and
even for rejoicing in the acts of Congress, the
convention goes on quite superhuously for it.
self, and to us quite as groundlessly, in further
assumptions. Behold, how they put the partic
ular case of California.
a distinct phase Of the subject was pre-
scented by the application of The people inhabiting
one of those territories, to be nd mitted into the
Union as State, und er constitution formed
by themselves, in which for Themselves they had
assumed The settlement Of the slarery question:"
We have italicised some of the words to illu-
inmate the passage.
This, of course, is designed to be an argu
mentative statemen! of the facts involved in 4
great constitutional controversy. Yet, neither
according to our constitution, our laws, or on,
usages, was there such thing as people, or
territory of California! No such people or terri
tory had been defined or recognized by law
Hence it would have been just as competent fol
the inhabitants of CALIFORNIA, New Mexico, anG
Utah to unite and form State constitution
and exclude slavery from all of it, as for few
thousand Californians to do so from all that
vast territory to which they took fancy.
The Convention tells US the people of Cal
ifornia assumed in their constitution to settle
the question of slavery for themselves. That i,
Just what they did not do. They undertook to
settle that question for vast extent Of territor,
capable of holding and supporting the popula
ton Of the United States--rather q modest as
sumption for seven thousand law -gvers. Ma,
more, they attempted to settle the question o
the right Of shareholders in fifteen States o.
this Union to occupy their own lands,-they I'M
dertook to violate that right. Nay more thar
that, they undertook to settle the question OF
future power and equality a; between the North
and tho South-in a word to decide the fate of
two mighty institutions, or systems of society
All this they attempted; nothing of this could
they do without the intervention and co-opera,
ton of Congress. And that was given.
The Convention proceeds:
1.-The acquisition of this territory moreover had
! involved the government Of the United States
in a controversy Of boundary, pre-exstins be-
tween Mexico and the State of Texas, with
which also the slavery question was unhappily
complicated"
This passage is equally unfortunate with the
deduction.-Both are spelled. There was no
question of boundary betoeen 7eras and .Mer-
ico unless the denial by Mexico of any right OF
Texas to separate political existence was ques-
had any boundary-uot only denied that she
extended to the Rio Grande but denied that she
extended anywhere or had any space. If this
was the question of boundary in which the
United States was involved by the acquisition of
territory-if it was matter of dispute whether
Texas had any territory at all or not, then we
think Congress would have been very magnani-
nous to concede or to cede her all the territory
she now holds, without paying her ten millions
for not giring her The balance.
The avowed reason of our war with Mexico,
was her invasion Of American soil, and attack
on General TAYLOR at Palo Alto. Now, every
part of the territory claimed by Texas, was rs
much hers, as much ours, rs much American, rs
that of Palo Alto. 1t was ours only by and
through this claim of Texas Well, we make
war to assert, in fact, right or claim of terri