The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-12-23
More Correspondence on the Course Of the
Washington Union

The following letter to the editor of the
Union is the most cruel specimen of pulverizing
we have seen for some time. The path of pol
itical apostacy is not strewn with roses.
BY the way, it is entirely too much to insist
on the consistency of that editor for nine months
at time. We don't look for it in the Union
for more than n week together, and don't al.
ways find it throughout the same paper
NoXuBU COUNTY, Mss, Dec. . 1850
Editors Southern Press
GENTLEMEN Below you will find
Il copy Of a letter written to the editor of the
Union, and mailed ut the same time with this
Should Mr. Richie refuse its publication, please
give it Il place in the Press.
Respectfully,
II. WILLIAMS.
VINCENT PARKS.
NoxUBu Co., Mss, Dec 3, 1850.
THos. RITtHlE, ESQ.
SIR In requesting you to discontinue the
Union, we shall use the occasion to express our
reasons therefor; and ask you to give our COM
munication place in the columns of your pa
per.
In the first place, then, when you commenced
following the lead of Henry Clay and Daniel
Webster, you deserted the principles which you
advocated at the time we became subscribers to
the Union, and with which you indoctrnated us
until last spring. If you will contrast the sem
timents contained in the following extracts
taken from your editorial, in the issues of the
10Th January and the 18th Feb. last, with your
present position, you will find ample proof of
your change. The editorial contained in the
former is headed, California and the Message"
and you there say: "The interference of the
Federal Government in California was danger
Gus departure from all recognised precedents-
one which was entirely inconsistent with the
nature of our institutions, and with the relations
which the Federal Government bears to the ter
ritories of The Union. The inhabitants of the
public domain, have never been regarded as
people possessing the sovereign rights of Il body
polite; nor has 1t ever been admitted that por-
ton of the national domain not even erected into
territory could exercise the rights and assume
the responsibilities of sovereign State, &C.
&C.
When commenting on Mr.. Clay's resolutions
of compromise, in an editorial headed "Mr
Clay's pretended compromise" you say; "a
mere handful of men should never be allowed to
appropriate to themselves vast extent of terri
tory; and in no case should a State be erected
of such dimensions as to command an over
whelming influence in the Confederacy" y
1.-The chief objection to his (Mr Clay's) scheme
is, that it is no compromise at all of the great
questions of slavery in the territories. Indeed
it hardly has the outward form of Cancellation,
compromise or mutual concession for one party
is called upon to give up shadow, the other
the SUBSTANCE one party must surrender name,
the other principle" &c.
We hailed these sentiments, at the time of
their PRONUNCIATION as true, and we still regard
them so; but, strange to say, we are now de-
nounced, in every issue of your paper for striv
ing to maintain the very principles which you
taught US few months ago to cherish as birth
right.
We are aware that you opposed the admission
of California as separate measure, but have
been unable to see how fraud can be lesscned
by being grouped with other bills, two Of which,
were equally fraudulent and aggressive. You
occupied this position, without any proof be-
yond assertion, until the Omnibus" overset,
and fell in FIVE pieces, when you varied the music
TO suit the occasion, and played on one string
until the five bills passed; and we are still left in