The North-Carolinian. [volume] (Fayetteville [N.C.]) 1839-1861, 1850-05-11
From the Missssippian
LETTER FROM CHIEF JUSTICE
SHARKEY.
JACKSON, miss. April 4, 1850

JACKSON, miss. April 4. 1850.
Editors cfthe National LntelHgencer:
GENTLEMEN: Your number Of the 18th
of March contains an article headed.
The Proposed Remedy for the Evil Of
the Day EXAMINED" which does gross
injustice to the members Of the Conven-
tion which met in this place in October
last. Ihe part which it was my fortune
to take IN that Convention makes it neces-
| sary that should foreso inclination, aud
appear before the public to repeI an un-
| founded calumny. That article IS but
the sequel Of several which preceded it, Of
less boldness. The public journalist
owes It to the country to deal candidly
and fairly with the conduct Of others, and
in departing from this duty he is like a
swift witness he betrays his partiality
at the cost of his integrity.
Your article is lengthy, and shall con-
of it as place the Convention in the most
prominent point of view. Your title
seemed to give promise Of discussion, but
your ESSAY begins and ends in assertion
and denunciation. You prove one thing.
however, which may have not been gen.
orally known-an entire identity in feeling
with the North, in its hi sh claims of power
On the subject of slavery. Your Northern
readers will doubtless be gratified at your
devotion to their favorite measure, but
they will not be much enlightened by your
argument. Your Southern countrymen
can no longer regard you as neutral.
am not willing that the Convention shall
be judged by the open enemies of the South,
and still less willing that it shall be con-
demned on evidence and differences not
found in, or warranted by, its own declara-
tions and l assert, in the most solemn
manner, that motives have been ascribed
to the members which they did not enter
tain.
Your allusion to the Hartford Conven-
tion is an artifice which requires no COM
ment to show its object. its history is
given at length, and you conclude, from
the ''mode Of composition and the Objects"
the Nashville Convention is more deserv-
ing Of odum. This is condemning it pre-
matureIy. .on assumed grounds The con-
vention has not met; its composition
known. Its objects are just what the
con vention of mississippi expressed them
to be. When men have openl = and fairly
declared their object. it is unjust to ascribe
to them motives which they did not ex-
press. unless the charge can be sustained
on more conclusive evidence. My pur-
pose is with the Mississippi Convention ;
and If you had dealt as fairly by it as you
have towards the Hartford Convention,
no vinddation would have been required.
The history fone is given at length but
not SO with the other. The Hartford Con-
vention is pronounced an innocent affair,
on the strength of the declarations con-
tanned in its proceedings; but the Misslss-
ippi Convention is not judged by the same
rule, it's declarations are disregardetl, and
motives ascribed to it which were not ex-
pressed. One sat with closed doors. aud
its proceedings were kept secret, at time
when we were at war with powerful
foreign enemy, which had been opposed,
and the justice Of which been denied by a
portion Of our people, yet its motives are
determined by the journal ofits proceed
ceedings to the world, and invited dis
cussion yet it is condemned on what it
did not say.
You next allude to the Mississippi Con-
ton. and, after setting out it's resolutions.
say: these resolutions, certainly, upon
no sufficient ground in their averments,
the essential part of which contained in
the second resolution none but political
fanatics land hardly they would be found
w u'SPutCs OoS s3'uAay OuS''uS ~"~ f~' P>''~s :
of which late discussions in and out Of
Congress hardly leave doubt. through
the instrumentality Of the proposed con
vcntion, to unsettle the foundations Of the
, government of the United States. They
| set out, indeed, with protesting devoted
and cherished attachment to the Union.
but they beg the question Of aggression by
the non n-slaveholding States. in order to
suggest the idea that they (the people OF
MississippD desire to have it only such as
they DESIRE" Here is direct charge oi
design to unsettle the foundations OF
the government. 1t is utterly denied that
any such purpose was designed. 1t is
denied that any member Of the Mississippi
Convention had any such object IN view ;
and it is asserted that every member there
assembled is friend to the Union, The
great, the leading object in calling It was
to preserve the Union. 1t is asserted BY
you that the resolutions but family outline
the purpose to unsettle the foundations of
the government but the picture is filled
out, by the aid Of perverted Imagination,
on the evidences furnished by ''discusslons
in and out Of Congress- Why did yeu
| not Judge the Hartford Convention by
discussions in and out Of Congress =
The Mississippi Convention also asks to bt
Judged by its own acts. and 0y It's owt
O1ly.
But in the foregoing extract It IS aist
asserted that the essential part of the reso
llutious is contained in the second. whie,
you say .snone but political fanatics won't
ldispute." This IS not true. The thtTt