Washington telegraph., 1851-07-09
A FEW QUESTIONS.

them refer TO MIR. Johnson COURSE III
Congress on other matters besides that
of the slavery question. The three which
we have selected bear immediately upon
his principles. in respect to the absorbing
subject of Union.
1. What means the "Uhion ought and
aOaJ dissolve?''
2. What means the calculation in
| figures to be seen in r. w. Johnson's
address to the people Of Arkansas, in
January 1851, where he attempts to show
that the South will gain by secession from
the Union"
| 3. What means, "the North are those
who vociferously deno@7ace Disunion. The
Southerner who joins them had better
move to them
The assertion quoted in the first query
above, was made by Col. Johnson when
the Compromise measures were under
discussion If they passed, he considered
that the Union ought to be and a0ould
be dissolUed. They passed; and although
| the Union is not yet, and we trust never
will be dissolved, according TO Mr.. john
son, it ought to be.
Whenever a person thinks thing
| ought TO be, he is very apt to use his ex.
ertions to bring it about. 1t is certainly
the grossest inconsistency for MIR. John.
son to call himself Union man-nay, a
better friend to the Union than even its
strongest advocates, who boldly and
openly bear its banner aloft-when he
has strongly and emphatically said-the
Union ought and will dissolve.
| The South has rights and she ought to
and will maintain them. By doing So
whenever wrongfully invaded, she only
| proves herself worthy of free Con-
| federacy. 1t is perfect foolery to talk to
her of submission. No such thing is de-
manded of her. The idea only exists in
the run.mad imaginations Of the wildly
| speculative, or the restless and traitorous
|
thoughts of the darkly aspiring and am
bilious. Every section of our country
has its local pride, which the reckless
demagogue never fails to appeal TO in
any emergency of his political fortunes
| His violence, he thinks, will be construed
into ardent attachment, and this apparent
attachment rewarded by the suffrages Of
the people. His design is selfish; he
takes no broad and patriotic view of the
relations which the different sections Of
our country bear to each other; and 10
fan into flame the prejudices of the South
and to be elected to office by being con-
sidered its particular friend, he would
hold the Union as vaIueless, and spurn
with ruthless hand the work of our
patriotic fathers. If we had TO select a
man whose attachment to the Union was
undoubted, and who could be, under all
circumstances, relied on, we would never
choose the man who has said-"the Union
| must and Will dissolve.
We should like to see the second query
answered-we should like to know how
he who can calculate III dollars and cents
the value of the Union, and the benefits
to be derived to the South from secession,
can consistently call himself Unionist.
If he can, there is no need that mans
acts should correspond with his profess
sions, to render him worthy of public
favor. If he can, he may demagogue it,
under the colors of Union. whilst his
very act is stab at its existence.
As to the third query-Mr. Johnson
says-"the North are those who vocifer-
ously denounce disunion. The Southerner
who joins them had better move to them"
If the North are those who denounce
disunion, the inference is that the South
are those who 60 for it, or, at least, who
should go for it. The Southerner who
is willing to stand by the Union is told
that he had better leave his country.
If language conveys truthful represen-
tation of mans feelings and opinions,
what, we ask. does this express? Does
it not clearly prove Mr.. Johnson to be.
in feeling aud opinion, a disunionist? Mr..
johnson is truthful, highminded gentle
man, and we believe he means exactly
what he says.
The. Washington Union endorses the
recent speech of MI, Webster. Andrew
! J. Donaldson thus writes; "After careful