The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-05-07
Etom he Mobile G.ala.l Register.

y
thence OF your readers with another article.
The position Of @Lowndes" Is, that the Nash
vile convention, in recommending the adoption
Of the Missouri compromise line, violated the
doctrine of non-intevention, and sacrificed the
permanent interests and the just rights of the
South. have endeayored to controvert these
positions; and to do this, have made extracts
from the resolutions and address of the Nash
vile convention, and have fully explained the
origin and passage of the Missouri compromise
| bill. From these statements, it appears that the
! Nashville convention recommended the South
to acquiesce" in the adoption of the Missouri
compromise line, as aan extreme concession,
upon considerations of what is due to the sta
biiity of our institutions" and in the address,
the reason for this acquiescence is stated to be,
that although the /" compromise is not co-exten-
sive with our rights" yet as II I" has been twice
sanctioned by those who have gone before us"
the South might accept it if offered by the
North" The proceedings of the Nashville con-
vention show conclusively, that there were
grave objections" to the adoption Of the Mis-
souri, compromise line--that it did not give the
South all she had right to demand; but as the
North were unanimous in the assertion of her
rights, and the South were divided as to the
mode and measure Of redress" for the sake of
peace and harmony, and to quiet the distractions
Of the country, it was better, under existing cir
cumstances, to acquiesce in the adoption of the
Missouri compromise line, extended to the Pa
cite Ocean.
When Texas was annexed, this covenant be.
tween the North and the South was again re-
newed, and slave territory was admitted into
the Union, under the restrictions and prohibit
tons of the Missouri compromise. This CON-
promise was faithfully observed by the South
until lS47, when the North reludated all obi.
cations further to respect or regard its provi-
sions, and avowed the constitutional right to
exclude slavery from all of our present and fu-
ture territorial acquisitions This right the
South denies. Its enforcement violates the
Constitution, and destroys the equality Of the
States 1t makes discrimination between the
property Of the North and the property Of the
South, that is injurious in its tendency, partial
in its operations, and degrading in its effects.
The assertion Of this right by the North, and it's
denial by the South, have brought the two sec
tons of the country in fearful and angry COLI
sion. The South must either submit to these
unjust exactions, or resist these arrogant usur-
pations, or these conflicting rights and claims
must be adjusted by compromise. Now the
question is, which course shall be taken! In
the first place, the South will not submit A
portion Of her citizens will cheerfully do so.
They have been palliating the aggressions of the
North, and are ready now to distract and dash
the counsels of the South. But the majority Of
the people are determined not to surrender all
their rights and privileges. They have some
respect for the example and instructions Of their
revolutionary projenitors, and resistance to un-
just and unconstitutional oppression is one Of
the first lessons they have learned Uncondi
tional submission then is out of the question
In the second place, should the South boldly
and at once resist the aggressive policy OF the
North, and say to her, that the adoption of any
measure that destroys the equality of the States,
and interdicts the South from an equal partci
patton in our territorial acquisitions, wi be re-
garded by her Is dissolution of the Union
In the opinion of many, this course is demanded
by the feelings, the dignity, and the true inter-
est of the South. But they are regarded as NJ
traists, dsunionists and traitors. The idea Of
resistance to even unconstitutional aggression,
is still considered by many as rebellion and
treason. To make this resistance efficient, there
must be identity of feeling, union of sentiment,
and concert of action among ourselves. In the
South we are divided and distracted, and it is
the part of prudence and of wisdom, to avoid
alike the disgrace of unconditional submission
and the danger of unqualified resistance. This
/ WAS lIe OplUlOu vi Tie INdShNHc COuNtitiOU.
Its position was at once grand and commanding.
The distiny of the South and existence of the
| Union were in some measure, committed TO its
custody. II took comprehensive view Of our
wrongs and injuries, Of our rights and duties
and Of its obligations and responsibilities. In
the spirit Of compromise, and as ian extreme
concession" the South is recommended ITO &c.
quiesce" in the adoption of the Missouri CON-
promise line. large majority of her citizens
sanction and rstify the recommendation. Meet
ing after meeting is held, and with scarcely
exceptions enough TO vary the moDotony
of their proceedings, the resolutions of the
Nashville convention are approved, and the adop.
ton of the Missouri compromise line is recon
mended
1 The olive branch" that was rendered by the
North and accepted by the South in 1920, il
now offered by the South 10 the NOrth-and be-
hold il is rejected with unanimity and spurned
with contempt With the North, fragment Of
the Wing party in some of the southern State.
is found cooperating. The democratic party
approve the proceedings IF the Nashville Con.
vention, and the Wing party generally are will
ing to acquesce in the adoption of the Missouri
compromise line. On what grounds do these
seceders" from the Wing ranks oppose thi.
measured II violates, cay they, the great South
ern doctrine Of" non-intervention"-th doctrine
that originated with our ffvorite, Gen. Cass-
that was sanctioned by the wisdom Of the Balt
more convention, and that was illustrated anc
defended by the genius of the South's most dis
tinguisbed and patriotic son, the lamented Cal
houn. In lS47, we condemned the proceeding.
Of the Democratic meeting in Montgomery, be
cause il approved ofthe opinions of Cass, Dala,
and Buchanan, who advocated the doctrine thai
Congress had no right TO interfere with the
/" slavery question"--but that it should be ef
to the inhabitants OF the territories to decide il
but these sound views were not correctly ap
preciated by us then.
This doctrine is the "corner stone" Of oul
rights and safety, and now when its wisdom anc
efficiency are appreciated and admitted by all
the Nashville convention inconsiderately aban
dops II, and actually recommends the Missouri
compromise, that violates the Constitution anC
sacrifices the rights of the SoutiI. Il is true
J that compromise was forced through Congress.
by the influence and eloquence Of our favorite
Mr.. Clay It's true it restored peace and har
: mony TO distracted country, and settled o.
6rn,or foundations the nilIara of our syovarn