The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-05-03

ME- A10ss'n CYo0eus
We insert the recent speech Of Mr.. Rhett to
the Southern Rights Association Of Charleston,
South Carolina 1t has thrown the Republic
here, into paroxysm Of vituperation The
speech arrived night before last and that paper
broke out yesterday into such passages as the
following:
We think, in all candor, that the speech has
much of the merit here attributed to it. It is
quite Ineligible from beginning to end There
is no manner of doubt as to what Dir. RHRTT
desires or recommends. He means the dssou-
ton of the Union, and the overthrow of the
Constitution; peaceably, If there is any chance
for it; otherwise, by war and boodshed He
means sedtion, perjury, and treason. Here is
man who, few weeks since, came in reekng
with treason from Nashville, and in the pres
ence of the Senate of the United States took
solemn oath to support the Constitution! With
that oath hardly cold on his lips, the same man
goes into an assembly at Charleston, and in
vokes the people of South Carolina to join with
him in the overthrow Of that Constitution. Is
it not charity towards such man to believe that
he is lunatic II not a candidate for the asy-
lum-of what other place ought he to be an in
mate! It is difficult to conceive of any more
+.
RHETT, If we once admit him to be sane per-
son.
So Mr. RHRrr counsels his brethren to be-
come traitors that they may enrich themselves
by turning smugglers. Heightened morals these!
Mr. RHETT is evidently gentleman, every inch
of him.
Mr.. RHETT, by his own confession, has been
working away at these reasonable projects of
his, for FIVE and twenty years and yet report
says that he is about the very last man who
would be pleased at losing his seat in the SEN
ate of the United States Perhaps he may yet
find some way of reconciling his speeches and
conduct in South Carolina with his oath TO sup
port the Constitution.
Although the Republic is an organ of the Ad-
ministration, yet we cannot do the latter the in
justice of imputing to it the sentiments, the
temper, or the extreme indecorum of the organ
on this occasion. If there is even any consid-
cradle portion of tho people of the North capa
bic of sympathizing in such eruptions of the
organ, they are poor and queer specimens of a
section SO devoutly devoted to the cause of
Union and concord
As for the proposition of State, or the peo-
pie of State, to secede from the Union, it i'm
plies no more moral or legal turpitude, than for
person to declare his intention to change his
residence from the United States to some other
country. Indeed, not so much. For he would
leave not only the institutions of his country
but his friends, neighbors, kindred, and native
soil, which would not be the case in the seces
sion of State. Why, if South Carolina, Oh
Massachusetts, or California, were to come to
morrow, and say, we intend to dissolve our pc
litical connection with the Union, simply because
we think our interest would be promoted by S,
doing, what man of sense or principle could pre-
tend there was anything wrong or wicked abou
it. 1t might be thought unwise or impruden
In the retiring State, but he lid call i
treason, perjury, or fraud, would exhibit thu
weakness of his understanding even more plainly
than the violence of his passions. But if q
State comes and says, we intend to withdraw
from the Union, not only because it is adverse
TO our interest, but because it has violated our
rights, taken our territory, broken the compact
and abounds with our enemies, who peryert the
press, the post and the Congress, to our vilifica
ton, and therefore we think that our peace, oul
safety, and our progress would all be promoted
by withdrawing, the case is still palmer. Is no
STATE to be judge of its own rights, of it
own duties, of its own interests and is it no
bound, by all the obligations implied in tn,
trusts con6ded to it, to see to the welfare of il
people? Are other States to be better Judges
of the rights duties, and interests of State
than itself? Why, it is only necessary TO ash
these questions to make the argument that is con-
elusive on every principle of common sense, OF
selfgovernment, of free government.
1t will not do to deny the right of secession
on account of commercial or political inconve.
nience. The same argument would justify con-
quest for the same motives. 1t might be pro-
ftable or convenient to include people of the
most repugnant sentiments under one gov
eminent, so as to have free trade between
them. But there are some things of more i'm
portance than freedom Of trade or social inter
course; and the right of self government is
one of them
tits true that few enthusiasts, like Mr. CLAY,
Mr.. WEBSTER, &c, have such intense and diHu-
sve patriotism, that they love all sections of the
country and people precisely alke-California
and Carolina, Minnesota and Massachusetts s.
But, alas common men are made Of different
stuit-and hence positive diversity of interest, or
mt least of opinion, has arisen on vital questions
Al. :. - Al
property, TO territory, to land itself. And such
is the weakness of human nature, that one sec
ton, not content with the iberaity of Messrs
CLAY and WEBSTER, in bel ping it to nearly nj
the common property of the country, cries alou,
for more, whilst the other, although remarkably
meek and affectionate, is after all selfish enough
to have notion of acting for itself, and keep
ing its own acquisitions for itself The Repub
tic thinks such notion j. very wicked an,