The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-04-14
From Hunts Merchants Magazine.
rhe Union, Past and Future
q REVIEW" REVIEWED.


"a REVIEW" REVIEWED.
The leading article in the October (lS50)
number of HUNTS Merchants Magazine, is a
brief RsueD," by Mr. e, II. Derby OF Massachu-
satts of pamphlet first published in Washing
ton and afterwards repubished in Charleston,
entitled The Union, Past and Future: How it
Works, and How to Save it; by Citizen of
Virginia" This review is the most elaborate
criticism which has yet appeared, and by its full
ness and superior ability, merits reply, in which
shall attempt to meet every objection it makes.
The reviewer begins by insinuating, what he
does not venture to charge directly, that the OBJ
ject of the essay is not what it processes, g to
count the means of resistance; the relative
strength of the opponents; the value of what
we must hazard and the surest way of pre-
serving the Union in its original equality" but
that the real design was to stab the Union
under the guise Of friendship and to seek its
ruin" confess am not one of those who in
dulge in an idOlatrOus veneration for the u lion,
and in order to preserve it forget the causes for
which it was formed still less would cloak
nv real estimate of its value under the fashion
able cant which affects to regard it as piece of
perfection, above all criticism, as the Ultima
Thule of all human progress at the same time,
am fully aware of all its advantages, and none
can more strongly desire to preserve it, created
by the Constitution, and rs the old republican
party--yes, as the old Virginian school of '98
and '99, now so much derided-interpreted that
great treaty; and such was the object of the
pamphlet, to inquire how we could preserve the
Union of our fathers, the equal union Of sove-
reign States, and to stab, not under the guise of
friendship, but openly, Us mortal foe, the I'M
equal Union, or rather, the consolidated despot-
ism which threatened us. With this view, the
proper course of argument was obviously that
which the essay pursues. 1t first states, {" that
the South has at stake, not merely the fourteen
hundred millions of dollars, the value of her
slave property, but all of honor, and of happi-
ness, that civilization and society can give" To
prove this it briefly reviews the past contests
between the North and the South, and shows
that the great questions then pending, (ast
winter) were but one stage in long history Of
ever growing demands on the part of the North,
and as constant concessions from the South,
and that the final result must be the entire SUI
premacy of the former section, with the aboli-
ton of slavery in the latter. Having thus proved
that the real issue was more important to the
South than the Union itself, the essay next
shows that the Union may be safely staked
upon this issue because. LIST, if it were lost, the
South still has internal resources to form con-
federacy of the first order; and I'd, the North
would, in that event, be so weak, and the nd
vantage she derives from the Union are so enor
NOUS that she would yield to the claims Of the
South for equality, if once convinced that it was
the only condition on which the Union could bt
preserved.
There is nothing in the pamphlet that does
not bear on some one of these points; its fact
may be mistaken, but have yet to learn VIVA
there is in the spirit or character of such al
argument that can justly ''irritate dispassionate
men, like Mr.. Derby, and in what rule of logi
its reasoning fails. The reviewer does not at
tempt to tell me, but confines himself to attack
upon various facts, and subordinate argument.
on which the main argument depends. pre-
coed to notice them, nearly in the order in whic
he presents them.
In the history of the causes of the preser
crisis" the essay asserts that Virginia ceded tn
Northwestern territory to the United States
that slavery then existed there ; that its prohib
ton was to the injury of the South that tn
only condition of the cession which has operates
favorably to the South, was that the territor
should not be divided into more than five States
and that this condition has been violated by Civ
ing %, 1886 square miles of its area, more thar
the average size of all the free States east of tn,
Ohio, to constitute the future State of Minnesota
This point is not essential to the main argument
but MIR. Derby recurs to it more than once, anC
his reply will serve as test of his general nc
curacy; think it will be seen that he has mad
numerous mistakes. He first disputes the It'll
Of Virginia to the Northwestern territory, ant
he next says, that the South has been ampl
compensated for any concession that may hav
been made in giving up that region to the FIRE
States but all this obviously does not touc
the main question, whether the formation Q
Minnesota out of part of the Northwest TERRITORY
violates condition of the cession from Virgins
For it matters not what compensations hav
been made for the loss of this territory to sav
labor, or whether the title of Virginia was gooC
She certainly claimed the whole region betwee
the Ohio, the Mississippi, and the Lakes, and sh
certainly ceded that claim to the United State
upon specified conditions, which were recog
nized by all parties as binding compact. On
of these conditions operated in favor of the pc
litical power of the Southern States, and it ha
certainly been violated in the formation of Mine
sofa.
Now, to meet this difficulty, our reviewer in
Inmates that the whole compact between Vir
ginia and the United States is contained in tn
first Legislative act of cession, and that whe
Congress proposed a change in one of the art
cles which Virginia accepted, it is not to be con
sidered as part Of the compact, because Virgini
merely consented TO it. This seems so strang
nm argument, that ! will quote it at length, il
Mr.. DeIby's own words:
The deed by which Virginia ceded TO Con
gress her claims Northwest of the Ohio does not
author imagines, restrict the number 0
States in that region TO FIVE; il authorized man
more, for II required they should not exceed Isl
miles square, which is less than half the size @
Illinois. subsequently, Virginia, by the act o
1887, Mt the request of Congress consented I
40 enlarged size and diminished number Di
she by this act cede away her interest Pag
372)
Such an argument almost answers itself, bu
let US examine it mad state the case more full
II in true, that the first act of cession froi
Virginia required that the new States to !
formed out Of this territory should not excee
more than 100 miles square. When Congress
by the ordinance of 1887, proposed that th
States should be larger, and that not more tina
five should be formed ont Of the whole terrtorI
1t acknowledged chat the transaction was n com
pact, for, IA Mr Derby says, il requested tn