The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1851-04-30
g The Crisis Esassed-Tise ne.
mocral's Flag sarnch.


retreat hon de extreme Posilisa which he eceu-
lpisd Al ihs comneaceneu, q his editorial career.
and has come out oPenly IN hsor of The Union.
The dark and gloomy caption. /. Ssufhsra Demo-
efai.- has been removed. and in hs place, in
bnsht and Joyous iooking letters. stands The more
n'oiesi and iess suspicious lille, : NYnh caroii-
"a DenocfAL" Tbs whole aspect q Ihe piper.
too seems 20 have changed. having brighter.
more distinci and iess ominous cast We CON-
mend The courage Of the editor in pulling down
that inscription upon his masthead, which, in
The present :. crisis" smsrked Of Disunion; but
slili more for accompanying The aci with the de-
elarAlion that be is No, willing 10 Afford by he
tile TO bis paper evrn, The least colorado ground
upon whirh 10 be suspected Of underwriting 70
draw distinction between true Northern and
southern Democracy I'VE are a National
Democrat" says the editor, devoted 20 The con-
siiiuiiOnsl nights Of the South and in favor Of the
Union"
u may be that our peakly structures" have
not P'odiecd this effect. Though We have aim
cd our artillery al this mark, and the eannena.l-
ing has been kept up for several weeks, yet we
are willing 10 oonoeds that il was the EDITORS
god sense which induced him 10 abandon his
ground. and not the force Of our shot. II Is SUI.
fcieni 70, US. thai The editor is on the side Of the
Union, and is opposed 10 the mad scheme Of en-
deasorins 10 spill il asunder ami build up South
em Confederacy.
We understood the Democrat 10 maintsin, in
his first article ON "The Crisis" that South
Carolina would certainly scccdc, and that il was
equally eertaia that many IL no, all the Southern
States would follow her example;" and from the
tone and sentiment Of the article we were led 70
infer that The Democrat himself favored the move
msnt, and would have North carolIna j,iu in the
secession. II WAS the advocacy Of such doctrines
that VIC endeavored to contest. But as the De-
mocrni has struck bis flag, and asserted in his
last number that he would have North Carroll
ma hold on ITO the Unionl as long as Southern
Star giiiers in our brgh, galaxy Of States" &C.,
which is in direct opposition 10 The ground which
we understood him 10 maintain in tho outset,
there would be but little reason Cor US 10 contin-
ue the controversy were it not for a dark insnu-
alton in his last notice. and ono or two Other mat.
iers intellectually introduced,
We said in our last notice, that . the Democrat
wiihh'ds from his readers every thing that mill
iales against his p;cconceiyed notions, because
he docs not believe them to bc true. but very
readily picks up the scraps on the s,hc, side, no
matter how vaguely o. loosely hinied II and this
the editor thinks very incomprchensiblc. II seems
plain TO us as we expressed ii, though it may moi
be 10 the readers OF the Democrat from the man.
ncr in which il is given by the editor kie latter
part being omitted. No one could suppose that
we would object TO his Withholding from his
realers what he did not believe to be true; but
what we objected to was that he should confne
this tiGciots er,ilsioa only 10 those things
which initiated asiins, his prcconceivci notions.
IN a word, w,,t Of consistency is the thing We
endcavoled TO point out, and We think we prov
ed il.
The column of IA liter in relation to tho Com.
promise and the Alminis;Sa lion, we must, for the
want Of time and space, pass over for the present
with the simple remark, that we regret to find
that. while the pipers North and South of both
parties are bcsiowing just praise upon the Admit
nistra,ion for its aithuncss and firnnsss in exc
cutting The laws. the Dem,cfat is not disposed to
join in with the general voice, but sullenly st,nds
a,oof. ever and anon throwing in discorjant notes
Of csnsurc or blame, sounded either upon new n-
struments of his own invention, or upon old unes
raked from the rubbish Of the last campaign.
The citor Of the Democrat seems 10 think that
our question in referencc to tbs doctrine of Sc
cession, was varicl in order to eatrap him /; but
VIC assure him that oar only object was to get an
ineligible answer. AMI though he charges US
with setting "doiginy, evasive, equvocating
example," yet the diff :alty we have had in get
ting an answer to oar question would clearly con-
vic, him of tina, same thing. Bat we will not
dispute about this. We now have his answer;
and we are glad that no takes ground against the
course Of South Carolina, which we had reason
to fear woall moi be tn, case wacn We relI his
frs. article.
While W, express or qualification at part of
his answer, we by no means sanction the doc
trinc therein set forth. Though lawyer, the
editor seems TO use terms Of art as he does other
words, without duly considering their import.
lie saws: ave arc not in favor Of secession ex-
ccpt as the uAima ratio rsgum.' so to speak. of
The Southern States" And what is the "uHi-
ma ratio regum ?" Why, when Kings or Ma
lions have failed to settle difficulty by nesoa-
lion, resort to ,car is called the !" ultima ratio
regum." We suppose. then, the Editor means
by this, that a State has right to make war a
gainst the General Government! But after thus
defining secession, he asserts that it is a right
neither derived from the Constitution nor con-
flicting with it," This seems to US paradox.
Levying war against the United States, is pro-
l A -