Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1847-1861, 1851-09-23


ltebk Of Aepnse whose adyoc5tss find itesees.a.y
10 abrs . asA nssEs q ylneing i. &
Tie fiebf the Gasetssis II mr. st6<e Hhere.I
bvfll shov itto any wislllu d ~ Z 6at putl1lr
ed IN itssQlnsAlA on this sui1 o. o. 8
Finding pysef again in your eoluzpns as thske
questof apsr1ipp f1fnds. Y eoSsset sT'sstale
msgt avail myself foi Tho Opportunity te
advert o 32d& eekis article. = = - !
rourstill hsrpipa pon geur tatsnant that
4 sspressedil eoneul renee NTH ~ Mr.
itEoiSs Stbech r thsi Court lss i
sbsy srafea aby the aas1dotss Tie siewn.
alter long pursuit Of jock o'ths LaatcrSin o
dsk night caughtit as he supposedsin his slouehed
Fhat. and when he opened his hat to see what he
had, exclaimed "Humph! the crittur amt nothin'
arter sls' Suppose I had expressed my concurrence
with all the speaker said, and then Immediately
proceeded to correct the error by expressing my
dissent las oil present must admit did) from the
only practical point Of the speech, namely separate
secession, how would this prove separate secession
to be either safe or effective remedy against abo
lition aggreasiori
nave cOhFerseu Will SeNctai pStsoLS "Ho hSNhao
nc only one of whom understood me as expressing
Econcurrencc with the entire speech; and he admit
ted that he might have mistaken my expression OF
concurrence with the speakers account Of abolition
and frcesoil aggression, for concurrence with the
whole speech Those with whom you conscrsed
doubtless committed the same mistake The phrase
ology in which expressed my assent to the state
ment by the orator Of abolition aggression, and the
necessity Of resistngit cannot now be recovered;
and it cannot Of course, be determined, nor is at
all material to determine, whether or net, takes
alone, it would admit Of an Interpretation that
would make it apply to the wholespeecA or to only
part. No one who was present and rccolleets the
substance Of my few remarks, will deny that their
main purport was to dlssuads from separate State
action. The absurd and ridiculous attempt to make
out that professed conversion to separate seces-
sion, for even moment, and by the mere miscon-
struction Of single sentence, which, whatever was
its phraseolozy, was evidently explained by what
followed as not TO admit of this misconstruction,
and to do so for mere effect in the discussion of
very grave matter, shallno characterize as it de-
serves. It is like an iHapudent attempt Of an un-
scrupulous atheist to dsproye, from Scripture, the
existence of God, by garbing this text "7Ae f'ol
hath said in his heart there is no God ) omittirg
the FIRST part in .aics andshus reversing the truth
You say "thc matter Of that dialogue ns cor
rect an exposition of your (my} political faith rs We
(,he cditor) haze been able to obtain from our
knowledge of you" This may be, for aught !
know; but it does not excuse or paliate the false
hood of the dialogue. Every paragraph of 1t Is
grossly false, and i'll your sense of the language,
every material part Of every paragraph. Ii the
truth was not in you, as to this matter, it could
not come out Of you; but YOU are not therefore the
less guilty for. bringing ont what was uyou. Be-
cause man has no genuine coin, he is not the less
a criminal in law or morals, for passing counter
felt coin The pertinacity with which You continue
to misrepresent my opinions TO deceive the people
and divert attention from1he question before them
calls for plainness of speech. have constantly
challenged and de6ed you TO answer the objections
to secession, but you dared not attemptit On the
contrary your constant appeal is othe passions and
prciudices Of men; and your constant theme DR..
MacLEaX. Dr. MAcLr4S, as if DR. MAcLEAy, or his
opinions, or any lse account Of his opinions, were
the matter now agitating South Carolina. And 10
turn attention to this point (which does not nj all
concern the public,) you not only misrepresent
and falsify my opinions, but absolutely forge Ian
gusse to give me the appearance Of inconsistency
,kos In loct ortinla yoti ~,
dertake to "vindicate tho truth" of some teeo Of
your alleged facts, which l had corrected FOUR
weeks previously.-I shall advert to one or two
points of this vindication> had used the follow
ing words: "You state, in your own chaste style
that Mr. s. D. Miller declined the nomination,
whilst the fact is that he consented to serve elected
for which our authority, tcforc ue announced hin,
was little different from common report" Now
in affecting to quote this statement, you change it
altogether, to make it contradict what you assume
to be truth Here are your words: But Dr. MAC
LEAN GAYS he had something better than common
report for saying that S. D. MILLER, Esq had con,
ssnted beforehand to-aeeept il nominated lfEo, why
wa, tie envoy instructed to tender the nomination
10 two other gentlemen before he rendered it to
Tim mr-.-If.grrnuer wIrrsec thcfsrgssy by coapar.
ing isparts in italies; the object icing to make
my statement contradict what You supposed to ba
truth He win also that j; is only your forge
ry which contradicts what you assume to be truth,
but which issnot; for such instruction was not
given to the envoy" at all In another paragraph,
(Which shall not take up space TO copy,) you
make similar change in my language, for sini-
lar purpose; this too after had announced my
purpose Changed for the reason already stated,
not toappear againin your colums. The reader
will now see how far YOUR account OF my opinions