North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1852, 1851-09-20
THE WASHINGTON UNION.

18th of this month"; has failed to do that justice
which one political friend has the right to expect from
another. In our paper of the Sd, we distinctly in.
formed the Union that we had acquiesced, from the
first, in the Sc compromise measures "-that we had
not sought discuss them, but that discussion had
been forced upon by Southern Wing journals
and that not only regretted this unhappy slave
~ controversy" but deprecated and dePored, most
sincerely the results to which it likely to lead
in the neighboring State of South Carolina. We al
so declared that this was neither Secession nor a
Disunion journal that for the Union as long
as the Constitution remained unbroken; and that we
should be for seeding Withdrawing from the Union
only in the last the final and most extreme
measure for the protection of the sacred rights and
vital interests of the saveholding States. We also
stated in reply to that paper of the 22d August that
the Southern rights men of this State held no such
doctrine that of IS Constitutional right to Sc
cede but, the contrary, regarded il reserved
right, to be exercised when all other and rem
edies had failed. We INDUCED the hope that the
Union would set US right before its readers on these
points. 1t has declined TO do SO, however; and not
only this, but it still leaves the inference that were
favorable to Mcdonald and Qutman, because, as that
paper alleges, they were for disorganizing the
Democratic party and dissoving the Union. Now,
what we have to repeat is, that we preferred these
lieved, they for both Southern rights and the
Union, and because they had been brought forward for
office by the great bulk of the Democratic party in
their respective States and confess, in addition
to this, that did not like the company in which
We found Messrs. Cobb and Foote. But we have
not impeached their Democracy, the Union itself
must remember and what asked of that paper
was - assuming that all four of these gentlemen
were good Democrats mot to take part in the con-
test going between them. Had we regarded
either Mcdonald Quitman as hostile to the Union
account of what has been done, and seeking to
destroy it and establish its ruins Southern Con-
federacy, we should have denounced them and warned
the people of their respective States, far our
feeble voice could have reached them, of the danger
involved in endorsing such views and such policy
by aiding in their election.
The Union sets it down as (" a notorious fact -
that the Conventions which nominated Messrs. Cobb
Mcdonald, Foote, and Quitman, were neither Wing
nor Democratic Conventions and expresses surprise
that should not have known this TO be so. We
know that there were Democrats in the Foote and
Cobb Conventions, and Wings in the Mcdonald and
Quiman Conventions, and remember the names Civ
to these bodies but we know, ALSO that three
fourths of the papers which support Messrs. Cobb
and Foote Wing papers, and ninetenths of those
which support Mcdonald and Qutman are Democrat
ic papers. Where do you find the old and tried Dem
ocratic organs in GeoIgio-the Milledgville Union,
the Savannah Georgian, and the like? For McDon-
aid, and against Cobb and the same remark will |
hold good to the Mississippi Democratic organs.
Where do you find Toombs and Stephens? On the !
side of Cobb-but we forbear. We have wish |
TO pursue this matter any further.
But the Union has profted somewhat, we hope, by |
having looked attenvely of late into the posi-
fio 0;od hv H.
quiesce in, but approve, the compromise and
reason for this opinion is founded upon article
in that paper of the 18th instant. in relation Judge
Bragg Of the Mobile District. The Editor publishes
letter from that gentleman, in which he repels the
charge of being disunionst, avows his warm at
achmen to the Union according to the Constitution,
and plants himself the Resolutions of 9S and '99
and in laying this letter before its readers, the Editor
classes Judge Bragg with Messrs. Millson, Meade,
Averett, and Others of Virginia, who voted against
the Compromise, and adds: I'D t
That tried democrats in the South, understanding
as they do the tricks of their old enemy, should be
indignant at the idea of having their fidelity to the
Union questioned because they wished to see the
Compromise, measure, wten pending, varied in {
of its details, or because they referred it af
it had become adjudicata-a law of the land
irepealable from its very nature in its most essential
paris-was not only natural but unavoidable. Yet 2
the mputaton of disunon sentiments of policy ,
which would favor the movement towards southern q
congress and southern confederacy, projected by r
such men as Messrs. Rhett and Cheves of South :
Carolina, undeserved as it evidently con-
trary all the doctrines of the old republican party
Such democrats acquiesce in the Compromise, now
that it is law, not because it is perfect work, but
because it is good could be finished at ,
the time of its adoption, and because its maintenance
in good faith disarms aboltonism, at the same time
that it restores TO the public opinion medium through
which it can bring back the federal government TO
he sphere prescribed for 1t by the authors of the
'titution."
Now, affirm that we have occupied, all along, ,
he very position occupied by Judge Bragg on this =
questions and for proof of this refer to our paper
If the l1th of June last, in which published and
endorsed letter written by that gentleman as fol-
ows: :.
-ers "MoBILE, May &c, 1851.
GENTLEMEN Yours of 24th inst, propoun ding to
certain questions in reference the present aspect
If political affairs, is before me. D
To your first inquiry answer: that while the n
Southern States gained nothing by what has been =
ermed the IS Compromise" to which they were not u
clearly entitled-they were deprived of much which o
hey most justly had the right TO claim. The con- O
usion is, that the Compromise measures are unjust
n themselves and derogate from the rights of the
Sou thern States. 80 q ~ - n 3 --s-.z
To your second reply-that for adequate Ia
ause, in my opinion State has the right to secede
rom the Union. In this connexion 1 must be per- q
ned to say that in regard the right of secession
seems to singular confusion of ideas has ex-
sted This has arisen from proneness to consider h
right secured by and arising under the Constu- q
.LggEH $3.50 h1rA. Z i.7f 2 4