Southern standard. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1851-1856, 1851-08-30
LoNGwooD, Aug. Goth, 1856

LoNGwooD, Aug. Goth, 1851.
To the Editor Of the Southern Standard:
Sir, last week had the honor of writing you a
letter in which l informed you that, if your I'M
derstanding really was that Mr.. Harris meant to
challenge me to a discussion on the question of
protection to slave property in the Territories of
New Mexico and Utah. and if either Mr. Harris
or Col. Young, should endorse that challenge, l
accepted the same, and stood ready to meet your
advocate" whenever he should lay down his ar
gument. You sent this letter directly to Mr..
Harris asking if you had understood him to make
such challenge, as, in case he had not, you stood
ready to make me the amende honorable. This
was all could have asked. But in answer to
your letter, Mr.. Harris sends you his speech,
which speech, SO far from meeting the issue be-
twixt you and me as regards the challenge, ex
pressly confirms my recollection as stated last
week, viz; that no such challenge was made by
him. You must not forget the true issue. The
Standard of the 10th, expressly states ''that
Mr.. Harris challenged Mr.. Cobb, or any of his
associates, to discuss the question of protection to
SLAVE property in the Territories that no one &C
cepted the challenge" that you, therefore, regard
ed the Union party as acknowledging that no
such protection existed'-and that, if this cad
mission was not made by us, the friends of pro-
lection acould pat up their adpocate.''
Now you must admit that this language peremp-
torily charges that l had declined direct chal-
enge to discuss the question of protection to Stare
property IN tie Territories, and that Mr. Harris
had driven to tacit acknowledgement of de-
feat. felt certain, still am certain that such a
challenge did not meet my ear 1 would scorn
myself if could have Submitted to decline so d.
rect challenge from Mr.. Harris, or ''any of his
associates" | have had besides, the honor OF
meeting both, Col. Young and Mr. Harris, sing
ty in the discussion of THIS uery question, for each
paired off, on separate occasions, with Capt.
Barksdae; and, at Barton Mr.. Harris took two
full hours to make his argument, leaving me the
same time to reply l cU submt, if either OF
these honorable gentlemen, (both my personal
friends will say that shrunk from this question,
OF from any question belonging to the canvass, on
any occasion during our tour around the country
| |, therefore, kindly and respectfully intimated
to you In my letter, that such CHALLENGE as uo0
represented was not made in my hearing, and that
your account 'was not so guarded as to be free
from an un'ntetonat Misrepresentation of myself -
GU appealed for ''relief' to Mr.. Harris, and how
does that gentleman ''exhonerate'' you / quote
the language of his letter to you to prove that he
does not sustain your version of the challenge as
contained IN the Standard of the 10th, inst. Mr.
Harris says:
Il challenged any one present to assert Aa,
there acre TAGS eristing in the new territories
Furnishing the har6oring, concealing, or ent;c;no
array sta0es from their oUners l offered to III.
vide my time with any one sOho ,oould rise ana
make that Statements
Thus, you plainly see that your friend does no,
bear you witness that there was chauenoe Nor.
emptorily rendered me ssto discuss with him the
question OF protection to SLAVE property in the Ter
rltor1es of New Mexico and Utah" The cbal.
ienge was, at last, just no challenge at ALL and the
challenger himself knew very well that no ono
would look on or receive it as peremptory chal-
lenge for debate. It was ssthrice told tale >,
he had made that challenge four or FIVE times in
the canvass, and he knew that had replied as &c
ten to the challenge. I will venture, then 70 90,
that Mr. Harris did not really intend it as a cb.i.
ienge proper, for that was no time, no place n
make challenge, and it had been understood H.,
rng our canvass that we were not to interrupt each
other while speaking. save on question of fact
or Tor personal explanation But it was NOT )
challenge because there was attached a condition
precedent that fairly amounted to petitio pr;n.
esp". Nobody ever heard of challenge nrone,
Delng harnessed and tangled with a cord;t;o-
pro0'so that impressed certain answer to an in.
'err0ga'ory prOpounded by the challenger, in orde,
| 70 De qualified to accept the same. The challenoe
was not to discuss. as you said it was. but T.