The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-02-07

a.. &&A44Rx1 ED&sOA&4 Ac01s
Ehe Nakdonal Intelligencer
has fc4Hd \ expsdieut to attempt a defence
against the exposition we gave Of some Of its
more gvoss iEfractions Of historical truth, aud
also 10 call in question some Of our statements
concerning IL ewn eourss on important ques-
tions But il declares il will not waste time IN
replying 70 Ill. This j. very judicious. 1t would
10 still moro prudent in that pint not to waste
tims and space in writing and printing endless
columns of apocryphAl history, for the purpose
Of easting cdium on the most iustious names
and 6tsass Of the Union.
Tho Iaieltiesacsr threatens us with having yet
to sneonntsr ops : fall share Of responsibility"
to + ia Indignant 6eath," when il shall be un-
deceived, for dsceiving 1t as to the sentiment OF
the North. Well. we shall take that RESPONSE
biliay Aud ~ long A. the late acts Of adjust
meht remain on the statute book, we shall have
evSaenss; Of the fidelity with which We have de-
scribed Northern sentiment which no amount Of
Northern O national doymatism and prolixity
can ahaks.
The Iuteltxsxoer says that We assert " with
out quailfcstpn,s that the National Intelligen-
cen, though opposed to the war in sentiments
shrunk from public opposition to it'--and says
that : nothing bat ignorance ard tue false sug-
gestions Of others, eau account for a statement
% satirely unfouuded as this"-and appeals to
it, columns to show directly the reverse"
Now, our statement las, that the Inieuigen-
Ger, although opposed in sentiment to the war
1t that timc"--the time it was declared, shrunk
from opposition to it---and that it was not till
time elapsed for opposition to gather force aud
number from other quarters that "it began to
write long articles against it." This was what
We stated--and from memory. On seeing the
denial Of lhe Iatelligencer-which is not a denial
Of what we said but of what we did not say
we looked over file Of that paper during the
time in question; and we find that, with the
exception of an article or two on the passage OF
the declaration of war, which was on the 18th
Of May, l846, the Iatslligencer is almost desti-
tute of an editorial, or sentiment, the merits
of the war, up till the following September,
which is as far rs our researches extended
Through this period, when public opinion was
forming ON that mighty event. the Iateliigencer
had ten times as much editorial devoted to the
manufacturers fair at Washington as to the
war The Inielhgencer discussed the Oregon
question, the tariff--and we were amused to see
that the tariff of 1916 was then the Intelligen-
GERS evil" of the day. But the Intelligencer
had very little to say on the merits OF the war,
and that little was remarkably obscure and
equivccal. 1t was not till after September-uot
till it was seen that powerful opposition to the
war was rising in the country-an opposition
that reduced the Administration of Mr. Polk
from majority Of 10 in the House of Repre-
seutatiyes, when the war was declared, to mi
nority in the next House that was elected--it
was not till this powerful opposition was largely
developed, that tie Intelligencer began its long
articles against the war;
The Intefligencer next cites US, as saying that
we had mover seen any evidence, that South
Carolina disdained Federal Offices. We said no
such thing. The IaeHigencer said in the article
to which we replied, that eminent South Caro-
linians, had complained of the share Of Federal
honofs received by the South. We said we NJ er
had seen any such complaint And now the ~
teAigencer finds it necessary, 'ince it can far
nish no refutatation Of what we did say and
probably no evidence or support of what it said
to change the proposition altogether, and liz
stead of imputing to South Carolinans com
plant for not getting Office, dsdsin for office.
The InteNigencer next disputes our version OF
Mr.. MADrsoS's opinions on secession-and to
show that we were wrong in imputing secession
sentiments to Mr.. MADISON, quotes Mr. MADI-
son against notification. We did not say that
Mr.. MADISON was for notification. We knew
he had written the letter the Inicllgencer quotes
against it. But we quoted exactly what Mr..
MADISON did say in the Fsderdiist, about the re-
sistance of the State governments to Federal
usurpation,--a resistance by the State militia
The Imeliigencer does not deny the accuracy Of
the quotation, and cannot
Mr.. CALHOUN thought that notification was
within the forms of the Constitution. Mr.. MADI-
soN did not--that is all. Mr. MADISON believed
the States, the State governments" had right
to resist Federal usurpation. And if they had,
they must of necessity be the judges of what n
usurpation is. There ia no mode of such resist
ance which is penceable, bat secession.
A for Mr. MADIsor's last advice in Behalf of
preserving the Union, we are with him--to this
extent: That the objects Of the Union, justice
tranquility and general welfare, nre still more
dear to US than the Union itself, which is de-
clarsd by the Constitution itself, as the means
to attain those great ends. And we, therefore,
look on him who seeks to render the Union para
mount to the objects for which it was created,
and still more, those who attempt 10 make it an
instrument for their destruction as its worst en-
euies.
As for the naked sentiment, that The Union