The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-03-05

| Tie compromise! why should there have beef
80 much contention to the clause making
emancipation the penalty of bringing negroes
here tor sale, II that WAS the law already Here
again, the senator is at fault. We all know
that there were in different parts of the cit,
slave pens, as they were called where slave.
were openly brought in and sold 1t was &
suppress that evil the law was passed, with tn.
penalty of emancipation.
! The Senator from Alabama alleges he die
not maintain that Mr.. Calhoun was not seces
sionist in principle, but only that he was agains
State exercising that power. The senator ha.
| forgotten his words. Here they are
"john c. Calhoun and George McDuffie ex
amined the resolutions of '98 and '99 for the
right of secession, and could not find it. They
found, as they thought, notification !; but multi
iication is itself denial Of secession"
Now, is not that affirming distinctly that John
G. Calhoun never affirmed the right Of seces
sion! The senator has forgotten his own speech
There appears 10 be a peculiar proc|ivity on the
part OF the senator continually TO bring in Mr.
Calhoun as authority to support his views, but
always with misunderstanding or misrepresen-
tation of his opinions Speaking of the dismem-
berment OF Texas, which he defends in his De-
cember speech, he says:
"The next measure of which complaint has
been made, is the bill settling the boundary OF
Texas. Well, sir, il so happens that this also
is Southern, not Northern measure II was
introduced by a Southern man, passed by South
ern votes, and ratified by the people of the only
Southern State who had any direct interest in
it. 1t further happens, that Mr.. Calhoun, the
great leader of the South, during his life, has
left on record his deliberate opinion that Tex.
as never had shadow of title to one foot of
the territory we surrendered to the general
government. He asserted that the true bound.
AIRY of Texas was the middle of the desert be.
tween the Neuces and the Rio Grande. We
gAve to Texas nine thousand miles on the Rio
Grande, which, in his opinion, did not belong
to her.
Here is a gross misrepresentation of Mr.. Cal
houn's opinions. Mr.. Calhoun asserted that
the Neuces was the boundary of Texas, before
we acquired Mexican territory by the Mexican
war. 1t was upon the question of the Mexican
war, when the boundary of Texas was disputed
and disputable, that Mr.. Calhoun said her
boundary did not extend to the Rio Grande.
The people of Texas and the government here
took the ground that Texas did extend to the
Rio Grande Hence troops were ordered to the
Rio Grande, and the Mexican war arose. But
when the war was ended, and, by treaty, the
Rio Grande was made the boundary of Texas,
by map attached thereto, who ever heard Mr..
Calhoun deny that the Rio Grande was the
boundary of Texas! That which was before
dlsputable, and occasioned the war, was settled
by the war. And now, because Mr.. Calhoun,
previous to that settlement, expressed such an
opinion as to the boundary of Texas, the Sena
tor says that Mr. Calhoun was in favor of the
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Of Texas after the treaty was
formed.
One word more upon an important subject,
and have done. The sovereignty of the States
is of the very last Importance The Senator
from Alabama, although he complains of the con
fusion Of ideas and language in others concern.
ing it, seems to meto have himself no very clear
or distinct ideas of sovereignty. agree with
him that sovereignty must be the supreme au-
thority in State. He lays down the PROPOSE
ton, and assent to it !; but How, then, does he
talk of the States and the general government
being both sovereign? Who ever heard of.two
sovereignties in State? One must be supreme ;
and that which is supreme is sovereign. Sover-
eighty is the supreme, ultimate authority. That
authority, maintain, resides in the States. And
yet here, because certain powers of sovereignty
are exercised by the general government, he
claims that the States have surrendered all their
sovereignty. A man has powers and faculties,
and may use them in concert or subordinati6h
to Others. Has he therefore destroyed himself?
SO with sovereignty. 1t is the highest authority
OF the land But it may exercise its poaoers of
sovereignty in concert with other States. 1t
may do so by special treaty. it may do so in the
form of government in which we are But is
sovereignty therefore parted with or annihilated
Surely not. Certain powers Of sovereignty are
exercised together by the States through the
general government but the States have not
surrendered their sovereignty. They are still
supreme, and may resume those powers when.
ever they think proper. Sovereignty cannot be
divided. There cannot be two supreme authori
tes-this is an absurdity and it is on that point
that it seems to me that the confusion of the
Senator exists He asserts that there is no
sovereignty in the States; and then, in the next
breath, he says they are sovereign in certain
particulars. They are sovereign in all partcu-
lars, or in none. This government acts by their
authority, and by no other authority-and they
are thus sovereign; or this government is the
supreme authority, and they have no sovereign.
ty. The distinction, which the Senator does not
seem to understand, is between sovereignty, and
the powers of sovereignty.
do not mean to go into the various matters
OF explanation concerning the speech which
made. have put down the Senator from Ala.
bama exactly in his own words have read to
the Senate and shall print what he has said. 1t
will be read. IF his replies are sufficient to re.
flute his own words, as [ have placed them down,
be it so. ! only say, that according to nv
conception of it, he has failed in his effort
There is nothing. in my Judgment, which the
gentleman has said, that refutes the antagonistic
positions he took in his former speeches and
his December speech. They are totally ncon-
sistent and irreconcilable. But if he can recon.
cie them, it is very well for him to do so.
MIR. President, when | rose yesterday, it was
my intention to have addressed myself also to
certain remarks of the Senator from Michigan,
Mr.. CAss,] but my strength failed and the
controversy with the Senator from Alabama has
taken up so much of the time of the Senate
that feel it would be a trespass to datain them
longer on these matters. shall, therefore, reserve
what have to say to moro convenient oppor-
tunity, when hope to address myself to the
Senator from Michigan.
Mr.. CLEMENS. Mr. President | wish to
add but word or two. The Senator from
South Carolina says that he antcinated when
he made this assault unon mo fhot IL uvould lao