The southerner., 1852-05-15

rather entirely independent of it.
But admitting, for arguments sake,
that this link in the chain was sound,
let us examine the second. This is as
clearly diametrically opposite, as one
can be to another. North
Carolinians hold slaves simply as proper
tn, northerncrs look on them as men.
If one would cqualize, they are entirely
thrown aside; if the other, they assume
the position Of equals to the whites, and
as such ARE entitled to Misrepresentation.
Perhaps CA Conservative" did not think
of the fact, that this gave origin to the
three -ffths rule. The South contendlng
that their slaves should not be represent
ed. because in case Of direct taxation
they would be taxed equally with the
whites. The North contending that it
was but right that they should be.
They compromised BY representing the
valuable portion. One fifth being too
old & infrm to labor, one fifth too young
and weak, the present rule was adopted.
This clearly proves, that let us act as
we may in our State policy, with regard
to slaves, it cannot in the least affect Us
as portion of the Federal Union.
The chain is completely severed. In
answer to the third, we would state that
we are in favor of abolishing the proper
tv qualification for a Commoncr, but
oppose to the utmost, the abo-
lition of the property qualifca-
tion for Senator. Our reasons, under
the next head As to the last, we are
surprised that "a Conservative" should
contend that the same measure would
lead to destruction Of the representative
capacity of slaves, and also to their free.
dom. To what incongruities will oul
prejudiccs not lead us. As for ouI
part, we cannot think our readers will
see the slightest analogy between freeing
the white man from the legalizcd bon
dage ofpropcrty, and the emancipation
of negro slaves. We therefore proceed
to the next objection, which we con-
slider as containing, in truth, the whole
matter.
Thirdly, Our Constitution is the
"bcst, man ever bchcld, for beth rich
and poor-ncithcr can cncroach on the
rights Of the other-cach having a
House in legislation" This resolves
itself into the simple proposition, that
the rich and poor, cr rather the land
holders and those who hold none, each
have House in legislation, and have
their rights and interests eqnal'y repre-
scented. Let Us examine the facts.
The Senate is composed Of land-holders
elected by tand-holaers exclusively. The
Commons is composed Of what? Men
who hold no land elected by +constltu
cnts of the same stamp? No indeed
But Of IonG-hofdcrs elected by land
hoLIors and "thc rest Of mankind y
Can the landlcss even vote for one O.
their own number? And suppose i
were true as CA Conservative" woulc
have you infer, that their interests were
antagonistic, would they IN .fuct be rep
resented at all? Is his Independent
rights, if he has any, represented now:
1t is true, that he can vote; but mus
he not vote for one of his opponents
And even the mighty privilege ofvotine
for these, can be entrusted only in par
to him. How low must man be sunk
if he has become the necessary slave O
the soil he cultiyatcs--unworthy himsel
OF rcpresentation--a fit representative
only Of inanimatc nature-every brancl
of representation regulated with an eye
single to that.
Let it be SO no longer. Claim {o,
"'0" a representative. Demand tha
one representative be Independent O
property qualifications. Then meet tht
land-holders with cordiality, and ex
change with them the courtesy of voting
each for the others represcntative;-fo
then indeed will each have one. Unit
then, let GA Conservative" show fre,