The southern press. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-28
N1sururok. b. q, Feb. go, is5c.

MEssRs FIsHRR a. DE LEoE:--i notice ~
your editorial Of this morning. the following
comments on letter of mine lately published
in the Chronicle d Sentinel, Of Augusta Ga:
sThis brings us to state of things, on which
We beg The Southern public men and people to
pause and ponder. Towards the close OF the
struggle on the Compromise in Congress, u was
well ascertained that there were enough OF
Northern men who would have voted for $3.50,
rather than pass no bill but what was the IN
superable difficulty !-why, that number OF
Southern men had already yielded TO the Com,
promise, and it was seen that If it was rejected,
and better terms obtained, and as matter OF
course by some Northern votes, the effect would
be fatal to the Southern men who had yielded.
Northern men could not vote for $3.50, without
prostrating the very Southern men with whom
| they were on the best terms. And now, since,
as Mr.. STEPHENS admits, the question is not yet
settled, and will have yetto be settled, we be-
tseech all Southern men to beware of again com
hitting the mistake of standing in the way Of
the acknowledgment of the rights of their own
section"
To this ask the privilege of presenting a
word in reply You say that it was well ascer-
tanned, before the passage of those measures in
the last Congress which have been denominated
the Compromise, that there were enough North
ern men who would have voted for $3.50,
rather than pass no bill. Now, will youinform
the country who those Northern men were. A
fact then SO we'll ascertaiIed, can certainly be
stated noao.
Again, will you inform the country what you
mean by "roting for SO 800" Do you mean
the extension of the provisions Of the Missouri
Compromise, by which slavery was forever pro-
hibited north of that line, leaving the people
south of it to do as they please upon the subject
of slavery? If so, was it not much better for
the South, and much more consistent with the
great republican principle upon which our gov
eminent rests, to let the people do as they
pleased over the whole territory, up to AZ deg.
north latitude, Just as the Utah and New Mex-
can bills, which passed, provide, than to have
the people restricted in any portion of the terri
! tory!
As the " Compromise" as you call it, now
stands, the people, SO far as the action of the
government is concerned, have the privilege Of
doing as they please upon the subject of African
slavery--as well north of SO 30, as south Of it.
Do you mean to say that it would have been
juster to the South, or more republican in prin-
cipe, for Congress to have restricted this privi-
lege to the line of $3.50?
One question more. Do you mean to say
that it was well ascertained that there were
enough Northern men who were ready to vote
for the recognition and projection of slavery
south of $500, provided it were forever &c.
cluded north of that line? If so, will you be
kind enough to give the names of those North
ern men!
For myself can say that if any such well as
certained fact existed, | knew nothing of it. If
there was single Southern man in the House,
of which was member, who was in favor Of
recognizing and prohibiting BY laW the right to
hold slaves in any portion of those territories it
was unknown to me then and now, and should
like you to name any such one, and give the
country the evidence of your assertion. by any
vote or public act that will sustain it. The
events Of that period are too fresh in the recol-
lection Of all to be forgotten. And ask you, il
it was not well ascertained fact then, and long
before, that an overwhelming majority Of the
South denied the power Of Congress to lsgislate
upon the subject of slavery in tho territories,
either for or against II WAS not this the doc
trine Of Mr.. CALHoUs, the great leader Of the
South, in this controversy! Was il not swell
ascertained" fact that upon this ground he was
opposed to the Missouri Compromise upon prin-
ciple!
To what then did areireat," as you say in
another part Of your editorial Is II not very
notorious fact that was most bitterly assaulted
and throughout the South, for maintaining that
we had the right TO claim protection in the terri
toriesi Am now TO be charged with 'retreai.
ing" because did not join those who were for
breaking up the Union, because they did no,
get what they charged me with being "a traitor
TO the interests Of those represented for ask.
ing! Was IL, or is il "retrea" to say 10 the
South that they were and are bound 10 honor &c
say nothing OF patriotism, 10 abide by that nc
ton OF their government which was IN conform
ity with The demands Of large majority Of her
own people,
You viii allow me to say, very respectfully
that did not @admiI," in the letter to which yot
allude, that "tbe question was not settled"
sad, and repeat, that the crisis that called int
existence the new organization in Georgia, based
upon the principle Of maintaining the settlement
which has been made, has not passed by-that
the same elements which thep produced such
agitation in the country, still exist--and which
can only be arrested by national organization
: upon the principles Of that formpdin Georgia
And do not the indications Of the times full
warrant this assertion do we not see men o
E the South, who, twelve months ago, we're dom
$ eli in their power 10 render the government odi
n 4 =. Al - At