The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-02-27
wAsHroros, b. c., Feb. Is, 1854.

}
MEssRs Fishes L. De LEoH-i notice In
your editorial of this morning. the following
comments on letter Of mine lately published
in the Chronicle f. Sentinel, of Augusta, Ga:
"This brings US to a 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, it was
well ascertained that there were enough OF
Northern men who would have voted for $500,
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 1t 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 36 3d. 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 yet to be settled, we be-
seech all Southern men to beware OF again com
hitting the mistake of standing in the way OF
the acknowledgement of the rights of their own
section.
TO this ask the privilege Of presenting
word in reply You say that it was well ascer-
tanned, before tho 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 $500,
rather than pass no bill. Now, will you inform
the country who those Northern men were.
fact then 80 we'll ascertained, can certainly be
stated nOO.
Again, will you inform the country what you
mean by roting for 36.30?" 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 36 80, as south of it.
Do you mean to say that it would have been
juster to the South, or more republican in prin-
ciple, for Congress to have restricted this priv-
lege to the line of $500?
One question more. Do you mean to say
that it was we'll ascertained that there were
enough Northern men who were ready to vote
for the recognition and protection of slavery
south of 80, provided it were forever er-
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 a single Southern man in the House,
Of which was member, who was in favor of
recognizing and prohibiting by lao 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 beiforgotten And | ask you, if
it was not we'll asceriained fact then, and long
before, that an overwhelming majority of the
South denied the power of Congress to legislate
upon the subject of slavery in the territories,
either for or against it WAS not this the doc
trine of Mr.. CALHOUN, the great leader of the
South, in this controversy? Was it not swell
ascertained" fact that upon this ground he was
opposed to the Missouri Compromise upon prin-
ciple?
| To what then did "retreat," as you say in
another part of your editorial? Is it not very
notorious fact that was most bitterly assaled,
and throughout the South, for maintaining that
we had the right to claim projection in the terri
tories? Am | now to be charged with 'retreat
ing" because did not join those who were for
breaking up the Union, because they did not
get what they charged me with being ga traitor
to the interests of those represented for ask
ing 2 Was it, or is it a ''retrea" to say to the
South that they were and are bound in honor to
say nothing of patriotism, to abide by that &C
ton of their government which was in conform
ity with the demands of a large majority of her
own people?
You will allow me to say, very respectfully,
that did not "admit," in the letter to which you
aude, that "the question was not settled"
said, and repeat that the crisis that called into
existence the new organization in Georgia, based
upon the principle of maintaining the settlement
which has been made, has not passed by-that
tho same elements which then produced such
agitation in the country, still exist--and which
can only be arrested by national organization,
upon the principles of that formed in Georgia.
And do not the indications Of the times fully
warrant this assertion do we not see men OF
the South, who, twelve months ago, were doing
oil in their power to render the government obi
Gus and hateful in the estimation of the people,
now uniting with those of the North, whose
allies had denounced the Union rs "a league ,oith