Washington sentinel., 1854-06-30

House thus adhering to their original proposi-
ton to adjourn sine die, on the l4th of Au-
gust.
SOUTHERN AGGRESSION AND NORTH
ERIN FORBEARANCE-COME LET Us
REASON TOGETHER.
A stranger in reading some of the northern
papers, and in ignorance of the true state Of
facts, would necessarily infer that the southern
or non-slaveholding States, had in the forma-
tion Of the Union under the Constitution, made
solemn compacts and covenants of agreement,
relying upon the permanency and sincerity of
which the now free States had joined in con-
federation or union Of the States and since
that time, in the progress of events, the south
had become the preponderating power in the
national government, having not only the nu-
mercal strength to pass any law they pleased, but
having the will also, and exercising it, of pass
ing laws aggressive to the rights and interests
of the free States.
Gould any other inference be drawn from
the clamors of northern papers of sectional
character for the last ten or fifteen years? We
may surely answer, no other impression could
be received.
What are the real facts of the case ?
From the date Of the Constitution to the
present day, the relative strength of the parties
has been changing, until the power of the ma
tional government rests with the northern or
so called free States. As against the north,
the south is powerless-it could not of itself
vote through any bill whatsoever. In what,
then, consists Its aggression on the north
Which, if any, of the great interests of the
north has been an object Of sectional dissen-
sions? Not one. Is there any interest at the
north which could be, by any act of govern
ment oppressed, and similar interests at the
south remain uninjured. There is no interest
peculiar to the north-if there we're, the north
in Congress would be unit, and no aggressive
law could be passed.
Which of all the acts Of the federal govern.
ment is aggressive on northern rights or north
ern interests? No man can point out such sim
gle act-one acting sectionally and exclusively
against the north. No act can be passed with
out some persons, both at the north and south,
deeming it to be either partial in its operation
or alike injudicous and injurious to all portions
of the country. The southern opposition to q
high protective tariff has occasioned wide
spread dissatisfaction against the south Yet
the foes Of a high tariff never proposed to take
away constitutional rights Theyopposed grants
of special privileges and bounties to foster
particular class of producers to the injury Of
agriculture and commerce, and they insisted
that the power to raise revenue by duties on
imports should no be exercised for other and
different purposes.
The fact stands uncontradicted, and cannot
be truthfully gainsaid. There exists no act on
record showing sectional aggression by the
south on the north.
How stands the matter on the other side?
Has the south ever sought to exclude the
north from national domain? Has the south
ever sought to place restrictions which should
act exclusively TO interfere with the citizens
Of the Union migrating from the free States to
the territories with all their property? Has
not the south abandoned and surrendered
her right TO go with certain property into spe.
cited portions Of the national domain? Has
the north ever done SO? Does the south make
opposition to the admission, accession, or an
nexation of free States? Never, unless in the
case Of the State of Maine, while the north re-
fused admission to Missouri. Did not the north,
the large portion, require as the price of the ad
mission Of Missouri that she should come in at
the expense Of her slaves? Would not fair
Offset to that be, that the south would oppose the
admission of any State which would not permit
its citizens to hold slaves2 Yet she has never
done so.
The north, in the case Of the Missouri Ter
ritory would not permit the lee loci to protect
slavery there, while, in the case of acquisition
from Mexico, large portion of the north con-
tended that the ier loci should exclude slavery.
A portion of the north avows the determi.
nation not TO allow another slave State to en-.
ter the Union. Is that the forbearance Of the
north? Was the sending Of large majority
OF northern representatives pledged to attach
the wilmot proviso TO all States and Territories
to come in, an act Of forbearance Of the north
Is the resistance to the fugitive slave law,
n law incorporated in the Constitution itself
as an essential element Of Union, forbearance
on the part of the north?
Why is it that the north will not allow its
children who 20 TO the territories, and are to
form new States, whose interests are to be
affected. and who best know what they want
Why is it that they are not allowed to act un
less it be by an aggression on the south as ths
condition?
How can the sectionalists Of the north recon
Gle their course towards the south with the