The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-07-31
arHE FOUL STAIN upos SOUTHERN HONOR

wheh your paper exers IN shaping The opinions or your
readers aud in the importance Of the object
which You directing their action.
You have in late editorial commenting upon the terri
to act Of the last Congress bitterly denounced il
foul stain upon southern honor insult 10 The Union d
the North and reacroas he cause of tioa as any
thing meditated BIZ he rabid Of he ra6id abolition
isfs Of The North I" and you solemnly that "you
would rather thousand times for Garrison and Tap
pan President and Vice President than amey submit
for hour ,he humiliation which the South has put
upon us by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
When Lord John Russell lately declared in the House Of
Commons that he had been favorable the adoption Of
peace measures at Vienna every high-minded must
have keenly felt how much better it would have eompored
with his honor had he made the disclosure before the allies
had incurred their late serious Now gentlemen
while your political friends Of the old and new organza
ton in apparent strength you quietly acquieseed in
the action Of the Philadelphia convention which, by
press agreement pretermed the question which you
treat the 9uQ Late events having demonstr
ted that combined forces of abetonism likely
prove the strongest in the field you array yourselves
among the 'nost rabid of the rabd aboionsts of the
North Without intending to impeach your motives,
may be permitted remark that had your present at
tude been assumed before the late fusion of parties which
has thrown of the northern States into the hands Of
the aboonists those motives would have been much eer
from suspicious which naturally attach TO them
presume in the selection of Garrison and Tappan you
puposely chose those who odious the South
and whose opinions and principles most hostile to
her interests and safety No supposes that if these
elevated to power the rights secured by the
constitution would be respected that any consideration
would be sufficiently sacred TO arrest them in that anatca
career which they to have dedicated their lives
and fortunes You would elevate the highest political
power those who would disgrace it. You would ntrus
the protection OF the constitution and the enforcement of
the laws hands pledged to tear them pieces In the
highest Of human power you would enthrone
who purns the constitution OF the country and rampls
upon the word of God If such determination finds
sympathetic response in the bosom of people then
Judgment has fed to british beasts and have lost
their reason
Let me- gentlemen, appeal from Philip drunk to Philip So
ber and ask In clmer mood examination OF the croum
upon which you have ana hemazed this act "a
foul stain upon southern honor and insult the Union
men of the Norhp Taking the facts You suppose them
to be- yet the action of the South may have been based
upon different view of their obligation from yours; and
however the proceeding it surely would have
been no extraordinary exercise Of charity have admitted
that it may have been honest In this country, above all
others called upon for the most enlarged federation
OF political differences and when these differences only
be explained by the impeachment of their honesty, the
days Of the republic will have been numbered No gen
teen the very character OF the party should of itself
have been shield against the charge The South has al
ways been Jealous of lis own honor and that Of the inter-
ess the whole Union Her representatives may err but
they will seek the greatest advantage the
sacrifice Of the highest moral principles To yindicate the
interests your section she has, showed her
self ready submit to the greatest sacrifices of her
and this she will again do should the necessity again
In the organization of the territorial governments for
Nebraska and Kansas the South voted with large por
ton of northern representatives to submit The question Of
slavery 10 The judgment anil control Of me people nhabing
the said 7roes md 70 repeal The act aohieh incoass
ent herewih md in this they had the Of
northern President The very head and front OF their
offending hath this extent, more
Ind supposed that this right of people to control
their domestic institutions, aud to prescribe their To-
cal laws copsecraed by the blood of the revol-
ton and every where recognised cardinal principle in
our federative system. IT. however am wrong in this
Il the assertion of such principle is under any circnm
stances ioul staurf it is not in keeping with
pocyf it Is just that should cit
subjects conquered colonies rather than
habitans of republican teritoreslet have the argu-
ments which sustain the position that may Judge of
the value of your denuncia,on
Seeing that The slavery excitement could be wholly
queied the good and true of the country have
desvored diyes it much possible of its power for
mischief Congressional agtaton was regarded the
most dangerous of its elements, and hence those who in
in 1850 called upon to adjust the relations which had
arisen out of acquisition Of territory adopted as
the true rule Of the principle of
Ii mistake not more loud in praise of this
principle than yourselves. There stint in the
measure your admiration In opinion this marked the
true relation between the government and its Territories
1t was not only constitutional but wise 1t only
just but insured the peace of the whole country by
holding the food from that vile appetite which grew by
what it fed on We may, them be justified in asking, how
comes it that the application of this great principle
other Territories should be made the justification of the
crusade you preparing wage against the peace Of the
country? If the principle of non-ntervenon be true
then the intervention of the act of 1920 is false and
sst upon the pcrpetuy of that which is false is sacri
fee truth in the vain effort to immortalize
You will, doubt, urge that there solemn agree
these Territories; there certainly was for find the
agreement plainly expressed in the 9th section of the
the 9th March, 1920 But the legislative power Ia
majority of the houses with the of the
Presden which consuinmated the agreement Of 1920
cuted new agreement in the shape of law in 1864
But you will say that the act of 1920 not only obg
atory law but its perpetnity secured BY agree
ment which bound in honor But whose honor thus
implicated Surely other but of those who entered
into the agreement Will you maintain that citizens who
were not then bound in honor by virtue of such
an agreement iorego the assertion Of any constitutional
right the maintenance OF any principle which they may
deem necessary to the peace prosperity of the country
But let confne the question TO still limits
those members of Congress who protested and voted
against what you the agreement compromse-are
they bound honor to abide by il? In the debate of 1920
Charles Pinckney declared he could not "on any ground