Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1856-02-20
ux.Ns.s.-THEs SOUTH

We observe an article, thus headed, in n late num-
Der of the Charleston Mercury is in reply to cer'
tain speculations of the Charleston Standard rs 10 The
inulility of making Kansas slave State. We agree
must cordially with the Mercury in its emphatic dis
sent from the Standards dangerous PRONUNCIATION ot
sentiment. It is certainly most remarkable depar-
ture from the common.sense view OF the matter, 10
assert that the institution of slavery is 10 be weakened
by tile creation of more snve-holdins States The
position is only boldly defiant OF past experience
but rides over The painest suggestions o policy Inc
formation of every new slave State is but the addl'
lion of another sovereignty to the power OF our 'ecto
In the Union or out of the Union, this is Paipao'e
increase of our political influence. If kanaa' for
instance becrme slave State, we have not only TWO
more votes in the Senate Of the United States as long
as the Confederacy lasts but, in case Ut d1'rupo
we have one more independent government 10 stand
by our side in my quarrel that may ensue And we
hold it to be undenable, that the Strengthening oil the
political power of the Slave States is one and The same
thing with establishing peculiar institution upon
more secure and permanent basis.
But untenable as are the Standards anti-diftu'son
sentiments they might be excused were it not tor ihe
cooring given 10 them by that unfortunate representa-
ton of The spirit likely 10 ac,uate non.saveowners IN
the slave States should The necessity arise TO defend
the institution of slavery at the point OF The bayonet
We hold the views here announced TO be at once un-
caed.or and untrue There happens TO lie before lis al
this moment an extract from DEBow's Review which
estimates the number OF non-Slaveowners IN the
Southern States al Two thirds OF our whole white P"ph-
laiion Holding this statement in one hand, anu IN
,he other the announcement OF prominent southern
iournal-hat these twors Of our people are neith:r
"drecly interested in keeping the negro in The con-
di,ion of slave" nor "are inclined to peril their
lives to protect such properywe confess 10 feeling
of surprise and modification. Ifit were true as the
Standard holds, is it for Southern PRINT to expose
the rottenness Of population at time when ram
pant Fana,cism seems ready to dare every thing in its
course Of frenzied hostility to our section! But we
maintain that the Standards promulga,on il utterly
erroneous Assume that DEBow's statistics are cor
rect and that two thirds Of our white population DO
not own slaves Oflhese two.thrds, the one half may
be fairly set down as the kith and kin Of slave holders,
themselves slave.owners in expectancy and as ready
to Law down their lives for the institution as If they
were in actual possession; while the other half may
be regarded as working struggling to support their
families, but The greater portion of whom are carefully
saving the overpus of lsr earnings from year TO year
for the express purpose Of investing it in negro proper
ty as soon as the sum shall have grown large enough
True, there are few citizens in almost every part oi
the South who neilh-r own nor expect TO own negro
property Blu, even these, we believe, would repel
the Standards imputaion with scorn. 1t is indeed
serious CHARGE in any condition of things, to accuse
large portion of ones own fellow citizens OF gross in
difference to the rights and interests Of their brother
rreemen of the same community and the common
wealth. And it becomes more so, when the grounds
for this accusation las in he present case) are purely
imarinary. ~