The Yazoo Democrat., 1858-09-25
THE YlCKSBuRG WIG.

In our last issue We attacked an article in the
Whig, containing, among Others the following
paragraph;
'.Fhe Whig is for obtaining our rights in the
Union, and not by going opt of the Union relin-
quish them to numerical majority in the North, y
We looked upon this sentence as Objectionable,
not only in the arrangement of its participles,
but also in the doctrine which is there set forth
We Showed that the only construction it admitted
was the advocacy of 'Union at any price" But,
knowing the chivalrous nature of our friend the
editor, we were unwilling to believe that he would
willfully defend so slavish creed, and therefore
most charitably concluded he was innocent Of
any meaning at ALL 1t was by no means our
intention to insinuate that the Whig was necer
disturbed by ideas, which, by misconception, he
Smagines and which supposed insinuation he
hurls back at us by way of retort Yet we did
think tRat some fair vision was floating over his
bachelor fancy at that particular time, to the
great detriment Of his usual sagacity.
In late number, the editor of the Whig shews
little soreness at the charge Of having beer
sentence above given, by putting ga plain case
to the Democrat" We submit it to the iudg-
ment of our readers whether this oplain case" is
not as misty as the sentence it processes to ex-
plain. 1t reads as follows:
''Suppose the South were to dissolve the Union
because Kansas was not admitted under the
Lecompton Constitution, (Which the Southern
I)amOGratip boA pneitiva1v dnoIorn1 Re
intention to do, would that have admitted Kansas
under a slave Constitution ?-on the contrary
would not the South hove thereby given up the
contest, and relinquished it to a numerical ma
jority in the North ?"
If the South had left the Union in consequence
OF her inability to vote Kansas in under the
Lecompton Constitution, that Territory would
certainly never have been admitted as a slave
State The first question is thus answered by
the only reply it allows And the second is as
easily met The South would most assuredly
have given up that contest and relinquished it to
numerical majority of roters in the North. But
all this does not explain the sentence first quoted
Il contest is not right A majority of votes would
legally prevent any Territory from becoming a
slave State, provided they were not repugnant to
our great Federal compact But if Territory
applies for admission and is refused upon thu
ground that it wishes to establish slavery, then il
this refusal unconstitutional aud in derogation O
Southern rights. When this happens, it becomes
clear that one section of the Union is not dis
posed to abide by the original uniting agreement
and 1T becomes equally clear that the Other
section is hereby relieved from al moral obliga
ton to preserve the copartnership. In fact, it il
then question if it is not as culpable for the
injured section to submit as it was in the first
place for the oppressor to violate the Constitution
1t would then become the duty of the South t.
dlsconnect herself from the North-when vote,
fail there is no method of obtaining our rights il
the Union and dissolution is our only resource
II the Union does not afford us equality VIZ
should assert our independence by leaving it
and 1t is certainly queer notion that dissolu
ton would ''relinquish our rights to numerical
means of asserting our equality. And when it is
admitted that there is a numerical majority at
the North, and that they will vote for unconsti-
tutional measures, it is folly to talk about lob
tanning our rights in the Union"
We would not he considered disunonist but
we will be that very thing SO soon as the ''nu-
merical majority at the North" elect sectional
candidate for the Presidency.