Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1858-09-29
COL. XyIGFALL, OF TEXAS.

Tho letter of Col. Louis r. WIGFALI ON our first
page, has the ring Of the true metal In its erseness
force and spirit, recognise the man,--is author.
!. 1t will be seen, that while COL W. regards the
| passage of the Kansas Conference Bill As wrong
loue to the Constitution (rdc Par Of his letter for
tho nature Of that supposed wrong) he yet is of opin-
ion (ede V, Par that "nothng practically was lost
in the contest.
2. On the contrary, it appears to be his conviction
tha: much of practical ipporance 70 the South is yet
Attsnsble through Kansas as Territory, which
would not hayo been through Kansas as a State.
In plain TERMS he thinks that slavery may yet pro-
vail in Kansas if tho English Bill is carried out as to
its penal proviso and if tho gorcrameut generally
will do its duty. There vory few who will agree
iu entertaining such hope: And YET, why should it
not be rational one, if the South would evca now
resove To 20 up and occupy the land?
3. Col. WIGFALL is impelled by genuine convic-
ton of Southern strength, when he urges that the
united South should demand the fu6nent of the bond
in the matter of tho future admission of Kansas
There cannot bo doubt Of our controlling the gov
ernmen in this as in every other issue if We will but
bo trao to ourselves In speaking Of IN issue, pal
p.ble one is meant; or at least upon which the
poople could be expected to tske ground heartily
and not vain splitting of hairs, such as has been
eliminated from this Conference measure Of the late
Session. If half Of tho entire Southern membership
South upon this issue, what would have been the re-.
salt? Possibly, TIE most unfortunate divisions in tho
ranks Of the Southern Btatssccrainly, no such ac-
ton would have given strength to our ssctian
Hence the principal objection to the course of the
two geutlemcp who voted (conscientiously no doubt
separate from a the rest Of ther Southern colleagues
Tho tendency of that vote to Southern distrac-
tiop. We are we'll aware that the gentlemen who
voted thus did not Sc view it; yet it is nevertheless
true that such has been .ts o4ly effect OF course
under the circumstances, that dctract;op is very linz
tod but suppose that any very considerable portion
of SouthsrN Congressional strength say twenty
members evon,-had voted thus might not the divis
ion have become an e4tcnaiye and larncntable one?
And I'll for what? For tho meagre and inupprecia
BILE dorOuce between the Conference Kansas Bill and
the Senate Kansas Bill 1.-THE difference between twoe.
dle.dum and tweedle. .dec,-the aum-total of which
difference by the way, Senator CLAY clearly shows
Conference Bill
4. The effect of the Conference Bill being, that
Kansas has not como into the Union, tho North is for
the time being two votes woaker ia the Senate than
she would have boon had Kansas cntored on tho
torms proposcd and further, there arc chances, as
Col. W. observes, that something may yet be made
ont of her. Thus far friend is in the beaten track
Of tho debate. But ho goes further and gives another
and somewhat startling reason why tho South might
have actually objected to the admission (see the
close of Ill Par.) This is view, and which ha,
not perhaps been suggested before.
Wu close our briOf comments with the rcmark that
the tone and manner of Col. WIapALLs advice to hi,
section is we'll calculated to arouse The apathetc and
add vgor to the goal Of the foremost in the causo Of
Southern Rights. May Texas soon call him to po-
stion where his genius snd Iaor eaeotually servo
hiI country.