which it is recognized as constituting an essential element in the distribution of its powers among the States, and that no change of opinion or feeling on the part of the other States of the Union, in relation to it, can justify them or their citizens, in open and systematic attacks thereon, with the view to its overthrow; and that all such attacks are in manifest violation of the mutual and solemn pledge to protect and defend each other, given by the States respectively, on entering into the Constitutional compact, which formed the Union, and as such, is a manifest breach of faith, and a violation of the most solemn obligations. (As originally offered.) 5th. Resolved. That the intermeddling of any State or States, or their citizens to abolish Slavery in this District, or in any of the Territories, on the ground, or under the pretext, that it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of any act or measure of Congress with that view, would be a direct and dangerous attack on the institutions of all the Slaveholding States. (As amended by Mr. Clay, of Ky.) 5th. Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the States of Maryland and Virginia, to the United States, domestic Slavery existed in both of those States, including the ceded territory; and that, as it still continues in both of them, it could not be abolished within the District, without a violation of that good faith which was implied in the cession, and in the acceptance of the territory, nor unless compensation were offered for the Slaves, without a manifest infringement of an amendment of the Constitution of the United States; nor without exciting a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the States recognizing Slavery, far transcending in mischievous tendency any possible benefit which could be accomplished by the Abolition. “And Resolved, That any attempt of Congress to abolish Slavery in any Ter ritory of the United States in which it exists, would create serious alarm, and just apprehension in the States sustaining that domestic institution; would be a violation of good faith towards the inhabitants of such Territory who have been permitted to settle with, and hold Slaves, because the people of such Territory have not asked for the abolition of Slavery therein, and because, that, when any such Territory shall be admitted into the Union as a State, the people thereof will be entitled to decide that question for themselves." Mr. Morris, of Ohio, moved to strike out the words "moral and religious" in the first resolution. His motion was lost. The first resolution was adopted by a vote of yeas 31, nays 13. Only 9 votes were cast against the second resolution. The third resolution was adopted by a a vote of yeas 31, nays 11. The fourth resolution was adopted by a vote of yeas 34, nays 5. The vote on the 5th resolution, as amended by Mr. Clay, was as follows: yeas 36, 36, nays 8. The final resolution of Mr. Clay was adopted by a vote of yeas 35, nays 9. During the same Session of Congress, the excitement in the House caused by these abolition petitions was intense. For a description of it, we refer our readers to the able account given by Col. Thomas H. Benton, in his Thirty Years View." We would gladly insert a portion of it, but our limits will not allow us to do so. In 1821, the Missouri Compromise Bill was passed. Our readers are too familiar with the history of this celebrated peace-offering from the South to the Demon of Abolitionism, to render it necessary for us to enter into any history of it. The Senate, during the Second Session of the Twenty-Fourth Congress, continued to receive numerous abolition petitions; all motions to receive them | ciples; that its attempt to unite Slavery were invariably laid on the table. The in one body politic, has brought upon Senate has pursued this course up to the present day. During During the TwentyFourth and Twenty-Fifth Congresses, the House concluded to lay all abolition petitions on the table, without being either printed or referred. January 28th, 1840, the amendment of Mr. W. Cost Johnson, to an amendment offered by Mr. John Quincy Adams, to the rules, was adopted under the title of the 21st rule. The Hon. W. Smith, of Va., in his eloquent and able speech, delivered in Congress in December, 1859, gives an interesting history of this rule. To it we refer our readers. The rule was as follows: That no petition, memorial or resolution, or other paper, praying the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the Slave trade between the States or Territories of the United States, in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever.' The adoption was by a vote of yeas 114, nays 108. This 21st rule was rescinded on motion of Mr. John Quincy Adams, on the 3d of December, 1844, by a vote of yeas 108, nays 80. December 1st, 1845. Mr. Chapman, of Ala., made a motion to revive it; but it was lost by a vote of yeas 84, nays 121. February 25th, 1850, Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, in the House, presented two petitions; one from certain citizens of Pennsylvania, and the other from certain citizens of Delaware. They were as follows: the country, great and manifold evils, and has fully proved that no such Union can exist but by the sacrifice of freedom to the supremacy of Slavery, respectfully ask you to propose and devise, without delay, some plan for the immediate and peaceful dissolution of the American Union." Mr. Giddings asked that these resolutions might be referred to a Select Committee, who should be instructed to enquire: First. Whether disaffection with our Federal Union exists among the people of these States? Secondly.--If so, to what extent does such discontent exist? Thirdly. From what has such disaffection arisen? Fourthly. The proper means of restoring confidence among the people?" It was decided by a vote of yeas 8, nays 162, not to receive these petitions. Those who voted affirmatively, were Messrs. Allen, of Mass.; Durkee, of Wisconsin Giddings, of Ohio; Goodenow, of Me.; Howe, of Pa.; Julian, of Indiana; Preston King, of N, Y.; and Root, of Ohio. We wish all to know them. Feb. 1st, 1850, the same petitions were offered in the Senate by Mr. Hale, of N. H. Mr. Webster suggested that such a preamble as the following should have been prefixed to the petition: "Gentlemen, members of Congress : Whereas, at the commencement of the Session, you, and each of you, took your solemn oaths in the presence of God and on the Holy Evangelists, that you would support the Constitution of the U. States, now, therefore, we pray you to take immediate steps to break up the Union and overthrow the Constitution of the United States, as soon as you can. as in duty bound, we will ever pray." And Senators CHASE, HALE and SEWARD, were all that voted for it. Other petitions have since been prcsented, but we will not weary our readers by recording them here. The efforts of the Abolitionists soon brought about the terrible crisis of 1850, which is too well known to our readers to require any explanation from us; and from which the Union was only rescued by the superhuman efforts of Henry Clay. Such, then, is a brief and hasty sketch of their acts in Congress. Much of it we have been compelled to pass over hastily. All that we have here reported, can be found in the Annals of Congress," from which our information has been gained. We propose now to glance hastily at some of their acts, during their existence, as one of the great political parties of the country. The same Convention which nominated Fremont, adopted the Republican platform, from which we give the following: Resolved, * * That we deny * the authority of Congress, of a territorial legislature, or any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.” Such, then, is an outline of the History of this Abolition party. A party which has increased with the most surprising rapidity. And how has this been done? By appeals addressed to the worst feelings, and most ungovernable passions of mankind. By poisoning their hearts with tales of Negro wrongs and sufferings, by base and vile slanders upon their brethren of the South. By a rapid review of the brief sketch of the party that we have given, we find : First.-That the Abolition party was It made its first appearance as such, the first to agitate the Slavery question. in 1840, with the following ticket: For Second. That in spite of the asserPresident, James G. Birney, of Michi- tions of Congress, that it had no right to gan; for Vice-President, Francis J.interfere with the domestic institutions Lemoyne, of Pennsylvania." During this campaign, this party polled 7.000 votes. In 1844, they again offered Mr. Birney as their candidate for the Presidency, and polled 62,140 votes. In 1844, Martin Van Buren was their candidate for the Presidency, having been nominated in convention at Buffalo. This convention adopted the first abolition platform that we can find; and in it, was announced the stern and unyielding determination of the party to root out Slavery by every constitutional means in their power. The more ultra Anti-Slavery men supported Gerrit Smith, and the vote polled by the entire party was 296,232. In 1852, John P. Hale was its nominee, and he polled 157,296 votes. John C. Fremont, in 1856, received the support of the entire Abolition party, and the number of votes polled amounted to 1,341,812. and police" of the States-in spite of the assertions of Congress, that it would be "unwise, impolitic, a violation of good faith," towards the Slave-holding States -in spite of their warnings that this continued agitation was fraught with imminent danger to the South, we find them persisting in their mad and unreasonable course, regardless alike of warning and entreaty. Third. We find them by their course, causing all the great and terrible crises from which the country has been rescued by the great triumvirate-Clay, Calhoun, and Webster. Fourth.-We find that their whole course has been one of aggression upon Southern rights and institutions. Lastly, we find that, not satisfied with their mad and unconstitutional career, they were the first and the only party to petition for the Dissolution of the Union. Such are the causes of the present un halls of science be filled with your aspir- fortunate condition of the Union. We have asserted that the danger which now threatens the Union was caused by "the Demon of Abolitionism." We have given their own acts as proofs of this assertion, and we leave it, appealing to all fair and candid persons if we have not fully main-left in peace to the enjoyment of our tained our position. Having shown, as rights-to be let alone. This is all that we believe, that the North has been the we have ever asked; it is all that we ask cause of all of our sectional discord, let now." us see what has been the conduct of the South from the beginning of the Slavery agitation, up to the present day. By a reference to "the Annals of Congress," we shall find that not a single voice of discord or threatening, up to the period of, and after the Missouri Compromise, was heard from the South. Nothing but expostulation and entreaty was heard from her. In eloquent terms did her sons point out to their brethren of the North the danger and the folly of their course. Earnestly did they entreat them to cease the agitation of a question which could do no good, and which was becoming so dangerous to the welfare and prosperity of the Union. Sacrifices they did make, and have ever made. They asked no sacrifice from the North-they made no unreasonable demands. All that they asked was, that the North should abide by its compact with them that it should cease to aggress them. The Slave-Holding States have done no wrong to their Free-State sisters. Virginia, in her generosity and nobleness of soul, gave five great States to freedom, as it is called, and to the Union. Her great Captain gave us liberty, and her Captains at the bead of the Armies of the Union, ever led them on to victory. Her Sages have piloted the Ship of State through every trial. They have kept their looms in motion. To them they can trace their great wealth, and the luxurious embellishment of their barren country " The South has ever said to the North, "Rear up your pallatial residences; make your country to smile and blossom as the rose ;' let your For the sake of the Union-under the spell of the glory and greatness which she has given to that Union--hallowed as it is to her by the thousand fond memories connected with it, the South has always submitted to insult and oppression from the North, because she has had but one aim in view-the perpetuation of the Union. She has gone farther, she bas met these insults and agressions not with blows or resentful words, but with sacrifices of her constitutional rights, with compromises until she has now nothing left to sacrifice, to compromise, but her homes and her honor. Every one who has studied the subject, knows that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Mr. Clay himself avowed this. But, as the North would be satisfied with nothing else, the South consented to it, because she was willing to make any sacrifice to preserve the Union. It is not our intention to discuss the Slavery question in this article. We simply wish to give a history of the troubles which have agitated the country for such a long time, to show the true position of both sections of the country. To defend the South against the unjust accusations which are being hurled at it, and to give our views as to how the South should act under the present circumstances, and how the danger may be averted. We have said that the North has been the quarter from which the dangerous sentiments of disunion have been heard. The South has been charged with "fireeating,"- disunionism. This charge we pronounce false. But first, let us see what additional proofs we can offer in support of our assertion, that the spirit of disunion has been fostered, and has shown itself in the North, and that it is from that section that the danger which now threatens the Union has burst upon us. We have already shown that the Slavery agitation was begun and fostered at the North-that the only prayers to Congress for dissolution came from the North, and we now intend to show that this spirit of disunion has been fostered and advocated by the Northern Pulpit, Press, Bar, and Legislatures, as well as by their Representatives in Congress. That they have been the means of spreading treason and discord in our midst. But to begin: The New York National Anti-Slavery Standard, of June 21, 1856, says: "The North is in a state of excitement, temporary, perhaps, but real for the time; and the widening lines of division between North and South are growing deep and distinct." It then goes on to rejoice in the growing alienation of the North from the South, and counsels resistance to everything like Slavery. Yes, even though the rights of the South are secured to her by Constitional enactments by the Constitution itself this paper counsels resistance to them-resistance to the Constitution, and consequently to the Federal Government itself; or, in other words, it advocates treason. The Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, at a meeting held in his church, to promote emigration to Kansas, said: He believed that the Sharpe rifle was a truly moral agency, and there was orem moral power in one of those instruments, so far as the Slave-Holders of Kansas were concerned, than in a thousand Bibles. You might just as well, said he, read the Bible to buffaloes, as to those fellows who follow Atchison and Stringfellow; but they have a supreme respect for the logic that is embodied in Sharpe's rifles. The Bible is addressed to the conscience; but when you address it to them, it has no effect-there is no conscience there. Though he was a peace-man, he had the greatest regard for Sharpe's rifles, and the pluck that induced those New England men to use them. In such issues, under such circumstances, he was decidedly in favor of such instrumentalities. General Scott had said that it was difficult to get the New England men into a quarrel, but when they are waked up, and have the law on their side, they are the ugliest customers in the world." When we see the pulpit used to excite the worst passions of mankind--to arm men against their brothers' lives-when we hear the Bible placed beneath Sharpe's rifles, by one who calls himself a minister of God--when we hear murder defended and advocated by the clergy, what can we expect from the laity? But we have no desire to dwell upon this article-it carries its comment with it. It is noth~ ing more than we expected from such a man. Mr. W. O. Duval, a prominent Abolitionist, says: "I sincerely hope a civil war may soon burst upon the country. I want to see American Slavery abolished in my time. Then, my fervent prayer is, that England, France and Spain, may take this Slavery-accursed nation into their special consideration; and when the time arrives for the streets of the cities of this land of the free and home of the brave,' to run with blood to the horses' bridles, if the writer of this be living, there will be one heart to rejoice at the retributive justice of Heaven.” Great God did an American utter such sentiments? such sentiments? There are two names which have been handed down to us, branded with infamy. Let the name of W. O. Duvall, the darkest traitor of all, with those of Benedict Arnold and Aaron Burr, go down to future ages, to |