*• ♦ 
 
 AN 
 
 ABHRI2SS 
 
 TO 
 
 THE PEOPLE OF ALABAMA, 
 
 BY W. L. YANCEY, 
 
 .^ri& A DKLEGATJE, AT LARGE, FOR THE STATE OP ALABA'IA, 
 
 TO THE 
 
 N4tTW>*TAI. DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION, 
 
 Jl l/'uriore, on 22d Mat/, A. D. 1848. 
 
 MONTGOMERY: 
 
 'RJNT EC AT THE IXA3- AND ADVERTISER JOB 0T2WS, 
 
 1848. 
 
 /( 
 
 
a 
 
 r-p ■ 
 
 ADDRESS. 
 
 Fellow Citizens: 
 
 On the 14th day of February last, the State Convention of the 
 Democratic party of Alabama, unanimously appointed me, to 
 be a delegate for the State at large to the National Democra- 
 tic Convention, which was called to assemble at Baltimore, on 
 the 22d day of May, 1S4S. I attended that Convention, and 
 made, according to the best of my judgment and ability, a 
 strenuous effort to secure to the South, both in the nomina- 
 tion and in the assertion of the principles Of the party, guaran- 
 tees that our rights should be respected in the new adminis- 
 tration, which the labors of that body were designed to place 
 in power. Unsuccessful, on both points, and referring the 
 Convention to the rigid and inflexible instructions under which 
 I was sent to that body as a delegate, I refused to pledge the 
 constituency, whose agent I was, to the support of the nomi- 
 nee; or to an approval of the principles put forth as the 
 Democratic platform. 
 
 Acting as a citizen of Alabama, after the adjournment of 
 the Baltimore Convention, and under the solemn pledge made- 
 to me by the members of the State Convention, and by me, 
 as a member of that body, to my brother members and "to 
 the country;" I have refused, "under any political necessity 
 Whatever," to support the Baltimore nominee for the Presi- 
 dency, as long as he confines himself to his present position 
 upon the rights of the South — a position which the State 
 Convention of February last pronounced to be "alike in vio- 
 lation of the Constitution, and of the just and equal rights of 
 the citizens of the slave-holding States." 
 
 Since I have returned to the State, I have felt it to be-a 
 dul} which I owe to the democracy who had delegated me 
 to speak ite voice in the Baltimore Convention, to speak freely 
 and without reserve of the proceedings in that body, and to 
 call upon the democracy to stand firmly to that pledge mads 
 
 ' 
 
 
4 
 
 * 
 "to the country," as well as to its delegates, by its regularly 
 authorised representatives in the State Convention of Febru- 
 ary last. 
 
 That call has been answered *by the great majority of the 
 democratic press with such a torrent of contumely — of per- 
 sonal abuse — of vindictiveness: has been replied to in ratifi- 
 cation meetings by resolutions of personal condemnation, and 
 by speakers in such strains of bitterness and misrepresenta- 
 tion: that, were I n#t sustained by a perfect consciousness of 
 being right — by a knowledge of my duty, and by a courage "to 
 dare do no wrong" in this great matter — I should have yearn- 
 ed for that obscurity which is a protection from such assaults, 
 and should have sought for peace by yielding the principles 
 upon which I have acted, as a sacrifice to the angry passions 
 of my assailants 
 
 A portion of my co-delegates have also joined in the "hue 
 and cry" which has been raised to hunt down "the rebel" — 
 to drive "the traitor" to his doom Their statements, too, 
 exhibit the spirit of the crowd which they were designed to 
 please. Their suppression in part of truth has given a false col- 
 oring to facts; while, in the instance of one delegate, that the 
 democracy had chosen, as it vainly deemed, fit to represent 
 its moral as well as political character, this petty feeling has 
 exhibited itself in circulating a miserable caricature of my 
 personal appearance. 
 
 These misrepresentations have force given to them by the 
 studied attempt of the democratic press, with one or two hon- 
 orable exceptions, to keep from the public even an account 
 of my official acts as a delegate ; while a portion of it, not sa- 
 tisfied with leaving me defenceless before the public, has as- 
 sailed me with such gross misrepresentations as would need 
 no other refutation than a simple statement of facts. 
 
 One of those honorable exceptions alluded to, thinking that 
 bare justice, a,t least, was demanded at its hands, ventured to 
 publish the speech made by me in explanation of my minority 
 report in the Convention ; and so rank is the spirit of injustice 
 prevalent in the press at this time, that the editor is deliberate- 
 ly taken to task for doing so by one of his cotemporaries, and 
 is gravely pronounced to "have a strange conception ofvwhat 
 constitutes justice." 
 
 Three of my colleagues in the late Convention have pub- 
 lished addresses to the people of the State, not so much in 
 vindication of themselves as apparently still farther to misre- 
 
present me ; for by no other construction can I explain the 
 studied suppression by ah" of important facts within their 
 knowledge, and the statement by some of matters in connec- 
 tion with myself which first found existence in their own 
 fertile brains. Those addresses have been extensively cir- 
 culated: dare I expect that a sense of ordinary justice will 
 induce the democratic press to give my reply to these mis- 
 statements, a place in their columns? 
 
 From an ungenerous, unjust and abusive press — from the 
 mass of ill-informed speakers at ratification and cross road 
 meetings — from the wretchedly contemptible effusions of let- 
 ter writers and anonymous correspondents — and from the 
 misrepresentations of that portion of ihe delegation to the late 
 Baltimore Convention, which has pretended to inform the 
 public of the doings at Baltimore, and which has given but 
 partial statements of those proceedings — I appeal to the peo- 
 ple of Alabama; asking of that portion of them, which is 
 styled the democracy, to give me a hearing as one of their 
 delegates to the late National Baltimore Convention: asking 
 of all, without distinction of party, to hear me as a citizen, alike 
 interested with them in the weal or woe of our common coun- 
 try; and to hear me in the spirit demanded by the stern Ro- 
 man patriot — "for my cause" — inasmuch as I have nothing 
 to ask, nor to expect, for myself. ' 
 
 As necessary to a complete understanding of the question, 
 I will first call attention to a brief history of. the Wilmot 
 Proviso. 
 
 On the 8th of August, 1846, the two million bill being un- 
 der consideration, Mr Wilmot moved the following amend- 
 ment: 
 
 "Provided, That as an express and fundamental condition of the acqui- 
 sition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, 
 by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to 
 the uses by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither 
 slavery, nor involuntary servitude, shall ever exist in any part of said ter- 
 ritories, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted."' 
 
 This prov iso amendment was adopted by a vote of 83 yeas 
 to 64 nays. And the bill, as amended, was passed by a vote 
 of 85 yeas to 79 nays.— (See Cong. Globe, pp. 1217, 1218, 
 15/ sess. 29 th Congress.) 
 
 In that Congress there was a democratic majority of about 
 fifty votes, and a majority of democratic members of Congress 
 from the North voted for that proviso. 
 
The bill went to 'he Senate, and came up for consideration 
 on the 10th of August. Mr Lewis moved to strike out this 
 proviso. Mr. Davjs of Mass. obtained the floor, and spoke 
 until the hour of 12 had arrived, and it being the hour agreed 
 upon for the adjournment of the Senate, sine die, that body 
 adjourned, without taking a vote on the bill. — (See Cong. 
 Globe, 1st sess 29th Cong pp. 1220, 1221. ) 
 
 3\|r. Rathbun of New York was a member of that Congress. 
 In the Utica Convention, held February 16, 184S, he gave to 
 the public this piece of the onwritten history of the opinions 
 of all the Northern Democratic Senators on that proviso, on 
 that day. "Mr. President I know very well the views and 
 feelings of that Senator (Gen Cass) in the month of August, 
 1846. I learned them from his own lips. On the day that 
 Congress adjourned, and at the time that Senator Davis of 
 Mass spoke up to the adjournment of the Senate, on the VVil- 
 mot proviso, I met the Senator at the railroad depot in Wash- 
 ington, and rode near to him, and conversed freely with him 
 between that place and Baltimore. The Senator appeared 
 somewhat excited, and spoke freely and with a good deal of 
 energy on the subject of the "proviso." He stated to me, 
 that every Northern Democratic Senator had agreed to vote 
 for it He said, repeatedly, that 'he regretted very much that 
 he could not have recorded his vote for it, before the adjourn- 
 ment.' ****** * 
 
 "vVhen we met again at the capitol, I thought I discovered 
 some symptoms of that change in the Senator's views on the 
 subject of the proviso, which he has since, by his vote and 
 letter, so clearly demonstrated. Mr. BrinkerhofT of Ohio, one 
 of the ablest and firmest supporters of the 'proviso,' an honest 
 and sincere democrat, I know was a warm friend of the 
 Michigan Senator, and* preferred him to all others as the can- 
 didate for the Presidency in 184S. I mentioned to him my 
 suspicions. I told him the Senator was in the cnrysilis 
 state," &c. ******* 
 
 "Mr. President, at the suggestion of Mr. B. we proceeded 
 at once to the room of the Senator. Mr. B. led off in some 
 casual remarks about the 'proviso' and its prospects. The 
 Senator 'thought it premature — better to give it the go-by 
 this session — nothing to be sained by pressing it now — suffi- 
 cient for the day is the evTl Thereof.' " 
 
 Mr. Rathbun went on to give an account of the views he 
 then presented to Gen. Cass, shewing the necessity for press- 
 
7 
 
 
 
 ?Bg that question to a vote, &c. "The Senator replied, <Oh, 
 if it comes to a vote, I am with you, you know.' 'Of course, 
 vuu are,' was the reply; and thus we separated. This con- 
 versation was some three weeks previous to the vote taken 
 on ihe proviso" 
 
 On the 1st of March, 1847, at the second session of the 29th 
 ' Congress, Mr. Upham offered the Wilmot proviso, as an 
 amendment to the Senate three million bill. Upon this amend- 
 ment Gen. Cass addressed the Senate at length ; and, in his 
 own report of his speech on that occasion, summed up his 
 views under six heads ; all of which were directed against the 
 time of its introduction — the bill to which it was offered as an 
 amendment— and against the expediency of adopting it then, 
 because, he said, it was destiuite of any characterisiicof "that 
 permanence" which was called for by the free States which had 
 memorialised Congress on the subject. (See Cong. Globe, 
 2d sess. 29th Cong. pp. 550-1. ) 
 
 When Gen. Cass had taken his seat, Mr. Miller said— "At 
 .the last session, when a bill similar to the one now under 
 consideration v/as before the Senate, it was generally under- 
 stood here that the Senator (Gen. Cass,) was in favor of re- 
 taining in that bill the "Wilmot proviso" — the same as that 
 now offered by the Senator from Vermont. It is true, for want 
 of time, the Senator had not then an opportunity to give his 
 vote; yet his opinions were undisguised, and he openly avow- 
 ed his anxiety to vote in favor of the proviso. The position 
 of the Senator upon this great question was not only under- 
 stood here, but his friends throughout the North held him up 
 as one of the great champions of human liberty; as the un- 
 compromising opponent to the extension of the institutions of 
 slavery into the territories where it did not exist." 
 
 These remarks made in the Senate, in the presence of Gen, 
 Cass, were permitted to go to the world uncontradicted; and 
 they establish 'he fact, charged and proven also by Mr. Rath- 
 bun, that at the first session of the 29th Congress, Gen. Cass 
 was a leading advocate of the Wilmot proviso; and that, at 
 the second session he voted against it, only because it was not 
 the proper time to vote for it. 
 
 This charge has attracted some attention, and has been 
 made against Gen. Cass in various forms by the press. Being 
 uninformed as to the true manner in which he exhibited his 
 disposition to vote for. the Wilmot proviso at the first session, 
 it, has been charged by some to have been in a speech in the 
 
Senate, and by others to have been by vote. It is true, a« 
 above alluded to, he made a lengthy speech at the second ses- 
 sion against voting for it; but he was careful, in not a line, 
 nor by a word, to denounce, it, either as unconstitutional, or 
 as an outrage. 
 
 This matter — that Gen. Cass was decidedly in favor of that 
 provso at the first session — is set at rest by the uncontradict- ■ 
 ed testimony of Mr. Rathbun and Mr Miller. 
 
 The manner in which he exhibited his disposition to vote 
 for it, is thus described by Mr. Miller, a Senator from New 
 Jersey, in a debate on adjournment in the Senate, on the 22d 
 of June, 1648. He stated that "when the two million bill, in 
 1846, was brought into the Senate, with the W'ilmot proviso,, 
 from the. House, and was defeated by Mr. Davis of Mass. 
 speaking to the hour of adjournment, Mr. Cass afterwards 
 went over to the whig side of the chamber, and complained 
 in terms somewhat discourteous, that Mr. Davis, by his 
 speech, had defeated the bill, as he (Mr. Cass) had deter- 
 mined to vote for the Wilmot proviso. Then, when he (Mr.. 
 Miller) travelled to the North ivilh Mr. Cass, that gentle- 
 man held the same language. At the next session, to his 
 great surprise, Mr. Cass voted against the proviso, on the 
 ground of un fitness of the time for inserting it." 
 
 These remarks were made, let it be observed, in the Senate, 
 in the midst of a partisan debate as to the opinions held by 
 the great parties and their candidates; and were again per- 
 mitted by Gen. Cass's friends to go to the world uncontra- 
 dicted, m - 
 
 Another fact is thus established, by the concurring testimo- 
 ny of Mr. Rathbun and Mr. Miller, viz: tnat Mr. Cass was 
 indignant at the act of Mr. Davis, which prevented his re- 
 cording his vote for the proviso, and so much so, as to com- 
 plain to the whigs of the act, and to speak freely of it in the 
 railroad cars, on his way home! 
 
 In addition to this action upon the Wilmot proviso by Con- 
 gress, ten of the Northern States, through their legislatures, 
 and State conventions, endorsed the doctrine, and most of 
 them petitioned Congress to pass "a fundamental law," which 
 should forever exclude slavery from the territory of the United 
 States. 
 
 EFFECT UPON THE SOUTH. 
 
 These events had the tendency to arouse, to some degree* 
 the people of the South to the imminency of the danger pend- 
 
itig over them. Southern democrats saw, in a Congress with 
 an unusually large democratic majority, the passage through 
 one of its branches, by aid of a majority of Northern demo- 
 cratic votes, of a principle, which if recognized would de- 
 grade the South and strip it of its just constitutional righis. 
 They'saw. too, that nothing prevented that flagrant outrage 
 from passing through a democratic Senate, by aid of "every 
 Northern Democratic Senator's" vote, but the trivial incident 
 of the last moments of the session being spoken out by Mr. 
 Davis, a Whig Senator from Massachusetts, who desired to 
 defeat the 'tiro million bill to which this "proviso" was at- 
 tached as an amendment ! 
 
 Southern Whigs saw that their Northern allies, without an 
 exception, had aided to pass this "proviso" through all its 
 stages; and that the fact of its being finally defeated was 
 solely owing to its not being acted upon, by reason of the op- 
 position of Mr. Davis to the appropriation of two millions 
 to enable Mr. Poik to buy a peace with Mexico! 
 
 The people, without distinction of parlies, met in their pri- 
 mary assemblies to give voice to their feelings in this crisis. 
 While yet the danger was fresh in their recollections — while 
 yet the utter vanity of relying upon any "party" for support 
 was impressed upon their minds by the remembrance of the 
 recent recreancy, and union, in fact, in hostility to them of 
 both the great parties of the North, these popular assemblies 
 unanimously resolved that the principles of the "proviso^ 
 were unconstitutional, and dangerous to the very existence of 
 the Union; and unanimously united in a pledge that the 
 South would, a3 one oi the most effectual modes of resisting 
 the encroachment and crushing the heresy, withhold its votes 
 from any one for the office of President of the United States, 
 who would not oppose all such interference with its rights as 
 the "proviso" contemplated. The State of Virginia nobly 
 led the way, and her General Assembly unanimously adopted 
 a series of resolutions, which declared "it to be the natural and 
 indefeasible right of each and every citizen of each and every 
 State of the confederacy, to reside, with his property, of what- 
 ever description, in any territory which may be acquired by 
 the arms of the United States, or yielded by treaty with any 
 foreign power." 
 
 EFFECT UPON THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN ALABAMA. 
 
 On the 3d of May, 1847, a State Convention of the Demo- 
 
10 
 
 cracy of Alabama, met in Montgomery — presided over by the 
 lion. Win, R. King. Tke President appointed a committee 
 of six to draft and report resolutions on State and Federal 
 policy. I was a member of that committee. It reported a 
 series of resolutions to the Convention, which was unani- 
 mously adopted. The 9th and 10th were as follow: 
 
 "9. Resolved, That any territory which may hi acquired will become the 
 common property of all the States of this Union, and will be held by the 
 General Government as their joint agent and representative; and having 
 no right to make laws, or do any acts whatever, which shall directly, or 
 by their effects, make any discrimination between the States of this Union, 
 by which any of them shall be deprived of its full and equal right in such 
 territory. 
 
 "10. Resolved, That the amendment to the Three Million bill, authori- 
 zing the appropriation of that sum ior negotiating a peace with Mexico, 
 which provides as "a fundamental condition" te the acquisition of any 
 territory from the Republic of Mexico, " that slavery shail be forever ex- 
 cluded" does make such discrimination, by depriving citizens of the slave- 
 holding States of the right of emigrating with their property into such ter- 
 ritory; and if the. same should become a law, would, therefore, be a viola- 
 lion of the Constitution, and of the rights of those States — in derogation 
 of their perfect equality as members oi the Union, and tend directly to sub- 
 vert the Union itself." 
 
 That Convention. also unanimously endorsed the Virginia 
 resolutions. 
 
 It will be seen, by an analysis of the resolutions, both of 
 Alabama and Virginia that, while they were specifically 
 aimed at the Wilmot proviso, as one of the means to be used 
 4o destroy the rights of the South to an equal participation in 
 the territories, yet they also laid down broad and general 
 principles, which denounced every means of effecting the end 
 of the '"proviso" principle, to wit: "that it is the natural 
 and indefeasible right of each and every Stale in this con- 
 federacy to reside, ivith his properly , of whatever descrip- 
 i'um, in any territory ivhicfy may be acquired/' &c. 
 
 Nearly every Southern State, like Alabama, adopted the 
 Virginia resolutions. The South, as recommended by Vir- 
 ginia, did take ''firm, united and concentrated action in this 
 emergency." 
 
 EFFECT OF THIS UNION UPON THE NORTH. 
 
 The course adopted proved the truth of the assertion of 
 Virginia, that it was "one of the most effective modes" that 
 could have been devised to attain our object. The North had 
 iuimerous candidates for the Presidency: amom, them. Gen. 
 
11 
 
 ■Cass, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Dallas. Virginia had supposed 
 that the union of the South would be "effective" in this — that 
 whichever of the candidates should receive the entire vote of 
 the South would, with whatever of influence he had at the 
 North, be certain of being elected; and that this would be 
 "effective" in causing candidates to abandon views which 
 the South condemned. Virginia was not mistaken. 
 
 Mr. Buchanan broke ground in August, 5 847, against the 
 North taking all of the new territory to be acquired, and ex- 
 pressed it as his opinion that "the harmony and even security 
 of the Union itself, require that the line of the Missouri com- 
 promise should be extended to any new territory that we 
 may acquire from Mexico." (This, be it observed, would 
 give about four-fifths of it, absolutely, to "our natural allies") 
 While, lest Northern cupidity should condemn the bold states- 
 man for so large a concession to the South, he went on to ad- 
 vance tiie doctrine, that the inhabitants of that territory would 
 have a right to prevent its settlement by slav«e holders; and 
 declared that should we acquire territory from Mexico, it was 
 "improbable that a majority of the people of that region would 
 consent to re-establish slavery They are themselves, in a 
 large proportion, a colored population ; and among them the 
 negro does not socially belong to a degraded race " To Mr. 
 Buchanan, therefore, is due the credit of first giving the go- 
 by to the Wilmot proviso, as a means of excluding slave- 
 holders from our new territories, but, at the sarau time, of 
 pointing out to the North how much more effectually the 
 great end of the provisoists — the keeping these territories 
 exclusively for the settlement of Northern emigrants — could 
 be obtained by advocating the new doi-trine, that the inha- 
 bitants of a territory, while yet in its territorial state, 
 could prevent the emigration thither of slave-holders. 
 
 Lest this should startle the South, however, and thus leave 
 him between two fires — one from the North, for opposing the 
 Wilmet proviso, and one from the South, for throwing her 
 rights upon the tender mercies of "the colored population" of 
 these territories, Mr. Buchanan proposed to both the alarmed 
 sections to unite on the Missouri compromise. A compro- 
 mise which admits the power of Congress over the matter, 
 and derives all its stability and force from an act of Congress! 
 
 Mr. Dallas, in a speech at Pittsburg, in September follow- 
 ing, also took strong constitutional ground against the power 
 of Congress, and boldly and most nobly denounced the Mis- 
 
12 
 
 souri compromise, as a concession which the South had no 
 right to make, and the North no right to demand. 
 
 In December following, Gen Cass followed suit in his fa- 
 mous ietter to Mr. Nicholson, of Tennessee. 
 
 In that letter he says — "I am strongly impressed with the 
 opinion that a great change has been going on in the public 
 mind upon this subject — in my own, as well as others/' He 
 asserts, in that letter, thai the interference of Congress ''should 
 be limited to the creation of proper governments for new 
 countries, acquired or settled, and to the necessary provision 
 for their eventual admission into the Union; leaving, in the 
 mean time, to the people inhabiting them to regula.'e their 
 internal concerns in their own way. They are just as capa- 
 ble of doing so as the people of the States; and they can do so, 
 at any rate, as soon as their political independence is recog- 
 nized by admission into the Union." Gen. Cass, in that let- 
 ter, gave his views at great length, and quoted Mr. Buchanan 
 (the passage ajready quoted by me on page 11) as presenting 
 "similar considerations, with great force," and also quoted this 
 passage from Mr. Walker, as expressive of the views urged, 
 '■"Beyond the Del Norte slavery will not pass; not only be- 
 cause it is forbidden by law" (the law of Mexico abolishing 
 slavery in its limits,) "but because the colored race there pre- 
 ponderates in the ratio oj ten to one over the whites; and 
 holding, as they do, the government and most of the offices 
 in their possession, "they will not permit the enslavement of 
 any portion of the colored race,''' &c. To this Gen. Cass 
 added, "The question, it will be therefore seen on examina- 
 tion, does not regard the exclusion of slavery from a region 
 where it now exists, out a prohibition against its introduction 
 where it does not exist; and where, from the feelings of the 
 inhabitants, and the laws of nature, 'it is morally impossi- 
 ble,' as Mr. Buchanan says, 'that it can ever re-establish it- 
 self.' " 
 
 This "firm, united and concerted action" on the part of the 
 South, already described, was doubtless the most "effective" 
 reason for the change which took place in the opinions of 
 candidates for the Presidency and in the votes of the 29th. 
 Congress: for, whereas, the ''proviso" had passed the House 
 of Representatives, at the first session of the 29th Congress, 
 it was rejected at the second session of that Congress: and 
 whereas, "every Northern Democratic Senator had agreed ta> 
 vote for it" at the first session, several Northern Democratic 
 
13 
 
 Senators voted against it at the second section of the same 
 Congress. 
 
 These results may be thus briefly summed up. 
 
 1. Mr. Wilmot, and his coadjutors, had sought to obtain 
 the aid of Congress to establish this principle, viz: "that there 
 shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any ter- 
 ritory on the continent of America which shall hereafter be 
 acquired or annexed." 
 
 2. The provisoists succeeded in passing it through the 
 House of Representatives at the first session of the 29th Con- 
 gress, and Gen. Cass, and ''every Northern Democratic Sena- 
 tor had agreed to vote for it," but "very much" to the regret 
 of Gen. Cass, he was deprived of the privilege, by Mr. Davis 
 speaking out the last moments of the Seriate. m 
 
 .3. The South, without disiinciion of party, through her 
 primary meetings, and in the legislature of the States, took 
 "firm, united and concentrated action" against the "proviso," 
 and declared our territories to be common property, in which 
 the citizens of each and every State can reside, with his pro- 
 perty, as lcng as such territories remain under the jurisdiction 
 of the United States. 
 
 4. The majority of the democracy of the North, with Cass, 
 gave up the idea of using the power of Congress to effect the 
 exclusion of slavery from the territories, but took two new 
 positions, shewing how the end could be more surely attain- 
 ed, to wit: 
 
 1st. The Mexican law. abolishing slavery, will remain in 
 force until repealed by Congress. 
 
 2d. The inhabitants of the territories .we may acquire will 
 have the right "to regulate their internal concerns in their 
 own way," and as "the colored race there preponderates in 
 the ratio often to one over the whites; and holding, as they 
 do, the government and most of the offices in their possession, 
 they will not permit the enslavement of any portion of the 
 colored race, which makes and executes the laws of the coun- 
 try;" for "among them," as we are assured by the letters of 
 Gen. Cass and Mr. "Buchanan, "the negro does not belong so- 
 cially to a degraded race" 
 
 5. These, views, first suggested by Mr. Buchanan and Mr. 
 Walker, were only compiled, endorsed and promulgated as 
 one complete basis of political action on this issue, by Gen , 
 Cass, in his letter to Mr. Nicholson, dated 24th of December, 
 1847, from which I have freely quoted. 
 
14 
 
 EFFECT OF THE NEW ISSUE UPON ALABAMA. 
 
 Oil the 14th of December, 1S48. a State Convention of tfr&> 
 Democracy of Alabama, convened at Montgomery. Forty- 
 four of the fifty counties of the .State were represented in that 
 body. One hundred and eighty-eight delegates were in at- 
 tendance, composing, it has been said, a larger assemblage of 
 the talent of the democracy of the State than ever before as- 
 sembled for sucb purposes* It may not be considered invi- 
 dious to mention that it was composed in part of such men as 
 Walthall, L. P.Walker, McClung, J. A. Elmore, Terry. Hey- 
 denfelt, Cottrell, H. Rose, Creagh, Sanford, Beckett, Er- 
 win, and McCormick ; and perhaps, in mentioning leading 
 men, (as the idea of "a leader for the old fashioned matter of 
 fact democracy of Alabama" seems to be a leadingoae in his 
 head at this time.) I should not fail to mention as being there 
 a gentleman that. lias received the appellation of ''the father 
 of the Alabama democracy," (from a delegate, in a speech 
 made before the Convention at Baltimore,) and therefore cer- 
 tainly entitled to have mention made of him, when such 
 young democrats, as I have alluded to, are named, to w'it: 
 Mr. J. A. Winston. 
 
 The Convention having organized, a committee of seven 
 were appointed by the President to prepare resolutions, late 
 at night of the first day. The committee consisted of "John 
 McCormick, T. Sanford, J. M. Beckett, L. Wyeth, S Hay* 
 denfeldt, G. R. Evans, and L.F. Cottrell." That committee 
 did not report until the next evening. It then reported, a se- 
 ries of eighteen resolutions— the first six of which related to 
 general party policy, and 10 Gen. Taylor. The seventh read 
 thus: 
 
 " 7th. Resolved, accordingly, That we will support for the Presidency 
 and Vice Presidency the candidates nominated by a Democratic National 
 Convention, to be held in Baltimore, on the fourth Monday in May next,—- 
 as recommended by the democratic members of Congress ; and that we. 
 do appoint delegates thereto, to represent the democracy of this State. 
 Subject, however,, to one special instruction, not as necessary for them, but 
 as a notice, in all frankness, to our brethren elsewhere, that they do not 
 concur in, nor pledge our support to the nomination of any candidates 
 who shall not be explicit in the renunciation of all claims to federal inter- 
 ference with slavery in the territories." 
 
 The eighth exhibited the contrast which existed between 
 Northern whig and democratic statesmen on the slavery is- 
 sue, as being favorable to- the democratic statesmen. The- 
 
1*5 
 
 9th, IOth, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th,, 15th, 1,6th resolutions- were 
 upon the war questions. 
 
 The 17th, 18th, were as follows: 
 
 ''•Resolved, That any territory which has been, or may be acquired by 
 the United State?,, either by purchase or conquest, of right belongs to the 
 people of all the States and that they have the constitutional right to mi- 
 grate to any of such territories, with their property «f every description, 
 and to be protected there m ; and no power exists in Congress, or else- 
 where, to deny to any of the people of any of the States the right to remove 
 into and occupy, with their property of whatever description, any portion, 
 of such territory. 
 
 "Resolved, That no cession of territory to the United States by the au- 
 thorities of Mexico will be acceptable to the people of this State, unless for 
 the territory ceded south of 36 deg. 30 min. it is distinctly provided in the 
 treaty of cession that such territory shall be, and shall reman?, £0 long as 
 it remains a territory of the United States,, free and open to all the people 
 of the United 'States, together with their property of every description." 
 
 Knowing how deep an interest a large number of the Con- 
 vention felt in the nomination of Mr. Buchanan for the Pre- 
 sidency, solely with a view to the success of Col. W. It King 
 to the Vice Presidency, I had felt somewhat anxious to have 
 our declarations of principles made so decided, that Southern 
 rights should not be compromised, merely to secure the per- 
 sonal advancement of any individual. I had no fears that the 
 committee would wilfully lend itself to such a purpose; but 
 thought it not amiss rigidly to scrutinize the resolutions, and 
 see how far they would bind the delegates selected. The 
 seventh resolution reported, contained the weak point appre- 
 hended by me. While the 17th and ISth resolutions, in clear 
 and explicit terms met and denounced [he new form in which 
 the provisoists had presented their great issue "free territo- 
 ries" — while those resolutions (strangely placed by some 
 means at the tail of the report, which I did not then under- 
 stand as fully as I do now,) pronounced that "no power ex- 
 ists in Congress, or elsewhere, to deny to any of the people of 
 any of the States the right to remove into, and occupy, with 
 their property of whatever description, any portion of such 
 territory," and demanded that the treaty should provide that 
 such territory should " be free and open to all the people of 
 the United States, together with their property of every de- 
 scription,' 7 it was a most remarkable fact, that the committee 
 had reported "but one special instruction" and that was, in 
 the seventh resolution-, that the delegation "do not concur in 
 hor pledge our support to tho nomination of any candidal© 
 
16 
 
 •who shall not be explicit in the renunciation of all claims (o 
 federal interference with slavery in the territories" — thus 
 leaving the delegation, if it suited ihem, to vote for any one 
 who held that the Mexican law could exclude us from the 
 territories, and that "the inhabitants of these territories" could 
 exclude us from going there, they "being a colored popula- 
 tion, among whotn the negro does not belong socially to a 
 degraded race." 
 
 While preparing some resolutions I had with me, to offer 
 in the shape of an amendment to the resolution of instruc- 
 tions, Mr. Semple offered an amendment, which, while it had 
 the same object in view that I had, took grounds which were 
 thought to be impracticable, and perhaps unjust. Mr. Sem- 
 ples resolution was discussed by J A. Elmore, Esq in favor 
 of the end sought to be accomplished by Mr. S. and opposed 
 by Mr. J. 'A. Winston and Mr. McCormick At this stage of 
 the discussion, when the Convention wa's fully aroused to the 
 matter at issue, and when too, as far as I could observe, there 
 was the largest attendance of members and audience, both in 
 the hall and lobby, 1 offered the amendment which appeared 
 in the published report of the proceedings of that body, striking 
 out all of the seventh resolution, which dictated the "one spe- 
 cial resolution" inclusive, and inserting the preamble and 9, 
 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14th resolutions As important to a correct 
 understanding of the matters at issue, I insert that amendment 
 at length. 
 
 THE ALABAMA PLATFORM. 
 
 "Whereas, opinions have been expressed by eminent members of the 
 democratic party, and by a Convention of the party in New York, assem- 
 bled for the purpose of selecting delegates to the Baltimore Convention, 
 that the municipal laws of the Mexican territories would not be changed in 
 the ceded territory by the cession to the United States, and that slavery 
 could not be re-established, except by the authority of f he United States, or 
 of the legislature of the territorial government — that no doubts should be 
 allowed to exist upon a subject so important, and at the same time so ex- 
 citing. Be it further 
 
 "9. Resolved, That the treaty of cession should contain a clause securing 
 an entry into those territories to all 'the citizens of the United States, to- 
 gether with their property of every description, and that the same should 
 remain protected by the United States while the territories are under its 
 authority. 
 
 "10. Resolved, That if it should be found inconvenient to insert such a 
 clause into the treaty of cession, that our Senators and Representatives in 
 Congress should be -vigilant to obtain, before the ratification of such a 
 treaty, ample securities that the rights of the Southern people should not 
 be endangered during the period the territories shall remain under the 
 
17 
 
 control pf the United States, either from the continuance of the municipal 
 laws of Mexico, or from the legislation of the United States. 
 
 "11. Resolved, That the opinion advanced and maintained by some, that 
 the people of a territory, acquired by the common toil, suffering, blood and 
 treasure of the people of all the States can, in other events than in the 
 forming a Constitution preparatory to admittance as a State into the 
 Union, lawfully or constitutionally prevent any citizen of any such States 
 from removing to, or settling in such territory, with his property, be it slave 
 property or otherwise, is a restriction as indefensible in principle, and as 
 dangerous in practice, as ii such restriction were imposed by act of 
 ■Congress. 
 
 "12. Resolved, That the democratic party is, and should be, co-extensive 
 with the Union; and that, while we disclaim all intention to interfere in the 
 local divisions and controversies in any of our sister States, we deem it a 
 solemn duty, which we owe to the Constitution, to ourselves, and to that 
 party, to declare our unalterable determination neither to recognize as 
 democrats or to hold fellowship or communion with those who attempt to 
 denationalize the South and its institutions, by restrictions upon its citizens 
 and those institutions, calculated to array one section, in feeling and senti- 
 ment against the other; and that we hold the same to be .alike treason to 
 party faith and to the perpetuity of the Union of these States. 
 
 "13 Resolved, That this Convention pledges itself to the country, and its 
 members pledge themselves to each other, under no political necessity what- 
 ever, to support for the offices of President and Vice President of the 
 United States any persons who shall not openly and avowedly be opposed 
 to either of the forms of excluding slavery from the territories of the United 
 States mentioned in the resolutions, as being alike in violation of the Con- 
 stitution and of the just and equal rights of the citizens of the slaveholding 
 States. 
 
 "14. Resolved, That these resolutions be considered as instructions to 
 •our delegates to the Baltimore Convention, to guide them in their votes in 
 that body; and that they vote for no men for President or Vice President, 
 who will not unequivocally avow themselves to be opposed to either of the 
 forms of restricting slavery, which are described in these resolutions." 
 
 After reading my amendment I spoke upon it for forty-five 
 minutes, when I was stopped bv the chairman of the com- 
 mittee, who ^said he was authorized to accept of the amend- 
 ment. Before this, Mr. Semple had withdrawn his, and also 
 accepted mine. In my remarks, I spoke of the "one special 
 instruction" called for by the report of the committee. I drew 
 attention to the fact that it only called upon the delegates to 
 vote against any one who was in favor of "federal interference 
 with slavery." I remarked that no prominent candidate, that 
 I knew of, was then in favor of that doctrine — that it had been 
 killed, as fur as the democracy was concerned, by the "firm, 
 united and concerted action" of the South. I then read to 
 the Convention extracts from the letters of Mr. Buchanan 
 and Gen. Cass, and endeavored to show the unconstitution- 
 
 B 
 
IS 
 
 ality of the views advanced by (hem, in favor of permitting 
 settlers in a territory to exclude slaveholders. I then read 
 from a letter in my possession, (stating it to be "reliable au- 
 thority,") J^idge Wood bmy's views. I then read Mr. hag- 
 by's views, and pointed out their great similarity to those 
 field by Judge W.; and called upon the Convention to take 
 high ground — that it never would be taken from us by office- 
 seeking politicians — but that when united and de'ermined, 
 we had ever been able to force them from a hostile position, 
 and I doubted not we should succeed in doing so again 
 
 When I concluded, I was asked to read my amendment 
 ogam for information I did so, and handed it up to the 
 clerk's desk. Mr. Cottrelt- remarked that the 17th and ISth 
 resolutions of the committee advanced pretty much the same 
 doctrine, and therefore, to avoid a repetition, he moved that 
 they be struck out. This was agreed to. I was again called 
 upon, the tljird time,, [as I could read my writing better than 
 the clerk could do. J to read the resolutions composing my 
 amendment at the clerk's desk. I did so. The question was 
 then put, and they were adopted unanimously — not a voice 
 feeing raised against them in discussion, nor in the vote! 
 
 Mr. Winston says — "fir the sake of harmony, and the hour 
 being late, they were permitted to pass!" 
 
 The editor o! .the State Gazette says — "the instructions came 
 not from the people, but from himself (Mr, Yancey.) and a 
 slippery politician of Mobile, long since gone .over to Gen. 
 Taylor! This is the source whence came these famous '■■in- 
 structions" that were smuggled into the Democratic Conven- 
 tion on the very eve of its adjournment." 
 
 Par nobile fratrum! The one, an excise officer, whose 
 duty it was to prevent smuggling ;*the other a spy, in a thicket! 
 —-seeing (he whole plot concocted thus to cheat the democracy 
 of the privilege of voting for Buchanan or Cass; and the two 
 doubtless, from having a common object, in full communion ; 
 and yet be so recreant to their trust as to permit it all to pass 
 'for the sake of harmony, and the hour being, late!'" Verily 
 this is a capital reason for a delegate in a Democratic Conven- 
 tion to assign for not opposing the adoption of "a South Caro- 
 lina heresy," and its incorporation into the democratic creed! 
 i -Fur the sake of harmony," he permitted a matter *o pass 
 which was to guide the entire vote of Alabama in the 
 councils of the great, democratic party of the Union; and 
 '"the hour being late,'' was of course no time to oppose a» 
 
19 
 
 error ! And all this from that noted lover of "harmony" J. A„ 
 Winston! 
 
 The editor of the Franklin Democrat, in an editorial in •his 
 paper of the 21st Jane, 18-18, presumed to be written by a 
 member and delegate from Franklin, thus discourses of the 
 writer of this address. ''Then we find him, at the very close 
 of the Democratic State Convention, when the members were 
 dispersing, and none suspecting his design, urging, and uufor-. 
 Umately securing the adoption of two resolutions, in Which 
 were adroitly inserted clauses claiming for the President, and 
 Congress '.he right to provide that slavery shall be introduced 
 into the territory acquired of Mexico. The absurdity of these 
 resolutions we exposed at the time, and dissented from the 
 position they assumed, as not being in accordance with the 
 feeling and opinions of the democracy of Alabama." 
 
 The journal of the proceedings of that body show that offer 
 the adoption ofthese resolutions, a resolution recommending 
 iMr. Polk for re election was offered in Convention (was dis- 
 cussed by the mover and by Cctl. Rose) and was amended at 
 nay instance. That a resolution recommending Col King to 
 the consideration of the Convention, as a candidate for the 
 Vice Presidency, was introduced That a resolution was 
 ■offered, giving to the delegates power to fill vacancies — was 
 discussed, and voted down; and a resolution denying to them 
 the power was adopted. That a resolution watf offered, giving 
 ij the body of the electors power to fill vacancies. That a 
 resolution was offered, discussed and rejected, calling for a 
 committee to prepare an address, &c. That a resolution was 
 offered, considered and passed, recommending to the counties 
 to hold primary meetings and appoint sub-electors. That a 
 resolution as to printing the proceedings, and raising money,. 
 Was considered at some length before being adopted; and 
 then the usual resolutions of thanks, &c. v/ere offered ! 
 
 '-None suspecting his design!" —When everv member of 
 that body listened for three quarters of an hour to an expo- 
 sure of the unsoundness of Cass and Buchanan, and to rea- 
 sons why we ought to leave no room, for our delegates to vote 
 for any such men! 
 
 u The absurdity ofthese resolutions toe exposed at the 
 timi!" It is believed that "we" was a member of that con- 
 vebtion, but that he kept whatever of ''absurdity" he had 
 about him "at the time" to himself, is well known. Not a 
 voice was raised against them? The authorized representa- 
 
20 
 
 lives of the Democracy of Alabama sent them forth to the 
 world, as sound in theory and wise in practice; and pledged 
 :hemselves "to each other and to the country, under no poli- 
 tical necessity whatever," to recede from the position taken 
 on that night. 
 
 ACTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON THE NEW PROVISO- 
 ISSUE. 
 
 Joint resolutions were afterwards passed by the General 
 Assembly of the State, declaring the territories of the United 
 States to be "the common ground of all the United States" — 
 that the Constitution "does not authorize it (Congress) to de- 
 prive a citizen of any of *the United States of his property, 
 whatever it may be, in any such territory except for 'public 
 us< j .' and upon making ' just compensation' therefor: That if 
 it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect such pro- 
 perty from seizure or confiscation en the ocean, which is com- 
 mon to all nations, much stronger is the duty to afford that 
 protection in our territory, \vhich is the common ground of 
 all the States," &c 
 
 The sixth section pledges the State to support no man for 
 Presidency "whose known political opinions do not give as- 
 surance that he*wil! exercise the powers of his office to pro- 
 tect and maintain the constitutional rights of the slavehold- 
 ers," &c. (See tflcis of Alabama, p. 450. ) 
 
 ACTS OP GEORGIA, FLORIDA AND VIRGINIA, ON THIS ISSUB. 
 
 This view of the new issue was not confined to Alabama. 
 The legislature of Georgia, as we are informed by the press, 
 adopted, among others, the following: 
 
 "Be it further resolved, by the .authority aforesaid, That any territory ac- 
 quired, or to be acquired, by the arms of the United States, or by treaty 
 with a foreign power, becomes the common property of the several Slates 
 composing this Confederacy; and whilst it so continues it is the right of 
 each citizen of each and every State to reside, with his property of every 
 description, within such territory." 
 
 The Democratic State Convention of Florida also adopted 
 the following, among other resolutions: 
 
 "Resolved, That our delegates to the Democratic Convention, proposed 
 to be held at Baltimore, on the 4th Monday in May next to nominate can- 
 didates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency of the United. States, are 
 hereby instructed to support no persons for those offices who will sanction 
 any attempt to interfere with or control the equal right of the citizens oi 
 each and every State, with their slaves or any other property, to remove 
 
21 
 
 to and occupy territory which now belongs to the United States, or may 
 hereafter be acquired by them' whether such interference or restrictions, 
 are imposed by Congress, directly, through its own acts, or mediately, through 
 powers conferred on, or conceded to, the inhabitants of each territory" 
 
 On the 29th of February 184S, a State Convention of the 
 Democracy of Virginia adopted a series of resolutions, endors- 
 ing fully the proceedings of our own Convention, and among 
 them appear the following: 
 
 "7th. That, as republicans and citizens of one of the free and equal 
 States of this Union, we do most earnestly protest against the Winthrop 
 and Wilmot provisos, as wanton violations of the Constitution and wilful 
 assaults on the rights and interests of one portion of our Confederacy, and 
 do most solemnly declare that there is no power either in Congress, or a 
 territorial Legislature, which is its creature, nor any where else, save only 
 in the people ot a territory in the adoption of a State Constitution prepara- 
 tory to admission into the Union, to prevent the migration of any citizen of 
 any State, with his property, whether it be slaves or any thing else, to any 
 domain which may be acquired by the common blood and treasure of the 
 people of all the States. 
 
 "8th. That this Convention heartily responds to the noble Resolutions 
 of the Alabama State Democratic Convention, and will "under no political 
 necessity whatever," support for the Presidency, any person who shall 
 not be the firm and avowed opponent of any plan or doctrine, which 
 in any way interferes with the right of citizens of any one State to possess 
 and enjoy all their property in any territory which may be acquired by the 
 Union, as fully, completly and securely as citizens of any other State shall 
 enjoy theirs — except so tar as, that being unwilling to disturb the Missouri 
 compromise, we are content with adherence to its principles. 
 
 "9th. That, subject to the indispensable condition already stated, we will 
 support any democrat who may receive the nomination of the National 
 Convention which will assemble in Baltimore on the fourth Monday in May 
 . aext." 
 
 OPINION OP THE PRESS UPON THIS ISSUE. 
 
 Soon after our State Convention adjourned, the set of poli- 
 ticians in this State, (whose machinations the resolutions of 
 instructions to our delegates to the Baltimore Convention '<to 
 guide them in their votes in that body," were designed in part 
 to prevent,) put their heads together to concert some scheme 
 by which they might break the meshes of those instructions, 
 and attain their favorite object — the nomination of Mr Buch- 
 anan — which they preferred "chiefly for the reason, that they 
 thought there was a better prospect of getting Col. King nomi- 
 nated on a ticket with him, than with any of the rest." (See 
 Mr. A. J. Saffold's letter ) The result was a systematic and 
 continued attack upon the late State Convention, and the re- 
 solutions adopted by it, both by the editor of the State G-b 
 
22 
 
 zeite (a subsidized paper of a very recent existence in our 
 State) and an anonymous Correspondent— "Giles." 
 
 The resolutions were pronounced — fohav.e"been written hi 
 haste, as they were adopted without consideration" — thev 
 'were said to '-have been regarded as a trick to commit Alaba- 
 ma against all Northern aspirants for the Presidency, except 
 Mr Woodburv" — "it is Certain they were received, at the 
 time of their adoption, as laying down abstractions'' — thev 
 "will he justly received as a string of abstractions, calculated 
 only to do mischief " 
 
 The editor said, tliat "it was a thorough conviction that the 
 amendments to the original Alabama resolutions embraced 
 principles which the Convention, on proper reflection, and 
 the people of the St;Up, would not really approve," &c that 
 led him to discuss the matter. "As they (the original resolu- 
 tions reported by the committee.) orieinahy stood, they wer« 
 free from all abstractions, new tests, and other objections, with 
 which the amendments are chargeable." "The resolutions 
 submitted by the abb committee were .certainly not intended. 
 to throw difficulty in the way of either aspirant, and had no 
 such tendency." 
 
 It will be observed, by comparing the principles laid down 
 by my amendment with those laid down by the 17th and 18th 
 resolutions reported by the "able commttee," that there is 
 not the shadow even of a difference between them, as far as 
 applicable to an aspirant for the Presidency " What "diffi- 
 culty" then did my amendment throw "in the way of either 
 aspirant for the Presidency," not thrown there by the "origi- 
 nal resolutions" of "the ablecomrmttee?" Simply this, and no 
 more, (and it tell? the tale on these schemess) — the resolu- 
 tions of the "able committee" laid down sound principles, and 
 announced that the right to interfere with the migration of 
 slaveholders to our territories, and to reside there, did not 
 "exist, either in Congress or elsewhere" but they expressly 
 find purposedly refrained from imposing those sound vieiL-s 
 tip n the delegates as instructions, and gave them "but one 
 special instruction" — and that was not to vote for any one 
 for President who was not opposed to "all claims to federal 
 interference with slimes in the territories " My resolutions, 
 in fact, as far as the Presidency was concerned, only made the 
 entire resolutions of the Committee instructions to the dele- 
 gates — only instructed them to vote for no man who did not 
 believe that the power to prevent our citizens from migrating 
 
23 
 
 tr> the territories, with their slaves, did not "exist, either in 
 Congress, or elsewhere." The matter ihpn, thar pinched so 
 hard, and made "the galled jades wince." were the instruc- 
 tions — not the principles av«wedi Those; they rare'! not 
 for, as Unig as they were riot made to ploy too conspicuous 
 a part in restricting them in selecting a President! 
 
 The editor of the State Gazette and "Giles" called lustily 
 upon "the democratic paper* of Alabama" to "republish" the 
 communications of the latter. What said the democratic 
 press? 
 
 The Montgomery '-Flag and Ad vertiser," one of wh-se intel- 
 ligent editors was chairman of the Committee, said — "Giles 
 should have known that the report submitted by the -able com- 
 mittee' fo whom he refers, embodied resolutions which cover 
 'he whole ground of the 9th and 10th resolutions submitted by 
 Mr. Yancey;" — ,f he ought to know, further, that the resolu- 
 tions of \!r. Yancey were agreed to, hi cause they were un- 
 derstood to elaborate merely the resolutions submitted byrhe 
 committee." The editor said that Giles had "fallen into a 
 palpable error, in supposing that Mr. Yancey's resolutions 
 covered something which is obnoxious to censure, and which 
 the committee and the Convention would have repudiated." 
 "If there beany objection to the 9th and 10th resolutions the 
 objection must be that they are too boll— too explicit in their 
 declaration of Southern rights " 
 
 The Tuscaloosa "Observer." in reply to the positions as- 
 sumed by i he "State Gazette" and "Giles," said — "It is ton 
 plain for argument. The resolutions (as amended) accorded 
 strictly with the Constitution, in spirit and letter;" — and the 
 editor, went into a spirited defence oi' them, and of the 
 mover. 
 
 The "Democratic Watchtower," April 10, said — "A com- 
 munication, signed 'Giles,' appeared in the last 'State Ga- 
 zette,' with the endorsement of the editor, which has struck 
 lis with some astonishment. It is nothing less than an effort 
 to absolve the delegates to the Baltimore Contention from 
 the obligation to carry out the will of the democratic party 
 adopted at our late Convention. What evidence is there for 
 the reckless assertion, that some were designed for a '■•trick" 
 while others laid down cardinal principles? The members 
 were men of intelligence, of tried political worth, and would 
 not so far forget their position, as to vote for senseless abstrac- 
 irdas, with a design of palming a trick, upon those who had 
 
entrusted them with authority. We look upon the attempt of 
 'Giles' as disorganizing, and it is the duty of the honest demo- 
 crats to frown ii down. 
 
 "It is nonsense in the extreme, unaccountable to those who 
 have read the proceedings, to pretend that the Convention 
 desired to pledge an uninqni ring acquiescence, in whatever 
 might be the action of the Baltimore Convention/ 7 
 
 The Democratic Watchtower, April 26, said — "We had oc- 
 casion, last week, to make some strictures upon a communi- 
 cation, which appeared in the 'State Gazette. 7 The same 
 writer, cherishing an inveterate propensity for errors of fact 
 and false conclusions, follows his first batch with a second, 
 which we only wonder could have found a publisher in Ala- 
 bama. 
 
 "He assumes, that the territory acquired by Mexico must 
 be free. ******** 
 
 "Again, with the same recklessness, and forgetfulness of 
 facts, while exhibiting his northern predilections, and anti- 
 southern feeling, he says that the. South is -fearful of harmless 
 factions/ and by inflammatory action, 'has done the institution 
 of slavery more harm than the abolitionists can ever do it/ 
 We repeal our astonishment, that such slanders have found a 
 press to publish, and a tongue to approve, at the South. Hith- 
 erto it has been our proud boast, that we acted on the defen- 
 sive — that the North has ever committed the first aggression, 
 and we only asked to be M alone. But 'Giles' has discover- 
 ed that we are worse than abolitionists — that our unmanly 
 fears and premature alarms endanger the institution we most 
 desire to protect. Wise man, brave man, proud in his own 
 security!' 7 
 
 The "Florence Gazette 77 said — "The resolutions adopted 
 (by the Convention) were submitted by Messrs. McCormick 
 and Yancey — the latter of whom is well known throughout 
 the State, as the able representative of the third district in the 
 last Congress. They advance, in substance, the views that 
 have been so ably urged upon the consideration of our read- 
 ers by our talented correspondent " IV." in relation to the pro- 
 hibition of slavery in the territories, 7 ' &c. And at a subse- 
 quent day, in reviewing the character of the electoral ticket,, 
 the editor said — "The proceedings of the Democratic State 
 Convention, recently held at Montgomery, seem to have 
 given genera! satisfaction to the party throughout the State — 
 indeed the resolutions of the Convention seem to have le- 
 
25 
 
 ceived the commendation of our friends throughout the 
 country " 
 
 The ''Dallas Gazettee" published an article, from which 
 the following is an extract — "The resolutions in regard to the 
 slavery question have elevated, and will continue to elevate, 
 the party in the just estimation of the great public. They 
 take the true and safe ground upon the lion question of the 
 age — the Wiltnot proviso," &c. 
 
 The Augusta (Geo.) Constitutionalist, said — "No event in 
 the political movements of the day is fraught with more vital, 
 importance, than the passage of the resolutions of the late 
 Alabama Democratic Convention. They are of great intrin- 
 sic importance ; for they set forth the true Southern position, 
 in a bold, clear, and decisive manner. They are of practical 
 importance, and will lead to practical results; because they 
 will be sustained by the people of the South. They appeal 
 directly to the sense of jn-itice, which tells any Southern man 
 that his rights are .co-equal with those of a citizen of a free 
 State in acquired territory. They appeal to his instincts of 
 self preservation, in arousing him to resist any attempt to 
 place the South and her institutions in a position of social de- 
 gradation, as compared with the rest of the Union." "If the 
 South will act unitedly and promptly, she will triumph in this 
 struggle, in defiance of the combined forces of political profli- 
 gacy and abolition fanaticism." 
 
 The Macon (Geo.) Telegraph said — "We point the demo- 
 cratic reader's attention to the resolutions adopted by \h&- 
 Alabama State Convention, recently held at Montgomery, 
 which will be found in another column of to-day's paper. 
 These resolutions breathe the right spirit. They speak the 
 language of a proud and spirited people, who understand their 
 rights and are determined to maintain them. They cannot 
 be t@o generally adopted, nor too highlv commended by the 
 South," &c. 
 
 The South Carolinian said — (and as this paper is now 1 
 freely quoted from by the Cass-ites, to show a spark of prac- 
 tical good sense in South Carolina, I trust I may venture to 
 quote it as authority) — "We publish below the resolutions of 
 the Democratic State Convention of Alabama. They breathe 
 the true spirit of Southern democracy, and may be set down 
 as the rallying principles of that party at the South. We seek 
 no alliances, and will submit to no compromise for the sake 
 of party on the question of slavery , We will never occupy a. 
 
20 
 
 degraded position in the Union, by sn (faring ourselves and 
 our property to be excluded*£rorn territory won by tho com. 
 m_0 a valor and watered by the common blood of the people 
 of all the States. And whether this is to be effected by the 
 vpen and undisguised provisions of the Wihnot proviso, or by 
 tho more dangerous and kisiduous, but equally effectual 
 method of allowing the Mexican inhabitants of the conquer- 
 ed territory to retain their present municipal regulations, and 
 ihus to exclude Southern slaveholders and their property, is 
 immaterial to the South." 
 
 In fine, if a single press in Alabama responded favorably 
 to the assaults made upon >'thc Alabama pi uform." I am not 
 aware of it; while the Southern Banner (Athens, Geo.) was 
 ,;io only Southern democratic paper out of the State, that I 
 *:on!d learn, took a similar view of*that platform with fho 
 ''State Gazette." To show more completely how universal 
 was the approbation given to these resolutions, and the con- 
 demnation of the factious course of that .paper, I will hero 
 give a part of an article, devoted to my hum.ble self, in that 
 .paper of 1 9th June, 1S-1S. 
 
 "MR. YANCEY. 
 
 •'It is with no little regret that we feel compelled, by the duties of our 
 position, to place at the head of ail article, in which some severity of ani- 
 madversion is designed, the name of a gentleman to whom, a few brief 
 months sinc£, we took pleasure in frequently alluding, as a public man 
 and a democratic of acknowledged abilities', in terms of warm commenda- 
 tion. Foreseeing what his course in the Alabama Democratic Convention 
 w&uld tikcessaHly lead to, unless disclaimed by the democracy of the State, 
 we, after mature reflection, called upon the party to repudiate his am°nd. 
 ments. which the Convention, at a late hour of the night, at ihe very heel 
 of the session, and under an erroneous impression as to their real tendency, 
 permitted to pass without any demonstration of open opposition. Instead 
 of obtaining the co-operation of our contemporaries, we, with few excep- 
 tions, received nothing for our pains but their opposition and abuse- Our 
 motives were misrepresented and we were denounced as "disorganize^,"' 
 when we expressly stated that our object was to "prevent disorganization 
 hi the Baltimore Convention," and to rescue the State from the -'false po- 
 sition" which, : n our judgment, Mr. Yancey's amendments placed it, x hre 
 has now proved our apprehensions to have been well founded and fulfil- 
 led all our predictions; and the papers that then condemned us have aii 
 now suddenly come to the right-about face, and are crawling out as' fast 
 as possible (as we predicted) from the "awkward position" in which wa 
 warned them they were placing themselves." 
 
 The above article shows two facts. 
 
 1st. That the press, "with few exception?/'" sustained my 
 resolutions and the acts of the late State Convention, and dc- 
 
27 
 
 nonnced the views taken of both by the "'State Gazette" and 
 "Giles." 
 
 2d. That the '-State Gazette" still maintains the same po- 
 sition, as when he was -'then condemned;" and the press 
 which condemned, without a single exception I believe in 
 this State, "have suddenly comb to the right aboui," and the 
 greater number are now, in conjunction with "the State Ga- 
 zette," heaping upon my Head loads of obliquy and invec- 
 tive, which nothing hut a sense of being right — a conscious- 
 ness thai I stand now upon the same principles which wer s 
 once pronounced by this same democratic press throughout 
 the State to be sound, and in accordance with the spirit and 
 letter of 'the Constitution could •■uablo rne to endure with 
 any degre,e of equanimity and that, if I have erred, it has 
 only been from asserting principles which one of them 
 frankly stated could oidy be said to be. "too bold — too expli- 
 cit in their declaration of Southern rights " 
 
 A review of these facts and occurrences will establish these 
 conclusions. 
 
 1st. There was a real, palpable danger hovering over the 
 South. 
 
 2d. That our fellow cnizens. without distinction of par'}', 
 in their primary meetings, and in their legislatures, denounc- 
 ed those who were advocating the doctrines in which thy 
 danger lay, and pledged themselves to voie for no one for '.he 
 Presidency who upheld those doctrines. 
 
 3d. That the Democracy of Alabama, in two State Con- 
 ventions, and by their representatives in the General Assem- 
 bly, boldly and unequivocally denounced ail interference 
 with the right of our fellow citizens io migrate to. and reside 
 in, the territories of the United States, as unconstitutional and 
 subversive of that equality to which we are entitled in the 
 Union — and that, as an "effective mode" of maintaining this 
 right, they would vote, neither in a National Convention, nor 
 at the polls, for any man who was in favor of the right of 
 snch interference. 
 
 4th. That the democratic press of Alabama, with a singu- 
 lar degree of unanimity, sustained the positions thus taken by 
 ttie people in their primary assemblages, and by the demo- 
 cracy in its Convention; and denounced as "disorganizer3° 
 all who opposed those positions and acts. 
 
 5th. That the States of Virginia and Georgia, in their le- 
 gislatures, endorsed these positions; and the democracy of 
 
28 
 
 Virginia and Florida, m their State Conventions, boldly sus- 
 tained them, and pledged themselves to vote for no one for 
 the Presidency who opposed them. 
 
 Such was puhhc sentiment, when I startedfor — 
 
 THE BALTIMORE CONVENTION. 
 
 On the 22d May, 1S48, the Democratic National Conven- 
 tion assembled and organized at Baltimore. At a conference 
 of the. delegates from this State, it was agreed that the vote 
 of each congressional district, and the two.votes from the State 
 at large, should be cast as those representing each of said 
 votes should judge best. 
 
 At one of these conferences, an attempt was made to get 
 at such an union of sentiment as would produce common ac- 
 tion on the vote for the Presidency. In that conference, the 
 following facts were elicited. 
 
 I had written to Gen. Cass, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Dallas, and 
 Judge Woodbury, inclosing copies of the resolutions of the 
 State Convention, and requesting their opinions upon the 
 points involved Gen. Cass replied, merely enclosing his 
 letter to Mr. Nicholson, and referring me to it for his views. 
 Mr. Dallas replied, that "having, on several occasions, scru- 
 pulously abstained from any defence or elaboration of certain 
 political views long entertained and heretofore publicly ex- 
 pressed, he did not feel at liberty, just then, to pursue a dif- 
 ferent course. " Mr. Buchanan replied thus: 
 
 Washington, May 18, 1848. 
 Hon. William L. Yancey: 
 
 Sir. — I have received your favor of the 2nd instant, requesting answers 
 to the different propositions contained in the 9th, 10th, 1 1th. 12th, 13th 
 and- 14th Resolutions of the late Alabama Democratic Convention on the 
 subject of slavery. 
 
 On the 26th August last, after much reflection, I addressed a letter to 
 the Democracy of Berks County, Penn. on this important and exciting 
 question, in which I expressed a strong opinion in favor of the extension 
 of the Missouri compromise to any territory which we might acquire from 
 Mexico. I had entertained and freely expressed this opinion trom the 
 time the question was first agitated ; and every day's experience, since the 
 date of my letter, has but served to strengthen my conviction that the 
 Missouri compromise is the best, if not the only mode, of finally and satis- 
 factorily adjusting this x-exed and dangerous question. 
 
 Under these circumstances, I cannot abandon the position which I have 
 thus deliberately and conscientiously taken, and assume any other that can 
 be presented. 
 
 I have the honor of transmitting you a copy of my Berks County' letter. 
 
 With sentiments of the highest respect, I remain vours, sincerely. 
 
 JAMES BUCHANAN. 
 
Judge Woodbury replied thus: 
 
 Boston. Mass. 15th May. 1848. 
 
 Dear Sir, — On my arrival here to hold a Court to day, your letter of the 
 2nd instant was placed in my hands. 
 
 It has not hitherto beer, deemed advisable, by fhe_ great mass of my 
 friends, for me to write letters for publication on any of the political ques- 
 tions, that have for some time agitated the country. 
 
 Two reasons have existed for this, which still remain in full force. One 
 is, that my views are already well known to most people on these questions, 
 without a publication of them in this mode. And the other is, that such a 
 publication, and especially in my present official position, and on constitu- 
 tional points, is of doubtful propriety. 
 
 In connection with the first reason, permit me to remark, that it will be 
 a matter of lasting regret, if any of my friends cannot now feel satisfied 
 what are my constitutional opinions, when they have been made known, 
 on so many occasions, during a public lite of more than a quarter of a cen- 
 tury. When, in brief, they stand on record, again and again, unvarying,, 
 as the opinions which belong to the school of strict construction, and as the 
 opinions which hold firmly to all the compromises of the Constitution; and 
 which through evil, no less than good report, have always led me earnestly 
 to vindicate such an administration of the Genera! Government, and such 
 a support of our sacred Union as the fraternal spirit which formed that 
 Government and Union seemed to demand. 
 
 In respect to the application of these principles to any new cases or new 
 questions, where no such application has yet been required from me in the 
 discharge of official obligations, the second reason before named for not 
 going into speculative discussions on such topics while in my present po- 
 sition, still does not leave any' persons, desiring information, without gen- 
 eral guides and reasonable assurances as to my future course. Thus if my 
 public life hitherto has given any pledge of respect to the reserved rights of 
 th« peopie and the States, and of fidelity to the whole Constitution and the 
 whole country, it furnishes in the same way, it is believed, the strongest 
 guarantee of what will be done hereafter in any exigency in any part of duty 
 that may be assigned to me. 
 
 Unfortunately, if under these circumstances, this should not prove satis- 
 factory, I must despair of saying any thing for publication, in the excite- 
 ment of the present canvass, which ought to be more satisfactory. 
 
 Allow me to add, that should the Democratic National Convention adopt 
 any declaration of principles, or pass any resolutions about them, which 
 are intended as their. platform, or a guide to those persons recommended 
 by them for office, I certainly would not permit myself to be their candi- 
 date for any situation, unless agreeing in the correctness of those principles. 
 
 With much respect and regard, your obi serv't. 
 
 LEVI WOOD3URY. 
 To Hon. Wm. L. Yakcey, Washington. 
 
 After the receipt of those letters, however, at the request of 
 a portion of the Alabama delegation, Mr. Dallas consented to 
 give them an interview. The hour being late, (the adjourn- 
 ment of the Senate) I alone, of the delegation, was present at 
 it. Mr. Dallas, in a full and frank conversation, such as he 
 
30 
 
 would cheerfully hold with any citizen who desired to leam 
 his political views, gave me to understand, (without now go- 
 ing into his reasoning.) that he was opposed to all interference 
 by Congress with slavery in the territories, and that the peo- 
 ple of a territory could derive no legislative power from Con- 
 gross to interfere with it in any way —that the territories of 
 the United States were open to emigration from the whole 
 Union. At a previous conversation had with him, as we were 
 given to understand by Mr. Solomon, a delegate from the 
 Mobile district, Mr. Dallas advanced the same views. I after- 
 wards also had an opportunity of reading similar sentimenls 
 in a letter written by Mr. Dallas to a gentleman from Penn- 
 sylvania. 
 
 The following singular develope.ments were also made as 
 to Mr Buchanan's views. One of the two Mr. Moores, I 
 believef Mr. Sydenham Moore, was understood to state, that 
 lie had met Mr. Buchanan, on Pennsylvania Avenue, who 
 told 1 i i in "he had written a reply to Mr. Yancey's letter" — 
 that Mr. 13. raid further, "that he could not come up to, c-r 
 endorse, the Alabama platform/' 
 
 Mr. San ford stated — that he had held an interview wi'.h 
 Mr. Buchanan, and that Mr. 13. amongst other things "expres- 
 sed surprise to find, in my letter to the editor of the Slate Ga- 
 zette, that I had put such a construction upon his views. Mr. 
 Sanford said that Mr. B. in that interview, fully endorsed the 
 Alabama platform — that Mr. B. believed Congress iiad no 
 right to interfere .with slavery in the States and territories. — 
 and that the inhabitants of a territory had no right to do so, 
 i! mil they met in Convention to form a State Constitution 5/ 
 
 1 stated, that previous to the receipt of Mr. B's letter, Mr. 
 Buchanan had told me that he could not approve of the views 
 expressed in our resolutions — that he had taken his position 
 on the Missouri compromise, and could not now change it. 
 
 There was also this additional information given at that 
 conference relative to the opinions of Judge Woodbury. 1 
 lead a part of a letter, writteu by Judge Woodbury's son, C. 
 L. Woodbury, Esq. in Boston, where Judge W. then was hold- 
 ing the U. S. Circuit Court, and after a conference with his 
 father upon the subject. The part read was thus: "There is 
 no objection, that can be reasonably made to you, or our 
 friend Yancej and others, statmg what they believe to be the 
 views of Judge W. on the subject, (slavery) — such as Yan- 
 cey's account of the proceedings of the Alabama Convention* 
 
31 
 
 for instance, in the Union." That account I believe all the 
 delegation had seen, and I re-stated it at the conference. It 
 was as foho\vs: "I read extracts from a letter in my posses- 
 sion, winch I averred to be 'reliable authority,' stating Mr, 
 Woodbury to be opposed to both Federal and popular inter- 
 ference with slavery in the territories; and that, lie, Mr, 
 Woodbury, believed that the people of a territory could only 
 • legislate upon the subject when they met to frame a State 
 Constitution, preparatory to admittance as a State into this 
 Union." In addition to the above, I also offered to read to 
 the delegation an elaborate argument by Judge Woodbury 012 
 that nsiife, which had been written in January last, and which 
 J was authorized, by the gentleman who had handed it to me, 
 to shew to any gentleman desirous of learning what were any 
 'unequivocal' opinions he entertained on the 'slave question, 
 with a view to supporting .him, if he came up to our instruc- 
 tions; but that no one could read it, who desired to do so 
 merely to make a blowing horn of it among northern men 
 to scare them from the support of Judge Woodbury in that 
 Convention. That if nominated there was no doubt thai; 
 Judge W. would at once make public avowals of his opin- 
 ions on all questions; and that if 1 ot nominated, I also said, 
 (Messrs. Salomon and Winston to the contrary notwithstand- 
 ing) that every one who read that letter and voted for him, 
 would be authorized to refer to its contents, though not to 
 publish the letter, in explanation of his vote. Some of the 
 delegation (these gentlemen who voted for Mr. Buchanan) 
 refused to receive the letter as delegate's. Others (the majo- 
 rity) received it — read it — considered it. sufficiently "unequi- 
 vocal," and cast five of the nine votes of the State for Judge 
 Woodbury- Those gentlemen, as well as myself, are now 
 arraigned by Salomon, Winston, Sanford & Co. as violators 
 of our instructions for giving those votes ! 
 
 Mr. Salomon opens the ball, and says — "It is for the de- 
 
 — -7.', ~J ~--~ J » J — -» v .-, .^-. ...w -^^ 
 
 mocracv of Alabama to decide whether Judge Woodbury 
 could be voted for by any delegate, who regarded as binding 
 this resolution adopted by the Stale Convention: 
 
 will not unequivocally a 
 of restricting 
 
 uivocally avow themselves to be opposed to either of the fori 
 u slaucry which are described in these resolutions." 
 
 "Did Judge Woodbury 'unequivocally ayow himself op 
 
32 
 
 posed to either of the forms of restricting slavery/ &c. If so, 
 where is that avowal to be found? Where is the public justi- 
 fication for the votes that were recorded in his favor from 
 Alabama?" 
 
 If Mr. Salomon had read the letter offered to him, he 
 would have" been sufficiently well informed not to have 
 sought elsewhere for the information he asks: he would 
 have been enabled to answer that Judge W. was "unequivo-* 
 cally" opposed to both forms of restricting slavery: he could 
 have even shown where that avowal was to be found : and, 
 if he can understand the resolution- he has quoted, he can see 
 that a '-public justification" was not required by it for votes 
 cast in Convention. 
 
 I will ask some questions, also. Why did Salomon, Win- 
 ston and Sanford suppress the fact, that Mr. C. L. Woodbury, 
 in the name and by the authority of Judge Woodbury, indors- 
 ed the publication of the views of the latter by me in my let- 
 ter to the editor of the State Gazette? Why did Winston, 
 Salomon and Sanford suppress the fact, that at the conference 
 * of the delegates, it was also in evidence before the delegates, 
 that Mr. Buchanan had, on two different occasions, to two 
 of the delegates, expressly said that he could not endorse 
 or adopt the principles of the Alabama platform; and that all 
 that could be said in reply by one of his friends (if remember- 
 ed aright, Mr. Winston) was — "perhaps he don't put the same 
 construction upon it that you do."? Why has Mr Sanford in 
 his address endeavored to palm off upon the public that the 
 delegates were instructed to vote in Convention for no "can- 
 didate, for President or Vice President who was not openly 
 and avoivedly opposed to the restriction upon slavery-," &c? 
 His colleague, Mr. Salomon, has published the resolution of 
 instruction to the delegates, and that is — that we vote for no 
 men "who \\ ill not unequivocally avow themselves, &.c" 
 The resolution as to voting against any who ''shall not openly 
 and avowedly be opposed," &c. relates solely to our action in 
 the canvass after the nomination, if it should prove to be bad. 
 
 Mr. Salomon with less of cunning, but more frankness 
 (however little intended) has placed ''the guide" to the votes 
 of delegates in the prope. resolution; but Messrs. Winston 
 and Sanford differ with him, and attempt their attack from 
 Lolder, though less tenable grounds. 
 
 They, Messrs. Winston and Sanford, it seems, are so hard 
 pressed for want of materiel with which to crush me, that ./or 
 
• 33 
 
 that purpose they are disposed to regard the Alabama reso- 
 lutions as binding upon the delegates ! What a pity this idea 
 never entered their heads when a matter of far greater im- 
 portance was before them — the nomination of a President ! 
 For this purpose then, they quote the 13th and 14th resolu- 
 tions, as binding upon the delegates in voting in convention 
 to make a nomination. It will be observed that the 14th makes 
 " these resolutions" (to wit, the whole series) " instructions to 
 our delegates to guide them in their votes in that body ; and 
 that they vote for no men for President or Vice President 
 who will not unequivocally avow themselves, fyc." What is 
 the plain meaning of that resolution ? Clearly this, — the prin- 
 ciples laid down in the previous resolutions shall " be consi : 
 dered as instructions to guide them in their votes in that 
 body" — (the Convention) — and in reference to those princi- 
 ples — the resolution emphatically binds the delegates to vote 
 for no one " who will noi. unequivocally avow himself, &c." 
 The 13th resolution was designed, and that design is plain 
 upon its face, to bind, not the delegates, for their names or 
 office are not alluded to even by implication in it — but was de- 
 signed, as it reads, to bind " the Convention" as a body, and 
 ■'•' its members" individually, by a pledge ic under no politi- 
 cal necessity whatever, to support for the office of President 
 or Vice President any person who shall not openly and 
 avowedly be opposed, &c." 
 
 It is clear then that by the 13th resolution "the Conven- 
 tion" as a body and "its members" individually pledged 
 themselves to the country and to each other not to support a 
 bad nomination at the polls or in the canvass ! — and that by 
 the 14th the delegates were bound not to vote, in the Balti- 
 more Convention, to nominate any one who did not "unequi- 
 . vocally" avow himself to be in favor of'-' rhose resolutions." 
 
 The Convention recognized two stages or periods at which 
 those resolutions were to be considered as solemn pledges — 
 1st in the Baltimore Convention, on the delegates — 2d, in the 
 canvass and at the polls, on the members of the State Con- 
 vention. 
 
 The difference between Messrs. Salomon, Winston, San- 
 ford, & Co. and myself then, in reference to these two resolu- 
 tions, is simply this — they obeyed neither in the Convention 
 and are obeying neither, in the canvass. — I strictly followed 
 the 14th resolution i'n the Convention, and. am now obeying 
 the 13th in the canvass. The only use to which they have 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 Lave ever put them is to pervert their meaning,. in order taft 
 assail me. I have acted npon them in my vote as a dele- 
 gate, and will do so in the Canvass as a citizen. 
 
 Again, the 14th resolution made the whole series of the 
 resolutions adopted " a guide" merely to our votes in the 
 Convention — that is, left us to choose the man who came 
 nearest to us on all such issues as Tariff, Bank, Internal Im- 
 provements and War.questions. Will it be contended that we 
 could vote for no one who did not come up fully to all these 
 positions? If so, how can these gentlemen excuse their vote 
 for Buchanan, whose single vote enacted the Whig Tariff of 
 1S42? or for Cass, who voted for the Internal Improvement bills 
 vetoed by Mr. Polk ? If theirs is the proper construction tney 
 are in a bad dilemma ! Bu*t this is not the construction. The 
 resolutions made all those principles " a guide" to us, leaving 
 us to get one as near to us as we could ; but on the slave ques- 
 tion, it left us no discretion, for it went on to say in addition — ■ 
 v and that we vote for no men for President or Vice President 
 who will not unequivocally avow themselves to be opposed to 
 either of the forms of restricting slavery mentioned in the 
 resolutions." 
 
 We were thus told, that while we must be guided by all 
 those resolutions in our selection of a candidate, yet we musi. 
 make it the main point — "-to vote for tio men who will not 
 unequivocally" avow themselves on the slavery issue to be 
 with us. We were in elfect told, that if we found one, not 
 altogether sound on other issues, yet sound on this one issue,, 
 to take him — and* this is the only construction under which 
 the delegation could have made such a choice. 
 
 The resolutions again recognized the difficulty of finding 
 one fully up to the mark with us on the slave issue, in print— 
 and while they permited us to vote for such an one in conven- 
 tion, they demanded of such a nominee, before we voted at 
 the polls, to avow himself "openly." It was known that 
 Woodbury was our choice and that he was a judge on the 
 bench. We had severely condemned McLean for publish- 
 ing political letters to get the Whig nomination, and we did 
 not expect our favorite to do so. But though satisfied to 
 nominate him, if he gave to the delegates i4 unequivocal" 
 assurances of his soundness, we felt bound to declare that 
 " under no political" necessity whatever would we vote at 
 the polls- for any man who "did not openly and avowedly" 
 come out on our side. If he had been nominated therefore, 
 
35- 
 
 Jiidge Woodbury to get our support would have been confo 
 pelled to publish his opinions. 
 
 Mr. Sanford in his address, expects to sustain his argu- 
 ment by alledged isolated remarks of mine. I never did say 
 in the State Convention that Mr. Woodbury's views would, 
 be published to the world, before, the Convention met. I had ; 
 then in possession a letter shewing the impropriety of his 
 doing so, while a Judge of the Supreme Court. If I- said 
 anything about publishing, it was that "at the proper, ti??ie ,:> 
 those views would be made public ; for I could only have 
 stated what I knew to be Judge. W.'s views — and that was : 
 that if nominated, he would be in a condition to make pub- 
 lic his views without impropriety. * 
 
 In his address, in order to convict me of personal inconsis- 
 tency Mr. S. says, " in reply to my remark, that unless Mr.W. 
 was open and explicit in his avowal of hostility to both feder- 
 al and popular interference with slavery in the territories, we. 
 were forbidden to support him, Mr. Yancy answered ' cer- 
 tainly: and in that event we must look farther.' " 
 
 My own recollection of that conversation is, that I said, 
 i4 unless I received something more satisfactory relative to 
 his opinions I sshould. look farther." I did in fact, on the 
 very next day, receive the two letters, which I laid before 
 the delegates ! 
 
 Why has Mr. Sanford endeavored to lug in the name of 
 C. M. Jackson. as an aider and abetter in this attempt to throw 
 the vote of the State to Buchanan ? — when it is a fact that C. 
 M. Jackson voted against Buchanan upon every vote given ; 
 first voting for Dallas and afterwards for Woodbury, though 
 overruled by his delegation, each time. 
 
 Why also is Mr. Sanford making this violent attack: 
 upon me, for not sustaining Gen. Cass ? — when in Washington 
 long after the nomination was made, and on the last day we 
 passed together there on my return south, he told me, in the 
 reading-room of Coleman's Hotel, with no asseveration, 
 of secrecy, that he would sell his Press., in Mobile at a 
 a great sacrifice, if he could get an offer, to avoid support- 
 ing Gen. Cass — that he knew the up-hill work which it would 
 entail upon him to do so — that it was. the worst nomination 
 that could have been made — that he knew the men who were 
 around him in Mobile that would oppose it — that to support 
 the nomination he would, have to fly in the face of long 
 cherished principles, both, on the slave question and the 
 
36 
 
 money power of the government ! Language which I there 
 learned Mr. Sanford had uttered to others also. What 
 li change has come o'er the spirit of his dream ? " 
 
 The answer might possibly be found in the old adage — 
 li like master, like man." Gen. Cass has ingeniously con- 
 fessed to "«a change," somewhat similar, having been 
 wrought in his own mind, as one became evident in that of 
 the sovreign public — that public that was so-soon to act in 
 conclave upon a nomination for the Presidency. Now 
 " Giles" — that noted correspondent of the " State Gazette," 
 who so vehemently upheld the pretensions of Buchanan 
 before the nomination [and now as vehemently upholds those 
 of Gen. Cass !j after a Galm review of the various positions 
 of Gen. Cass, it is presumed, pronounced him to have been 
 actuated, as was " too evident" he said,in making this change, 
 " with a hungry ambition." That hunger, doubtless, has 
 since been greatly appeased by the nomination being given to 
 him. 
 
 Might our friend Sanford have been in any degree at that 
 time a hungry " expectant of place ? " Could it be that it 
 was considered wise to invest a little impracticability in the 
 speculation? [a bold game to be sure — but then somewhat 
 of success had attended it in the person of one of his parti- 
 cular friends.] I do not charge that such is the case with the 
 editor of the Register; for I believe he is now considered as 
 one of the best satisfied men in Alabama. Unlike his great 
 friend Gen. Cass, he does not live in expectancy ; as we are 
 informed by his Cass brother, the editor of the State Gazette, 
 who in a recent number says — " We rejoice to learn that the 
 senior editor of the Mobile Register and Journal has been 
 appointed to a lucrative office under the General Govern- 
 ment." 
 
 But I would ask Mr. Sanford, if he entertains the views 
 of our instructions embodied in the following extract from 
 his address, where are the evidences that Mr. Buchanan was 
 " openly and avowedlv opposed to the restriction of slavery. 
 &c"? 
 
 . " The amendments to the report of the committee on resolutions in the 
 Alabama convention proposed by Mr. Yancy, and adopted by the conven- 
 tion, prohibited its delegates from casting their votes in favor of any can- 
 didate for President or Vice President who was not openly and avowedly 
 opposed to the restriction of slavery in the territories either by federal or 
 popular authority." 
 
As he charges those who voted for Woodbury with violat- 
 ing their instructions, and claims the merit of observing them 
 for those who voted for Buchanan, I will extract from his 
 address the main item of proof upon whrch he rests it : 
 
 " Happening to meet Mr. Buchanan at the President's levee on Friday 
 evening. I called his attention to this letter, and asked him if he intended 
 to be understood as claiming that the population of a territory in an un- 
 organized capacity had the right to control the question of slavery in such 
 territory. He declaimed that no such idea had ever been entertained by 
 him — that the construction put upon his language by Mr. Yancy was a 
 perversion of its plain and obvious meaning — that in his opinion the in- 
 habitants of a territory, as such, had no political rights, that they had no 
 power whatever over the subject of slavery — and that they could neither 
 interdict nor establish it, except when assembled in convention to form a 
 State constitution. He further authorized and requested me to make any 
 public use of these declarations that I might think proper to correct any 
 impression which Mr. Yancy's construction of his language in the Berks 
 letter might have, made." 
 
 If the reader will remember that but a day before this 
 alledged conversation Mr. Buchanan had written the letter 
 published on page 28 of this address, in reply to one request- 
 ing his opinion upon the principles embodied in the Alabama 
 resolutions, and which he knew was to be laid before the 
 delegation — in which letter Mr. B. deliberately refuses to 
 abandon his former position to assume any other thatmight 
 be presented, and in which he had a fair opportunity of cor- 
 recting any wrong construction put upon the Berks letter by 
 me, but in which he does not even allude to such a thing ; 
 and will also bear in mind, that in separate and distinct con- 
 versations, with Mr. Moore and myself fc in the same week, 
 Mr. B. expressly refused to assume the Alabama position •; 
 and then compare that letter and his Berks letter, and those 
 conversations, with the above statement of Mr. Sanford, he 
 will conclude that an unworthy, dishonest, double-dealing 
 game was played upon the delegation, either by Mr. Buchanan 
 or Mr. Sanford. The letter written by Mr. B. is in full ac- 
 cordance with the Berks letter and with the conversations 
 held with Mr. Moore and myself, but they all are opposed to 
 the statement of Mr. Sanford. 
 
 Let the reader remember too that the editor of the "Union'-'' 
 had but a week previously published my" letter" containing 
 the construction which I put upon Mr. B.'s views, and that 
 neither Mr. Ritchie nor Mr. B. accompanied it with any dis- 
 avowal of that construction; and that Mr. B. was a candi- 
 date for the Presidency, and that such a. publication, unan- 
 
'3 ; S 
 
 'swered or explained, would be taken to be the true one by aft 
 the delegates to the Baltimore Convention, and it will aid 
 him still farther to come to a correct conclusion as to the cha- 
 racter of the game attempled to be secretly played off upon 
 the Alabama delegaton. 
 
 For one, entertaining for Mr. Buchanan a high personal re- 
 spect I deeply regret that the singular course of one of his 
 political friends should have made it necessary in me to place 
 him [Mr. B.] even seemingly in a doubtful attitude before the 
 public. 
 
 But is it true that Mr. B. did say to Mr. Sanford, What is 
 attributed to him in the above quotation ? Did not Mr. S. 
 really jump to conclusions desirable to him; and in fact have 
 no solid ground upon which he could really have reached 
 them? I think he did; and submit to the intelligent reader 
 if the same conclusion cannot be drawn from Mr. Sanford's 
 account of that interview between Mr. B. and himself, given 
 at the conference of the Alabama delegates. I extract from 
 the address of Mr. Sanford — 
 
 "I urged upon the delegates the conviction impressed upon my mind 
 that in placing himself upon the principles of the Missouri Compromise 
 and leaving the subject of slavery below thirty-six and a half degrees of 
 north latitude, untouched by either federal or popular authority, he was to 
 all practical purposes within the scope and spirit of our resolutions." 
 
 Here then -is 'the key-^-at least the only key yet found, 
 which will relieve Mr. B. from the "durance vile" in which 
 Mr. S. has placed him. Mr. Sanford himself sums up the 
 views of Mr. B. and himself locates that statesman on the 
 Missouri Compromise! Mr. Sanford, after relating to the 
 delegates how Mr. B. agreed with us that nei'her Congress. 
 nor the inhabitants of a territory, had any "power whatever 
 over the subject of slavery, and that they could neither inter- 
 dict nor establish it except whan assembled in convention to 
 form a state constitution," still "urged Upon the delegates," 
 that Mr. B. would only permit those sound constitutional 
 views to operate between 32° 30' and 3G° 30'— and that Mr. 
 B. " was to all practical purposes, witfiin the scope and spirit 
 . of our resolution?," though in favor of Congress passing a 
 proviso that north of 36° 30', that is between 36° 30' and 49° 
 a breadth of 12° 30'. slavery should be forever excluded! 
 The latter views thus summed up by Mr. S. are the true and 
 :oft expressed *iews of Mr. B. to be found in his Berks letter 
 and his letter to me, and in his conversations with Mr. Moore 
 
39 
 
 -and myself; and are all in the very teeth of the conversation 
 ailedged by Mr. S. to have been held between Mr. B. and 
 himself at the President's levee ! 
 
 Now I freely admit that Mr. B. has '-'placed himself upon 
 the principles of the Missouri Compromise," which forever 
 excludes slavery, by an act of Congress, from all territory 
 north of 36° 30'; but I ask Mr. S. in what line of our instruc- 
 tions will he find the delegates authorized to vote for one fer 
 President who was in favor of the Missouri Compromise ? 
 ; In what line will he find a direction to the delegates to vote 
 for one who believed that Congress could, by act or otherwise, 
 exclude slavery from a foot of our territory ? In what line 
 is the "spirit" breathed, that nut of a territory of the United 
 States running on the Pacific from 32° 30' to 49°, it would' be 
 just, or constitutional to exclude slavery " for ever" by act of 
 Congress, from 12° 30' of it ; and leave it an open question in 
 the 4° south of that line, whether free or slave holding states 
 should be formed out of it? 
 
 Refer to the "Platform" Mr. Sanford — you have a paper 
 at your service and a cute and pliant editorial colleague. 
 Both may try your ingenuity upon this proposition ; and 
 when you succeed in perverting the language and the mean- 
 ing of that Platform into an endorsement of the Missouri 
 Compromise, as one of the principles which were to guide 
 the delegates in their votes for President, you will be each 
 fully entitled to bear the appellation of "The Prince of Art- 
 ful Dodgers." 
 
 The "second" in this sweet band of choristers says with 
 ^i'ea.1 naive f te : 
 
 '■'■ We make no objection to the fact that Mr. W. was nominated in the 
 . convention by an open ai.d avowed abolitionist and to the support he re- 
 ceived from the New England States ; yet under all the circumstances Mr. 
 ■ Yancy was singularly associated." 
 
 Oh no ! — certainly not. It would be a strange objection to 
 ha made by a man who now stands on a platform recognized 
 to be "sound" on this issue by the Barnburners — who 
 ratified the Cass nomination in conjunction with every north- 
 ern Abolitionist in that body — and whose voice was raised to 
 make it unanimous, and to drown that of the State of Alaba- 
 ma's speaking through her instructions, with that of this 
 ■very "open and avowed Abolitionist ;" — and who is now 
 working to palm off that nomination upon the South, side by 
 
40 
 
 side, with that very Abolitionist and all his colleagues from 
 those very " New England States ! " 
 
 Certainly Mr. J. A. Winston, even '• though, born and 
 raised" here as he is pleased to inform us, will not make any 
 such objection, while he is a co-worker to advance the inter- 
 est of Gen. Cass with those who. " pull the wires" for the 
 General, and who have stooped so low as to send a mission 
 of members of the Senate of the United States to the great 
 State of New York " to beg those ultra Jac.tionists of the 
 North,'' the Barnburners, not to disturb " the harmony of 
 the Party" — and who are straining every nerve to excommu- 
 nicate as" ultra jactionists of the South" all who dare stand 
 up for the very land he was "born and raised" in, against 
 those very Barnburners and their ivould-be Cass allies ! I 
 think I may be allowed to say, that Mr. Winston, " is singu-- 
 larly associated," and would be more so, if he could ! 
 
 It being understood that the vote of the State would be di- 
 vided — and it being considered "by some very desirable that 
 the vote should be unanimous, in order to be effective, a 
 proposition was made that the friends of Mr. Woodbury 
 would vote for Mr. Dallas, if the friends of Mr. Buchanan 
 would do so — there being no controversy as to the views of 
 Mr. Dallas — and our instructions allowing us to vote for him. 
 All the Woodbury men and some of the Buchanan men were 
 ready to do this, but the delegates who controlled the vote of 
 the Huntsville district, and of the Dallas district refused. 
 One delegate, Mr. A. J. Soffold, was understood to object to 
 doing so, " ch i efly for the reason, that I [he] thought there 
 was a better prospect of getting Col. King nominated on a 
 ticket with him [Mr. Buchanan] than with any of the rest," 
 though stating at the same time that — " I [he] had no ob- 
 jection to urge Mr. Dallas" — but that for the reasons men- 
 tioned I [he] could not consent to the proposed arrangement." 
 As this is a delicate and grave matter, and Mr. A. J. Saffold 
 particularly sensitive as to the precise words in which his 
 thoughts shall go before the public and to the conclusions to 
 be drawn from them, I have given his own language. 
 
 This proposition failed therefore : and one of the reasons 
 advanced for it will tend to throw some light upon the cha- 
 racter of those secret springs which controlled the Baltimore 
 Convention, and which led to an abandonment of the true 
 interests of the South in the nomination which was after- 
 wards made. 
 
41 
 
 The statements of Mr. Salomon and Mr. J. A. Winston as 
 to his matter can be appropriately noticed here. They both 
 setup a man of straw, and with great coolness and self-pos- 
 session knock it down. Mr. Salomon says: " It [my 
 minority resolution] was voted down by the South, and when 
 Mr. Yancey asserts that the delegation from Alabama was 
 influenced in its final vote on the platform of principles by a 
 desire to secure a nomination of one of her sons, as vice Pre- 
 sident, to use a mild Perm, he must have forgotten that the 
 voting on the resolutions did not take place until theday after 
 the nomination for President and Vice President had been 
 made, and'therefore there could not have been any influence 
 of the character he describes.'* 
 
 Mr. J. A. Winston says — "Mr. Y. accuses us, with nearly 
 all the South, of sacrificing our rights for the Vice Presidency, 
 forgetting in his zeal of censure that the resolutions adopted 
 by the convention did not come up for consideration until alter 
 the nomination for Vice President had been made." 
 
 These persons will find that I have not "forgotten" as 
 much of these proceedings as it appears convenient to them, 
 either to forget or to suppress : for instance I have not forgot- 
 ten that these gentlemen and the entire delegation voted for 
 my minority resolution ! A full relation of all the facts, it 
 does not seem to have entered their heads, was at all neces- 
 sary to the making up a correct judgment, in the premises, by 
 The public— and it so happens that the facts " forgotten" or 
 suppressed by them, are those most likely to shield me from 
 the verdict of being a (i traitor," and most calculated to in- 
 duce such a verdict against them. 
 
 Preferring that men, so much interested as are Messrs. 
 Salomon & Winston in the result, should not state my case, 
 I will do it for myself. All that I have said on this point is 
 the following at Charleston—" There were delegates even 
 from Alabama, who made the Vice Presidency paramount to 
 the Presidency, and held both paramount to their instruc- 
 tions — in fact that a nomination was heM by perhaps a ma- 
 jority of the South as of more importance than any guarran- 
 tee of principles." 
 
 The first part of this statement is admitted to be true by 
 at least one. The fact that four votes were given to Buch- 
 anan, and that all the delegates but three pledged the vote of 
 Alabama to Gen. Cass.before the Convention had declared its 
 platform, contrary to our instructions, and in which act of 
 
4'2 
 
 treason to those instructions Mr. J, A. Winston led the way, 
 proves the second branch of it to be true — and that the third 
 is true is made conclusive by the ratification of the nomina- 
 tion of Gen. Cass, and the refusal of the convention to adopt 
 a resolution embodying the true Southern creed, by a vote of 
 36 to. 2 16. 
 
 The matter is again alluded to in remarks made by me at 
 Wetumpka. There I said — " that the Convention findingthe 
 South entering eagerly into the Vice Presidential scramble, 
 . took advantage of it to snatch away the principles which we 
 had so boldly asserted, as it gave encouragement to each por- 
 tion to hope that its candidate for Vice President would be 
 elected." Was it not snatching away our principles when 
 Southern delegates were induced to vote : for such men as 
 Buchanan and Cass ?— " chiefly for the reason-that they could 
 thus secure votes for the'Vice Presidency." Was it the only 
 way in which the interests of the South could be attacked, 
 the voting down resolutions embodying her principles? 
 When Gen. Cass was nominated the great deed of wrong and 
 injury to the South was consummated ; and could only have. 
 been alleviated by a bold and decided expression of consti- 
 tutional ■ principles on the part of the Convention. And, 
 when the nomination of Gen. Cass was confirmed by seven- 
 ninths of the Alabama delegation, before a platform was laid 
 down which might have corrected the evil, the second great 
 error was committed by them ; for they thereby impliedly said 
 to the Convention — we are satisfied with your nominee and 
 with his principles; and one — Mr. Winston expressly de- 
 nounced the advocates of the Alabama doctrines as the "ultra 
 'faciionistsof the South." — Our demands [the North were thus 
 told] were as much to be dreaded and despised as those of 
 "the ultra factionists of the North ! " What inducement pray 
 had the Convention to adopt our principles after they had 
 been thus wantonly aud openly abandoned by the very men 
 who were delegated to uphold them in that body, and many 
 of whom were members of the very Convention that adopted 
 them, and imposed them upon themselves as "instructions"? 
 
 The fact alluded to by Messrs. 'Salomon ..& Winston, that 
 the voting for the Vice Presidency took ^place before the 
 voting upon the resolutions proves nothing against my charge. 
 Before an> voting was 'done :in Convention 1 have charged 
 that the basis of an abandonment of our instructions by 
 apart of the delegation was laid ; and it has been since cq&- 
 
43 
 
 jessed that the hopes of securing the Vice Presidency "chiefly^ 
 'controlled "a part" in the votes afterwards given for the Pre- 
 sidency: while the confirmation of that nomination had a 
 powerful effect, eventually, in the adoption and rejection of 
 principles ! 
 
 Such are the facts, and influences in part, under which the 
 votes from Alabama were cast. My colleague, for the State 
 at large, voted for Mr. Buchanan. The votes of the Hunts- 
 ville, Dallas and Mobile district were also cast for Z\lr. 13 , 
 Gen. Jackson of the Dallas district being overruled in his op- 
 position to it. The votes from Lauderdale, Greene, Talla- 
 dega and Montgomery districts, with my own, were cast for 
 Judge Woodbury. 
 
 On the 4th ballot Gen. Cass was nominated. On the 1st 
 ballot he proved to be much the most likely to be nominated. 
 This fact ascertained, and the result was the usual one. — An 
 expected President is not likely to lack devoted friends ! 
 
 After the nomination was made, the States were called 
 upon to ratify it unanimously. When Alabama was called, I 
 stated — that, Alabama had three times voted for Andrew 
 Jackson, twice for Martin Van Buren, and once for James K. 
 Polk — never for a wing, and never had she been a whig 
 State. She will still adiiere to principle, and when the prin- 
 ciples of the platform upon which the nominee of this Con- 
 vention is to go before the people, have been laid down by the 
 Convention, if those principles are in accordance with the in- 
 structions which Alabama had given to her delegates, Ala- 
 bama will support that nominee. 
 
 li Mr. Winston of Alabama (delegate at large with Mr. 
 Yancy,) said the delegation from that State had come into the 
 Convention, as Delegates and as honorable men were bound 
 to support its nominee. He understood, he thought, the State 
 of Alabama, well, and as one of the thirty States of the 
 Union, she would not set up herself as a dictator to the rest 
 of the Union. He- belonged to no ultra set of factionists at 
 the South, who do as much harm as do another ultra set of 
 factionisis at the North. He believed that Alabama would 
 give her vote to the nominee of the Convention.' 7 
 
 And I desire these words may be remembered, as spoken 
 to a mixed body of delegates from slave and non-slave- 
 holding States ; as spoken by an instructed delegate 
 — who himself was a member of the very convention that 
 adopted our instructions without a dissenting voice — as 
 
word's placing on the same objectionable footing a defender 
 qf the South and an Abolitionist. And supported as he 
 was' by seven-ninths of the vote of Alabama — with such 
 weight given to his words as Mr. Porter King could give 
 by his emphatic endorsement immediately after — that " Mr. 
 J. A. Winston was the Father of the Democracy of Ala- 
 bama ! " — [an assertion, which let us doivn someivhat, I 
 humbly suggest, from our heretofore proudly assumed posi- 
 tion—that Jefferson was the father of our Democracy !] it- 
 had the effect, which I have heretofore suggested, of freeing 
 the Convention from all obligations to adopt the rigid prin- 
 ciples laid down by Alabama. Her delegates had expressed 
 themselves satisfied with the nominee, and the venerable 
 "father of the Democracy" himself hinted to the Convention 
 that those who claimed to be the supporters of the Alabama 
 instructions were no better than " ultra factionists ! " 
 
 Were the delegates "as honorable men bound to support 
 the nominee" of that Convention" at that stage ? This will 
 depend upon what is meant by honor; for unfortunately as 
 the world goes, that word has its degrees according to the 
 company in which it is used, and the character of him who 
 uses it. It is said there is "honor among thieves." I pre- 
 sume from the expression used by Mr. J. A. Winston, there 
 is too a sort of honor among politicians of his stamp. 
 Let the delegates opposed to Cass be judged by that stand- 
 ard, and he may make out his case ; but in no other way. 
 
 Mr. J. A. Winston was a member of the State Convention 
 and present, when the resolutions and instructions were ia- 
 troduced, spoken- upon, and unanimously adopted. Those 
 resolutions laid down certain cardinal principles, and not 
 only instructed the delegates to vote in the Democratic Na- 
 tional Convention for no man for President who was opposed 
 to them, but, as will be seen by reference to the 13th resolu- 
 tion, fhey pledged the Convention " to the country, and its 
 members to each other, under no political necessity what- 
 ever, to support for the office of President and Vice Presi- 
 dent of the United States any person who shall not openly 
 and avowedly be opposed to either of the forms of excluding 
 slavery from the territories of the United States, mentioned 
 in the resolutions." 
 
 Here then is a recorded personal pledge, given by Mr. J. 
 A. Winston to the country and to the other members of that 
 convention., that if the nominee of the Baltimore Convention 
 
.45 . 
 
 did not hold the principles Alabama had laid down, he would 
 not support the nominee in the canvass ! And yet Mr. J. A. 
 Winston says, " as honorable men we were bound to sup- 
 port its nominee ! ''—Why ? "because the delegation from that 
 State [Alabama] had gone into the convention as delegates !" 
 If it-is honorable to violate personal pledges at will — to break 
 political pledges, at one's politieal convenience — to misrepre- 
 sent the constituency, which clothes one " with a little brief 
 authority," then is the remark true — but under no other 
 code of morals. 
 
 Besides, Mr. J. A. Winston knows that the Baltimore Con- 
 vention had three times positively refused to endorse the 
 principle — that all who participated in the proceedings of the 
 Convention should be bound by its decision ; and as the fiat 
 of that body appears to have far more weight with him than 
 did the unanimous voice of w the old-fashioned matter of fact 
 democracy" of his own state while at Baltimore, I will rely 
 upon it as good authority against his position. I have not the 
 proceedings before me, but know that they will sustain my 
 statement. A resolution, declaring that all who kept their 
 seats in that Convention were bound by its decision, was 
 three times, I believe, [I know full well was twice] brought 
 forward in that body, by Hannegan, and by Judge Cone of 
 Georgia, and at my instance was each time laid upon the 
 •table ; I declaring it to be improper, and that the Alabama 
 delegation were so instructed, that we would not vote for it, 
 and would not be bouud by it. Gov. Toucey. of Ct. (now 
 the Attorney General of the United States) also declared em- 
 phatically, " that were such a test proposed to him, he would 
 button up his coat and leave the hall ! " 
 
 Mr. P. King was followed in his eulogy upon Mr. J. A. 
 Winston, (but really in his caricature of the Alabama De- 
 mocracy) by Gen. C. M. Jackson, who took a somewhat 
 similar ground to that advanced by me. " He desired that as 
 in 1844, the convention should lay down its platform of prin- 
 ciples, and if in conformity with the views expressed by his 
 Stare, he would pledge her vote for the nominee of the Con- 
 vention." ' 
 
 Mr. P. A. Wray of Montgomery sustained the same 
 position. 
 
 APPOINTMENT OP THE COMMITTEE UPON RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 This matter through, a committee was raised to report 
 
4® 
 
 /esoluyons to the Convention. I was selected by the delega- 
 tion to represent Alabama in its deliberations. Before that 
 commtttee was even named, it appeared to be the prevailing 
 sentiment of the Convention, receiving its cue from the Union, 
 which had urged 'the idea long before the assembling of that 
 body, and which continued to enforce it, that the resolutions 
 of 1S44 should be re-adopted — unaltered. Knowing thLv. 
 and that if the South obtained anything at this juncture — so 
 different in many respects from that of 1844, (when this issue 
 was not prominent and in fact when the idea, that the inha- 
 bitants of a territory could exclude slavery/. had not been 
 broached,) it would only be alter a severe struggle, I drew 
 up and presented to the delegation for their opinion, the 
 resolution afterwards introduced, and which I informed 
 them I should urge before the committee. It is conceded 
 that it received their unanimous assent. Mr. Winston says 
 in his address, that '• Mr, Bowden came to the delegation' and 
 made a feeling appeal to have Mr. Yancey put on the Com- 
 mittee upon resolutions, and presented a slip of paper with 
 the resolution, or- something similar to it. I. objected as the 
 resolution was complex and subject to too much, difference of 
 construction. After much objection, delay and dissatisfaction, , 
 and Mr. Y. had paid us a visit, he was permitted to go on 
 the committee, with the expectation on our part that in case 
 the committee, did not adopt that particular resolution, there, 
 would be an end of it." 
 
 I cannot pretend to say what occurred between Mr. Bow- 
 den and the delegation. What I know of this matter is this :'■ 
 Mr. Bowden, acting on the idea that I, as the author of the 
 Alabama resolutions, according to parliamentary usage and: 
 courtesy, should be the member of the committee, from out* 
 State, to sustain the principles embodied in that platfoim be- 
 fore the committee, undertook to place my name before the 
 delegation with that view. Of this I was fully aware; and 
 have no hesitation in saying that I desired to be upon the 
 committee for the purpose, if possible, of obtaining its assent 
 to our doctrines. 
 
 Observing, from where I sat, apparently some wrangling 
 amongst the delegation, I at once left my seat and went to 
 *he delegation, and paid the *< visit,"" so disingeniously allu- 
 ded to by Mr. Winston. All that I said 'there was to beg of 
 them not to permit my name to be the least cause of discord — 
 Shat I confessed to have entertained a desire to be on \h% 
 
47 
 
 committee, being the author and therefore more appropriated 
 advocate and defender of the Alabama resolutions — but tnafi 
 if any of the delegation did not desire it, I, at once withdrew 
 rr>y name and would cheerfully agree to the appointment of 
 any one they desired. ]* was turning to leave them, when 
 Mr. Sanford informed me there was no difficulty — that all 
 had agreed to appoint me. 
 
 I afterwards learned that a portion of the delegation had 
 desired Mr. S. Moore to consent to serve on that committee,, 
 and that that gentleman, with characteristic generosity and 
 sense of right, declined in my favor. 
 
 The true cause of this opposition to my being put upon 
 that committee may be searched for, and most probably 
 found, in the origin of the '' Giles'' assaults upon the State 
 Convention, and iii the reasons for the unqualified commit- 
 ment of the S.'ate to the nomination of Gen. Cass, before the 
 platform was adopted. It was doubtless very desirable that 
 the resolutions of Alabama should be quietly consigned to 
 the tomb of the Capulets, and never again rise in judgment 
 against the " deep damnation" of that astonishing defection. 
 
 Without pretending to know what occurred between the 
 delegation and Mr. 13owden, (if indeed anything did occur,) 
 about the resolution afterwards submitted by me, I know 
 very well what occurred between it and myself. I presented, 
 the, resolution, after I was appointed upon the committee. 
 If Mr. Winston objected, his objection escaped my ear, as it 
 certainly has my memory. Of this I am sure, no "expecta- 
 tion" of the kind spoken of by Mr. Winston was expressed 
 to me, either by him or the delegation. I read to tbem the reso- 
 lution — it was unanimously agreed to. I did not ask the con- 
 sent of the delegation to present it. I asked only their opinion 
 upon it, as an exposition of our principles. I told them I should 
 present it — and asked -their asse?it to the doctrine. Had any 
 such " expectation" been expressed, I should very frankly 
 have asserted my right, to pursue in Convention such course 
 in relation to it, as my own judgment dictated — without 
 going even to a reputed "father of the Alabama- Democracy" 
 for advice and permission. 
 
 As to Mr. J. A. Winston's considering the resolution "too 
 complex and subject to too much difference of construction" 
 — I think that very probable and yet not very strange, if .we 
 consider the cast of his mind in connection with the fact that 
 he did not even know precisely what was on the " slip oj 
 
4S 
 
 paper" which was presented by Mr. Bowden, and on which 
 he has, nevertheless, offered so critical an opinion ! 
 
 It may not be amiss for the reader to refer to the official 
 proceedings of that Convention. If he does so, he will be 
 somewhat surprised, (considering t tide horror which the pre- 
 sentation and advocacy of this minority resolution has ex- 
 cited among the faithful, and that Mr. Winston had " object- 
 ed, as the resolution was complex and subject*to too much 
 difference of construction" — and that there was an " expec- 
 tation" on the part of the delegates," that in case the com- 
 mittee did not adopt that particular resolution, there would 
 be an end of it) to find that this same Mr. Winston — toge- 
 ther with the entire JUabama delegation voted, for it in 
 Convention, after the committee had refused to adopt it, 
 on its presentation by the minority ! — and after I had 
 addressed the Convention in support and explanation of it ; 
 and of course after all had an opportunity of knowing the 
 construction put upon it by^the minority of the committee ; 
 and after I had declared that without some additional gua- 
 rantee of our rights in this matter, Alabama would not sup- 
 port the nominee ! But who would suppose so, after read- 
 ing the addresses of Messrs. Salomon, Winston & Sanford ? 
 
 DOINGS OF THE COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 The committee "met early after its creation, and satunpl 
 near midnight. There was much harmony in its delibera- 
 tions, until we reached the 7th resolution. It was proposed 
 to adopt the 7th resolution, as it stood in the series of resolu- 
 tions adopted in 1S40 and 1S44. I proposed to amend it, by 
 adding thereto the following — 
 
 " Resolved farther, That the doctrine of non-interference with the. rights 
 of property of any portion of the people of this confederacy, be it in 
 the Statesor Territories, by any other than the.parties interested in them, 
 is the true republican doctrine recognized by this body." 
 
 In support of it, I held that the state of politics on the 
 slave question was very different at that time from what it 
 iiad been in 1S40 T 1S44. — That a new issue was presented, 
 which required a corresponding movement on the part of a 
 party, which styled itself ' f : the progressive party" — and that 
 instructed as I was by my State, I felt it to be my duty to 
 urge the adoption of the resolution which, I believed, embo- 
 died the great principles we contehded for. 
 
 The resolution had no " complex" meaning to the mem- 
 
49 
 
 bers of the committee. All seemed readily to understand it. 
 The vote upon it in committee stood — yeas, Pennsylvania, 
 Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, 
 Texas and Wisconsin — 9. Nays — Maine, New Hampshire, 
 Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New 
 Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, North Carolina, Louisiana, 
 Arkansas, Tennesee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 
 Michigan, Iowa, Missouri, — 20. 
 
 It may also be worthy of remark that Mr, Glenn, the 
 member of the- committee from Tennessee, was decidedly in 
 favor of the resolution, but voted against it under instructions ; 
 and that Mr. Slidell of Louisiana, argued that the committee 
 should not adopt it — •' inasmuch as the Convention had 
 already nominated Gen. Cass, who entertained opinions di- 
 rectly the reverse of the resolution ; and therefore, if the 
 Convention should adopt the resolution, it would rebuke the 
 opinions of Gen. Cass, and be inconsistent with itself!" 
 
 That speech exhibited in all its force, the verv dilemma 
 which at a previous stage of the Convention I had struggled 
 to hvoid when I moved to adopt a platform of principles be- 
 fore we made a nomination. Had we adopted our platform 
 first, if either gave way, it would have been the candidates 
 for the nomination and not our measures. But having made 
 a nomination first, the Convention was actually called upon 
 not to adopt a principle, because forsooth the nominee did 
 not entertain it ! The nomination thus controlled the reso- 
 lutions ! 
 
 Another a-tlempt was made to amend the 7th resolution as 
 reported, by adding after the words — " the several states," 
 the words — •' or territories." This too was voted down, by 
 a vote of 10 to 17. 
 
 Before we adjourned, on the first evening of our meeting, 
 a 1 ; my instance the committee gave its unanimous assent to 
 the amendment of the resolution of 1S44 on the veto power, 
 as it now stands in the report — an amendment which was de- 
 signed, though thy design was not avowed, to thank Presi- 
 dent Polk for his vetoes of •' a corrupting system of general 
 internal improvement" — and to condemn the votes of Gen. 
 Cass for those measures. When the committee met next 
 morning some member got up, and moved a reconsideration 
 of that amendment— " on the ground that Gen- Cass had 
 voted for the very bills which James K Folk had vetoed \ 
 and if that amendment was left there it would look like a thrust 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 lit him, and be good capital for the whig orators. The move 
 was seconded, and with apparent manifestations of approval, 
 It was only defeated by an indignant exposure of the iniqui- 
 ty and humiliating baseness of such a proceeding. A prece- 
 dent had been set, nevertheless, for his course ; and the 
 mover was only unsuccessful, inasmuch as the committee had ? 
 as I honestly believe, voted on the internal improvement 
 amendment, the night before, without at all remembering Gen. 
 Cass's votes on that question I — and it was rather too bare- 
 faced to reconsider it. 
 
 Unable to obtain from the committee a recognition of the 
 rights of Southern citizens to emigrate to the territories with 
 their slave property —and finding that the committee would 
 not in their report take higher ground, than that, which the 
 Barnburners yielded, and which even Joshua R. Giddings- 
 does not now dispute. I deemed it my duty to make an ap- 
 peal to the Convention— and once again to make an effort to 
 obtain the assent of that body to the principles which I was- 
 instructed to maintain. I made that report in conjunction 
 with the representatives of Florida and South Carolina, and 
 insisted upon a vote upon the resolution. The vote was as 
 follows : 
 
 Yeas — Maryland I, South Carolina 9, Georgia 9, Florida 
 3, Alabama 9, Arkansas 3, Tennessee 1 . Kentucky 1 — 30. 
 
 Ntff/s — Maine 9, New Hampshire 6, Massachusetts 12, 
 Vermont G, Rhode Island 4, Connecticut 0, New, Jersey 7, 
 Pennsylvania 2G,Delaware 3, Maryland 6, Virginia 17, North 
 Carolina 1!, Mississippi G, Louisiana 6, Texas 4, Tennessee 
 12. Kentucky U, Ohio 23, Indiana 12, Illinois 9, Michigan 
 5, Iowa 4, Missouri 7, Wisconsin 4 — 21G. 
 
 Tills resolution, thus summarily voted. down, has been 
 declared less satisfactory than lhatadontei by the Conven- 
 tion, and also as putting forth different doctrines from those 
 of the Alabama resolutions. 
 
 It may appear so, and also "complex"' .to those who are 
 ignorant of the Checks and balances of our government, and 
 ivho content themselves tvith looking to find the track a par- 
 ty is taking without at all inquiring into the propriety of the 
 course. It is true the resolution could have been framed so 
 as to have been mire specific or more particularly applicable 
 to the South, and in stronger language. . Out had it been S", 
 it would have savored of being entirely sectional Without 
 e&nveym'g a better principle, Considering the character of the 
 
51 
 
 b:)dy in which it was offered, the majority of which was. 
 against the Southern section, it was considered best, so to 
 frame it as to cover a general constitutional principle appli- 
 cable to every portion of the country, and also to exclude 
 from it any phraseology, which had become offensive to the 
 ears of Northern men by long connection with the agitation 
 of this question. In the shape in which it was offerred, (and 
 which was given to it under the counsel of an able man and 
 keen observer of passing events, in that Convention,) it had 
 reasonable and well grounded expectations of receiving a 
 much greater western support than it did receive. 
 
 In the committee the vutes. of two Northern States were 
 given to it, which which were withdrawn in Convention. In 
 the committee too, Virginia, Mississippi and Texas voted 
 for it. but .voted against it in Convention ! Who could ex- 
 pect a Northern state to be true to us to the last, when so ■ 
 large a portion of the South flinched upon an assertion of her 
 own interests ! — when that portion of the South did not dare 
 to stand up in Convention in defence of her course iri a com- 
 mittee room ! What in secret they asked for, in public they 
 denied ! 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE MINORITY. 
 
 That resolution recognizes a distinction to exist between 
 She political condition of a, State, and of a Territory of the 
 United States, It is indeed based upon that distinction. A 
 State is sovreign as to its domestic affairs, within its own 
 limits — there is no other power that can interfere with them. 
 Even the legislature of a State cannot destroy the rights of 
 properly of any of its ciiizens-^-Il may take property "for 
 public use," but must give a just recompense for it. It 
 may \\\?<\i>z police regulations as to property, and may lax it — 
 but it cannot destroy it. So high is the right of properly re- 
 garded in our State, that the Supreme Court has recently de- 
 cided that the law of our, legislature placing a tax-on the 
 property, wilhin our limits, of citizens of other States, higher 
 than is placed upon the property of our owhi citizens, is un- 
 constitutional. The only power in a State that can abolish 
 slavery in a State — or in other words prescribe what shall, 
 or shall net be property in that State, is the people, met in 
 sovereign Convention, and speaking through the constitution 
 which they may form. Every people, who agree to ban! 
 together. in political society, for the more perfect protection of 
 
52 
 
 life, liberty and property — the three great aims of society, are 
 of course interested in every constitutional provision, which 
 is to effect either; and each member in such Convention has 
 the fullest liberty to propose and to vote upon anything 
 which may seem to him to be most conducive to'his happi- 
 ness in the State, which he is aiding to form. There is no 
 higher tribunal which can check him — no sovreignty greater 
 than his own. And, in the case of the formation of a State, 
 With a view to admittance into our Union as a State, there 
 is but one single check uoon this perfect liberty of thought 
 and action, and that is — the constitution to be framed shall be 
 "republican." Hence it follows, that the only parties con- 
 stitutionally interested " in the rights of property" of any 
 citizen in a State, are — 
 
 1st — The supreme power — the people in convention — who 
 abolish, or exclude them, or provide for regulating them 
 through the action of the legislature. 
 
 2d — The citizen himself, who can exercise his own plea- 
 sure in relation to them, either to give them up or dispose of 
 them, under that State Constitution. It also follows, that 
 Congress having no other power in regulating the institutions 
 of a State than "to guarantee to each State a republican 
 form of government,-"' has no power over or interest "in the 
 rights of property" of the citizen of any State. 
 
 A Territory of the United States, it is conceded, is but pro- 
 perty held by the United States in trust for the people of the 
 States — and is only recognized as such by the federal consti- 
 tution. There are only two clauses in the federal constitu- 
 tion which relate in any degree to "territory." In Art. 1, 
 sec. S, it is specified that Congress shall have power "To 
 exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over 
 such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by ces- 
 sion of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, 
 become the seat of the Government of the United States, and 
 to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the 
 legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the 
 erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other 
 useful buildings." 
 
 Art. 4, sec. '8 — " The Congress shall have power to dispose 
 of and make all useful rules and regulations respecting the 
 territory, or other property belonging to the United States ; 
 and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to 
 
53 
 
 prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particu- 
 lar State." 
 
 It will be perceived that there is a recognized distinction 
 made by the framers of the Constitution, between the territo- 
 ry of the District of Columbia and " the territory or other 
 property of the United States." 
 
 In the case of the District of Columbia, it is clear that the 
 framers of the Constitution designed to give to Congress the 
 power of legislating for that district. Proper terms were 
 used to convey such a power. It was designed that the dis- 
 trict should be a political community — and that Congress 
 should be its law-making power. Not so, however, with 
 " the territory" of the United States. The Constitution no 
 where speaks of " the territory" of the United States, save 
 in the 4th Art. quoted, and fin that which gives power to 
 legislate for the District- In the 4th Art. it speaks of it as 
 of " other property " and gives Congress power only to 
 make " useful rules and regulations." This is vastly differ- 
 ent from a general power of legislation. Legislation is based 
 upon the idea of there being a political community to legis- 
 late for — to make " useful rules and regulations," is a more 
 restricted power, applicable solely to the preservation, police, 
 and sale of territory as h property." Else why use such 
 peculiar terms by which to express that Congressshould ex- 
 ercise powers of legislation, " exclusive" or otherwise, if it 
 was designed to grant such a power ? When the framers of 
 the Constitution wished to grant such a power they used the 
 clear and unequivocal terms " to exercise exclusive legisla- 
 tion, in ail cases whatsoever over such district" as might be 
 ceded When they desired to grant a more restricted power, 
 and to express for what purpose, and with what view such 
 power was given, they used different and more appropriate 
 terms — 1 « needful rules and regulations respecting the territory, 
 or other property of the United States." 
 
 Again to show that is the true meaning, the same clause 
 goes on to put in a proviso — that "nothing in this constitu- 
 tion should be so construed as to prejudice the claims of the 
 United States, or of any particular State." Thus clearly 
 evincing the design to grant a power solely relative to pro- 
 perty and yet not to prejudice the claims to such property, of 
 of any State. 
 
 Those who have carefully read the proceedings of those 
 able statesmen who framed the Constitution, know what 
 
54 
 
 skilful philologists they were, and know how thoroughly the} 
 weighed each word in the instrument, and with what care 
 the committee appointed, revised it, after its principles an$ 
 grants were agreed upon. Different language in that instru- 
 ment gives different power. 
 
 If it may be considered established that Congress can only 
 make "needful rules and regulations" for the territory as 
 property, and holds it in irust for the people of ihe State, it is 
 clear that Congress has no power to make discriminating 
 rules and regulations which will prevent the citizens of any 
 state from settling on property in, which they have a joint 
 interest • that Congress has no power to define what shall or 
 shall not be held in such territory as property — lias no power 
 to say that slavery shall not exist there. 
 
 Is there any power to govern a territory apart from the 
 limited power granted to Congress ? None. The Constitution;, 
 by granting a limited power to Congress excludes the idea 
 that there can be any other source, under the Constitution,, 
 from which a greater power can be derived.* Our Constitu- 
 tion recognizes no Cl imperiam in imperio." The people who 
 go there and settle, do so as mere land-holders, subject to the 
 limited authority already described. They are not sovreign. 
 If they were, the territory — the eminent domain as it is 
 called, would not be in Congress, but would be in them. /If 
 they were sovreign, the territory would belong to them ex- 
 clusively — that is the right to govern it — and to control it. If 
 sovereign, it is conceded they would undoubtedly have the 
 right to prevent slaves from being brought there. This 
 would destroy, however, that community of interest in the 
 territories, which all agree, the people of all the States have. 
 While in that condition, they can have no senators, no repre- 
 sentatives in Congress — if sovereign, they would have, They 
 can pass no laws, which are not subject to revision and re- 
 jection by Congress — if sovreign they could do so. They 
 cannot elect a Governor: the Governor is appointed by the 
 President. If sovreign they would not be compelled to re- 
 ceive a magistrate appointed by a superior power. 
 
 The people then who remove to, and reside in, a territory 
 have no government and no right to make one, save such as 
 Congress prescribes for them. Congress has heretofore pre- 
 scribed territorial governments under that clause of the Con- 
 stitution which authorizes it to make "needful rules and regu- 
 lations for the territory, or other property of the I'nUc'-l 
 
States.''' Thinking that the citizens could be the bene? 
 judges of what "'rules and regulations" would be best for 
 them, Congress has, (as I contend, unconstitutionally) dele- 
 gated to them the power of a territorial government —has 
 granted a territorial legislature — and the President has ap- 
 pointed a territorial governor. Mvidea is that a trustee can- 
 not delegate his powers to another, in such a case. But the 
 fact that Congress has done this, does not at all affect the 
 argument I now make. But conceding the action of Congress 
 as to territorial governments heretofore to have been constitu- 
 tional, what powers dojhe citizens receive from Congress? 
 Js it an unlimited power to pass any law, which they may 
 see fit to pass? Certainly not. They cannot receive from 
 Congress any greater power than Congress could have exer- 
 cised in relation to them itself. Congress, it is agreed at least 
 at the South, could not, for instance, exclude slavery from a. 
 territory. It follows then, that Congress couid not grant to 
 its agents — the citizens of a territory, a power which it could 
 not exercise ; — the territorial legislature, therefore, cannot ex- 
 clude slavery from the territory., for that reason. The crea- 
 ture cannot be stronger than t Lie creator. The agent cannot 
 have a greater power, as to the matter of his agency — than 
 the principal. 
 
 What may rdie citizens do then? The answer is, under 
 the territorial government, even as has heretofore been 
 granted by Congress, they can do all things K needful" for 
 their condition, which Congress could have done for them — 
 all which is not inconsistent with the rights of the peopleof 
 each and every State in the territory, and with the Consiitu~ 
 lion of the United States. Under my idea of the Constitu- 
 tional restrictions imposed upon Congress, it can only make 
 such " rules and regulations," as will secure the sale of the 
 territory to the citizens of the States. To do this, Congress 
 would necessarily have to survey it — plot it — clear iF of In- 
 dians — provide offices of sale, and protect the settler in the 
 property thus purchased, both from Indians and white depre- 
 dators — secure to him a peaceable possession of his premises, 
 as long as the government held control of it, as a trust for the 
 Slates, and until the settlers were ready to frame a Slate Con- 
 stitution and to come into the Union as a State. The citizens, 
 in a legislature granted by Congress, can do no more. Hence 
 I conclude that the parties interested in the rights of property 
 «?.f a citizen in a territory, are .mot those who exarcise a limited 
 
56 
 
 territorial government under Congress, or who do not own 
 those rights, but are the individual possessors of those lights 
 Congress, therefore, could by no act deprive a citizen there of 
 his slave : the territorial legislature, therefore, could not do 
 so. If the legislature of a State cannot take away the slave 
 of a citizen, or prevent his owning one, or even tax the slave 
 of a non-resident higher than that of a resident, how mon- 
 strous the proposition that the legislature of a territory, hav- 
 ing no single attribute of sovreignty, can do so ! The 
 legislature of a State cannot, do so, because the constitution 
 of the State does not permit it. The legislature of a Territo- 
 ry — the property of the States, cannot do so, because the 
 only constitution which controls it, that of the United States, 
 does not permit it. 
 
 The owner then, as I have said, is the ?oie party interested 
 in his " rights of property" in the territorv — and no power, 
 but his own will, can prevent him from removing to, and re- 
 siding in a territory with those privileges. This condition of 
 things continues, as above intimated, until the inhabitants 
 desire to come into the Union. Then they can come in, on 
 the same terms as the original thirteen States came — deriding 
 this question for themselves. Then they meet in convention— 
 then they assume the sovreignty of the territory for the first 
 time — then each citizen, for the first time, becomes interested 
 in the great question — what shall be held by us as property 
 and what not, and the decision of that body is conclusive, 
 and becomes binding on the admission of the new State into 
 the Union. 
 
 Such is the character of the resolution voted down by a 
 Democratic National Convention. In lieu of it the following 
 was adopted : 
 
 "7. That Congress has no power under the constitution to interfere 
 Avith or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that 
 such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to 
 their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution ;* that all efforts of the 
 abolitionists or others made to induce Congress to interfere with questions 
 of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to 
 lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences ; and that ail such 
 efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the peo- 
 ple, and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought 
 not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions." 
 
 What does that resolution assert ? Simply that Congress 
 has no power to abolish slavery in the States. Does it even 
 deny a branch* of the great question of the day — '■ the power 
 
57 
 
 of Congress to do so in the territories" ? Ii does not — though 
 the names of eminent gentlemen in that Convention are 
 quoted to prove that it does. The people of the South, how- 
 ever will certainly be excused if they ask for pome more tan- 
 gible and enduring evidence of it than the ipse-dixit of pvery 
 Bailey and Strange in Virginia and North Carolina. It is 
 true the resolution says all efforts to "induce Congress lo in- 
 terfere in the questions of slavery/' " are calculated to lead 
 to dangerous consequences,''" — but that is a mere statement 
 of an liypothesis I It neither asserts, nor negatives any 
 power in Congress — it does not deny to Congress i lie power 
 to " interfere wiih questions of slavery"' in the territories. It 
 is true too that the resolution closes by denouncing such 
 efforts as having ". an inevitable tendency to diminish the 
 happiness of the people — and endanger the stability of the 
 Union, and " ought not to countenanced ! " 
 
 But ivhere, in what part of it, does it deny to Congress 
 the right and the power to " interfere with questions of sla- 
 very'- 1 in the territories? // is no denial of it, to say that 
 "dangerous consequences" will ioUow the exercise of such a 
 power. It is no denial to say that its exercise will " diminish 
 the happiness of the people.*' It is no denial to say that 
 " ah efforts to induce Congress" to exercise it ought not to 
 be countenanced. All this is but an expression of the ine- 
 vitable dangers which will follow the exercise of such a 
 power — nothing more. 
 
 That resolution too can be indorsed as far as its assertion 
 and denial of a principle is concerned, by Joshua Giddings. 
 He admits Congress lias no power to abolish slavery in a 
 State, but contends that it can do so in territories. The 
 Barnburners have endorsed it. At their great meeting, in the 
 Park. New York City, after the Baltimore Convention had 
 adjourned and at which John Van Buren, B. F. Buttlerand 
 C. C. Cambreling were present, they passed the following re- 
 solution: 
 
 <: 8 Resolved, That on account of its peculiar prominence at this time 
 we renew and reassert our concurrence in, and our adhesion to, the 
 seventh proposition, included in the declaration of principles of 1840 arid 
 1844. in which it is affirmed : " That Congress has no power under the 
 constitution to interfere with or control, the domestic institutions of the 
 several States, and that such States are the sole and proper jndges of 
 everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the consti- 
 tution: that all efforts of the abolitioirsts, and others, madoto induce Con- 
 gress to interfere with questions of slavery, or lo take incipient steps m 
 
relation thereto are calculated to. lead to the most alarming - and dangerous 
 .'0i:s o quences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendet.cv t i 
 <lirh,knsh the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability at. 1 per- 
 mariency of-the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any Friend 
 of our political institutions." That ws receive this proposition now as 
 we received it when first promulgated, and in the sense, and for the pur- 
 pose contemplated by itsframers, namely, as designed to protect the citizens 
 of the several states in their property and domestic institutions of such 
 States, against all extraneous interference, and as not at aH touching, or 
 intended to touch, die question of the power of Congress to prohibit the 
 establishment or introduction of gfavery in free territory thereafter to lie 
 acquired by the United States — which question was not before the cou::- 
 firy. either in 1S40, when this proposition was first adopted, or in 1844, 
 when it was renewed and reiterated. 1 ' 
 
 The Baltimore Convention then did not assert as mtveh con- 
 stitutional truth, as it is freely admitted Gen. Cass had done. 
 Gen. Cass was willing to say that Congress could not inter- 
 fere with questions of slavery in either States or Territories. 
 Why then did riot the Convention assert as much ? Simply 
 because it found the South in a temper to recede—Simply be- 
 cause Northern men wiil go no further on this issue than they 
 are driven, or compelled to go, by the unity and nerve with 
 which the South demands it-. In this case a Southern man — 
 editor of the leading Democratic press of the Union — Mr. 
 Ritchie, proposed that this should be all the Convention 
 should say — and in the Convention, the editor of the admin- 
 istration paper, in the nib of whose pen lay so many political 
 dealhs or fortunes, could muster a goodly number of Southern 
 followers to enforce his wishes ; and in the Convention too, 
 the belief which the North had a long time enjertaiued that 
 Virginia and Alabama would stand up to their resolutions, 
 had vanished before the action of a 'large majority of the de- 
 legates of both States. 
 
 THE VICE PRESIDENCY. 
 
 During the session of the committee on resolutions, the 
 ballotings for Vice 'Presidency took place. I had deputed 
 my friend and firm co-operator, Mr. P. A. Wray, to cast my 
 vote On the 1st ballot for Col. King, in deference to the desire 
 of the State Convention to have his. name presented " for the 
 consideration of the National Democratic Convention," and 
 if he found him to stand a reasonable for an election to con- 
 tinue to do so; but if not, then to vote for Col. Jefferson 
 Davis. Mr. Wray gave my vote for Col. King on the 1st 
 ballot, and finding him to have no earthly chance of success, 
 
39 
 
 changed it to Gen. Quitman,* on the 2d ballot. Mr. YTrny 
 found Col. Davis not at all likely to si$fce'ed,and ; acting in ttfo 
 spirit of my instructions to him, voted for Gen. Quitman — i 
 vote which met, for the reasons assigned, my cordial appro- 
 bation ; though I had a strong desire to evince by my vote 
 my approbation of the great merit of Jefferson Davis as a 
 true republican and a gallant soldier, and my esteem for 'him 
 as a high toned gentleman. 
 
 I have been charged with violating my ''instructions'' in 
 having my votes cast for Quitman on the 2d ballot. 
 
 A reference to the official proceedings of the Convention 
 will £bow that the delegates received no instructions as to the 
 Vice Presidency. 
 
 In the first place they will show, that if there is the least 
 truth, in the miserable .apology given by some for not consi- 
 dering the instructions binding — that they were passed late 
 at night, when most of the members had left, it bears v. hh 
 double the force on the resolution recommending Col. King ; 
 as that was introduced more than two hours after the resolu- 
 tions of instructions were ! I only mention this to show tin: 
 dilemma into which the tergiversations of the opponents of 
 these instructions will lead them. 
 
 The resolution giving instruction to the delegation was a 
 part of the series reported by the committee and amended by 
 the Convention, and referred to no other resolution adopted 
 by the Convention. After that was disposed of, and other 
 matter also, Mr. Terry introduced trie following resolution : 
 
 . ,' : Resolved, That this Convention do unanimous!}' and earnestly recom- 
 mended to the consideration of the National Democratic Convention at 
 Baltwnore, the name of our distinguished fellow citizen, Hon. W. R. Kiug, 
 a? eminently qualified, by his abilities, by his experience, and his services 
 to. the country, for .the oiiice of Vice President of the U. S." 
 
 It, will be seen that there is no instruction attached to it. 
 It was not a part of that series which was made instructions. 
 It is a mere recommendation — (hat the name of Col. King 
 he considered. It was so considered ; and when ne was re- 
 ceiving the pitiful support, of but eight votes out of 294 on 
 the* 2d ballot, and had been abandoned by all his friends from 
 other States but one, Mr. Wray and myself did not conceive 
 
 * In the official account of the balloting, eight votes are put down a.s 
 given to Col. King on the 2d ballot — all from Alabama. This is an error, 
 Alabama had but nine votes — and the votes of Mr. Wray and myself \veja 
 given to Gen. Quitman on that ballot. 
 
that we were bound to continue "the consideration" of a 
 matter which we were not instructed to press — and which 
 had no chance of success ; hence we voted for one, of whom 
 Alabama had,ihrough her press, expressed a decided approval. 
 Gen, Butler was nominated on the 2d ballot. 
 
 This statement, sustained by the record, exhibits the true 
 estimate to be put upon the remarks of Mr. M. A. King (one 
 of the delegates) upon my course, made in a recent public 
 meeting in Madison, in the official account of which it is 
 stated that he "assailed Mr. Yancey's position with great 
 severity" — and among other charges of a kindred stamp, 
 asserted that I was guilty "of refusing to vole for Col. Win. 
 R. King, throughout the balloting for the Vice Presidency." 
 
 I submit that " the great severity" which characterized the 
 charge is a matter to be felt more by the speaker than by any 
 one else.* 
 
 It is perhaps due to candor to say that I cast a vote for Col. 
 King with some reluctance. I did so entirely in deference to 
 "the recommendation" of the Convention. I knew in the 
 first place, that the Terry resolution, recommending Col. King, 
 
 * Since the report of what Mr. King said on that occasion appeared 
 in the Huntsville Democrat, a card from the gentleman has appeared in 
 the same paper — giving this correction — 
 
 11 I distinctly said and regret under the circumstances, I was misunder- 
 stood by the reporter, that Mr. Yancey disobeyed the spirit of the resolu- 
 tion, unanimously adopted by the State Convention, instructing the dele- 
 gation to vote for Col. Win. It. King, tor the Vice Presidency, and to use 
 all honorable means to secure his nomination. It is true Mr. Yancey 
 voted for Col. King on the 1st and 2d ballots, and I so stated ; but Mr. 
 Wray. iiis colleague, arose in the Convention and asked leave to withdraw 
 his and Mr. Y.'s vote ; and neither of them ever afterwards voted for Col. 
 King." 
 
 The above may he a correction of such remarks of Mr. King as the 
 secretary of the meeting had reported — but it is as little entitled to credit 
 as a statement of facts, as the report made by the secretary. 
 
 It is not a fact, that there was a c; resolution, unanimously adopted by 
 the State Convention, instructing the delegation to vote for Col. Wm. R. 
 King for the Vice Presidency." — It is not a fact that I " voted for Col. 
 King" on the " 2d ballot." On that ballot my vote was cast for Quitman. 
 
 It is not a fact that " Mr. Wrav asked leave to withdraw his and Mr. 
 Y.'s vote." Some one, unauthorized asl am assured by Mr. Wray, cast 
 our votes for Col. King on the 2d ballot — and Mr. Wray merely cor-rected 
 the vote. Neither is it. a fact (as Mr. King would have it to be deduced from 
 his statement) that there was any other ballot ing for Vice Presidency — And. 
 yet Mr. Kingsavs — " neither of them ever afterwards voted for Col. Kins; l'* 
 "The 2d was the List ballot ! 
 
61 
 
 had been carried about to different members of the conven- 
 tion — and that the main ground upon which its friends advo- 
 cated its passage was, that Col. King had been signally 
 defeated by Mr. Lewis a short time before in his canvass for 
 the Senate, and that this resolution was intended to be a 
 salvo to his feelings — and nothing more. 
 
 The matter was so spoken of to me, and my opposition 
 was deprecated on that ground. I at the time refused to vote 
 for the resolution. Afterwards, however, the resolutions of 
 instructions having been unanimously adopted, many gentle- 
 men who had determined to oppose it, in common with my- 
 self, agreed to permit the resolution to pass, unopposed. 
 
 In the second place, I felt confident that Alabama would be 
 throwing away her vote, if cast for Col. King ; and the result 
 proved upon what good grounds the conviction was based — ■ 
 Col. King receiving but 26 votes on 1st ballot and but seven 
 on the 2d, out of the 294 votes in that body ! 
 
 THE NOMINATION OF GEN. CASS CONSIDERED, APART FROM 
 THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE STATE CONVENTION. 
 
 But considering the nomination of Gen. Cass apart from 
 instructions, is he entitled to my support ? I have considered 
 that part cf the issue, with all the deliberation and candor 
 which the opinions of so very large a portion of my Demo- 
 cratic fellow citizens in the State, who support Gen. Cass, are 
 entitled to at my hands, and I have come to the conclusion 
 that, simply in the light of Democratic issues, Gen. Cass is 
 one of that class of statesmen which has heretofore been re- 
 pudiated by our National Conventions. 
 
 On the doctrine of Internal Improvements by the general 
 government, no man could be selected out of the list of 
 statesmen, Whig or Democratic, aspiring to the Presidency, 
 who holds views more antagonistic to those so long promul- 
 gated by the Democratic party— both of this State, and of the 
 United States in their National Conventions. Since 1S2S, 
 this State has ever held opposition to the system of internal 
 improvements by the genera! government, to be one oi the 
 cardinal points of the Democratic faith. Our General Assem- 
 bly has repeatedlv passed joint resolutions against the enact- 
 ment of such laws. Our State Conventions have repeatedly 
 adopted resolutions condemning it in no measured terms. 
 The Democracy has ever held — that no man could be unsound 
 
6$. 
 
 Upon any one of the great points of the Democratic creed — icy 
 Wit : 1. The raising of revenue; 2. The keeping of the re- 
 venue; 3. The distribution of revenue — without being un- 
 sound upon all. If he was for high taxes and latge revenue, 
 it has been well contended, he would rear up an interest 
 which would struggle for a Bnik, which would keep and use. 
 that revenue, aud pay it out in its own bills— and also an in- 
 terest which would demand the expenditure of the surplus, 
 which existed after the paying the expenses of government, 
 in improving certain sections' of the country— by building 
 roads, canals, harbors, &c, And, vice versa, if he was an 
 advocate of internal improvements, they would necessari'y 
 bihig in their train increased taxes to meet the extra expen- 
 diture ; and a craving vitiated appetite for more money, which 
 would grow and increase, as its demands were complied with, 
 Holding these views, tire National Democratic Convention 
 has ever passed, at ah its sktings, the following resolution : 
 
 "That the Constitution docs not confer upon the general government 
 the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal im-- 
 provements." 
 
 And, acting in good faith to the principle, the Democracy 
 have heretofore invariably, without a single exception since 
 General Jackson vetoed bills of this character-, selected candi- 
 dates for President sound upon it, and who have vetoed all 
 bills of the kind. It is true that, the Western Democracy 
 have not acted in good faith to the principle ; and the .conse-*' 
 que nee has been that bills for internal improvement, by the 
 combined forces of WHfigs and recreant Democrats, have 
 been passed through bom houses of Congress, aud our sole 
 protection Jhas been the soundness and firmness of our Demo- 
 cratic Presidents who have vetoed them. 
 
 It was in reference to this slate of things, that the late State 
 Convention unanimously adopted the following — (a part of 
 the 2d resoluiiou) as congratulatory of the dei'eal of these 
 unconstitutional schemes— ' 
 
 ^RrsohrJ, That the fruits of the great political triumph oi 1844, which 
 •elevated the present chief magistrate to the Presidency, have fulfilled the 
 hopes of the Democracy of the Union, . * ;;c * :; ' : through 
 the veto of the President firmly execated, against an enormous pressure 
 of interests, in checking the lendencyof Congress to enter upon a lavis! 
 pystc-rh of unconstitutional Internal Improvements/'' 
 
 . And it was particularly in reference to this, that at my 
 .instance, the usual resolution passed by the National Pern-' 
 
orfitic Convention relative to the veto power, was 
 amended by the addition of the last clause. I insert it here: 
 
 1; Re--:ilreil, That we are decidedly opposed to taking from the Preside i t 
 t ; ii. ; i;dif;!':l veto power, by which lie is enabled, under restrictions and 
 f 's^u'sibihiies amply sufficient to guard the public interest, to suspend'the 
 pns.-age of a bill whose merits ca'unot secure the approval of two-thirds 
 
 ,..■• Senate and ilousu of Representatives until the judgment of the 
 people can be obtained thereon, and which has saved the American peo- 
 ple iron; the corrupt and tyrannical domination of the Sank of the United 
 States, and from a corrupting system of general internal improvements." 
 
 President Polk, by his firmness in the exercise of the veto 
 saved the country, from the vast expenditure contemplated by 
 the ll River and Harbor Bill" (Jen. Cass voted for that bid 
 *fr-(;S.e§ Con. Globe, 1 ses.29t/i Con.,//. 11 SO. 
 
 Jilr. Polk sent in his veto of the bill, to the house in which 
 it originated, on the 3d of August, 1-840. He argued at great 
 length, and with great ability the unconstitutionality of the 
 bib. He also presented another objection, which not having 
 been regarded by its friends, shows how bent they are upon 
 carrying out this system, at all hazards — a disregard of ail 
 reasonable obstacles. JMr. Polk said, »' It appropriates be- 
 tween one and two millions of dollars for objects which are 
 of no pressing necessity ; atid this is proposed at a lime when 
 the country is engaged in a foreign war. and when Congress 
 at its present session, has authorized a loan, on the issue of 
 treasury notes, to defray the expenses of the war, to be re- 
 j-orted to, if the exigencies of the government shall require it. 
 It would seem to be wise, too, to abstain from such expendi- 
 tures with a view to avoid the accumulation of a large public 
 del I : the existence of which would be opposed to the inter- 
 ests of our people, as well as to the genius of our free iusii- 
 tmious." — S'ee Con. Globe, 1 ses . I'Jlh Con. p. 11S1-2. 
 
 Opposed to the principles laid down by President Polk, and 
 not deterred by the fact tint the government was at war, and 
 that- it had been compelled to borrow tioenty-thrce millions 
 In curry on the tour, and therefore could not, in justice to 
 itself,- wit ho at referring to the constitution, appropriate mil- 
 lions of dollars for purposes for which, as Mr. Polk said 
 '• there was no, pressing necessity/' Gen. Cass at the very 
 next session of Congress voted for a similar harbor and liver 
 hill, appropriating over half a million of dollars for the r 
 improvement ! — (Sec Con. Globe, 2 ses. 2 l J/h Con. p. 571. J 
 
 Mr. Polk again had the nerve ik against an enormous pre.-:- 
 
€4 
 
 sure of interests/' to veto the unconstitutional measure. — 
 (See Con. Globe, 1 ses. 30th Con. p. 30. ) 
 
 It will thus be seen that Gen Cass has voted for these 
 bills, which ouv State Convention has denominated " a lavish 
 system of unconstitutional internal improvements" — and 
 which the National Democratic Convention denounced as "'a 
 corrupting sjstem of general internal improvements," as well 
 as unconstitutional. It will be seen too that he has voted for 
 them in utter disregard of the condition of the treasury — 
 when there was not only no money there, but when we 
 were driven to the necessity of borrowing "twenty-three 
 millions of dollars" (see Mr. Polk's 2d veto) — and therefore 
 when, the appropriation if made, would have to be paid out 
 of the loan. Well indeed might I say that he " advocated 
 the doctrine in its wildest and most unconstitutional sense;" 
 and well indeed might my venerable friend Chancellor Clarke, 
 say — (though not intending it in that light 1) — that * this doc- 
 rrine, at this time, when" the country has no money to spare 
 for such purposes, may be considered as nothing but an ab- 
 straction." Had it not been for the veto, it would have 
 been an abstraction from the people's treasury to the amount 
 of over two millions of dollars ! 
 
 For the first lime then in the history of the Democratic 
 party, it has selected a man unsound on this great cardinal 
 principle — the only one of the three cardinal points, which 
 that party has not yet successfully carried out in all the 
 branches of government, both legislative and executive — the 
 only open one therefore of the three. If he shall be elected, 
 we shall be at the mercy of men, on this point, who would 
 not regard the necessities of the country in their eager desire 
 to break into the treasury: for not only is Congress, as it has 
 always been against us, on that principle, but we have a can- 
 didate, who if elected will not veto such bills — but will cor- 
 dially approve them. 
 
 I have been told however, that Gen. Cass has accepted the 
 nomination, and in his letter said — " I have carefullly read 
 the resolutions of the Democratic National Convention, lay- 
 ing down the platform of our political faith, and I adhere to 
 them as firmly as I approve them cordially. And-while thus 
 adhering to them, I shall do so with a sacred regard to " the 
 principles and compromises of the constitution." 
 
 His approval then is qualified by his views " of the prin- 
 ciples and compromises of the constitution/' What are 
 
65 
 
 those views which will actuate him, "while thus adhering to 
 them'*? 
 
 It will be well worth the attention of the voter, not to con- 
 Sue himself to the above single, general, paragraph, but 10 
 look at other significant sentences in the same letter — for in- 
 stance this : 
 
 " This letter, gentlemen, closes my profession of political faith. Re- 
 ceiving my first appointment from that pure patriot and great expounder 
 of American democracy, Mr. Jefferson, more than forty years ago, the in- 
 tervening period of my life has been almost .wholly passed in the service 
 of my country, and has been marked by many vicisitudes and attended 
 with many trying circumstances both in peace and war. If my conduct 
 in these situations and the opinions I have, been called upon to form and ex- 
 press f.om time to time in relation to all the great party topics of the day, do 
 not furnish a clear exposition of my vieivs respecting them, and at the same 
 timed sufficient pledge of my faithful adherence to their practical application, 
 -whenever or icherever I may he required to act, anything further I might ao.o 
 say would be mere delusion, unworthy of myself, and justly offensive to the 
 great party, in whose name you are now acting" 
 
 We are thus told by Gen. Cass himself, not to notice " any 
 thing further he may now say" — It "would be mere delusion," 
 if in conflict with his "conduct" and his" opinions" for more 
 than " forty years." They furnish, as he well says, "a clear 
 exposition of his views" respecting " the great party topics of 
 the day" — and to them will every voter look, who desires to 
 vote for his country and his principles — and not to cast a 
 mere party vote. That "conduct" and those "opinions" 
 qualify his letter upon the Baltimore resolutions — and that 
 "conduct" and those "opinions" he tells us, give "sufficient 
 pledge of his faithful adherence to their practical applica- 
 tion." 
 
 HOW WESTERN MEN CONSTRUE " THE PLATFORM." 
 
 It may serve to illustrate the great practical convenience 
 which distinguishes the conscience of a western politician to 
 state a little, but quite significant, occurrence in committee on 
 resolutions. As soon as the resolution on internal improve- 
 ments and that on the veto power were finally adopted, some 
 one observed to a western member — " How can you and Caes 
 get over that ? " — '•' Oh ! " said he " there is no difficulty — we 
 are not in favor of " a corrupt" or of an "unconstitutional 
 system of internal improvements. The thing don't apply to 
 us at all !" 
 
 I have before me, the 12th number of Mr. Medary's "Cam- 
 
 E 
 
6G 
 
 paign Statesman", of Ohio, devoted to the election of Gen. 
 Cass. He is defending the General from the charge made by 
 the Whigs— that Cass, by his letter showed himself to be op- 
 posed to internal improvements. In the article the editor 
 
 says : — 
 
 " The first bill, for this object, vetoed by Mr. Polk, was voted for by 
 Gen. Cass. The next session Gen. Cass, again voted for the bill which 
 passed, but which was again vetoed by the President. No man has been 
 more consistent — no man lias shown more interest in this matter, than the 
 very man now charged to be hostile to the improvement of the waters of 
 the "west." 
 
 In the same paper is an account of the reception of Gen. 
 Cass at Cleavland. — A blunt-spoken Democrat received the 
 General, and told him that his enemies were slandering him, 
 suiet circulating that he was in favor of the extension of sla- 
 very — and opposed to internal improvements. The frank- 
 spoken voter demanded of the General to give the lie to those 
 slanders, at that time. These were posers. But the General 
 knew how to get round these matters. He replied with 
 great dignity : 
 
 '• Sib : The noise and confusion which pervades this vast assembly will, 
 I apprehend) prevent me from being distinctly heard by all present. I ean 
 do. but little more, sir, at this time, than return my thanks' for the very 
 v, ami and flattering reception which the citizens of Cleveland have given 
 me. *•„;».** '"'* You have made some allusions, sir, to 
 
 principles and measures which agitate the public mind. I can but refer 
 you to my votes as recorded and sentiments as heretofore expressed, up- 
 on these questions. My acts for the last forty years are before the people, 
 mid if these are not sufficient to satisfy the public,. all that I can advance 
 row will be mere delusions." 
 
 Gen. Cuss does not refer the enquirer in Ohio to his letter 
 
 but io his votes ! We must take the General at his word — 
 
 judge of him by his " votes as recorded, and sentiments as 
 
 'heretofore expressed" — Anything else would indeed "-be 
 
 mere delusions." 
 
 THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 
 
 Gen. Cass must be judged as to this issue by his letter to 
 Mr. Nicholson, already freely quoted from, and not by the 
 Baltimore resolutions — for lie. goes farther in the assertion of 
 correct principles than those, resolutions do ; though at ihe 
 sa-me time he premulgates unsound opinions, which those 
 resolutions do not. The positions taken by him in that letter 
 y.re: 
 
%. Congress has no- power to interfere with slavery in 
 the States. 
 
 2. Congress has no power to interfere with slavery in the 
 territories. 
 
 3. The duty of Congress "should be limited to the creation 
 of proper governments for new countries* acquired or 
 settled, and to the necessary provision for their eventual 
 admission into the Union ; leaving, in the 'mean time., 
 to the people inhabiting them to regulate their internal 
 concerns in their own way." 
 
 4. In the territory (which we have acquired) beyond the 
 Rio Grande, and east of the Rocky Mountains — the 
 Mexican law, which abolished slavery in those limits, 
 is recognized by him to be the law of the inhabitants, 
 
 . until repealed, by Congress. 
 
 5. He recognizes the mixed race of inhabitants of that ter- 
 ritory, who under Mexican rule held " the government 
 and most of the offices in their possession," and who are 
 a ''colored race" which " preponderates in the ratio of 
 ten to one over the whites," as citizens under the rule 
 of the United Slates: and that ihis "colored population, 
 among whom the negro does, not belong socially to 
 a degraded race," will have the right and power to per- 
 mit or- "not permit the enslavement of any portion of 
 the colored race." 
 
 The first two opinions it is conceded, by both sides, that 
 he clearly expresses in his letter. 
 
 The others are disputed. The third opinion attributed to 
 him, is in his own language— a part of his own letter — and 
 is so precise, that it would be exceedingly difficult, it seems 
 to me, to doubt its meaning. He says Congress must confine 
 itself to certain acts, and- must provide for the admission of 
 these new countries, " eventually''' into the Union. It is clear 
 that he speaks of I hem before that event has occurred — 
 while yet they are territories and under the limited jurisdic- 
 tion of Congress. But having laid down the limited sphere 
 in which Congress may act, he in the next sentence proceeds 
 upon the idea, that there are powers, which being denied to 
 Congress, may be exercised by others—" Leaving in the 
 meantime" he says — What is the " ?neantime ? " — The in- 
 terim—the interval of time, certainly, between the first " ea- 
 tion of proper governments for new territories," and that 
 ^eventual admission into the Union," spoken of in the sen- 
 
6S 
 
 tence— " Leaving in the meantime, to the people inhabiting 
 them, to regulate their internal concerns in their own way" — 
 leaving to them, while yet inhabitants of a territory, power, 
 which he concedes Congress cannot exercise — the power of 
 excluding slavery from their limits ; [for that is the issue upon 
 which he is arguing— those the " internal concerns" which he 
 leaves "to the inhabitants" to regulate.] This is rendered 
 clear and indisputable by the very next sentence. — " They 
 are just as capable of doing so as the people of the Stales ; 
 and they can do so, at any rate, as soon as their political in- 
 dependence is recognized by admission into the Union." 
 * In that sentence he compares the power of the people in 
 two of their stages of existence — to wit : when people of a 
 territory and when people of a Stale ; and he Jays down 
 that the former, on this subject, "are just as capable" of 
 regulating it as the latter. 
 
 But ivho are these " inhabitants," who are thus to be em- 
 powered by Gen. Cass, •' to regulate their internal concerns — 
 (that of the new territory) in their own ivay." 
 
 This is a serious question, because our people have so much 
 confidence in their own indomitable energy that they, like 
 Jackson's Kentucky Riflemen, ''are not scared at trifles" — 
 and might not mind an ordinary obstacle. 
 
 Gen. Cass, in the same letter, defines who those " inhabi- 
 tants" will be — 
 
 In speaking of "any new acquisition" of territory by. us, 
 and the prospect of the extension of slavery" over it, he 
 says — " But can it go there ? This may well be doubled, &c. 
 The inhabitants of those regions, whether they depend on 
 their ploughs or their herds cannot be slaveholders." He 
 continues his views thus: " In the able letter of Mr. Buchanan, 
 upon this subject, not long since given to the public, he pre- 
 sents similar considerations ivilh great force." 
 
 " Should we acquire territory beyond the Rio Grande, and 
 east of the Rocky Mountains, it is still more impossible that 
 amajority of the people would consent to re-establish slavery. 
 They are themselves a colored population, and among them 
 the negroe does not belong socially to a degraded race." 
 
 This, with the extract from that portion of the letter to be 
 "found on page 12, shows clearly that the fifth opinion attri- 
 buted by me to Gen. Cass is correct. He calls this "colored 
 race" — " the people." He endorses " similar considerations" 
 urged by Mr. Walker and Mr. Buchanan — t hat these *> people" 
 
69 
 
 —this " colored population" who do not hold \" the negroe" 
 to be of a degraded race, " will not permit the enslavement" 
 of negroes — that in fact they hold " the government and most 
 of the offices." No where in that letter is the power denied 
 to such a race to sit in jurisdiction over what shall or shall 
 not be the institutions of the territory, which Southern blood 
 has enriched and sanctified to the uses of Southern citizens — 
 which Southern blood and treasure has secured as property, 
 which belongs to them, in common with other free white 
 citizens of this Union ; but, on the contrary, the principle is 
 laid down, and contended for as an argument in favor of his 
 position — that " slavery will not pass the Rio Grande ! " 
 
 It is said in excuse, however, for this opinion of Gen. Cass, 
 that, who will be- Me people there, is a matter of law over 
 which Gen. Cass can exercise no control ! Grant it ; and it 
 leaves him in this position — 
 
 Knowing who these people are — and that law will give 
 them the right to citizenship,* he advances opinions, which, 
 if generally adopted, will throw all our rights of removing to 
 and residing in those territories upon the good will or other- 
 wise of such a race ! 
 
 While he denies to Congress the right to sit in judgment on 
 our rights, he yeilds that right to '' these colored races" of the 
 neiv territories ! 
 
 It is of this we complain. It is bad enough for 'our peo- 
 ple to have the prospect of contending with such a race in 
 a convention, if lata shall so decree it : it is too bad to throw 
 us into contention with them at the moment they are ceded 
 to us — and when, if Gen. Cass' opinions prevail, they shall 
 have Mexican law as their ally in the contest. 
 
 The practical application of such principles would show 
 this state of things : — 
 
 California and New Mexico are now teiritory of the United 
 States — " The inhabitants of them," would meet to consider 
 about a "regulation,'' that slavery shall not be permitted in 
 those territories — " The colored population," who in those 
 territories hold most of the offices and " preponderate in the 
 ratio of ten to one over the whites," will have an overwhelm- 
 ing majority. They do not. look upon a negroe as belonging 
 to a degraded race, and consequently they will vote in favor 
 of the regulation and carry it. The territory then, though of 
 
 * The Treaty for which Gen. Cass voted secures to them that right. . 
 
70 
 
 vast extent, sufficient to form twelve States as large as Ala- 
 bama, and rich in mines of gold and silver— though abundant 
 in productions of wheat and oats and covered with herds of 
 cattle, will thus be sealed forever against the emigration 
 thither of any southern man, with his slave property. And 
 in time, when they become sufficiently populous to be carved 
 into states, non-slaveholding states will be carved out of 
 them ; and the South be thus surrounded by that terrible 
 "cordon of free states" which is looked forward to with so 
 much hope by the Northern politician and so much anxiety 
 by the Southern—the time, when the non-slaveholding states 
 will number two-thirds of the states of the Union, and can 
 alter the constitution to suit their sectional purposes. 
 
 The fourth position which I have said Gen. Cass had 
 assumed in his Nicholson letter is, that the municipal law of 
 Mexico abolishing all slavery, throughout that republic, will 
 remain the law of California and New Mexico until repealed 
 by Congress. He puts forth this doctrine in quoting, with 
 great approval, the remarks of Mr. Walker. 
 
 There are many others, even at the South, who entertain 
 that opinion. Nothing can be more erroneous : at least as 
 far as applicable to this subject. 
 
 The decisions of our supreme courts are in reference merely 
 to individual rights of property. Whatever was property in 
 California and New Mexico before the treaty according to 
 these decisions, will remain so after the treatv. What was a 
 good titlfi to land, will still be a good title. If a negroe there 
 was free, no one can now enslave him. What was law will 
 remain law, as far as those inhabitants are concerned who 
 lived there before the territory became ours, if not inconsist- 
 ent ivith the sovreignty of the States of this Confederacy . 
 Our courts have merely acted upon the question, as a property 
 one — not as a high political question. Gen. Cass asserts the 
 doctrine to be true as a political one. He says " Slavery wil 
 not pass the Rio Grande : not only because it is forbidden 
 by law," but because the inhabitants there " will not permit 
 the enslavement of any portion of the colored race." 
 
 The question then is — " Shall the Mexican law, abolishing 
 slavery, be the law of California and New Mexico ? " 
 Clearly not. 
 
 1. Because this would recognize the doctrine that Congress 
 can have jurisdiction over the question — Congress having 
 power to revise and veto the laws of a territory—ami 
 
71 
 
 vf Mexican law is to prevail until repealed, Congress 
 must interfere to restore the territory to a constitutional 
 condition— -a territory open to every citizen with his pro- 
 perty of every kind. 
 
 2. Because this'would be in conflict with the' constitutional 
 doctrine— that a treaty .is the supreme law of the land, 
 and that the territory is property, held by the United 
 States, in trust for the" citizens of the States, who have 
 equal rights there. If Mexican law, forbidding slavery, 
 remains the law, the territory is at no single moment, the 
 common property of the States open to every citizen to 
 settle in with his property ; but it is shut up against the 
 citizens of one half of the States ; and thus would their 
 constitutional rights be made subservient to a law of 
 Mexico — which they had no part in framing; and thus 
 would the treaty, which is supreme law by our constitu- 
 tion, and which under the constitution acquires territory 
 as the common property of all, be divested of its supre- 
 macy and be made to yeild to the law of the conquered 
 power. 
 
 3. Because this principle would allow of the introduction 
 into our confederacy of varied political privileges and dis- 
 
 * abilities at war with the constitution and our bill ot 
 rights. For instance — the law establishing the Catholic 
 religion as the only mode in which God may be wor- 
 shipped,' would prevail there — military despotism would 
 be in the ascendant there — the writ, of habeas corpus, 
 and trial by jury, so necessary to the protection of the 
 liberty of the ciiizen, would be unknown ; for there are 
 Mexican laws, prescribing the administration of justice 
 there, with which these rights are inconsistent. 
 It has been urged however, that Gen. Cass cannot enter- 
 tain these opinions, which are so much at war with our con- 
 stitutional rights, because, in summing up his views he says: 
 
 ■" Briefly then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by Con- 
 gress over this matter ; and I am in favor of leaving to the people of any 
 territory, which may hereafter be acquired, the right to regulate it for them- 
 selves, under, tlie general principles of the Constitution. 1. Because I do 
 not see in the constitution any grant of the requisite power to Congress ; 
 and I am not disposed to extend a. doubtful precedent beyond its neces- 
 sity — the establishment of territorial governments where needed — leaving 
 In the inhabitants all the rights compatible with the relations they bear to the. 
 m xfe&eracij?'' 
 
 The above clauses are seized upon by his friends as settling 
 
72 
 
 the matter that Gen. Cass will not give to the people of thos& 
 new territories a single unconstitutional privilege — whereas; 
 in truth they only settle this, that he will not give to them any 
 privilege which he thinks would be wrong " under the gene- 
 ral principles of the constitution." 
 
 The very same gentlemen who quote the above as con- 
 clusive will sneer and laugh heartily at a similar assertion 
 made by Gen. Taylor — to wit: that " if elected President, 
 he will administer the government solely according to 
 the constitution ! " They ask a whig, whenever he repeats 
 this general and really unmeaning declaration of General 
 Taylor — "Yes — but what does Gen. Taylor think is consti- 
 tutional ? How does he construe that instrument ? He 
 may think one thing to be constitutional— and we may not 
 think so— and in that event Gen. Taylor only says to me, that 
 he will administer the government according to his own views 
 of the constitution, and not according to mine." 
 
 Let us apply this well-considered reply to Gen. Cass. 
 '•' What do you consider to be the rights of the inhabitants of 
 a territory, compatible with the relations they bear to the con- 
 federacy?" Gen. Cass could only answer — that in "his 
 lengthy and elaborate letter to Mr. Nicholson, he had laid j 
 down what rights the inhabitants had, according to his views 
 of the constitution." So that at last the- faithful enquirer 
 after his true meaning would turn from the generalities of the 
 summing up of his views, to the mass of particular views 
 which he had reasoned out in the body of the letter. There 
 he will find that Gen. Cass thinks " under the general princi- 
 ples of the constitution"— the inhabitants have u the right to 
 regulate it [slavery] for themselves" — have the right to per- 
 mit or " not permit the enslavement of any portion of the 
 colored race." There he lays it down, as a physical and 
 political truth, that "Beyond the Del Norte slavery will not 
 pass" on account of the Mexican law forbidding it, and on 
 account of the colored race not permitting it ; and " besides 
 [see his quotation from Buchanan] every facility would there 
 be afforded for the slave to escape from his master,'*-' even 
 granting that an emigrant could triumph over the law, and 
 prejudices, and power, of " the people" there ! 
 
 The simple truth is that this celebrated letter, which has 
 been thrown into the political arena, is like the apple of dis- 
 cord in the midst of Democracy. 
 
 The friends of Gen. Cass at the North think it advances a 
 
proper way in which to settle the " free territory' 7 question 
 an<^ claim for it, the merit of pointing out the most peaceable 
 and effectual method of keeping them free. The contest there, 
 is not as to the great aim and end of the Provisoists, but as 
 to the most effectual way of accomplishing it. The Barn- 
 burners demand the interposition of Congress — Cass denies 
 that power, but admits the right of interposition upon the part 
 of the colored races who occupy the territories — and pre- 
 cludes all further argument as to the effectiveness of his plan, 
 by asserting that Mexico, by law, has already abolished 
 slavery in those regions — and that the law will remain in 
 force until repealed by our Congress ! Or, briefly to contrast 
 their views — the Barnburners claim that the'American Con- 
 gress can and should prevent the admission of slavery the.e ; 
 Cass says — the Mexican Congress has already done it. He 
 denies to the American Congress the right to abolish slavery 
 there. He claims validity for an act of the Mexican Con- 
 gress, doing the same thing ! 
 
 At the South the friends of Gen. Cass are more divided in 
 their construction of his meaning. The leading paper in the 
 State that advocates the Cass interest, the " Flag & Advertiser" 
 of Montgomery, claims that Gen.- Cass advocates the views 
 of the late State Convention, to wit: that Congress cannot 
 interfere with slavery there, and that the people there cannot 
 do so, until they meet in convention to frame a State Consti- 
 tution; while the " State Gazette".has wavered between two 
 opinions, at one time seeming to take the same view — and 
 then a^ain acknowledging it had been rather "obscure." 
 and taking the opposite, and in my opinion only sensible view 
 of the letter — that Cass denies to Congress the right to in- 
 terfere, but gives that privilege to the inhabitants'U'hiie under 
 a territorial government. The Gazette and its correspondent 
 " Giles" are consistent. They support Gen. Cass's nomina- 
 tion on his own views — and they adopt his views. The 
 " Flag & Advertiser" is inconsistent with Cass — though con- 
 sistent with itself and the State resolutions. — It supports &Ve 
 nomination on its individual view and on Southern ground — 
 but to do so it actually repudiates the views entertained by 
 Gen. Cass ! 
 
 The " Union" of Washington has placed the matter, fairly 
 before the public — that sagacious editor has taken the bull by 
 the horns — his paper circulates North as well as South. It 
 is placed in its position as an organ to give consistency to the 
 
73 
 
 party. He -has given "the key-note — the lesser organs must 
 all <>! tune up" -or be ruled out of the choir as discordant. 
 The Union of the ! 14th June, in an article headed "The two 
 Parties at the South "-^-thus gives its cue: 
 
 " The Democrats, 'respecting the obligations and compromises of the 
 Constitution, have laid -down in open day a platform of conciliation, on 
 which they are willing to unite, both at the south and at the north, in the 
 full maintenance of the rights of all portions of the Union. The ground 
 of that platform is to regard slavery as a domestic anil municipal institu- 
 tion — belonging not to the jurisdiction of Congress, but to the jurisdiction of 
 the local communities both of the Slates and of the Territories which are to 
 become --States.- It is 'for these, and these alone — /he peojdeof Hie locality — 
 to«deterrnine whether or not slavery shall exist among them." 
 
 -No'-w if the supporters of Gen. Cass cannot agree as to 
 what views that gentleman really entertains about our rights, 
 even iu a single State— and in a single town, it must bo 
 evident that " there is something rotten in Denmark^" and 
 these .gentlemen should exercise a little charity towards others 
 disagreeing with' them — particularly should those do so., 
 who have themselves within the last two months entertained 
 two separate and entirely distinct views as t:> his opinions ! 
 
 Since these pages were placed in the hands of the printer 
 the debate in the United States Senate on this subject has 
 taken place, which resulted in the passage through that body 
 of the new compromise bill. In its formation, discussion and 
 in the vote, every Southern Senator placed himself distinctly 
 upon "the Alabama platform." That part of the bill, which 
 is considered as the Southern part, is based on the principles 
 I have contended for : And on the evening before this sheet 
 was published "the Democratic Association" of Montgomery 
 unanimously adopted the illh resolution of the Alabama 
 platform, which js the pivot of the series I 
 
 Discussion is all that is necessary to unite the South upon 
 them and to drive Cass-ism out of every Southern State! 
 Should this discussion cause Gen. Cass to review his opinions, 
 and to coincide with the principles so ably maintained in the 
 Senate, none will rejoice at this result -mora than myself. It 
 certainly has already caused some of his adherents here to 
 prepare a way for receding from his position — and it would 
 not be at all astonishing if some of them should, after all, 
 claim to have always entertained the principles recognized by 
 the Senate committee and by our State Convention ! 
 
 But as things now stand, the question arises — " Whatshal 
 w T «do? Cass is unsound — and Taylor refuses' to commit 
 
Iriinself, while Fillmore is a Wihnol Provisoist." The ques-' 
 tion may be asked, and I have reason to know, is honestly- 
 asked by many loyal friends of the constitution. But I have 
 as good reason to know too that the great masses at the South 
 have already committed themselves. I had at one time 
 thought I "understood the State I represented at Baltimore." 
 I have since seen in a Gorgia paper ihe sneer — -that "'I was 
 mistaken in, the State I represented." It seems that I was. 
 I did think that so bold and unequivocal assertion of con- 
 stitutional rights, as was made last winter by the Alabama 
 democracy, would have at least been followed by considerate 
 reflection and consultation, after that right had been so une- 
 quivocally denied by the Baltimore Convention. I did think 
 too so solemn a pledge to the country and to each other, as 
 was made by the Democracy of Alabama, through its repre- 
 sentatives in State Convention — "under no political neces- 
 sity ivhatever, to support for the offices of President and Vice 
 President of the United States, any person who shall not 
 openly and avowedly be opposed to either of the forms of 
 excluding slavery from the territories of the U. S. mentioned 
 in the resolutions, as being alike in violation of the constitu- 
 tion, and the just and equal rights of the citizens of the slave- 
 holding States" — would not have been broken in such '• in- 
 decent haste" — but that at least a call would have been m ade 
 for re-assembling the Democracy in convention lo consider,' 
 under such trying circumstances, what we should do in be- 
 half of our country and ourselves. I did think— that for an 
 honest stand upon the solemn instructions of the State Con- 
 vention—a refusal to budge an inch from the position which 
 I was instructed to occupy, which I had the pledge of the 
 Convention " under no political necessit}^ whatever" would 
 be abandoned, I shou'd not be hunted down with "hound and 
 horn" as a traitor to the Democracy of Alabama ; and that 
 ■ if even I had struck an injudicious, or an indiscreet, blow for 
 the South, something might have been pardoned to the spirit 
 of an honest independence and a desire to preserve in their 
 purity and integrity all our rights ! 
 
 In all this, as has been sneeringly said, "I misunderstood 
 the State I represented ; "—And the press and the people of 
 that State now sing hosannahs to the Moloch, at whose shrine 
 they are, unconsciously to themselves, being prepared to be 
 sacrificed ; and on whose altar they are determined to offer, 
 as the first victim, him, who dared to raise his voice singly 
 
amidst hundreds, for their rights, and to advise his country- 
 men to stand upon their defence. 
 
 This being the state of public opinion, it is hopeless to 
 attempt to stay the tide. Every man, however, who accords 
 with the sentiments contained in these pages, can refuse to 
 throw himself into that tide— can " bide his time," and pre- 
 serve his individual integrity, even though unable to preserve 
 that of his party. Every such man will act strictly as his 
 principles demand. He cannot, therefore, vote for a man 
 unsound on a cardinal Democratic principle. He cannot vote 
 for a man, so eminently unsound on the great and paramount 
 question of Southern rights as is Gen. Cass. To do so would 
 be to stultify himself, and aid in corrupting, by his example 
 and influence, that public opinion, which must eventually be 
 our safe-guard. All who vote for Cass must in doing so, tell 
 the people that the views of this question entertained by Gen. 
 Cass are sound ; and if that effort. shall be 'successful, the irre- 
 trievable evil will befall the South — of having public opinion 
 here so corrupted, that hereafter when events shall make it 
 necessary to make a united stand, it will be found impossible 
 to undeceive the people — Jo un-learn them, what this canvass 
 •will have learned them. No man who supports Cass now, 
 can hereafter lei I the people that his views were unconstitu- 
 tional, without being held by them as a demagogue and trai- 
 tor. They will not be able to understand the morality which 
 allowed' such a one to vote for Gen. Cass. 
 
 It is said however, if such a course is pursued to any ex- 
 tent, Taylor will be elected ! It is true this would be an evil. 
 But would we be responsible for it ? Certainly not. No 
 man is responsible for an evil ensuing, by his doing right. 
 That is a matter which we may safely commit to the Arbiter 
 of events. He however is responsible who does wrong, that 
 a right may ensue. If we act right, consistently with our 
 principles, the responsibility for the ensuing of any evil will 
 fall on those who forced us so to act — who departed from 
 the usual path of correct action which we" had heretofore fol- 
 lowed with them — aud who have no claim upon our com- 
 pany or support, when they do so. If the course indicated 
 electa Gen. Taylor the responsibility rests on those who nom- 
 inated an unsound Democrat and a foe to the South, and not 
 on those who refused to support him ! 
 
 Again, the election of Gen. Taylor will be a less evil than 
 the election o( Gen. Cass. The Democratic party is the 
 
. 77 . 
 
 ruling and controlling party in this country". It is defeated 
 only occasionally. Nothing can give it permanent defeat but 
 the adoption of a great error. 
 
 The occasional election of its opponents is not so much on 
 their merit as upon their de-merit. Whenever our party 
 becomes united from the healthful influence of a minority 
 state, it acquires nev/strength and rises in a more vigorous 
 condition. It is like the Grecian giant, whenever he was? 
 thrown to the earth, he acquired new vigor from the contact. 
 
 The election of Gen. Taylor then, by the refusal of a large . 
 body of the Democracy to endorse the error committed in the 
 nomination of Gen. Cass, would not be decisive of a single 
 principle — would be a mere " hurrah" upon the part of the 
 Whigs, and no permanent evil to us. The Bank question is 
 settled. The Tariff question, under the enormous debt hang- 
 ing ever us by reason of the war, cannot be materially affect- 
 ed during the next four years. The internal improvement 
 question cannot be worse under any President, than . under 
 Cass. The slavery question cannot be put in worse condition 
 under Taylor than under Cass. Nothing would be decided 
 therefor, even granting that such a result would follow the 
 course prescribed, but t<hat the herd of Buena Vista should 
 administer the government for four years — and that the ma- 
 jority of the great Democratic party shall not perpetrate 
 gross outrages on the South with impunity. The election of 
 Cass with his present opinions, would be a permanent evil — 
 The election of Taylor a temporary evil. It is the duty of 
 every good citizen, so thinking, to be guiltless of bringing 
 either upon his country. 
 
 One of the main replies to any such statement as I have 
 here submitted — is an attempt to prejudice the minds of the 
 people, by the cry of " disappointed politician !" — " disap- 
 pointed office-seeker ! " How totally inapplicable these are 
 to me is well known in Alabama. I have never sought to 
 obtain an office that I did not get it. I have never asked, 
 either of the people or the legislature, an office of profit —I 
 have twice resigned posts of high trust and honor, when it 
 was conceded that I was in the zenith of popularity — and 
 when I resigned my seat in Congress, I publicly announced 
 that I did so to devote myself exclusively to the pursuit of my 
 profession. I removed to one of the strongest Whig counties 
 in the State, and to a Whig district ; and so far from seeking 
 office since ; it could be established that I have repreaied the 
 
78 * 
 ■■ 
 
 efforts of partial and influential friends to run me for offices* 
 of greater dignity than I have heretofore aspired to. 
 
 If I am in any degree " a disappointed politician" my dis- 
 appointment is not personal — but has relation to the great 
 interests of my native land. 
 
 I now leave this matter to the " sober, second thought" of 
 the people of Alabama. Bold assertion— loud and unrtsturned' 
 abuse, may for a while keep the ascendant-. The principle 
 upon, which I have planted myself will survive both; and 
 reflection will bring with it in its train that sense of justice 
 which never long deserts the breasts of a free, intelligent, and 
 virtuous people. To that sense of justice I now make this, 
 apnea!. 
 
 ■Your fellow-citizen, 
 W. L. YANCEY. 
 
 %'. 
 
 I* 
 
 % 
 
Montgomery, 5th Aug. ; 184$. 
 
 To the People of the State of Alabama. 
 
 Fellow-Citizens: 
 
 It is known that I was a delegate to represent the De- 
 mocracy of the Second Congressional District, in the Balti-' 
 more Convention held in May last. — It is also known that f 
 have been assailed for the eonrse I pursued in that Conven- 
 tion. Now it is not my intention to go into all the details of. 
 the history of that Convention. 
 
 I know- I represented you according to your written in- 
 structions, and for the proof of the assertion I refer you. to 
 your own resolutions passed by your representatives in the 
 State Convention held on the 14th of February last,. the most 
 of which will be found in the address of Cof. Yancey con- 
 tained in this pamphlet.' I have carefully read it, and as- a 
 history of the Baltimore Convention it is correct. It is also 
 correct in its report of my action, and- the feelings which 
 prompted me to take the course which I did. 1 should be 
 ■harpy to know that that course met with your approbation. 
 I have at least yet to learn that you will condemn him who 
 aci'd conscientiously in representing you. 
 
 Verv trulv vour obedient serv't. 
 
 P. A, Wlh 
 
 %•• 
 
 f 
 
s* 
 
 iis-