Press enter after choosing selection

The Conflict In The South!

The Conflict In The South! image The Conflict In The South! image
Parent Issue
Public Domain
OCR Text

The undersigned, a committee appointod at a democratie meeting receuty held in tho city of Petersburg to ratify the nrninees of tho late national democratie conventioa at Bultimore, daeply impressed with tho paramount necessity that Virginia should now, as in all times past, give the weight of her numerical strenglh and the greater weight of her moral influenco to tho noininees of the national democracy, beg leave to present to our fellow-citizens of the State sorae of tho reasons that induce us to adhere to our ancient party organization and support its utianiruously acoredited candidates. üonceiving that our object can best be attained by a candid examinatiou of the argumenta of those ho huve de tennined to adopt a ditferent courso, we we fchall follow in the main the address recontly published by theseoeótng Vir. ginia delegates in vindieatioa of their actioG, and examine whether the assertions of faot therein will bear the test of security, and whether, even if true, they would furnish tho slightest excuse for their unprecedented action, and the attempted disruption of the national democraey of the Union. We invoke from our fellow-democrats an unbiased consideraron of the queetion, kuowing that they have the itidependonco to follow tho dictates of duty and the conclusión oí their judgment to any issue. The tirst allegation of the address refers to tho condition of things at the opening of the Charleston conyention, aod is couched iu these tercos : " Wben tho conventioa first assembled at Charleston, about one-third of its rnembers were the avowed and eager partisans of a northern candidate who remains the conspicuous champion of a dogma whioh has been eondemned as unconstitutional by the Supremo Court. As now urged, it has degenerated into a mere an-trslavory principio, tendingto divide partios by a goographical line. It is !ess caudid but uot less sectional than the leading tenet of the republican party. In order to sustain the position ol that candidate, the leaders of his party in the convention weroobliged to organize his party upon the basis of an unconstitutional principio and a soctioual sentiment adverse to the Soutn." Now, whatever may have been the caso elsewhere, it is a fact capablo of authentieation by a hundred witnessee that both of the delegates sent by the Petersburg district 'to Charleston, in terras and in person, pledged themselves to give to the claims of this "conspicuous champion of a dogma eondemned as uncoustitutional by the Supremo Court" a consideration equal to that whioh they would accord to any other democrat, North or South, after their respective favorites. As Mr. Broekinridge was Dot the favorite of either, ie follows that they were pledged to give Douglas as fair a chance for the noinination as Breckinridgo. Again, it is a fact capable of equally conclusivo authentieation that both of these gentlemen, the one in person and the other by mouth of a friend, disclatmed all desire to effect any alteration in the Cincinnati platform, and by obvious ioference avowed their willingness to support this champion of an unconstitutional dogma, without any repudiation of that doe,ma. And lastly, the imputation that we, and that largo body of southern demo crats who support Judge Douglas the Johnsous, Boules, Rusts, Forsyths Millers - are advancing "amero antislavery principie, iess candid but nol less seetional than the leading tenet of the republican party," ia a slander that selfrespect demands us to repel at once and in unmietakable terms; the people of Virginia will not endorse it. The authors of tho address proceed to make their first specific charguofunfairness, and we quote their language: " The new rulo to which we allude was, 'that in any State which has not provided or directed by its Stato convontion how its voto miy be given, the convontion will recognize the right of each delégate to cast his individual vote.' The artífice concealed in this rule will bo prosently explained. The rule was first Bubmitted to a cominittee of the convention, and rcjected when ;he committee was f uil Afterwards, n the absence of the delegates from Virginia and other membors, a portion of the committee resolved to report it, Buing unexpectedly sprung upon the convention, it was hurried through without opportunity for diseussion. None }flt those who had studied sorae spoeial iacts not then generally known, could have foreseen its unfair effects and disastrous consequences. Wo opaosed it ae eToneous in principie and contrary to all former usage. lts special depign was afterwards discovered." The assertions of this paragraph are substanüally, tirst, that the ''unit rule" s unfair - socondly, that it was hurried ;hrough without opportunity for discussion. As to the second charge, it is not ony inconsistent with the staternont of the authors of the address that they opoosed the rule, but is fktly contradictod Jy the pbulished report of the proueedngs at Charleston. We quote from the SemiWoekly Iiichmond E&quirtr, of April 26th : "The report of the conimittee on orgauization piessnted un additional rule, providing that in every State which has not provided or directed by the Stato convention how its vote shall be cast, the (.■otivontion will rocognize tho right of each delégate to cast his individual vote. A warm debato aróse on this rulo, in which Mr. Eichardson, Mr. MoCook, Mr. Cessna, of Penn., Mr. Barrv, of Aiississippi, Josiah Randall, and otíiers, took part, tieveral southera memjera earuestly opposing it." The charge of want of disoussion is tiiumphantly refuted, and the charge of undue hastu i.s btill further rebutteu yj the fact that the rule was not voted on at the first dincusíion, but hiy over u r j til the next sessien. Nor is the essential justica of the rule less defonsible than tho modo of ts adopikm. Severa! Statea regularly nstructod their delegates to voto as a ímt, and when this was true the cojiremtion assuniiid no rightto disturb the arrangement; but wbere no rulo was prescribed, itappearod obviously fairest to the delegates, fuirest to the constituencies, and beat caloulutad to olicit the honest preforences of the people, to permit each delégate to cast bis vote for himself. For these reasons it cannot be a matter of surprise that tho inotion to lay this rule on the table was lost by a vote of two to one, and tho rule "adoptod by aoclamation." The case of Pennsylvania, chosen by the authors of the address to show the unfairness of the rule, is partijularly unfortunato, as the ruling of the convention was in accordunco with the uniform practice in Pennsylvania, whow delegates have aevor in 'any instauce cast a united vote, save when they won united in sentiment. Thore was, in short, no violation of principio in the rulu, and it is aa fair to suppose that those who opposed it wero actuated by the hope of soine undue advantnge which its rejection would secure to thum, as to charge the advocates of it with a similar motivu. Tho addrett procceds: " It was by foroe of the contrivanoo wc have explained that a minority rejectod the platform supported by the majority. lts rejection causcd scveral southern States to withdraw from the convention at Charleston. Our conduct iu that crisis has already beea yinuicated bufore you, aud has received your approval." What was their oonduot thus vindioated and approved by the pcoplu of Virginia ? It was this : Üui unanimous and delibérate resolve of the Virginia delegalion not to sjsckde, and tho resolve, equally delibérate, as we shall show directlv, to accept the minority platform, so called - with whit propriety may bo scen from the fact that the first jcsolution passed the convention by a vote of 237 ayes to 05 nays, and the remaining resolutious "by acclamation." To have scceded at Charleston, in view of the fact that thoir conetituoncies had clothcd thcm with no discretion to thut effect, would havo beca a monstroua aasumption of authority. How much moro unjustifiable was this seeesaion at Baltimore, after thej had gathered the senso of their coDstitucnoiea approving their rofusal to secede at Charleston ! The address liere concludes lts account of the Charleston convention, and if auy evidence in addition to tlu faots just detailed were wanting to establish the fact that up to this timo thore was no plausible excuse tbr secession, it is furnished in the act of the Virginia delegates, who not ouly declined to secede, but took their f uil share in tha acts of the oonvention for threo days aubsoqueut to the adoption of the now obaosioai platform, end-eavoriny for jéfty-mvm balloU to put their favorito on that platform as a can didate for the Praidency ! The eonclusion is irresistible that eitlier they and Mr llunter ondors'.'J tho pUtfbra, or that tlioy wero ongagod in the attompt to lauuch the national democracy into a campaign "with a platform looking one way and a candidato the otLor." The address now proceeds to givc an account of the adjourned moeting at Baltimore, and keeping in mimi the "fact that the Virginia delegates, by the most soleurn, unanimous, andunequivocal acts, declared that up to this period there was no just cause for secession, let us examine their statements of fact as to tho Baltimore meeting, Tho first charge made by the nddress against thft Baltimore convention is tho attempt to exclude the delega tes from Mississippi, Texas and Georgia, upon whieh the address enlarges. The soceders certainly do not mean to aasort that the convention showed auv disposition to oxcludö tho dolegates frow Miawasipp and Texaa. No charge could bo more gratuitous. Tho committce reported in favor of the admission and the convention confirmed the report - in each case admit ting the delegates from those states by a vote of 250 to 2J. Fivo hundred delegates voted aye, "and only firo nay." And in the case of Georgia, tho convention, as the address admite, also decided the question in Hoeordanee with justico and with the wishes of the South, admitting the seceders and exchuliug their (.ontestants by a voto of 145 to 106, Indeed, the addross itsjlf, havmg "devoted more space to the oasea of Mississippi, Texas, aud Georgia, than it bestows upon tho entiro procoedings at 'J'iaileston, obviously with the attempt to créate the impression that the conven tion was bent upon injustica, concludes by affirming that the couveutioa "waired all the objeetions which were suggestcd, and properly reduced the" inquiryo the' simple question, who are the regular representatives of tho democracy of the South V' There romained the oase of Alubamu and Louisann, in which there wero full sets of delegates oornpeting- Arkansas, where there was a artial corapetitioD, and in the case of Missouri and M KachusettB one coiitosted seat in each of the dtilegations. The address does not pretend to enter into any argument to show that the convention made an errruveous decisión as to these cases, but cotuenïs itselt with a mere sweeping affirmauce of the cliarge We sh:ill therefore dismiss it wiih a few reflections which inustsng geit thumselvos to any fair-inlnded man. Ut. No principie can be clearer than tho nght ol representative asaembües to Jüdge oí the quaiifications of their raeraiber'. Dtdtates of obvious propriety and necessity cotnmeiid the general adoption of this ruin in all deliberativa bodiM. The constitution of the Union and the organic laws of the Stato in the Confederaoy contains provisions similar to that in own constitution (Art. IV., sect. 0,) "Eaoh house shal! judgu of tho electiou, qualification, and return of its menibors." To recognizo tho right, and to object to its exercise exoept in acoord mee with our wishes or interosts, a posi tion too puerüe to mcrit disoussion, and henjo we findthe most iiDwarraotable acts bom under its operation. It was liqder the force of this iderrdenl ralè thut Frank lilair, a bliek repubücan was, a few weeks sinco, adnJitted t a s jat in Congress f om S'. Ijorrin, ovar a democratie cornpetitor who had beuten 'urn 600 votes. This olear mitrare though porpetrateil by a sti'.ct partv vote, was not thoiight by th Viigini'n dejogation ip Congres ajiwt teround for a teci'Ssion. 2d. In tho caso oi 3r;;ssaeh'.!ietU and Miaaouri the convon'ion dctdMÍ thnt, when a delegóte hjils from anv cause to accept his trust, and his altérnate takes hi.s placo, the latter ia fortliwith iuvcsted with full powerg as delegato. Any other courso would, it appears to us, lead to perpetual eonñiots, to confuwioo and uneertainty as to the limit of the power of the a'ternates, and to the wanto of thu time of tlio oonv;ntion in pet;y pefgooal squabblta, au it would. bo competent for a principal to appear it inv moment nnd oust a substituto who might havo been so conneoted with the action of the body, as oommitteerrian, author of resolutionn or othcrwise, that the pubstitution of a new man would ferioiirtly retard the btlMMH of the body. By no fair construction can the refusal of tl'o püncipal to attetid the convention be regarded otherwise thun a sunender of his office, rnd, aR, the altérnate is always no tho choico of the people than the principal, it ia obvious that no injustos can bo done to the constituencies except by the appointing power, the people themselves. 3d. In the case of Arkansas all tho contestant were admitted and authorized to cast in conjunetion lhe voto of the State - a decisión for which abundant precedent may be found in the past hit-tory of democratie conventiona, for example, in the case of Georgia the Baltimore oonvention of 1852. 4th. There remain only the casos Alabama and Louisiana, in each 01 whieh were two sets of dolegates- the seceders and the delegations appointed ubsequent to tho secession by State conventions ropresenting the anti seceders. Tha conventiou wus called upon to choose botwoen them : there was no room for compromiso, for the parlies refused compromiso. On the oue 8ida was a party proparod to abide the deeisiou of the convenlion; on the othea a party instrueted to witbdraw if thoy did not obtain thoir desires - a party which had demonstraled its purpose of secession by a previous coribummation of that act. Both elaimed to represent the people, and it cannot be thought u matter ot wonder that the convontion in each euse admitted that dolegatio whioh carne prepared to act in good fuith for the common interest of all. But, admitting for tho suko of argument that tho decisión was erroneoua, is it not tha extre'no of bsurdity to pretend that such an objeetion fiirnishtíd the shadow of a reason for tho rupture of the democratie party ? Imagino the storm of indignant rebuko with whioh a State democratie conventïon in Virginia would have reoeived a resolution instructing the Virginia délogates to witbdraw from a oational oonveDtion unless their wishes as to the docision of' oontested seata vvore corapliod with ! This was not the conlingency provided for even in the Alabatna resol utiona. Such aa act of tolly would have been as promptlv scouted there as liero. Still on the adoption of the rnujority report tho representativos of soveral southern States abnndotied thwr seats, and twenty-five Virginia dolt gates, who could not be drivoh out Charleston on a quostlon ot fundament al principie, seceded at B iltimore on .v quoition of urganizatiun .' an act, wa venture to atünn. Unwarruntod bv unr eepressed or implied instructlonx, 'justi 5ud by in: eonuideration of principie tnw püüüy, condejn e 1 in adyuoce b the oudorsernent by constituent ((V the oppositu courne, as they (hetnselves adaiit, and unanthorized hv iniy prucadent in the history of thu Virgiuia do njocracjr. The platform was not an insuperable objection, for it must never bo forgottèn that they trie! at Charleston for tlireo days to piare Mr. Huntcr upon it as the national democratie candidato for the Presidenny. Hostility to Judr„ Douglas, with 'all his unoonatu'ional heresies, tho address in tunns donics and disclaims as a reason of their ac;.SThe ruling as to coutested seats could not havo been tho reason, however i. was made the occasion ; for the causo is absurdly inadequate to the effect. What was the cause? A determinaaation to have Mr. Hun ter or nobodv ? A desire to spito tfie friends of Jud'o Douglas? A resol ve to rule or ruin ? Átame subservience to tho traitor spirit of áisunion? Wo trust it wa noce of these, What then ? The iddress is íátaJlv silent. But it pmueeda : " Thosu who remained in tho northern éótional convention madó nominatiuns of cnndidatia for tho offic oí Prosident and Vioo Prosidant. The former is reported to havo received only 181 J votes - leas th.iii two oí a ful. convention." This is an error oí fact. Judgo Douglas received the 'tinammous voteii the convention (which " is reported" ín have containod over 200 votos), and. considennjjhow many more Statos wero represontod in that body than n the soceders, convention, we are at a loss to see the propriety of the term ' sectional" aè applied thareto. If tho nurnbor of Stil tos or the numbor oi dolafatea deferminethe question of nütionuüty nn ono can bo at a to decido to whih body this term applies. Tho seqession having been cffecteJ, the national convention proceoded to nomínate their caudidates, hioh being accomplished, the follovviDg resolutiou was adopted a-i a part rif the platform : " 11 solved, That it is in accordance with tho true interpretation of the Citidaoati platform that during the exist once of Territorial govunimeuts, 'tho measure of restriction, whateverit may be, imposed by the Federal coustitution on the powera of tho Ten itorial Legislattue over the subject of domestic relations, as thu samo has boen, or shall hereaitar be, flnallv determinad by the Supremo Court öi the United Statos, shalt be respeoted by all good citizons, and enfurced with promptnesa and tidolily by every braooh of thu Federal governinont.'1 A resolution which removes the las shadow of excuse for southera oppo.,ition to tho platform. Jtiitherto we hive oonfined ourselvcs to considorations growing aut oi thi acts of tho l;tro oobventioo, abstaining irom any roferonce to the cbaraetor oT purposn of the authort o! lhe secessk, and we make bold to elaiin that thero is not the aerablance of a roasooablo pretext u those ucts for the disruption of that historie pa:ty wbich torso manv veurs has contrciled tho acts, sh a-pui the fortuno, and workod out the do.-tiny of this groit ropublio. Tho address which wo have briofly reviüwod studiously avoids all diseussion, or Indeed affirmaties, of theprin ciple which in is elsewhere avowed cotistrtutes this issue. Tho silene-o is om inous. It' ho authors of the ad Ires imagine that the ivfloeting, patriot:o p -i plo of Virginia nn bo wioldod at will by any man or bdy ot man, thty ïuve, yo apprehend, greatly undorrated ,hoir inteftigttDco nd public virtue. . Before tHey wil] abandon their party tias, and di-srupt that politica] organizaron which thoy have proudly claiiucd to Lid iht) onlv coü.si-v.iti-'o power in this va u '.ilic aj qu .te t the maiotaiaf constitutioual lil erty aud State figüts, thcy í ill doiiKinü some higber ■ ÉfTTiTirrmw tiiM'ivo tin; more will ot :mv body r I1H.-M, rtwpyctablu fur thoir talons ,r inliuenca pr nurnbera 'V,ntt.iMnpi.oi' -IimiIit.' to Bworvo the dein ocratic ina&sea of Virginia froin their political faith hns boen ofteo tried, nn I with a iiiiitor:ii res'ilt- tliü pplitical deBtrnotion oj tliu evil uniinnelora. WJiHtj ilion, s ilio is.-iiic i' principie upoo whicli nfi-i'.ssiiniist.-i divido th domoocatio party ? Thcy coatend tbat it is the duty of Congreas to provide fór Uio proteotion of Blflvtj prnperty in the Territorios liv special le'iis.uticiii, if the Terrkoruil Legislj)tui't93 i'iiil to tnake 8ach provisión. The objectionfl to iliis doctrine are numorous, and, it appeaibto us, inmnBwerliWo. Aiiú, tirstlv, we conu-ii'l thai ilio power and uuty cluiiued fr Goiifrres.s ura anomnlons. It is nut pretended that it i.s tb o duty of GoDgrond to i uter vene lor the protec'tion cf i'.üv other de8cription of propertv. A hilliard table, lor example, w is obviously a subject if riperty :is n slave ; vet the beneficia! use of a billiard tüblo may bu prcvontoil in it Territory n in i State, by a tax so high as to amouot to a prohibition ; j vet it is not pretended tliat it is Ihe j rigbt or duty of Copgrea to intorveno for the proteetion ot thia proporiy. - Tlie same is ttue oL spirituous liquora, and is gouerally true ot il! propciiy the use and traíhc in wliicli mvolvos consileratuca of (sentiiüout and muralj tv, howevor misguided. In aooordance with this 'view the deinucratio party and üiu South have hitherto dcnicil the jurtadiotion oí Congress on. the Ruliject, ■■lainnna that put on a fuoting of preciso uquality wiih ill other propeity. Tlio assei-tion of the Soutíi has been in entire accordance with tho de liberalely exprossed opinión of General Luiie, tiic Bcesaioo candidato for tho Vico Presidency, wbo in a speeoji dülivercd ia the Senute on the liTlIi of Deconiltcr, 1859, three yeara alter tlie D'red Scott ducision, saiil, "Conffross has NO POWER ovev the queStioja f lavery; they cannot undcr the constiiiHion eatabliah it iu uTerriloryor pro1 -.1 ■■ ■ 11 uiur.:n" .. f1 fecondly. We contènd itiüt ui 1 rciae of sUcli power, it it vvei'Q ctvrici, -.vouW lie physicaily imorácticable. ST'O nbiíervation is moro common or rtitre t'rrte than this : that n luw eau bo trxecutcd which is not upheld by loal 'piflilii; sentiment A dualist cannot ne eonvieted of murdw in Virginia : a t'liai1d8ton jury will not proclaiin the slave tra dé piiacy ■ a Mobile jury refiisod lo condenan fillibustering; Amerir-anjurim will not punish the tnurderer of a oédVicár- .and the list might be greíítlKp uiUïij-jcd. For analogous reawne it is tibsiirtl to hope ior the enfbpociiior.t i d a filare code in :i freo soit ifflnfjry, moro especially when w re inetni(r Ihat the law sought to be enloro Cl] 'ik tho óistastoful mándate of it for ,;ip"j Legislnture. Tljrdly. TiifitiL?l. tlie power claimed ■weie regular and practicable, its exerciso in contraventiop of the popular will would bo a fatal Sliare to the öonth. Tt being conceded that it is theduty of OotTgrèss to ndinit a State riih or without slavery as the people mav determina, the intervenlion of Congres? boiild liave no other effect than to induce sláyeholdera to take tlieir properly into tt Territory wbere, at a' porlod moro or les.s remóte, wonïd bo destrnv(il with a ceítajnry and rntblêesfféaa pr'oportiúnate lo tlie 'jpposition of' tlie people to tho intorvontion ol Conirrrss. AitI, mowover, il inU'ivontion in to last no longer thun durinsz tho Territorial condition, the propertv of the slaveholdcr will bocome va'ueless preeisely ut the instant that it rises into politica I intiuenee as an element of Representation in Congresa. Ho that, both in poliücal and in a pecuuiary eense, ivo hold " iuterventiofi" a sn;;ro to the South. Fourthlv. The establishment of this doctrine would ïnevitably perpetúate tho slavery agitation in Congreas. To avert. this fatal and constant agjlaüon Ilusionar been tho aspiration ofeverv patriot's henrt. Conservative parlies have in terms proel aimed it a paramount consideration of polioy, and conservative, men havo otten ghaped their politica] relations with exclusive ïcfeieneo to this object. Bilt tho doctrine of intervention opens the door to infinite eontroversy. Not only will the frhming of each new Territorial bilí be the bignal ior reoewing tho battle, but Oongress wil be constanlly assailod with potitinns on the one hand affirming the protecMon to be inadequate, and on the other unnecessarily great. One party wi 1 cóntinually demand inoro protect ion; the other cóntinually ask more restriction. Which party will be the most likely to obtain a favorable hearing in an abnlitton Cmtgrcs, it is not difficult toBurmise; lor Oongress, being sover ign and independeut within its sphore, no earthlv power can forcé it to pass a law obnoxious to the will of tho majoiitv. F!fthly. Though the principio wcre normal, and practicable, nnd advantageousto uk, and fraught with no danger to tho public peace, it is a question purely of lcgiil confitruc'ion of powers, and must be settled by tho judiciary, to whose decisión all democra's, and nono moro willingly than Judgc Douglas. wil] eheorfully hovr. We are awaro that it is claimed by ome that tho Supremo Court has doeided tho question, but suroly Judge J)ouglas may be permitted to doubt the fact when euch a constitutional lavvycr ju Hon. Reverdy Johnson denies if, and Mich a politieal modol as tho candidato of the seceders for Viee President, as we have above man, denios all authori ty of Concress in term no less unequivocal. When the Suprumu Court has decided it, or if that tribunal has alrendy decidod it, Judge Douglas openly and on all suitublc occasions avows his resolve to ncquience at onco. Bixthly. We contond that the principio evveepa away the last bulvvark ol southern paiet}' on tlio slavo quostion. If the juri ietiou of' Congrossbe once admitted on this subject, tho gate is at once poned for thelargost licfiose. It i die to hope that tho action of Congress will be I mi teel to favorable legislation - idlo in faot to hopo that a Conpress notoriousl}' black repubHcan ever will logislatö for the benefit of slavcry ; nd nono fooi the truth cf this more clearly than the leaders of the seceders. They know that a black ropubücan Conpress will not pass lawa protecting plavery, and there on making this dogma a party tost can oily be cv jilainod on tho supposition that, tho d'.sruption of the Union boing witli thom il foregone conclusión, Uiey have örgnnizód thoir party on a domand whiph thay k'noit) cannot bo compliod wiih, that thoro may be no dolay or doubt in procipitnting th; issue of rovolution. Ko, if Congross uhdertakes to lcni.):iteo0 this 8ubjicf,h!8tiry is not wkho-u instructive warnhig as to the probabl uharseter f siich lègislation. Th Spanisfl court once claimed the sam right to legislatü on slavcry in Cuba and the un nis of the islnnd inform us that onu of the proteotive laws pcrmilted any negro who was dissatisfied with bis master to go bafore a notary, who sIkhiIi.I mhsoss ],is value, which priqe the ti mtor as bound to accept f rom my pwrBOii whom the slave chose as now owner, Nor ure we without ndmonitton nenrer homo. Oarown Gopgresi has in four memorable ibstancés aseutn ei! juris'iiction as to the questiouofl nlavery. ín the tïrst oase it swopt Blavery forever froiK the ïforthwest Territoryj in the second it mado the bImvu trido piracy; ipthe third it estubüshod the Missouri compromiso lino; in the loorth it. abolishod the slavo {.!:;'! i:i (hu District of Co iimbia - And is tho banquet tliat tho rocessionists invito tho South to. Lastly, if the principio were right, and expodieOt, and practicable, and useful in its nature, it is at this period uuneeessary, On this subject we phrill oontont ourBolvea wiih quoting thu lánguage of an ablo advocate of '-intervunlion," an ultra southorn man. and one of the clearest nr.nds of the South, Jurigo Re:igan. of i Tazas. In a spoccíi delirered in Conj gress a fow weeka bofore tho inoetini of j the Charleston eonvention, ho usecl the following lancruago [Duihj Globe, March 1, 1860): "As I have spoken of the power of Gongres8 to protect slavery in the Territui ies, I must say a word moro tu avoid bei og miaasderstood. I havo eaid Oongreoa has the power, and that ciruiimAtanoes moy reuaer tho ezercite '■f iiat power QeoesBary. But I am not discusaing the question now, and do not wish to bo understood as sayiog Hiere is any nacossity for its exorcise at this time. Blavery ia not expected to L." into Washington or Nebreska or Kansas Territorios ; and henee no laws are necessurj for its protection there - ít now exi-ts to a limited exteut in New Mexico and Utah. In Now ]Iexico lbo Territorial Logishituro has passed the necefsary lawa for its protection ; and in Utah thero is no complaint ol a vvuut of additíoDa] proteoUof This covers all our TurHpnes, qnd shows ( m UfMteU wto mce,sari m -■ie suiijcvt,'' Fellovvdemocrats of Virginia, can such a barren abstraclion as thie justify lie disruption of your party, much lees ho ovortlirow of your country? To tb ia attereoneummation we solemnly believe hesecession moveinent inuvitably tends. Al;iny of tho supportois ol socession would shrink with horror irom this caaatrophy; but that inch is the object of ts leaders, their character and antocedents conolusivoly estabüsh. We do hoso leaders the justico to suprose that hoy aro in earnest, that they havo reolved to secure this assumed right, and liuy cannot be sufpectud of tho ohild'a Any of quietly acíuicsciug in defeat, vhen tho principio iuvolved is of 6uch ranscendeut consoquence Everyone oncedes that they wtl be defeated be'ore the peoplo, and ivhat tlton 1 W 11 hey tamely subniit lor lour years to :his lawloss oppression, with no certainy of deliveranco then ? The idea ia noposterous; revolutitma never go ackward. lf any considerable prr,ioo of tho people support thern, the jullotin of del'eat wil] be the signal ol evolt. Tho cotton States, to uso the anguage of tho head of this movoTient, "will be precipitated into revoiuon," and Virginia, with the other o'uthern States, will bo invited to mi ato the diofniñed oxainple set at Baltinore, and f'ollow the wake of tho more etermined States out of the Utiion. Let us sell ourselves to no such fatal nd wicked schcine. No, fellow-demorats of Virginia, let us rally under tho ncient banuer of our party, loj'al to the reed of our fathors, faithf'ul to the Unon, that noblcst monument and guarantee f' natural rights aud political frecdoin. jet us redeem our pledges, observe our ompacts, keep our faitn, happy in the onvietion that this patriotic course is cuirely conistent with the paramount alleiance to State rights which the deinocaoy of Virginia have ever cherished with loro than oriental devotion. Alröady intimations reacb us on every and, that "the sober second thoughf' of ïany who at first lent their countenauce o this parrioidal blow at democracy aud Jniou h:s led to the rctracing of their teps. Still, the cohorte of scctionalism mnder at our gatos, and now, as iu evey day of glooiu, to the "Old Guard" of Virginia, is committed the uoble office of tanding in the deadly breach and summoning the seattered legions to the walls. ccept the danger and the duty - your llorious history proclaims you capable of (ie saeritico and worthy of the post. - et us uuito now as we did in the immortal canvass of 1855, and the proud ecord may be ours, that twiee in a single decade we have saved the Republic. FRANCIS E, KIVES, THOMAS WALLAGE, THOMAS BKANCII, A. M. KELLEY, Oommittee. Petersburg, July 3d, 1860.