{"character_count": 5141, "word_count": 894, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9610999822616577], "ccnet_perplexity": [847.7999877929688], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}


 South Carolina on the subject of Texas, and upon them founds a charge ssthat a party ex- lsts Tn that State seeking dissolution of the Union, and for that purpose employing the 1 3pretext of the rejection of Mir Tvler's abomi- nable treaty.o In nconnexion with this charge he makes the assertion, that '.the leading and paramount object of his life'' has been "the preservation of this Union''

 Here Mir. Clay shows the cIoyen foot dis tnctly. If few individuals of a single Soutitern State, under the highest excitement produced by the defeat of measure they re- garded as indispensable to their own welfare. as well as to national security, and the per petuity of our institutions, happen to make q contingent allusion to dissolution of the Umon, he makes against them the unqualified charge, that they are "seeking dissolation oi the inlon." He Is at once seized with a holy horror, must travel out of his way to as1 sall them and musttell us that ''the parapsount object of his kte has been 10 preserue Me Uaioa.''

 But where is the evidence of Mir. Claws sensibility, when his abolition friends openly propose dissolution of the Union? Did he make any charge, or utter any denunciation agamst hls friend, John Quincy Adams, when he presented memorial, two or three ses- slons ago, praying for dissolution of the Unlon We have not heard him utter one word of disapprobation or censure, against John Quincy Adams, Seth NJ Gates, William Blade, Wm. 5. Calhoun, Joshua R. Giddings, and seven or eight other abolition members of Congress, who published an address ssto the people of the free States of this Union,n on the Sd of March, lS43, in which they re- mark: "We hesitate not to say, that anaera- lion (of Texas) effected by any act or pro- ceedlng of the Federal Government or any of It's departments, arouid be identical wih dis sotMtono In the same address those friends of Mir. Clay declared their opinion that an- neratlon would "not only inevitably result in dissolution of the Union, but would justify tt"-and not only asserted ssthat the people ol the free States ought not to submit to it,'' but that Mey acouzd not submit 10 t. Yet we hear no complaint of Mr Clay against these distinguished and influential northern mem- bers of Congress, headed by his worthy friend and compeer, John Quincy Adams but he IS at once horror-stricken, if a few 1ricate citizens of Southern State who believe their security and interest have been outraged, do but allude to the subject

 How can Mir. Clay, under such circum- stances, have the hardihood to deny "eourt- ing the abolitionists0 If he did not intend s'courting the abolitonists,n why did he, all at once, determine against the expediency of the annexation of Texas, when in 1920 he had declared the treaty nullty? And when Tn 1895 and 1927 while Spain was at war with Mexico, he endeavored to reacquire Texas If the measure was right hen how has It become acroglg now ? Ifitbe wrong to treat for the acquisition of Texas, because Mexico has not acknowledged her indepen- dence, was itnot wrong to treat with Mexico, for the same country, when Spain was at war with her? It IS impossible for Mr. Clay to reconcile these inconsistencies.-0f ali men on earth, his position, on this subject, is the most indefensible. ltis impossible to account for his conduct, without recalling 10 mind the fact, that in 1920, 1895, and 1927, when Mr. Clay was resisting the transfer of the coun- try to Spain, and endeavofing to reacqure il from Mexico, here acas no nualcrous, orgd- nized, and formidable abolition pdrty, which held the controlling power in certain State elections in the north but, noac there issuch party, and he knows there is no way so cer- tain to obtain their votes, as by minisering to their fanatieism, by falling into their views If this be not courting the abolitonists, what IS It |? We are no disunionists-nor have we ever been. Nor have we ever been nulifers. or defenders of the doctrine of notification Yet we could not consent to suffer such bare faed inconsistency and hypocrisy to pass un- noticed. Had we time, we could quote other portions of Mr. Clay's anti-Texas, and, we may add, anti.america, letter, which go clearly to sustain the charge that he intended by it, to 'court'' and win ''the aboltionists,' 3 from which he IS now endeavoring to extri- cate himself so disingenuously. And, we call on our readers to notice, that, even now, in his lame attempt to put new face upon his former letter, he no Uhere Says, Mat he icould De in fauor of admitting Tenas, though C ma Jority of the people, or c majority of tue States, migh 6e na ,fauor of the measure.-- He still sticks to his indefinite and equivocal language of ''a considerable and respectable portion ot He CoJederacy''-never intima- ting whatnumber of States or people he would regard as s'considerable and respectable.''- He is about as definite as the witness, who in describing stone, throwa by the. defen- dant at the prosecutor. could be prevailed on to give no better description, than that Sit was about the size of piece of chaM.o

 From he Washington Globe

 LETTER OF GOV. STEELE.