Article Title

MESSRS. ROGERS AND PURYEAR.

Authors

Newspaper Title

Semi-weekly Raleigh Register

Publication Date

5-31-1854

Publication Place

Raleigh, North Carolina

Event Topic

Nebraska Bill (Jan-May 1854)

Political Party

Whig

Region

slave state

Disclaimer

Please Note: Some editorials in this collection contain offensive language, opinions, and other content. The editorials serve as evidence of the time period in which they were created and enable us to engage in more truthful conversations about history. The views expressed in these editorials do not reflect Furman University's values or our commitment to embrace meaningful diversity and equality in all of our endeavors. If you have questions or concerns, please e-mail digitalcollections@furman.edu.

Quote

Not only the balance of power broken down, between the slave and the free States, with a large preponderance in the Senate in favor of the latter, but that very section which is now held out as open to the slaveholder, by this very measure, filled up by a foreign population violently hostile to our interests!

Document Type

Article (Journal or Newsletter)

Full Text Transcription

Without waiting to learn the reasons whichinduced these gentlemen to vote against theNebraska Bill, the "Standard" has opened uponthem a most bitter and hyena-like attack. --This is just what might have been expected froma print, which cannot treat a Whig with commonjustice, whilst it is ready, on all occasions, tocloak the acts and motives of members of itsown party, however indefensible they may be.Such malice will but recoil on the head of theEditor; -- it will not hurt the objects of hisassault.

Now the "Standard" knew very well, thatMr. Rogershas been an ardent friend of the Bill, asit came from the Senate, -- that he is in favor ofthe principle of non-intervention, by the GeneralGovernment, on the subject of slavery in theTerritories. Could it not see at once, -- did it notknow, -- the reason which caused Mr. R. to voteagainst the Bill? The Senate Bill had in itwhat was called the "Clayton amendment." Inthe House of Representatives,Mr. Richardson,(a locofoco) moved, as a substitute, another Bill,which did not have in it the said amendment. --Whilst this substitute was under consideration,Mr. Rogers(as the proceedings show,) madestrenous efforts to incorporate the amendment,and make the Bill what it was when it camefrom the Senate. But he was ruled down, andall amendments declared out of order, by alocofoco Speaker.

Now what was the effect of the Clayton amendment?It was this: By the original Bill, allforeigners going into the Territories had a rightto vote at once, without being naturalized, asrequired in other cases. The amendment madeit necessary for them to reside there a certainlength of time and to be naturalized, before theycould exercise the privilege of voting.

The effect of the Bill, without the amendment,on the interests and rights of the South, is tooplain, we take it, to admit of much doubt. --especially should the Homestead Bill becomethe law of the land. Thousands and tens ofthousands of foreigners, having no knowledgeof our institutions, would pour into theseTerritories. They are large enough to make ten orfifteen such States as North Carolina; and buta few years would pass, before six, or eight, orperhaps a larger number of States, carved outof them, would be admitted into the Union, withnon-slaveholding Constitutions. In the meantime,we could look no where for as rapid anincrease in that section where slavery will likelygo. What, then, will be the consequence?Not only the balance of power broken down,between the slave and the free States, with alarge preponderance in the Senate in favor ofthe latter, but that very section which is nowheld out as open to the slaveholder, by this verymeasure, filled up by a foreign populationviolently hostile to our interests!

We presume that no member of Congressfrom the South, of either party, is opposed tothe doctrine of non-intervention, unless it bethat arch locofoco, Thomas H. Benton. This isa great and salutary principle. But is therenot such a thing as surrounding, encumbering,hedging in a principle with such provisos andconditions, as to render it worse than useless, --even make it mischievous and dangerous in theextreme, when accepted with such incumbrances?Congress says, in substance: -- "We acknowledgethe right you have to carry yourslaves to Nebraska andKansas, but, to preventyou from doing so, we will force or decoy intothose Territories a population, who will neverlet you go there, and who will drive you back, ortake away your property, if you do go!"

These things are entitled to some consideration.We can well imagine how Messrs. Rogers andPuryearcould have seen much in theBill which might be injurious to the South,without the Clayton amendment, -- more especiallyin view of the probable passage of theHomestead. That they were honest in theirmotives, no man dare gainsay. The disgracefuland contemptible effort of the "Standard" toreflect upon them, by proclaiming that theyvoted with "Giddings and others," deserves thescorn of every fair minded man in the State.That paper knows that their motives in votingagainst the Bill were as wide apart from thosewhich governed the freesoilers who did the samething, as the poles are asunder. Yet, by asneaking and covert insinuation, it would leavethe impression that they were co-operating withabolitionists!

But why did the "Standard" pass over itsown friends, Houston,Harriss,Benton, andMillson,to vent its mean malice on Messrs.Rogers andPuryear?It was not willing to let it beknown that they were in the company of someof its own special pets and friends.

As to the enquiry, whether their votes do notplace them in a hostile attitude to Messrs.Badger andKerr,the "Standard" need give itselfno uneasiness. Any one of five grains of sense,and a much smaller quantity of honesty, canwell see how these gentlemen might differ as tothe effect of the Clayton amendment, whilst theyagreed on the great principle asserted in theBill. But we ask pardon for saying this much.Messrs. Rogers andPuryear will doubtlessdefine their own positions, and that they areable to take care of themselves, before theirconstituents, without the aid and despite theenmity of the "Standard," we have not the leastmisgivings.

Edited/Proofed by

Entered by Lloyd Benson. Not proofed

Identifier

ncrrkn540531a

Recommended Citation

"MESSRS. ROGERS AND PURYEAR." (1854). Secession Era Newspaper Editorials. 106.
https://scholarexchange.furman.edu/secession-editorials/all/editorials/106

Rights

This item is in the public domain, and can be used by anyone without restriction.