.MTA2NA.NzIzMDI

From Newberry Transcribe
Revision as of 11:52, 24 July 2020 by imported>Kitsapian (Created page with "great veneration for its authority. He groans under its pressure, writhes under the galling yoke; he struggles, he labours prodigiously to throw off the restraint, but cannot...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

great veneration for its authority. He groans under its pressure, writhes under the galling yoke; he struggles, he labours prodigiously to throw off the restraint, but cannot. He is bound, hand & foot, by the potent compromise! With solicitude he exclaims, "What was to be done? Were we to sit still under the impression that our hands are tied by the compromise?" "We did not so judge our duty." The hour of deliverance arrived, and in a paroxysm of patriotism, as if by one mighty effort, he bursts the "compromise" asunder, -- the shackles fall, and at once he finds himself A Free Man! Free! Yes, and more than free; for the plenary powers of the community are fallen on him. Now, to his heart's content, he can act on behalf of his Nation: spite of the "Entire power," in the hands of the delegation at Washington. The potent unction is communicated to his associates: and they spontaneously spring up into Chiefs, Headmen and People, in General Council Assembled, at New Echota. And the Treaty is concluded. This fallacy is too glaring to be treated with serious respect. He batters down this "compromise," as if it imposed some restraint on his actions. But, admitting that it did so, -- what would be the effect of its removal? Clearly, a restoration to the condition he was in before its existence. Before the existence then, of that instrument, did he profess the power to sell our country and to extinguish our rights? And did this instrument suspend the exercise of those powers? If not, we are still at a loss to know how, strikeout: by the demolishing of this "compromise", should invest him and strikeout: the his associates with the plenary powers of the nation. To get rid of this provoking question of right, the writer in a tone of assumed confidence asks this fallacious question -- "will you not admit, that I had a right to resign my station as a delegate, -- and having so resigned, that I had a right to go with another delegation, whose principles of action were more congenial with my views." The true question is, had the writer and the delegation of his choice, power to act in