The New Hampshire Gazette

SEPARATION OF THE STATES!!

The federalists not only deny that they wish for a separation of the union; but they go so far as to impute a wish of treasonable to the republicans. We never supposed for a moment that the federal party at large would advocate so wicked and ruinous a measure ; but unfortunately the federalists at large know no more of the designs of their leaders than they do of the secret views of Bonaparte, or the Turkish Divan of Constantinople. When Pickering drank his late toast, at New York, he did not explain to his gaping auditory the allusion it evidently contained, to a separation. He did not tell them that what he said about " no limits to affection" between New York and New England had a squinting at an alliance between this state and those of New-England, to oppose the southern states, upon some plausible, but unfounded pretext of opposite interests; nor did Mr. Hillhouse, when he toasted, at the late federal feast in New Haven, " The state of New York: when he looks to her compass he will see that the needle points to the north !" undertake to declare his meaning, unequivocally, to his deluded followers But what man of discernment will be at a loss for the meaning of these dark and jesuitical hints at an object, which those who cherish the hope of effecting it, dare not openly avow. To accurate observers it is clear, as the hand writing on the wall. that some of the federal leaders, and more particularly those of the Essex Junto, aimed at a separation of the union, and an alliance between the northern states, Canada, and Great Britain. A federal hand-bill, recommending this system, has been recently published at New. Haven. Independent of this fact, and the numerous indications of a spirit hostile to the union. which have appeared in federal toasts, and federal editorial remarks, we should be glad to see Christopher Gore, Timothy Bigelow, Harrison G. Otis, and Rufus King, &c. come out and deny publicly that the question of dividing the union was not seriously discussed at a caucus of which they were members,and which was held at the city of New York, during the last fall. Let them say who, in that caucus advocated and who opposed the measure; whether they were not all in favor of a division, and differed only as to the boundaries; whether one party did not propose the Potomac, another the Hudson; and whether a third did not contend for three instead of two distinct sovereignties, of which the states south of the Potomac should be one ; New York and New England the other ; leaving New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware to form a central sovereignty, which it was thought would generally hold the balance of power, and prevent the frequent repetition of wars between the several separate confederacies. And let them finally say, whether the caucus though it could not agree exactly as to the lines of division, did not agree that so soon as they should ascertain the election of a federal president to be unattainable, they would endeavour to foment an insurrection in the Eastern States, and let it take its course!

All that we have here stated we solemnly believe to be true; that such caucus was held, and that the majority were decidedly in favour of a DIVISION, differing only as to the boundaries. Albany Relic