Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1851-07-22
lie have, however, charged. aDd

the fact. We have, however, charged, and
we now repeat it. that The editor o: the Jour
ncl 10 assailIpg and evidently surviving TO
weaken Tou,dales position on the Cqmpfo-
mise, in bis attacks on Us Tor moi reasoning
on that measuFe as he does-thsl he is using
us as an Instrument with which to accom-
plish his purpose in ihis matter. To prove
that the Journal is guilty Of this charge. we
need only reisf TO The manner N WHICH he
mixes up all Of Gov. IT ousdsle's views on
Ihe Compfomise with few others that are
entertained by some in South Carolina and
Mississippi. which that editor knows TO be
odious 10 all Tennesseeans; and then mali
ciousiy chargfs US with Propsganlg the
whole as he has arranged il. In this way,
we contend. he is guilty Of attempting 10
weaken Trousdaie's position, from which ne
cannut escape by charging US with secession
and other ultra smeasures-charges which he
makes with hope OF soaring The people oil
Lincoln from us. TsIs, thank God. IS mere
assertion: resting alone on his unsupported
word. II our space would permit. we would
extract his own words on this subject, fIom
the last rumbero the Journal, in which he
sets os Irousdales position and the
odious additions alluded 10, waIch he is
pleased TO class as our inference front the res
olnions Of the Democratic Convention NOM
mating Trousdale. We regret that the eA-
tended length Of this article will moi permit
US 10 do so al this lime
The Iaborio1s effort you make to prove by
The Democratic resolutions and the Nashville
american, that difference Of opinion on the
Compromise was no cause OF complaint
among Democrats. is strange. They are
strange documents for you 10 refer 10. Tor we
endorse every word Of the resolutions and
extract, and never have assaIled any Demo-
crat Tor his opinion or vote on the Compro-
nIse.s And what is more remarkable IS The
Iacr, hal The authority you have referred 10
with which 10 crimiGaie US. IS alone caicula-
ted 10 Condemn Your whole course IN THIS
matter; Tor we assert, that you are the only
editor IN Tennessee who has violated that
rae, and wasted his ume 10 prove himself
guilty. We institute brief comparison OF
| The Journals present and past views Of the
Compromise. and closes In that paper oil
| June 5ih, tina, editor endorsed the following
| position on The Compromise: "ln them (ihe
six measures constituting the Compromise
~ Southern right or principle had been IRAN
! niej upon. IL was settled on Southern prin
id'ples" This was tie language the Journal
endorsed IN June. Now compare this with
| THo' Nc Sh1S Ou 'nf ltiu " Juifs du0i 1Oo
VIII see the soTi Of consistency contained n The
| .Es!rong" articles of the editor Of that prln,:
The South was justly entitled TO protection
in the possession OF slave properly IN The
territories acquired from Mexico. The Com
promise II short Of securing that right."-
Here is the consisrenry Of the ''strong" arti
Gle man Of the Journal In June he says,
mo Southern right OF principle was rram-
pied upon. in Jn.y he says, 1.-The South was
justly enuIled 10 protection in the possession
of slave property in the territories acquired
from Mexico. The Compromise fell short
Of securing that riehtl' Yes this is his Ian.
guagf; and YET he says il was settled on
Southern principles This is The man who
wants to edit both papers. 10 very PHYS
sake. we stop He will be waking the
streets next on his hands, with his feet in the
air, and standing al his desk on his head
| Surely surely-aller this refutsGon OF
your charges, and explanation Of our views,
you will cease your war Of words, and lei
peace be between US; for we can see no fur
ther cause for quarrel on Jour part. We nave
certainly convinced you. or others al least.
that yen are not more man capable of editing
tie Journal much less. the Journal and
| Observer both.