The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-05-06

"Nashyille convention. The communication OF
"Lowndes" renders it necessary TO tax the pa
tience Of your readers with another article
The position of "Lowndes" is that the Nash
vile convention, in recommending the adoption
of the Missouri compromise line, violated the
doctrine of non-intervention and sacrificed the
permanent interests and the just rights of the
South. have endeavored to controvert these
positions and to do this, have made extracts
from the resolutions and address of the Nash
Vile convention and have fully explained the
origin and passage Of the Missouri compromise
bill From these statements, it appears that the
Nashville convention recommended the South
"to acquesce" in the adoption OF the Missouri
compromise line, as "an extreme concession,
upon considerations Of what is due to the sta
bility of our institutions !" and in the address,
the reason for this acquiescence is stated to be,
that although the " compromise is not coexten
sive with our rights" yet AS it has been twice
sanctioned by those who have gone before US, =
the South Knight accept it it offered by the
North" The proceedings of the Nashville con-
venton show coDclusively, that there were
{" grave objections" to the adoption Of the Mis-
sour compromise ine--that it did not give the
South all she had a right to demand; but as the
North were unanimous in the assertion OF her
rights, and the South were divided rs to the
Z" mode and measure Of redress" for the sake of
peace and harmony, and to quiet the distractions
of the country, it was better, under existing cir
cumstances to acquesce in the adoption Of the
Missouri compromise line, extended to the Pa
| citic Ocean.
When Texas was annexed, this covenant be-
tween the North and the South was again re-
newed and slave territory was admitted into
the Union, under the restrictions and prohibit
tons of the Missouri compromise. This CON-
promise was faithfully observed by the South
until l847, when the North repudiated all obi
cations further to respect or regard its provi.
sons, and avowed the constitutional right to
exclude slavery from all of our present and fu-
ture territorial acquisitions This right the
South denies. Its enforcement violates the
Constitution, and destroys the equality Of the
States. 1t makes discrimination between the
property of the North ard the property of the
South, that is injurious in its tendency, partial
in its operations, and degrading in its effects.
The assertion of this right by the North, and its
denial by the South, have brought the two
tons of the country in fearful and angry COLI
son The South must either submit to these
unjust exactons, or resist these arrogant usur-
pations, or these conflicting rights and claims
must be adjusted by compromise. Now the
question is, which course shall be taken! In
the first place, the South will not submit. A
portion of her citizens will cheerfully do so.
They have been paliating the aggressions of the
North and are ready now TO distract and dash
the counsels of the South. But the majority of
the people are determined not to surrender all
their rights and privileges. They have some
respect for the example and instructions of their
revolutionary projentors, and resistance to I'M
just and unconstitutional oppression is one of
the first lessons they have learned. Uncondi.
tional submission then is out of the question.
In the second place, should the South boldly
and at once resist the aggressive policy of the
North, and say to her, that the adoption of any
measure that destroys the equality of the States,
and interdicts the South from an equal partic-
patton in our territorial acquisitions, will beGe-
yarded by her as dissolution of the Union
In the opinion of many, this course is demanded
by the feelings, the dignity aud the true inter
est of the South. But they are regarded as III
traists, dsunionists and traitors. The idea of
resistance to even unconstitutional aggression,
is still considered by many rs rebellion and
treason. To make this resistance efficient, there
must be identity Of feeling, union of sentiment,
and concert of action among ourselves. In the
South we are divided and distracted, and it is
ii part of prudence and of wisdom, to avoid
alike the disgrace of unconditional submission
and the danger of unqualified resistance. This
was the opinion of the Nashville convention.
Its position was at once grand and commanding
The distiny of the South and existence of the
Union were, in some measure, committed to its
custody. 1t took a comprehensive view of our
wrongs and injuries, OF our rights and duties,
and of its obligations and responsibilities In
the spirit Of compromise and as san extreme
concession" the South is recommended ito ac-
ouiesce" in the adoption of the Missouri COM
A 80 rofh ,r off,
sanction and ratfy the recommendation. Meet
inc after meeting is held, apd with scarcely
exceptions enough to vary the monotony
of their proceedings, the resolutions of the
Nashville convention are approved, and the adop-
ton of the Missouri compromise line Is recon
mended.
The " olive branch" that was rendered by the
North and accepted by the South in 1920 is
now offered by the South to the North--and be-
hold ! if is rejected with unanimity and spurned
with contempt With the North, fragment of
the Wing party in some of the Southern States
is found cooperating The democratic party
approve the proceedings of the Nashville Con-
ven,ion, and the Wing party generally are will
ing to acquiesce in the adoption of the Missouri
compromise line. On what grounds do these
" seceders" from the Wing ranks oppose this
measures 1t violates say they, the great South
ern doctrine of" non-interventon"- doctrine
that originated with our favorite, Gen. Cass-
that was sanctioned by the wisdom of the Balti-
more convention, and that was illustrated and
defended by the genius of the Souths most dis
tinruished and patriotic son, the lamented Cal
houn In ls47, we condemned the proceedings
of the Democratic meeting in Montgomery, be
cause it approved of the opinions Of Cass, Dallas
and Buchanan who advocated the doctrine that
Congress had no right TO interfere with the
" slavery queston'--but that it should be left
to the inhabitants OF the territories to decide it
but these sound views" were not correctly ap-
preciated by us then.
This doctrine is the sooner stcne" of our
rights and safety, and now when its wisdom and
efficiency are appreciated and admitted by all,
the Nashville convention inconsderatey aban-
dons il, and actually recommends the Missouri
4 compromise, that violates the Constitution and
sacrifices the rights of the South. II is true,
that compromise forced through Congress
by the influence and eloquence Of our favorite,
| Mr. Claw 'fia true IL restore1 NANCE and har-