Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-08-02

things demand il. OF course the writer did DOT
mean by the article a mere abstraction,-a protest
inst s'avery, moral means that should produce
this result,-that it must come to an end when the
Millennium shall dawn upon the world but some
kind of conventional aud legislative action to pro-
duce it.
Asst regards conventional action if provision
could be devised "for the gradual abolition of sla
very adapted Ito present and future condition,
are we not authorized TO say from the article IL
would receive its support? Undoubtedly SO. And
as itregards legislative founded upon IT,
are they not invoked, except that their precise
character is not indicated and the tine when they
shall begin" is left "for prudence to determine 7?
That is equally clear.
We are now prepared to understand the position
ofthe Banner-and how does it sustain that position!
IL is alone upon isolated detached paragraphs
in the first report, made to the convention, when
there two voluminous ones upon the SUBJECT
made to the body from which 1t would be about
as absurd force such conclusion as to find athe-
ism in the Bible from the quotation There IS no
God" emitting the language which precedes it.
Now it is rule OF construction as well as OF com
mon sense that you must take all their acts togeth
err, I'm pari materia," to form a correct judgment
How then does it stand?
The Banner in its first article stated that ''peti-
tOns received from different parts OF the STATE
signed Unfortunately by Shareholders, and non
shareholders praying the convention to incor-
porate into the Constitution, some proVls
ion for the gradual and conditional emancipation
of slaves" In its last, it says, that various
memorials were addressed 10 it," urging the
prospective emancipation of the slaves in the
State. From all this we might suppose there was
a general upheaVing of the popular element IN the
State, which demanded the action OF the conVen-
ton against slavery. But this is quite mistake.
The second report to the convention answers this
assumption of the Banner and shows that the pub
lie opinion" of the State did not demand that
slavery must have an end" and If the conVen-
ton had so declared and acted, they would have
gone beyond aud against that ''public opinion" 1t
says I26 of the Journal shat all the shareholders
who signed the memorials, not the owners OF
FIVE hundred slaves, and probably not OF half that
number"-that memorials had only come up from
sixteen counties, mainly in the Eastern Division OF
the State, and that 'iTom more than two thirds OF
the l6 counties the signers were very few in mum.
ber"-'that from 46 counties in the State lit should
have been 55), no memorials on the subject of em-
ancipation had been presented"-that ''when the
committee consider the facility with which signers
to uettions and memorials, for almost every pur-
pose, can be procured; and when they further re-
feet, that of the $50 900, the supposed number OF
the free white population of this State only 1904
have signed the memorials laid on the table OF the
convention, they esteem it anything else than an
This then OF itself is decisive answer to the Ban
ner's position in regard TO the public sentiment"
of the State and shows distinctly that the people Of
Tennessee were against the movement II is not
probable then under such circumstances that the
convention would have taken any action in report
or otherwise, ''for the gradual abolition of slavery"
to the effect that American slavery must have
an end"
Now let us look at the first report presented to
,bo wbic he oil tn
sustain its position, the circumstances under which
it was directed be made and the object of it. On
the 9th June the resolution of Mr. Stephenson ap.
pointing committee of thirteen, one from each
Congressional District Ito take into consideration
the proprety of designating some period from which
slavery shall not be tolerated in this State, was in
definitely postponed by the decisive majority of SO
to 20, showing that 'the public sentiment of the
State, as reflected through the convention" was
neither hostile to slavery, nor had any sympathy
with the movement; that it would not even delber-
ate upon such question as "the abolition of slav
cry" no matter how remote the period, or at what
distance of time it was to take place. Does this
look if the convention supposed, the time would
arrive, desired it, when slavery would 'have
an end" in the State of Tennessee? Most assured
ly not.
1t was under these circumstances and on the
same day on which Stephenson's resolution re-
jected, that a committee Of three appointed for
specific purpose, ito draught the reasons that GO
vern this convention in declining to act upon the
memorials OF the subject eff slavery" We deem it
unnecessary and it would extend this article too far
TO reproduce these reports, or to extract from them
at length again. We have shown already from the
second report, that ''the public sentiment of the
State" was not hostile slavery and did desire
its overthrow. And we have shown that the con
vention did no act looking to its termination.
1t will be recollected by any who may have read
our former article and the cOpous extracts there
given from these reports, that their main object
was to defend the action of the Convention and
sustain the institution Of slavery; and that they vim
dcated the same upon the highest grounds Of rec
iioion, social pOty and the public wea as well as
the principles of humInty, benevolence and re-
gard TO the true interests OF the slave himself
showing that tho prayer of the memoralists should
not be granted and conclusivey indicating the ac-
ton of the Convention. And no measure was pro
posed or recommended in those reports looking
forward to the time when slavery shall have an
end" And yet there is not a single word said |
either in the Banners last article, the first to
break the overwhelming force of these extracts
from the two reports nor s there any alluson made
to them whatever; are the readers OF the Ban
nerS articles permitted to know there is anything
contained in either report that presents different
view from the two paragraphs which he quotes y
Now if the Editor is right in his supposition that
we are an "old lawyer" upon which make no
issue, perhaps it would not be improper in US,
when an "old editor" reads a lecture in the most
approved Cdudie style, upon fairness, justice and
manliness," upon what is becoming and all that
sort of thing, to commend such words as we most
respectfully do, to his especial use.
We come now to the paragraphs relied upon by
the Banner for its vindication. We will quote
enough to make them fully understood The first
report in the coo cusiOn after having exhausted
the main discussion, says "the memoralisis need
not dread that slavery will be perpetual in our
highly favored country. On the coast OF Africa the
foundation of a mighty Empire is already laid,
and thither the sons a3d daughters of Africa made
free by tie consent Of their masters and transported
by funds furnished by tie beneUOLent shall repair,
and carrying with them the blessings Of civilization
and the truths and consultations OF christianity, they
will in process Of time Danish idolatry, ignorance
and superstition from that wreched land which has
so long been habitation Of horrid cruelty. That
"the ministers of our holy religion will knock at
the door of the hearts Of the owners of slaves tell
ing every one OF them TO let his bond man and his
bond woman go free, and to send them back TO the
land OF their lorefaheTs and the voice ofthese holy
men will be heard and obeyed." That I'm this ,cay
slavery will yet be e1tnguished, in way that will
work no evil to the white man, while it produces
the happiest effects on the whole African race
that this will be 1.-THE accomplishment of ar event
devouty and ardently desired by the wise and good
in every part of our beloved country"
1t will be seen at once that Utopian as is the
idea here presented that such results might follow
the plan oil colonization it contemplates no action
whatever by the convention; either present pro-
spectve. Ii was a mere theoretical opinion OF the
commtte, or most probably the draughtsman of the
report alone, called for in Stephensons resou-
ton, beyond the object Of their appointment, not
contemplated by the convention, audi no just par
lamentary sense could this be regarded as either
the opinion action OF the convention; or binding
upon t. Il is that sort OF ertrgHdieiaI opinion,
wh ch, although it may not have been entertained