The Winchester appeal. [volume] (Winchester, Tenn.) 1856-1856, 1856-04-26
slavery, which have always denied.

slavery, which have always denied.
Mr.. Smith, of Tennessee. ! do no
wish to consume any Of my colleague
time. | only ask question, that he may
explain in regard to the point suggested
If the seventh section Of the new plat
form embraced the principle of the 12ll
section of the old one, why was the OLE
one abolsh and the new one adopted
Mr.. Zollicofcr. 1t may have been be
cause my colleague and the political ora
tors and editors Of his party had so fierce
ly assaled the twelfth section. They
prolesscd then (howevcr much they arr
noao in love with iD to regard it as {
miscrably "unsound" section, The off
cial organ of the Administration, the
Washington Union, even as late as the
10th February last, denounced it as en-
bodying ga discreditable and inexcusablt
concession to Abolitionism." The organ
of Democracy at Nashville called it q
"wishy washy" concern, which "re(used
to sanction the principle of the Nebraska
bill" These are but samples Of thou.
sand similar assaults throughout the lines
OF Southern Democracy-while at the
North it was actively assaulted as sur,
render to the Slave poaDer." ! say it may
be that these things had their influence.
But | speak alone for myselG-not under.
taking to state the position Of other mem.
bers Of the Council--while | approved
the "pith and marrow" of the twelfth
section, | was willing to accept the sew
enth section of the present platform in
lieu, because it embodied the same prin.
ciple, y Il
My colleague expressed regret that |
had remarked, in debate here, that re.
garded mon who lived in the South, and
believed in the constitutionality Of the
Wilmot Proviso, as being, though not
intending it, more dangerous to the South
than Northern Abolitionists. Here, again,
my colleague does not present correctly
the sentiment which is uttered. 1t will
be remembered that, on the 18th of Jan.
uary last, distinguished member from
Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] seeing me re.
ported in the Globe of that day, some.
what as my colleague now reports me,
propounded questions which enabled me
y to state the idea | wished to be
understood as expressing. | then stated
see Appendix Congressional Globe, PIP.
81, So, sol that what | meant to say was,
that the theory of the constitutionality Of
he Wilmot Proviso, particularly if held
BY Southern men, was more dangerous,
and had done more damage, to the consti-
utional rights Of the Southern States
han the open efforts of Northern Adolf.
ionists. explained that | did not mean
o say that gentlemen who entertained
hat belief were less patriotic than those
Who believed as | do. that the federal
Government has no such constitutional
'ower. | did not say that they were
more dangerous than Northern A BOLTON.
SITS, but that that theory or political doc.
rine was more dangerous and had done
nore damage to the South than the open
forts Of Abolitionists. On the contrary,
expressly stated that there were many
'atriotic, national men who had fallen
nto that erroneous theory. My col
cague's vindication Of their patriotism,
and his remark that ne would
refer to vote for such man than to vote
Or an ut.and out Frcesoilcr, would seem
, give rise, however intended, to an er,
oneous inference as to what my actual
Osition was.
Why do | think that that theory Of
ne Constitution is more dangerous than
he open efforts of avowcd abolitionists
he open efforts of avowed Abolitionists
re impotent for harm, because the masses
f the American people sternly reprobato
lem as nimical to the Constitution and
} the stability of the Government; but
,hen Southern statesman, whose patriotic
urposes are not doubted, gravely declare
lat they believe the Wilmot Proviso is
institutional, the politicians and people
f the North are not slow TO adopt this
leory and then the only question left
18th them is, is it expedient to enact the
Vilmot Proviso 3? Believing as the
lasscs in the North do, that slavery is
'rong, regarding it as "obnoxious," as
'dulllS DclllOClulS uO, Wnolu NY COl-
,ague regards as sound and true states.
len, is it wonderful what demonstrations
g have had in the North in favor of the
Vilmot Proviso after the surrender Of
he constitutional question By those trust
at the South? The letter of Mr..
buchanan of the 2Sth of December last,
ublished in the newspapers Of this city
few days ago, is striking illustration
f the damage which that constitutional
lrrender has done the South. Mr..
buchanan had been an advocate of the
lissouri restriction; he had labored to
xtend the line prohibiting slavery, as
arked out by Federal power, to the Pa
fc ocean. He now agrees that "the
Iissouri Compromise as he calls it,
is gone, and gone forever" "But," he
ays, ono assault should be made upon
nose democrats who maintained it,
1t is well known how | labored, in com.
any wih Southern men, to have this
ne extended to the Pacific ocean,"