Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-05-20
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1856.
The Evidence AccumuIates.


We have from time to time chronicled
evidences Of succumbing on the part of the
Southern Democracy to the views of their
Northern confederates on the slavery ques-
ton. 1t is fact too glazing and obvious
to be contradcted; indeed the Union and
American admits, that the doctrine of Ter
ritorial Sovereignty is the faith of the North
ern Democratic supporters of the Kansas
act. We understand that it clearly repu-
dates that construction of that act, as Gin
compatible with the constitution" and "odi-
GUS to the South" Is it not another sig
nifcant evidence of this falling away that
the Union and American should enter into
an elaborate argument to justify itself and
Southern Democrats in their utilization
with men who hold doctrine at once IN.
constitutional and odious? Can Southern
men be justified in consorting with men who
upon questions involving their dearest rights
and interests persist in views of those ques-
tons, which are unconstitutional, and which
in addition are unequal, UNJUST and odious!
The Southern Democratic press never tire
of harping on the rnsoundness of Northern
Americans. If the admitted views of Nor
thern Democrats be not unsoundneSs, we
should like to know what is. Claiming
that Squatter Sovereignty is constitutional,
and the Union and american admits that
they do, is denying to the South the rights
which Squatter Sovereignty deprives her
Of And this is to deny the South all she
asks. She only demands her rights. She
does not expect Northern men to desire or
to further the extension of slavery by spe-
cial legislation. She only insists that the
rights of slavery under the express guaran-
tees of the constitution shall be maintained
and preserved inviolate. When North
ern Democrats assert that she has no rights
under the constitution in the public domain
while it is in territorial condition, they
are but one step in the rear of the higher
law" men. The latter oppose slavery ex-
tension under the sanction of law "high-
er" than the constitution. The former OPP
pose slavery extension, and defend their &C
ton as constitutional Which of the two
is worse for the South? For our part we
see but little choice.
The Union and american argues that
however heretical untenable, and uncon-
stitutional the opinions Of Northern Demo
Gratis may be, that the Supreme Court is
the bulwark of the South's defence, and
that the Squatter Sovereignty construc-
ton may be held by Northern men without
harm or danger to the South so long as
we have Supreme Court to interpose the
barrier of its opinion upon the constitution
al question This is COMPRISING the whole
matter into very narrow compass. He even
supposes case in which the territorialleg
islature-the agent Of Squatter Sovereign
ty-has invaded the rights OF the South,
and has it carried before the Supreme
Court, there to test and settle the question
as to the Squatter Sovereignty construc-
ton. Suppose in providing a government
for some future territory, Congress should
enact the Wilmot Proviso, the Supreme
Court would likewise be the arbiter to de-
eide that question of constitutional con-
struction Now follow us closely and see
the Notifying dilemma in which the Union
and American is involved He denounces
Gen. CAss' Squatter Sovereignty doctrine
as unconstitutional and odious, and truer
Southern men than he have characterized
it as MORE odious than the Wilmot Provi-
sou yet he continues and defends his
connection with Gen. CAss by introducing
the Supreme Court as an obstacle 10 the
danger TO be apprehended from Gen. CAss'
doctrines. Why could he not upon the
same plea Justify association with Wilmot
or Preston King, or Chase, or Blair, or
Benton, who are Wimot ProviSoists, and
who by their own admission and in no pos
sible view of the case, can be less friendly
10 the South than those who hold a doc
trine which denies her constitutional rights
and is odious TO the last degree The Su-
preme Court is equally competent and
would be equally prompt TO protect the
South from Wilmot Provisoism as il would
be from Squatter Sovereignty. The only
difference is that in one case the uaconstitu-
tional act is committed by Congress, and
in the other by the settlers aud squatters
in the territory. Yet how Indignantly does
herepudiate Wilmot Proyisoism, aud Chase,
Benton, 4 Coz
If indeed we are to have this question
before the Supreme Court, where was the
necessity 10 convulse the country by the
repeal Of the Missouri Compromise line, in
organizing the Territories Of Kansas aud
Nebraska We Southern people hold that
the establishment Of any line by Congress
excluding slavery from any portion OF the
common territory, is unconstitutional
Would il not have been as well TO preeip-
itate the question Immediately before the
Court by the Southern people taking their
slaves TO Kansas, aud raising direct issue,
and forcing decision which would have for
ever settled the great question: There was