Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-04-22


that it recognizes the right in the people OF
the Territory of Kansas to prohibit or admit
slavery while in Territorial condition, ask
my colleague If be so construes that seventh
sectionl --
Mr.. ZoIIIooFFER. | stated my position q
few moments since upor that precise point.
| placed it on record when the Nebraska bill
was on its passage, and l beg leave to say 20
my colleague Mr. Jones] that / cannot now
! properly consume more time in dwelling
| upon it.
Ny colleague TMr. Smith objects to the plat
! form adopted by the American party, bee use
| il has not the word slavery" in il, and he
argues that thereby. and therefore, we ignore
the question of slavery. Mr. Chairman, it i.
! little remarkable that the very next gentle
man who followed my colleague in debate
| the Republican member from New York Mr.
| Granger made an argument that slavery is
! ignored by the Constitutions of the General
and State Governments because the oord SLa0Grg
/ is not TO be found in the Constitution Of the
! United States, and was not 10 be found in the
! constitutions of any Of the original thirteen
| States. Ny colleague then bases his objection
| 10 that section OF the platform upon the pre-
/ else lire of argument which Republicans and
! AbOltionists assume in denying the legal exls
tence of slavery-in denying that constitutions
Of the States, and the Constitution Of the Uni
ted States have rec rgnized the institution, De-
cause the toOrd ''slaUery" IS not inserted N
! them. Does he not see into what errors such
assumptions lead
Nv colleague expressed regret that | had re
marked, in debate here, that | regarded men
who lived in the South, and believed in tile
consti'utionality of the WiimOt Proviso, as be
! ing, though not intending it, more dangerous
| to the South than Northern Aboitionists
! Here, again, my colleague does not present cor
rectly the sentiment which / altered. 1t will
! he remembered that On the 18th of January
| last, q distinguished member from Georgia
! Mr.. STEPHENS. seeing me reported In the
! Globe of that day, somewhat as my colleague
now reports me, propOunded questions which
enabled me promptly TO state the idea wished
10 be understood as expressing. then stated
(see Appendix Congressional Globe, PIP. OF, %,
59,) that what / meant to say WAS, that the
theory of the consttutionalty of the WilmOt
Proviso, particularly if held by Southern men,
was more dangerous, and had done more dam
age, to the constitutional rights of the South
ern States than the open efforts Of Northern
AbOlitiOnists. | explained that | did not mean
To say tn gentlemen who entertained that be.
lief were less patriotic than those who believed
as do, that the Federal Government has No
such constitutional power. did not say that
they were more dangerous than Northern
Abolitionists but that that theory or political
doctrine was more dangerous, and had done
more damage To the South, than the open
efforts of Aboltlonists On the contrary,
expressly stated that there veterinary patriotic,
national men who had fallen in,o that CHROME
Gus theory. Ny colleagues yndicatiou of their
afri,t nd hat he
would prefer to vote for such a man than To
vote for AL out and ont Fresoer, would seem
to give rise (however ntended) to an erroneous
inference as to what my actual position was.
Why do think that that theory of rhe Con
stitution is more dangerous than the open ef
orts of avowed Abolitionists2 The open
efforts of avowed Abolitonists are impOtent
for harm, because the masses of the American
PEOPLE sternly reprobate them as inimical To
The Constitution aud to the stability of the
government; but, when Southern state-men,
whose patriotic purposes ae not doubted,
Vravely declare that they believe the WIlmOt
Proviso is constitutional, the politicians and
people Of the North are not slow to adopt this
,heory; and then the only question left with
Ehem IL, is it erpedient To enact the Wilmot
Provisu2 Believing, a. the masses in the North
10, that slavery is wrong, regarding 1t as "Ub-
noXiOus," a. leading Democrats do, whom my
colleague regards H. sound and true statesmen,
ls il wonderful what demonstrations we have
had in the North in favor of the WilmOt Pro
viso after the surrender of the constitutional
question By those trusted at the South? The
letter of Mr.. Buchanan Of the 28th of Decem-
Der last, published in the newspapers of this
city few days ago, is striking illustration Of
Ihe damage which that constitutional surrender
has done the South Mr.. Buchanan had been
an advocate of the Missouri restriction; he
had laDored TO extend the line prohibiting
slavery. AS marked ont by Federal power, to
the Pacific ocean. lie now agrees that "the
Missouri COMPROMISE" H. Z calls il, "ls gone,
and gone forever" But" he says "uo
sault should be made upon those Democrats
who maintained IT,. at il well known bow
laOored, an company NTH Southern men, to
have this line eX ended 10 the Pacific ocean.
Now, mark the paihatiOu, I'm company Uith
Southern men, wnlch thi, powerful aud trust
cd statesman feels constrained TO make for his
departure from the true constitutional theory
of the Government The Federal Government
has no constitutional power 10 prohibit slavery
in the Territories aud the true theory is now
asserted in the American platform, thai The
people OF the Territories, IN forming their State
question for themselves.
But is it not a little remarkable that the
same politicians and newspapers which but a
few weeks ago were a>ssiIing the American
party for "pretermittlng' this question in the
twelfth section OF the June platform, now assail
me because | assume that il was a great error
fpr Southern meu to concede that tie Federal
'iovernment had such powersl A few days
t.afn ha in
february last, the Washington Uuion, assailiug
hat twelfth section, said:
at is a .JItaL surrender Of tho grouRdUOrk
T true nationality to expressly pretermit an
'pIuion as 10 the power OF Congress TO prohibit
establish slavery in the Territories
During this long struggle flor Speaker
We have vet To see the evidence that Nessrs.
darshall, Zpllicptfer, or any other of their
,outhern brethren, conceded that the Nebraska
bIll was al obnoxious act, or that the repeal OF
be Missouri restriction was a breach of plight
4 faith How can these gem
emen now 60 into the Philadelphia Conven-
ion, aud agree TO allow the un-ound clauses IN
he twelfth section, 10 which We have directed
attention, TO staud as the rule Of their nation
.lilyl"
THIS is but one Of many examples Now, how
.Ver When W. have a platform which docs not ''pre
rrmit" tins question, aud is disclosed that the
no,t exalted aud trusted Democrats openly assert
ne FSierai Po,oer 70 prohibit slavery, am assailed
pr pointing OUT the danger Of such doctrine 70 the
'Outbern states.
Ny colleague attacks the gentleman from Penn
ylyAuia, Mr. Fuller for whom voted Tor Speak
r, charging that in IS49 he Was "a WilmoI Pro.
isoist up 70 the hub, aud nominated on an Ado
lition Platform" aud tnst last year hs defeated
Wright upon Ihe ground that he Mr.. WrighE) voted
or the Nebraska bill The gentleman from Penn
yivsnia has been absent from the Capitol for more
lAa a month, aud il not here to defend himself /
ave no means Of kno ing anything of tie relia
nty Of the grounds upon which my colleague