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

presume, and it is obviously SO, the anti-slavery
men were warriBg with the report; the action of
the convention had been most ably defended which
the main object of the report; these paragraphs
at most were but harmless vaticnation; it would
have been exceedingly ungracious in the friends of
the report to have turned round and carried on
war upon it themselves; the question was,
remarked in our former article, upon concurring
with the report a whole, and OF course every
member that approved Of the main object and res
suit of the report although he might lind here end
there questionable opinions voted for it, and it
carried by the large majority OF A to 10.
But still view it if you choose as the opinion Of
the convention, it cannot be plausibly, much less
successfully argued, that taken in connection with
the balance OF the reports, studiously not to say
disingenuously omitted by the Banner, it sustains
its position. Indeed take the paragraphs strictly
by themselves which refer alone to slaves made
free by the consent of their masters and transport
ed by funds furnished by the benevolent" they
wholly fail to sustain the position Of the Banner,
that the article in the Republican" of 1884 which
asserts that "the nature of things, the march of
public opinion, the voice of religon-all have said
that American slavery must have an end" and
shows that action of some kind, conventional and
legislative, demanded to produce that result,
which could have been nothing else than some plan
of forcble emancipation, present or prospective,
'true reflection OF the public sentiment OF
the State of Tennessee at that time, as shown by
the proceedings of ''the convention which revised
and amended the Constitution of the State in 1884
But let us see what construction the convention
itself placed upon these reports Their subsequent
acts will give the answer. The first report from
which the paragraphs were taken was adopted by
the Convention on the oath of June. On the Goth
July resolution was adopted for the greatersecuri
ty and protection of slavery through all future time;
a new and independent provision, and reads as fol-
lows. 1.-THE General Assembly shall have no power
to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves, without
the consent OF their owner or owners" See art.
2 Sec 81 Of the Constitution. Could the Conveu-
ton understand itself as having previously declar
ed or taken any actor. to the effect, that slavery
must have an end"-that "the public sentiment of
the State" demanded this at their hands? Did they
understand themselves as having said in their re-
port that ''the voice of religion" the religion Of
the Bible, demanded it from them no matter at
what distant period of time? This is impossible in
the face of the very able argument in the second
report upon the religious aspect OF the question,
one sentence of which contained in former
tice, must be here repeated, and is follows
cat the time of the PRONUNCIATION of the gospel,
slavery existed i'll that part of the world where the
glad tidngs of peace on earth and good will to
man were first proc lsmed. and in much worse form
than it now exists in this State; for then the master
had the power of life and death in his own hands,
and might put his slave to death with impunity; and
vet on this subject, we do not hear of one word
spoken by the Divine Author of christianity, nor
by his forerunner by his followers and disciples;
out of their mouths we hear of no denuncatiun
against shareholders; nor do we hear Of their pre-
senting any memorials to the rulers of the Nations
among whom they were scattered, praying them to
abolish slavery or to emancipate the slaves then
Astounding in those nations" He then illustrates the
position by the case of the runaway slave 0nes-
mus, who was sent home to his master Philemon
by Paul of Tarsus.
Now the Editor seems to be obliUious of all these
things silent as the grave although pressed by US
in our former article. We ahould suppose from his
articles that nothing else was done by the Conven-
ton upon the subject of slavery, except declining
to act upon the memorials and in giving their rea-
sons, adopting the two paragraphs in the report.
Why We are afraid that sold Editor" particular
" if he turn 'moralst," may become worse "sin-.
ner" than an "old lawyer" but we hope never so
bad as the preacher" in the play, who shows bis
flock,
Title steep and thOrny way to Heaven
Himself the primrose path Of daiance treads,
And recks not his own reed"
The change too in the amended constitution, in
combining the right of suffrage to every free white
man" instead of ''every freeman" as under the old,
accords with the view expressed in this article of
the opinions of the Convention.
Upon a review of the whole case we think with
great Difference, the Banner has not sustained its
position that the article in the Repubicdn of 1884
was the true public sentiment Of the State at that
time" as reflected through The Convention. We think
that upon just view of all the acts of the Conven-
ton, including the reports, the Convention did not
declare either in form substance that "the pub
lc'sentiment Of the State, "the voice OF religion"
as well as 'the nature of things" all required Ame
rican slavery to have end. But on the contrary
in the language of our former article, with which
conclude, "the opinion of vast majority fthe
Convention as reflected through their acts iinclud
ing of course the repOrts) was then what enlight>
ened public opinion is now, that our system of do
nestle servitude is interviewer as it were with the
very bres of society; that is part of social
polity and inseparable from it, that it is for the
tual happiness of both races; not opposed to the
teachings of the Bible; and that to all human Wis.,
ion it will continue still the last of civil insttus
tons are overthrow"
A MEMBER OF THE CONVENTION.