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

have no war to wage with the Banner or its edi
tor, Tor we are personally and politically friendly to
both. But "Cdto AmicHs, ct Plato Anxious, sed
'ndgis ADieG Ueritas." Fhe only object Of the
ticle was TO do justice to the Tennessee Conyen
ton, and vindicate the trnth of history; whether
successful or otherwise, the public will judge.
The editor 10 his issue of the 9th July, in a
note, after stating he suspects US to be democrat
and not political friend (If We were, would that
weaken our argumeDt?) grandiloquently eIclaims
whoever be be, Democrat or Wing or American;
whether political friend or political opponent
whether Saxon or Saracen, Richard or Saladn, well
crush his casque for him"-that we are 'an old
codger OF the profession, and shall be scientific
ally skinned" for the amusement of the Junior
members ofthe bar, [" and we suppose to the terror
OF all evil doors. Very vauntngIy, if not grace
July said! But with great humility we suggest the
vlgor OF the performance n the Banner of the 25th
OF July, is hardly equal to the sounding nantes
TO- And as the editor will have it that we are a
lawyer without admitting or deny ing "the soft inns
peachment," we respectfully commend 10 his at
tenton very high authority which is to be found
in Kings, 20 ch., which records the fate of
the boastiug monarch of Syria, one verse of which
reads as follows: Let not him that grdeth on his
harness boast himself as he that putteth it off I"
We hope be will profit by the lesson.
II Is proper to add that the editor in his last ar
tlcle acquits US of the sin of being democrat"
but notwithstanding this, is compelled to make
case" OF us. Do, Mr. Banner, correct your pro
cIvlty to Boosting, upon question like this, as it
may be the public will not be SO complacent to
you 10 their judgment.
We think proper 10 state in the outset in refer
ence to our first article, that we did not at all as
san the soundness of the Editor OF the Banner
upon the question of slavery, and to prevent mis-
construction and avoid even the appearance of
taking side against the Banner in any question
with the Union and ADerican," plrposely avoided
either quoting or commenting upon the obnoxious
phraseOlogy of the extract from the Nashville Re-
publican OF 1884, which the Editor was defending
We confined ourselves in general terms, to defense
OF the convention against entertaining the ANTI
slavery opinions imputed to it by the Bonner; and
endeaVored to place it upon that high, national
conservative ground which we knew it had a right
TO occupy. And yet for taking this course, which
1t seems the Editor does not appreciate, he is
pleased to charge with a want of fairness
justice and manness in not stating his true posi-
tion-and adds, "for lawyer and a scholar, to act
thus, was unbecoming a lawyer and a scholar"
Quite Inappropriate words, these, and which the
Editor would have strengthened bis case by avoid.
ing
But still it our intention to state with accu-
racy the outline of the Banners argument and
should hold ourselves quite reprehensible if we
had not and which We did as follows: ut is SUP.
that the actpn Of the Convention was hostile to
the institution of slavery, indicated By report
adopted By the bodv; aud that the Convention look.
ed forward 20 the period when this great evil as it
is said they regarded it, should be extirpated from
the country" But the last article in the Banner
requires US to be more specific and to state pre-
cisey the issue between US.
On the 26th June, the Banner republished
paragraph from an editorial in the Nashville Re
y,1ykI of fha Eah ci,
rected by the Banner by the addition of the con-
Guiding sentence; but desiring to do perfect justice
give il in its corrected form, and which is as fol-
lows: at is supposed that efforts will be made TO
insert provision for the gradual abolition OF slaV~
cry, and perhaps the colonization OF our colOred
population. Upon the propriety Of this step
shall not at present decide. Much would depend
upon the nature Of the provision, whether well
adapted to our present and future condition. The
Legislature of Tennessee has already taken up the
cause of colonization, and made perhaps liberal
provision for IL az our finances permitted. Tile
nature Of things, the march Of public opinion tie
Uoice of r,Iigion-dH haze said that american SLlUI
err must have an e,,d What shall be the Legisla
tive measures to that effect, and when they shall
begin, are questions for prudence to determine"
The italics are our own. The EDITOR then said that
though not written by himself, this "most truly re-
Elected the public sentiment o! the State OF Ten.
nessee at that time" as shown by "undenable re.
cord evidence" from the proceedings of "the Cons
venton called 20 revise and amend the Constitu-
ton OF the State" in 1884, that petitions for the
emancipation of slaves had been referred TO a COM
mittee to make report whose report was adopted
by the Convention, and which went "much furth
err than the editorial in the 'Republicdn."
Now the Editor exclams against us vehemently,
before intimated, at much length and in varie-
of phrase, charging us with gross injustice" in
not stating truly aud precisely" his position,
which must be our apology for dwelling upon'it a
little. But when we come to anayZe bis UordS
what does il amount to! He nowhere objects to
the latter part Of statement Of the position taken
by the Banner and which is the most important
part of it, THAT the Convention looked forward to
the period when this great evil, it is said they
regard it, should be eItirpated from the country"
We take Judgment against him by default" upon
that part of the case-we we're right there.
What then is the first part of our statement
which is so exceptiOnable to the Banner? 1t saws
we represented him arguing that the action of
the Convention was hostile to slavery" Oh! no!
says the Banner, we used no such language. 1t
merely that the sentiments, the sentiments,
mark you, expressed in the Republican paragraph
must have been the sentiments Of the mass of the
people of the State at that time, because the same
sentiments in substance were afterwards expressed
by four iilhs OF the Representatives Of the people
in State Convention assembled" What pity the
Editor couldn't DO US the justice to quote the whole
of our remark which reads as follows: THAT the
action of the Convention was hostile to the intitu
ton Of slavery, indicated by report adopted by
the body" A report adopted 10y the Convention,
is the action of the Convention. We referred TO
this action of the Convention; the Banner did the
thing in its FIRST article; it speaks of "he re-
port of the committee adopted by the ConVen~
ton" We were strictly accurate then when we
spoke Of the Banners referring TO "the action Of
the Convention indicated by report adopted by
the body" and therefore compelled, reluc-
family, indeed, TO take another judgment against
the Editor upon this part Of the case, that "he be
amerced for his false clamOr"
But then he did not speak Of the Hostility" of
the Convention 80 slavery" These words are
"wormwood" to HIM. But il the article in the Re.
publican was hostile TO slavery, of which we will
speak hereafter; if this alleged by the Banner
10 be true reflection of the public sentiment of
the State" IS shown by "report adopted by the
Conventions" indeed, that they had gone "much
further than that, unluestionably were right
in this part OF our statement Of its position also
Mystiiy it as you will, amount Of ingenious So
phistry can prevent the public from understanding
the true question presented by the Banner in its
first article, which is this: "What was the opinion
OF the people of Tennessee as reflected through
the Convention upon the subject Of slavery To as
certain that opinion you must look at their acts
The report adopted by the body was one Of its acts
But you must look at the whole Of their acts To
conhne the question alone TO the first report made
to the Convention;-(w which, however, we will
show to be clearly against him;) as is the whole
scope and Drift Of the Banners last three column
article, which, we regret to say is not altogether
ingenious in the Banner, would be doing she Con-
vention that gross injustice" whrh il vainly at
tempts to establish upon us; and is an insult TO the
public intelligence
We understand then the Banner to affirm in its
FIRST article, in substance, that the paragraph from
the Republican, was the true public sentiment Of
the State at the time, as reflected through the