Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-03-30
THE TENNESSEE NsTRUcTIEe REseLB-
TIoNs.


represent. It is very delicate thing TO De eomPeh-
ID to make an issue with colleague, on this moor
u elsewhere; but I do not feel that should be
doing justice to what is commonly denomlnated 1
The Democratic party Of the state OF tennessee II
were 70 remain silent and abstain from any reply /
to, or explanation Of, what has been said by my |
colleague.
In making his remarks, my colleague has taken
a course BIZ which he intended 10 justify himself
and the conclusion Of it was that he felt that the
instructions Of the Legislature Of Tennessee were
not binding uron him He acknowledges no obi
gatiop of obedience to their instructions. He en-
deavored to prove, by history Of parties ana
events there that the Legislature was not rejecting
the popular sentiment. When we come 70 e1smlhe
the history Of parties in Tennessee, going no further
back than 1854 we find that the Kansas NEBRASKA
question was then a matter Of discussion through
out the State Of Tennessee. 1 again repeat that
regret that this discussion has been imposed upon
me; but painful as il may be, l shall not shrink
from duty when il is imposed upon me- But for
the remarks made by the Senator himself on the
resolutions which have been presented, should
have been spared the performance Of this painful
duty.
The honorable gentleman undertakes to show
that the Legislature Of Tennessee or the people Of
the State through their Legislature, have slept too
long; that the Kansas Nebraska bill was passed in
1854, and that IL is strange, remarkably strange,
that they should have waited until the present pc
Rod Of time before tney instructed him. " men We
20 back to the proceedings Of the Legislature in
1854, We find that the subject was then before TIE
Legislature prior to the passage Of the bill in this
House; and the Senate Of Tennessee then passed
the following resolution:
ResoIUsd b. the GsssraL Assembly Of the State Of
Tsaaesses THAI the Bill pending before Congress,
called The Nebraska bill the leading principle Of which Is
hag Congress has right legslae the sui 9et
slavery bu that the is institution over when he
people alone in forming their organic law have fall peeT
sod control cordial approval and Is sanctioned
clearly by the principles If the bits creating tertora gov
rnn ens for New Mexico and Utah, and We earnestly re
quest Senators and Representatives to give Il their
hearty support"
This resolution passed the Senate with but only
one dissenting voice it went to the House Of Rep
resentatives; and there Mr.. Lamb, member Of the
/ Legislature introduced a resolution in substance
the same. Mr.. Mcknight, representative from
the county of Rutherford, moved q resolution in
| lieu Of Alr. Lambs, as follows:
Resolvsd By the General assembly Of the Stats Of
T5pnessee That We cordially approve Of the amendment
Jr 10 ed b7 the Hon. Archibald Dixon # keniucky to
he Il repor'e TO The SenIe Of The United Stale By the
COMMITTEES on Territories, for the organization and gov
eminent Of the Territories Of Kansas and Nebraska That
we bel the principle involved IN SAID
Is thg extension Of the principles Of the compromise to
those TerFiOres-jl and equitable IN lse and that II
is in conformity with the FEDERAL Constitution, win the
tresty by which those IertOe were ae l and WIN the
| compromise Of 1880"
of Representatives and voted for by every Wing in
| that body. In 1854 while the Kansas Nebraska act
was pending before Congress- the nstTucting resOlus
ton which 6rstread was passed in the State Senate
The resolution went to the House o. Representatives,
and there q substitute was offered by Mr. Mcknight,
who was Wing member, and every wig in the
| Legislature voted for that amendment, which eI-
pressed approval of the proposition Of Mr.. Dixon,
| of Kentucky to repal the Missouri compromise.
| When we take these two resolutions together, one
passed by the Senate of Tennessee in 1854, and the
other voted for by every member Of the Wing party,
| TO which my honorable colleague belongs, in the
! House Of Representatives Of Tennessee, there
1 be any mistake about public opinion there? Can
we pause for q single moment, in reference to pub
] lie opinion on that question 1t seems to not
But my honorable colleague spoke Of the contest
! of 1855 he will pardon for making the allu-
sion, but I was engaged in that contest. I was one
! of the candidates for Governor. [ c8nvassed the
State from the mountains Of johnson county to the
ChickasaW Bluffs in Shelby county. ! was in nearly
every county In the State; and we'll do l recOllect
the exciting events that took place during that can
yass 1 had a competitor who was eloquent, who is
/ known to many members of this House, who was
/ with me on every stump in the State. One of the
leading issues in that canvass was the Kansas Ne
| brssks bill pressed my competitor upon 1t before
every audience, and there were scarcely ever such
/ turn outs in the State as during that canvass 1t
| was one of the main issues between him and me.
pressed him upon it in every single speech l made
/ in the State; and he uniformly declined to take
ground He was afraid to take ground against II or
for it. as was then believed for fear it would nure
! him in the canvass h afraid Of coming in
/ conflict with nay honorable colleague and others in
the State There vas no doubt IN fact that he
/ harmonized and agreed with the Democratic party
on this point; yet he shrank from therespOnsibillty
with a view Of getting many votes by taking non
1 committal course. If he had taken bold ground
/ against the Kansas Nebraska BILL with the ether
issues pending in that canvass he would have been
| beaten thousands and thousands throughout the
State: but from the fact of his taking nOn-cOm-
initial position on the haasas-N ebraska act, he
/ was enabled to get many votes which he would not
have received if be had taken bold ground on that
I question.
So far as the canvass of 1855 is concerned, can
there be a doubt to Fhat the popular sentiment
was }? Can there be any mistake about it After
one of the most bitter and yiUGiCtve and may say
malignant canvasses ever conducted in any State Of
/ this CSn'ederacy, the Democratic party we're tri-
umpbsnt throughout the State of Tennessee; the
popular vote decided that the Democratic party was
right. Then there can be mistake in the history
| Of the question thus far.
In November, 1856, we mad another election.
Prior TO that election however, the respective par
lies laid down platform. and they took ground
upon that platform. At Cincinnati, in June, 1856,
upon the Kansas Nebraska question: the Democratic
party passed the following resolution:
=
all IerUtOres, including Kansas aud NrbrsSl 8cuDg
through the legally and firly expressed will Of 0rty
actual resdeut& and wheneve- the number OF br rim
uabl,auts just IS H. tOtDm constitution % or without
domestic slavery, aud be admitted in tue Uai0p upon
Gems Of perfect equslity wan The other S-a.ls'
This was laid down as one Of the tenets in the
Democratic creed Mr.. Buchanan, in his letter
accepting the nomination referred to this question
and placed himself upon that precise issue. In the
fall Of 1856 the canvass came on, with this
If mn n 0IE TIr in
every county, in every town throughout the State
Mr. Buch8nau's cOmmttal 20 the resolution adopted
in 1856, in the Cincinnati convention, was well
known, and il was the main issue throughout The
State. We had carried the State in 1856, by hand
some majority under the circumstances Snd with
this main issue in the canvass of 1856 the electors
the field and hundreds of other speakers through
out the State, Tennessee was carried for Mr.. Blu
chan8n, on the Kansas Nebraska issue, by 1,5OO
votes In our elections which took place last sum
mer following the popular impulse, and the decision
made by the people Of the State IN the preceding
year, the majority Of the Democratic party III
creased aud our present Governor after canvassing
the State from extreme to the other was elected
BY majority of 10000 votes.
Then can there be any sort Of doubt, there
be the slightest semblance of Doubt to the
opinion Of The people Of Tennessee on tks Kansas
Nebraska question Can We hesitate for one no
mentf Can we hesitate as to the opinion on this
great question that has distracted and divided the
public mind from one extreme Of the country TO the
other! Can we believe for a moment that the peo-
pie Of Tennessee have not made up their minds on
this subject? In addition to that after the resent
election for Governor in which the Democratic can
didste triumphed by ten thousand majority We find /
both branches Of the Legislature rejecting that |
popular sentiment, and sending it here in the shape
Of resolutions
1t is Of this that my honorable colleague seems
most to complain. The Legislature, having a ms
jorty Of Democrats in both Houses have by resolu-
tons undertaken to reflect what they conserve 10 be
the will Of The people; and to this he objects Can
the Legislature be mistaken as 20 the will of the
people? Have they misrepreseuted the ueopleg
Have hey done any injusticcn declaring that will
Of the people of Tennessee isin favor Of The Kansas
Nebraska act and the admission of Kansas into the
Union under the Lecompton constitution.
But NY honorable cole gue states that these reso-
lutiOns c0nana garbed extract of hiss speech andhe
complains Of that. Whether he intends il or not
his remarks are calculated to make the IMPRESSION