Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-07-02
The Richmond South and Judge
Douglas.

In response to comments upon its position
touching Judge DOUGLAS, and his supporters,
by the Charleston Nscs. the Soaah says: :
The union of the Democracy in the North
is absolutely essential TO their ascendency in
the Federal Government. But that union is
impossible if either faction persist IN making an
issue of the Kansas question after its definite ad-
jllstment.
Any man of the least intelligence under
stands that a division of the Democracy will
involve the overthrow of the party in New
jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois. Indiana, and
every other Northern State. Every man of
the least intelligence will admit that the anti
LecOmptOn Democrats in the North are suffi-
GENTLY powerful to determine the issue of the
popular elections. The question, then, is
simply this: is IL for the interest Of the South that
the Northern Democracy be TS,nted on a patriotic
platform, M order TO duert The triumph Of the
Black RePa6lican party? Surprising the ,lter-
native to be between Douglas and a Black
Republican candidate for the Senate-which
should we accept in preference? Admit that
the Democracy agree to some "cOmpromise"
in the settlement; which is the wiser policy. to
giue up an obsolete issue for the sake Of a sub
stanttaL victory or 10 insure the irreparable OUe-
MrOs0 Of the party rather than abandon obsolete
issue?
In the article to which our Charleston Co
temporary replies, we expressly repudiated
any idea of compromising principle or impair
ing the position of the South. We take back
no single word of censure with which we
have criticised the conduct of the anti-Le-
compton Democrats in the North. We deny
that we have done them any injustice. They
deserted us in the heat of the action, and We
treated them enemies. The fight is over,
the victory won; and now, that they simply
ask to be allowed to behave themselves like
good and true Democrats, and to assist in de-
feating the Black Republican party, shall we
repulse them by persecution, or conciliate
them by torbearance? In our judgment the
question is too clear for discussion.
The personal fortunes of Judge Douglas
weigh nothing in the matter. If it were pos
sible to supersede him in the Senate by a re-
liable LecOmptOn Democrat, we would eXult
over the exchange. We agree with the Meas
in the opinion that he and his associates should
suffer for their detection. But impulses of
personal resentment must yield to considera-
tions of public policy. The interests of the
party. the security of the South and the re-
pose of the Union. depend upon the integrity
of the Democratic organization in the North
ern States.
We do pot understand the anti-Lecompton
Democrats to exact any concession. They
propose no adjustment even for that would i'm
ply treaty among equals and an acknowl
edgment OF mutual error. They protest their
fidelity to the principles of the party; they
accept the settlement of the Kansas contrO-
versy, and agree to acquiesce in the result;
they entreat an oblivion of past differences;
these are the terms upon which Judge Douglas
and his associates propose the restoration of
peace and harmony among the Democracy of
the North.
In view then of the consequences which
must result from the dissolution of the Dem
ocratic party in the North, we urgently insist
upon the acceptance of these honorable con-
dtions of pacitication.
We commend the above to the considera-
ton of the Union and american. If the posi-
ton of the South be correct, then is opposition
to Judge DOUGLAS and his anti-Lecompton
cOnfederates the very worst policy which
southern democrats can pursue. We guess,
from all the signs of the times, that peace will
soon be made between the Lecompton and
shams and all go on but
the merrier for having had disagreement.