Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-08-17

The habit Of charging the Democratic party with
disunion sentiments has become chronic with some
Of our contemporaries Of the opposition press.
Every two orthree weeks the charge is revived and
makes its usual circuit through the columns Of the
Know Nothing newspapers. No evidence is pro-
duced to sustain IT, but holiness Of assertion is ex-
pected to supply the want of testimony and make
mp for the absence Of facts. As the absurdity Of
the charge becomes more manifest, the opposition
organs repeat it with increased energy and sarnest>
ness. They originated the accusation and will not
abandon because it is improbable and unsupported
They cling to it with parental affection They re.
fuse to desert the offspring Of their folly butlove it
all the better for its defects and its deformity.
We dislike to deprive their dOtage Of it's only con
ISOLATION, but the pertinacity with which our con-
tempOraries thrust this ridiculous charge upon
notice, forces US to expose its absurdity. Our
Deighbor Of the Banner in its impression of Sat-
urday last, repeats the charge in it's most malig-
nant form. 1t says: "That party (Ihe Democratic)
Is essentially disuniOn organization. All their
leading measures for the last few years have been
adopted with q view to dissolving the Union -
This is grave allegation to be brought against
Large and respectable body of citizens Our con-
temporary charges the Democratic party with
treachery to the Government, which was organized
by the founders Of the Democratic faith, and has
been controlled since, with very few intervals,
according to Democratic policy and principles. It
would seem that some sort Of testimony ought to
have been adduced to sustain this charge. But
there is none. Not single act of that party is re-
ferred to evidence of its guilt No reasonable
ground for suspicion is alledged The assertion is
unsupported by argument, and not substsnliated by
proof The charge is improbable in itself. The
Democratic party have long controlled the Govern
ment. What motive have they to destroy it2 They
have directed the destnies of the nation and could
surely derive advantage from its disruption. If
no feeling Of patriotism influenced them to guard
the integrity Of the constitution and perpetuste the
union Of the States, the promptings of personal
ambition, the selfish desire for promotion and power,
would restrain them from any act that would break
down the Government which is committed to their
care. But is there any thing in the history of the
Democratic party inconsistent with the pure and
patriotic sentiments which we claim have controlled
its counses and animated its exertions in promoting
the welfare Of the country? Under Democratic
rule the nation has reached point Of prosperity
that challenges the admiration of the world. Dem
ocrac statesmen have directed its destinies in all
the seasons Of difficulty and danger, and now when
we are enjoying the blessings which the Democratic
pslicy has conferred, the same party is still in
power, having forfeited the confidence Of the
people and never betrayed their trust. If, as the
Banner contends, it is essentially disunion or
ganizaton," how easily the Democratic party might
have accomplished its reasonable purposes years
ago. Why delay long the eonsummation of its
designf It possessed the power, why has it never
used it to destroy the Union But the Banner says
"sll their leading measures for the last few years
have been adopted with g view to dissOlving the
Union" What measures have been adopted within
the last few years that tend to any such result? Is
it the Nebraska Kansas bill? If so, the Wing
party of the South, on which the Banner says the
hopes Of the country rest participated in our trea
son. The only feature Of the bill that has ever pro-
duced any agitation, was introduced by Wing
Senator from Kentucky, and majority of the mem
bers of that party at the South supported that bill
in al its stages. The Know Nothing party adopted
its principles into their first platform. and claimed
that they were the guardians and defenders of pop
ular sovereignty. Is the English bill the treason
able measure to which the Banner refers? If so,
majority Of his own party are traitors, for two
thirds Of the Know Nothing members Of Congress
supported it. Eut surelyth Banner does not contend
that an effort to admit slave State into the Union
is an indication of disunion sentiments If it does,
we shall rejoice in being called disuniOnist for
shall ever maintain, and the Democratic party will
ever maintain the just and equal rights of the
South
But if the Banner thinks that the Democratic
party is wrong in its views on sill these sectional
questions, it must believe that the Black Republic
cans are right. There are but two sides to these
questions The Democratic party has assumed one
side, the Black Republican party the other. Since
the Banner does agree with us since it contends
that cur policy has been to dissolve the Union, it
must agree with the Black Republicans and endorse
their policy as conservative and patriotic.
See First and Fourth Pages.