Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-03-08


into the Union, which he supposed would heal
the whole dificuity; anu then they wotId
have q right to come here either as free
States or slave States, as they should think
proper.
L disagreed with that policy SO far as to
make the propositions which did. and so far
as to support the compromise measures in the
shape in which they were finally reported
from the committee of thirteen, though they
were not such propositions as had presented
to the Senate myself in the first instance. 1
presume that is mistake on the part of
my colleague as to the position occupied
then. rg
My colleague has spoken of my remarks as
to the understanding of this question by the
people OF Tennessee. said before that did
not believe five hundrdd people in the State
of Tennessee understood the question at this
day; and how could they, when we do not
agree upon it ourselves! The fact that we
here disagree as to the construction of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill is notorious and palpa-
ble. ~ -t4
Then in regard to my colleagues remarks
on the quotations from my speech of 1854. in
corporated into the preamble of these resolu-
tons which said garbled, aequit my col
league from any intention to do injustice to
me in that respect; for he does not appear to
understand what is garbled extract. He
says these extracts are full; they are whole
paragraphs or whole sentences taken from my
speech, and he asks, how are they garbled?
He says. part of paragraph is not torn from
the context leaving another part which, If it
had been quoted, would explain the meaning.
Why sir, what I say now, is that the whole
speech is the context. asked that the whole
speech should be taken into consideration |
/ predieated my declarations, which are quoted
by the Legislature in the preamble to these
resolutions, on the ground that the measure
should first come to be well understood by
the people, and its consequences seen, and
did not doubt that they would be soon seen.
Ny colleague does not take this distinction.
He considers that if there is not an actual per-
version and misquotation, there is no garbling.
] excuse him for that position, for l do not
think he sees it.
NV colleague seemed to manifest the same
disposition throughout. He spoke disparag-
ingly of speech made by me in the Nashville
market-house, and said that the audience was
good at the commencement but very small
at the close, and that only published one half
of it and never published the other half My
colleague is mistaken. The speech which |
published was a speech delivered to a very
small assemblage called together without pre-
paration, made in merely conversational
tone. l made two speeches afterwards TO
large audiences, filling the whole space around
me as far as could be heard and until now
never heard that they had fallen away from
me during the progress of my speech. l
bring this in merely q a rebutter to that sort;
of passion which my colleague seems TO have
but how small it is He said i made speech
to a large audience at first, but that it dwind-
led down to a very few at the close that L
published half of it and never published the
rest. This is not at all true. The speech
which published was made to very small
audience, only some forty, or fifty, or sixty. in
the market-house, towards dark. when | could
hardly see to read paper OF any sort, and
when there was no preparation for meeting,
the market not being lighted up. This is
trifling matter, but advert to it only because
l think it is indicative of the whole feeling
which has inspired my colleague. l cannot
comprehend it at all.
NV colleague states that he and had a
conversation in relation TO the debate which
might take place on the presentation of these
resolutions. He tells that l bad memorized the
speech meant to make in regard 10 them. L
did not tell him so ; and believe he admits
that had not spoken it as he says ii was me-
morized. How did he get the knowledge that
| memorized it?
Mr.. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. / always like
to get facts right; and with the permission of
my colleague, will give him what was my
understanding. l understood him in his re-
marks yesterday evening to state that he had
studied it. Perhaps he did not make use of
the word "memorized," but he said he had
stuuieu HIS specCu lHdt 10 "Hot uhuSi
stood.
Mr. BELL My colleague is apt to make
such mistakes. / said | had studied it, and
did it particularly to avoid any severe terms
| in commenting on the proceedings of the Leg
| islature, so that my colleague might not feel
| called upon to reply. / told him. in advance,
the severest thing | should say, which was
that considered this preamble and the first
| two resolutions gotten up by those who plot
ted them as a deliberate insult, and character
| istic of the men. That is all said that L
think could call for any remarks. L spoke
with respect of everything else, except thai
! l disagreed with them He came forward,
| however, with a regular set speech Whether
| it was conned or not, l cannot say, and / do
not know whether, yesterday evening said il
was; but it looked very much like it. 1t was
| q translation here of one of the speeches he
| has been accustomed to make in Tennessee on
| the stump, including the philosophy of gov
eminent and the philosophy of slavery.
/ What does ne say in his IT cent remarks!
| That he kept in view the maxim of Cromwell
keep your powder dry and he did not
know but that L would take him 10y surprise
| That is the foundation of the whole thing. Ii
| he had regarded me gentleman, he could
| not have had such a conceit in his mind. II
he did not, where did he derive the idea
When did ever deceive gentleman, or prove
false to pledges or obligations? There is the
| foundation of this whole difficulty between
! nv colleague and myself. We have different
ideas aud different conceptions of what be-
longs to a man of principle and honor.