Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-03-06

majority OF the people VINO Favored THAT Dill
in Tennessee, gave their support TO it on the
ground that the people of Territory, while
in the territorial state, were powerless as TO
the question of slavery; and that it was only
when they came to form State constitution
that they had the right of sovereignty to ex-
clnde it; and therefore, suppose 1t is, that
my colleague, in 1856, not thinking proper to
break his head against what appeared 70 be
something like stone wall, rather modified
his principle. infer that. and think. under
all the circumstances, have right TO speak
a little by conjecture in relation to the mo-
tives of bis course. Mind you, sir, / am not
imputing it to corrupt motives. There was q
powerful reason why, at that particular time,
il should be understood that his opinions were
in conformity with the general views of his
party in relation TO the construction of that
act Great difficulties had arisen in Kansas,
and the question debated was. whether the
people of Territory. while in the Territorial
condition, could exclude slavery. On this
point there was difference of opinion mani
tested in the Senate between the friends of
that bill. But / have not time now to dwell
on that subject, and shall not comment up
on it. s--
have spoken of the election of 1855, and
/ have asserted that Americanism was the
main, and almost exclusive, ground of that
contest 1t was Just such question as was
Mr.. Wise took the field in opposition to the
American party, and they acted SO foolishly
as 10 let him traverse the State without a
competitor to meet him. A similar contest
was going ON in Tennessee, and that State was
counted on as certain for the Americans by a
large majority. They could tell, as they said,
and / believe it is the fact the number they
had in their councils. / think it was upward
of one hundred thousand, and no person
Il tod tha oil NJ fryf yxyhn
he became candidate. Colonel Gentry,
however. with all his powers of debate, and
all his eloquence, had not the strength in that
contest which il might be supposed such a
man would possess, and which, in previous
political contests, he himself had possessed.
He had voted for General Pierce against Cen
eral Scott in the preceding presidential cleo
ton, and that withdrew from him the support
of great number of the old Wings, and he
was weakened by that. l re-affirm what |
stated yesterday, without going over all the
details, that the State of Tennessee did not
declare against me in that election.
/ ought to state another fact In this connec-
tion Before left Washington in the spring
of 1855, / stated to all who inquired what my
course would be, that l would vote for the
American ticket. Several old Wings con-
suited me, by letter and personally, and |
said, 'we had better support the American
for the success of a great national party, yet
it may contain germ from which We can Ill
timately develop great national party" |
advised my friends to support 1T on that prin-
ciple. i rec )llcct now, when / think on the
subject, that the present Postmaster General,
during the canvass Of 1855, either in a speech
or pamphlet which he published attempted
to make capital out of the fact that l did not
belong to the American party-that had not
int taly re tbo
was cited as an example of the course OF eX-
perienced public men in reference 10 that
party. Near the close of the canvass in Sum-
her county-my colleague well knows where
that was-an attempt was made, think by
the Postmaster General, to state that would
not support the American party; or if he did
not say it, some other public speaker did. A
gentleman who was present, and who had
seen me within few days, declared that he
could state to the contrary and that al
though Mr.. Bell was not a member of the par
ty, he would support its ticket" You may
judge. sir, from this whether there was any
war upon Inc during that canvass as to my
vote on the Kansas-Nebraska bill, or any eX-
element or great interest on the subject. The
interest which the Democratic party felt at
that time was to put down Americanism,
which seemed to threaten to oveTwhelm them
in that section.
The next point which l shall notice is the
citation by my colleague of the Cincinnati
platform 10 show the grounds on which he
will support the admission of Kansas under
the Lecompton constitution; or perhaps he
quoted it for the purpose of showing that no
enabling act on the part of Congress was
necessary prior to the admission of State.
do not allude to this in reference to the tenor
of his address to the Senate SO much as TO
show the principle to the support of which
my colleague is driven by party considera-
tons. He quotes resolution of the Demo-
cratic platform, from the first art of which it
would seem that it acknowledges full power
in the people of Territory to control this
subject, but then in the latter part of it comes
the limitation whenever the number of their
inhabitants justifes it, The Cincinnati plat
form is an endorsement of the popular-soye-
reignty feature of the Kansas-Neb-aska bill
when a Territory contains sufficient number
of inhabitants to form State.
/ allude 10 that for the purpose Of showing
what is the evil of these controversies that
now bcset us. They cngender new, before
unheard of, disorganizing, anarehical doc
trincs. Here is the Democratic platform re-
f.rred 10 AS making constitutional law for the
Democratic party, or as having the force and
effect of constitutional law. This was re-
ferred to for the purpose of showing that
Kansas had u right To admission into the In
ion under that platform without any enabling
act from Congress whenever she had suffi-
cicut number of inhabitants to Justify it. My
colleague says the people must first make a
State, and then it is for Congress 10 say
whether il shall be admitted or not. / shall
not, however, comment on that point.
Ny colleague comes next to speak of the
complaints which he supposes made of the
injustice of the Legislature of Tennessee, in
regard to the extracts taken from one of my
speeches in 1854, and which ! said were gar
bled | did not allude to this in any spirit of
complaint toward the Legislature. These acts
were incorporated in the resolutions. and are
printed in them. and yet my colleague took
the pains TO read them perbdtiBi; and then he
said these are no garbled extracts; they car
ry their context with them; they are taken
rerbaini from his own spe, CHI, which he is pre-
sumed to have read and revised. and printed in
pamphlet form and circulated over the coun-
try.' did suppose that my colleague, who
has studied so profoundly the.principles on
which all Governments must stand. the phi
losophy of government as we'll as the philoso-
ply of slavery, would understand that an ex-
tract from speech may well be objected 10
as garbled extract when il leaves out the
context remaining in the speech which is not
quoted or referred to. i never said that these
extracts were not taken perbdtfm ef tierdtHa from
my published speech; but that they misrepre-
sented what | said in the Senate. / said they
were garbled because the preamble did not re-
fer to other passages in my speech which
would explain the meaning of the circuni-
stances under which would consider such a
question to have been decided against me by the
people, and that was after they should come to
understand the principles and objects of that
bill, and see its consequences.
My colleague asks what time do ! want!
said in my first remarks that the first election
which took place in Tennessee was fifteen
months after the passage of the kansas-Ne-
br;,ska bill, and then they did not decide
against me. lie says they did, according TO
his construction Of the result; and they deci-
ded against me again in 1856 and 1851. and
he SAYS that this is surely time enough for the
people TO understand The question. | beg