Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1858-12-24
pay- Il seems that two or three northern

pay- II seems that two or three northern
papers, with freesoi procliyities, have spo-
ken in favorable terms Of the Hon. John
Bell whereupon the Union and american,
with more Of the spirit of partizan than
the conservative wisdom Of a statesman,
eagerly seiges the opportunity to denounce
the distinguished Senator as an enemy to
the South. What are the antecodents Of
John Bell upon which such charge can
be based2 What has he done that justly
invokes the denunciation of Southern To-
cofocos? Why he voted against the Ne
braska- Kansas bill Does the Union and
American remember that Cass proclaimed
the passage Ct that bill the triumph ofsquat-
ter sovereignty? Well, what is the infer
ence? That John Bell is opposed to squat
ter sovereignty, whilst the Nashville organ,
in supporting Cass, supports squatter SOW
reignty; and if this doctrine is inimical to
the South the organ must change places
with the Senator and stand forth the ally
of northern anti-slavery, andas the enemy
of the South This is logical deduction
from which there is no escape. Does the
Union and american remember that Doug
las proclaimed the Nebraska Kansas bill a
better measure of freedom than the Will
mot proviso? John Bell opposed this
worse than the Wilmot proviso measure,
and the Nashville organ supported it,there-
fore the former is e-eminently the friend
of the South, whilst his accuser is its worst
enemy, as is proven by his own logic. Does
the Union and American remember that
Pierce, in justification, to the North, of
his signature to that bill, declared that,
under its operation, there could never be
another slave State even if we absorbed
the whole of Mexico? Again John Bell
stands out in bold relief the champion of
Southern rights, whilst his accuser, in de-
Tending Pierce and that bill, boldly advo-
Gates measure that precludes the posi-
bility of another Slave State These are
facts of history which none will question;
and if opposition to squatter sovereignty
and to measure more detrimental than
the Wilmot proviso to the slavery inter
ests be true devotion to the South, John
Bell has proven himself the fast friend of
the peculiar institution, whilst those who
accuse him are its covert if not open enc
mics. This charge of hostility to the South
is preferred against the Union and Ameri-
can by the record, and is made good by
the very test to which it subjects John
Bell.
But the distinguished Senator voted
against the Kansas bill, of the last session,
and that stamps him the enemy of the
South. Senator Hammond denounces that
bill as an egregious swindle; Gov, Wise
does the same, followed by the Richmond
Enquirer, and many other leading spirits
of the Southern locofoco party. Douglas
denounces that bill, and triumphed in III.
inois-the sole issue being opposition to
it, and the echo of the plaudits which wei
coined him in his late Southern tour has
scarcely died away. Yet John Bell is sin
gled out from the thousand locofocos
North and South, who stand by him on
that question, and denounced as an enemy
Of the South, whilst the democrats who
agree with him are Landed as the peculiar
friends of our institutions. If there be
truth, justice, or patriotism in such @
course, as this, towards an eminent South
ern statesman, we would like to see the
process by which the Union and american
can demonstrate the fact. We can see in
in it nothing but rancorous party spirit
that will make saint OF devil, or devil
of q saint if the former be locofoco, OF
tho latter belong to the opposition A 10.
coroco may denounce the Kansas bill and
still be true to the South but if whig OF
an American do the same, he becomes an
abolitonist Republicans may vote for q
democrat, and his purity remain unm-
peoched; but if tho former commend an
American, the unfortunate recipient of the
praise, is no longer to be trusted-he be-
comes an aboitiouist of the blacklist dye
Such is locofoeo justice--such the debas
ing influence Of party upon those who are
its slaves,
S6S- The Banner, which in the begin,
ming, opposed the call of a Convention as
carly as the 22nd Of February, seconds our
proposition to defer it to a later period
A writer in the West Tennessee Wing also
makes the same suggestion, and the more
we think about it, the more we are impress
al with 1ha nrnnrinty Of the mnnsnrn