Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-10-23
From The Charleston Mercury.
HON. Jefferson Bavfs-A Union Nor

prlately calle0 Union MOrInOn. lHTouSu-
out New England he has been feted and prais-
ed, under the impression produced by bis
speech at seq: and he returns the soft
impeachment by elaborate eulogies on thu
Union in general, and on YankeedOm IN
particular. So acceptable have been his Offer
ings. that we see the Yankees have given him
a sort of ovation in Fanueil Hall, in Boston.
When il is remembered that this hall, sacred
to old Federalism and Abolitionism, was
denied to Daniel Webster, because on dis
tinguisilcd occasion, he would not outrage
the rights of the South, the august dignity of
the compliment to the Mississippi Senator
may be feebly comprehended. IF Mr.. Davis
had been of those purblind party bigots or
cratic thinkers in the South who supported
protective tariffs, and believed that the more
man paws for an article the richer he be-
cnmes-or had he rioted in the delusion that
the more money is expended on Northern
lakes, rivers and harbors, in the way of
internal improvements. the better for Ala
bama-or bad lie, as an abolitionist, felt
glory, instead of dissatisfaction, in the ex
cIusion of the South from our territories, and
the eternal agitation of slavery in Congress
we might in some degree. appreciate the
simple weakness or folly of his now fannting
Unionism. But up to this day, by profession
at least. he is strict construction, State
Rights Democrat. With him protective tariffs
national banks-internal improvements by
the general government-our election from
our territOries-have oil been unconstitutiOn-
al. From the time he was suckled to this
day, he has never seen constitutional Union
he has never lived day in which the
South has not been unjustly and unconsti
tutiOnally taxed. plundered or harassed. So
fully sensible was he of the wrongs under
which the South has labored under the Union
that in 1852 he proposed to the people of Mis-
sissippi that they should break up the Uuion
by seeding from it, instead of remaining in
jured and endangered provincials hopeless of
relief. Since then, the anti-slavery and anti
southern organization at the North has great
ly strengthened. Their policy is rolling on
to success. A Black Republican President
was nearly elected at the last Presidential
election; and the very last Congress witnessed
a more intense agitation than ever of the
subject of slavery, ending in the rejection of
State from the Union on account of having
pro-slavery constitution. Under such cir
cumstanccs he appears before the triumphant
aSsailant and prosecutors of the South, and
pours forth his disgusting eulogies of union
with them. They hear; they approve; they
fiatter. What more do they want. of any
Southern man, but that he shall be devotee
of the Union? They have the power to do
their will They can make the Union what
they please. All they want is. that Southern
men shall hold on to the Union. They are
Just meditating increased tariff duties for
their benefit; they have just rejected State
from the Union on account of slavery; and
they are now busy in keeping up the issue,
that they may secure the government of the
Union through the Presidency. What a
fitting time for State Rights strict construc-
ton. slavehOlding Southern Democrat to
appear amongst them bandying compliments
How opropos these sophOmOrical eulogies of
the Union on his patriot lips, and prayers.
with up-lifted eyes, from his full and enlarged
heart for it's eternal duration!
But this is not all. To satisfy his North
crn friends we presume, of the advantages of
the Union to them, he introduces our
territorial possessions, and endeavors to
prove 10 them that they must and will have
them all. or at least as much as they want.
Yet il is plain that. since the bred Scott
decision. annihilating squatter sovereignty,
and determining that the people Of the South
had an equal right to enter our territories
with their slaves and be protected in their
possession, it is apparent the Kansas Nebraska
act. authorizing the people of territory to
exclude slavery, was an unconstitutional
usurpatiOn. The question has necessarily
arisen-if the people of the South have
right to cOlOniZe our common territories
with their slaves, is it not the duty of Con-
gress to protect the Southern as well as the
Northern man in the peaccable enjoyment Of
his property? If in a territory, it matters
not from what cause, tie STAKEHOLDER is
ieopardcd in his property, beyond all doubt
ID is his right TO have, either by Congress or
the territorial legislature, an adequate pro-
lection provided for him Now, the honor
able Senator is supporter of the Kansas
Nebraska act If, by the policy and princi-
pies of that act. adequate protection is not
afforded to the Southern stakeholder in our
territories IL is his business, as a representa-
tive from the South in Congress, to afford
him protection by the legislation of Congress.
Yet this is exactly what he proposes not to
do; whilst he endeavOrs to show to the New
England people that they can easily keep
slavery out of all our territories. He says
that they have only to go into our territory
and do nothing 10 protect slavery, and it will
keep out or die out. The first squatters from
the free States have only to he sufficiently
numerous TO prevent territorial legislation
protecting slavery, and they have the terri
tory There is no sort of necessity to await
a territory being a State to determine its in
situations. BY Congress doing nothing,
which he cOmmends-and a territorial legis-
lature doing nothing, which he does not con-
Yankees can easily appropriate all
our territories. Here is what he says in a
speech delivered at Bangor, in the State of
Maine:
'If the inhabitants of any territory should |
refuse to enact such laws and police regula-
tions as would give security to their property
or to his, it would be rendered more or less
in proportion to the difficulties of
holding it without such protection. In the
case of property in the labor of man, or what
is usually called slave property. the inse-
curity would be so great that the owner could
not retain it, Therefore, though the right
would remain, the remedy being withheld, it
would follow that the owner would be pract-
cally debarred by the circumstances of the
case. from taking slave property into ter
ritory where the sense of the inhabitants was
opposed to its introduction. So much for the
oft repeated fallacy of forcing slavery upon
any community"
Forcing slavery upon any community"
This is the stale Black Republican slang,
which has been SO dinged into his ears in the
Senate that it seems to have mastered his
svmpathies His whole position, consistent
enough with squatter sovereignty before the
bred Scott decision, is now utterly false. If
slavery enters rightfully territory, and by
the constitution and laws of the United
States of force in every territory slaves are
property, then the common law, if faithfully
adninisteren, is quite sufficient 10 protect the
Shareholder in his rights. Once establish
that slaves are property, and the legal rene
dies which protect property are adeque to its
protection. But suppose this not to be the
ease and that, as Mr.. Davis asserts, positive
legislation is necessary for its protection
then is it not. we repeat, the duty of Congress
to afford protection. Congress cannot
enact territorial laws, yet il it has rea-
son TO suppose that the legislature of a ter
ritory win not fulfil its duty in making laws
adrquale to the protection of all the property
of all the citizens of the States, in territories
belonging in common TO all of them--if such
laws are necessary--is ii not bound itself as
the common experimenting agent of all the