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

might have under the treaty in the opinion OF
the Supreme Court of the United States; but
by the Kansas Nebraska act you removed the
statzs which was a slavery one, that existed in
shat Territory before the passage of that bill.
He said his attention had never been turn
/, ed to ii, and he had never heard it sug-
gested in any of the debates on the subject.
In my own intercourse with the people, have
yet to find the first man who understood that
question properly. 1t may have been talked
about from the stamp, but it was not under
stood generally. / do not mean to say that
the people have not intelligence; l do not
/; mean to say that the large portion of them are
not reading people and thinking people; but
say the fact is as have stated; and it is so
because they generally follow the lead of the
leaders of their party, and vote with them.
undertake to say that at this day, there are
not five hundred men in Tennessee who I'M
derstand that bill perfectly, particularly in
|. relation to that point and the dispute between
the North and the South as to its proper con-
struction whether the people can decide the
slavery question for themselves in the terrific
rial condition, or whether they can only do it
when they come to form State. We can
hardly expect that that subject will be viewed
by the North and the South in the same light
Probably the decision of the Supreme Court
alone can bring them together, if indeed, the
North recognizes the authority of that decis-
ion. That may reconcile them, but nothing
else can. l am sure that up to last year the
people of Tennessee did not understand
whether the measure was to be viewed as Civ
ing to the people of Kansas, while under ter
ritorial government, a right to decide the
question: or whether they could do it only
when they come to form State constitu-
\ ton.
But my colleague has arraigned me as hav-
|. ing been prepared. at all times, to make con-
cessions to the North. He has spoken OF me,
and he has made illusions to me, and directed
at me, as If had. from an early period in my
career In Congress, fixed my eye on the Presi-
dency, and adopted policy which was cal
cuiated to conciliate the North. He has re-
ferred to my public acts, and speeches, and
votes. for the purpose Of sustaining him in the
position that have been at all times ready to
make concessions to the North with the motive
which l have indicated.
Mr.. President, have seen it stated some
where, and regard it as the greatest compli-
ment which has ever been paid to me as
public man, that was constitutionally con-
sentative; that this feeling was ingrained in
my very nature. From the time l was old
enough to form some opinion or Judgment of
my own. as TO the probable duration of this
great Union, saw. or thought l saw, that the
question of slavery coming;to be concentrated
existence in the North, was the greatest peril
to which it was exposed. My whole policy
in relation to that subject has been 30 keep
down Unnecessary agitation, to dry up its
sources, to make no false or imprudent issues
on the subject, take no indiscrett steps TO pre-
eipitate a contest between the North and the
South, or even hostile collision of senti-
ment. The question on the reception of abo-
lition petitions came up in Congress when l
was quite young, and when it would hardly
be expected that could have those aspira-
tions to which my colleague alluded, at so
early period in my public life, when there
was such vast host marching far III advance
of me. This was at period when it cannot
fairly he presumed that anybody of my age
could hive any pretensions to the highest hon
ors in tns country. / feel myself called upon
to review, somewhat my course in reference
TO the charges of my colleague. made yester-
day.
was called upon to act on the question Of
the proper reception and disposition to be
made of the petitions for the abolition Of slave
ry in the District of Columbia. which began
to come in rapidly upon us as the emanc pa
ton policy seemed to advance and approx
mate to its contamination in England. 1t
was an off-shoot from abolition societies in
England When these petitions were first
presented they did not attract much attention;
but by and by they multiplied TO such de-
gree as to attract notice. The unanimous
course of the southern delegation. taken
without much consideration or reflection,
was TO vote against the reception of such pc
titions, considering the subject to be one on
which Congress had not the power TO act. /
gave one or two, or il may be three, votes
against the reception of these petitions, with
other southern men. In year or two | found
that this course on the part of southern mem
bers tended to multiply the numbers the
power and the influence of the abolition So
cieties of the North. Then, speaking only to
my colleagues, the Representatives of my own
State, / pointed out to them the mischiev GUS
tendency of making a question on the right
OF petition-an old, traditional, and popular
right, which thought 1t dangerous to inter
fere with, particularly when it could do no
possible harm to receive those petitions. refer
them to a committee, and have a report on
them at the end of each session. | thought
there was no danger. at that period, but that
report would uniformly be made against
them.
Mr. ADAMS, at the time of which | speak
was chairman of the Committee for the Dis
trict of Columbia. He contested strongly for
the right of petition; and from his looks and
his manner and the spirit he manifested, il
was evident that he would be chopped into
mince pieces before he would surrender that
right. AT that very time he told me private
ly that if those petitions were sent to him he
should report against them, not on the ground
that be did not think Congress had power to
abolish slavery in the District Of Columbia.
but because he wonld consider its abolition as
a breach of the good faith which was pledged
by the North when this District was selected
as the seat of Government, surrounded by
two large slave-bolding States. / had taken
my course before that time, and the ques-
ton progressed in heat became more deeply
interested in it. saw the mischief it was do
ing. We were warned by the North that we
were giving a strength to the Aboltionists
which it was not possible for them ever to at
tain of themselves. We were warned that
they were gaining strength by urging on the
people that the South would not even hear
petitions on the subject So strong were my
convictions on this point, that in 1889 40, in
the presidential canvass between Mr.. Van Bu-
rem and General Harrison, when my own
friends in my section of the country wished
to take decided ground against Mr.. Van Blu
rem on account of his anti-slavery tendencies
and propensities. as evinced by his vote in the
New York Legislature, to instruct the Sena-
tors from that State 10 vote against the ad-
mission of Missouri. and other acts of his,
took this ground distinctly; this is a delicate
question:: here is q great national contest; the
parties are both national; yet see what has
been the effect of the rejection of abolition
petitions up this time; it has been to give "a
strength To the Abolitionists of the North
which they never could have otherwise attain
ed we ought to suppress the agitation in all
cases where, from party considerations, there
is any inducement whatever 20 bring il TO
bear on the elections; and l held aloof told
them that they must excuse me on that ground;
was conscientious in relation 10 il. and while
would not oppose this course on their part If
they thought proper TO pursue II, could not
cooperate with them in il. That was period
long anterior TO the present, but not so far
back as when the question iirst arose in the