Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-09-19

attained in every Southern State. save one, in /
view of the means slavery agitation) by |
which that ascendency has been acquired, but |
another great sectional factf
Each party claims TO DE national and de- |
nounces the other as sectional, while both |
loom up mountain high, huge sectional facts, |
as patent to the understanding as the Alps or
the Andes to the human eye.
The Republican party has acquired control
of very nearly all of the free States, and has
no existence beyond them. The Democratic
party, while it has acquired possession of all
the slave States, with Que exception, has lost
State by State, in the free States, until it has
become doubtful whether 1t can carry a single
State North of Mason and Dixon's line at the
Presidential election in 1860, unless it aban-
dons the demand of Congressional protection
to slavery in the Territories as party test. 4
The Shibboleth of the Democratic headers
of the South at this time is the extension of
slavery into the territories of the United
States, aud it, protection therein by Congress
as CONSTITUTIONAL rights. fH
The Shibboieth of the Republican leaders
of the North is at this time the prohibition by
Congress of slavery In the territories.
The platform of that party, as adopted at
Philadelphia ia 1856. asserts that ait is both
the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit
in the territories" the existence sol slavery"
or its extension therein. This, the chief
Uertiser. at all sat variance with an intensely
national SENTIMENT" to call it "sectional' is,
the advertiser asserts, a culpable aud disrep-
utable Misrepresentation of fact" But here
in the South is a whole section of the United
States which repudiates and rejects this doc
trine of Congressional prohibition. A sec
tional issue has been made, and exists in full
force, in regard to it it! How will the I'D
Vertiser dispose of these pregnant facts?
Leaving out ofview the comparative merits
ard relative soundness ofthe two antagonistic
doctrines, Congressional prohibition is just as
sectional as Congressional protection, and
viee VERSO. They are sectional, because they
of the Union. They are sectional, because
the Northern and Southern sections of the
Union are at Issue in respect to both OF them.
From present indications it does not seem
probable that the dogma of Congressional
protection will cease to be repudiated and re-
sisted by the North, nor that of Congression-
al prohibition cease to be repudiated and re-
sisted by the South. -r
Neither question has at this moment sim
gle element of the practical about it. Both
are speculative, because, as recently said by
a distinguished democrat of South Carolina,
the Hon. w. w. Buyce, - the territories of the
United States open to settlement are impossible
to slavery" is not that SO? Into what ter
ritory could slavery be extended now. even
Kansas the question is already settled accord
ing to the wishes of the advocates of Con-
gressional prohibition, and without the aid of
such prohibition. The only territories left
are Nebraska, Washington Utah and New
Mexico. Into none of these will slavery ever
go, even ia the absence of both territorial and
Congressional prohibition. 1t could not be
legisLoted into them, suppOsng Congress had
pienary powers over the subject and were to
n fhnr,n 20 kot., a
may be said of any new territories likely to
be acquired from Mexico.
Indeed the improbability of the occurrence
OF any contingency which could give rise TO
practical conflict between these antagonis-
tic doctrines is so great, that, to make them
the subject OF present and continued agita
ton must appear to the eye of unprejudiced
reason as nothing short of downright in
fatuatiou.
But, although neither of these questions
now OF any practical value, aud are both
in effect mere distractions, yet the agitation
of them, 1t persevered ill., is not the less like
ly, on that account. to continue mischievous
and injurious in the highest degree-Over-
riding and subordinating, as it will, the mOs
important questions connected with the adj
vancement and protection of all the great
material interests of the country, aud with
the purity and character of the government,
besides endangering in its results, the peace
and safety of the Union.
1t was for these reasons that the Opposi-
ton in Tennessee in their platform, adopted
in March last, deprecated 1.-THE fur her agita-
ton" of the slavery question, as tending ito
no practical good to any portion Of the
country" and resolved that SO far as their
efforts could avail, such agitation should
"cease." 4his was, in effect, protest
against thefurth er maintenance and discus
sion, as party tests, OF the territorial ques-
tons of Congressional prohibition and Con-
gressional protection.
In these views of the Opposition in Ten
nessee in regard to the further agitation of
the slavery question, Mr.. Bell, il is hardly
necessary TO say, most heartily cOncurs
During the whole of his long political life
he has steadiastly opposed the getting up of
unwse and unnecessary issues between the
North and the South, on the subject of slave
ry.
In 1888. he alone, of all the Southern
delegation in Congress, with the exception of
Mr.. Boudin OF Virginia, voted against the
second clause of the fifth of the famous reso-
lutions introduced iuto the House OF Repre-
sentatives by Mr. Atherton, of New Hamp-
shire, relating TO the reception aud disposi-
ton of petitions for the abolition OF slavery
in the District of Columbia, and be did so
from the conviction that il would be wiser
and better TO let those petitions take the
usual course. He believed, that whether the
right of petition existed in the case or not,
sound policy dictated the reception aud ref
erence of the petitions, and that the unusual
course proposed to be pursued in regard TO
them, would strengthen tue abolitionsts, 10y
connecting their cause with this question OF
the right of petition.
For similar reasons he voted in 1910 against
the adoption of what was known as tue 2lst
Rule, relating to the same subject.
1t was III the same year, now twenty-one
years ago, that Mr.. Bell, in letter published
at the time. to a distinguished statesman of
Georgia, invOkd the public indignation upon
"those hollow and false guardians of Southern
interests, who would, for the sake of trh-
ing party advantage, put everything TO
hazard by perpetual agitation 'lof the slavery
question: The motive TO inis policy Of
slavery agitation in tue South. to whatever
extent it was adopted, be said, ''was beyond
all doubt to combine the South aud South
west more closely in their political move
ments and preferences"
This experiment" he thought, "a danger
Gus Que, regarding it in a political view only;
for il struck him that if the ambitious aspi-
rants of the North should take it into their
heads TO play the same sort of game in retail
lat on, the South would soon be thrown into
a settled minority, aud forthwith deprived Of
political power"
Tuus it will appear that Mr.. Bell, in oppos-
ing the Kansas and Nebraska bill, was &C
tuated by the same sound patriotic, and con-
sentative views which had governed his
whole course upon this subject from the com
mencement of the slavery agitation. Believ-
lug that the abrogation OF the Missouri Com
promise line would be OF no practical value TO
the South, would renew, aud impart TO, the
agitation of the slavery question unwonied
violence and ..stimuIate the formation of n
sectional party organization" in the North,
he obeyed what he considered his duty TO the
country, aud opposed the measure, notwith-
standing the warnings OF friends. who
told him that such course would furnish a
plausible ground fol imputaiious upon bis
rlotives:" and. in fact, destroy him. Two
paragraphs at the close OF his speech on that