Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-03-09
The Crooked Way. Of Democracy.

said:
81 differ from the Senator from Illinois i
in regard 10 the bill. the history of it's inccl
tion, and what was intended by it. AS Eur
derstand it. we stood in this position til
southern Senator'S believe almost withou
an reception. who spoke upon that questio
i know did. for one. as | have Away
done from the time / first made my appear
ance on this foor-maintained that the Sout
had the right, under the Constitution, of pro
lection of this [slavel property in the Terri
tories; on the other hand. S, majors from fire
States denied that right"
Again he said:
1.-The case stood thus whilst the southern
men maintained on one side (and | wa
amongst them) that they had the right to tn
protection Of their property under the Con
stituIou, those from the free States maintain
I'd the opposite opinion"
1t IL t. the statement by the distinguishes
Senator from Virginia. that the Democratic
Senators from the free States in 1854, at thu
Ii ne of the passage of the KansasNebraski
bill. aud when voting for it. denied that th'
South had the right, under the Constitution
OF protection to slave property in the Ter
ritorics, or, in other words denied what are
commonly termed "the constitutional rights
of the South in respect TO slavery in the
Territories, that we call the attention of the
reader.
The Senators from the free States, says Mr..
HUNTER Democrats alike with Whigs-he
makes no ception-daiied these rights,
whilst the southern Senators maintained them;
and seeing, continues Mr.. HUNTER, that there
could have been no accord between them on
that point" 1.-The southern men, with some OBJ
lection and reluctance, in order to harmonic,
did agree, as the only mode of getting the
Missouri Compromise repealed, if the Terri
torial Legislature should attempt TO exercise
the power, [of excluding slavery that the
Court should decide"
So far therefore. were the northern Demo-
Gratis from supporting the Kansas-Nebraska
bill, because they recognized and were ready
to sustain the constitutional rights of the
South in respect to slavery in the Territories,
they. in the very act of voting for the bill,
denied those rights; and it was precisely
nize. these rights that the Southern Demo-
cratic Senators, in order, as Mr.. HUNTER says,
't) harmoniZe," aud as ''the only mode of
securing the repeal of the Missouri Compro-
MISE" agreed. if the Territorial Legislature
shonld attempt to exclude slavery, that the
Supreme Court should decide whether or not
they could gightfully do so.
We thus iterate and reilerate the fact stated
by the distinguished Senator form Virginia,
of the denial 10y the Northern Democracy,
through their Senator'S in Congress- Of what
the Souih claim, and have ever claimed, as
their "constitational rights in respect to
slavery in the Territories, because the fact
conVicts the Democratic leaders and organs OF
the South of having, through a course of
years, misled and deceived the honest and
confiding masses Of the Southern Democracy
into the belief that the Northern Democracy
recognized, and would aid them TO enforce,
the right, which the South, claimed. of pro-
lection, under the Constitution, to slave
property in the Territories
Could the Democratic voters OF Davidson
county, or of Tennessee, or of any Southern
STATE, or county of such State, be polled to-
day, and questioned on the subject there can
be no doubt but nine-tenths, probably more, of
them. would express their belief in the sound
ness of the Northern Democracy on the sub
ject Of slavery, and in the past. present, and
future, Willingness OF the said Northern De-
moeracy to stand steadiastiy by the rights Of
the South
Is no. that so? Who will have the hardi-
hood to say it is not? ffI
Now how came the Democratic masses OF
the South to be so egregiousiy misled aud
deceived in a matter So imm, diately concern
Ing what they claimed as their constitutional
rights! Who told them, who assured them,
who made them believe, that the Northern
Democrats were sound on the slavery ques-
ton, and recognized. and would aid them In
enforcing, what they, the Southern Demo-
crats, understood TO be- and claimed, rs their
ri gifts, under the Constitution. in regard TO
slavery in the Territories! Who did this
thingG Who prsctiscd this monstrous decep-
on upon the Democratic masses OF the
Southl Who, but their own leaders and
organss
1t may have been that some Of these or
gans, rs well as some Of the subordinate
leaders, were themselves deceived in respect
TO the opinions of the Northern Democracy,
and to such the charge of intentional deep
tiop win not apply. But We have the Au-
thority of the distinguished Democratic Stna-
tor and statesman of Virginia for the state
inent that the Southern Democratic Senators,
In Congress. in 1854. at the time OF the pas
sage OF the Kansas Nebraska bill, were well
asare Of aud predicat,d their action upon,
the fact, that the Northern Democratic Scna-
tors utterly denied, and could by No means
b, brought TO recognize, 1.-THE constitutional
rights of the South" In respect to slavery in
the Territories. Is il not marvellous that 30
Important a fact. which was known 10 all
the southern Democratic Senators In 1854,
Should have escaped the knowledge Of any
considerable number Of the more Intelligent
organs aud subordinate leaders Of the South
ern Democracy m r8rH Uf
DE that AZ ii may. II can be no longer de
ga red or with truth be denied, that the De
M. cratic rnasees OF the South have been, In
most ex.raol binary degree. deceived aud