Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-03-17

northern Senators. All have to say on
that point is, that I fully agree with the
Senator from Illinois and the Senator from
Ohio. in every thing they said.''
| Mr. STUART, of Michigan. "Iwant to know
of these gentlemen 1.-THE Southern Democratic
Senators] whether they intend to abide by
the doctrines of the Democratic party as LAID
down at Baltimore and Cincinnati, or not !?
If they do not, it will be little difficult to
understand wEo is in, and who out of-the
boundaris Of the Democratic party.
How long do you suppose it would take you
to pass your law through Congress- if you had
it introduced, providing for protection to
slave property in Territories, while the people
there refused it Introduce it to-day, and
try it. You will be grayer sir than an old
rat, and Older than Methuselab, before you get
il through both houses of Congress-"
Mr.. HUNTER. of Virginia. 81 differ from
the Senator from Illinois 1.-THE author of the
Kansas Nebras ka bill j in regard to the bill,
the history of its inception, aud what WAS
intended by it." - -.
These declarations of Democratic Senators
furnish strong evidence. and justify the con-
clusion, that there has been cheating all around
the Ioord-sometimes with eyes open-sOme-
times with eyes purpOsely shut-and some
times, it may be, without the knowledge of
it, on the part of the cherted.
And this game of cheat on the question of
slavery in the Territories has been going on
| ovor e;nca 1919 II commanded in that ypar
with the publication of Gen. CAss IS Nichol-
son letter. which was understood and inter-
| preted by the Democratic leaders and organs
| at the South as not main tanning the doctrine
of squatter sovereignty, and by the Demo-
| cratic leaders and organs at she North as main
| tanning that doctrine; while the Southern
Wing leaders and organs vehemeEtly insisted
and argued, and justly, as it eventually
turned out, that the Northern Democratic in
depreciation expressed the meaning of the
distinguished author, and that the Democratic
speakers and organs at the South were mis-
leading and deceiving the honest masses of
their party, in respect to the opinions of the
Democratic candidate for the Presidency.
During the canvass Gen. CAss refused any
public explanation of the meaning of that
part OF the letter having reference to slavery
in the Territories, although requested to do
so by Democrats: but after the election was
over. he very fully explained, il the Senate,
that the Northern Democratic construction
was right. and the Southern Democratic con-
struction ,orong.
Referring 10 this canvass, to the different
and conflicting interpretations put upon the
Nicholson letter, and to the explanation by
Gen. CAss in the Senate after the election,
a distinguished Democratic representative in
Congress, from Virginia in the course of some
remarks in the House, on the Goth July, 1850,
said:
I'm the last Presidential canvass THAT of
lS4S] instead of having a fair just concep-
ton of the views of the two sections Northern
and SOuthern1 each was deceiUed bydei,riue con-
strIctioHs and anibignors phrases into the belief
that they were acting on common principles,
when the most radical difference in purpose and
views in fact prevailed. Such was certainly
the case to a considerable extent with the
Democratic party. The doctrine of non-inter-
vention, as it was called. unquestiOnably had
a very different construction at the North
and ut the South. In my State Vir-
gnia1 if it had received the construction put
upon it here by Northern men. Democrats
or been explained as it has since been by the
Democratic candidate for the Presidency. |
feel assured he could not have commanded
even the vote of my own State, staunch as
she has ever been in her adherence to the
principles and candidates of the Democracy.
No, sir, a very different exposition was given
of this doctrine in the South.
How wonderful the coincidence between the
condition of the Democratic party here des-
cribed as existing in 1850. and in that disclos-
ed by the debate in the Senate on the 23rd
ult.-extracts from which precede these re-
marks! In the Presidential canvass of 1856. |
as in that of 1913, instead of having a fair, |
just conception of the views of the two sec
tons [of the Democracy. the Northern and
the Southernl each was deceived by delusive
constructions and ambiguous phrases into the
belief that they were acting on common prin-
ciples, when the most radical difference in |
purpose and views in fact prevailed"
In 1856, as in lS4S "the doctrine of non |
Intervention, as it is called, unquestionably |
had a very different construction at the |
Northern Democracy and the Southern Demo-
cracy-the leaders and organs of both sec
tons using the term,as denoting a concur
renee in opinion between them, well knowing |
that il had double and conflicting inter
probation, and that it was understood very
by the Northern Democracy from
what it was by the Southern Democracy.
And yet it was over and about the true mean
ing of this very term, "nOn-inteIvcntion,"
which, since lS4S. they have been well aware
was understood one way at the North and an
other and n very different way at the South
that the leaders OF the Southern and the
Northern Democracy quarreled and came to
an open and violent rupture in the Senate on
the 23.d of February!
Upon what grounds, upon what pretense,
hen, can the leaders of either section of the
Democracy allege or insinuate that they
pave been cheated, or deceived, or even
nisled by the leaders of the other section?
rhe plea of being themselves deceived by
me another, now set up, cannot be admitted.
rhey have been playing this game of cheat
or ten years, with their eyes rc,de open. They
rave delud.d the honest masses of the Demo-
racy, North and South, into the belief that
hcer was harmony of opinion between the
wo sections Of the party on this vexed ques-
ion of slavery, when, all the time, there has
PREVAILED radical. irreconcilable difference
( opinion between them. Yes, the honest
nassess OF the Southern Democracy have
'een, for long time, egrcgiously deceived
'ut their leaders the Southern Democratic
eaders especially-how was it possible for them
o have been deceived by their Northern
|