Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-06-14
STATE EXECUTIVE CO,IrIITTEI
TUESDAY, JUNE IA, 1859.
Congregational Protection of Slavery
in Territories.


The Richmond Enquirer, in response TO the
Charleston Nt1os says Virginia ''takes the
leadn in demanding Congressional protec-
ton of slavery in the Territories of the Uni
ted States. This new item, sought to be in
troduced into the Democratic creed, is be-
coming watch-word with portions of the
party in other States besides the old Domin-
ion. In South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and even in Ken
lucky. it has been embraced by many of the
most influential and powerful leaders. We
doubt not a great struggle will be made at
Charleston to adopt it as part of the plat
form. Then we shall see either breaking
up of the organization, or surrender of
those who are now so clamorous for protec-
lection. We expect the latter The North
ern democracy cannot be- persuaded or dra-
gooned into support of doctrine which
would bind them hand and feet and put them
in the power of the Bladk Republicans. OF
course, then, in consideration of the offices.
and the expenditure of near a hundred mil
lions by democratic Executive, union and
harmony will be enforced at the expense of
the loud voiced prOtectionists of the South.
They will 'swear. terribly" but finally sup
port the nominee and the platform. Where
in the contest will the democracy of Tennes-
see stand viii they support the doctrine
of protection, or side with the non-interven-
tionists? If we are to form an opinion upon
their March platform, we can come to no other
conclusion than that they are opposed to pro-
lection. But we cannot determine exactly.
There is room to doubt. Upon this grave
question which is agitating the party, there
ought to be no equivocation by the demo-
cracy of Tennessee. Gov. HARRIS ought 10
take position. He is, every day, discussing
issues connected with slavery. and attempt
ing to prejudice the slave holder against the
OppOsition-to make him doubt the sound
ness of Southern men who cannot support
democracy; but he is silent upon the ques-
tion which is so prominent in other States.
Is he for or against protection? Goes he
with DAVIS and Brown or with DOUGLAS and
PUGH? Ifwith the former, let him proclaim
it. If with the latter, let him tell the people
go frankly. We have no idea that he is for
pIOteClHUI- we buot Hc 10 Win
opponents of that doctrine-that he sides with
DOUGLAS and PUGH. If we are right we
would ask is it not manlfestly inconsistent
for him to condemn a union of Northern and
Southern Opponents of democracy, even if
they unite on the grounds he alleges. How
much better for the South is the doctrine of
non-interNentIon as construed by his North
ern allies, than the position of the black re-
publicans against the extension OF slavery?
The practical effect ofthe doctrine of his North
ern allies would be TO give all the territories
over to freedom" The enforcement of the
black republican demand could do no more.
Why, then, should he be going about the
State, wearing out his lungs, trying to alarm
the people about coalitions of Southern men
with black republicans? What better does
he and his party offer them, How much
more protection will they give to slavery
than the black republicans For our part,
we say let the people spurn both democracy
and black republicanism, and form great
national conservative party which shall re-
form the government, and rid the nation of
the evils with which fanaticism has cursed it.
When this is done we shall witness the
dawn of the true ''millenial morning" which
will make our people what they should ever
be a brotherhood Of patriots.