Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-07-14
rhe sonlhern a1onrentlon.


The Nashville Banner republshes what It calls
''e pith" Of the resolutions adopted BY the South
ern Convention in this city in 1850, and endeavOrs
to produce the impression thar The maintenance Of
the Missouri Compromise, and its extension to the
Pacific, was q measure advocated by that conveD-
ton and endorsed by the Nashville Union. The
publication Of the series of resolutions, even the
single resolution of which the Banner processes to
give the pith," weuld have negatiVed that assump-
ton.
The resolutions contend for the very doctrine
subsequently announced by the Supreme Court 10
the case of DREO ScorT. The first resolution as
serts:
sThat the territories of the United States belong
to the people of the several States of the Union, as
their common property That the citizens of the
several States have equal rights tc migrate with
heir property TO these territories and are equally
entitled to the protection of the federal government
in the enjoyment of that property 80 long as the
territories remain under the charge Of tht govern
ment." ~
The second resolution declares:
"That Congress has no power to exclude from the
territory of tHAUnited States any property lawfully
| held in the Stat of the Union, aud any act which
may be posed by Congress to effect this result, is
Fpain violation of the Constitution Of the United
States"
Here is an emphatic declaration that the Missouri
Restriction was an unconstitutional measure,-a
doctrine fully established By the decision of the
Supreme Court
But after insisting on the recognition by Congress
of the doctrine set forth in the resolutions We have
| given above, the Convention resolved;
s'Fhat in The event q daminsnt majority shall re
fuse TO recognize The great constitutional rights
assert and thall continue to deny the obligations Of
the federal government TO maintain then, it is the
sense of this Convention that the territories should
be treated es property and divided between the
tions of the Union that the rights Of both sections
be adequately secured in their respective shares
That we are aware this course is open to grave OBJ
eciioDs, but we ready to acquiesce in the adop-
lion Of the line OF Sc deg 80 min. North latitude,
extending 10 the Pacific Ocean, extreme con-
cessio1, upon considerations OF what is due to the
stability Of our institutions"
The Southern Convention, then, SO far from ad-
opting the Missouri Restriction, pronounced the
principle il contains unconstitutional and unjust
to the South 1t earnestly insisted that Congress
should open up all the territories of the Union to
the introduction Of every species of property exist
ing in any Of the States of the Union, which was af
forwards done by the Kansas Nebraska Bill.
"But" the Convention goes on to say, sin the
event q dominant majority refuses to recognize
the constitutional lights assert, in case we can
not obtain recognition of the principle we contend
for then, we viii aequiesce in the division of the
common territory between the sections on the line
of SO 80, an srtrsnnc concession, rather than
sort to dissolution of the Unien.
Instead Of fsvoring the policy of maintaining the
Missouri Restriction, the Banner would have its
readers believe, the Southern Convention affirmed
an opposite doctrine, and consented TO the extern
sion and continuance of that line, only "upon con-
sderatiOns of what is due to the stability of in
stitutions?'
By recurring to the legislation of the last few
years and to the authorizations of the Supreme Court
it will be seen that the doctrine commended for by
the Nashville Convention is the established pol
icy Of this Government; and although this doctrine
was resisted by WILLIAM H. SEWARD and JOHN
BELL and JOSHUA GIDDINGs and EMERSON ETH
Fridge and the New York Tribune and the Nashville
Banner, " the gates of He'll have not prevailed
against it."