Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1860-07-07

COLEMAN YELLoTT, Esq, State Senator OF
Baltimore in the Maryland Legislature, some
time .ince published letter in the Baltimore
Clipper, in which he made an argument to
show why neither the democraticnor the re-
publican party should be sustained by the
people in the present political contest. In
order to exhibit this point in a satisfactory
manner, he traced clearly the causes of the
popular divisions which have grown to such
fearful magnitude within the last half dozen
years. Let Us give brief synopsis of a
portion of his argument
From 1920 to 1910, there was in these
United States no anti-slayery party in the
arena of politics. There were, in various
sections of the Union, certain philantbropists
and some fanatics who deprecated negro sla-
very as political evil and a moral sin; but
they had not become, and did not aspire to
become, political party.
In the year 1910, for the first time, the anti
slavery men of the Union presented Presi-
Dental candidate in the person of James G.
Birney, and he received seren thousand votes
Since then. at each succeeding Presidential
contest, that party has had its candidate in
the field. The following table will show the
result at each election:
In 1874 Jame.G Birney received 90, 14O votes
In ls4s Martin Van Buren, az 291 ,67S az
In 1852 John P Hale 1925 -
In 1856 John c. Fremont :; 81, sI2 80
This table demonstrates three important
facts. viz:
lst. That each one of the four candidates
of the anti-slavery party had bcan a modern
Democrat!
2d. That from 1913 to 1852 the vote of the
anti-sIayery party decreased from 29l, 678 TO
Isl, 296 Tor 134,3S2)
Sd. That from 1852 to 1856, the vote of the
1 .34I .Sl2 Tor ,1945
Why did the anti-slayeTy vote decrease be-
tween 1S45 and 1852? .s.=e
Because of the wise, honest and patriotic
policy pursued by the Wing administrations
of Zachary Taylor and Willard Fillmore.
Taylor and Fillmore found the country
much excited upon this slavery question:
The compromise acts of 1850 were passed.
The whole or q majority of those acts were
advocated, voted for, and approved by such
Southern leaders as Henry Clay, Sam HOus-
ton, John Bell, Underwood of Kentucky,
Badger and Mangum of North Carolina, Ber-
rien of Georgia, FOote of Mississippi, Spru-
snce and Wales of Delaware, Marshall of
Kentucky, Gentry of Tennessee, and last,
but not least, James Alfred Pearce and Thos.
G.. Pratt of Maryland.
They were advocated or voted for by such
Northern leaders as Daniel Webster and
Lewis Cass-
The whole country, slaye-holding and free,
approved this Compromise; for, by its terms,
was virtually settled the condition as to
slavery or freedom, of every foot of territory
belonging to the Federal Government; and
Il was hoped an exciting question had been
pat to rest forever
Nothing could be more striking than the
comparison of the votes OF the anti-slayery
party, as thus exhibited especially its falling
OF in 1852, when the country believed the
question set at rest, and its sudden and sur
prising increase in l656, when it had been re-
opened, and the people conceived that pre-
vious solemn pledges had been violated, by
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The
argument is carefully followed into details
for which we have no room, but it shows how
peaceful and prosperous the country had be-
come, under the policy pursued during Mr..
FiIImore's administration, so that the South
and the North were equally at rest. Let any
of our readers revert 10 that period for a mo-
ment, and reflect ho~ quiet all things were
at home and how respected we were abroad
under the happy auspices Of the last Wing
administration OF the government. 1t may
be said, with perfect justice that the four
wears of the administration of Gen. Taylor
and Mr.. Fillmore, while Mr.. Webster and Mr..
Everett were successfully Secretaries of State,
was the period when the States, for the first
time in It's history, distinctly, amply and un-
reservedly obtained its complete recognition
abroad as q irst-rate power in the world.