Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-02-08

that the importation Of slaves would be Tor the interest
r BalDNs had conceived national alone to be before
the conventions not suchs lie the present. we're OF local ma
RT thought he had nothing to do with the conduct Of
the States to slaves but ought to be careful not to give any
Ar DIoKsox considered it as inadmbIe on every pTn
ple honor and fay that the importation Of slaves should
n authorized to Tie ststss By the Constitution The true ques
he uron,oei
mporaon and This question ought to be e 20
lie national Government, to the States particularly in
sSir WILLIAMSON thought the southern States could not lie
members Of Unon the clause should be rejected aud that
ii was wrong anything down absolutely necessary, and
which any State must disagree to"
Mr KRs Thought the subject should be considered in polt
r LaEeBoS was strenuous for giving the power the Gen
sra Government He could not with good conscience, leave
sneT PIoKNEY moved to commit the clause, that slaves
ieht be liable equal tax with the other imports
'a BuTLEDsE against striking out the clause,
and fesonded the motion for a commitment.
SIR GoUvEEUR MORRIS wished the whole suhectto De con-
t,d including relating to taxes exports and
navigation act These things form bargain among the
r BUTI1 declared he never would agree to the power of
sr saERxAN said it better let the southern States
import slaves than part with them they made that sine
qua non. go. -,
die ground might, il possible, be found.
.Ihe commitment was made, to 81 absent''-AGaisons
Papers, volume B pages lSoe-l59o
The result was the commitment of the several
subjects involved in the conflict and their final set
Element on the terms contained in the Constitu-
ton.
A similar conflict, but much less cOntroverted.
arose in the Federal convention on the subject of
providing for the restoration of fugitive slaves In
this connection the following brief abstract from
the proceedings viii be useful
'Fugitios SJaUes-Ea o0a0eHtioA.
"AIr BUrLER and Mr. PoKNEY moved require fugitive
and servants to be delivered up like criminals
"Mr WILSON, This would ooge the executive Of the state to
do q the public expense.
Mr sHERAS saw no more pTapet N the public sezng and
Mr. BUTLER withdrew his proposition august g, 49,
page l447.l
bound service labor, otbe United States, shall
cape State he she shall not be discharged &c
sAgreed to- men, august %, l7S, pages 1856 1851
Ne person legayheld labor &c. September Re
port from Committee Of Style, &c, page l555)
Article section (he third Parsgaph) The term legal
~ 80 ~ % 7stste IN eoeaDs1ee with some who thought
the legal equYocal and aTorng the idea that slavery
legal in moral view" tseptsnber l5,page l5S9
These proceedings prove the prevalence in the
Federal convention of strong anti-savery sentiments
They show that the formation Of Federal Union
was seriously endangered by the conflict on that
subject They show that statesmen, whose wisdom
patriotism and morality, are unquestioned and I'M
questionable, although c0nscientously impressed
with the belief that slavery was immoral, finally
adopted a Constitution which distinctly and repeat
edly acknowledges and guarantees its legality and
validity. They did this without changing or yield
ing their moral convictions. They acted upon the
principle that slavery domestic institution be-
longing to the jurisdiction of the States; that its
morality or immortality was question with which
the Federal Government had no connection; that It
was only as political subject that they had to deal
with it; and that, without deciding whether it was
moral or immoral they could sanction its legality IN
the States and extend TO it the guarantees and pro-
lection of the Federal Government. The course
adopted by our fathers in founding the Government
furnishes the only practicabe solution OF the obsta-
Gle to its preservation. If the Constitution is con-
strued in the light of their example and administer
ed in the spirit Of their patriotism. the Union can
never be endangered by any conflict on the subject
Of slavery.
The fact that there pending sectional conflict be-
tween the North and the South Is conclusive evidence
that the example of the fathers of the Constitution
has been disregarded, and that the Constitution
itself has been violated and tTodden under foot. On
whom rests the weighty responsibility OF this high
crime of arraying the sections against each other IN
dangerous collision Iappeal to the truth of history IN
vindicaton of the South and of that portion of the
North which has acted with the South on all the issues
as to slavery that have arisen since the first serious
conflict in 1920. 1t in the hope Of avoiding sec
tOnal agitation that the South submitted to the arb
trary compromise made in that year. Ii was be-
cause the South and her northern friends denied the
constitutional right Of Congress to abolish slavery
in the District of Columbia to prohibit its exist
ence in our navyyards and docyards, or to prohibit
the interstate trade IN slaves, that they sought IN
1885 and for several years afterwards, to exclude
from Congress the agitation Of slavery upon the IN
troducten of petitions and memorials on these sew
era subjects 1t was for the sake of peace, and to
avoid sectional agitation, that IN 1913 and again IN
1850 they proposed final settlement of the slavery
question by an extension Of the Missouri compromise
line 70 the Pacific After this most reasonable prop
ostion was rejected by their northern opponents,
they sought again to avoid the revival OF sectional
agitation by Withdrawing the question as to slavery
in the Territories from Congress and leaving it to
the decision of the people therein, thereby estaO-
fishing the principle of congressional non-inter-
ference as fair equal and constitutional adjustment
of the subject Il was because they believed that
faithful adherence to the principle OF nonnter1er-
enee would prove efectual IN keeping down section
al agitation that they applied it to Kansas and Ne
braska in 1854, when governments were given to
those Territories, The South and her northern
friends have pursued one uniform line Of policy on
every occasion when the slavery question has been
raised; that policy has been, in every issue strictly
defensive. and never aggressive. Whilst the South
has believed that slavery it exists in the southern
States is morally and politically right, we have not
sought make that reason for extending IL INTO the
Territories. We have maintained that the Con
stituon recognizes slaves in the South as property,
entitled to like protection with all other property;
and hence that Congress has no power prohibits
enjoyment in the Territories like every other species
of property. We have been ready to abide by and
acquesce in the adjudication Of these questions by
the Supreme Court, and since their decislon IN our
favor we rely upon it as the highest constitutional
reasonable, unjust, nor aggressive. We have never
exacted from our friends of the North an admission
Of the correctness Of our convictions "a to the NOR
altv of slavery. We have claimed the right to eX-
erese the ful freedom Of copscience on that as on
ol other questions of morality, and have cheer
fully conceded the same freedom 20 an others.
We have agreed with our northern friends IN taking
the example and the Constitution 0t ogF fathers as
the guides of our political organization, ana on
these we have cOoperated and harmonlzed IN resist
fbn iyhf of
The South neither feels nor acknowledges any re-
sponsibitv on account of the pending sectional con-
fict We would gladly see all cause OF alienation
and dissensiOn removed. We are as earnest now as
ever before in our opposition to the agitation Oh
the slavery question. 1t is in the power OF our OPP
moments to restore immediate quiet and peace
70 be followed by our ancient traternal relations
9gev claim to stand where our fathers stood on the
slavery question, and they quote by the hour from
their writings TO show thar they, lke theRsel{es,
believed slavery 10 be moral, social aud pQIteai
evil We yenerate the high names winch they N
woke ss much as they do, and we frankly concede
10 stronq opposition of many Of them 10 an nsttl-
op which we regard Is moral, benencent ana prop
er. Our opponents qnd the south are therefore N
10 ,,oct cateeory which existed among our fathers
in the formation of the Constitution n Lle Feqe-
raj convention were noble patriots opposed 70 slakc-
nv there were others equally true PATROLS Eq0
,era its advocates there was conflict mat seem
cd to be irrcconcilable Yet these cohuic'ils eig-
neuts were harmouized Constitution was loflheg'
and a Union founded. How was this great work
ACCOMPLISHED? The record which l have already
produced gives the answer The opponents OF
slavery conceded the point thai, thougn III tioiI
opinion the institution was wrong, yet II 0elng
subject that belonged entirely 70 the states where 1t
was legal and valid they could cohseiSil'iOus,
eopize that legality ana ylid,ty in the Constitution
and provide for It's protection as other properly:
Thoy did not surrender their moral cons lctols ~
agreed that ths obligation on them to form S3n-
stitution and a Union was higher law lot tHeii
government than their individual moral conYl
Unless our oppoaents claim to be wiser statesmen
truer patriots, and better christians than lilelF
fathers 1t is difficult to see why they cannot as Is
well as THINK like them 70 withdraw the cause Oh
sectional agitation it is not essential that our
opponents should change one jOt or title OF thef
moral belief. 1t is only necessary 70 agree that the
Constitution is the supreme law and TO folioW Tue
example Of their fathers in not allowing tner moral
DersuasiOns to control their political actions.
But it is answered that we make demands Tor
slavery which can never be conceded, because they