Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 1857-1865, 1860-04-13

ssh- The attempt Of the Jt6ivsonias to fasten
upon the charge Of Inconsistency, on tbe subject
Of the Homestead, we shah treat in ms few words
as possible, without stdpang to enquire whether or
lot his prespises are <orect Or his conclusions
Legitimate. We DO not now remember Mai. Henrys
position on that neasase, in 1852 but We do rs-
member that great many wings favored il because
they believed i, wiser to give .he public lands TO
actual settlers than to suffer the democrats longer
70 use them for the purchase Of northern votes by
applying them to the building Of northern railroads,
digging canals and improving barbors and rivers
with means which belong equally to the South, hut
Of the benefits Of which it is deprived by. demo-
cratic policy. The only eqaitsble mode Of dispos-
ing Of the public Observation-Disclosures among all
the States--the democrats had repudated, and some
Of the whgsseeing that the disposition Of the lands
by that party, tended to strengthen the Nerth at
the expense Of the South, and to demoralize the
country 10y a corrupt system Of bribery deemed 4
best to eradicate this evil by giving abe lands to
actual settlers rather than suffer them TO remain as
corruption fund in the hands of the democratic
party.
At that time, the doctrine Of the 'irrepressibe
conflict had not been proclaimed, nor had the
aboitionists claimed the Homestead as "a better
measure of FREEDOM" than Douglass squatter SOW
reignty, nor demanded that its benefits should ac-
crue to aliens as well as native citizens. The policy
which was then choice of evils il is every honest
mans duty to oppose now since the course of events
demonstrates that its tendency is to greater evil
than the one il was intended to cure. Policy must
pie which is immutable. The principle involved in
this question, in 1853, was protection of southern
rights and Interests against democratic aggressions
upon both, and the policy proposed was such dis
position Of the public lands as would most effec-
tually disarm democracy of the power to sacrafce
the South for northern votes. But since circum-
stances have shown that the present plan of Home
stead will infiict greater wrong upon the South
than the gift of the lands to new States and incor-
neutrality-suspicious. change of policy is imperative
ly demanded whilst the principle remains unchang-
ed. The Homestead, in the revolution Of events
has become an anti-slavery weapon to be used
against the South, and icing a southern man, and
true to southern rights, consistency demands that
we shall oppose it now, even admitting that we did
favor it in 1852 as the Jeffersonan charges by
strucaon. The man is most consistent who en-
deavors to direct the current of events towards the
best interests of his country, aud if he change his
policy it is because justice and expediency demand
it. The inconsistent man is he who ndheres to a
given line of policy and abandons principle when
ever it conflicts with that policy Consistency is a
virtue when il means adherence to correct princi-
piles, but it is both degrading and dangerous when
confined to policy regardless of principles. And
we may add, no man ever contradicts himself by
making his policy conform to his principles, willis,
he who pursues the opposite course is continually
in opposition to himself. 1t is this adherence tc
policy without principle, that makes democracy q
tumble Of contradictions.