Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-08-10
| The Banner ArrafgninE Breckenridge
Democrats and refusing to speak out

| The Banner ArraIgninE Breckenridge
| Democrats and refusing to speak out
| itself.
The Banner returns to the charge of inconsistent
| cy of Mr.. EWING in three column article. He
commences by saying that
Upon the authority of Mr. Ewing himself it de.
MES our assertion that at the last Democratic State
Convention in January 1860. he advocated prefer
mission of the question of Congressional protection
or, that in his speech supporting the first series of
resolutions presented by the platform committee of
that body, he did take ground against the policy
and necessity of the demand for Congressional pro-
lection, and argue that such position would dis
unite the party, and jeopardize its success in the
Northern States in other words, that he did not
desire that the democratico position the terrific
rial aspect of slavery question to be open One and
urge the democracy should conduct the pend
| ing canvass so far regards the slavery issue,
upon the ground that they occupied in 1885, that is
the Cincinnati platform.
Now what sort of fairness is there in this asser-
ton of Mr.. EwING's denial, when you turn to the
UNION and see the extract as follows:
The Banner endeavors to break the fnrce of this
fact by intimating that Mr. Ewing, in January last,
was willing TO have two interpretations to the Gin
cnnati Platform, for the North and another for
the South. Although the Banner does not charge
distinctly this to be the fact it clearly intimates it.
We are authorized by Mr.. Ewing positively to deny
the correctness of the intimation.
We never denied for Mr.. EwNG that at the State
Convention he was opposed to the policy of incorpo-
rating resolution in our platform asking for the pro-
lection of the government; so far from it that
allegation was distinctly admitted in our former ar
tcle and the reason stated for this action as shown
N this extract
1t is true that the doctrine of Congressional pro-
lection was regarded by Mr. Ewing at our last State
Convention logical ollary from the denial of
Squatter Sovereignty The State Convention thought
otherwise, and deemed it necessary to affirm that
idea in order to meet the unfriendly legislation sug
gested by Mr.. Douglas the part of the Territorial
Legislature.
Yet the Banner gives the above statement of Mr.
EwING's denial seemingly if taken from our arti
Gle. Is this fair play?
We wish to call attention now to three points in
the article of the Banner. lst 1t does not impeach
the consistency of Mr.. EWING any longer on the
proper incorporation in the Democratic Platform of
the views expressed in the opinion of the case of
DRIED SCOTT as to the power of the Territorial Lee
gislature over the institution of Slavery in the Ter
ritOries This charge is either ignored abandoned
yet every person supposed in the first attack made
upon Mr. EWING that this one grave part of the
The Banner now says that he antici
paed his defense that subject and thought he had
parayzed its force by reference to it in his article
of Thursday but We respectfully ask of the Banner,
did he refer to that decision at all in his Original
three column charge Did he give Mr.. EWING the |
benefit of that reference until the UNION AMERI-
JAN called his attention to the matter on subse-
luent day? 1t is all very well to talk of fair play
% an individual whom you seek to put trial, but
We respectfully ask, is Il fair to make a complete
NJ ,D;oua uuII;c accusation met manson (hov-
ng the ground of his defense) and yet make no allu
ion to it? But we have SAID that the Banner in its
asst reply abandons this part of the Indictment and
it had given the italics to that portion of the last
quotation of Mr. EwNGS speech, which is asfollows
Then, the decision FoiH be in fduor and ace haze
10 doubt if should be so decided the Democratic Patty
f the North lcoud rally as one man to carry ont and
phold The decree of the Court" it would be patent to
very person that it was no longer sustainabe. Mr..
WING clearly indicates that 'ohen the decision made
is hencgoourd to be the creed Of the ,ohoe Party.
2. The Banner now says that the inconsistency Of
r. EWING is in this, that he contended in 1856, that
should the Supreme Court be of opinion that Con-
ress alone has the power to prevent the holding of
aves in Territory, then tie Northern Democracy
pledged by their votes to the nonexercse of this
lthority.'' He says:
Mr.. Ewing threw himself in advance of the bred
colt Decision and argued in 1856 if the question
al been passed upon by the judiciary, and con
nued 10 insist, that whatever might be the decision
the Court that the rhOle variance beceea members
the Democratic party on the slaUeru issues roas ,teyIv
eOretc and Of no practical importance dndtGt could
yer cecL ueF dctton or uotg, and rO,cn in as
HTeOrdnd 6y those WHO WERE HOSTILE TO THE TvIoy
to our lhlSl party organization" :
In other words he made his aryumant &c 1e5e !
pom the ground of the bred Scott Decision ond a
erefOPe, neither he or his friends can now 80 ?
lat IN justification of his change of front" !
Now the Banner shuts his eye to the fact urged in
II former article that the Platform of the Dem a
cratic party at Baltimore does not maintain that
DngresS can establish or ihibh slavery in the Terrific
es but expressly denies that such power does exist
7 reaffrmation Of the Cincinnati Platform. The q
over and duty of protection to slave property by Q
e Federal Government whenever it is decided a
atit does by lao erst is the doctrine now advanced
: the Democratic party, and if the Banner can
low anything in the speech of Mr.. EwING DENYING r
is truth then he will convict Mr. L. of inconslst.
ICY and not until then. The difference beween the d
,wer to establish prohibit slavery and the duty 3
giving it protection where already established =
ould seem to be wide enough for the comprehen-
IN of any person, and yet the Banner cannot OF
Ill not see the distinction. "
The Banner gives this extract: that the he
Mole uaridaee betlceeR members Of The Democratic