Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1860-07-21
Mr.. Taneey's Reply to WesSrs. arrOl
and XaIerSOn.

The Memphis AU1LaHche, of the 18th, pub
fishes q reply from Hon WV. l.. YANCET Of
Alabama, to the go Address to the Democracy
of Tennessee recently published by Messrs.
WV. H Carroll and HARVEY VI. WATERSON.
This reply is reputlished IN the Union and
dnlsricQn of yesterday, aud is devoted TO a
recapituIaton of the differences among the
democracy, which resulted in final disrup-
ton of that party at Charleston and Balti-
more. and to virdication of the course of
the writer since 1s4S, and denial by him OF
desire to break up the Union. In view OF
our publications of the 18th and 18th inst,
it may be proper for US to notice that portion
OF the vindication referring to disunion, and
we will do so very briefly.
We desire to do Mr.. YASCET no injustice,
and will not knowingly do so. He stated in
substance, in speech at Baltimore, that he
had endeavored to produce dissolution of
the Union in 1s5O-51, but that the people
had decided against him then, and he had
since coutented himself with an effort to Sc
cure the South in her rights. But he did
not say then, nor does he say in his letter
which we are now considering. that those
rights, as he regards them. are Inconsistent
with continuance of the Union. His idea
now seems to be that a dissolution is not
altogether desirable, that he would be will
ing to see it continued, provided everybody
else in the Union would agree with him. To
him, no doubt, this is a very proper and desir-
able basis of Union; but he knows that it is
altogether chimerical. He may express al
ways the utmost devotion to the Union, on
those terms, and yet be most decided dis
uniouist practically. And, to our mind, this
is professionally the true state of the case
with him.
Mr.. YANCEY frankly owns that he wrote
the letter to Mr.. SLAUGHTER; but says, .' the
letter does not urge disunion-does not
advocate disruption, either of democracy or
of the Union.n But that letter says: 81 No
national party can save US; no sectional
party can ever do it. But if We could do as
our fathers did-organize committees of
slfety' all over the cotton States, (and it is
only in them that we can hope for any effec
tive moyement1 We shall fire the Southern
heart, instruct the southern mind, give cOur-
age to each other, and, at the proper moment,
by one organized, concerted action, We can
precipitate the cotton States into reyolu-
tion.n Mr.. YANCEY may be able TO see diff
ference between disruption and "revolu-
tion"-to our mind, it is clear that when any
of the States are precipitated into ''revolu-
ton" the Union is at an end. We give him
the benefit OF his plea, and refer to the whole
letter as heretofore published by US.
In relation TO the Southern League" the
motto of which. as quoted by Messrs. CAR
ROLL and WATERsON, was, "a Southern Re.
public is our only safety Mr.. YANcEY says
that this was not in the constitution of the
Montgomery League which he headed.
This may be true. The constitution which
We copied entire, and which was quoted by
Messrs. CARROLL. and WATERsoS. was that of
League" formed at Bethel Church. Mont
gomery county, Ala. This League, was
constituted Immediately after the delivery of
an address by Mr.. YAScEY, and he was, no
doubt, cognizant of all that transpired on
that occasion. Whether the Constitutions of
the Bethel Church League and the Montgom-
cry League were the same, We have only the
statement of Mr.. YANcEY. He does not DENY
that the constitution of the one at Bethel
Church, was as we quoted it. His reference
to the Montgomery League is, therefore,
mere qaibble. There is nothing In the reply
OF Mr. YAScEY that exhonerates him in our
estimation from bis odious and reasonable
connection with the conspiracy to break up
the Union.