Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-08-05

The Banners Allegation of inconsistency
The Banner returns to its allegation of lnconsis
tency against Mr. Ewing and refers to the fact that
since Mr. E declared IN 56 that the difference be-
tween Democrats upon the Territorial question, be-
ing judicial one would be settled by the decision
of the Supreme Court, the DRIED SCOTT decision has
been rendered. The Banner endeavOrs TO break the
force of this fact, by ntmatIng that Mr.. EWING, in
January last was willing to have two interpreta-
tions of the Cincinnati 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.. Ew
ING positively to deny the correctness Of the intma
ton.
But the Banner very manifesty fails to convict
Mr.. EwrSG of having "changed 'front.'" and adheres
to its partial quotations from his speech of &C. inter
Iarded with its own comments, and emitting any al
fusion to the views of Mr.. DOUGLAS, as declared
since the DRIED ScoTT decision. In order to a full
and fair understanding of Mr.. EwENG's position in
his speech before the State Convention in 1856, we
present an extended extract from the speech:
Waving however this solution Of the difficulty,
propose in establishment Of my position in the open
ing TO investigate not whether Territorial Legls-
lature or a State Convention is the proper tribunal
to decide upon the existence of Slavery In Terrific
ry but what is the status Of the Democratic party
North and South on any practical political issue
connected with this question?
If the Territorial Legislature of Kansas should
pass an act fOrbdding the existence OF Slavery IN
that Territory, could not call upon Congress TO
repeal or abrogate this law by their enactment We
have denied TO Congress the power directly TO le-
pisate upon the subject Of Slavery in the Terrific
ies and what it could not do directly could not be
dcne by indrection. The question then remains
whether territorial law prevent the existence
of slavery in Territory, and before what tribunal
il. this question TO be argued and determined?
Gen CAss maintained in his celebrated speech on
the COMPROMISE measures that the people CT an or
eanized Territory were the sole Judges Of the pro-
Drietv of lnterdictng Slavery within their own
f;mits IL would remain there part of their sys-
fem until interdcted either by the Territorial Lee
gislature or the Convention TO form Constitution.
The democrats in the Legislature Of Tennessee ap-
blended snd endorsed the sentiments of that speech
saon after its delivery, and no doubt thousands
~ others North and South cOncurred in its able and
roverful reasoning. This argument however did
NOT satisfy thousands of others OF the South, and
prebablv in the North, and hence 1t Is stun an unset
tied point CT beilei amongst '"e iieHOeiS Vi ''ie
Democratic party.
Having now fairly stated the facts: the question
arises whether tins difference OF opinion on TINS
pont will prevent. now OF probaOy hereafter con-
cert of action between the members OF our party
or ought it TO do so? ! have shown tfat congress
have no power according TO our southern oocITihe'
to abropate or nulify act OF the IeriI1orlal
islature inhibting slavery, ana II may Oe auugu
that the widest Southern dreamer cOuic 9y
evnect sucb concession from the North II the pow
or was admitted Ii will scarcely be COMMENDED that
any Constitutional action Of the Presiden OF 0i tue
State Legislature could remedy TINS eVhi "hgre'
then is this evil remediabe, and before what dlou-
nal is II 20 be tried? answer, before Ine supreme
Court of the United States ard its decision under
the Constitution must be final and rrevocaoe ~ lhe
premises. If It's true, as argued by many southern
mon that the States hold the territory or Ianu celeu
to the United States as common Inhu "h!cI Ion
60 can marcel ont organize into Territorial Gov
ernments and sell or give away, but from which she
cannot exclude by law, certain portion OF Vle peO
ME of these States with their property or auhorIe
spy inferior enacted authority 10 S ms
nower but whilst it is owned by the Onlted states
nd ,,armissively occupied by some, must be equal
I omen 10 all our citizens then the deeslon WEI DC
in onr favor and we have no DOUBT II II snoulu US
90 decided the Democratic party OF the Norih WOulu
1ev as one man TO carry out and uphold the decree
e g. Co,,rt If the decision should be against US,
- 81 LONG as we remain in the Union we must
- nv .l1e lsvy and cannot and VIII not took Oe-
I-ond this contingency. Should the supreme CouIt
he of opinion that Congress alone mas ee po".i "
Dravent tbe holding OF slaves in territory tlen
r. N,I,a,r Democracy are pledged by their NOtes
to the non-exercise of this authority.
Tho ,roument here isl. That Congress mas no
mower to establish or bibd slayery IN the terrific
ries. ?. That whether the people oil lerri'Oiy'
previous to the formation of State government
could interfere with slavery, was an open question
on which Northern and Southern Democrats might
fairly disagree, inasmuch as had agreed 70 suo-
the matter to the decision of the Supreme Court
g That the Judgment of the Supreme Court was 10
no deemed final and that it would then be our duty
- nsmocrats. to submit to the decision and adopt
!. os the faith of our party and T. That, as 1t was
g. iudicial and not a political question: we
.bols express no opinion until it was decided. Mr.
17-rrra aid not therefore, announce his own views
:, the subject but simply stated distinctly the va
80 oninious entertained by others, and his own
-sTl;,rnsss 70 abide the decision OF the supreme
Canrt and LAYING some stress upon the views e1-
N1 go NV Northern Democrats because ne was
P s5as.,Hg Southern audience, and he did not de
.- 1 re;uaice their position in advance OF tna'
saa;sion 10 which he confidently OelleVea 'ney
"V All these positions Mr.. EwNo yet holds. Inc
=. Of the right of Territorial Legislature TO
,,it slavery, having been denied BY the supreme