Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1860-10-09
Speech of Hon. VIM. l.. Yancey.

On Wednesday last, that remarkable man,
Hon. VIM. L. Yancey, delivered remarkable
speech in this place-remarkable for what he
said, and more remarkable for what he did not
say. he is fluent and pleasant speaker, but
sophistical and heterogeneous. He mistook the
intelligence of the people here, when he at
tempted to impose upon them by special plead
ing and sophistry. He did not hesitate to charge
that Bell was unsound on the slavery question.
The evidence he gave were the following facts:
LIST. Some persons in Georgia declared that he
was unsound because he voted in opposition to
the adoption of the Kansas Bill. He voted a.
gainst it because he was friend of the South
and had the wisdom to foresee that 1t would
cause to spring up in the North large and
powerful sectional party in opposition to the
South. The result has shown that Bell was
wise in opposing the Kansas bill, as it has
brought all the evils upon the country which
he, at that time, apprehended. If that makes
Bell unsound, Hon. Jno. S. Nilsson, the Demo-
cratic Congressman from the Norfolk District, is
unsound likewise, for he voted with Mr.. Bell
yet Nilsson has been kept in Congress by DEM
ocratic support ever since he gave that VOTE
It should be remembered, too, that Gov. Wise
said the objections to that bill were ''insuper-
able"
End. He was unsound because he opposed
the admission of Kansas under the Lec0mpton
Constitution. If this makes Bell unsonnd what
is to become of Gov. Wise, who opposed it with
all the ardor and vehemence of his nature9-
He is, at least, as sound as Gov. Wise on the
slavery question.
3rd. He was unsound because he favored the
reception of abolition petitions. If this makes
Bell unsound, then the present President is un-
sound, for he presented abolition petitions him.
sell, and yet he received majority of 80, 900 in
this State 1t should be remembered, too, thai
| whilst Bell voted against the abolition of the
slave trade in the District of Columbia, the
Democratic candidate for the Vice Presidency
in 1862, Hon. VIM. r. King, from Mr.. Yancey'
own State, advocated and voted for the aboli
ton of that trade. If the arguments of Mr.
Yancey prove Bell to be unsound, then we Cal
prove the very best Southern men in the United
States to be Abolitionists of the deepest dye
His attack upon Bell did not injure him in the
least degree. His attack upon Douglas was,
possible, more Objectionable than his unjust as
sault upon Bell.
But Mr.. Yancey's speech was more remark
able for what he failed or refused to say thai
for what be did say. He did not soy what b.
proposed to do in the event of Lincoln's cleo
ton. He did not say whether he approved o
disapproved of the course adopted by the Ala
bama Legislature. He did not retract the Dis
union sentiments contained in his letter t
Slaughter. He did not deny that he was Dis
unionist in 1850 for causes then existing. II
did not deny that he would be ''ready as tn
readiest" to advocate dissolution of the Unto
as soon as it would be deemed expedient to d
80. He did not deny the authenticity of th
} letter written to Mr.. Medows, of Tallapoos
t county, Alabama, in which he said:
D In 1850, l advocated Disunion On tire
grounds, viz: That in the month of August
that year, the Federal Government had admit
ted California as State formed under the free
s soil process of Squatter Sovereignty; had dir
8 membered the slave holding States of Texas, an
annexed part of its soil to the Territory {
New Mexico, and had abolished the interns
slave trade between the States and the Distrie
Q of Columbia, and had thus in effect destroye
: the Constitutional compact of the Union.
''The South, however, voted down the Stat
6 Rights band with which | acted, and since
= have not again proposed or advocated such
t measure. UPON THAT QUESTION BID
. MY TIME AND SHALL BE READY WITT
d THE READIEST, BELIEVING AT TIL
SAME TIME, THAT SUFFICIENT CAUSl
EXISTS FOR A RESORT TO THAT EXPEDI
I ENT EVEN NOW, If II WERE EXPEDI
ENT."
He did not deny that only two years ago b
was in favor of scheme for 'precipitating tn
Cotton States into revolution" He did not de
ny that he was in favor of such scheme q
< this time. He did not deny that he was a
3 much of disunionist now as he was in 1876
f and 1858. That he was in favor of disunio
! then his letters prove. He is working now fo
f the accomplishment of the object dearest hi
= heart-a speedy dissolution of the Union.