Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-03-05
Southern Indignation against Ten
nessee-Trade.-Sub omission.

Three months since, when Lincoln was
elected, and it seemed as if we were on the
eve of dissolution of the Union, it was the
desire of conservative men in Tennessee, and
in many of the now seeded States, that, be-
fore any secession was consummated, there
should be Convention of the Southern
States; some ultimatum as to claims pre-
sented 10 the other States of the Union, which,
if accepted by them, would till enable us to
remain in the Union; and, if rejected, would
probably unite the whole South in harmoni-
GUS action. This policy was earnestly pressed
by many of the ablest, wisest and best men
in the South, but it was seornfully rejected
by the leaders of secession. They first urged
that South Carolina and Mississippi had en-
deavOred, twelve months ago, to inaugurate
such a policy, and it was then neglected or
refused by the other Southern States, and
that it was now too late to renew it. We
were next told that such measure was un-
constitutional and directly in contravention
of the 10th section of the LIST article of the
Constitution of the United States. Lastly
it was roundly asserted that the secession of
a State was a matter purely and solely for
the judgment and consideration of the people
of each State, that they came into the Union
separately, and must go out in the same
manner.
Notwithstanding the contradictory form of
these different statements, or grounds, and
the undeniable fact that the States of the
South were mutually dependent on each
other for their safety, we had to content our
selves as we best might with the answers we
received, and six or seven States left the
Union by their separate State action, and the
only favor done to Tennessee was to send US
q couple of respectable Commissioners, who
advised us to follow their example.
Well, in course of time It became necessary
and proper for Tennessee to act; and, after
hearing all sides, and taking time for refiec-
ton, she decided. by an overwhelming ma
joriiy, that it was her interest TO remain in
the Union at present, and still seek for an
adjustment of our difficulties.
We supposed. of course, that the seeded
States would, on their oacn reasoning, be satisfied
Nth our action. We thought that, with their
lofty ideas of State Rights, they could not
object to our doing what TO us seemed best.
We had considered the question longer than
they had done, read all that was submitted
for our consideration, heard able speakers,
and then quietly acted on our own Judgment
Was anything more proper or fair?
But, what has been the course of the seed
ing States towards us! One long howl of
complaint, abuse, and bitter detraction, has
been echoed and re-eehoed from South Caro-
lima to Texas. We are denounced as traitors
to the South, submissionists, abolitionists, as
crouching to leaders, and other most often
sive charges and epithets. Nay, they have
gone 30 far as to threaten us with loss of
trade, tariffs. DC, and that they will hereafter
trade with Ohio IN preference 10 Tennessee
Now, is this Southern State Rights doc
trine Is this Republicanism Is our ae-
ton more offensive or injurious to them than
theirs was to usi Who opened the idea
of separate State action! Who set us the ex-
ample and gave as the argument We have
done what In our honesty and simplicity we
thought was right, and who shall gainsay
orr sction, Certainly not those who refused
70 consult with us when they acted, who