The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1863-02-18

Why is IL perfectly conservative TO kill
the slaye-owners, aud vet radical TO
smancipate the slaye?--NaslviRs Union.
Promising that the Union by figure
Of speech here puts the slave-owner for |
the rebel In arms, we viii answer its |
question, for the answer covers the whole |
ground OF c0nservalism as opposed to |
radicalism in this struggle. i
The answer is twofold. J. Because
the latter is contrary 10 the constitution
aud the iawsof war, and the former ISN'T. |
2. Because the latter serves to promote
the success Of the rebellion, and the form
or doesn't ~
In other words, the latter is false in
principle and false in policy, tending 10
destroy the Union and Constitution,
while tho former, on the contrary, is right
In principle aud right in policy, tending,
In this moAt unhappy exigency 20 pre-
serve the Union and the Constitution.
Therefore, the one is conservative or pre-
seryaiive, and the other is radical or de-
structive. .rI .,....,.
Such Is the argument against radical
ism;--pn argument which we in common
with other conservatives have developed
tima and again, but which IL has never
been answered, and never will be. tits
unanswerable-Loit Journal d
sal a"such is the argument against what
the Journal calls "radicalism," Such il.
truly is, consisting Of four absurd and
% groundless assertions embraced in the
two ANSWERS" Of the Journal, which IL
does not and cannot sustain by one ioia
OF proof We thank the Journal for thus
condensing its fayorite folly into two
brief paragraphs, and then admitting
that such is the argument against radi-
calism"--"it covers the whole ground OF
conservatism as opposed TO radicalisni."
True TO its blookheadism and pencbant
for misnomers the Journal calls its bold
assertions arguments" II takes for
granted the very things which il ought
s.a toprOve' IL does well TO skip over even
The form Of argument, for its assertions
are supremely nopsensicai.
Let us look at them moment The
Journal asserts that il is conservative to
kill rebel slaye-owner in arms, but fits
radical to emancipate his slave To
kill the rebel master tends TO preserve the
d Union and the Contitution, but to de-
q prive him Of his slave, for Military rea-
sons, tends to destroy the Union and
the Constitution" The armed rebel NAV
be deprived of his life, for that is con
sentative; but not of his property in the
negro, who. feeds and clothes him, for
that would be radical. Now il is certain
q that. antecedent TO the war--re inteqra-
the Federal Government had no right
either to kill the master or to free his
slave. There is no clause in the consti-
tuition which authorizes it 10 do either,
and Il IL does either now, its justilica-
ton must be found in that great law of
self-preseryation, which is above all
other human laws, and Of greater author
ity than any Constitution The slaugh-
Ter of thousands Of armed rebels, on the
various battle-aelds of this War of Ma.
tionality isthe very ultimate of radical
ism, which cannot go farther than to blot
out ones very existence, The emanci-
patton Of the slave is to his owner the
loss of only one species Of property, but
the killing of the owner includes the
loss OF everything. According to the
''logic" Of the Journal the destruction Of
part is radical or destructive" while
tho destruction of the whole is @ conser-
vAtive or preservativer' The Journal
argues that part is greater fhan the
whole; il is verse to free the slave til an
to kill his rebsllious master.
Butthe Journal PROCESSES 10 think thai
the emancipation Of the slaves in the re-
hellious States, who feed and clethe and
support the rebel armies, serves TO pro
mote the success Of there bellion :" but
Il takes care not to advance a word of
proof to support an assertion, which is
SO Supremacy preposierous that its state
ment is its own refutation If the Eman-
epation Proclamation renders the slaves
in the States 70 which IL applies unman-
sgeable, and yalueless, it is clear that
the rebel government and armies can de-
rive no help from their labor, and must
fall TO pieces On the other hand, il the
Proclamation be brutup, faimsa, it can
effect nothing for or against the Union
cause, Butwe are told it has exasperat-
cd the Southern people, and made rebels
OF loyal men. We deny it positively
and defy any one TO produce evidence
that such is tho fact. Show as one Union
man who has faltered in his loyalty in
consequence Of Emancipation Proclama-
tiOps, We have heard good deal Of
such staff, and demand tho proof II is
not true; not one word Of it. On the
contrary, it is an alrooious cAlumny
against a body Of men who are not so
depraVed as to prefer property to ooun-
try. The very warmest advocates Of the
Emancipation Proclamation, are large
slays-owners Of this State and. Alabama !;
and the most radical letter we have yet
seen on this subject we received short
time ago, from large STAKEHOLDER Of
Kentucky
Tho Journal in its zeal to become the
pro-slayery champion in Kentucky, not
only renOunces its own previous we'll
- a.