The Nashville daily union. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1862-1866, 1863-08-23

thing in a speech at Abbeville, in South
course was followed by al lesser lights
among his adherents. Then commenced
that violent agitation Of the slavery
question which bad nearly cuminated
upon the admission Of California In 1850.
Again, by The efforts Of those immortal
statesmen Of the last age, Messrs. Web
ster, Clay, and others, was the matter
compromised Tho whole country at
Grst appeared 70 be satisfied with the
settlement, but IL soon appeared there
were q number Of restless spirits among
the extremists Of the South that
would be satisfied with nothing short
OF dissolution Of the Union. Cf
this GLASS Of politician w. l. Yam
cy may be fitly selected as a rep
reSeHta,iVf man Fe Immediately bogan
to agitate the question again. He went
TO the Democratic National Convention
at Baltimore, in 1852, az a delegate
from the State of Alabama, and there
proposed as the utimat,m on which he
could continue 10 act with the Democrat-
ic party and upon which, In his opinion,
tho Slave States could consent TO remain
in the Union, that the doctrines Of nom
intervention by Congress in regard %
slavery in the territories should be in
corporated into the Democratic platform.
In this he failed, and therefore did not
support the nominee Of the Convention,
Mr.. Pierce. lie could not, however, At
that time, succeed in creating a great
schism in the Democratic party, 90 great
had been the calm which the compromise
measues of 1850 had produced. In
1856 he again went as delegate from
the State of Alabama to the Cincinnati
Convention, with his old ultimatunl in his
pocket. Contrary 20 his wishes and ex-
pectations, il was Incorporated into the
Cincinnati platform, and being thus left
without an excuse, he supported Mr. Bu-
chanan for the Presidency in the fall of
that year. In the meantime, however,
that fatal measure, the repeal Of the
Missouri compromise, had been consum-
mated. lt was brought about by the
extremists Of the South, aided by few
partisan Democrats of the North. The
avowed object of its authors was TO open
TO Slavery the territories north of the
Missouri eompromise line, notwithstand-
ing the agreement OF 1920 that said line
should forever divide the territories be-
tween the slave and free States. Il is
said, however, that the compromise of
1920 was unconstitutional, but what is
that TO the purpose? twas a most
solemn compact between the two sections
of the country, made for the settlement
Of most perplexing question, aud
without any reference 20 it's constitu-
tionality, should have been regarded as
an organic law, and observed as sacred
ly IS the Constitution itself
The effect of this measure was great
and rapiu, aud there can be but little
doubt that il was such as majority of
its authors contemplated. The result
was the formation OF q great party at
the North opposed TO the further extern
sion of Slavery, and which party very
nearly succeeding ia electing their can
didaie for the Presidency, Mr. Fremont,
ia 1876.
THE KANSAS NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. TO
STIR UP STRIFE.
After the election, this party seemed
70 be on the Wane until the anti Slavery
spirit Of the whole North was aroused
20 madness, by an attempt on the part of
Mr. Buchanan's administration 10 force
the Leoompt,on Constitution with slavery
upon the people Of Kansas, ia OPPOSE
ton to the known and EXPRESSED wish
of three iourths of them. But for this
most uniustihable measure the Republic
can party would undoubtedly have OWN
died down TO moderate proportions and
even after this, 10 ia doubtful if they
could have succeeded Ia the Presidential
election Of 1860, il the Secessionists
with Yaucey at their head had not de-
termined that they should succeed. AZ
ter Mr.. Yancey aud his party had against
their wishes, succeeded in getting their
ultimstum Of non intervention incorpo-
rated into the Cincinnati platform, they
went 10 work TO conjure up another to
present TO the Charleston Convention.
Abandoning their doctrine Of non-inter-
vention, they went 60 the opposite ex-
IRENE and demanded that the interyen-
ton Of Congress for the protection Of
| slavery in the territories should consti-
tute a part of the Charleston platform.
This demard they well knew would not
! be complied with, nor did they desire
that it should be. Their object was 20
] procure the secession of che Delegates 70
the cotton States from tho Convention,
and thus by defeating the nomination of
Mr. Douglas, and rending assuhder the
Democratic party, TO insure the election
| Of Mr. Lincoln, and thereby forge for
themselves grievance " hich would seem
20 Justify them in the execution Of their
long medltated designs OF destroying
she Union. All of this they accomplish
ed, and the q ction Of Mr.. Lincoln Was
| p,rhaps hailed with greater Joy az
Charleston than al New York ! will do
them the justice 10 state that they also
claimed TO have some other grievances ;
among them, that some Of the Northern
states by their statutes constructed the
execution OF the fugitive slave law, but
the only States that could complain much
on lhat score, were willing TO remain in
the Union, while South Carolina, the State
which set the ball in motion. perbaps
never los, slave. But il must be borne
ia mind that no act Of the National Gov.
eminent constituted any part of their
grievances, They did not pretend tbat
any act OF Congress iniringed then
rights. and the decisions of the Supreme
Court were mainly such as they would
themselves have made. Nav, even al
the very lime OF Mr.. Liucoln's inausura,
ton, II the cotton States had allowed
their Senators aud representatives. 10 re-,
main, they would have had decidet
majority Ia both Houses Of Congrees II
favor Of the extension of Slavery and h
opposition 20 the policy Of the psrtl
which elected him.
The great cause of complaint wa,
that "a man ounraad q, fha evfenef,t n