Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1868-03-05

hose men from the North who
opposed that measure with equal
firmness and integrity. i
1t is the fashion of many wri-
ters OF the day to class all who
the Consolidationists in
this, their first step, on this ques-
ton, with what they style the Pro-
party. No greater injus-
tice could be done any public men,
and no greater violence be done
done to the truth OF history, than
such a classification. Their oppo-
sltion to that measure, or kindred
subsequent ones, sprung from no
attachment to slavery; but as
Jeferson's, Pinckney's and Clay's,
from their strong convictions that
the Federal Government had no
rightful or Constitutional control
or jurisdiction over such questions;
and that no such action as that
proposed upon them, could be taken
by Congress without destroying
the elementary and vital princi-
pies upon which the Government
was founded.
By their acts they did not iden-
tify themselves with the Pro-slav-
cry party, (for in truth, no such
party had, at that time, or at any
time in the history of the country,
any organized existence.) They
only Identified themselves, or took
position with those who maintain
ed the federative character of the
General Government.
| In 1850, for instance, what
greater injustice could be done
any one, or what greater violence
could be done the truth of history,
than to charge Cass, Douglas,
Clay, Webster and Fillmore, to
say nothing of others, with being
advocates of slavery, or following
in the lead of the Pro-slavery
party, because Of their support
of what were called the adjust
ment measures of that year?
Or later still, out of the million
and a half, and more, of the votes
cast in the Northern States, in
1860, against Mr.. Lincoln, how
many could it, with truth, be said
were in favor of slavery. or even
that legal subordination of the
black race to the white, which ex-
listed in the Southern States?
Perhaps not one in ten thou
sand! 1t was subject with which
they were thoroughly convinced
they had nothing to do, and could
have nothing to do under the
terms of the Union, by which
the States were confederated, ex-
cept to carry out and faithfully
perform all the obligations of the
constitutional compact.
They simply arrayed themselves
against that party which had viz
tually hoisted the banner of con-
soIidation. The contest SO COM
menced, which ended in the war,
was indeed a contest between op-
posing principles; but not such as
bore upon the policy or impolicy
of African subordination. They
were principles deeply underlying
all considerations Of that sort
They involved the very nature
and organic structure of the
Government itself. The conflict
on this question of Slavery in the
Federal Councils, from the begin
ming, was not a contest between
the advocates or opponents OF that
peculiar institution, but a contest
as stated before, between the sup
porters of & strictly Federatiye
Government on the one side, and
a thorough National one On the
other.
1t is the object of this work to
treat of these opposing principles,
not only in their bearings upon
the minor question of Slavery, as
it existed in the Southern States,
and on which they were brought
into active collision with each |
but upon others (now that
this element of discord is remov-
ed) of far more .ranscendant i'm
portance, looking to the great fu-
ture, and the preservation of that.
constitutional liberty which Is the
birthrisht of every American, as
well as the solemnly guaranteed
right of all who may here in this
new world seek an asylum from
the expressions of the old.
a "house on runners" passed