Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-09-16
GUBERNATORIAL CANVASS
Address of Col. A. $ Co,y.r

ton Just closed leaves me but one course
/ became candidate because | saw tha
we were likely to have convention anC
perhaps an election without any discus.
sion over the State of the great questions
of our State debt, immigration and con-
vict labor; also, the five-twenty bond
question. The Convention had already
been arranged for and most of the State
canvassed with view to it before / be-
camea candidate. By letter, and by bring
ing the action of the people at some pub
lie meetings to the notice of my competi-
tors, and by personal appeals, l urged a
posiponement of the Convention so that
the people could find out the
views of the candidates before
a convention This l thought
was eminently proper if the party was to
be bound by the Convention, for then it
was equal to an election.
Failing to get postponement, l de-
clined to go before the Convention.
In my action now, have but one
guide, my cOnscience-and will be can
didate, and shall discuss these questions.
Gen. Brown declined to say publicly
where he stood upon any of these ques-
tiens aud the platform on which he
stands is silent except upon the bonds, and
upon this it is wholly unsound.
The five-twenty bonds amount to 81, 697, :
S73, 40. They are now due and payable
in currency, and ought to be paid off at
once, and thereby the people be relieved
of $101, 900, 900 of interest which they
annually pay in gold. This platform
proposes to tax these bonds. This, by
implication, recognizes the right of the
holders to keep them and collect the gold
interest. Instead of holding that they
ought to be taxed simply, the whole
country demands that they shall be paid
of-have the interest now paid in gold
stopped, and there is nothing to tax.
The implied right to continue to collect
this enormous gold interest by the bond
holders, in the modest demand that the
capital invested in bonds shall be taxed,
is virtually surrendering a right vital to
the whole people.
Two years ago the first resolution Of
fered and adopted by the Democratic
party in the State Convention was as fol-
| lows:
Resolved, That as in the course of
events the question whether a State
of the American Union could under
the compact secede was submitted to
contest of arms, aud decided in the
negative; and as it is wise that theories in
government should be abandoned wheE
found impracticsble; therefore the Ameri-
can people, North and South, should ac-
cept such decision as final and conclusive. "
The first resolution adopted by the
Democratic Convention on the 18th, is as
follows:
Resolved, That the Southern States
should be Immediately restored to their
rights under the Constitution of the United
States as Sovereign States of the American
Union"
This resolution, / understand, was
agreed upon in caucus the night be-
fore the convention, after the Brown res
OlutiOn of 1868 was voted down.
Turning to the proceedings of the Con
yention of 1868, find that one of the
speakers who opposed the first resolution,
based his objection upon the ground that
he did not want to bind the party and
their children.
find that two distinguished gentlemen
who opposed that resolution of 1868,
were on the committee that reported the
resolution of 1870.
The assertion that the States are sOver-
eign, is the most emphatic way; and al
ways has been, of asserting the right of
secession.
A very large portion of the people of
Tennessee utterly denied the right of Sc
7 ho1o-o-al 20 hat,
never believed State was a sovereignty.
The fact that by the very terms of the
Constitution itself, in the most emphatic
manner, the States themselves agreed that
no State shall enter into any treaty, al
lance, confederation; grant letters of
marque and reprisal, coin money, emit
bills of credit make anything but gold
and silver a legal tender, or grant any title
of nobility, is conclusive that State is
not sovereignty.
Then, again, the Constitution provides
that no State shall, without the consent
of Congress, lay any imposts or duties
on imports or exports.
And again, the Constitution provides
that no State shall, without the consent
of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage,
keep troops or ships of war in time of
peace, or enter into any agreement or
compact with another State.
With all these rights surrendered, is a
State a sovereign? The emphatic answer
is, No, a State is a government of limited
powers This doctrine of State SOW
ereignty and its consequences ought not
to have been put into this platform, es-
pecially as it was an effort to unite the
old parties; and especially should it not
have been done by q committee to whom
every thing upon the subject was to be re-
ferred without debate.
There is but one remedy for men who
think as l do, and that is not to get on the
platform.
States have rights-COngress can't
eject State-nor can Congress make for
a State a military government, for the
States are entitled to governments repub
Gcan in form.
But to maintain these rights with VigOr
and power, we must make no false issue
The abandonment of the doctrine of
1868, that the people, both North and
South, should accept the settlement as
final and conclusive, and substituting in
its stead, the fallacy of State sovereignty,
which only a few men in Tennessee be-
lieved, in my opinion, endangers our civil
State government, and will bring upon us |
military reconstruction. If this terrible |
calamity comes upon US, propose to be |
in the right, and not in the wrong, and
then the question will come, who will
stand by the right the longestl
Therefore, for myself, | adopt the resO- \
luton of 1865, and cordially invite Gen.
Brown to abandon the dangerous plat
form which he evidently got on
under excitement, and stand with me
upon the platform made by his own
hands.
l do this the more cordially because l
know his sympathies, like mine, are with
the Northern Democracy, but upon
his present platform he cannot get into
the National Democratic party, where /
shall be found.
Scot IA, 1870. A. S. COLYAR.