Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 186?-1872, 1871-02-25

GA .''s''''.'"T Ell. Ioi 1911.
II beg the Atrcrlcan people, beg That
great engine OF public opinion which On-
trolls and governs tn - great extent public
sentiment, Danish from your minds the
idea tir,s the men Of the South are traitors.
They are traitors no more than YOU are,
sir. Their States went our. Their states
had the power 10 compel Obedicnce st1@ to
punish disobedience. You dtd not protect
Them when they were dcicnselcss. / stand
here now, In the lust moments OF my SON
atorial life, 10 proclaim throughout the
lLngtrr ami breadth OF this who he country.
North and South, so far as my feeble utier-
anccs can reach, that those gallant, noble
pecple were not traitors"
The foregoing remarks were made
by Senator Salisbury, Of Delaware,
i'm the United States Senate, and
form q part of an able argument In
v~indication of the South against the
charges of treason and malicious re-
bellion, which form the staple Of pu-
ritan SANDER.
BY way Of introducing the above
extract to its readers, the Memphis
Avalanche makes the following com
ment:
"DiScussing In earnest, whether the
Southcrners, who fought in the late war,
Tor states Rights, were traitors, seems to
az about rs practical " performance as
wrangIing over the introduction, or nom
Introduction OF slavery Into Kansas and
Nebraska. Both questions belong to the
past, AMI have been practically settled, No
far aS the mass OF the people are con-
The parallel between the revival of
slavery anywhere, and the vindica-
ton of southern motives and actions
is invisible to the naked eye. Sla-
very is u dea6issue, and If an attempt
Is ever made to rcsusitate it, it Will
be made by the North which has
grown rich, arrogant, and despotic
upon the slave trade, and the fruits
of slave labor; but the character Of
the South, so far ms 1t hinges upon
the validity of the doctrine of States
Rights, is a living issue, and the ques-
ton IL, shall it go down to posterity
blackened and blurred by yankee
ISLANDERS, or In its true co~lors-devo-
ton to constitutional liberty and re-
s%istance to the startling dogmas of a
people crazed by fanaticism and reek-
ing with the filth of hypOcricy, In
religion, free-love and spiritual affln-
ity, in the once sacred relations Of
married life, lewdness and looseness
in everything tending to promote
harmony and happiness, in our So
cial and political structure.
We thinkthe Avalanche mistakes
the true issues of the war, when it
classes States Rights among those
that were settled by that conflict of
-arms. Ask the war-democrat, of
the North, If he took up arms against
the South, for the destruction of State
sovereignty, and he will answer-no!
aud that he took up arms for the pres
ervation of the Union believing that
its dissolution would be prejudicial to
the material interests of the North
west. Ask the most fanaticial Radi-
cal in New England, If he took up
arms to put down State Rights, and
q be will answer-no I! that his sole OBJ
ject was to abolish slavery. These
are the questions that cemented the
entire North against the South, and
the leaders of the deluded and de-
mented mob studiously kept out Of
view whatever intentions they may
have had, to overthrow, and then
ccntralize the government. States
Rights was, in no sense, made an
issue in the war, except 81 far as the
South urged 1t In v~indication Of the
justice of its resistance tn a sectional
tyranny, overriding the Constitution,
that 1t might compass the destruc-
ton of the rights and property of the
South.
The truth Is that the doctrine of
States Rights emerged from the fire
and arnage Of the war, unscathed,
and the hue and cry raised against it,
since that time, was altogether an
after thought. Andrew Johnson, to
coasummatc his treason to the
South, repudiated the terms of sur
render, appointed provisional Gov
crnors for States, already constitu-
tionally organized, and thus paved
the way for the Radical usurpations
that have told, so fearfully, against
the rights and liberties of the South.
with a retiihutive retro-action upon
the North. IL this is not true, why
did the Radical administrations shrink
from testing the right of secession
before n court in full sympathy Will
the Radical party? They decline,
it, because they knew that State SOW
c~rrignty was the corner stone of tn,
Federal Union and had been, 10
nearly a century, the palladium q
popular liberty. They know that II
pcrrhauce, the court should have III
tirmneSs and Integrity Sc to decide, /
would cast, upon the North, the stig
ma ola lawless invasion of the SoutI
conceived in the basest motives an
wagcd 10y ean diSgraceMl even |
savage warfare. They knew that, /
the event of such rightfl decision
the South would stand, Mt once, as
will In history, acquitted of the gull
Of originating n hloody and savag
war, followed by grosser and mur
widespread corruption than eve III,