Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-10-27

cinnad ICoRsgefeeaL as saying: -
| The extreme southern and secession
] views of The exr Confea erate General
| TCheathainl and his associates have done
serious injury to the Liberal cause in In
diana AID CHIC and have @driveH hum
drcds to the support of Grant. under q
deep conviction that The time is not ripe
for the Introduction Of the policy Of peace
and reconciliation Of which Mr.. Greeley
is the exponent. sado1 1ia Esse1 div ~
lThe Commercial itself is but quoting
from The BG'laer in attributing ''extreme
Southern and secession tiewsn TO Frank
Cheatham and his associates. The Com
mereid quotes the Banner, and then the
Bdnafr triumphanAy quotes back from
the Commercial, 1t is after the style of
Artemus Wards suggestion, ssYou tickle
me, aud III tickle you.S aisgA .aaH
| Ne 3Aye asked lie BGaaer time and
asNin ~ reduce these Radical charges of
'aecess ionn into seine tangible shape. We
nave asked what dogma, Whit pontie-aE
principle, thai embodies secession, is adyo-
Gated BY any person or party in Tennessee
to-day. We have asked what practical
measure, involving secession or any other
dead issue of 1851, is being proposed by
anybody. We have asked, what has Dem
ocrAtic rule developed IN Tennessee since
| the exit, of, Brownie wism, that, should
alarm the naiien, and make any reasonable
man doubt our full acceptance of the re-
suits Of war, and our earnest sincere fealty
to the country and the future. What leg
islation, what executive acts, what Judicial
decisions, are to be cited against the Ten.
nessee Democracy, to prove its disloyalty
and secessionism? To sll these demands
for some tangible charges, the Banner has
been dumb. It contents itself with the
general, sweeping, Radical charge of unre-
pentant rebellion and reactionary conspir-
acy, denying our people the credit of com
mon sense, common political sagAciiy, CON-
mon honesty or good faith.
The Banner knows well that Mr. John
sons is a purely personal canvass. He is
running against the DEMOCRACY, and the.
Bonner says he has gone ovsr to It. He is
not a Liberal Republican, because he 1idi-
euled the Cincinnati Convention and con-
demned the Baltimore Convention, and has
never subscrib ed to the platformof either.
BE ia nota Radicals denies having ever
been a Radical, not even when be was
elected on the Radical Presidential ticket.
Being to-day neither Democrat, Liberal,
nor RsdicsL his candidacy is merely pers
sonal one. he asks the people of Tennes-
see to endorse and promOJe-not any liv-
ing par.y-Hot Demoersey--not the Libe-
raj move-nota Radicahsfn- but. he asks
therato endorse and promote, pure and
simple, Andrs6 johnson.
Heseeks partic ularly an endorsement Of
his war record. The Banner wants to
make this ties. of Unionism or ''seees-
sion." It cannot do it. The question of
Unionism was settled by arms over seven
years ago, and ali Tennessaeans Lave
heartily accepted the settlement. Mr..
Johnson's personal candidacy against ex-
Confederate Frank Cheatham is no more
test of Unionism in Tennessee, than the
candidacy Of VIM. q. Wisener two years
ago against the ex-Confederate Jno. G.
Brown-a canvass in which the Banner ad-
vocated the ex-Confederate General as
against the Union man. To-day there
is the same race between the same ex-Con-
federate General and that model Unionist
A. A. Freeman. Does the Banner make
this also test of Unionism? Or does it
hold that Mr. johnson monopolized all the
Unionism of1S6l? If Mr.. johnson is the
one solitary and complete embodiment of
Unionism, to oppose whom is "open re bel
lion" and arrant Secession" then the
Banner itself is in an awkward predica-
ment. Three years ago it poured out the
viols of its wrath on this grand .embodi-
ment Of Unionisps and rungalli The changes
on Mr.. Johnson's record, from his levies as
Military Governor ard imprisonment of
preachers, on through the Surratt horror,
to his fight with Radical Congress. Was
it a "secessionist," was it "disloyal }" when
it thus opposed him on his war record? We
never said SO; and We are no more aseces-
sionists" or disloyal" in opposing him now
than the Banner was then.
The Banner might with as good grace,
or better, lake up Mr. Maynard IS test of
Unionism in Tennessee. 1t might plead
that he never belonged TO the Democratic |
party which "precipitated an unholy re-
belion." 1t might plead that be was neuer
"precipitator" neither in 1861, nor in |
l659-GO, when Mr.. johnson was Genounc-
ing all compromise with The North as |
"tresson to the South" 1t might likewise
take up VIM. q. BrownloE and try to |
force him down the Threats of Tennessee
ans on its absurd dead issue Of Urionism |
and Secessionism. -..
Now, If il be true-as the Cincinnati |
Commercial claims, quoting from the Ban
ner-that this personal issue of Mr.. john
sons has been so grossly misunderstood in
the North as TO lead the people there to |
think Tennesseeans are still "secessionists"
and rebels and reactionists, who is respon-
sible for the miscenception2 Who has
been representing our people in that dis
torted light? Who has studiously sought
to misrepresent the issues of this Tennes-
see canvass2 Who joined the Mortonites
Of Indiana in denouneing our people as
unrepentant rebels and secessionists? Who
out-Herods Herod in denouneing "precip-
itators," and declaring they are still plot
ting? Who joins the Radical horde in deDy-
ing our Southern people common sense. Or
decency, or sincerity? Who is helping
daily to mislead Northern sentiment as to |
the unquestioning Unionism of Tennessee
ans? VINO? The Nashville Banaerl
Shake not thy CORY locks at us; thou canst
not say are did it.
"MARCEEING on"
We learn from the R0DDor tAot ....s