« AnteriorContinuar »
Wishing to preserve the leading facts in relation to the Tennessee resolutions, reported by Gen. Pillow to the Southern Convention, we have enquired and found them substantially as follows:
On Monday, 11th November, 1850, the Tennessee delegates met at Mr. Southall's office in Nashville. Maj. Wm. H. Polk moved that Gov. Brown and Mr. Nicholson be appointed to prepare and present resolutions, such as they might deem it proper for the delegation to present to the convention.
On Tuesday morning, Gov. Brown and Mr. Nicholson met at the room of the latter, in the Nashville Inn. Gov. Brown presented a series of resolutions which he had drawn up, and read them over. Mr. Nicholson desired the word “far" to be stricken from the first resolution, so that it might read, “although said bills fall short of that measure of justice," &c., stating that there were different shades of opinion in the State as to the degree which the bills fell short; and so to harmonize conflicting opinions as far as possible, he moved to strike out the word “far,” to which Gov. Brown assented, and the same was stricken out accordingly.
On Wednesday, the resolutions were reported by Mr. Nicholson, but read by Gov. Brown, as they were in his handwriting. On motion of Mr. F. McGavock, and after some discussion, in which Mr. Claiborne, Maj. Polk, Mr. Stevenson, Gen. Hardin, Mr. McLaurin, Mr. Southall and others, took part, the following words in the first resolution were stricken out, to wit: because the same are presented to us as a compromise and come recommended to us by the sanction of so many southern votes." After some other slight and rather verbal amendments, the same were adopted and ordered to be reported by General Pillow, there chairman.
EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN.
" and ADDRESS
Of Ex-Gov. Aaron V. Brown, to the public, previous to the
Meeting of the Southern Convention.
We have the pleasure of presenting our readers to-day with an eloquent and
patriotic letter from Ex-Gov. A. V. Brown, on the exciting question of the day. Coming from one whom the Democracy of the State have long delighted to honor, it will exercise an important influence throughout the State. Though mild and temperate, it is yet a firm and dignified defence of the motives of the friends of the Southern Convention, and we believe that it very nearly expresses the views of the advocates of the Convention in this State. We commend it especially to the perusal of our whig friends, and of all those who talk of “disunion” as the motive of the Convention :-Nashville Union.
NEAR NASHVILLE, APRIL 10, 1850. Mr. E. G. EASTMAN—Sir: I noticed in one of the whig papers of your eity, during my recent visit to the south, that in advocating the appointment of delegates to the Nashville convention and in vindicating the purposes and objects of that convention, you were charged with acting in advance of the old and experienced members of your party; and amongst such, my name was introduced in a manner calculated to make the impression that I was not in favor of the convention. I shall be compelled to be again absent from the State for the next month, and can therefore take no part in any public discussions which may take place between the present time and the period (first Monday in May) designated for the appointment of county delegates to attend said convention. Unwilling to leave this rebuke of your course unnoticed, and unwilling to be absent during the animated discussions now going on in relation to said convention, without leaving the most unmistakable evidence of my opinions behind me, for the consideration of all persons who may feel any interest in knowing them, I have concluded to address you this letter.
I know nothing more of the objects and purposes of calling said convention, than I have learned through the public press, detailing the proceedings of State conventions, the resolutions of State legislatures, and of primary assemblies of the people who have acted on this subject. All these, with no remembered exception, announce the objects and purposes of the convention to be eminently patriotic and entirely consistent with the preservation and perpetuity of the Union. Not one of them avows or intimates the slightest purpose of dissolving it. In the face of avowed good objects I will not presume bad ones against the men already appointed and who are coming up to Nashville from the fifteen States of the South, an equal number from both political parties, and who have given evidence of the highest devotion to the Constitution and the Union. Take, for illustration sake, Chief Justice Sharkey of Mississippi. He presided over the first convention that was held, and is, I understand, coming up with Judge Guion, and other whigs, to the convention. Now, would it be at all right or proper in me to set aside their distinct and clear annunciation of their motives in coming, and presume against them the darkest and blackest crime which an American can possibly commit? So I might enumerate the names of eminent whigs from other States, who have led the vanguard of their party at home, in many a hard fought battle, and who are coming up to Nashville covered with the scars of party warfare ; wounds and scars received when some of those who now assail their motives and their honor, were but puling infants in their cradles. Can I do these men, although differing from them as I do in politics, the crying injustice which some of their own party editors are doing in this State-of denouncing them, in advance, against their own express declarations on mere suspicion, as traitors and disunionists ? I cannot, and will not perpetrate such an outrage against either the whigs or democrats who have been or may be appointed to said convention. I will presume their motives and purposes to be such as they declare them to be, until they shall assemble, and by some unpatriotic act prove to the contrary. This is the rule of law and of the public press with regard to every accused felon, the highwayman and the murderer. The press never denounces them as such in advance, but presuming their innocence, bespeaks for them a fair and impartial trial.
If it be alleged in extenuation of the crying injustice now every day being done by the whig press to the eminent whig delegates that are coming up from the other fourteen Southern States, that they do not impute such unpatriotic purposes to Judge Sharkey and the great body of other whigs and democrats who have been appointed to the convention-but only to a portion of them, the “ Hotspurs”—the “madcaps” of the south-the answers to such plea is most evident, that the number of such must be very small, and that wise and prudent men of both parties ought to be sent there, and to be in full attendance, to vote down instantly any and every extreme and unpatriotic proposition, which such men might offer.
If it be true, as we often hear, that “there are fanatics on both sides of Mason and Dixon's line,” it is only proof of the greater necessity for the wise and conservative men of both parties, whigs and democrats, in the face of such formidable difficulties, to mingle more freely together, and by joint consultation save both the Union and the rights of the South against the united attacks of these alleged fanatics. How will the whigs of Tennessee feel, when that convention shall have met and proceeded to business, and when they may see their political brethren from the other fourteen States, as well as the democrats, in close and hard struggle against both these sets of fanatics, and nothing wanted to secure an easy and triumphant victory over both, but a full delegation from their party in the State, to assist by their counsel and their votes in its achievement ? I state the whig argument on this point in its full force, in order to furnish its refutation, not because I believe that there is any material portion of the people of any State, or that a single delegate from any State, whig or democrat, will be in favor of dissolving the Union. That any such result is likely to grow out of the convention is refuted by every thing that the whig editors of the State have ever heard or known or read of the American people. I doubt much if all of them put together ever saw twenty men out of the millions they have seen who were hostile to the Union.
It is refuted every time they cast their eyes over the names of the delegates already appointed from the different States. It is refuted by their daily intercourse with their neighbors with whom they transact business and interchange personal and social civilities, which necessarily imply confidence and esteem. This they could not do, if they really believed that those who are favorable to this convention were traitors and disunionists.
If they belived it, they would shun and avoid every man they met with
“As one who sees a serpent in his way
Then walks with faintness on and looks with fear." And yet I do not mean to charge these gentlemen with any disposition wilfully to misrepresent the designs and purposes of this convention; far from it; but I fear that they have not yet sufficiently waked up to the magnitude of the perils which now encompass the south, nor made a sufficient effort to throw themselves out of the habit of taking a party view of almost every subject which may come up under their review.
I have thus far given you my opinions as to what this convention was not called for. I now propose to trouble you
with a few observations as to what was expected to be accomplished by it.
For years the north has been attempting to interfere with the rights of the south in relation to our slave property. The attempts were weak at first, but grew stronger ever session of Congress, until from the presentation of petitions, they advance to the introduction of bills, embracing the Wilmot proviso, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and in all the public establishments of the United States, and to the prohibition of the transfer of slaves by their rightful owners from one slave State to another. These measures were actually pending before Congress in some shape or other and under fierce