And here is the resolution of the 8th of January _Democratic_ Convention in Ohio, appointing delegates to the Cincinnati Pow-wow:

"_Resolved_, That the people of Ohio now, as they have always done, look upon slavery as an evil, and unfavorable to the development of the spirit and practical benefits of free inst.i.tutions; and that, entertaining these sentiments, they will at all times feel it to be their duty to use all power clearly given by the terms of the national compact, to prevent its increase, to mitigate, _and finally eradicate the evil_."

To show, just here, where Tennessee Democrats stand upon the infamous Wilmot Proviso question, we give the following extract from a recent number of the _Nashville Patriot_:

JAMES K. POLK,

who, in 1847, approved the Oregon bill, which contained this odious and unconst.i.tutional clause: next in order is

CAVE JOHNSON,

now President of the Bank of Tennessee, who voted for the same bill which Mr. Polk sanctioned: next we have

AARON V. BROWN,

an aspirant before the Cincinnati Convention, who did likewise: then comes

JULIUS W. BLACKWELL,

a star whose light has been quenched in obscurity, but who voted with his colleagues for the Oregon bill in '47: next in the procession of Southern men "dangerous to the South" is

BARCLAY MARTIN,

President Pierce's U. S. Mail Agent, who cast a similar vote: following him we have

LUCIEN B. CHASE,

author of the History of the Polk Administration, at present a resident of New York city, but at the time he exhibited himself as "a dangerous man to the South," a representative in Congress from this State: he is succeeded by

FRED. P. STANTON,

for ten years a Democratic Congressman from the Memphis district: he voted for the Oregon bill, with the Wilmot Proviso annexed: behind him in the march is

ALVAN CULLOM,

a Democratic Congressman, who has squatted on the _other_ side of one of his native mountains in the fourth district, and been quiescent for some years: he was one of the Tennessee "dangerous men:" he voted twice for the Wilmot Proviso: in the same category is

GEORGE W. JONES,

in the language of another, the "goose which cackles at the door of the Treasury vault:" notorious as a Southern supporter of the Squatter Sovereignty doctrine, with two votes on record in favor of the Wilmot Proviso. He may be reckoned as _very_ "dangerous to the South:" last, but not least in this dread array of "dangerous men," is

ANDREW JOHNSON,

the present Governor of Tennessee, and Cincinnati aspirant: he voted _three_ times for the Wilmot Proviso, and so doubtful are his doctrines on the slavery question, that many slaveholding members of his own party regard him as _extremely_ "dangerous to the South."

By the way, in 1842, this same _Gov. Johnson_ was a Senator in our State Legislature, and introduced the following _Abolition_ resolutions, commonly called his _White Basis System_:

"_Resolved, by the General a.s.sembly of the State of Tennessee_, That the basis to be observed in laying the State off into Congressional districts shall be the voting population, WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO THREE-FIFTHS OF THE NEGRO POPULATION.

"_Resolved_, That the 120,083 qualified voters shall be divided by eleven, and that each eleventh of the 120,083 of qualified voters shall be ent.i.tled to elect one member in the Congress of the United States, or so near as may be practicable without a division of counties."

The position of Gov. Johnson is this: he wishes the State ent.i.tled to her slave representation _as a State_, but _in her own borders_ the representative districts are to be made according to her white population! In other words, he desires the State to retain her _ten_ Congressmen, representing both her white and slave population, but wishes them appointed throughout the State without regard to the slave population: so that the county containing ten thousand white inhabitants, and double that number of slaves, should be ent.i.tled to no more representation than the county containing _ten_ thousand white inhabitants and no slaves!

We heard Johnson last summer, in his debate with Gentry, in Campbell county, contend that the county of Campbell should have the same representation in Congress as the county of Shelby, which he stated had FIFTEEN THOUSAND NEGROES! He appealed to the prejudices and pa.s.sions of the poor--inquired of the hard working-men of that county how they liked to see their wives and daughters _offset_, in enumerating the strength of the county, by the "_greasy negro wenches of Shelby, Davidson, Fayette, Sumner and Rutherford counties_." He made a real, stirring abolition appeal to the poor, and non-slaveholding portion of the crowd, which was in the proportion of _ten to one_ of that county, to array them against the rich, and especially against the owners of large numbers of slaves. He told them that these Negro wenches belonged to the lordly slaveholders of Middle and West Tennessee, and that as our Const.i.tution now is, these wenches were placed on an _equality_ with the fair daughters and virtuous wives of laboring men. On this ground he advocated his infamous amendment to the Const.i.tution, which would incorporate his "White Basis" scheme!

This is a rank Abolition measure, and fraught with more danger to the South than any thing proposed by the whole brood of Abolitionists, Free Soilers, and Black Republicans at the North. Already the South is weak enough, and not at all able to vote with the North in our National Legislature. The effect of this scheme is to deprive the South of one-third of her strength in Congress. Not only is this the effect, but it is the design of the mover. We hold that Johnson is a Free Soiler, and has been for years. It is stated by his Northern Democratic friends, that when he quit Congress, he came home to run for Governor--with a determination, if defeated, to remove to some of the Northwestern States, and take a new start! Had he been defeated by Maj. Henry in 1853, he would now be a Black Republican in one of the Free States, running for office! And yet the propagator of this infamous Abolition doctrine of a "White Basis" representation--this demagogue who arrays the poor against slaveholders, is the man for the ultra guardians of the slave interests of the South! A man who would not own negroes when he could, but loaned his money out at interest, and left his wife and daughters to do their own work--a man who is at heart and in his doctrines a rank Free Soiler--a man who has only remained in the South to _experiment_ upon office-seeking! This is the man that Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, and Carolinas, rejoiced to see elected Governor of a Southern slave State!

It was seeing the position of Johnson on this question that induced the "_Democratic Herald_" in Ohio, in June, 1855, thus to notice our race for Governor:

"TENNESSEE.--An animated contest is going on in this good old Democratic State for Governor, and the largest crowds flock to hear the candidates that ever attended political meetings since the Hero of New Orleans used to address the ma.s.ses in person.

The present inc.u.mbent, Andrew Johnson, is the Democratic candidate, and a _Mr. Gentry_, a _pro-slavery_ renegade from the Federal Whig ranks, is the opposing candidate, brought out by a Know Nothing conclave. This man is on the stump abusing the Catholics, and denouncing them for their tyranny, while he openly advocates the _slavery doctrines of Southern n.i.g.g.e.rdom_!

On the other hand, his compet.i.tor, Gov. Johnson, well and favorably known to our leading Democrats of Ohio, HAS NO SYMPATHIES WITH SLAVERY, and is the advocate of such amendments to the Federal Const.i.tution as will give all power to the people, and EFFECTUALLY PUT DOWN THE INSt.i.tUTION OF SLAVERY!"

Now, this showing up of Democracy, on the Slavery question, may look _shabby_ to many ultra Southern men, and it may induce them to charge that the Democratic party are _inconsistent_. We defend them against the charge of _inconsistency_, and maintain that what would be called _inconsistency_ here, is nothing but _Democracy_. For instance, A. O. P.

Q. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, the editor of the great official organ of Democracy at Washington, said, editorially, and "by authority," so late as 1855:

"IT IS NO PART OF THE CREED OF A DEMOCRAT, AS SUCH, TO ADVOCATE OR OPPOSE THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY. HE MAY DO THE ONE OR THE OTHER, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN, AND NOT OFFEND AGAINST HIS DEMOCRATIC FEALTY!"

Precisely so! A man may advocate the _abolition_ of slavery where it exists; he may, as a Black Republican, arm himself with Sharpe's rifle, and go into Kansas, and shoot down pro-slavery men, and still be a consistent Democrat, if he vote for the party, and stand by the nominees of the party conventions! Hence, all the factions at home and from abroad--all religions--all the ends and odds of G.o.d's creation are now a.s.sociated together, and are battling in the same unholy cause, in the name of _Democracy_!

And further to exhibit the inconsistency of this Democratic and Foreign party, it will be recollected that, in 1844, they nominated SILAS WRIGHT, of New York, for Vice-President, to run on the ticket with COL.

POLK--a position he declined, because he would not agree to be _second best_ on the ticket. In a letter to JAMES H. t.i.tUS, ESQ., bearing date April 15, 1847, MR. WRIGHT says:

"If the question had been propounded to me at any period of my public life, Shall the arms of the Union be employed to conquer, or the money of the Union be used to purchase Territory now const.i.tutionally free, for the purpose of planting Slavery upon it, I should have answered, No! And this answer to this question is the Wilmot Proviso, as I understand it. _I am surprised that any one should suppose me capable of entertaining any other opinion, or giving any other answer as to such a proposition._"

Now, if SILAS WRIGHT, one of the great "Northern lights" of Democracy, held these sentiments in 1847, what must they have been in 1844, when that party sought to elevate him to the second office within the gift of the nation? But we are just reminded of what is said in "the law and the prophets," that is to say, "_It is no part of the creed of a Democrat_, AS SUCH, _to advocate or oppose the extension of slavery!_" What a party!

[From the Knoxville Whig for Sept. 22, 1855.]

TO REV. A. B. LONGSTREET,

PROFESSOR OF METHODISM, ROMANISM, AND LOCOFOCOISM.

REVEREND SIR:--I see a _pastoral address_ of yours, to "Methodist Know-Nothing Preachers," going the rounds of the Locofoco Foreign Sag Nicht papers of the South, occupying from four to six columns, according to the dimensions of the papers copying. I have waded through your learned address, and find it to be one of more ponderous magnitude than the Report made to the British House of Commons, by Lord North, on a subject of far greater interest! And as I am one of the cla.s.s of men you address, notwithstanding your great advantage over me in point of age and experience; and as no one has made a _formal_ response to your _pious warnings_, it will not be deemed insolent in me to take you up.

My first acquaintance with you was in 1847, at an Annual Meeting of the Georgia Conference, held in Madison; and although the impressions made upon my mind by you, on that occasion, were any thing but favorable to you, as a man, still, I am capable, as I believe, of doing you justice.

I supposed you then to be the rise of sixty years, certainly in your _dotage_ and among the _vainest_ old gentlemen I had ever met with. You obtained leave, as I understand, by your own seeking, to deliver a lecture to the Conference, upon the subject of _correctly reading and p.r.o.nouncing the Scriptures_. I was in attendance, and listened to you with all the attention and impartiality I was capable of exercising. I thought it a little _presumptuous_ for any one man to a.s.sume to teach more than one hundred able ministers how to read and p.r.o.nounce the inspired writings; and the more so, when I knew that several of the number were presidents and professors in different male and female colleges, and that many others of them were graduates of the best literary inst.i.tutions in the South. Still, my apology for you was, that you was a vain old gentleman, and that to listen to you, respectfully, was to obey the Divine teaching of one who has taught us to "bear the infirmities of the weak." Your _samples_, both of reading and p.r.o.nunciation, were amusing and novel to me. And so far as I could gather the prevailing sentiment, it was, that to adopt your style would render the reading of the Scriptures perfectly ridiculous.

In your address to "Methodist Know-Nothing Preachers," I discover that you are still the man you were at Madison, in 1847: you have a great deal to say about _yourself_, and make free use of the personal p.r.o.noun I! _I_ advise--_I_ believe--_I_ am satisfied--_I_ will not agree--_I_ warn and caution--_I_ fear, or _I_ apprehend, etc. To pa.r.s.e the different sentences in your partisan harangue syntactically, little else is necessary but to understand the _first person singular_, and to repeat the rule as often as it occurs: a peculiarity which characterizes every paragraph in your labored address. Beside, the frequent use of the p.r.o.nouns _I_, _me_, _my_, _mine_, etc., too frequently occur to be worth estimating. And it will be seen, upon examination, that not merely the verbiage, but the sentiment, is thus egotistic throughout, exhibiting a degree of arrogance and self-importance, only to be met with in a _Clerical Locofoco_, used by bad men for ign.o.ble purposes. To carry out the idea of your _vanity_, you say in the winding up of your address:

"And now, brethren, have _I_ or Mr. Wesley hit upon one good reason why you should not have joined the Know-Nothings? If either of _us_ have, then _I_ beseech you to come from among them. If _we_ have not, there is yet another in reserve which, if it does not prevail will show--or prove to my satisfaction at least--that if _an angel from heaven_ were to denounce your order, you would cleave to it still."

Any other man but yourself would, from considerations of _modesty_, have given JOHN WESLEY the preference, in this connection, and come in as _second best_. But no, you are _first in place_, and, in your own estimation, in _importance_ likewise, as a religious teacher.

I have no doubt you consider yourself a much greater man than John Wesley ever was; and in proof of this, I need only cite what you have said in reference to Mr. Wesley's opposition to Romanism: