Nashville Union and American, May 10, 1860

One of the most eloquent and appropriate speeches made during the sitting of the Convention at Charleston was that made by Col. Jno. K. HOWARD, of this State, when he presented the resolution that had been assented to by the Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee delegations as a fair basis for the settlement of the difficulties which threatened a total disruption of the Convention. On Monday afternoon the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Florida and portions of Arkansas and Delaware withdrew. On Friday morning the delegates from South Carolina, Georgia and the remaining delegates, except two, from Arkansas retired. The delegations from Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee had been in consultation the night previous. The work of secession had extended further than any member of the Convention had anticipated. Upon the withdrawal of the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, the delegations from Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee asked leave to withdraw for further consultation. They met and agreed upon the resolution presented by Mr. HOWARD. During their absence from the hall Mr. MCCOOK, of Ohio, had introduced a resolution to proceed to balloting for a candidate, and upon that the previous question had been called, cutting off all amendments and debate. This was the state of the proceedings when the delegates who had withdrawn for consultation returned. The most intense feeling was manifest as to what would be the course of the great conservative and preservative Southern Democratic States. For it was announced that if they withdrew, New York, New Jersey and a large part of Pennsylvania, with probable portions of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and Missouri would retire, and thus occasion a final dissolution of the Convention. Although other business was then under consideration, by general consent, Mr. HOWARD was permitted to read for information the resolution which had been agreed upon by Kentucky and Tennessee, and to which Virginia gave her assent. Mr. HOWARD prefaced the introduction of his resolution with an eloquent appeal to the justice and patriotism of the Convention, and beautifully alluded to the past of Tennessee in the cabinet and on the battle-field. His allusion to the noble stand which the Democracy of Tennessee had always taken in favor of the Constitution, and the firmness with which they had resisted the surges of fanaticism, and the efforts of passion elicited rapturous applause. We have already published Mr. HOWARD’S resolution, but as it is destined, in our opinion, to become the object of very general comment before the re-assembling of the Convention on the 18th of June, we re-publish it:

Resolved: That the citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property in the Territories; and that, under the decision of the Supreme Court, which we recognise as the correct exposition of the Constitution, neither the right of persons nor property can be destroyed or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation.This resolution is still pending and will undoubtedly be brought up for the consideration and action of the convention at Baltimore. We invite to it the unimpassioned deliberation of the whole South. It does not demand a slave code, and yet it declares in a sufficiently emphatic manner to make it acceptable to the Democracy of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, that “neither the right of persons nor property can be destroyed.or impaired by Congressional or Territorial legislation.”

The States and Union thus speaks of it:

Under the Tennessee platform, the slaveholder is free to go into the Territories with his property. He may claim the same protection from his government that it is bound to afford him anywhere else within its jurisdiction. Its hands are bound not to injure him, nor can the Territorial authorities discriminate against him or his property. Ought not this satisfy all parties desirous of harmony? . . . It will be seen that wise and temperate counsels will in the end prevail, and the Democratic party may be united upon principles at once just and fraternal.

The Chicago Herald defining its position on the present difficulties of our party says:

There were two platforms before the Convention. The States of Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky put forward a compromise proposition, which was never voted upon. The Convention then adjourned to Baltimore, to take time to consider the matter. Now our purpose is this:—We really mean to consider it, and to advise the Illinois Democracy to accept this compromise, and then to nominate whom they please, and we will help to elect him. We are for a fair compromise. We are for peace and success.

We also ask for this resolution the calm consideration of the Southern Democracy. Although it was not acted upon by the Convention, it was understood that the Democracy of the Northwest were not unwilling to grant the correctness of the premises assumed in that resolution. We repeat in the language of the Union and States, “Ought not this to satisfy all parties desirous of harmony?” Already have the various organs of the several prominent aspirants commenced a course of aspersion and detraction which will lead to evil and only evil. This internecine war about men must cease. Better, a thousand times better, that Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. HUNTER,[1] Mr. DAVIS, and the rest of them should never be heard of again than that the discussion of their personal claims should cause a dissolution of the Democratic party. We have our preferences as deeply seated as those of other men. We believe that Gov. JOHNSON is as true a statesman as is spoken of, as capable, and by far the most available, but because we may not succeed in securing the nomination of our favorite we shall not endeavor to rend the party in twain. We honestly and earnestly believe that the nomination of Judge DOUGLAS at this time would make the judicious grieve. So with Mr. DAVIS or Mr. HUNTER. But because we thus believe and have the frankness to say so, we are not to be ranked as “free-soilers” or “traitorous disunionists.” A little less passion and a little more judgment and the Democracy will yet survive its present dissensions and stand ready and able to drive in disgrace the Black Republican hosts from the field of battle.