Page:Disunion and restoration in Tennessee (IA disunionrestorat00neal).pdf/24

 keynote to his second message is found in the following passage: "Whatever differences may have heretofore existed amongst us growing out of party divisions, as to the constitutional right of secession as a remedy against usurpations, all admit the moral right asserted by our fathers to resist wrong and to maintain their liberties by whatever means necessary." This was a direct appeal to the right of revolution, and it found as ready a response among the Whigs as the Democrats. It was therefore this change in the issue, and not coercive means adopted by Governor Harris, that turned the tide toward disunion.

The recognized leader of the Whig party was John Bell. Throughout his long career in the service of the national government, he had consistently opposed the doctrine of secession. In the presidential election of 1860, he, even more than Mr. Lincoln, was the Union candidate. When the question of holding a convention was submitted to a vote of the people, he vigorously opposed it. In this opposition he was joined by Neil S. Brown, Cave Johnson, Ewing, and other distinguished Whig politicians. It was due to their efforts that the Convention proposal was defeated. The vote against the Convention was 91,803. This represented the entire Whig party, and the Democrats of East Tennessee. The votes cast for the Convention came almost wholly from the Democrats of Middle and West Tennessee. In short, the election of February was a division along party lines. Its result was simply an indication that the Whig party of Tennessee was still opposed to the doctrine of secession.

In June, party lines had been obliterated. For only a few weeks elapsed after the defeat of the Convention, till a majority of the Whig leaders, either in public addresses or through the public press, counselled withdrawal from the Union. The contest now became sectional; it was East Tennessee against Middle Tennessee and West Tennessee.