The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-08-09

The Unions reply, yesterday, to our expo
sure ON Monday of ''the monstrous Juggling
and terglversation' Of the leaders of the Dem
ocratlc party, during the last Presidential can
vass, IN regard to the slavery question, was
characteristic of that journal-characler be
cause of the practical illustrations it contained
both OF the suppreSsio rcri and of the suggestio
tatsi.
IL says tho Republic ''could not''-meanng
to be understood as affirming that it did not
''deny that the resolutions of the Democratic
party, adopted by the Baltimore convention in
lS4o, virtually repudiated the Wilmot pro
viso."
we did deny 1t, again and again, in the very
remarks upon which the Union was comment
ing when it perpetrated the foregoing tabrica-
| ton
We charged, in the most explicit and en-
| phatc terms, that the only resolution adopted
| by The Baltimore convention, i'll lS4S, 'having
had It's origin in 1910, long before the Mex
lean war and our territorial acquisitions grow
ing out fit, did not touch the great question
of the day in 1913, which was, whether the
Introduction Of slavery into those acquisitions
should or should not be prohibited by Con-
gress."
In terms equally explicit, we charged that
the delegates IN that convention, from the non
slaveholding States, understood the resolution
las only denying the power of Congress to in
terere with slavery in the States-,chich, in
.faCt, acaS all that IL did deny"
| With these direct averments of ours before
him, the editor of the Union coolIy and delibe-
rately declares that we could not deny that the
resolution in question ''virtually repudatcd the
Wilmot proviso."
We did deny ii twice or thrice in the very
article in which the Union says we did not
deny it. Why ciH the Union fb in this way?
| Cm boJn? Does it do it as matter of policy,
or to crafty an uncomfortable appetite for false
hood?
The Union says:
eve not disposed to deny that there may
have been instances in which Democratic editors
and stump orators, following the Universal and
long continued practice of the Wing party, en-
| deavored to play upon the weaknesses of those
around them. But we assert that neither Gene
raj CAss, nor the Democratic party, endeavored
to deceive the people"
"A few instances" and following the
naughty example set by Wings But waving
that point, we craved TO know of the Union, if
neither General CAss nor the Democratic
party endeavored to deceive the people, :"
who did deceive the Democratic masses at
the South by making them believe that
| General CAss did not mean TO be understood
as asserting and maintaining, in his Nicholson
/ letter, the right Of the people of the Terrific
ries acquired from Mexico, while in a terrific
rial condition, and through the agency of their
territorial legislatures, to exclude slavery there
! froml
That they were thus deceived, even the
| Union dare not deny.
! Mr.. Blows, a Democratic member of the
House of Representatives from Mississippi.
has stated that ''the Wings have charged Gen
CAss with entertaining these views. and the
Democrats had indicated him against the
charge The doctrine" he adds. ''was uni
versally denounced by men Of all parties at the
| South"
Mr.. BROwN also states, that he had his mis-
givings at first" but that gentlemen nearer
! the person Of Gen. CAss than himself" had in
terpretcd the Nicholson letter as not sanction
| ing that doctrine!
Mr.. CLEMENS, one of the Democratic Sena-
tors from Alabama, states that, if the construc-
ton now placed by General CAss upon the
Nicholson letter was the right one. he. Mr..
CLEMENS, had been greatly instrumental in
misleading The minds Of The people ofhis State
IN advocating his General CAss's election;"
that Mr.. YANcEY, and half a dozen other Demo
| Gratis Of Alabama, had been "put under the
ban" because they had said precisely what
General CAss himself now says, as TO the true
intent and meaning Of the Nicholson letter,
which was ga foul injustice" to Mr.. Y. and
those gentlemen
Mr.. SEpDoN, Democratic representative
from Virginia states that if the doctrine Of non
Intervention announced in the Nicholson letter
had been understood by the people Of Vir-
GINA, during the last Presidential canvass, as
it has been since explained by General Cas-,
he never could have obtained the vote Of that
State.
Here was rank deception, then, and on the
most extensive scale, the subjects whereof were
the Democrats Of Virginia, Alabama, Missis-
sippi, and indeed Of the entire South.
Who did it3 The deceiUed we know and
can see--they are numbered by States Who
were the deccirers?
Neither General CAss nor the Democratic
party quoth the venerable editor of the
Union! Well, we suppose the venerable odi-
tor will admit that General CAss was the au-
thor of the Nicholson letter
He will admit that General G ASS was respect
fully called upon by Democrats of character and
distinction for an explanation of the meaning Of
the Nicholson letter, as to the very points
wherein his Democratic friends at the South
were 50 much deceived, and that he declined TO
give any explanation whatever
The editor Of the Union will also admit that
General CAss stood silently by and enjoyed the
benefit ofthis deception ractsed by somebody