Arkansas democratic banner., 1851-06-10
ITF""8 N7F laat5IasIIF7IlTW. The s1eAa asrmaac pf@tfnsm.

l tY hvlde the Democratic pariy, and to lea ss many DehoesaM as poSsible over wiih then have he bafdihood to assume that they, Jn adyo eating the unjust and oppressive measures of th' last Conglesss stll stand upon the ancient Dsno cratic Ptatfon. Nothfng can be more abSHfa ans pslpably untEae. And we are eqssliy as de. terinined That they shall not deceive DepocFata D, such di< pSeiensIoils, as we are that they xhal ifot without contradiction make the false iesue " unioa or Disaniong in the present canvass.
 We say, then, that Foote and Freeman have ahandonsd the osd Democratic faith and not ths great mass of the party. They have been grossly Ine1nsisIent, and not the almost unanimous De Hoeracy of the State, who are now arfayed in a determined spirit against them. And we will pryve our affirmation by reference to the reSolu- tons adopted by the Democracy of tie uuion,
 i their Conventions al Bat mare ever since 1856. Y was a short tune previous to that year that tlse Abolition cloud which has been spreading Us toas thteateningiy over the country ever since, snade is aPPeaFanee in a manner Co awaken the alarms of the South. And hence, the South efn Democracy demanded that their political breth- Ten M the North shodid pledge themselves to unite with them m putting down all attempts in Con grass, 10 interfere with the ques ions of slavery- Tie deIqafld was complied with, else the Southern Denocrars would not have co-operated with the Northcrh !the Presidential elections. We dlreet the attention of tbe reader to the following Teso-
 
 yeniion on the occasion referred to-
 That Congress has TO power, under the con- sttuion, to interfere with control the domestic institutions 0f the several States and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertalng to then own domestic affairs, not pro- hbsted by tine constitution that all efforts Of the aootionistS, or otheFs made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery oT to take in eipient steps m relation thereto, calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous conSe quenoes and that ali such efforts will have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and perma nency of the Union and ought not 10 be counie- naneei by any friend to our political institutions
 Ihs language is too explicit to be mlsEnder- Stood. In procuring its adoption. the Southern Democracy had an object m view; and tn ' were resolved not 10 deal in doubtful terms. The inter terence yt'0ngress with questions of slavery, is iorelbly and pointediy condemned. Eyeu the efforts Of the AbolitionistS to induce Congress to- Inedde with slavery. is reprobated-not alone the act oi interference, but moyemements looking 10 that end. ~
 Now compare this resolution with the law of the fate Congress, abolishng the slave trade in the District of Columbia. The first section of that act ls m these words
 '' Be II enacted by the Senate and House of Rep ftscntatiyes Of the United States of Afnerca in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day oi January, eighteen hundred and fifty one, t shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave whatever, for the purpose Of being placed n depot, to be subsequently transfer ;ed 10 any other State Of place to be sold as Iner- ehandlze. And if any slave shall be brought into the sad District by it's owner, by authority or consent Of its owner, contrary to the provisions of thiS act, such slave shall thereupon become ibera ted and free.''
 Here IS palpable violation of the letter and spirit of the Baltimore platform. The question of sta ba.S kr .f.- manner the most unjust and offensive. The law discrlmnates between the property of the slave holding and the non -slaveholding States. IL de- preclates the former and asserts the power of the Government to medde with 1t.
 Why, then, do the political didappers referred to, set themselves up as the trae opponents of the Democratic faith and at the same time uphold and defead the abomniable law the first section of which we have quoted Il advocating the law pros eS them to be good Democrats, worthy of the support of tho old Democracy, by the same rule the orthodoxy of Summer and Seward can be es- tabllshed, and those higher law worihieS are pro- per recipients of the commendaton and support of the Mississippi Democracy. Both them, like Foote, Freeman and then coaduiors, uphold and defend the law. Seward voted for it and Foote had said that he would have done so, If his vote had been required to secure it's passage. General Freeman justIiieS Congress m passing, and Fiji, more in signing 1t and Sumner. the chosen of the cOalitionists of patriotic Massachusetts, says Il may be :" regarded with great satisfaction"
 With these facts in view-with the resolutions of the Baltimore Convention before him. and the law of 1850 conflicting with n-the intelligent reader can easily determine whether or not Foote and Freeman, in contending shoulder to shoulder with Geo. <. YergeI, Isaac N. Davis, and other prominent Wings, in favor of the miScailed Plan of Adjustment, are fighting under the old Demo cratic banner which was given to the breeze in 1885, and which was lowered In 1850 by the faith lessness of Northern Democrats and the base de- sertloa ol Southern recreants.