The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-06-24

and void These questions were settled ny
the passage of acts without any antl'slaVery
proviso, or any declaration respecting the lea
loci
The Wing and Democratic Conventions as
sert the principle of finality in regard TO these
acts How many who so voted understand TO
what they pledged themselves! Suppose sew
eral Southern men, with view to test the
value of slave labor in these Territories should
carry slaves into them A suit Tor Tree
dom follows bringing the question OF the le-
gality of slavery before the courts, when de-
eide that the ler tou against slavery beng sun
in force. it cannot exist in the Territories.
Would the Shareholders who voted tor hnallty
in the Baltimore Conventions regard their
pledge, or would they not renew their old de-
mand for an act by Congress, declaring the
Mexican laws no longer in force in the Terrific
ries!
On the other hand, suppose the discovery
Of valuable mines, requiring hard labor ana
considerable capital for their working, should
into the Territories, and the courts should de-
eide that there was no law to exclude slavery,
would all the Northern men who voted tor
the finality principle in the Baltimore Conyen-
tons regard their pledge! Whatever they
might do, whatever they might suppose their
obligations, it is very certain that in neither OF
the supposed cases could agitation be kept
down In the one case, the North, in the other,
the South, would press its demand for the in
terposition of Congress. Shareholders have
looked at all these contingencies; and as the
question of freedom or slavery in the Terrific
rics may depend wholly upon the action of the
Chief Executive or the decision Of the Courts,
they take security against danger in the prin-
ciples of the Territorial Judges or the charac-
ter of the President The North exacts no such
security; so that if slavery should fail to OBJ
tain a foothold in Utah and New Mexico, it
will be owing to Nature and the Providence of
God, not to the virtue, the trmness, or sagaclty
that the Shareholders would sustain the nomi-
nation of Franklin Pierce, unless assured in
their own minds that his election would raise
no obstacle to their design upon the Territories
and upon California And who Of the North
ern supporters of Mr. Pierce are asking them
selves what effect his election may have in pro-
noting the division of that State, and in favor
ing save-emigration to Utah and New Mexico
The Shareholders act from a Principles bad
one if you please, but still it is a Principle
which gives consistency, unity, and power to
their action Northern politicians generally
act from mere Party considerations, and hence
their lack of consistency unity, and force
hence their time-serving, trimming tmidity,
and low cxpedency
the importation of slaves into the District of
Columbia, embraced the single question of
the slave trade in this District, and settled
that alone. The question of slavery in the
District was not included, and is therefore left
open.
The only remaining part of the Compromise
relates to the admission of new States, declar-
ing that hereafter new States shall he admit
ted into the Union, no matter whether their
Constitutions exclude or tolerate slavery To
the maintenance of this policy the two Conven
tons by their resolves stand pledged and any
departure from 1t on the part of their members
would be deemed a violation of good faith.
Whatever obligations are assumed by the
Conventions in adopting these resolutions, are
assumed by their Presidential and Vice Presi-
Dental candidates, in accepting the nomina-
tons, unless they relieve themselves from re-
sponsibility for a part or all of the implied
pledges, by publicly and explicitly disavowing
part or the whole. A bare acceptance of a
nomination, without any expression of opinion,
one way or the other, is an acceptance of the
platform on which it is rendered The nOmi-
nation is made with the view to render the
doctrines and policy of the platform effectual,
and he who accepts it with secret intention
to render it Intellectual, is guilty of treachery.
The nominees having accepted the platforms
with all their obligations, it follows that every
citizen who votes for them binds himself in the
same way The Southern man who votes for
them, pledges himself to oppose the division of
California not to agitate, but to acquicsce,
should the Courts of the Territories decide that
the ler loo, excludes slavery, and to assent to
the admission of any number of new States,
prohibiting slavery The Northern man who
votes for them, pledges himself to silent acqui-
escence should slavery grow up in Utah and
New Mexico and State after State, tolerating
slavery, apply for admission into the Union,
and to oppose the repeal or essential modifica-
ton of the Fugitive Lava law without war
rant in the Constitution, and inhuman in its
details How many voters of the country will
exempt themselves from such obligations, by re-
jecting such nominations
Let us not be misunderstood. These obliga-
tons would be of Party not of Morality No
man can bind himself so as to make it his duty
to violate his conscientious convictions, But he
may place himself in position where, in ODE
dience to the Law of Right, he must break a
vow wrongfully made.
We have shown the identity in policy of the
resolutions of the two Conventions respecting
the Compromise and the Fugitive Law, the
nature of the obligations imposed by these re-
solves, and the ertent to which they reach.
We have to say that they differ as it respects
agitation on the subject of slavery. The Wing
resolve does not go far as tho Democratic
The former says
"And we depreeate all future agitation Of the
questions thus settled as dangerous to our peace,
and we will d,scountendnee all efforts to con-
tinue or renew such agitation, whenever, wher-
ever, and however, the attempt may be made. "
The latter says