Washington sentinel., 1853-12-06

were content.
The south demanded protection under the
Constitution for owners of fugitive slaves. Hen
former northern allies aided. Freesoil demo
Gratis, boltionists, and northern wings, almost
enmasse opposed the law for granting it-but
ii was carried.
The democracy met at Baltimore Calitor-
MIA was in .toreser, right or wrong Texas had
assented to the compact right or wrong. The
District slave-trade was law. The south, had
it desired it, had no redress. She could I'M,
tiate no act to repeal the admission of Califor
MIA, nor to rescind contract, executed-as
sented to by Texas, and past recall. But he,
enemies might still do much. They might repeal
the fugitive-slave law, or impair it They might
infiet the Wilmot proviso. They might abolish
slavery in the District. They might agitate
for the ruin of southern rights, and the endan-
gering of slave institutions. The south could
do nothing against the north-and asked and
required no active legislation for her own rights,
further than the fugitive law, which had passed.
All she wanted was peace, quiet, inaction.
Thus stood the high contracting parties at
Baltimore Wherein was the safety of the
south in the future? Thus far hast thou
gone-thou caltst go no .fIyther.' A northern
man who had voted for every measure of the
compromise, and was an anti-agitationist, was
a safe man for the south A northern man,
who was an agitationist, and who did not ap-
prove of the settlement was the most unsate of
men for her. She would never have taken one
who is now clad i'll the best robe by the terms
of supposed amnesty, but had been an anti
compromise man at the north. The reason is
obvious. Her safety was the thing to be Sc
cured by the slavery clause of the platform.
The best northern man had gone only for her
to the extent of the compromise measures.
Such were her choice. Those who could not
go that far for her, she rejected, and always
would have done so, and ever will.
A sincere and real support, not wordy and
feigned one, Of the compromise by northern
democrats, was therefore absolutely necessary
for the south, i'll the convention at Baltimore.
She could take nothing less-she expected
nothing more.
Such was not the position Of southern men
themselves. Their original approval or disap-
proval Of the compromise was question of in
te,nal contention among themselves, but could
not be national one The north were only
interested, that the south acquiesced in meas
nres which she could not originally approve,
and did not stake the Union on their passage
erer hare receired the nomination at Baltimore,
acho had not been at least an original and sin
cere compromise man, The true Union men
of the north said that such n man alone could
procure that peace, which they honestly de-
sired-and which the south demanded. Any
southern man-not disunionist-wouldh have
been taken up by the southland would have
been supported by the true north, as man who
had honestly Though the north might think ex-
remely,) sustained the rights Of his section,
when invaded by its foes.
southern mani Franklin Pierce had advo-
Gated the compromise opposed freesoilers
and aboltionists William r. King had main.
tanned the rights Of his section without any taint
of disunion. They both qpp,ared. as did the
convention, which nominated them, the COM
promise measures as a stopping place to, inra.
sion--as q cessation point 10 slare'y agitation.
This review will show conclusively how utterly
false is the idea that the platform reserred a
single spot for .treesoiler. He could not get
upon the platform with his load of abolition
He must have dropped it and forever, ere the
platform would sustain him. The locus peni
tentiae--tbe " looking back the craving fol
the flesh pots of discarded fanaticism, were
condemned, and if INDUCED, were good ground
for expulsion. There was no amnesty for crimi
| nas-there was pardon for crime, when re
nounced forever, Oblivion for past offences
renente:a of sincerely was proclaimed but with
"no COMPROMISE VIII existing, though con
cealed, false sentiments, "no quarter 10 open
enemies or insidious traitors!
Does the Union mean to say General Pierce
was not known to be a " compromise" man ?
If not what was he? Anticompromise? II
so, why because conceded too much, or too
little, to the south? Scarcely the latter-for
if so, he would have been almost alone at the
north. But if the former had been his view,
does any one suppose the south would have
taken him?
No. He was pledged-deeply pledged-to
the compromise, and to it as a .fnality Of ogi.
tation. Hence his enormous strength in the
south.
And yet the Union says, approval By tie con-
rention of the compromise would have defeated
its nominee. Scarcely would it have done so,
fits approval by its northern nominee was, as
we have shown, essential to his success, Other
wise this absurdity would result--that the peo-
pie would have defeated man for sentiments
held by the contention which nominates him,
and would have elected him if they were held
by him&e!f!