Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-03-21
WASHINGTON, d. G.
TUESDAY, MARCH 81, 1854.


To- The Poem by Mary f. Hubbell, needs
to be read but once to be remembered always.
THE POSITION OF THE ORGAN" QUESTIONED
ANOTHER CHANGE.
The Richmond (va) Examiner amusing it.
self with observations upon the grand and lofty
tumbling" Of the Washington Union, pro-
pounds the following inquiries:
al. Was the article, which we publish from
the Union, the result Of u bargain made with
John Van Buren, and the Free-Soilers, before
the election Of Public Printer, John being pres
emit in Washington at the time?
I'll. Was the support Of many of the disaf-
fected Northern Democrats given to the Union
in consequence of an understanding that hos
tilty to the Nebraska bill was not to be re-
garded as desertion Of the Democratic party :
III. Was the desired pledge made, and was
the article to which we have reference written
in accordance with that agreement, bargain,
and sale ~
AS we have seen no answer in the Union,
We do not feel at liberty to withhold remark
or two
we know that the votes Of Anti Nebraska
Democrats in the House Of Representatives
were cast for the editor of the Washington
Unio,, with the distinct understanding that
thenceforth no was moi to treat the Nebraska
Bill as an issue Of the Democratic party to
make adhesion to it test of Democracy, but
to hold it an open question; and zoe knoU
further that Anti-Nebraska Democrats in the
House believed that the editor of the Union
was eapliatly pledged on these points. We do
not say all of such Democrats but those of
them with whom we conversed
When, therefore, we saw the following edi-
torial in the Union, Of March 5th, we were not
at all surprised
1--WE have never been so far misled, howev-
er, as to regard every man as an Abolitionist
who could not reconcile it to his convictions of
duty to support the bill. That any Democrat
or Wing should be coerced by his conviction to
withhold his approval from the measure, and
thereby find himself co operating in the oppo-
sition with Aboltionists, has been one feature
in the controversy which we have much re-
GREETED We are aware that there are Demo-
crats Withholding their support who stood side
by side with us in l848, in advocating the prin-
ciple of non. intervention avowed by our candi-
date for the Presidency, and who have ever
been the jealous supporters of the Compro-
mise of 1850, which recognised and enacted
that principle. We are aware that there are
other Democrats, who objected to the Compro-
mise of 1850, when it was passed, but who
have since faithfully acquiesced in il, who are
not prepared to sustain the Nebraska bill. In
our Judgment, it would be as unwise as it
would be unjust to regard ard treat such OPP
ponents of the measure as thereby abolition
izng themselves. Such Democrats, MS we I'M
derstand them, recognise the principle Of non-
Intervention as sound, but they are not satisfied
that it should be applied to the Nebraska Ter
ritory. We cannot agree with them in the
views which control their decision of the ques-
ton but because of this difference of opinion
as to the application of principle in which we
agree we cannot bring ourselves to denounce
them as Abolitionists Whilst we can have no
respect or charity for men who have repudia-
ted and spit upon everything like q compro-
mise for the settlement Of the Slavery question,
when they now come forward, with csnting
hypocrisy to talk about the sacredness of the
compact Of 1922 we can and do exercise a
wholly different feeling towards those who
have adhered honestly and faithfully to every
compromise which has been adopted. When,
therefore, we speak Of Abolitionists in conncc-
ton with the opposition to the Nebraska bill,
we do not wish to be understood as designating
all who oppose the Bill as Abolitionistsn
Nor were we whit more surprised, being ia
miliarized to all sorts of gymnastic feats in our
contemporary, when, on the 10Th Of this month,
just two weeks after the foregoing very toler-
ant article appeared, we. read in the columns
of the same paper another editorial insisting
upon the Nebraska Bill as Democratic issue
"THE ISSUE ON THE TERRITORIAL BILL
aHowever many Of the wisest and best Of
our public men may have preferred that the
merits Of the proposition to organize the Terri
tories Of Nebraska and Kansas should not, for
obvious reasons, be made matter of issue be-
tween the two great parties, the turbulence
and violence Of Abolition fanaticism, combined
with the persistent hostility of Northern Wings,
seem to render the continuance Of any such
condition Of things hopelessly impossible. Not
only, therefore, are the Democrats TO be once
more rallied ms distinct organization, in IA
vor Of the great principles Of Congressional non
Intervention and popular sovereignty (both be-
ing the vital elements Of the proposition Of
Senator Douglas.) but the high duty will be
confded to them Of preventing the enemies Of
that proposition from making il source Of
deep and widespread sectional division.
y, ~
In such time as the present, therefore,
the Democracy becomes, by the resistlees force
Of circumstances-by the involuntary operation
Of events--the opponent of every scheme look
ing to the disfranchise Of any portion Of the
people OF to the weakening Of any portion Of
the common bond IL is impossible, in such a
state of things to avoid the issues which ineyi-
tably and irresistibly result from the origin Of
parties IL we did not make these issues az
Democrats, Abolitionism, or Whiggery, or Fed
eralism, or all combined, would make them
for us.
"We say, then, that the issue has been de-
lberately made, and wickedly made, by the
enemies OF the Democracy, on this bill Of Sens-
tor Douglas, and AS DEMOCRATS WE CANNOT
HESITATE TO ACCEPT IT."