The Yazoo Democrat., 1854-10-04
which Is Right 2

which is Rfgh6g
The Albany Argus is just now greatly af-
flieted at the idea that the democratic party
Of New York should become united; and,
in order to keep up the war Of sections, de-
votes itself industriously to the work Of mis-
representing the resolutions Of the Syracuse
Convention on the Nebraska question. 1t
might be supposed that the Argus would be
little careful how it provoked a compari-
son on this subject between the convention
which nominated Judge Bronson and that
which renominated Governor Seymour, It
is because there is no great difference be
tween the two bodies, so far as Nebraska is
concerned, and an almost complete identity
upon other issues, that the union between
the rank and file looks most probable to dis
interested Observers In order to show how
true this Is, we give the following resolution
on the Nebraska Bill, adopted by the friends
of Judge Bronson at Utica, on the 18th day
of July, 1854:
''ReSolred, That, in organizing a territorial
form of government for Territories belonging 10
the. United States, the principle of self govern
ment, upon which our federative system rests,
will be best promoted if the true spirit and
meaning of the constitution be observed, aud
the confederacy strengthened by leaving all ques-
tions concerning the domestic policy therein to
the legislatures chosen by the people thereof
This is the true doctrine of the democracy of
this State, and has long been maintained by
them in opposition to all attempts of Congress
in interference with the affairs of the people of
the Territories, whether under the pretence OF
slavery restrictions orany other local regulation.
That this doctrine secures to the people of the
several States their equal rights In the Terrific
ries, and enables them, as they become States,
to fashion their own Institutions OH the prlnci-
pie of free self government, unembarrassed by
congressional interference or dictation. That
the national democracy can point with pride to
their past action in maintinlng such doctrines
at all times and under all circumstances, amidst
the shock of free-soil and abolition assaults, and
successfully preserving the constitution from
violation and the rights of all sections of the
Union from Infringement. AND THAT We AP
PROVE or THE RECENT ACT OF CONGRESS FOR THE
TERRITORIAL ORGANIZATION OF NEBRASKA AND
KANSAS, SO FAR AS 1T ESTABLISHES THE PRINCE
PIE THAT THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORIES LEGIs-
LATE FOR THEIR OWN WELFARE AS Is EXERCISED
BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES"
We have said that this was conditional
resolution. Is it not so? They endorse the
Nebraska Bill only so far as it respects the
doctrine of popular sovereignty. That it
does so assert this principle is denied by John
Wheeler, r. w. Peckham, James Maurice,
and Andrew Oliver, all members of the Bron-
son or Hard party-autholities equally good
with the Argus, because well known and ac-
cepted members of that organization. Eve
ry abolitionist in Congress could say much
for the Nebraska bill, that so FAR" as it
asserted the doctrine of popular sovereignty,
so far was he willing to go for it; he being
tie judge auhether IL asserted this principle or
not. We do not think, therefore, that the
albany Argus can make much out of its
opposition to union between the two sec
tions of the democracy of New York by pla-
cing its antagonism on the ground that the
friends of Seymour are not sound on the Ne
braska question, especially in view of the re
solution which we have quoted, which shows
that the peculiar friends of the Argus were
not themselves quite sure that the Nebraska
bill asserted the great doctrine upon which
it was VIGOROUSLY based, and by which it be-
came a law.