Washington sentinel., 1854-03-09

discord and dissention for the purpose of de-
feating the bill, and of keeping the question
open, to be made available in the future
schemes of political aggrandizement by their
leaders. Upon its introduction theabolitionists
took the lead in opposition to the BILL They
prepared the arguments on which it was to be
attacked, and sent them broadcast over the
country, appealing earnestly and passionately
to all the feelings and considerations which
promised to aid in producing popular excite
ment. 1t became necessary for the friends of
the bill to meet and counteract the opposition;
and in executing this purpose, they found
themselves engaged in contest in which abb
olitionists were their prominent antagonists,
and the arguments furnished by abolitionists
were to be answered.
"In this way the issue on the bill was first
made up between its friends on the one side
and the abolitionists, as its leading opponents
on the other To very considerable extent,
the issue has retained this complexion in the
discussions to which it has given rise, although
it cannot with propriety be said that all who
oppose the bill are abolitionists. The violence
and industry with which their prominent men
have kept up the warfare have enabled them
to retain the front rank in the opposition, and
have caused the other opponents of the bill to
stand in the back ground. The very fact that
the abolition enemies have occupied this prom
inent position in the contest has made it ne
cessary for the advocates of the measure to di-
rect their blows at them and at their argu-
ments. ne hare neper been so far msisted,
ho,ceper, as 10 regard ecery man as an dboli-
tionist acho could not reconcile 1t to his cOncic-
tions Of duty support the bill. That any
democrat or whig should be coerced by his
al
measure, and thereby find himself cooperating
one feature in the controversy which we have
much regretted We are aware that there are
democrats withholding their support who stood
side by side with US in lS48 in advocating the
principle of non-intervention avowed by our
candidate for the presidency, and who have
ever been the jealous supporters of the COM
promise of 1850, which recognised and enacted
that principle"
ave are aware that there are other demo
Gratis who objected to the compromise of 1850
when it was passed, but who have since faith
fully acquiesced in it, who are not prepared to
sustain the Nebraska bill In our judgment 1t
,could be as un,eise as 1t could be unjust to re
gard and treat such opponents Of the measure
as thereby abolitionizing themselves. Such
democrats, as pe understand them, recognize the
principle of fnon-inte1rention as sound, bit they
are not satisfied that 1t should be applied to the
Nebraska Territory We cannot agree with
them in the views which control their decision
of the question but because of this difference
Of opinion as to the application of a.principle
in which we agree, we cannot bring ourself to
denounce them as abolitionists. Whilst'we can
have no respect or charity for men who have
repudiated and "spit upon" everything like q
compromise for the settlement Of the slavery
question, when they now come forward, with
canting hypocrisy, to talk about " the sacred
ness of the compact of 1920" we can and do
exercise wholly different feeling towards those
who have ever adhered honestly and faithfully
to every compromise which has been adopted.
When, therefore, zee speak Of abolitionists IN
c0nneri0n aciM the opposition to the Nebraska
bill, zoe do not irish to be understood as desig-
mating all acho oppose the bill as dboluionists.
We re gret most deeply that any but abolition
lists should be in the opposition to the bill, and
we will not abandon the hope of yet seeing the
opposition thus circumscribed and limited"
Again, in an article of Tuesday the 7th in
slant the Washington Union says:
"As we have said before, this paper does not
make the details of the bill for the organization
of Nebraska and Kansas party test. We have
no power, no authority to do it. AS we under
stand the matter, the President does not say
that he shall regard every man an abolitionist
or whig who refuses his assent to the details
of this bill; but no man will be SO idle as to
suppose that he will, so far as his own action
is concerned, allow the bill to be made test
elsewhere against the men wfo support it. If
u democratic member is led by his judgment
and his conscience to vote for the bill, rs we
hope all democrats will be led to do, and he re-
turns to his constituents to encounter the clamor
andopposition of wings and aboitionists, together
,cth disafected men has o,on party, no sensible
man-at least no man who understands and
appreciates the character Of the Executive
will believe that the President will allow such
throw any man at home who has given to the
principles of the bill cordial and conscien-
tious support. We repeat, that this paper does
not now assume that this bill, in any Of its
stages thus far, or the votes upon it, consti-
tutes test ofdemocracy i; but gentlemen should
consider aceH achet1ter the great principles fhe
measure, ulich can, be regarded an our party IN
no other light than as a fundamental, do not
here and ,ciN not else,chere, present ,chat the ul-
innate tribunal-the people-,cW regard and
act upon as a test"
We leave to the Washington Union the Office
of reconcling these inconsistencies. They are
so patent-so palpable as to strike every one at
a glance.
After having long claimed the papal power
of accommodation, it now rises higher, and
asserts the superior power of absolution. As
we have all along questioned its right to exer
else the first, we Of course cannot acquiesce
in its right to exercise the last. But we now
proceed to point out the dangerous tendency
of the two last articles of the Washington
onion.
We hold that they are calculated to injure
the great and important, if not vital question
that now fills nations heart. Having passed
triumphantly through the Senate, it has yet