The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1854-04-03

AZ We had Occ aston to correct the Lou
isville Times last week in its assertion that
the Democratic party North was not divided
on the Nebraska bill.-[ EU. Jour.
The evidence offered by the Journal is the
late anti-Nebraska meeting in Cincinnati,
to be held by Democrats. That
there may have been men at the meeting
who at one time professed allegiance to the
Democratic party, we do not pretend to de.
ny, but we do deny that it was Democratic
meeting. 1t was an Abolition meeting. The
most conspicuous object in the room was
map of the United States, in which the free
States were painted white and the slave
States black. Could there have been a bet
ter proof of the elements composing the
meeting! And the Journal itself, at the
close of the very article from which we have
taken the extract, furnishes addition al proof.
When resolution was introduced endorsing
the President and the ADMINISTRATION, specially
excepting the Nebraska bill, it was unanim-
ously laid on the table. We have never
claimed that the entire Democracy Of the
North were in favor Of the Nebraska bill, but
we do claim, that all who honestly embraced
the Baltimore platform, will support and sus-
tain the BILL Lou. Times.
And there we hold you. Did not the "en-
tire Democracy of the North" in voting for
Gen. Pierce, honestly embrace the Demo
cratic platform! 1t was so understood over
the whole country, and if it were not so I'M
derstood, the fault was not with Democratic
editors like our friends of the Times, failing
to duly impress it upon the minds of voters.
Now, we deny the claims of the Times that
all men who "honestly embraced the Demo-
cratic platform" support and sustain the Me-
braska bill. Nor is there any Inconsistency
in their SO doing. There was not word in
the Baltimore platform mat called upon any
man who honestly supported it, to sustain a
bill like this. On the contrary, any further
agitation of the slavery question was de-
precated. Yet in the very face of this,
leading Democrat has originated an angry agi-
tation, which has spread over the whole
country, and we find many Democratic pa
pers calling upon their friends to sustain this
bill and all it's agitation. But it is idle, aye,
it is criminal, to say tina! all the Democratic
party who embraced the Baltimore platform,
now uphold the Douglass bill. We alluded
to the Democratic anti-N ebraska meeting at
Cincinnati as one proof to the contrary
Nor can the Times invalidate that evidence
by calling it an abolition meeting. 1t was
no such thing. The Cincinnati Enquirer
acknowledged that among the names of tie
nine hundred Democrats who called it, were
the names of some of the most influential
Democrats of that party in Ohio. Jas. ].
Faran, the late editor Of the Enquirer, was
the first name on the list. Being absent from
the city at the time the meeting was held, he
addressed it letter, in which he declared his
positon-a position directly opposed to this
bill. The prominent speech was made by
Chas. Remelin. leading Democrat and for
merly Democratic Representative, and not
an abolitionist. The resolutions passed were
not abolitionist in sentiment, but spoke for
the meeting as Democrats, and in jealous OPP
position to the Nebraska bill.
The Times adduces but one proof that the
meeting was abolitionist-ia a map Of the
United States exhibited for the purpose of
pointing out the slave States from the free,
the free States were painted white, the slave
States black! What dreadful attack upon
the South was that If this bill be passed
and such a map of the country ever again
be publicly exhibited, We do hope the North
ern States will be painted green-a very deep,
an indelible green. We have no defence to
make against this serious charge. The Times
wants no better proof of the elements
of the meeting than this, and we
do not suppose it would accept anything
more sensible. What color would it have
preferred to black! Green! That would
have been embIematic Of verdancy. Blue
That would have been direct insinuation
against the sobriety of the South. Yellow
That would have been a mulatto insinuator
even worse than the black, because it would
have signified the blackness of Africa reliev
ed from its darkest depths by white depravi
ty. Let it be as il is, and damn the painter
not the meeting.
In conclusion, the Times thinks the yer,
act of unanimously voting down resolution
approving of the administration Of Presi
dent Pierce, and endorsing the Preslden
very freely, was additional evidence that tai
meeting was what the Times charges. No
will this do. 1t only proves that great many
Democrats about Cincinnati, " no have beer
CALLED and jaded in the party traces beyont
reasonable endurance, have for once bold,
and honestly spoken out their opinions. |
such failure to endorse the present ad
ministration by Democrats. be proof of abo
litonism, our friends of the Times will have
many occasions, we opine, to make the IN
happy charge.
But there is no use continuing this subjec
farther. We did not think any inteligen
man could, with the multiplicity Of evidence