Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1854-10-31
AN ENTIRE MISTAKE.
In Tuesdays Wing We find the following article

The assertion is, TINT the Northern Democrats are
| the sworn friends al the Nebraska bill. We have
seen in what manner they exhibited their TREND
ship for il in Pennsylvania and OH" at The lalr
elections. Ii appears that. i'll Massachusetts, they nrc
carrying OH the same game. The Hon. y. /. BhnkS
who voted III Congress against the Nebraska Dill
has been rc-numinatrh ly u Democratic Convention
OF THE Seventh District OF Massachusetts Us ls cniIdi-
date for Congress. somebody hnrins questioned III"
Democracy al Mr.. Banks, he defended himself against
| the imputation, and said hr had never gwen Il vote
which he had not thought pr"Im"tivr al tho welfare of
the Democratic party. Listen 10 him
1.-TWO years ngn he said he had asscntcd to the
Baltimore platform. He had yielded Ia II AMI nbid'ri
by il, respecting slavery as well ms lis other Prov
-iuns, and when slavery was introduced into Com
yrcss he stood for the North and liberty. He did no,
introduce the subject in any form. but when 1t WIS
intr"luced, said he, ] stood ny for the North and fer
liberty. Applausr.l As II Massachusetts man, ne
felt that he had Il right to speak Tor the Norm anu ir
freedom, and he never would have shown his face ut
lum, had he feared To do what he could against tlr
,,ns-a-" ri, the Nebraska bill. He was still opposed
/" Iii" bill he never yielded {" It, aud before Tod ne
never would. Immense chccriiig.I lie was against
the measure and every thing flowing from 1t, sn lar M
slavery was concerned. Whenever and however the
question "f slavery should he introduced, he should
stand for the North and liberty. He was for The cqna!'
rights OF the North aS well as ;hosc ot the South and
shnlld he be elected, upon this question he w"ull
stand ever by whn, he believed to be the opinion OF
the people Of his district. He had separated irrcvo'
cubly from his friends of The Nebraska bill, as far as
that measure was concerned. He was rmphatlcniy
against it HOW, and should always oppose it. These
principles, lie said. Ioppnsition to slavery would he
the guiding lights Of his life, and he should never
shrink from them
The .NaiiOnU Inlriisrncrr very truly remarks, that
il a Wing were 10 utter the foregoing sentiments. hc
would be get down ms I'm .Ah"Iiti"ni-t. Verify, he
would. And yet u Democrat mHy make opposition
IL the Nebraska bill umd +" slavery The guiding lrIn-
ciplc ut his liz, and Yet Southern Democrats can see
II" guilt or iInpcricr;i"n about him.
To show what IN unfortunate tHur pas the Wing.
and it, c~o-lahorcr The National lnteili@cnrrr, have
committed IN this subject, VI need only cite the inct
that the Boston Post, the leading Democratic i"urnaI
Of New England, assigns its Reasons for ne! support.
Ing Mr.. Banks. These Reason, are that Mr.. Banks
"nnt only lal,"rcd in Congress Ia defeat the Nebraska
hill-spcakinS against il unl voting against ii-hut in
June he visited ls constituents. Just prior Ia n period
al unparalleled e>ciicmcn, on account If the rcndi.
ll"n "f Burns, and i'll an address delivered Mt Wal.
than. h" declared that bv nm irrrtricvaIrlc step he
had separated himself from lis political friends, and
that hc should wage eternal hostility Ia the Nebraska
bill and Ia the men VIII" passed ii. Since that time,
81 il is currently reported, he hHs joined tie Know
Nothing organization, md came as near NJ within
four votes ri being their candidate for Congress IN
hs district.
Tho Pos: says, aud says truly, ",irnt ;lr Democratic
purity in Massachusetts,. H. III every State IN the
tnl"n. are ,i:l.r tnLin. huli -r"Gd.i in favor ni the
Nebraska bill, or approving ii lie principles OF tn,
bill, and We are Mu; aware uf n single Democratic
convention or meeting in The State or out Of it where
Democrats. though they might not approve of til,
repeal Of the Missouri restriction, yet have declared
their intention Of continuing their opposition, or of la
boring to work II repeal Of the Nebraska bill. 1t is
therefore, n fact tina; cannot bc disputed, that the De-
mocratic purity ae unanimous in the position Of ac'
qnieSccncc in this great measure"
Tho only exception that we know oil t" this general
announcement Of tn" Post, ia 10 be found in the con,
venlion by which Mr.. Banks was nominated.
The Pos. thus concludes its article:
"Thus Mr.. Banks, besides uniting with another po-
litical organization, has repeatedly declared his pur-
pose, not only no, to acquicscc in this great measure,
but 10 continue L" oppose il. We understand by this
that his purpose is IL labor Tor lis repeal. Now, il il
our conviction that not only every good democrat,