Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-02-16
JOHN VAN BUREN's LETTER TO COL.
~ CLEMENS.

JOHN VAN BUREN's LETTER TO COL.
Ss CLEMENS.
We publish to-day the letter recently ad-
dressed by John Van Buren, to Hon. Jeremiah
Clemens, of Alabama. Mr.. Van Burens letter
is real genuine Van Buren, letter Tn the
first sentence it admits that the motives which
induced its author to mount the Baltimore
platform we're of such character as would not
bear explanation. What was the character
of those motives? What their nature and
complexion?
1t seems 10 us that Mr.. Van Bnren, cunning
and crafty as he is, has furnished us clue by
means of which we may answer the questions
we have propounded. In the first place he
states that when he took position on the Balti-
more platform, he lost thereby the respect and
esteem of some of his best and truest friends.
Who were they who withdrew their confidence
and esteem from Mr.. Van Buren, because of
that movement? Assuredly hey were the most
factious portion of his freesoi and abolition fol-
lowers. That is plain. Then Mr.. Van Buren,
aifirms that he could have made an explanation
which would have saved him from loss, and that
he forbore to make that explanation because
it would have inflicted injury in another direc-
ton; all Of which, reduced to plain English
means just this, according to our humble un-
derstanding: Mr.. John Van Buren, sustained
the Pierce and King ticket under the guidance
of motives, which were misinterpreted by por-
-. r. i L ~
motives, if fully and properly explained, would
have been satisfactory to his feeson and aboli-
ton followers and prevented the censures which
they bestowed on him; but the explanation
could not be made without an exposure which
would have called forth censure from another
quarter, wounding the democratic party by re-
vealing the nature of Mr. Van Buren's real
purposes and thwarting his Interior designs.
In other words, Mr.. Van Buren, intended to
bamboozle the public, under the impulse of
motives and to accomplish purposes which he
could not avow and was forced to conceal.
But now Mr.. Van Buren, gives his mterpre-
tation Of the Baltimore platform, and that in
depreciation is given in very few words. Ac
cording to his exposition, the only stipulation
entered into at Baltimore touching slavery was
a stipulation to drop the subject" This
commentary has surely the merit of brevity,
but we can perceive no other merit in it; for
if we understand the action of the Baltimore
convention, it adopted a principle Of settlement
which should be adhered to as means of for
cling agitators to drop the subjectmatter of agi-
tation. The democratic party bound itself to
resist the agitation of the slavery question in
and out of Congress; but, before doing that, it
adopted rule of action to be strictly adhered
to as the means Of supp1cssing agitation. 1t
sanctioned the principle of non-intervention as
full, final, and complete settlement adequate,
if adhered to and enforced in the true spirit, to
take care of the slavery question in all time to
come.
But Mr.. Van Buren, repudiates the principle
of non-intervention he repudiates that por-
ton of the Baltimore platform which re-
| lates to the process by which factious agi-
tation should be ended, aud insists that there
was only a simple naked stipulation to drop
the subject. This is real unadulterated Van
! Burenism-a cunning, very cunning, exceed
ingly cunning attempt to throw the respon-
sibility on other shoulders of the factious
course which Mr.. Van Buren, has determined to
pursue. But cunning sometimes overreaches
ITSELF exposing its own faithlessness to its in
tended dupes and victims. 1t is so in the
present instance for Mr.. Van Buren's artful
epistle has served to open the eyes of many who
had been deluded by the freesoil professions at
Syracuse last November, and made them IN.
derstand what Mr.. Van Buren, meant when he
said on that occasion that he had nat read the
resolutions.
Mr.. Van Buren, says, further, that it is pro-
posed to repeal the restrictive clause of the
Missouri compromise on the ground that it is
either already repealed or nerer eristed that it
was superseded by the compromise of 1850, or
IS unconstitutional and he proceeds then to
make the declaration that repeal for any of
these reasons would be fragrant breach Of
party faith. This is strange reasoning to us.
We may be dull Of comprehension, but we can
not understand how a breach of party faith can
be committed by repeating law that has been
already repealed, or by repeating a law that
nerer eristed, or by repeating law that has al
ready been superseded by a subsequent law, or
| by repeating a law that Is IN relation of the
Constellation. Mr.. Van Buren, says that the
breach of party faith consists in the fact that a
Il e al. -
compromise for any Of these reasons would be
entirely unnecessary. But the repeal is me-
cessary; for if the Nebraska bill should pass
without the repeating clause, Mr. Van Buren,
and bis freesoil and abolition followers would
swear most Justify that the Missouri compro-
mise had necer been repealed, that it crisis in
full force and virtue, that it ,cas not superseded
by the compromise Of 1850, and that it is not
unconstitutional. In this behalf we do not un-
dertake to foretell the future; for the freesoiers