Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-10-11
fKANsAs AND THE MISSOURI DEMO
GRAFT

sour DeD0crdt In relation TO the admission Oh
Kansas as a slaveholding State. That journal
has rejoinedin an article whose tone would justi-
fy oursilence, ifitwere not that itmakes charges
of our misstating certain facts, and suppressing
others. In our intercourse with our brethren
of the press, we have endeavored, during our
career, to maintain the strictest courtesy,
From a contest like that in which the Demo
crdt would force us, we do not hesitate to with
draw, not from fear of the result Of the encoun-
ter, but from the higher motives of pride and
propriety. We only reply to some of the
charges which have been made, that we may
yindicate ourselves before those on whose judg-
ment and feeling they might, if unanswered,
exert an undue influence.
We expressly stated in the article to which
reference is made, that eve did not mean
to contend that q slaveholding State was
more favorable either to the increase of
population or to the construction of works Of
Improvement. We only designed to expose
the gross perversions and shiftings to which
the enemies of the south will resort to attain
their malicious purposes" In commenting,
therefore, on the views of the Democrat, we
only sought to combat the two statements
which we're mainly relied upon, that |" the facts
prove that the population of the non-slavehold-
ing States increases with greater rapidity than
the slaveholding States IN the ratio Of taoo to
one;" and that "there is not a free State in the
Union which has not more miles of railroad
finished than any slave State of the same popu
lation." To sustain our position, we had re-
course to the census Of 1850, and to the rail
road statistics furnished by the American Al
manac for 1854. We have again carefully ex-
amined these authorities, and find that in our
former calculation there was no error except
in one immaterial respect. This exception
arose from the fact that there was supple
mental statement of the completed railroads in
Massachusetts,, which escaped our notice in the
first examination, and which, Of course, would
have been corrected if it had been subsequently
discovered. Still the facts upon which we rely
fully support our position, and convict the
Democrat of misrepresentation.
1t is asked why we excluded the five States
of Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Florida, and Wis
consin from our calculation. We repeat that
" from their recent admission into the Union
and the consequent rush of population there,
they are not proper bases of calculation" Ger
tainly we could not be influenced by an appre-
hension that they would, in the elegant language
Of the Democrat, put the boot on the t'other
leg" A comparison between Arkansas and
Michigan, born into the Union in the same
hour" would be favorable toaour view of the
question. The increase per cent Of the white
population Of Arkansas for the ten years be-
tween 1910 and 1850 is ll0.l6, and Of Michi-
gan s6.74. See Census, page XLyII. So re-
cent has been the tide of population to Iowa
and Wisconsin that there is no attempt to es-
innate the rate Of increase for any but the last
decade. And yet why, with all the vaunted
facilities for emigration TO free territory, have
these rich lands been SO long unoccupied when
they have been open alone to the free popula.
ton since the ordinance Of 1857 But the
same table gives us an opportunity Of substan-
tiating another statement which has, in like
manner, been denied by the Democrat 1t is
stated by that journal, that the facts are falsi
fed in the case Of Kentucky increasing more
rapidly than New York, and Maryland than
Ohio. The truth is just precisely the reverse
of the statement Of the Sentinel By the Ia
BILE, however, we are informed that whereas
Kentucky is said TO have increased at rate Of
2s.9s per cent, New York has increased at the
rates of2s.l4; Maryland at the rate OF "a, and
Ohio 30.l5.
We hold this vantage ground over the Demo
Graf in this controversy, that while that Jour
nal contends for universal affirmative propo-
sition, we are only rebutting il by particular
negative. So much for the personal contest
between the Democrat and ourselves But, in
reference to the main point Of the question,
the settlement of Kansas by slaye.holding emf
grants, we do not rest il here. Admitting
every position that the Democrat has assumed
admitting that by excluding slavery the Terri
tory Of Kansas viii soon become densely pop.
ulated country, and admitting that in free
State the facilities for railway construction are
immeasureably superior 10 those in slave
holding State, we still maintain that il is the
policy, not only Of Kansas herself but Of the
whole Union and Of the States upon her Dor
ders, that slavery should be introduced there.
Let It not be supposed that the superiority
which appears at the North to the eyes Of
superficial observer, is in reality owing TO her
freedom from the abused and misunderstood
institution Of slavery. Each section Of our
large and aourishing country has its own pecu-
liar work to do in attaining the high destiny
which awaits us. No sagacious man can
thoroughly and impartially examine the work
ing of our system, without being convinced
that the South, the agricultural South, with her
fertile fields, her rich staples, and her happy
slaves, is at least an essential element in
our national greatness The simple article