Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-06-28
70 tie Editor Of The Organ :

closes some Of the causes Of the recent and unex
pected defeat Of the American party in Virgins.
Allow me to direct your attention TO circum-
stance which cannot have failed to have an impor-
tant bearing on this party, not only in Virginia,
but throughout the Union. allude 10 the posi-
ton Of some Of the leading journals Of the country
Among these stands prominent the National IN
tslligelcer. No member OF the American organi-
zaton will Tor moment question the perfect right
Of every man in the United States, whether as an
editor or an individual, TO entertain and express,
In relation 10 public men, and especially public
organizations an explicit opinion Of appreciation
or condemnation Nor, imagine, would any
member of this organization have complained,
however much he might have regretted, that this
organ of the par excellence conservative party
should be arrayed against the now truly conserva-
tive political party of this Union.
But when this journal, forbearing upon It's own
responsibility TO take ground against the American
party, publishes extracts from other papers, the
tendency of which, with the editorial comments il
to put this organization into a false position, !
think the members of this new party have reason
10 fear that this journal Of acknowledged merit and
unquestioned ability, Is somewhat departing from
the high tone of frank courtesy which has charac-
terized its long and honorable course. will cite
few such instances which have marked It's col
umns within the last month.
In commenting upon the vote in the Connecticut
Legislature on negro suffrage, q contrast is drawn
between the vote Of 1850 and 1855, the latter be-
ing largely increased over the former, In favor OF
negro suffrage, with the significant comment that
the Legislature giving this large vote in favor Of
negro suffrage, Is Know-NothiLg." II would
seem superhuous to state to gentlemen 80 thorough
ly informed on the subject Of poticsas the editors
Of the National inteiigencer that Connecticut has
in the last FIVE years been Know Nothing only one
fifth the time and that II is hardly fair to charge
OH organization Of 80 recent origin, the changes
of five years past.
The terms in which this body is spoken Of by
the Intellgencer exhibit spirit Of which Its mem
beers have right to complain, no less than the
tone Of selections from those papers to which 1t
refers, Inttlligencer, June Is, page 3, the non
seeding portion of the convention lately in ses-
sion in Philadelphia il spoken Of 'the remnant"
June 10, page 2, the same portion Of this body IL
characterized as i" fragment of the original con-
vention." Now | shall certainly, upon all ques-
tons of philoogy, differ with reluctance from those
whose avocation 1t has been for nearly half CEN
fury, to adapt words to the exact expression Of
ideas. But submit to the Editors in common with
the public at large, whether, when the smaller por-
ton Of any body material or political be abstract
ed, the remainder can fairly be called remnant or
especially fragment. According to Webster, l
small detached portion.
Again, in recording the votes of the American
party on the three leading propositions touching
the slavery question, the Inteliigencer, june 10,
page q column 2, declares that il further appears
that the States which voted In the affirmative are
q minority Of the electoral college" but this ad-
mitted, do not the Editors of the Natisndl Intel
ligencer know that Missouri is true to the Ameri-
can party; that she was not represented; and that
even on this vexed question, when her votes are
added to the list Of yeas these yeas will be ma
jority Of the electoral college?
four correspondent is mistaken. Missouri pas
represented, and her delegates voted for the plat
form of principles. The hnteilgencer, as We have
heretofore stated, published the votes of Indiana
under the head Of Missonn, and omitted Missouri
altogether. 49,
would beg leave 70 ask the editors why they
quote from the New York Tribune, paper thor.
oughly abolitionist, and why the Northern Demo-
Gratis and leading aboltionists Henry Wilson, John
Cochrane, and John Van Buren,, should now be
able to REFER as authority for their opposition to
this organization, to the National Iatsligeacerf
An extract from the Commercial Advertiser, in
the Inteliigencer Of June 2lst, page Sd, column
9Th, contains charges upon the American party
which are entirely unfounded, viz: "That IL is sec
tional," and "that New York desires to admins
ter an emphatic rebuke to the first attempt made
by political National Convention to embody the
idea Of geographical party" II is a matter of
surprise to the constant readers of the Intel
lgenccr, that journal generally so careful in its
expressions should have endorsed the above state
ment. 1t might be a sufficient refutation Of the
charge Of this party being geographical" to state
that New York and California voted with the
South; Pennsylvania and New Jersey sat in con.
vsntion with the South; and Delaware voted with
the North.
But IL there Is one feature more exclusively pc.
culiar to this organization than all Others IL surely
is its nationality, its Anericanina. And II does
seem that the above charge is somewhat unfortu.
nately located; when, in the next paragraph,
another most grave allegation is endorsed by the
same editors from this same Commercial Adver-
tser, against this same party, "its assumption Of
being exclusively American, and, by sequence, its
denial Of true patriotism, or heartfelt American
feeling to all who do not embrace It's platform or
join its organization" No such assumption was
ever for one moment thought Of by the American
organization. But how can a party in one para
graph be condemned as geographical" and in the
very next be condemned as Exclusively Amer.
canSn The American party has unwittingly had
ample justice done it by those adverse TO IT, II
Is, indeed, "A geographical party" and II is in
clusively not exclusively, American.
The action Of the Convention of the same party
IN n nnhueippls, Wnlst " nas done all that the
friends Of the organization could reasonably exs
pect, has not as yet fully accomplished that which
the other great parties, Wing and Democratic,
have signally failed TO do. This Convention has
not settled the great contest between the North
and South on the subject Of slavery. 1t was not,
perhaps, very reasonable to expect that an organl
ration scarce year old should at the first effort
accomplish q task which has ever since the exist
ence of our government bafied the largest intel
lects and the most devoted patriotism OF American
statesmen. If, however, IL has not effected this
most desirable result 1t has not been altogether
without is uses. Men from the North and men
from the South have met and contemplated in a
national point Of view this great question, and
whilst the delegates from some States have Sc
ceded, delegates from other Northern States have
at least listened respectfully and have manifested
desire, as brethren of great confederacy, to ar
range amicsby this much vexed question. We
would ask when was this voluntarily done before
the existence Of this organization
1t has been urged against this order that II has
not been recognised by any political party. sup
pose that this Is true. The Richmond Wing ststes,
after the election, that the Whig party was not in
the contest; and Il may be presumed 70 speak by
authority. That such was the case, Is 70 us a
source Of profound regret nor is It less So we APP
prehend, TO that party, when Il witnesses, from it's