The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-08-16

10 the Edtt0r OF the National Era:
In your paper of this week find published,
without comment, the platform adopted by the
Republican Convention of this State on the
18th of July. Some difference of opinion
seems to prevail here respecting it, and it was
doubtless the design of its builders to adapt it
to the more conservative and tender-footed
wing of the Anti-Nebraska movement, whilst
at the same time it should appear broad enough
for the radical Anti-Slavery men of the State.
Had it been the desire of the political mana
nation of our Free-Soiers, nothing would have
been easier than the adoption of a few pointed
and terse resolutions, like those of Ohio, clear
ly stating the ground intended to be occupied
in resisting the aggressions of the Slave Power
1t is not difficult to determine, however, what
the platform means. So far as the question of
Slavery is concerned, it has but one plank,
namely, non-extension. This is its zone idea"
The question of admitting more slave States,
which is now forced on US anew by the slave
holders, most practical and vital one in the
creed of every Anti-Slavery man, and already
decided in favor of the South in the passage of
the Compromise acts of 1850, is ignored by
the Republicans of Indiana. The doctrine of
non extension is good, so far rs it goes but
suppose we fail in our effort to protect our Ter
ritories from Slavery, and they ask admission
as slave States. By shrinking, in a crisis like
this, from the issue specifically rendered us, and
failing to condemn the Legislation of 1850, we
implicitly waive our objection, and consent to
such admission; and we thus also give to the
enemy in advance the underground, which
might be ours by a seasonable and bold avowal
of our fixed purpose to resist the admission of
another slave State into the Union, from any
quarter, under any circumstances. The Con-
vention of the 18th should have taken this
ground, and would have taken it, had the man.
ayers permitted it. The desire for union and
harmony in good cause is commendable, but
the cause itself should not be sacrificed to their
attainment. No real advantage will result
from a conglOmeration of essentially antago-
nistic political elements.
In the opinion of some, the doctrine of no
more slave States is contained in the second
resolution, which says, ave waive all former
party predictions, and in concert, by all law
full means, seek to place every branch of the
Federal Government in the hands OF men who
will assent to the rights of Freedom"
This is mere generality, plausible plat.
tude, wholly without significance, except as
bait for the credulity of AntiSlavery men.
What are "the rights of Freedom ~ The
STAKEHOLDER of South Carolina and the dough
face of Indiana could unite with US upon this
platform. Even Atchison and Stringfellow
could stand on it. The time has come for
dealing in specifics. That the Republican
managers in this State mean nothing by the
resolution referred to, is quite manifest, from
their resisting, both last year and this, any at
tempt to define in their platform what are the
rights of Freedom" save as to the restoration
of the Missouri Compromise, and the further
extension of Slavery.
There is one other resolution, which is some.
times quoted as covering the whole ground of
Anti-Slavery warfare. 1t resolves, that our
revolutionary ancestors regarded Freedom as
national, Slavery as sectional; that we will
steadfastly adhere to their policy, and firmly re-
ton Is likewise deceptive, and seems to have
been studiously framed to deceive. Its phrase
ology artfully strives to keep out of sight the
odlous and accusing fact that we have long
since departed from the policy Of "our revolu-
tonary ancestors" 1t says, we will " firmly re-
slst every attempt to reuerse it," when those
who framed the resolution well knew that the
policy of our fathers has already been reversed,
by series of aggressions, running back from
thirty to forty years, and ending with the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise. To say that we
will steadfastly adhere to" an Anti-Slavery pol
icy we have never before espoused, and firmly
resist every attempt to reverse 1T, when the
South, by our help, has reversed it, is not only
bad grammar, but bad Anti-Slavery. 1t looks
like an attempt to drape over our past recusan-
cy, and to sanctify the successive outrages
which have had their elimination in the Ne
braska and Kansas Act, instead of boldly de.
claring that we will do the duty of the future
by undoing the wrong Of the past, which has
brought our country into its present peril.
Had our Republican politicians been willing to
let the People express their true sentiment,
their platform would have resolved, shat
Freedom is national, and Slavery sectional
that the Shareholders, awaiting themselves of