Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-10-30
JOHN VAN BUREN,, THE wAsHINGToN
UNION, AND THE ALBANY ATLAS.

We referred in our last issue to the extraor-
binary controversy that has broken out be-
tween the Washington Union and the Albany
atlas, and the Washington Union and Mr..
John Van Buren,. High on its throne Of Royal
State and armed with Ponti6cal power, the
Union, with one dash Of the pen, has converted
the atlas and John Van Buren,, whom and
whose party (the Softs) it has hitherto declared
to be the only sound and smon-pure New
York Democrats, into aliens and strangers to
the Democratic fold.
That these three who were bound together
by hooks OF steel-whose several bosoms
seemed to wear one heart-should thus fall to
quarrelng, is sad evidence of the instability
of human friendships and of the transitory ma
ture of political alliances.
The Atlas, as we showed the other day, re-
torts upon the Union with great bitterness and
crushing force, and rips up some ugly looking
old understandings, agreements, and compacts
between the Union and the Atlas's friends,
made during the tendency Of the Nebraska bill
and at the time of the election Of Public Prin-
ter to the House of Representatives. The
amount of those agreements was, that the Ne
braska bill should not be made a test Of Demo
cratic soundness. Under this agreement the
atlas and its Soft friends claimed the privilege
of opposing that bill. They did SO. For q
long time the Union said nothing in the way
Of reproach. But lately it attacked the Atlas
with startling suddenness, and followed up
that attack with bulls of accommodation
against it and John Van Buren,. How the
atlas replied We have already informed our
readers. 1t exposed old transactions and
laughed the Union TO scorn. On the other
hand, John, Van Buren,, bold, witty, willy, deep
John Van Buren,, answers the Union's article of
Friday last against him. He makes no dis
play of passionate uses no harsh terms.
After indulging in a jocular and characteristic
presentation of other matters, especially mat
tiers appertaining to the pending New York
State elections he simply says:
every candidate on our State ticket now,
except one Judge and the canal commissioner,
was openly and warmly the advocate Of Martin
Van Buren, in ls4e. They were proud of it
then, and | believe i do them no injustice
when / add that they have been prouder of it
every day since. Now permit me to ask you
one question:
"Does the Washington Onion desire our
ticket elected or defeated? State seasonably,
so that our electors may know; and after cleo
tion / ioiH tell you iohy asked. Though your
answer cannot change the result, it can in.
crease or diminish our majority.
Truly yours,
Mr. John Van Buren, is an eminent tao
tician. He husbands and regulates his wrath.
he is not the man to let present spite interfere
with future purposes. 1t lis Nii that his main
object in carrying the State elections is to get
into the United States Senate. He therefore
discreetly bottles up his wrath, and replies with
great calmness and much caution to the Unions
bull of accommodation. He has patience.
He waits. 1t is, oftentimes, wisdom to wait.
He even concludes his letter 10 the Union (it
will be found in another column -" Truly
yours"
Bot says he, after propounding his question,
"atter election Twill tell you why asked" AS
certainly as the Union has sometimes avowed
itself, as certainly j! it has at other times de-
MED being the Government organ, SO certainly
will John Van Buren, pounce down upon it
"atfer election" and make most horrible dis
closures.
The Union devotes quite long editorial TO
Mr. Van Buren's letter, THAT, too, we publish
today This editorial presents but two
points that challenge comment. In complying
with Mr.. Van Buren's request to state its OBJ
jections to the resolution Of the Softs, express
ing their hostility to the extension of slavery
to free Territory" (The Union has neuer, thai
zoe k1o,O Of, committed itself either ,coy on this
subject y 1t says:
"We object because the convention protested
to be Democratic convention, and it is no
part of the creed Of Democrat, such, either to
advocate or oppose the extension Of slavery
he may do the one or the other IN the exercise
Of his rights as citizen, and not offend against
his Democratic feaLty."
What is the meaning of this? 1t is about
as clear as mud. Shade of Cobbett, we invoke
your aid. In your "days Of nature you
showed your grammatical skill in interpreting
Kings speeches from the throne, and great
State papers from the pens Of ministers.
Come now and aid us in Calculating this most
perplexing passage from the Washington
Union
All that we can make OF it is-that so a
Democrat, but holds his tongue, he can vote
as be pleases on the question Of slavery in the
Territories. II this be the correct rendering Of
the sentence, then why does the Union raise
oil this clamor about John Van Buren, and the
Albany AtJdsS The only difference is, that
they Ivan Buren, aud the Atlas) are honest
enough to declare their sentiments before they
vote, while the Union discreetly I'VE will use
no harsher word) withholds its opinions, but
votes. 1t is not the act Of voting il, is not the
sentiment, but the expression of the sentiment
that the Union objects to. Kiss, but don't