Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1855-02-24
WASHINGTON. d. c.
EsPAsIAN ELLIS, Editor.
The Bichmond EXAMINER.
SATURDAY.. FEBRUARY "a, 1886.

on yesterda after copying our declaration
that the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
was an objectionable blunder," commences its
comments upon our positions thus The
Washington Organ is doing much for the
cause of truth" The remark is true in all its
length and breadth; we are doing much for
the cause of truth, much, we hope, for the
cause of the American Reformation, much,
we believe, to break down the old rotten and
corrupt party organizations, much to disa-
buse the public mind, as TO the true issues now
presented for the decision Of the sovereign peo-
ple--much to demolish Foreignism, Romanism,
and Demagoguism.
We regret that we are unable to pay the
compliment to the Examiner, of saying, that
the residue of its article is as true as the first
sentence which commenced it.
1t is true that, " The Washington Organ is
doing much for the cause of truth, but it is
far from being true, that the Organ entertains
the sentiments imputed to it, in the general
tenor and purport of the Examiners extended
comments. The Organ has said, and now re-
peats its deliberate opinion, thus:
"7'he u,.calied for repeal Of the Missouri Com
promise opened the foodgatas of contention and
strife The principle Of Territorial and State Sow
ereignty on which the Kansas and Nebraska bill
is based is just one, but the direct repeal Of the
Missouri Compromise Uas an unpardonable ol'n.
der because no necessity called IT, and the quiet
of the country forbade ii"
We stand by the language and the opinions
of the above extract from one Of our editorials,
which the Examiner has taken for its text
Let us analyze its contents:
lst. That the repeal Of the Missouri Com
promise was not called for by the South
Cd That it opened the floodgates of conten-
ton and strife.
3D. That the principle of Territorial and
State sovereignty on which the bill was found
cd was Just one.
4th. That the repeal Of the Missouri Com
promise was an objectionable blunder.
9th. That no necessity called for it, and the
quiet of the country forbade it.
We reafirm each and all of these positions,
and we challenge the Examiner and its kin
dred presses to assail the truth of them, or
either Of them, as thus presented.
We affirm that in these opinions there is
no sentiment, which is not in perfect harmony
with the views feelings, and sentiments of the
South.
1st. Was the repeal of the Missouri Compro-
mise called for by the South? 1t aods not
The record proves it was not. 1t was pro-
position from the Northwest--from free
State, and was designed to create political cap
ital for Presidential aspirant.
3D. The Compromise measures of 1850 had
quieted both the North and the South, and the
direct repeal Of the Missouri Compromise re-
opened the agitation of slavery. To this re-
peal, and to the other plumbers of the admin
istration, the South are indebted for the excite
ment now existing, and which excitement, it
is our wish to allay, whilst the administration
presses foment it.
Sd. That the principle Of Territorial and
State sovereignty, on which the Kansas Ne
braska bill is founded, is q just one no man
who Is entitled to the character Of a statesman
viii deny No man at the South, statesman,
politician or other, win deny it
4th. That the repeal Of the Missouri Com
promise was blunder is proved by the un-
questioned facts on which the two first propo-
sitions rest If the repeal was not demanded
by the South, and if it reopened the agitation
of slavery, it will hardly be denied that it was
an egregious and objectionable blunder. Nor
do we believe one sane man in the nation re-
CARDS it otherwise than 6lundcr
9th. This proposition will surely not be con-
troverted, for no man can say that any neces-
sity existed for the repeal, and no man will
deny, that the quiet Of the whole country has
been disturbed by the repeal
We maintain therefore, that the paragraph
copied from the Organ, and commented upon
by the Examiner, is, In all Its parts, absolutely
and entirely correct in fact and in principle
The Examiner, without dsigning to analyze
and controvert the points taken by us in the
paragraph above cited, deals in gcneralities,
and assumes that our policy Is other than that
which we profess.
The Examiner says:
"The Organ Is cautiously and artfuly preparing
It's readerseyen its Southern readers, II that thing
be possible-for restoration Of the Missouri line
as the basis OF new compromise between North
and South In the turbulent Congress Of 1885,"
We have, at this point question or two to
PROFOUND to the Examiner, prcfacing thom,
however, with the single remark, that we
think we understand our own purposes quite
as well as the Examiner understands them,
and that ue haze. no such purpose IN viep
phateper. VIII the Examiner answer, whether
or not our editorial, from which the cited par
agraph was taken, did not expressly repudiate
the idea Of agitating the slavery question, by
repeal Of the Nebraska billf We said in our
editorial of the 10th instant from which the
Examiner has extracted the cited paragraph,
that opposition to the policy Of that bin (tbe
Nebraska) is one thing, and the advocacy of
its repeal very different thing. We oppose
all agitation Of the question Of slavery, in
Congress and out Of it."
Can the Examiner reconcile this explicit
avowal Of our purpose to oppose slavery agita-