Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-06-26
THE cHARLEsTON MERCURY AND
THE WASHINGTON UNION

We publish below an extract from an editorial
OF the Charleston Mercury, touching the astound-
ing or trite pronunciamento of the Union, en-
titled 'The Democratic position on the slavery
question:
The article Of the Union may certainly be de-
nominated astounding, if understood as referring
to the question Of slavery, and as certainly may
it be denominated triie, when construed to have
reference to the abstract question of slavery, as
the Union has explained and interpreted to be its
true meaning.
The Sentinel has already given the Union the
benefit of its own interpretations or explanations
Without farther comment, we give the remarks
of the Mercury.
From The Charleston Mercury OF June 23d
The Washington Union and the south.
In reply to our comments, the Union serves up
one of its lengthy homles on the infalibility and
Immortality OF the Democratic party. As regards
the issue between us, it gives us to understand
that we had completely mistaken the meaning of
the article which drew forth our notice Now, it
is very much to the purpose, that it should APP
pear whether 1t was our obuseness, or the Unions
ambiguity, that caused the mistake, and this will,
we think, be easily settled by a brief review OF
the facts. The language of the Union was as
follows:
'These truths will command ready assent and
they demonstrate the proposition, that party
embracing members at the North and the South,
can be national or harmonious in its organization,
which does not exclude the question of slavery
from its creed
This passage occurred in article on the position
of the Democratic party on the subject of slavery,
and we concluded, fairly enough, as we supposed,
that the Union intended by it to toreshadow the
position which that party should, in its opinion,
ella
it in is future platform. We were far from be-
ing alone in that construction. The Washington
Sentinel, the Richmond Examiner, the South
Cdreiinian, and others, conceded with us, both in
our construction and reputation of such course,
as a sacrifice of principle for spos, and delbe-
rate betrayal of the South to abolition.
But the Union corrects us all, by declaring that
it meant no such thing. 1t says
"What we had said was, that no party could
be rational if the abstract question of slavery (by
which we meant the question whether slavery is
moral, social, and political good or evi) was
made test Of party fidelity
Now, this is all innocent enough as an abstrac-
ton, but gratuitous and unmeaning in reference
to the politics of the country. There is not, and
never has been, any issue between the North and
the South upon the g abstract" question of
slavery. The South has demanded nothing but
her plain constitutional rights not caring what
opinions others might hold as to the morality or
righteousness of her institutions. Yet it is upon
this ISSUE, having no existence but in the imagi-
nation ofits organ, that the position of the Demo
cratic party is lauded to the skies, and held for
| everlasting support. Verify it seems that the
Union htving exhausted its store of actualities
wherewth to heap adulaton on the Democratic
party, has, in its gorifed ZEAL passed into the
realm Of myth and fancy for fresh material We
give IT. however, the benefit of its own construc-
ton Of is remarks, but must beg it to be more
explicit in future. Ii will save some trouble,
and unpleasant suspicious.