Lynchburg daily Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1852-1861, 1855-07-17
L%iNCHBURG IIRGINIiN.
lacy

"'u"y mdhes a iaoored but most unSncccSs
fol attempt to bolster upits Democratic Al
lies or Pennsylvania. In the virginian Of Frila,
we referred to the late proceedings of the Penn
sylvania Democracy in convention assembled an,
showed by quotations from the record that the,
had rejected by an overwhelming majority a plain
simple and straightforward resolution approving
and endorsing the Nebraska act. IL view Of thi,
circumstance we called on Southern Democratic
editors to show by their consistency. an,
sense of justice denouncing their Northern
Allies, as they had previously denounced North
ern Wings for refusing to support the Nebraska
bill. But the Republican hally refuses 10 heark
en- unto our call and proceeds in a long article to
paliate excuse and apologize for tho baekslid
ings and short comings ~ its keystone friends.
The Republican says that "the Pennsylvania Dc-
mocracy, tehle they hart not been as bold as
they ought 10 hare been, hare not done anything
calling for dennnciatioR." Now we beg leave
here to invite attention to The significant fact That
none Of the Democratic papers Of this State hive
thus far uttered one word in Reproduction Of the
proceedings of the Pennsylvania Democracy and
that the Lynchburg Republican boldly declares
that there was nothing in their action calling
for denuneiation' although one feature Of that
action wa a fiat and emphatic refusal 10 en-.
dorsc the Nebraska bill in any shape or forn
We beg our readers to recall 10 their Minds the
fierce denunciations which fbc Southern Demo
cratic press, the Republican included. have been
wont 10 hurl at Northern Wings fer their rcsis
tancc 10 the Nebraska bill and how sternly and
inexoradly these Journals have heretofore held up
the above named measure as a test of political or
thodoxy. Let them contrast the rnst deelara
tions of Virginia Democratic editors with the
present declarations of the Republican, and the
ominous silence of its Democratic con CrereS, and
they will see another Illustration Of the old Saw
that there is vast difference between my bull
goring your OK and your ball goring NINE
When the Wing bull g5red the Nebraska bill,
Democratic editors were for hunting the animal
to death; but when the Democratic bull does the
same thing, the Republican aud its associates
cry out with the lawyer in the spelling book stu.
ry-"that alters the case"
But we come now to the defence, or rather
apology which the Republican sets up for the
Pennsylvania Democracy. We let our noielbor
speak for himself:
I'VE think that. the resolutions of the Harris.
burg Convention are too guarded and cantious
in their phraseology, and that they Indicate too
much dellcacy with reference to tho Nebraska
bill, but, that Iiherei is anything in them ealhne
for denunclation is an assertion utterly Contradic.
ted by the record of their proceedings. There is
no party at the North holding the position we do
on the subject Of slavery, or willing To go as far
as we would in unfolding it. In fact, were our
standard of orthodoxy adopted our neighbors of
the JirgiaiGn themselves would fall short of it.
A large portion of the South would fall short 90
it. We have long d~espaired of seeing even the
South unite upon what we regard ms the platform,
and of course expect no such phenomenon in the
North
We entirely agree with the Republican that
Northern men ought not to be expected to come
up fully to The standard of Soutnern orthordoxy.
But surely the Republican does not regard the
Nebraska bill as an extreme Southern measure !
We have always understood the position of our
~neighbor to he that the Nebraska bin was Il ma
tional test by which Democrats in every section
of the Union should be required to abide. If
this be so the considerations suggested in the
foregoing extract furnish no excuse for the Penn
sylvania Democrats.
Preferring to let our contemporary state his
own case, we subjoin another extract which en-
bodies the gist of his defence
at is true that the Harrisburg Convention re
iected a resolution practically endorsing the Kan
sas Nebraska bill, but il is also true that such re
lection might have been produced by other rea
sons than opposition to that bill. This view of
the matter is enforced by several faois:
1st. One of the resolutions approves of the ad-
ministration of Gen. Pierce who signed the Nebra,
kabill. Its approval is the most marked feature of
his " administration" Surely, it is strange to
say that a body of men should endorse an ad.
ministration without alse intending to endorse its
most important act.
2dly. All of the agitators of the North favor
and insist upon the restoration of the Missouri
Compromise. In the whole proceedings of the
Harrisburg Convention there is not the slight
est evidence of the slightest sympathy on the
part of its members with this ~faetious agitation
of the abolitionists. If any of the delegates had
.symptahized with this pestilent brood of agita
tors, it is certain that such sympathy would have
been manifested.
3dly. They adopted the following resolution.
which, certainly indicates conservative spirit
Resolped, "That the Democratic party need not.
on old and settled issues, to declare its principles
in detail. 1t is sufficient for us to say that we
belong to the Democratic party of the Union,
and recognize no geographical lines between the
North and South. The interests of all parties of
the country are the same to us, and SO far as in
our power we will maintain the constitutional
rights o fevery State with uniform fidelity
We should he very we'll content to submit
these explanations to our readers without com
ment, leaving them to Judge for themselves as to
their sufficiency, but we will make a few re-
marks on the subject.
In the first place, the argument of the Repub-
lican that the Harrisburg Convention might
have intended to endorse the Nebraska bill when
they endorsed the Administration would perhaps
he yIauaihla &c No rnap+ia, &C N.I..-I. Ii H..