Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1855-01-28
THE OHIO PLATFORM.


it is, therefore, with pleasure that We publish
the reply of IAN Ohio Democrat to an edito
rial article which appeared on the 9th instant
This we do, not only in justice to the author of
the reply, and in justice to his cause, but also
from the deep interest which we feel in pre-
serving in its integrity the Democratic organi
zation at the North, as well as at the South
1t was this last feeling that prompted the
article to which allusion is made, and in that
article we attempted in the mildest manner to
point out some of the objections which we en-
tertained to the Ohio Democratic Platform.
We are glad to admit the disclaimer Of our
correspondent on behalf of the Democracy of
Ohio, and we would be happy to acknowledge
that we had fallen into an error in regard to our
construction of the resolution TO which we re-
ferred. 1t is, therefore, in no spirit of an ad-
vocate, and in no desire for mere triumph in
controversy that we feel it our duty to say that
we see nothing in the explanation to change
our opinion of the original resolution.
We object to that resolution for two reasons
In the first place, if, according to the views Of
our correspondent, nothing more was intended
than to express disapprobation Of an existing
institution Of other States--if, as is expressed
by the terms OF the subsequent resolution, this
is subject with which the State of Ohio has
nothing to do, and is not fit question for dis.
cussion by the. Democracy in or out of Con.
gress, where, we would ask is the practical
benefit OF incorporating such an expression Of
opinion in Democratic platform? We readily
admit, in answer to the question of our cores.
pondent, that we do not expect Northern
men, however sound their Constitutional prin.
ciples, to cherish this institution as we do.
Fully satisfied of the political and social ad
vantages Of slaves ourselves, while, Of course,
we would prefer a coincidence of sentiment
from others, we do not contend, nor have we
ever commended, that appreciation of slavery is
test Of Democratic orthodoxy. But, while
this is the case, We do not see the necessity,
when the question is at rest of again tanning
into flame the smouldering ashes Of fire
which has recently burnt with such fnry-of
again bringing upon the tapis, for discussion,
question which has happily been set at rest,
and with which, according to the very declara.
ton Of this convention, they have nothing to do.
But we object to this resolution again, be
cause, as it stands upon the platform Of the
convention. il is unsound in doctrine. 1t is
unsound because it contemplates the possibility
Of future right to interfere; because it implies
that there are cases III which al interference
with the question is justified by the Constitu-
ton. And this view Of the subject is not merely
an abstract criticism upon language. Il has
practical bearing upon the subject in hand.
How else is it that in the whole series Of reso-
lutions, endorsing as they do every other prin
ciple of foreign and domestic policy, there is
not a word said, not a direct pledge given in
relation to the interference OF Congress with
slavery in the Territories, or in the District OF
Columbia. This can scarcely have been an
oversight, because the regulation of slavery in
the States is fully, and we are happy to add,
very soundly considered. IL the attention of
the convention was called to this subject, which
has never, even by the abolitionists in Congress,
been called in question, how is it that the more
practical and therefore important question Of
slavery in the Territories escaped their notice
Let Us see the practical bearing of this sub
ject upon the action Of Democratic members
Of Congress. Is there a word or an expression
IN that platform, from the preamble to the last
resolution, which has the slightest reference to
slavery in the Territories? A man may well
stand upon this platform, and follow its decla-
rations as the guide Of his action, and yet vote
for the repeal Of the Nebraska Kansas bill.
He may well, in accordance with the princi
Piles therein set forth, refuse to the Territory Of
Kansas, already peopled with shareholders, and
being developed by slave labor, admittance into
the Union. Nay more, he may emancipate the
slaves in that Territory and throw open the
gates to exclusive Northern emigration, for
aught that is forbidden in the platform OF the
Ohio Democracy. But it may be said, and il
has been urged, that the Baltimore platform Of
1852, which was endorsed by the convention
is sufficient safeguard against this danger
Has it been heretofore How many members
Of the Democratic party, who stood upon that
platform, and who supported the nominations
OF the Baltimore convention, have placed a
different construction upon its provisions ?
How many have voted against the Nebraska
bill in spite Of their faith in the principles Of
that platform If such has been the result in
the past, let experience declare what guaranty
we have in the future, that others standing npon
the same platform may not misconstrue its
provisions.
These, then, are onr objections TO the reso-
lotions Of the Ohio Democracy. We do not
think they have been met by our correspondent.
We object TO them alike for what is there
and for what is not there. We object not
only to the elements Of the structure, but TO
the fact that an unfortunate omission has been
NADIA assure in the wall--which is danger
GUS to the safety Of the whole building.