Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1855-10-30
From the Washington Union OF Saturday last.
John Van Buren,s Letter.

! yesterday on the late speech Of John Van Buren,
have induced him to address US the letter which
we publish below The main purpose of this
letter seems to be to place on record his pre-
diction as to the result of the coming election
IN New York. We have no sort of objection to
his establishing his reputation as a prophet;
but beyond the success of sound and bene.
fetal local policy in New York, we do not see
that the interests of the national Democracy
would be promoted by the realization of his
hopes. If it was the intention of the sofs, as
intimated by Mr. Van Buren,, to confne their
issues to questions of State policy, it is exceed
ingly unfortunate that he deemed it necessary
to interpolate his celebrated cornerstone"
resolution. The introduction of that plank into
the Syracuse platform impressed us with the
belief that the soft convention of Syracuse was
in session as branch of the national Demo
cratic organization, and not merely for local
and domestic purposes We had not under
stood that there was any fear entertained in
New York OF an incursion Of slaves which
rendered it necessary for the convention to
declare their fixed hostility to the extension Of
slavery to free territory.
We readily respond to the question as to
which branch of his resolution we object. We
object to that clause which declares the fixed
hostility of the convention to the extension Of
slavery. We object because the convention
protested to be Democratic convention, and
1t is no part of the creed of Democrat, as
such, either to advocate or to oppose the exten.
sion OF slayery-he may do the one or the other
IN the exercise OF his rights as citizen, and
not offend against his Democratic fealty. But
Mr.. Van Buren, undertook to interpolate the
doctrine of opposition to tile extension. of slaoery
as Democratic doctrine, when there is no
such article In our creed and for that reason
we condemn it. If deposition to the extension
OF slavery be regarded at the North as a part
OF the Democratic creed, it must be apparent
that the people of the North and South cannot
harmonic in the Democratic organization,
and, therefore, the Democratic party can never
be national. The people of the North may
cherish their sentiments of opposition to the
extension OF slavery, but they cannot thrust
them into the Democratic platform without
destroying the nationality of the party. Mr..
Van Buren, undertook to do this by his resolu.
ton at Syracuse, and for that we censure him.
We object to his resolution, in the next
place. because the question whether slavery
should be extended or not does not belong to
Congress, but to the inhabitants of the Terri.
tory in which the question arises; and, there
fore, the declaration in the resolution of Mr..
van buren, is tantamount to the assertion that
the Federal Government has Jurisdiction to
tory-a power which the Democratic party de-
mics to the General Government.
We object to his resolution, in the third
place, because it is an implied condemnation of
the Nebraska bill and of those members of Con-
gress who supported that bill. The charge of
Abolitionists is, that the Nebraska bill was
Southern measure, designed to extend slavery
into Kansas although this charge is utterly
untrue, yet when Mr.. Van Buren, seeks to
evade its force by declaring that the Democrats
OF New York are opposed to the extension of
slavery, he virtually admits the Justice of the
Abolition charge. The Democratic party does
not, and never will, admit the passage of the
Nebraska bill nor the repeal of the Missouri
compromise was wrong They deny that the
| object of the measure was to extend slavery or
to prohibit slavery; it was designed to remove
every obstacle to the fair settlement of the
! question of slavery or no slavery by the inhab-
ltants OF the Territory. The declaration of Mr..
Van Buren's resolution, that the Democratic
party is opposed to the extension of slavery is,
therefore, by implication, condemnation of
the great principle of the Nebraska bill.
Mr.. Van Buren, quotes again the extract on
which we commented yesterday, in which this
passage occurs: "When the Territory (Kansas)
is formed into State, and applies for admis-
sion, you hare again the right to raise the
question whether it is fairly formed into slave
State; and, if it is not, you have the right to
prevent 1t from coming into the Union until it
presents itself with free constitution, if Won
choose" and asks this question: Does the
national Democracy deny this right? By
which he means the right to raise the question
whether Kansas was fairly formed into slare
State. We answer, that when Kansas asks
admission, either as slave or free State. il
will be the duty of Congress to be satisfied that
the constitution presented contains the will of
the people Of the new State, fairly expressed,
But we deny that when it shall be ascertained
that the constitution of Kansas has been fairly
formed with clause allowing slavery that then
Congress, or the people of Oswego, or anybody
else, has right to '.preuent ii from coming
INFO the Union until IL presents itself Nth a
free constitution" We certainly understand
Mr.. Van Buren's language to imply the asser-
ton OF such night, and we are strengthened
in this inference from the subsequent remark.
in which he declares that, when all the modes
enumerated by him Of prohibiting slavery in
Kansas have failed, he asserts still that "Kan.
sds must be free" What does this mean but
that Mr. Van Buren, is ready to make it a sine
qua non with Kansas that she must either pro-
hibit slavery or never expect to come into the
Union2 If the democracy Of Oswego aoree
with Mr.. Van Buren, in this position, we can
safely inform them and him that "next wear
they will not act with the national democracy
We shall endeavor at an early day to comply
with Mr.. Van Buren's request, and publish all
his remarks on the subject of slavery in his
speech at Oswego. As to his request to read
the extracts which we do publish, we assure
him that we have done that with regret; and
if we have Inexperienced his meaning, it may
be our fault but we are inclined to think most
i readers will think IN ia his In raply ,Lo
question whether the Washington Union de-
sires the ticket advocated by Mr.. Van Buren, to
be elected or not, we will tell him frankly that
his declaration that "every candidate on our
State ticket now, except one Judge and the
canal commissioners, was openly and warmly
the advocate of Martin Van Buren, in l84s,h
and that "they we're proud of it then, and l
believe l do them no injustice when add that
they have been prouder Of it every day since"
we say that this declaration makes it n
matter OF indifference, so far as the interests OF