Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-01-15


daring etfoatery TO deny, that the Missouri
Compromise was an objectionable, damnable
outrage upon the Constitution and the South,
and that squatter sovereignty" Is aOao the
very quintescence ofAmericanism, is unworthy
Of the political or social confidence Of the
Southern leaders of the American party Well,
we should not object to other people turning
political summersets as often as they please,
but they must permit us to enjoy and to main
tain the opinions which we adopted in early
life-which we have cherished in mature age,
and which we see no reason yet TO abandon.
But the Petersburg Intelligencer alleges that
"huge aorong was perpetrated upon the people
Of more than dozen States" by the enact
ment of the Missouri Compromise. This may be
80 but when "huge wrongs are thus charged,
it is sometimes Interesting, If not actually
important, to trace the wrong to its true source.
Now, who.commenced the inAiction of huge
wrongs" upon the States by slavery prohibit
| tons? If our recollection serves us properly,
the first actual prohibition of slavery in any
| territory now forming States in this Union,
originated with Virginia!
If this be true, the charge of huge wrongs"
comes with bad grace from a Virginia editor,
| legislator and statesman At least he should
first Of all denounce the men of Virginia,
| aoho ceded the Northeastern Territory to Con-
gress on the express condition that "slauery
| should be excluded ueretrom torerer," before
he charges similar wrongs" upon men of
more modern times, who have only followed
| in their footsteps, and that too, under circum-
stances and considerations which manifested
| their deep devotion to the Union of these
States! We advert to this fact in the history
of Virginia legislation, not to create discus
sion OF the merits of the act of prohibition,
which followed in the ordinance of 1887, but
to enable the editor of tho Intelligencer to as
certain upon whose heads to infict the first
blow for the " huge wrong" which he says has
been committed by slavery prohibitions!
| The editor of the Intelligencer in the article
written to explain his vote on the above reso-
| luton, maintains that the Nebraska act is a
great national measure" Will he be kind
| enough to say, AZ an advocate of American
| doctrines whether or not he endorses that pro-
vision of the act which admits aliens to enjov
suffrage and hold office there, before natu,ali-
ration, and upon simply making their decla.
ton of intention" to become citizens2 Is he
an advocate of that "squatter sovereignty" on
which this provision is foundedg AS co-labor-
ers in the American cause, we desire informa-
ton as to his views on this point We should
be glad to have light upon the neto principles OF
! Americanism. We have had some fifteen years
experience as laborer in the Ameri can cause,
but, in these days Of political invention and
governmental progress, we must counsel with
fast politicians or remain behind the times
| One more point and we are done
| In closing the editorial first above referred
to, the Intelligencer says to the Richmond
American:
| "We will, before concluding, Just put a small
| query to the American, which at the moment sug.
| gests itself: What must it think of the present
| editor OF the Washington Organ in opposing the
18th section, after having voted publicly for itS-
Hope VIC don't intrude.'"
This would be sensible inquiry on the part
of the Intelligencer, If we had not ourselves re-
PEELED an assault heretofore made upon us, by
that press, on this point, in a manner too,
which defed a reply, and to this day has re-
ceived no reply from that quarter Will the
Intelligencer publish the answer which we
| gave to that assault, with whatever comments
he may see fit to make upon itp If so, we will
send him another copy of the answer if he has
lost or mislaid it. Publish our ans,oer, and
then repeat the assault as often as it suits your
own convenience, but do not put our contem-
poraries to the trouble of examining and dis
cussing the merits of an answer to your as
saults which you refuse to exhibit to your
readers and to reply to in your own columns!
The object of the Intelligencer is as trans
parent as glass. Being assailed himself, for an
obvious inconsistency, he bungles through a
column of editorial, which furnishes, Gas he
must have been conscious no sort Of explana-
ton of his inconsistency, and by way of draw
| ing off the attention of his adversary and the
public, from himself, he asks the American,
"what do you think of the Organs consis-
tency2" We presume the American thinks,
as every sensible man must think, that even il
the Intellgencer could show any inconsistency
in the Organs course, which we have defed it
to attempt, it would be very lame defence
to set up, when brought to trial, for its own
offences
American Triumphs.
| TIL. cbartar oIact;,r t,oL rtaoo OF Corooa Eou,