Daily American organ., 1856-03-13

opening the sectional sgitsAion by the repeal
of the Missouri Compromises"
Whatever opinions may be entertained Of
the constitutionaIity Of the Missoafi Compro-
mise act Of 1920, no man can affirm that its
direct repeal in 1864, did not reopen the sla-
very agitation; = no man can affirm that such
repeal was necessary or even expedient. The
Compromise measures Of 1850 had resulted in
restoring harmony to the country The Ter
ritoriat acts Of Utah and Neu Nerico left
the Missouri Compromise act precisely soherc
10 soas the part Of scisdons and sound policy
to leaoe il. The extreme folly, or the unhsl-
lowed ambition Of agitators, stirred up this
pool of sectional strife 1t is that which the
18th section condemns, without in any man
ner endorsing or approving the act of 1920
But we deny what the Enquirer alleges, that
there was o6olitionism in the Compromise act
of 1920
We shall net discuss the policy or the con-
stitutionality Of that act.
The contest of lsl9-'2O was one for politi-
cal poscsr, and not contest involving the mo-
rality or immortality Of African slavery Where
does the Enquirer locate those patriots and
statesmen of the South, who voted for that
Compromise, when it charges That the Mis-
souri, Compromise admits that slavery is
wrong" that it, in effect, brands shareholders
as wicked men, as wrong-doers, as an inferior
casteY" Where does the Enquirer place those
Democratic members of the General Assembly
Of Virginia, who, in the winter Of 184S-49,
threatened "tAs last extremity" if the prin-
cipIes of the Missouri Compromise should be
disregardeds Where does the Richmond En-
quirer place those Southern State-rights men
of 1850, who, at the Nashville Convention,
maintained the inviolability of the Missouri
Compromise with entire unanimity, and firm
ness of purpose, equalled only by the declara-
tons of the Virginia Assembly, Were these
Southern members of Congress who voted for
the Compromise act of 1920 4A6olitionistsp 2
Vas the General Asssns6ly Of Virginia and
the Nashrille ,Stats-rights Contention COM
posed Of A6olitionistss If net, then let the
Enquirer hesitate before it charges Abolition
ism upon the American party, who have sim
ply denounced an ilI-timed and unnecessary
repeal Qfa laao, in whose enactment whether
wise or unwise we pass no opinion) the patriots
of the South participated, and for the appre-
hended disregard of which, by Congress, not
eight years ago, Virginia herself threatened
measures Of the last ertremityy
| But the Enquirer informs US that because
the. platform condemns the administration on
the point adverted to, it is therefore tinctured
with Abolition, and makes the platform quite
broad enough for Black Republicans to stand
| upon" Unfortunately for this argument OF
the Enquirer, the facts do not warrant its con
clusions; for the platform meets with no oppo-
sition whatever, except from the Republicans
and their administration alliesl We hardly
need to inform the country that the Stewards,
Weeds and Greeleys are quite as sf.rewd poll
ticians and as well-informed men as the editors
of the onion and Enquirer, and that the former
are unitedly, bitterly, and quite as intelligent
ly opposed to the American platform az the
latter, and for reasons diametrically the oppo-
site of those advanced by the learned sophists
of the Richmond Enquirer. Nevertheless,
whilst this opposition clearly indicates the
views taken of the platform by the Republ-
cans of the North, it requires no such vindica-
ton from the charge of Abolitionism. 1t speaks
for itself, there is no mystery in its Ian
guage Its every sentence gives the lie to this
miserable and pitful charge