The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1856-03-03
Mn sANpERs:-Is il not necessary that the

as published in the journal of Feb. II? Ii so
Why condemn Pierce, Douglas & Co., as in the
18th section of that platform, for repeating that
Compromise? If you can reconcile these two
sections please enlighten me.
With reference to the all absorbing question
of the country East, West, North and South, |
discover no difference between Old Liners
ard National Americans, except the former are
the more ingenious.
am sorry Republican communications are
inadmissable in the Journal
Of aas Respectfully, O.S
ni want the country to understand that
Americans when we come to the tug of chos-
ing President in the House, will fuse with
Old Liners as they did in electing Speaker.
lido affirm that the Republicans are no more
sectional than their Fathers were-and those
who go in for Nationalising slavery are odious
ly sectional. u D
We have received several communications
fromou old friend, and although we did not
publish them, we gave them full considera-
ton, Republican communications are not in
admissible to our columns. But our friend
will excuse US for saying, communications
speaking disrespectfully of Willard Fillmore,
and imputing to him improper motives, can
find no place in our columns-and such was
the substance Of one communication received
from our Boonville friend and which after
wards found place in the State Journal. We
believe Mr.. Fillmore is as true patriot as
honest man, and as good judge of the wis
dom Of his own acts, as any man who dares
write syllable against him. We shall GER
tainly not the honesty of his motive permit to
be questioned in our columns.
Not having looked at the platform as pub
lished in our paper since it was first hurriedly
set up until directed to it by the above cores
pondent, we were not aware that it contained
an important error. A portion ofthe 9th and
7th resolutions were mixed up together, and
printed as the 9th section, leaving an impor
tant part out entirely. We republish the
whole platform in correct manner. Our cor
respondent alludes to the seventh section. The
right recognized by this resolution could never
have been made right in this certain territory,
but by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
We have always asserted that it never
should have been made right in territory de-
clared by this Compromise forever free terri
tory. But the Kansas-Ne Nebraska Law, wheth-
er right or wrong, has given the citizens Of
that territory the right to frame their own laws
and domestic and social affairs. The right
no0 EXISTS, undeniably, however much the
law which Acknowledges the right be con
demned. Existing, the American party &C
knowledges the right, so long as the law exists
which established it. Assuming this posi-
ton, it is no inconsistency to condemn the
law which gave the citizens Of Kansas and
Nebraska the right to make the choice between
slavery and freedom, and to condemn those
who established this law. We bitterly oppos-
ed the Nebraska bill, and in the strongest terms
expressed our indignation at those Northern
doughfaces who fixed the Nebraska law upon
our statute books. Yet are we inconsistent
because having opposed that law, now it as a
law, we render it obedience as a law of the
land? Our policy may be doubted for not ad-
vocating repeal of this law, but our consis-
tency on the question is indisputable. So far
as our opinion of that law is concerned, it is
now precisely what it was when the law was
made. Our correspondent may doubt the
policy of the National American party in their
rendering obedience to this law with the hope
ofquieting agitation on the slavery question, but
he cannot truthfully charge upon that party
Inconsistency in this, because it condemns the
authors of the law. If SO, then ali good citi-
zens who, while proposed law is in discussion
or after it is made, condemn the law, are incon-
sistent if they yield obedience to the lava pro-
position too absurd for comment and danger
Gus as it is absurd.
If our friend can see no difference between
Old Liners and National Americans on the
slavery question, we fear he does not read so
much as he writes. While National Americans
are opposed to sectional issues and thus to
further agitation of the slavery question:
portion of the Old Liners are for the extension
of slavery, pro-slaveryites throughout, and
other sections are anti-saveryites. They are
supporting an Executive who is the pimp and
tool of the South-who can only see one Sec
ton, and is the fawning sycophant of that-and
yetas much despised by all honorable South
ern politicians, and he is by the great mass of
his own party North.
The Republicans have it in their power to
prevent any union of the Old Liners and Amer
leans in the House, in the contingency stated
Let them but pursue the true policy of patriots
instead Of the dictates ofultra sectionalsts, and
no such unity can ever take place as that to
which our correspondent alludes. It will be
time to talk about that after the candidates
ara oil in the field