, 1856-09-26
From the Washington Union.
DiSHliOn.

individuals, ana occasionally large pOftlOn
Of individual States, laboring under sup
posed or real grievances, have vcntured t,
q look TO disunion as an ultimate remedy
but such menaccS have been usually treated
as the harmless indications of iudiscree
passion and madness. An appeal to the
wise counscls Of the fathers and defender.
of the republic has been sufficient to cor
rect, by the force Of public sentiment, sucl
temporary aud limited alterations from
true patriotism At the present time
however, the question Of disunion assume,
a for more imposing aspect. The charge
is made against an entire political party
= supposed to have control in at least one
fourth Of the States of the confederation
and known to number large portions of an
other fourth. 1t is not alleged that this
party, by its authentic declaration of prin
ciples, openly and expressly avow disunion
as the object of its organization, but it is
alleged that the necessary result of its sue.
cess and of the practical enforcement Of its
avowed doctrines would be n separation Of
the States. An allegation of so monStrOus
character ought neither to be rashly
made nor hastily decided. We shall
therefore, consider it dispassionately.
The first thing which deserves attention
is the fact that many individual members
Of this party, occupying prominent positions
in it and exerting large influence in its
councils, are known to have expressed sen
timen,s wholly irreconcilable with the con-
tinuance of the present Union. But it
would be rash to hold a whole organiZa-
tion responsible for the reasonable senti.
ments of q portion of its individual men,
bers, if the great body of the party arc
known to repudiate such sentiments. The
proper place to institute the inquiry as to
the question of fact whether the party har-
monies in sentiment with some of its indi-
vdual members who have declared for dis
union, is in the Official record Of its princi.
pies as laid down by its representatives in
convention Turning to the last Philadel-
phia convention, we are struck by the fact
that some of those who have been boldest
in avowing disunion sentiments were prOmi-
nent actors in its deliberations. But, look
ing to the record Of principles finally adopt
ed as their platform, we find no open and
Lexpress endorsement of such disunion doc
trines On the other hand, we find no
open and express reputation Of them. The
end to which these leaders are looking is q
dissolution Of the Union, according to the
plain import of their language. The great
question with them is as to the best means
Of attaining their end. An utra-abolition-
is', such as Garrison or Phillips, would say,
Irepudiate the constitution and denounce
the Union The republicans, such as Sc
ward and Wade and Wilson, would say,
we must recognize the constitution and
adhere to the Union, and adopt our means
under their cover, but such means as in
due time will undermine and destroy both
the constitution and the Union When it
is remembered, therefore, that the Phila-
delphia convention was composed Of repub-
lcans, and not of those who call themselves
Observation-Disclosures, we would not expect to
find the constitution and the Union openly
denounced, but we would expect to find
them expressly recognized and approved ;
ut the same time we would expect, if the
counsels of the Stewards, Wades, and Viii.
sons prevailed, that the principles adopted
would be such as in their practical results
would ultimately lead to the destruction Of
the government, and the accomplishment Of
the end which these leaders are understood
to have in view-the dissolution Of the
Union. We hardly think that any candid
mind can take up the republican platform
and run out its doctrines to their practical
results, and doubt that the means adopted
are entirely appropriate for the final attain
ment Of the objects Of dsunion.
BY way of testing the accuracy of this
conclusion, we will take single principle
and run it out to its legitimate results BY
the republican platform no additional slave
State is to be admitted into the Union. II
the republican party succeed in getting
control Of the government, if Kansas, or
one or more States carved out of Texas,
or a State cut off from California, should
apply for admission with O constitution
tolerating slavery, the application would
be rejected on the principle that the insti.
tuition Of slavery cannot, according to the
republican creed, be made legal and valid
outside of its limits at the date of the fed
eral constitution. Let it be supposed that
the South would submit to such decision
In regard to the Application OF new state,
and that thSsFepublican party holding its
ascendency should finally so arrange the
Supreme Court as to place on the bench q
majority of republicans. A question as to
the legality Of slavery in any one of the
present States located outside of the origi-
nal territorial limits would bring before the
Supreme Court, SO constituted, the decision
Of the principle which declares that nc
power can make slavery outside of these
limits. OF course the decision would be in
accordance with the republican doctrine,
and the illegality of slavery everywhere,
except within the States formed out of the
original territory, would be established
We hardly suppose that any one need be
told that the Union could not survive such
decision. ..
In the next place, turning from the