Washington sentinel. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1856, 1856-08-07
MONDAY MORNING. AUGUST 4. 1856.
THE LOUIsvILLE JOURNAL-CAsT
OUT THE BEAM.

We feel much gratifed by the fattering com
pliment to our Ingenuity" from the Editor OF
the Louisville Journal, even though his admi-
ration is somewhat qualified by the declaration
that our reasoning is "inexpressibly ridiculous"
For one who has shown such power over the
ridiculous, as is displayed in the leader of the
Journal, Of the 18th instant, to pronounce such
judgment is peculiarly trying. But we must
even be content to take the compliment of the
Journal with such qualifications as it may
choose to append, and to leave to a candid
public the task Of deciding which Of us twain
exerts the greatest control over the realm of
the ridiculous. Such task we opine will be
an easy one.
Some weeks ago we published an article on
the subject of squatter sovereignty, designed
to explain Mr.. BUoHANAN's position on that
vital question, and toreconcileth allegedinco
,sistency existing betweenhislet ofacceptance
and the principles of the Cincinnati platform.
Subsequently, within few days past, we con.
tinued our argument on this subject, and
showed conclusiyely, as wObeieve, that, ac-
BUcHAEANs views we're such should COM
mend him to the support and confidence of
every Southern Democrat To this conclusion
the Louisville Journal has thought proper to
object and our argument it has thought proper
to ridicule.
In order to sustain its position, the Journal
has "ingeniously" 1--WE return the compliment)
garbled our article, and made us assert "that
the platform which Mr.. BUCHANAN accepted
does not affirm the doctrine of squatter sover-
eighty, and that, therefore Mr.. BUCHANAN
could not possibly have intended to affirm it,
and certainly does not however explicitly his
language may appear to do So" Such an at
tempt the Journal argues, would be like
explaining away the vile heresies of Sumner
and Giddings by showing that the Constitu-
ton, which they have sworn to- support, does
not sustain them, and so it would. But is it
not strange that the ingenuity which suggested
this admirable illustration, did not warn the
fated Journal from falling into the very pit
which its fancy had dug for us. For what
says that consistent journal? 1t commences
with Mr.. BUcHANAN's letter. argues from its
language that he is in favor of squatter sover-
eighty, and from that premise deduces the
conclusion that the platform which Mr. BUcH-
ANAN endorses, also recognizes that principle
We would not misquote the Journal. Let us
hear him speak:
i" 1t might be doubted whether squater So
vereignty or State sovereignty was the doctrine
affirmed by the terms of the platform, but Mr..
Buchanan, in mounting that political scaffold,
has taken occasion. by springing this particu-
lar plank, to render clear what before was
doubtful. And he has done it in so unmistak-
able manner as TO leave no further doubt be-
hind. The real character Of this plank in the
Cincinnati platform is now as palpable and
glaring as the sun at MONDAY. 1t is squatter
sovereignty to the core"
Now such is the language of the Journal
and thanking it for the Sumner and Giddings
illustrations, we ask, in all candor, whether
the inference drawn in the above extract is not
about as absurd, nay "ridiculous,n as to infer
that the Constitution sustains the heresies of
abolition, because it is endorsed by men who
sustain them and that the bible teaches the
monstrous precepts of Parker and Beecher, be-
cause Parker and Beecher believe in the Bible.
So much for the Journals mode of argument
But we never used the language imputed to
rs by the Louisville Journal. We contended
that the principles Of the platform on this sub
ject was unequivocal, and indisputable. That
by its very language, the platform repudiated
the doctrine of squatter sovereignty. That
Mr.. BUCHANAN fully endorsed that platform
that his own well known views previously ex-
pressed, sustained this opinion, and his own Ian.
guage elsewhere, threw food of light upon
the true meaning of his letter, and that we were
therefore, justified in the belief that Mr.. BUcH-
AsAN maintained the southern conservative
view of this question.
But the Journal affects TO deny that the Gin
cinnati platform repudiates the doctrine of
squatter sovereignty and asserts in broad
round terms that the "platform is intentionally
non-commttal upon the subject Of squatter
sovereignty. 1t neither afirms nor denies. 1t
pretermits. 1t evades." Now really Mr..
Journal, this is not even "ingenious VT is
simply and inefably ridiculous" But we
would not deal in such harsh terms without
reason, and so we call the attention of the pub
lie (not the Journal, it is past all hope) to the
resolution Of the platform on this subject.
" "Resolped, That we recognize the right of
the people of all the Territories, including
Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the
legally and fairly expressed will Of majority
of actual residents, and ,ohcneoer the number
Of their inhabitants .j,lstifes IL, to form con-
stitution, with or without domestic slavery, and
be admitted into the Union upon terms of per
feet equality with the other States"
Can anything be more expicit2 Can any
thing be less pretermittingw Can anything
be less "evasiye2n This decision must be
axn eaa1 hv Il