Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-09-15
Now, an tbis Is GOOD, sound doctrine.

bCuCi, dS pOuSJY ny buS VI AocN'
"The Missouri restriction" so far as its plinci-
pies were concerned, twas repealed before the
Kansas-N ebraska act was introduced into the,
Senate" So says the Enquirer, and so say we.
The South had prevailed on this point. NoaO
then, why kick a man when you have knocked
him DOWN. Why trample upon political
enemy when you have Frustrated him? The
North had qcguiesced in this demolition of the
Missouri compromised
The Missouri Compromise (the Enquirer
psrseded and annulled By the Compromise Of
1850" The Missouri restriction "eoGs re-
pealed before the Kansas Nebraska Bill aodS
introduced into the Senate. so says the
Enquirer in the above paragraph. All this is
true as to the principle involved, and not only
so, both the Wing and Democratic Conyen-
tons of 1862 had resolved that the Compro-
promise Of 1850 should be a tfnaHty" Put a
pin there!
The Constitution of the United States-the
equality of the several States-the true princi-
pies of our form of government, all had been
indicated by the adoption of the Compromise
measures of 1861 Willard Fillmore had ex-
erted his influence to bring about the adoption
of these measures-he had officially approved
them he had retired amid the plaudits of the
people-and all aoas UeU.
Now will the Enquirer please inform US,
what earthly necessity existed, to revive these
distracting questions which had thus been
settledp
Chi bono were those adjusted questions re-
vivedp Was it necessary to tGaInt the North,
in 1854, with the defeat of the dead Compro-
promise of 1920? Was it statesmanlike to
"repeal" again,-to "annul" again,-to "su-
persede" again, and to "set aside" again, the
act of 1920, which was ooid as law, ab initiO,
and doubJy cold by being superseded, can
nulled," and I" set aside" by the measures sf
1860? What nonsense Yet this is precisely
what the Douglases Dixons, and that class of
agitators performed in 1854 The Richmon
Enquirer's mouth is sealed, by its declarations
in the above extract, THAT press cannot say
that any sort of necessity existed in 1854 to
repeal the defunct act of 1920. Now, then, one
question here. What has been the effect of
this totally useless repeal in 1854 ofthe doubly
dead act of 1920? 1t has raised up an excite
ment at the North which is not easily quelled,
it has brought into existence and power that
Republican party, whose influence is so disas-
trous to the peace of the country!
Who denies this? No man but fool or
demagogue. Here then let the country under
stand the extent of that denunciation, in the
18th section of the American platform, of the
"reopening sectional agitation, By the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise I" Those who
originated that "reopening of sectional agita-
ton" are entitled to those denunciations, and
zoe repeat them ] There is not a sensible man
in the whole South, nor a loving man
in the whole North, who does not, in his
heart, CURSE THE oRIGINAToRs of that scheme of
agitation, as the worst enemies of the peace and
happiness of the country! But the Richmond
Enquirer, and other presses of that ilk, mo~
pretend to believe, in the face of the 7th Sec
ton of the American platform, and directly In
opposition to its principles, that the American
platform .taUors a restoration Of the Missouri
CoupronaiseI There is not the shadow Of
truth in any such view of the platform.
The American platform contains the cery
principles of the Utah and New Mexico bills
of 195O-viz the principles of State equality
It stands on the same basis as those Compro-
mise acts of 1650-=~its 7th section was spe-
cially framed in view Of, and with reference to
those acts, which the Wing and Democratic
parties in 1852 ratified, endorsed and pro-
nounced ".tfaality,"-and we defy the arts
and malice of the enemies of Americanism, to
put any other legitimate construction upon
this portion of the American platform. The
American party maintain now, as Fillmore did
in 1850, the true doctrine of State Equality"
The American party stand upon the Compro.
mise measures of 1850 cas- a .tinalty"-they
seek no restoration of the Missouri restric.
tion-they are content that "the native born
and naturalized citizens Of the United States,
permanently residing in any Territory thereof
shall frame their constitution and laws and
regulate their domestic and social affairs, in
their own mode, subject only to the provisions
of the Fe leral Constitution, with the privilege
of admission into the Union whenever they
have the requisite population for one Repre-
sentative in Congress" This is the doctrine
of the American party, if we know anything
of its doctrines.
This is the doctrine of the 18th section of the
platform, copied substantially from the Utah
and New Mexico acts of 1850, and embracing
all that is valuable in the Kansas-Nebraska act
of 1854.
But to return to the original question. The
admissions of the Enquirer (or its positions,)
prove three ponts--.frst, that as the Missouri
restriction was SUPERSEDED and annulled by