Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-07-26
The Richmond Enquirer.

WARRINGTON CITf, ~. W, may lotn, 1900.
The Richmond Enquirer.
A pressure Of other matters of higher i'm
portance, has prevented our noticing this press,
which, in its fear of losing the spoils by the
| defeat Of Buchanan, has sought to create the
belief, in the Southern mind, that the Amer
lean party" and especially its file leader in the
present campaign, desire the restoration of the
Missouri Compromise, and aim to effect it A
reference to that portion of the 18th section of
the American platform, which condemns /" the
re-openiag Of sectional agitation, by the re-
peal Of the Missouri Compromise" has been
repeatedly made by the Enquirer and its allies,
with the vain purpose of showing such desire
and aim, in the American party, whilst the
remarks of Mr.. Fillmore at Rochester are in
| like manner misconstrued by those presses, to
intimate the same desire and aim on the part
of the American candidate for the Presidency.
Superadded thereto, these reckless presses
have assumed that because Mr.. Dunn, of Indi-
ana, and some others who prefer Mr. Fillmore
to either Buchanan or Fremont, are i'll favor Of
restoration of that Compromise line, there
fore, the American party propose it's restora-
ton. There is no fairness or truth in the po-
sitions these presses have assumed-they
k,,0U this as we'll as we do--they know that
the American platform directly negatives the
idea of a restoration Of the Missouri Compro.
mise, and they knoao that Mr.. Fillmore said
nothing Mt Rochester which justifes their as
XL,@h a lIry crt L.
Missouri line.
The 18th section of the platform condemns,
not the principle embraced in the Compro-
mise measures of 1850, by which the Terrific
ries OF Utah and New Mexico were allowed to
come into the Union, "aoitk slaoery or With
Quit, as their constitutions might prescribe, -
it condemns, not that principle in the Kansas
Nebraska act which allows these Territories
also to come into the Union with or without
slavery as they might choose, but it condemns
the "reopsning Of sectional agitation" by an
unnecessary clause of that bill. Is it not now
universally admitted, and even maintained by
the anti-Americans, that the Missouri restric-
ton was superseded by the legislation Of 1862
Most unquestionably it is, nor do zoe deny this
position the contrary, we have repeatedly
affirmed that the legislation Of 1850, on the
Territorial questions, superseded the policy
embraced in the Missouri act of 1890
Inieed the Kansas Nebraska act, on it's face,
in section IA, states in terms, that the 9Th
section Of the Missouri Compromise act, soas
Inconsistent With the principle Of non-iater-
| uention with Slavery an the States and Terri
tories, as recognised by the legislation Of
1850, commonly called the Compromise meas
ares, and acas therefore declared inoperatipe
and roid
| We do not controvert this positionr--on the
contrary, we agree to it; and the American
platform, in no portion of it, assumes posi-
ton antagonistic to it. Now, then, the legis-
lation of 1850 having virtually superseded the
policy of the Missouri Compromise, was there
any necessity for the direct repeal of itf
Most certainly there was no necessity for its
direct repeal; the repeating clause assumes that
the legislation of 1850 superseded that Of
1870. IL agitation followed the direct repeal
of the Missouri act, and if that repeal was un-
necessary because its policy had been repu-
dated in the legislation Of 1850 pray where is
the objection to the denunciation Of that agi-
tation, and of the unwise authors of it2 We
said in our weekly issue Of 22d March last,
what we now repeat, viz;
whatever opinions may DO entertained of the
constitutionalty Of the Missouri Compromise act
OF 1920, no man can affirm that its direct repeal in
| 1854, did not reopen the slavery 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. Th< Territorial acts of Utah and Ne,o
Merieo left tbs Missouri Compromise act precisely
ph<rs IL sras ths part Of pisdom and sound policy
TO leave IT, Tho extreme folly, or the unhsloved
ambition Of agtators, stirred up this pool Of sec
tional strife. It Is that which the 18th section
condemns, without In any manner endorsing or
approving the act OF 1890"
The 7th section. Of the American platform
sfirms the doctrine Of State equality in the
strongest and most emphatic language: this
doctrine of State equality was embraced in the
Utah and New Mexico bils--and Mr. Fillmore
has not only adopted the American platform,