Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1856-05-20
Is there any inconsis ;cncy In the Philadel-
phia PlatfOrm3

Is there any inconsistency IN the FhIladel-
phia PiatfOrmf
The Lynchburg Virginian, an able and effec-
tive advocate of American principles, has, we
think, fallen into an crr,r, in its leadig article
Of the 10Th instant, in the followin- sentence:
1t has not been our task to reconcile that in
consistency in the Philadelphia platform which,
while propoundiDg an elementary doctrine incom
patible with the Missouri restriction found fault
with the removal of that restriction. But we did
approve, and do now approve, defend and main
tain that doctrine of the American Council which
recognises the right Of the native born and natu-
rallied citizens of the United States permanently
residing in any Territory thereof to frame their
own constitution and laws and to regulate their
domestic and social affairs in their way, sub
ject only to the provisions of the Federal Const-
tuition, with the privilege of admission into the
Union whenever they have the requisite population
for one representative in Congress-"
1t is mistake to suppose that there is any
manner Of Inconsistency in denouncing the re-
peal of the Missouri Compromise, in the terms
and for the cause specified in the 18th section
of the American platform, whilst in the 7th
section doctrine is enunciated which is di-
rectly at war with the principle on which the
Missouri act was based. The repeal Of the
Missouri Compromise had virtually been effect
ed in 1850 by the adoption Of the Compromise
measures of that year, and the country had
acquiesced in the results of that Compromise
Fanaticism was hushed into silence.
The doctrine had been adopted and sane
toned, by the Compromise measures of 1850,
that in the formation of State constitutions, by
the citizens of the Territories, they might adj
NIT or prohibit African slavery, as they pleased
There was no mistake on this point, as to the
fact, that such was the doctrine inaugurated
by the Compromise acts of 1850. No man
can toubt, that if the subject of the Missouri
Compromise had been left untouched, in 1854,
the country would have acquiesced in this doc
trine. But instead of permitting peace and
quiet to continue between the North and the
South, there were agitators at either end Of the
Union, whose power and influence could in no
other mode be kept alive, than by agitation.
Had the people remained peaceful and harmo-
NOUS, these dcmagogues would have ceased to
exist as politicians. The repeal of the Missouri
Compromise is not complained of in the Anne
rican platform as violation of right---far from
it II is complained of as ill-timed, unwise,
impolitic
We 6nop, and therefore knowingly assert,
that the 18th section was proposed by gen
tleman who neoer believed the Missouri Com
promise binding as constitutional law. No
such idea is found in the phraseology used in
regard to it, The 18th section Is a bill of in
dictment against Frank Pierce, and on this
point charged him with ''reopening sectional
agitation" Did not the repeal reopen section
al agitahon?" Did not that repeal bring into
existence and give vitality and vigor to the
present Republican party3 Most unQuestion-
ably. Well, then, forasmuch as the doctrine
that the citizens Of the United States, inhab-
iting the Territories, have the right to regulate
their own domestic affairs in the formation of
State constitutions, pas most dist nelly Ibid
down and carried into practice by the Com
promise measures Of 1850, was not the direct
repeal by name, of the Missouri Compromise,
which "reopened sectional agitation" both
uncalled for and impoliticf We do not say it
was unj xst in principle, but It was not neces-
sary, and being at that particular crisis impol-
itic, it was denounced as impolitic. Never
theless, we must add, that many members of
the American party voted for this repeal, be-
licving that it was not only Just, but that it
would result in putting an end to agitation.
Thus believing, it was their duty so to vote,
but their votes do not justify hor excuse the
votes Of those who desired to reripe the slavery
agitation for their own especial benefit
We presented, fsw days since, our views
Of what is meant by "squatter sovereignty"
and endeavored to show that this odious doc
tiine Is contained in the Kansas-Nebraska bill,
though our contemporaries Of the Virginian
think differently. OF course, there is, and can
be, no sovereignty, technically speaking, in the
people of Territory organize under a law of
Congress, yet there may be squatter pouer,
and such power is created by the Kansas-Nc-
braska bill, because it confers whatever power
is given in the act, upon the people" and not
upon the " citizens of the United States per-
manently residing in the Territories, /" which
restriction is contained in the 7th section of
the American platform. IL our contemporaries
Of the Virginian will compare the Kansas-Ne-
braska act with the 7th section, they will see
that, whilst the former recognises sgudtter
poaoer, the latter recognises only the right Of
citizens Of tho United States to exercise
power over the domestic institutions Of the
Territories, and they will see also that, under
the Kansas act, that sqratter po,osr may be
exercised in forming and controlling the do
nestle institutions of tho Territories Uhilst
they are such, and that, under the 7th section,
tho "citzens Of the United States permanently
there can only do this In - framing