Washington sentinel., 1856-05-20


then, would have been the result2 The equality
OF Southern States and the rights of Southern
people would not have had even that single
thread, = so despised by the Union to hang by.
Upon whom, we ask, in tones of thunder,
if we could thus speak, does the responsibility
rest for this state of afiairs--for the disasters
of that electionY One thing is certain, no por
tion Of that blame rests upon Mr. Buchanan.
The Union is so eager to exclude Mr.. BUcH-
ANAN, because he had no instrumentality in
the passage of the Kansas bill, and so deter
mined that General Pierce shall again be
nominated, in consideration of his paramount
claims for the wounds and scars" he received
in the conflict upon that bill that upon him,
therefore, the paramount responsibility for the
result must rest
The Union claims for President Pierce the
advantages of his connection with the Kansas
bill, upon the ground that he was the leader,
the genera-in-chef commanding the Demo
cratic forces, and that as general, the crown Of
victory should rest upon his brow.
We state fairly and truly the Unions propo-
sition.
What are the facts General Pierce, as CON-
mander, had House of Representatives, Of
which two-thirds were Democrats. General
Pierce led on the troops to battle; the result
was, he came out out of it with House of
Representatives of only one-thrd, losing, soith-
out exception, erery Northern State. And yet,
the plain undeniable fact exists, that this is
the ground-the only ground, upon which the
Union is willing to hinge the nomination, be-
cause it excludes Mr.. BUCHANAN.
Now, in regard to the Kansas bill, Mr.. BUcH-
ANAN is clearly exempt from responsibility for
misconduct if he has no claim for active ser
vice.
But Mr.. BUCHANAN did not denounce the
amendment repeating the Missouri Compromise
The Union did. Mr.. BUCHANAN did not give
license to soi-disant Democrats to join the Abo-
litionists in Congress to defeat this Kansas bill
this sesame of the Union to nomination
But the Union did. Mr.. BUCHANAN did not
throughout the Northern States, advocate the
bill as giving, and because it gave, to the North
still greater advantages over the South in Sc
curing more certainly more free States than
could have been had without the passage of
this bill. But the Union knows full we'll that
such were the grounds assumed by all the rep.
resentatives Of General Pierce at the North.
Does not the promise of the Union on be-
half of General Pierce, which appeared in the
Sentinel on Thursday last, distinctly place
"freesoil Democrats on precisely the same
footing as National Democrats? Were they
not thus in advance told that under General
Pierce carte-blanche would be given to the
exercise of all their freesol doctrines? Is not
all this as literally as it is lamentably true !?
General Pierce is not the first person who
has sunk beneath the load of coveted treasure.
In Roman history it is narrated, that in reward
for services rendered, party demanded the
bracelets on the arms of the soldiers-that
they were given to her-heaped upon her until
crushed to death beneath their weight.
To the Union, who claims so Justify for
General Pierce the reward for his services in
the Kansas fight, we recommend the moral of
the above story. We have given him the credit
for some Of his services; how much more of
such reward can he support without fatal con-
sequences? Wewill not add that to him most
certainly belongs the credit of losing the State
of New York, by the exclusion Of the Hards,
lest such well meant kindness might prove un-
comfortably inconvenient.