Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1856-06-26
MONDAY MORNING, JUNE %, 1855.
The Black Republican Platform.

meet with rough usage at the hands of Dem
ocrats, is so much matter of course, that
no particular weight would he attached to
the most able and conclusive arguments
against it, BY the members Of the opposition
party. When, therefore, we are furnished
BY the opposition themselves with effective
weapons of warfare against tho dangerous
heresies and absurd dogmas of the party. we
consider it good policy to use them. TITS
with this view that we give the following
structures of the Cincinnati Commercial upon
the Black Republican creed as enunciated
by the Philadelphia Convention. The Conf
piereial is one of the most able and infuen-
tial journals of the opposition party, and
supporter Of its nominees. Ii will undoubt-
eddy strike many with surprise to fud the
views and sentiments of the Democratic par
ty in regard to the Constitutional power Of
Congress over the subject Of slavery IN the
Territories, so clearly stated and so strongly
defended. We regard it a. an omen Of good
when the great principle of popular sove-
reigniv, az embraced in the Kansas-Nebraska
act is thus openly endorsed by the opPosi-
ton press.
We, Of course, disagree with the CONNER
cal in some OF its views, as stated IN the ex,
tract which We copyzas fcr fnssarcs; that
there is no necessary relationship between
the candidate aud the platform of political
parties. We give the article, however, for
the good features which it contains, and feel
no disposition to notice more particularly
those to which we might take exceptions:
We have no idea that the authors of the
| Philadelphia platform were enemies to Nr.
| Fremont to the extent TO contrive ways and
means TO defeat his election; but we cannot
save ourselves from the conclusion that, IL
friends, they were very unsafe and injudicious
ones, whose counsel he would do well in future
to avoid. 1t may be thought strange that look.
ing upon the election of tho candidate as, I'M
der circumstances, desirable, we should be will.
ling to throw q shadow upon his cause, by
gazing doubtfully at his platform. All that
| we have to say for ourselves in this connection
is that thought and speech with US are free,
and that God and our Country are the only
things TO which we admit responsibility -
Our fellow citizens have a right to require OF
us reason for whatever We say do, and that
we are as ready to give as they are to ask but
here their rights and our obligations come TO an
end together. We might add, as we have insin-
uated above, that there is no necessary relation
ship between the candidate and the platform
but would be far from insinuating that Mr.. Ere
mont has had anything to do with it's construc-
ton, either directly or indirectly; and we shall
be sorry TO see him, by any sweeping endorse
mpnt Gifts provisions, identify himself with
the errors which it enunciates.
Admitting the right Of political Conventions
to lay down creed for the party. it would seem
to be sef-evident that it should be their duty tC
confine themselves to the enunciation of smpt
political truths Could this be the case no dam
age would accrue, for truth is always safe and
. that which is once true in principle remains SC
forever. Butpolitical platforms are usually lit
tie more than attempts TO generalize in the form
of maxims the designs and prejudices of party
leaders, or some notion, almost always unsound
which those leaders believe may be used for
temporary purpose to control or intensity popu
lar action. 1t is really pity that the Philadel
phia construction could not have been made al
exception to this rule, but it was not destined
so TO be. 1t is like all the others, unsafe col
lection of truisms, platitudes, and fallacies--s
thing over which the shallow may laugh, tn,
iudicious grieve, and the unfriendiy exult w,
regret, but it would be wrong TO say that w
are disappointed. 1t is quite as good as We ex
pected, and as We felt ourselves at liberty {,
4 speak with freedom of the platform of the Dem
ocratic party recently adopted in this city, W,
should look upon ourselves as deficient in can
dor, did We from any considerations of party
preference, treat the errors of the Philadelphia
code with greater degree of tenderness.
We shall, for the present. confne our remark
TO the resolution which declares:
"1hat the Constitution eonfers upoa Congress sover
eign power the territories for their government
and that, in the exercise of this power, 1t Il tbs
right and the duty Of Congress to prohibit In the terri
tories those twin relics Of ssresrsm-Polygamy sl'
Slavery"
That Congress has the the power TO make al
needful rules and regulations respecting tn,
territory belonging to the United States, 2 is pro
vided in the Constitution, and to the extent of
fair and rational construction of the clause W.
are prepared to admit the Sovereign power" o
Congress over the Territories; but that this
power is sovereign in its extent, and SO scare h
ing in its operation, as 10 confer upon congress:
the right TO prohibit chose twin relics of bar
barism, Polygamy and Slavery" is a question
that will bear to be examined, not only in view
of the principles involved in the discussion
but with reference to the bearing which its set
Element according to the notions of duty laiC
down above. would have upon designs for tn,
extension, as well as for the restraint of slave
! ry.
| The two extremes OF the Uniou-the extreme
j North and the extreme South-ultra pro slavery
and ultra abolitionism. for purposes of an
opposite character. are laboring TO establish the
right of Congress TO meddle with slayery-the
one with a view to legalize, the other with a
| view TO outlaw its introduction into the Terri
! tories. The South, in the words Of one Of its
ablest writers, insists upon the rights Of its cit
irens to go with their slaves into any territory
OF the Union, and there possess and use them
under the protection Of the Constitution and
federal authorities until the territory shall have
become invested with the sovereign powers of a
State" The North not merely denies the ex.
/ istence of the right insisted upon, but claims
that it is the duty of Congress positively to pro.
hibit the entrance of slavery into such terri
tory. 1t is difficult TO avoid seeing, in this
state Of things, what neither party seems to
have fully discovered. that the principle is pre-
cisely the same in both cases. If Congress ha.
the power 10 shut the doors of territory to the
institution. it has also. by the same rule power
to throw hem open Ii il has a discretion 10
legislate upon the tenure OF slavery, its discre-
ton is only limited by too nature OF the subject
matter and it has the same freedom to assume
that the one party is right in its designs TO ex-
tend as that the other is right. in les designs to
circumscribe, the area of human servitude. IL
the doctrine set forth in the resolution would be
progress of very doubtful utility.
1t would be wrong in principle. and, there
fore. is neither safe. nor a proper subject of
desire by any party. 1t is never wise under
the influence Of a particular case Of what ap-
pears to be hardship. to enter upon an indefinite
enlargement of the powers Of Congress, the full
consequences Of which cannot be forseeu. II is
probable that the interests of the slave are about
as well conserved as they could be under any
condition Of the law. Statutes too far in ad.
vance of the popular sentiment are tyrannical.
No legislative power has. as yet, attempted to
interfere with the established domestic relations
Of community. They are. whether they be
Slavery or Polygamy, the offspring of its high
er law-its social character. These, the proper
law making body, can, to some extent, regulate
and protect but to make or unmake them, is
beyond its ability. With such views impressed
upon US, we hold that neither in the States nor
| in no ~ L.