The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1858-07-23
Reply To " H."

My article on the mutations Vi the
Democratic party, in the Northerner of
July 9th, signed b. has called out
very spirited rejoinder, (not rePly,) from
the correspondent "Il' Of the Paw Paw
Free Press in the issue of July 18th.
After little secondhand slang about
my being "spewed out of the democratic
party" (Which I can easily forgive, as he
is entirely dependent on others, not cery
reliable, for his information he asserts
that "my statement of the principles of
the democratic party, arc rccklessly, if
not wilfully false" 1t is very easy to
say that thing is false, but it is not al
ways quite so easy to prore it. And as
" II" has not attempted the latter, deem
a reply to his assertion unnecessary until
he can point out 7yhercin my statement
was not true, and offer some proof Of the
same And / would respectfully invite
to him, the task of making good his sweep
ing assertion.
In that article | stated that "tle right
of the people to determine their own in
stitutions ,ehen they came to force u State
Constitution, was not an issue Jctween the
parties in the last campaign" This he
undertakes to quote, and thinks it will
astonish ourreaders but he leaves out the
words, "between the parties > making
it read, "was not an issue in the last
campaign" which, although it may not
materially change the sense when rightly
understood, is still calculated to convey a
very different impression when discon-
nected with the sentence that immediate
ly follows; which is that "the Republi-
cans never den.ed that doctrine" AS
quoted by him, it might be taken by some,
to mean that, that subject was not taihea
about by either Of the parties. Now, al
though one party might have affirmed
that doctrine, yet if the other party did
not deny 1t, it was not an issue 6et,ceen
the parties. And it ga" can find any
deulal OF that principle in the Republican
Platform, or In the resolutions OF their
conventions, let him produce it.
But the democratic Platform does not
affirm that doctrine. 1t simply recogni-
zes the right of the people OF the terrific
rles, when the number OF their inhablt-
ants Justifes it, 4" to form constitution.
ruth, Or ,otthow slocery," aud be admit
ted INTO the union on an equal footing
with the other states, etc 10 determine
their own institutions, and to determine
simply in regard to the one institution of
slavery, are two very different PROPOSE
tons. Aud how can any one pretend
that the former was IAN Issue between
the parties" ii there was no distinct al
hrmation, or denial Of IL by either party
lie seems alarmed for fear that the Re.
publlcans are going to steal the democrat.
&c thunder of Popular Sovereignty. But
| cannot see why they should teel particu.
iarly aaxioas about -, d. sc aho..ld, since
they have virtually aLaudoacd it, as /
intend to show before j get through with
this discussion. But thcy need have no
fears about it; for the Popular Soyer-
eIgnty that we believe in, is very differ
cut article from theirs. 1t is something
more and better than simply aud oxclu-
siyely nc right 10 hid siayesj which is
all that the Popular Sovereignty Of the
Ksnsle Nebraska Bill amounts to, Presi.
deut Buchanan himself being Judge For
he maint,ins that said Sill ranteed 70
th- pcopl. in adopting their constitution,