The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1858-08-20

south would support no man for the presi-
dency who was not committed against
that doctrine. know, that at that time,
Gen. Cass was an aspirant for the nomi-
nation. And | know that it was said by
the opponents Of Gen. Cass, that the
Nicholson Letter was "called forth" by
that threat of the south, and to meet that
contingency. But did not know, as you
assert, that call the leading democrats of
the moth were consulted before il was put
forth" No sir, did not kno,c that Gen.
Cass was incapable Of forming and ex-
pressing his own opinions without con-
sulting others, or that he had not sufficient
independence to do so.
And know another thing, and that is,
if he did "consult all the leading demo
Gratis Of the north" he must have acted
directly contrary to their advice, or else
they must have advised him directly con-
trory to their own professions; for |
would ike to have you show, if you can,
when and where any "leading democrat Of
of the north" ever avowed himself in ia
vor of that doctrine till long after that
time, Gen. Cass excepted.
If it is true, as you assert, that Gen.
Cass was defeated because the doctrine of
the Nicholson Letter was distasteful to the
south; then | should like to have you ex-
plain how it happened, that, Of the elect
oral votes cast for Gen. Cass, a considera-
bly, larger proportion were from southern
slave-holding states, than of those cast for
Gen. Taylor. And this too, notwithstand-
ing Gen. Cass was a northern, and Gen.
! Taylor southern man.
Your language above quoted, intimates,
and is evidently designed to convey the
impression, to the minds of those that do
not know better, that the Nicholson Let
ter was called out from Gen Cass as an
expression of his views after he was NOM
mated for the presidency. Indeed, you
virtually say SO. If you think such was
the case, you had better inform yourself
on the subject; and you will find that that
letter was put forth some time before the
meeting of tho convention that nominated
Gen. Cass, and before it was known that
he would be a candidate at ALL Again
you say.
=" Now sir, do y"u pretend to say chat in 1915,
You supported Gen. Cass upon The principles IF the
Buffalo Playorm' That certainly would seem 10
be your position. if we are to take the argument
which you have been putting forth for few weeks
past an index. You say you supported Gen.
Cass, bW did not support The Nicholson letter; aud
! by consequence, YOU opposed Van Buren,, bat sup-
ported the Bgdoto PLATFORM, and pursued the same
| course in 1882
! Aud you seem to think you have got
me into dilemma.
Well sir, whether | supported Gen.
Cass on the Buffalo Platform or not, |
supported him on the same platform that
the entire dem ocratic party of this State
supported him upon. And now | put
| the question 10 you again, and / wish YOU
to meet it falrl y, and not try TO evadc it.
1.-THE democratic party of this State, in vot-
ing for Gen. Cass in 1913, supported the
doctrine of the Nicholson Letter, why did
they at the same election, and on the very
same ballots elect legislature to pass res
olutions in direct conflict with the doe
trine of that letter? Can you tell sir p
Will you pretend that that legislature did
not express the sentiments of their con-
stituents?
You say again in reference 70 the rcso-
lutions quoted by me:
"Your resolutions, or those quoted bv YOU, are
nearly all Of them dated prior to 1885," &C.
Well sir, what of it if they are? Is
democracy prior to 1850 an entirely diff
ferent thing from democracy since 1850,
and ontayonistic thereto? If you take
that ground you might as well give up
this point in the controversy, and admit
that il is the democratic party and not me,
that has changed since lS4S and that
prior to 1850, they advocated doctrine
which they have since repudiatcd. If
you do not admit that they have radically
changed since 1913, then what do you
mean by saying that those resolutions
were passed prier to 1850?
But sir, you do expressly admit such
change, and you fix the date of that change
in 1850 You say emphatically:
at was not the mere fact that it was an act Of
Congress, which made the compromise of 1850, a
matter of so much Importance, but it was the e.
tabtishmcnt Of principle in Territorial icgjsiation
directly opposed 10 chat had heretofore been pun
sued"
Now sir, let me ask, II he Democratic
party IN lS4S, supported the doctrinc o.
The Nicholson Letter, and if the comprom-
ises of 1850 were established upon the
same doctrine, and if the democratic party
still hold to the same doctrine, why do
you fix upon 1850 as the time of the
great change. so that nothing prior to that
date is to have any authority; and why
do you assert that in 1880 ga principle of
territorial legislation was established d.
REcrLY OPPOSED to what had been pre-
viously pursued" Was not the course
Of territorial legislation which had been