The Shasta courier., 1859-10-29
Cincinnati Platform and Nebraska Act.

| colors, even in matters that appear to some the
most simple. In theology and politics this diff
| ference is most distinguished. The followers of
sects and the devotees of party are very seldom
| accustomed to view questions, in which they be-
come interested, except through their respective
organization; hence as they have an opposition,
it is seldom that disputed point is fairly un-
| derstood by many who, some for a refusal to lis
ten to both sides, and others from taking for
granted the stray statement that may happen to
fall under their observation, make all appear
dark in place of light.
This Union might be appropriately styled a
nation of controversialists. BY some the man
who cannot express a-decided opinion instantly
upon any mooted public question, is looked upon
to be much less of a citizen than be should be-
Probably this would be good rule, but not al
together practicable, as it would have a tenden-
| cy to arrive at just understanding among those
who appear to one another wide apart.
Foreign writers have marked the interest that
American citizens take in all questions of po-
litical character, as the most beautiful feature
connected with our country, and for one l hope
such it will always remain. He must be a poor
citizen indeed who will not consent to give his
attention to questions of public interest indi-
rectly affecting the principles and interests of ALL
In the Courier of Oct. 18th, in article on Pop
ular Sovereignty, you quote a resolution from
the Cincinnati Platform, making it appear that
it was the opinion of the Democracy assembled
at that place in 1856, that under the Kansas
Nebraska Act the people of a Territory could
only exclude slavery when they formed a State
government. The resolution, SO far as language
can make it, could not be more explicit but with
your permission | will attempt to show that it
was differently construed by many who are
looked upon as capable, and some of its trainers.
and in doing so will briefly detail circumstan-
ces which appear to have reference to the sub
iect
II it should prove true that the resolution re-
ferred to should sustain your position that the
people resident of a Territory cannot exclude
slavery until they become State whern does
the Kansas-Nebraska Act differ in regard to the
set lement of the question of slavery from Acts
of Congress in existence previous to its passage?
/ Previous to its passage, the Missouri Compro-
mise was in full force, and under it, any COM
niunty situated south ola certain degree, could,
/ by conforming to the law Of Congress on the
subject, be admitted into the Union with or
without slavery. In the case of Texas, when
she was annexed, the same law was passed in
reference to any new States that might be form
ed out of her territory providing for their ad-
mittance with or without slavery when they
made their Constitutions. These two instances
will suffice to show that the interpretation now
/ sought to be inferred from the res luton refer
| red to, under the Nebraska Act, was in accord
ance with law previous to the passage of that
| act, and that it only re-asserted principle al
ready in existence 1t is true that slavery was
forever forbid north of the Missouri line, but
nevertheless the principle itself, which is con-
tended is enunciated in the Nebraska Act, was
fully acknowledged. 1t is certainly reasonable
to suppose that after the hard fought battles in
Congress during the session of 1854 the great
excitement prevailing throughout the country,
and the endorsement of the principles of the
Kansas Act by the Democracy at Cincinnati, and
the election of Buchanan under it. that it con-
tained more than the re-assertion of a measure
that had existed and been acknowledged since
1920.
One of the resolutions passed at Cincinnati
declares; "Non-interference by Congress with
slavery in the States aud Territories and District
of Columbia" Another, "That this was the
basis of the compromises of 1850, confirmed by
both the Whg and Democratic parties-ratified
by the people in the election of 1852, and right
ly applied to the organization of Territories in
1854. The plain reading of the above would
warrant the placing of such an Interpretation as
insisted upon by Senator Douglas-that of al
lowing the Territories to regulate this question
in their own way.
But there is other testimony bearing upon
this case, which think will go far in doing
away with the misunderstanding in regard to
this question. Mr. Buchanan, who was nomi-
mated under the resolutions of the Convention
OF 1856, construed the resolutions in regard to
slavery to mean, and so stated in his letter of
acceptance. and he accepted the resolutions lin
AhS suiHe spun tuat ne ulu lHe nomination for
the Presidency, /" that the people of Territory
like those Of State shall decide for themselves
whether slavery shall or shall not exist within
their limits" am aware that you claim that
Mr.. Buchanan did not mean what he said in his
letter, but upon that point claim that there
} cannot be reasonable difference and the peo-
pie of this Union will hold him to his declara-
ton. If Blr. Buchanan has pursued a different
course in regard to this subject, it only proves
that he has changed his position, and not that
he did not mean what his language implies
No sir, it is susceptible of but one interpreta-
ton, and only one.
Another fact in reference to this letter is, that
during the exciting canvass of 1856, with this
open declaration before all the country, not a
Democratic statesman prominent newspaper
in the whole Union took exception to the re-
{ mark, which looks as if the Interpretation was
correct.
} Without referring further on this point to the
debates IN Congress upon the exciting subject
and the position taken by two-thirds of the
e Democratic members showing almost a unani-
nous front TO sustain Senator Douglass view of
the principle of Popular Sovereignty, think
any person can rely upon the Interpretation OF
Mr. Buchanan in accepting his nomination as