The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1860-08-17
The PIatrorms-Omission.


The PIatGOrms-O
BY an oversight in the publication of the
" Democratic platforms yesterday, the
following important resolution from the
Cincinnati Platform was omitted
RESOLVED, That we recognize the right
of the people of all the territories, including
Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the
legally and fairly expressed will of the ma
jority of the actual residents, and aCheneVer
the number Of their inhabitants juStlfes IL,
to form a Constitution, with or without
domestic slavery, and be admitted into the
Union upon terms of perfect equality with
the other States"
The platforms of the Republican party
and of the two " Democratic factions, will
be found published to day side by side for
convenience of reference, with ibis resolu-
ton in its proper place. We shall keep the
platforms standing until the Presiden tial
election, 20 be published from time to
time as may be thought necessary.
The italicized portion of the resolution
copied herein, contains one of the main
points of difference between the Douglas
0AA0 1AC OACAhllAA iN5S pa IiCSs DON5A otAYo
that the first half dozen adventures shall
form the institutions of a territory, and
calls his doctrine "Squatter Sovereignty"
Breckinridge, relying on the plain provisions
of the Cincinnati Platform, as contained in
the above resolution, admits that the inhabit-
ants of State have right to form their
own Constitution lVheReUer their number Jus
tifes ii, denominating this doctrine Popular
Sovereignty. They both admit the perfect
right of the master to take his slaves, the
same as his horses, into free territory, and be
protected there by the whole power of the
Government. 1t is true that there is a sort
of qualification to this III the last resolution
in the Douglas Platform (tbe Wickliffe res
olution), embodied in the words, as the
same has or shall hereafter be decided by
the Supreme Court Of the United States -
but it is contended by the Slavery
extensionists, and admitted by the Douglas
men in the South, that the Supreme Court
has already decided that the Constitution of
its own force carries slavery into the terri
ries, and that neither Congress, the Territorial
Legislature (the representatives of the peo-
ple), nor any other human power, can in
terfere with it to its disadvantage But
even if the Supreme Court has not yet de
cided in this way, the dicta of majority
of its members, in the Dred Scott case,
toreshadow unmistakably how the Court
will decide on this question whenever it is
necessary to do so. Ofcourse a case can at
any time be trumped up on short notice to
meet any emergency, and there is no doubt
that if Democratic President is elected in
November, aud new four years lease OF
power gained by the Democracy, decision
will soon be forthcoming that will put a
quietus on any doubt of the utter pro-slave-
ryism of the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is
well understood that when a decision is rem
dered in the Lennon case, the right of
STAKEHOLDER to take his negroes even into the
States, under the Constitution, will be af-
frmed. Thus it is certain, that nothing but
the vengeance of an outraged people pre-
vents the confirmation of the doctrine of
the Dred Scott decision-the right to carry
slaves into all the territories beyond the
control of any human power; and also, the
assertion of the right of the master to take
his slaves. {. his property Ofall kinds
into the free States, and to keep them
there day, 2 month, a year, or ten years,
under the protection of the Constitution of
the United States. To this complexion
must it come at last The bred Scott de-
cision was not announced until after Buch-
anan's election The times are not yet ripe
for the new decisions.
The two Democratic factions, therefore,
favor the naturalization of slavery. There
is very little if any choice between the two
platforms on this subject or any other. One
is as good and as bad as the other
The Constitutional Union party takes no
position at all on this vital and imminent
question, but seeks to shirk it. 1t points
solely to the past course of its candidates
for solution of the question as to its po-
sition. Mr.. Bell is differently quoted, and
with proof to substantiate each opposite as
sertion, as In favor of and against the ex-
tension of slavery. Mr.. Everett ditto. The
latter gentleman is said to have been n few
years ago free-soiler, and does not deny
the charge. On the other hand, SO pro-
slavery is he thought to be in some quarters
that he was very seriously talked of before
the Charleston Convention, as a Democratic
candidate to be proposed by the ire-eaters,
for President. With such diverse views
and records, and SO non-eommittal a plat
form, these gentlemen would draw around