New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-26
THE DAVIS PLATFORM.

Whatever else may be said OF the RESOLUTIONS
forming part of Senator Dayis's platform series,
and all now Endorsed by the vote of the Dem
ocratc Senator'S at least they are in singular con-
trast with the claim set up on behalf of the Sham
| Democracy to be national party
Those resolutions, in substance, deny that the
United States constitute nation, or that We have
| or can have. under the Federal Constitution, any
| such thing as a common interest, or national
policy. They set up the State lines as fixed and
impossible barriers, within which the political,
moral and religious sympathes Of their respective
citizens are to be strictly confined. They denounce,
as violation of the Federal Constitution, any in
terest which may be taken by citizens of one State
in meorating the laws and institutions Of another.
The Union was formed, if we to accept the doc
trine of these resolutions, not with view to
mutual aid and assistance in the gradual improve
ment of our institutions, and the transmission
from State to State of the fruits of knowledge
and experience, but solely for the p1rpOse
of keeping the States, far as their domestic in
stitutions are concerned, in perfectly isolated,
and not only in an isolated, but in a stationary
condition The Union, according to this account
of it. was intended not to make us united, but
to keep us O divided people. IL aimed at raising
barriers in the way of assimilation Whatever
existed was consecrated by it. The States are
represented as having SOlemnly coyenanted to-
geher not merely to protect each other against the
overthrow by force of their existing institutions,
but having mutually agreed that their respective
citizens should refrain from any criticism, whether
based on political moral, or religious ideas, upon
anything which any State might see fit to tolerate
or establish.
That such is the real meaning of these resolu-
tiOns and that they intended to go this length,
is made manifest if otherwise it were doubtful, by
the rejection, on the part of those who voted for
them of the amendment proposed by Mr.. Harlan,
that they should not be understood as intended to
interfere with free discussion free speech, and the
liberty of the press. If this is to be accepted as
the Democratic view of the Constitution and the
Union, consistency would seem to require that the
pretensions of that party to be the champions of
nationality should at once be laid aside.
While the Democratic Senator'S, by their indorse-
ment of these resolutions, would deprive the Union
of its national character, and restrict j. to mere
league between the States, at the same time they
must be considered as abandoning pretension of
late so pugnaciOusly insisted upon-the pretension,
namely, that Slavery is not merely State but
National institution, recognized as such by the
Federal Constitution. These resolutions are 50
far consistent as to make no pretenson of that
.ort They base the claims of Slavery to tolera-
lion and support merely on tho fact that it exists
IN fifteen States, and composes an important
portion of their domestic institutions thus
recognizing Slavery as purely a State affair. They
also abandon the dogma, of late zealously urged,
that the Federal Constitution recognizes slaves as
Toperty-the sole ground upon which rests the
pretended claim of shareholders to take slaves into
the Territories, and to be protected in holding
them there, even in spite of Territorial legislation
to the contrary. All that is set up to the recog
milton of Slavery by the Constitution is that it is
regarded Gas constituting an important element
"in the apportionment of powers among the
Estates" That in itself would seem to be suf-
foient reason why Congress should exercise an
oversight as to its introduction into Territories
destined soon to become States, and as such to be
admitted into the Union.