Daily national Democrat., 1861-06-29
Another Contortion of the Express.


at Sacramento recently, endorsed the Nir-
ginia and Kentucky resolutions As we have
shown il previous article, futile attempt
was made, years ago, by the Calhoun multi
fiers, to use these resolutions in defense OF
the baneful doctrine of the right of State
Secession. The South Carolina Secessionist5
Of the present day, and their servile imita-
tors in other States, have made the attempt
again. We have even been told by a cor
respondent of the Express, (who, perhaps,
took his cue from Judge Bottss pamphlet on
Secession and Coercon.") that the doctrine
Of Secession is a part of the National Demo-
cratic creed and that accommodation from
the Democratic party must follow dehlal oi
it. This pretence that an endorsement OF the
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions was an
endorsement Of Cahounism, seriously dis
turbed some few tender-footed antiGovern-
mcnt men in the Brecknridge State Conven-
ton. and the leader of this faction-Judge
Lindey-demanded the adoption of the fol-
lowing explanatory resolution:
Rcsolped, That the Kentucky and Virginia
resolution of 1898, referred to and approved
by us in the Cincinnati Platform, and re-af-
frmed by our first resolution, are not con-
strued 10y us as being declaratory Of the right
of secession.
Did the Convention acquiesce? No. In
vain did Lindley plead with the fire-eaters
They told him he was no Democrat if he
insisted upon such a monstrous thing. Not
declaratory of the right of secession? They
would not demoralze the party. by saying
any such thing. He said he stood by the
Kentucky resolutions, which declare that
each party to the Federal compact "has an
equal right to judge for itself as well of in
fractions as of the mode and measure OF
redress but he wanted the Convention to
say that secession waS not one Of the modes ot
redress contemplated by the resolutions. He
knew that the Calhoun heresy was born and
strangled in Jackson's time, and that it was
no more part of Democracy than was Abo-
litionism But his brethren laughed at him.
They would have it that secession was one Of
the proper modes of redress. Neither the
Virginia or the Kentucky resolutions has
word to say concerning secession, but the
California secessionists dressed up Lindley's
explanatory resolution into a disdinct recog-
milton of the infamous doctrine, and then
adopted it, as amended, by an overwhelming
vote, in the face of the indignant protesta-
tons of the mover, and his small party Of
adhcrents They added the words: or any
other specific mode of redress" so as to make
the resolution read,
RcSolyed That the Kentucky and Virginia
resolution of 1898, referred to and approved
by us in the Cincinnati Platform, and reaf-
hrmed by our first resolution, are not con-
strued by us as being decIaratory of the right
of secession. OR ANY OTHER SPECIFIC
MODE OF REDRESS!
Judge Lindley, in opposing the addition of
the last seven words in the resolution, said,
very truly:
The amendment says cor any other specific
mode OF redress" much as to say, and it
does say to every man who examines it close
ly, that the right Of secession IS one Of tic
modes Of redress comprehended under the
general terms Of the resolutions. +"
/ am not disposed to discuss this
question any further. | intend to put myself
right upon it, and oppose the amendment
for the reason that have stated that believe
it indirectly asserts that secession is one of'he
remedies included within tie general terms Of
the resolutions Of l79a,
And yet the Express has the elfrontery, in
its leader of yesterday, to say that the Con-
vention neither affirmed or denied the right
of secession, but left that question just where
the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions placed
it," 1t is family dispute. Judge Lindley
says his party platform declares the right of
secession, and he demonstrates the truth Of
his assertion. The Express denies the posi-
ton assumed by Lindley, and coolly publishes
the resolution, which clearly proves that
gentleman to be right and itself either stu
pidly or wilfully wrong. The Express would
make more respectable appearance if it
would leave such miserable quibbling, and
courngeously say, as its correspondent do,
whom it applauds, that State secession is a
State right under the Constitution.
THE SACRED Soil OF VRGINIA.-While the
Federal forces were are all north of the Poto-
mac, we were told by the frothy secession
organs in Virginia that "the tread of a single
United States soldier upon the sacred soil of
Virginia" would he the signal for fierce and
mplacabe war. Well, there has been many
Il footfal of Uncle Sam in the Old Dominion
since that, and Lee and Beauregard are as
gentle as lambs We do not know how to
account for this, except 10y the supposition
that some of the soil of Virginia is not sacred.
Perhaps all the soil we do not care about oc-
cupying is sacred, and the rest is not. We
presume that Alexandria and Fortress Mon
roe are not in the sacred limits, for U. S. is
in possession, and there are no fierce attacks
The main question in Virginia, then, should
now be
"What's hallowel ground?"
The Marysville DEMOCRAT publishes two
columns of extracts from the speech of Frank
NJ. PiXley, delivered on the 22d of Februry,
1859, and calls on the friends of David Q.
Broderick to repudiote the Republican party
1ppausp thew pnp,iuotol pivlav