Year: 1860




the singular reserve practsed by the Breckenridge
Democracy of New Jersey in their late State Con-
vention, manifested in the significant fact that
they contented themselves with the simple endorse
ment Of the Cincinnati platform, without vouch-
safng any reference to the !" explanatory resolu-
tons = deemed by their Southern confederates SO
essential to the proper understanding of that Del
phic utterance.


Our neghbors of the aConstitution' take some
exceptions to the observations with which we accom-
panied this statement, and protest against the
misrepresentation we are alleged to have made
in characterizing the Cincinnati platform as " am
biguous." The official journal does us no more than
justice in courteously supposing that any misap-
prehensions into which We may have fallen on this
subject are unconscious /" on our part, and we
gladly avail ourselves of the light which it brings
to the elucidation of the vexed question.


The Government paper admits that we were
right in saying that the representatives of the
Southern Democracy did utter frequent and loud


protests against what they deemed the ambigui-
ties of the Cincinnati platform as moaD construed
By Mr.. Douglas and has adherents; and that
they resolutely insisted, when the Democratic
party assembled for the purpose Of promulgating


the platform on which it is to stand for the next
four years, that those sambigaites' should be re-
moved, and such declarations made as should
preserve it from perversion on the one hand or
misconception on the other.'''


Our neighbors, however, insist that these " am
bguitesp do not attach at all to the platform it.
set, but only TO its construction by Mr.. Douglas
and his adherents." The platform is all plain
enough, If only those who stand upon it could be
brought to think alike. 1t may be that this is


more proper statement of the case and we very cheer
fully give to our readers the benefit of this cor
recton," found in the following explanation made
by the " Constitution


"When the Cincinnati platform was adopted it was ur-
dersood and construed alike by all Democrats All were
agreed to its meaning All were content with its doc
trines All were bound to stand by its principles u
dersood that that portion of the Cincinnati platform which
relates TO the question of slavery in the Territories clearly
and without any ambiguity established the principle
that neither Congress, nor Territorial Legislature
any other power than the people of Territory when they
frame the constitution under which they are to be admit
ted into the Union State can exclude slavery from
any Territory of the United States and it was further
understood and agreed by the entire party that whatever
decision the Supreme Court of the United States might
pronounce to the constitutional rights of Southern men
to take their slaves into the Territories and hold them





should be regarded final and binding The representa-


ves of the Southern Democracy made protests either


frequent or loud against this solemn and unambiguous
agreement. They adhered to it faithfully and they adhere
to it They have not asked that word should be
altered erased added Whoever may be guilty of that


fechsm which alternately adores and skaters the idol
Democracy not fairly obnoxious to any such charge
and think that, if the Intelligencer' will reflect and
| deliver candid Judgment it will share opinion


" In the month of March following the adoption of the
4 Cincinnati platform the Court of the limited
States delivered the lannon's Dred Scott decision by which
all good citizens bound and particularly those who
specially coveanted to adopt its ruling part of their
political creed By that decision it is established as the
supreme law of the land that the Territories are the COM
mon property of all the States and open to every c
of the Republic to settle there with his property that
slaves are property which the Federal Government is
pledged to protect and that neither Congress It's crea
Territorial Legislature any power whatever to
IMPAIR abrdge destroy this constitutional right This
also is fact which does not admit of successful contrade
ton. If the Supreme Court had decided dffereny-had
decided that slaves could not consutionay be held in
Territory without positive enactment-tbe representa-
tives of the Southern Democracy would have submitted
without murmur; but their view of the question has
been sustained by the highest tribunal in the land
wherein their resolution demand the full mea-
of their constitutional rights and the faithful perform
ance of their compact with those who entertained different
opinion be compared to fetichism, desire
shater the idol of their own creation They found no
'ambiguities in the Cincinnati platform. They never
sought to deny any of its principles They mani
tested any desire to egade its obligations They have la
bored to preserve and to shatter the Cincinnati plat
| FORM as.


We think, however, that our neighbors betray
a slight lapse of memory when they say that
the Cincinnati platform, as originally adopted, was
understood and construed alike by all Democrats "
We remember that President BUCHANAN, in his
inaugural address, made specific allusion to diff
ference of opinion" which had arisen at that day
among the supporters of popular sovereignty"
in regard to the point of time when the people of
Territory shall decide this question Slavery for
themselves" J" but, he added, that this difference
was happily matter of little practical impor-
tance" and was, moreover in pr 1cess of foal set
Element by the adjudication of the Supreme Court
in case chat of Dred Scott) then pending. If
all who accept the uu'pirage of the Supreme Court
in this matter good Democrats, then there is
distinction between the supp rters of MIR. Douglas
and of Mr.. Breckipridge on this head, since the
former, equally with the latter, profess their viii
lingness to abide by the decision of that tribunal
The only dispute or ambiguity on this suppostion
relates to the question whether the Supreme Court
the Dred Scott case has or has net adjudicaed the
difference of opinion referred to its arbitration,
Ga this point the supporters of Mr. Breckenridge
affirm, while the adherents of Mr. Douglas DENY
Mean While it may be very true that there is no
Hambiguity" about the Cincinnati platform; but a
strange disagreement has certainly arisen among
two classes of its suppo. ters, who equally take it
as the Koran of their political faith Dan Swift
could not much use for the dogma of Papal in
fallibility if nobody knew where to fnd it, whe-
ther in Pope, or cardinals, or councils or in all
combined. In like manner we do not clearly see
the value OF an unambiguous platform, which ca
pabe of two constructions thr lugh the perversity
or misapprehenson of its supporters.


We think the Constitution hardly states the case |
accurately when it says that the representatives
of the Southern Democracy found no antiquities |
in this platform. We have not yet forgotten the |
hard words applied to it by portion OF these re-
presentatves, assembled in Natiooal Convention at
Charleston. If We were wrong in speaking of it as
6 ambiguous" we certainly can find some counte
nance for our want of accuracy 10 the fooSing ex-
tract from the proceedings of the Charleston Con-
vention, which were well calculated to mislead us
with regard to the views entertained by Southern