Оценить:
 Рейтинг: 0

Americanism Contrasted with Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy in the Light of Reason, History, and Scripture;

Год написания книги
2017
<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 25 >>
На страницу:
2 из 25
Настройки чтения
Размер шрифта
Высота строк
Поля
The Hon. Mr. Watkins, a renegade from the American ranks, in East Tennessee, delivered a speech in Congress on the 6th of May, 1856; which speech we find reported in the Washington Union– a speech which betrays an utter ignorance of the point he undertook to discuss. It is due to his betrayed constituents that we should expose his ignorance, and the blundering fallacy of his attempts to justify his turning Locofoco Cataline Judas Sag-Nicht! He says, as reported by his political organ-grinder:

"But, sir, the platform recently adopted by the Philadelphia Convention cannot receive my approbation. I cannot support Mr. Fillmore, or any other distinguished Whig, upon that platform. The only solitary plank in the Philadelphia platform of June, 1855, was the twelfth section – that section which denied to Congress the right to interfere with slavery in the Territories, declaring the doctrine of non-intervention, and of popular sovereignty in the Territories. But, sir, that plank in the platform was stricken out by the convention recently held, and the sixth resolution of the platform then adopted substituted in its place. And what does that resolution endorse? Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution of the Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right of Congress to interfere upon the subject of slavery in the sixth resolution of the Philadelphia platform? Certainly not."

In lieu of the June platform, we have this February platform. The June platform contained no such denial to Congress, as is here alleged by Mr. Watkins, of the right to interfere with slavery in the Territories! And it is marvellous, indeed, that a grave Member of Congress should undertake to discuss Platforms, which he had either never read, or the purport of which, if he had ever read them, he had either wholly forgotten, or lacked the sense to comprehend! The twelfth section of the June Platform says:

"And expressly pretermitting any expression of opinion upon the power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any Territory, it is the sense of this National Council, that Congress ought not to legislate upon the subject of slavery within the Territories of the United States."

Thus, instead of denying to Congress the right to interfere with slavery in the Territories, as erroneously and recklessly charged by this new-born Democrat, all opinion on that subject was "expressly pretermitted" in the June Platform! Mr. Watkins was in such a hurry to join the Forney, Pierce, and Catholic Democracy, that he did not stop to examine even the Platform which most disgusted him! But this is not the worst blunder which he committed in that speech. He turned to the new Platform, and asked, with an air of triumph:

"Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution of the (new) Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right of Congress to interfere with the subject of slavery in the sixth resolution of the (new) Philadelphia platform?"

And he answers, "Certainly not!" The ignorant man, it would seem, only read as far as to the sixth section of the new Platform; and even that section contains a direct affirmative answer to his question; which, in order to place the American party in a false position, he answers, "Certainly not!"

Now, we ask such as may have noticed his misrepresentations, to read a little further on, at least to the end of the 7th section of this new Platform, and see where it leaves Mr. Watkins! Turn back to the 7th section, and it will be seen that this section, instead of "pretermitting any opinion" on the question, announces the doctrine that the citizens of the United States permanently residing in the Territories, have a "right" to frame their Constitution and laws, and to regulate their domestic affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution!

The New York Evening Post, a Pierce and foreign Democratic organ, thus alludes to the action of the Convention which nominated Fillmore and Donelson: —

"The 12th section of the June Platform, it is true, had been abrogated; BUT IT HAD BEEN REPLACED BY ANOTHER, MEANING PRECISELY THE SAME THING!"

The Cincinnati Gazette, an Abolition, Anti-American Foreign sheet, came out in opposition to the American nominees, in its issue of Feb. 29th, 1856, on account of the Pro-slavery character of the new Platform. The Gazette says: —

"We are glad that the action of the Convention proved so decided as to leave no doubt as to the character of the Platform. The latter is clearly and decidedly Pro-slavery and Nebraska, and in this respect corresponds precisely with the principles of the Pierce Democracy! Fillmore and Donelson are therefore presented to the American people as candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency, ON A THOROUGH AND DECIDED NEBRASKA PRO-SLAVERY PLATFORM, and the citizens of Northern States are asked to vote for them!"

The New York Tribune, whose editor was a prominent member of the Pittsburgh Black Republican Convention, and who is violent in his opposition to Fillmore and Donelson, says:

"The object of the Know Nothings has dwindled down to this – TO DEFEAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! That is to say, this is the object of those who have managed the Philadelphia Convention, and nominated Mr. Fillmore. I have diligently inquired for a member who voted for Banks for Speaker, and now supports Fillmore; but up to this time – more than three days after the nomination – I have not heard of one. That sort must be scarce!"

The following is the official vote on the adoption of the new Platform by the National Council, which met four days previous to the Nominating Convention:

New Hampshire —Nays– Messrs. Colby and Emery.

Massachusetts —Yeas– Messrs. Ely, Weith, Brewster, Robinson, and Arnold. Nays– Messrs. Richmond, Wheelwright, Temple, Thurston, Sumner, Allen, Sawin, and Hawkes.

Connecticut —Nays– Messrs. Sperry, Dunbar, Peck, Booth, Holley, and Perkins.

Rhode Island —Yeas– Messrs. Chase and Knight. Nays– Messrs. Simons and Nightingale.

New York —Yeas– Messrs. Walker, Oakley, Morgan, Woodward, Reynolds, Chester, Owens, Sanders, Whiston, Nichols, Van Dusen, Westbrook, Parsons, Picket, Campbell, Lowell, Sammons, Oakes, Seymour, Squire, Cooper, Burr, Bennett, Marvine, Midler, Stephens, Johnson, Wetmore, Hammond, and S. Seymour. Nay– Mr. Barker.

Delaware —Yeas– Messrs. Clement and Smithers.

Maryland —Yeas– Messrs. Codet, Alexander, Winchester, Stephens, and Wilmot. Nays– Messrs. Purnell, Ricaud, Pinkney, and Kramer.

Virginia —Nays– Messrs. Bolling, McHugh, Cochran, Boteler, Preston, and Maupin.

Florida —Yea– Mr. Call.

New Jersey —Yeas– Messrs. Deshler, Weeks, Lyon, and McClellan.

Pennsylvania —Yeas– Messrs. Freeman, Nelclede, Gossler, Smith, Gillinham, Hammond, Wood, Gilford, Pyle, Farrand, and Williamson. Nays– Messrs. Johnson, Sewell, Jones, Parker, Heistand, Kase, Kinkaid, Coffee, Carlisle, Crovode, Edie, Sewell, and Power.

Louisiana —Yeas– Messrs. Lathrop and Elam. Nays– Messrs. Harman and Hardy.

California —Yeas– Messrs. Wood and Stanley.

Arkansas —Yea– Mr. Logan. Nay– Mr. Fowler.

Tennessee —Yeas– Messrs. Brownlow, Bankhead, Zollicoffer, Burton, Campbell, Donelson, Harris, Bilbo, and Beloat. Nays– Messrs. Nelson, Reedy, and Picket.

Kentucky —Yeas– Messrs. Stowers, Campbell, Raphael, Todd, Clay, Goodloe, and Bartlett. Nays– Messrs. Shanklin, Jones, Carpenter, Gist, and Underwood.

Ohio —Yeas– Messrs. White, Nash, Simpson, and Lippett. Nays– Messrs. Gabriel, Olds, Ford, Barker, Potter, Stanbaugh, Rodgers, Spooner, Hodges, Kyle, Lees, Swigart, Allison, Fishback, Thomas, Corwine, Chapman, Ayres, and Johnson.

Indiana —Yeas– Messrs. Sheets and Phelps. Nay– Mr. Meredith.

Missouri —Yeas– Messrs. Edward, Fletcher, and Hockaday. Nay– Mr. Breckenridge.

Michigan —Yea– Mr. Wood.

Wisconsin —Yeas– Messrs. Lockwood, Cook, Chandler, and Gillies.

District of Columbia —Yeas– Messrs. Ellis and Evans.

Illinois —Yeas– Messrs. Danenhower and Allen. Nays– Messrs. Jennings and Gear.

Iowa —Nays– Messrs. Webster and Thorrington.

Yeas– 108. Nays– 77.

We will close this chapter by giving the delegates who seceded from the Nominating Convention, with the Address published by them on the occasion. That recession was a more inconsiderable affair than has been represented by the foreign party of this country. The author of this work was the Chairman of the large Committee on Credentials, and reported two hundred and seventy-seven delegates, which report was received without opposition, as to numbers. Of these, forty-two only seceded, viz.: 13 out of 28 from Ohio; one of two from New Hampshire; 6 – all – from Connecticut; 2 out of 13 from Massachusetts; one out of 3 from Illinois; 7 out of 27 from Pennsylvania; one out of 4 from Rhode Island; 5 – all – from Michigan; 5 – all – from Wisconsin; one– all – from Iowa; 42 out of 277 – not a sixth, and but little over a seventh of the whole!

ADDRESS

The seceders or "bolters" made the following address, to which they appended their States and names. What they say of the Louisiana delegates, we have explained in another portion of this work:

"The undersigned, delegates to the nominating Convention now in session at Philadelphia, find themselves compelled to dissent from the principles avowed by that body; and holding opinions, as they do, that the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, as demanded by a majority of the whole people, is a redress of an undeniable wrong, and the execution of it, in spirit at least, indispensable to the repose of the country, they have regarded the refusal of that Convention to recognize the well-defined opinion of the country, and of the Americans of the free States, upon this question, as a denial of their rights and a rebuke to their sentiments; and they hold that the admission into the National Council and nominating Convention, of delegates from Louisiana, representing a Roman Catholic Constituency, absolved every true American from all obligations to sustain the action of either of the said bodies.

"They have therefore withdrawn from the nominating Convention, refusing to participate in the proposed nomination, and now address themselves to the Americans of the country, and especially of the States they represent, to justify and approve of their action; and to the end that a nomination conforming to the overruling sentiment of the country in the great issue may be regularly and auspiciously made, the undersigned propose to the Americans in all the States to assemble in their several State organizations, and elect delegates to a Convention to meet in the city of New York, on Thursday, the 12th day of June next, for the purpose of nominating candidates for President and Vice President of the United States."

Ohio – Thos. H. Ford, J. H. Baker, B. S. Kyle, W. H. C. Mitchell, E. T. Sturtevant, O. T. Fishback, Jacob Ebbert, Wm. B. Allison, H. C. Hodges, L. H. Olds, W. B. Chapman, Thos. McYees, Charles Nichols.

New Hampshire – Anthony Colby.

Connecticut – Lucius G. Peck, Jas. E. Dunham, Hezekiah Griswold, Austin Baldwin, Edmund Perkins, David Booth.

Massachusetts – Wild. S. Thurston, Z. R. Pangborn.

Illinois – Henry S. Jennings.

<< 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 25 >>
На страницу:
2 из 25

Другие электронные книги автора William Brownlow