The National Era

THE EFFECTS OF A FALSE POSITION.

The Sandusky (O.) Mirror, a well known Free Soil paper in 1848, has concluded to support a ticket representing deathless hostility to the Principles it once held sacred; and it thus strives to reconcile its readers to its change of policy:

"The question of slavery has formed an important element in our late political controversies, owing to the questions growing out of the acquisition of Mexican territory. These questions no longer exist. They have been settled by the action of Congress—not entirely to our satisfaction—but yet placed beyond our reach, from the nature of the legislation itself. California is a State, with a free Constitution. New Mexico and Utah are Territories, with the Mexican laws on the subject of slavery still in force and unrepealed. And from the hearty willingness with which our Southern friends expressed their determination to abide by the Compromise, we are bound to presume that we shall have no agitation on the subject of slavery, for the purpose of dividing California, to form another slave State; nor witness any effort to procure the legal recognition of slavery in New Mexico or Utah. We acquiesce in and abide by such a determination.

And much as we disapprove of the Fugitive Slave Law, and heartily as we detest the means that are used to enforce its nefarious provisions, still we are willing, in quiet composure, to see the 'Hunters of Kentucky,' and their Northern hounds, chasing an occasional runaway negro, if by this the immense Territories acquired from Mexico shall remain as we found them, free from the stain of Southern slavery, and open for the labors of American enterprise."

Such is the effect of a false position. The Sandusky Mirror knows that Slavery is still sustained by the Federal Government—was palpably in the ascendant at the Baltimore Democratic Convention—dictated the nominations—has abandoned none of its pretensions none of its schemes: and yet it talks as if nothing now was to be done by its opponents and is willing even to tolerate that most infamous of statutes, the Fugitive Slave Law!

And we are bound to presume, it says, from "the hearty willingness with which our Southern friends expressed their determination to abide by the Compromise, that we shall have no agitation on the subject of slavery for the purpose of dividing California, to form another slave State; nor witness any effort to procure the legal recognition of slavery in New Mexico and Utah." Yes, we should be bound to presume this, if our Southern friends had not fully advertised us of the fact that they do not regard the Compromise as precluding agitation with a view to convert the lower half of California into a slave State, and also advertised us that they do not admit there is any legal prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, and if we did not know that their fixed policy is, to extend Slavery whenever and wherever they may have a chance.

The peculiar position of those of our Free Soil friends who support the nomination of Mr. Pierce tempts them constantly to disparage the questions at issue between Liberty and Slavery, and to lull the public mind into a false security in relation to the unchanging policy of the Slave Power, or to delude themselves and the people in regard to the views and intentions of Mr. Pierce.

How could it be otherwise? In advocating the election of a candidate to fill the highest Executive office, they must either adapt their views and policy to his, or his to theirs—in other words, corrupt themselves, or practice imposition upon themselves.

How many exceptions are there to this general rule?