The Journal of Tuesday repeats its abolitionism in reply to our article of Monday. With another cloud of Tribuneitudes he repeats the abolition dogma that the constitution does not recognize slavery, that the Nebraska bill does, and complains that we should dub his effusions as abolitionism. We would like to be informed to what greater depth of abolitionism Garrison could demand of our cotemporary in his "progress" abolitionward? If his denial of the constitutionally of the existence of slavery in the states is not to rank him as an abolitionist, to what lower depth does he expect to reach before he graduates in that school of politico-philanthropy? An abolition absurdity - the basis of their creed - is uttered as sound doctrine, and we are called upon to disprove it - to prove that it is light when the sun shines - and when the heresy proclaimed is dubbed with its right name, the editor indignantly repudiates it!
We called upon the Journal to publish the clause of the Nebraska bill which
authorizes slavery, (that paper not having yet published any part of the bill
that its columns are occupied in denouncing) but we are merely treated to a
repetition of the assertion that it is so, but we have no proof of it
Nor does the Journal answer our queries preparatory to taking up the "main
question." The editor has not accounted for his denunciation of the exclusion
of the alien from the right of suffrage in Nebraska, which he has no regret for
such exclusion in Illinois; he has not shown why a political inequality between
whites and blacks in Nebraska is reprehensible, while it is not so in
This is all shirked, and its abolition assertion that slavery has no
constitutional existence in this Union - which we cannot exalt to the "dignity
of an argument" by occupying our space with a refutation - and it repeats its
allegation that slavery is legislated into the new territories by the Nebraska
bill, which we deny, and demand the proof.
We will not take the Journal's ipse dixit that it is so, nor will its
Let us have the proof from the bill itself.
This document was produced as part of a document analysis project by Lloyd Benson, Department of History, Furman University. (Proofing info: Lloyd Benson.) This electronic version may not be copied, or linked to, or otherwise used for commercial purposes, (including textbook or publication-related websites) without prior written permission. The views expressed in this document are for educational, historical, and scholarly use only, and are not intended to represent the views of the project contributors or Furman University.