The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-05-12
Chase-Dtx--Rantoul.


Chase-Dix--Rantoul.
In order to prove the entire nationality Of the
DEMOCRATIC party, and the practicability of
their uniting on the same platform, the Union
relies on the efficacy of three words, which
it repeats every morning, and in almost every
article. These are WADE, SEWARD, and
SUMNER. Now, why does not the Union vary
these with CHASE, DIX, and RANroUL2 Just
make this change, and it is very small and
reasonable change, and then, by substituting
would answer as well for the Wing as for the
DEMOCRATIC side Of the question.
It is really ludicrous, this attempt of the
Union to claim peculiar nationality for the De-
mocratic party in the northern States. Sena-
tor WADE, Of Ohio, is opposed to the Fugitive
law, and he was elected by WHIa votes.
Well, Senator CHASE, of Ohio, is opposed to
the Fugitive law, and is rather inclined to go
into rebellion and revolution to resist it; and
how was Senator CHASE elected2 BY DEMO
CRATIC votes. He was elected by the Same
votes that elected TAPPAN and MoRRIs, of
Ohio, to the Senate, both DEMOCRATS, and
both Abolitionists of the worst kind. The
elected in Ohio was quite as notorious and
quite as disgraceful as that in SUMMERS
case and CHASE was a professed, out and
out Abolitionist, and elected as such by the
Democrats. When the Union, therefore, pro-
poses to extract the JUNCTION of nationality from
the history of ONO, to soothe the asperties Of
the Democratic party, we beg that it will men,
ion with Senator WADE.
And when it has occasion to speak of Senator
SEWARD and New York, it will be much more
candid and just if, instead of claiming for the
Democracy Of the Empire State an exclusive
title to all the nationality, it will place the
name Of Senator DIX alongside that Of Mr..
SEWARD. Still more true to history will it be
if it should state that it was to the action of
the Democratic VAN BURErs, Buffers, and
KINGS that the Abolition party owes all its
consequence in the State Of New York. In
1874 it was large enough to defeat the Wings
and Mr.. CLAY, but then it numbered COM
paratively small number Of voters. 1t was
not till B. F. BUTLER and JOSHUA r. GIDDINes
INDUCED in that long, fond embrace on the plat
form at Buffalo; and till JOHN VAN buren, took
to the stump to show that the Democratic party
was the party of freedom; and till MARTIN VAN
buren, became the candidate of that party for the
Presidency, that the united Abolition and Free
the formidable power that it turned out to be in
the last Presidential election. The Union,
therefore, is unjust to its Democratic friends
when it holds up Mr.. SEWARD as the sole re-
preventative of the Free-soil sentiment in New
York, and ignores the existence of the Demo
cratic Abolition leaders whose names have figured
so extensively in the party history of the last
twenty years.
Least of all, can the Union claim with any
propriety the nationality" that it assumes for
its Democratic friends in Massachusetts, 1t
throws up the name of SUMNER, and charges
that SUMNER was a VINO, and forthwith the
responsibility is shifted from the DEMOCRATS,
who elected him, to the Wines, who have con-
sistently opposed him from the start, and never
made him their candidate even for the humblest
office in their gift. The two leading Demo
Gratis in Massachusetts for many years have
been MARCUS MoRroN and ROBERT RAN
souL, jr. They are both now on the Free-soil
Abolition track. RANrouL was elected Senator
by the same Democratic Abolition combination
that elected SUMNER. In all the vacant Con-
gressonal districts in the State the Locofocos
and Abolitonists have united to return Adolf
tlonsts. And, in the face of all these facts, the
Union labors to convince itself and it's readers
that the Democratic party of the North is all
sound on the slavery question in Massachusetts,,
and that the WINGS alone are responsible for its
agitation
Mr.. FnLMoRE's truly national course while
he has occupied the Presidential chair-hs