The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-03-18
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND SLAVERY.

|
cannot interfere with the schemes of President
making
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND SLAVERY
The close political connection between the
Democratic party of the North and the Slave
holders of the South is fact, the nature
causes and consequences of which cannot be toe
often held up to public attention. That party
is supposed to represent pre-emlnently the IN
terests Of Labor: To be composed of men who
earn their bread by sne sweat of their brow
to lie founded upon the doctrine of equal rights
to be the legitimate vehicle of progressive
movements and the natural antagonist of
whatever system or policy tends to impair the
rights or lower the dignity of human nature.
On the other hand the Shareholders generally
represent the interests of Capital; as class
live, not by their own labor, but by the labor
of others; theoretically and practically deny
the doctrine of equal rights; naturally incline
to Conservatism and are identified with sys-
TEN which. above all others violates the tunda-
mental rights and degrades the dignity of hui
man nature
That two classes, 80 contradictory in charac-
ter, principles. and aims should be closely we'd
ded in one party, is a phenomenon that must
perplex every observer not familiar with the
twofold character of our political system, and
the history of our politics.
:. A &C I
class or division of the party sustains two sets
of relations-one, to the States, the other
to the Union. Existing and operating in
the States alone, each acts out its own Ideas
one seeking to promote Freedom, the other,
Slavery. United and acting nationally their
bond of union has been, common views and
common aims in relation to great questions of
power and policy arising under the Federal
Constitution. As these views and aims con-
cerned their National, not State policy their
secondary relations growing out OF the Federal
Constitution, not their primary relations, found
oil upvn their existence under the prior so,e-
regnty of the States, and did not therefore
necessarily bring into conflict their funda-
mental Ideas, in regard to Human Rights and
lnterests--in other words, rs they related ex-
| clusively to the extent and exercise of certain
dervativc powers, which, strictly construed
had nothing to do with questions of Personal
! Freedom or Slavery, it was quite possible to
maintain an intimate political connection
True their habits of thought, their radical
principles, and their motives, might be differ
ent-but, so long as both took similar views of
Federal powers, and agreed upon a similar dis
position Of Federal questions, it would have
been surprising had they not co-operated.
To descend from generals to particulars ::
Southern Shareholders and Northern Demo-
Gratis were jealous of the powers conferred on
them by n strict construction, in eases of con-
hict between the States and the Union, inclined
to the side of State Rights The latter have
been single-hearted in all this, regarding ten
denotes to Centralism as dangerous to Liberty,
and State Rights as its natural bulwark The
jealousy of Centralsm manifested by Slave
holders in part attributable to similar views, is
to be credited chiefly to an apprehension of
danger to the institution of Slavery from the
action of II Central Power, under the control of
a majority opposed to that institution They
have sought to reduce the sphere of the Fed
eral Government, not so much for the sake of
Liberty, as to remove Slavery from its njuri-
Gus action In South Carolina, where they
act always from a paramount regard to the
interests of this system, they have gone so far
as to deny to the People of the State any part
or lot in the election of President, the object
being to withdraw them from the influence of
Federal Politics, We do no wrong to this class
of men in attributing their jealousy Of Federal
Power, chiefly to a viglant providence for Sla-
very, for it is notorious that, where they can
use even the doubtful powers Of the General
Government to extend or strengthen it. their
dread of Centralsm is no restraint upon them.
But no matter what the controlling motives
of the two parties in any work, so long as they
converge to the same point-that is all that is
necessary.
Again: A National Bank became common
object of hostility to both The Democrats of
the North feared the corruptng influence Of
an enormous moneycd monopoly, in which the
Federal Government was large stakeholder
upon the purity of its administration and saw
nothing but mischief in the channels it opened
for Governmental interference with popular
A.. II 4 4
their principle of Equal Rights Some of the
Shareholders may have sympathized with these
views; but, rs class, they needed no such in
stitution, being able, for the most part to
transact their business by debts and credits
on the ledger and they naturally regarded with
uniriendiiness monopoly chiefly in the hands
of Northern capitalists, who might through its
agency exercise almost unlimited control over
the prices of their great staples,
The Tariff Question afforded another ground
ON which they could stand together. In a
constitutional point of view both agreed that
imposts should be laid, not for protection, but
for revenue, As matter Of policy, the
shareholders, raising raw material for export
aud owning the laborers who produced it
wanted to sell at high prices and buy at low
the more moderate the Tariff the greater thu
chances Of an extensive market, the less dan
ger of retaliatory duties on their products, an,
the cheaper the articles of consumption neces
sary for their producers So with the Demo
cratic party of the free States, composed chief.