The Opelousas patriot. [volume] (Opelousas, Parish of St. Landry, La.) 1855-1863, 1855-03-10
THE PATRIOT.
THE AMERICAN PARTY-IT,S PRINCE
PIES AND ITS OBJECTS.

In our opinion, we can not better occupy
the space than by publishing the speech of Mr..
Sellers, of Maryland, delivered in the House of
Representatives, ut Washington in answer to
Messrs. Keitt and Barry, on the subject of
Americanism." Addressing the Chair, Mr..
S. spoke as follows:
promised, some time since, to express, at
some convenient period, my opinions in refer
ence to the principles of what is called the
| " Known Nothing party, but which is, in truth,
the National or Native American Association !;
and avail myself of this occasion to do so be-
cause, while shall be able hope, in the hour
allotted to me, to spread before this committee
and the country what believe to be its prin-
ciples and its objects, trust shall be also able
to defend it against the fiery assaults Of the
honorable gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr
kEIrT,) and the deliberate and elaborate char
ges Of the gentleman from Mississippi. (Nlr
BARRY) Sir, / listened attentively to these two
distinguished gentlemen in their terrible. on
slaught on this obscure, despised, abject asso-
citation, ain association of their own countrymen,
bone Of their bone, and flesh of their flesh,'
and confess I have heard nothing from either,
which, in the slightest degree, has shaken my
confidence, either in the correctness of its prn-
ciples. or the great and glorious objects which
it is 1stined to achieve for the country. Twill
not Take up arms agaist my own countrymen +;
and when the question is presented to me, in a
contest between the native-born citizens Of my
country, and foreigners and the contest involves
the political supremacy of the one over the other,
| answer, side with my own countrymen.
Erf,y lri,, i /,
up old political ties and associations.
1t often involves the rupture of personal ties,
and parties originally formed from similarity in
political views are maintained by considerations
purely personal, and not infrequently by mo-
tives Of personal interest and advancement.
Look at the two old parties Nearly every
question that originally divided them has been
sweptaway. The question ofthe establishment
of a Bank Of the United States has been long
since settled, never believe to be revived. The
question of the tariff has been adjusted, or at
least its principles so well settled, that no one
dreams Of ever again making it party ques-
ton. The question of how tile public lands
shall be disposed of has ceased to be a party
question; for, although not yet adjusted, the
conflicting views entertained by individuals at
tached to both the old parties have taken it from
the arena ofparty conflict, and so ofevery other
question that formerly divided the Democratic
and Wing parties True, the Democratic par
ty claimed to be national in their views upon
the subject of slavery and styled itself the /" nat
ural ally of the South. But what have We
witnessed? The great question Of the repeal
, Of the Missouri compromise, " Ia compromise
by which the South believed it was wronged
and by the repeal of which the North believes
that Il was wronged,) was every where demon
strated by the recent elections, that neither the
Democratic party nor the Wing party can claim
to be national upon this great and momen
tous question.
And the irresistible conclusion to which th'
mind was led (although not endowed with OK
!, traordinuy political sagacity) aas that we wer
, fast Fastening to a contest the very mention o
which in the earlier and better days of the Re
public would have filed the heart of every pa
triot with horror and amaZcmcnt, | mean pure
IN SeGtjOnul contest, u contest which, although
7 avowcdly for political power, might have endc,
: in dissolution ofthe Union accompanied witt
all the horrors of civil war--ay sir of ''bellul
plusquam civile." Now, sir, we witnessed her
| in this House not long since a specimen of tn
spirit Of sectionalism which influenced some q
y its most distinguished members. The gentle
man Of Georgia Mr.. SrEvENsl land question
not his right to do so,) thought proper upo
: the proposition of Mr.. MACE, of Indiana, to en-
ter into an examination and comparison of TIL
relative progress made between the southern AM
9 northern States in moral, social and physica
Il development; and the gentleman from Obi
: Mr.. CAMPBELL took up the gage thus throw
r down by the gentleman from Georgia, and in de
J, fense of the non-saveholding States, (by inst
tutng a comparison between the State of Ohio
: the giant of the West, and the State of Geol
+ gja) endeavored to show that the section troI
>, which he came had more progress IN all the art
3 of civilization, and that in its moral, social an
r physical condition it was far ahead Of and 81
s. perior to the State of Georgia.
Well, sir, of fone thing,at least was convinced
n by this contest between the two gentlemen,-
: that Georgia was a great State, ard that OH
r was a great State also. But shall not rejoic
n in the prosperity Of both? Are they not bot
n members Of a common family? lfthe State
e Ohio has with unexampled rapidity attained s
n lofty position in the confederacy; if by the il
S. dustry of her hardy SONS, she has become Il
l. granary, the Egypt, of the Union. be it so.
Ks is no matter of regret, but ofrejoicing with me
re and if the State of Georgia contrary to I'll
u. theory of Abolitionists, that State cannot
I'd great and prosperous it slavery is tolerated /
as its laws presents the highest type Of civiliz
ton, be it So Most sincerely do | rejoice TIL
n, it is SO, But, for myself deprecate these u
M necessary and odous comparisons. Althoue
TX representing the largest sayeholding interest
nd Maryland, / have never deemed it my duty
-; ID enter into Il comparison of my own State wi
i" any other or TO defend the institution ofslaver
here Or elsewhere. 1t is where the trainers
the Constitution placed it. | will not defer
it, by endeayoring to show that 1t is Of divi
nd origin, and q patriarchal institution" Ny
to ask me by what right | hold my slaves poi
you to the Constitution. If you ask me
sF what arguments will defend my right TO them
ch will nnsmnr as thn Scntch fearl did his tnrli6