Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1858-12-03

:, intentions, than II IS That earth Is cove
), ed with wrecks resulting from innoccu
/, and amiablc motives.
n The very constitution of the Democrat
4 party commits it to execute all the design
b Of the slaveh olders, whatever they may bt
e 1t is not party of the whole Union, Q
c all the Free States and of all the Slav
t Staes; nor yet is it a party of the Ere
4 States iI the North and in the North west
! but it is sectional and local party having
r practically,its seat within the Slave States
and counting its constituency chiefly an
almost exclusively there. OF all its repre-
sentatives in Congress and in the Electora
, Colleges, two-thirds uniformly come from
these States. Its great element of strength
, lies in the vote of the Shareholders, aug
mented by the representation of three
fifths of the slaves. Deprive the Democrat
lc party Of this strength, it would be ;
helpless and hopeless minority, incapable
of continued organization. The Demo
cratic party being thus local and sectional
acquires new strength from the admission
of every new Slave State. a party is in
one sense 4 joint stock association, in
which those who contribute most direct
the action an6 management of the concern.
The Shareholders, contributing in an over
whelming proportion to the capital strength
of the Democratic party, they necessarily
dictate and prescribe its policy. The in
evitable caucus system enables them to do
so with show of fairness and Justice
If it were possible to conceive for mo,
ment that the Democratic party should
disobey the behests of the Shareholders, we
should then see withdrawal of the slave.
holders, which would leave the party to
perish. The portion of the party which
is found in the Free States is mere ap-
pendage, convenient to modify its section
al character without impairing its sectional
constitution, and is less effective in regu-
latino ito ...~----~-4 49, A. --t'--.l.t
of the comet is in determining the appoint
ed though apparently eccentric course of
the fiery sphere from which it emanates.
To expect the Democratic party to resist
Slavery and favor Freedom is as uureason-
able as to look for Protestant Missionaries
from the Catholic Propaganda of Rome.
The history of the Democratic party
commits it to the policy of Slavery. 1t
has been the Democratic party, and no
other agency, which has carried that poll
cyup toits present alarming elimination.
Without stopping to ascertain, critically,
the origin of the present Democratic party,
We may concede its claim to date from the
era Of good feeling which occurred under
the Administration of President Monroe.
At that time in this State, and about that
time in many others of the Free States,
and it has pertinaciously continued this
disfranchisement ever since. This was an
effective aid to Slavery, for while the
STAKEHOLDER votes for his slaves against
Freedom, the freed slave,in the Free States,
is prohibited from voting against Slavery.
In 1924, the Democracy resisted the elec-
tion of John Quincy Adams-himself be-
fore that time an acceptable Democrat-
and in 1928 it expelled him from the
Presidency and put a STAKEHOLDER in his
place, although the Office had be filed by
shareholders thirtytwo out Of forty years.
Iu 1886, Martin Van Buren-the first
non slaveholding citizen of Free State
to whose election the Democratic party
ever consented-signalized his inaugura-
ton into the Presidency by a gratuitous
that under no circumstances
would be ever approve bill for abolishing
Slavery in the District of Columbia. From
1888 to 1914, the subject of abolishing
Slavery in the District of Columbia and
q the national dockyards and arsenals was
brought before Congress by repeated pop
liar appeals. The Democratic party
hereupon promptly denied the right of
petition, and effec.ually suppressed the
rcedom of speech in Congress, as far as 1
he institution of Slavery was concerned.
From 1910 to 1913, good and wise men
ouuseled that Texas should remain out
idc of the Union until she should consent
o relinquish her selfinstituted Slavery !
nut the Democratic party precipitated her
Omission into the Union, not only with
ut that condition, but even with cove I
ant that the State might be divided and
e. organized SO as TO constitute four Slave !
tates instead of one. :
In 1916, wheu she United States be.
anne involved in a war with Mexico, and
was apparent that the struggle would q
nd in the ACKNOWLEDGMENT Of that Repub- {
C, which was non-slaveholding power. o
he Democratic party rejected declaration Z
nat Slavery should not be established a
ithin the Territory to be acquired. When o
, 1850, governments were to be institu-
d in the Territories of California and p
ew Mexico, the fruits of that war, the G.
party refused to admit New c.
Iexico as a free, and only consented to n
Init California as free State on the II
,udition, as it has since explained the u
ansactioD, of leaving all Of New Mexico ie
Id Utah open to Slavery, to which was W
so added the concession of perpetual ol
avery in the District of Columbia, and re
lie passage of an unconstitutional, cruel d
I'd humiliating law, for the recapture of OF
gitive slaves, with further stipulation d
at the subject Of Slavery should never ti
,ain be agtated in either chamber of
,ngress. When,in 1854, the slavehold- st
s were contentedly reposing on these fir
eat advantages, then SO recently won, of
c Democratic party unnecessarily, Off fir
,usly and with superserviceabe liberality, fir
7aked them from their slumber, to offer