The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-07-15
THE NATIONAL ERA: WASHINGTON, D. G, JULY IS, 1858

ONAL ERA: WASH
truth in this statement to cast . fearful weight
Of responsibility upon all churches that are fail
ing to i'd Nth thsir "a whatsvsr their
bend 6ndA8 to do" to sire the abolit;sn of
hhnsn boudags and~the hal trinsaph Of uni
versal freedom for the racs of man?
NATIONALITY or rKf DxxocaAr1c Party.
The p.rsi,an supporters of Inc Adninissra..
ton have mnsh 10 say Of the natioaalisy of their
party. Up the great political contest of 1890,
which rssnlted il ihs slestion BIZ Gr. Ieffersdn,
The. garry issasss vsrs. hskmasa<ha Nasissszists,
Who were defeated, and the STATE Rights men,
who saccssdsd.j ! The aavoeskss Of . ssssonDe
central Government assumed the name of Fed.
eralists while thess xhoA were for limiting the
action Of Tie Federal Gosxnnssns % fhe'possrs
grantsd BY the 0onstieution which
created it, were known 10 Republicans. 10
ssssbiishing . central Government, the States
did not invest it with .absolate and unlimited
authority, but endowed IL With certain specified
powers, expressly ressrving 70 themselves, re-
spsctively, and to the people, all power not del.
egated. The Republicans, while <ayoring q
federal union of to States, wore opposed to
any approach towards consolidated National
Government but the Federalists, to great
extent distrustsd the experiment of . National
Government thus restricted and were for cloth
ing it With something akin 10 imperial authori.
ty. These differences manifested themselves
In the Convention which formed the Constitu.
ton, were sources of difficulty during the Ad-
ministrasion of Washington, and led TO the or,
ganizatiou of antagonistic and opposing parties
under the elder. Adams. The State Rights men
or Republicans triumphed over the Nationalists
in 1909. .r.s7
These distinctive differences have constituted
. marked division in. our politics in all their
phases and names. They we're as .weh defined
under the Jackson dynasty, when, the names of
Democrat and Wing we're substituted for those
Of Republican and Federal, as under the JEFF
ferson dispsnsation. A National Bank that
should have the custody of the National
fnances-a National system Of Internal i'm.
provements by the National Government
high system Of National taxation, to give US an
ample National revenue-was the policy of the
National party under the rame Of Wing and
hostility to these several schemes was the poll
cy Of the State Rights men, under the name of
Democrats. - u.
The important questions at issue between the
Republican and Federal parties, from 1900
until 1916, relate chiefly to our commercial
policy. Those in controversy from 1880 to
1916, between the Democrats and Wings, re:
lated to the finances. There we're other ques-
tons before the country, bat these were the
prominent ones on which the political battles
were fought. e s a
Since the fnsl adjustment of the financial
controversy, BY the establishment of the indie.
pendent Treasury system, and the acquiesoense
of the whole country therein, esch of the old
party organizations has ceased to be an expo.
nent Of any distinctive political principles 1t
has been the aim of the last and present Ad.
ministrations to appropriate to itself the name
of the last successful party, but without claim
or title to it's principles. The Republican party
6rst, and the Democratic party subsequently,
were supporters of the rights of the States, and
opposed to the assumption and exercise of I'm.
delegated powers by the National Government.
But the policy of this Administration is the
reverse of this and it is their boast, not that
they sustsin the rights and sovereignty iof the
States, but that they are National. To nation.
alize and extend the great monopoly interest
of Slavery, are the great objects and purposes
of the Administration party. 80
Sectionalism, the twin sister of centralism, is
fostered and sustained by the Administration,
and is cherished and patronizsd in return. Mr.
Buchanan, an original Federalist, was elected
as the friend and supporter of "Southern
rights" There are no Northern rights, OF
Western rights, but the President and his friends
are the devoted champions of Southern rights
1t is hardly possible to name an Administration
journal that does not express, emphaticslly and
with zeal, its fidelity to the rights of the South
If the South has rights that do not belong tc
other portions of the Union-rights not pos
sessed by the States respectively--it would be
well that they should be defined. Our Consti.
tuition and laws recognise the rights of States
the rights of individuals, and certain enumera
ted National rights, but there is no legal OF
constitutional recognition of distinctive South
ern rights.
1t Is one of the most beautiful as we'll as one
of the most bene6cent features of our Federal
Union, that it is 80 constituted if faithfully OBJ
served, as to destroy sectionalism. Were our
Government q consolidated empire, we should
have sectional luminosity and rivalry but our
system Of independent State sovereignties is q
preventive. Hence, in the past history Of
parties, whether of Republican and Federal
under the first dynasty, or Democratic and
Wing under the second, the States, North and
South, were each divided among themselves on
the questions before the country, and the con.
troversies in either case were not of sectional
character. Such, however, is not the existing
state of parties. The present Administration
was brought into power avowedly as q sectional
Administration. 1t has, thus far, been admin.
istered on sectional principles, and the power
and patronage of the National Government il
welded to promote sectional views. The old
established and traditional Territorial policy Of
the Government has been violated, in obedience
to arrogant sectional demands. Slavery, a local