Daily national Democrat., 1858-10-29
Is,he pemoeraey a sectional Party /.

claimed, was the American. 1t was answered
10y all the Democratic presses and speakers
throughout the Union, that the charge was
not well grounded; that the Democratic par
ty was no sectona, organization at all; that
it rested upon the broad doctrine that Con
gress was not to legislate upon the subject OF
slavery in the Territories in any manner
whatever, but that the people themselves
were to settle the question as to whether they
would have slavery or not This universal
declaration from those who authOritatively
spoke for the Democracy, was the truth
The Democratic Party was not then, and i:
not now, a sectional party. But, unfortun
ately, it put forward a man for the Presiden
cy who, after his election, did not truly rep
resent the principles of the party. The De
mocracy had promised the country that thu
next Democratic Administration would prov,
how false were the charges Of sectionalisn
adduced against it; no State should come
into the Union, whether as a slave State or
free State, unless its constitution was first ap
proved by the people, or at least known t.
have been framed in conformity with th'
will of the majority. The Democratic masses
looked confidently to Mr. Buchanan for the
fllfillment of the promise; but, instead o
gratifying their expectations by a strict ad
herence to the platform upon which he was
nominated, he set out with a course of policy
which was no more Democracy than Democ-
racy is monarchy lie set out, shortly after
assuming the reins Of power, with announc-
ing the new and unheard of principle. that
the whole people of Territory might be
forced to go into n convention and frame n
State Constitution, whether they desired to
or not; or, in other words, that, if a cons;i-
tutional convention were called, im opposition
to the wishes of majority of the people
(as was the case with the Lecompton busi
ness) and that majority refused to go into it,
(for it was assumed that they did refuse, in
the case of Lecompton,) why, then, the ma
jority were bound by the acts of a minority
in that convention--the whole meaning Of
the proposition being simply what we have
stated it, that the people Of a Territory can b.
forced to hro,o off the Territorial condition
and organize themselves into State Soper
eignty whether they feel like il or not This,
we assert, without any fear of successful con
tradiction, is the essence of the Lecompton
doctrine True, Mr.. Buchanan did not state
the principle in so many words, but we sub
NIT to any candid Judge whether the inference
which we draw from the position which he
did assume is not an irresistible one. At any
rate, whatever this inference may be, Mr..
Buchanan did at least disregard the will of
the majority of the people of Kansas, in
recommending the endorsement 10y Congress
of the LecomptonI Constitution, because he
knew that that constitution was obnoxious to
them. He disregarded wholly the doctrine
of popular sovereignty, because no reasonable
man will contend that it is popular sover
eighty to let the minority rule the myority
lie abandoned, at once, the doctrine which
was the main-spring of the Democratic or
ganization, and was followed by men who
had called themselves Democrats. In thus
cutting loose from generally received Dem.
ocratic principle and striking out on a new line
of policy, he was in fact organizing a new par
ty. He could not carry with him the Demo-
cratic party because it would cease to be the
Democratic party the moment it cut loose
from its sheet-anchor of popular sovereignty.
Mr.. Buchanan has a party, we will admit,
but it is not the Democratic Party; it is
ralLecompton party. 1t is n party
which can never rise to the dignity of a
great National party. 1t can never include,
under its banner, the great masses of the
country who now constitute the Democratic
party. The old National Democratic Party
is that which is now rallying to the standard
of stephen A. Douglas, Henry A. Wise and
Robert j. Walker. The conservative South.
ern Democracy is even now endorsing the
position assumed by Mr. Douglas in his
speech at Freeport and his speeches elsewhere
in Illinois. However much those positions
may be distorted by the Federal -Lecompton
press the leading Southern Democrats un-
derstand what Mr. Douglas means The
Interpretation which was given to his Free
port speech by his organ, in Illinois, the
Chicago Times, is the same Interpretation
which is given to it by the Richmond En-
quirer and other Southern Democratic pa.
pers. And they would never have given it
that Interpretation had they not had f,ll
and ample authority to declare that such was
the meaning which Mr. Douglas intended his
language should have, and that such was the
ground he intended to occupy, hereafter. SO
well satisfied are these Southern papers OF
his position, that they do not hesitate to de-
clare that they regard Senator Douglas as
the very best friend of Southern rights in all
the ranks of the Democracy at the North.
The Democracy, therefore, stands to-day
where it did in 1856, and it is just as true
now as it was then, that it is no sectional
party. The Federal-Lccompton party is
quite another affair.
Nj. EC.-By the politeness of Rev. j. D.
Biain' stationed inthis city by the Methodist
Episcopal Church, as pastor, we have been