Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1858-11-24

I.s..s.stl..as.a. -.
hlr on ihIa NUnl lhut ahuN i5u dpmun.
tttaiion thht uui dprbi did not proceed
uum ihe anti slavery hul num lhD mining
and manufacturing 40 luuis-hum tpcs
tion oT the State which has always stood
up firmly amidst the Widest ugitauon ul
the slavery question Take Ton evidence
the vote in the counties oi Allegheny
Beaver, Bradford Butler Erie, Elk, Ind.
nna Jefferson, Lawrence, Mexican, Mcr.
Ger. Potter, Susquchonna, Iiogn Nenango,
Warren Washington, Wyoming ana
Wayne, in nll ~, being tho @ IN which ihe
question OF slavery has uniformly welded
the greatest influence, amt u appears That
the majority against Mr. fRo,t the Dem.
oclatic nominee for the Canal COmmls-
siouor and ana open and ayoWed Lccomp-
ton man, was but lS,blS votes, whilst the
Same counties in 1886 cast a majority Of
2Q,41S against Mr. BUCHANAN for Pre'l-
dent, Jc.aga Democratic yltl 10 tie tree SOU
colHGls Of tic Sl.Ra since 1859, q lV,yUO
Then turn to the manufacturing and
mining districts, composed OF the coun-
ties OF Carbon. Centre Chester Clarion,
Huntington, Blair Lehigh, SehuylkllL
Luzerne Montgomery, Philadelphia, Mon,
trose, Berks, pauphin, and Armstrong 10
in all, and il is seen that IN .he5e Mr..
Frost was beaten by 6,599 votes, whilst in
tie same counties in 1856, Mr. BUCHANAN
had 23,OGl majority, being changoagalnsJ
the Democratic party OF 29,Ol6 votes BY
deducting from this aggregate the total
majority against Mr.. FROSr in this State,
%, 2S4 and it will appear that tho entire
change since 1886 was produced IN these
fifteen counties.
These facts are very conclusive, What
ever NAV have been the cause, it is true
that we gained largely in the North and
West on our vote of 1886, and lost at a
most disastrous rate in the mining and
manufacturing districts. Ot ~ facts can
be given to confirm the view we present ;
for instance, our ueighbor, Col. MARTIN,
who was q candidate for Congress, and
known to be dissatisfied with the policy
Of the Administration on the Kansas
question, and who was stoutly advocated
by COL FoRNEy, and yet he was beaten as
badly rs was Mr.. FRO,r, Lecompton man.
Gen. FOSTER was Antl-LeCJmptou, aud
still h.: shared a common fate with the
Others. Mr.. PER HING had no connection
with the Kansas question, and had taken
open ground in favor OF the admission OF
Kansas, rcgordes, Of her population, and
no man in the State Jared worse. The
cases Of Mr. MONTGOMERY and Mr.. HEX
MAN cannot be presented against this view,
for they were virtually the nominees OF
the Republican party Ia their respective
districts.
Let our friends of the West, and else.
where who seem inclined to ieer u about
our recent defeat, reflect on these fpcls.--
They cannot fail to be convincel that had
we encountered no other element Of oppo.
sition than the slavery question, against
which they contendcd. we should have
carried the State at the late election by a
handsome majority. OF this they can be
assured Whenever, and as q, often a.
the contest in Pennsylvania turns
solely upon the abolition question, the
4 Democrats will carry the State; and fur
thor, whenever Nj. SEWARD becomes d
candidate on hisblooly Rochester prom M
ciameuto, Pennsylvania will reject him 10y
| the most decided vote of any State North
OF Mason & DIxoN's line
/ Our friends have ouly to stand firm 10y
their former faith resort to no eXpcdieut.
to gain strength, but simply stand by th,
J Constitution and the rights Of the States
! and the rights of the citizens ofthe Stltes
and IN 1860 we shall give the monmcl enc
my such a defeat as they have not ha,
since 1852.
Pmsyio uljum