Kenosha tribune & telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1856-1859, 1858-08-05

ways voted for, and supported the same
party. Such persons do not stop to re-
fleet that the boast Of having followed
the lead of the democratic party for a
generation or more, only conyicts them
of the inconsistency of change. That
the democracy OF the present day is I'M
like the democracy in the times Of JEFF
ferSon in 1902, or Jackson, in 1882. is
as clearly demonstrable as any other
fact III our American history. Democ-
racy at the present day expomded by
It's leaders, is altogether different from
that of the days Of Jefferson and Madi-
son. Yet the modern democracy is con-
stantly talking of its nationality, and
claiming to be founded on platform
enunciaCed by the fathers Of the country
1t is an undeniable matter of history,
that the party which sustained Thomas
Jefferson, and cherished the principles
promulgated by him, was at that period
called Republican; the doctrines which
that party maintained on the subject of
State rights; the powers of the general
government over the territories, and the
proper province of the Supreme Court,
is substantially the same as those now
held by the present Republican party.
The federalists in the days of Jefferson,
were fro more consolidated form Of
government, giving less power of soyer-
eighty to the States, and investing the
general government and the United
States Court with more full control
over the affairs Of the country. In the
early contest between the State rights
Republicans, and the nationals or feder-
alists, the former triunphed.
These distinctive features Of political
parties in the early history of the coun-
try, have never been effaeed, although
there have been periods when other is
sues stood out more prominently before
the people. But the fact is nevertheless
unchanged, that the early republican
party, who maintaine ed the principles o.
Jefferson, against the assumption and
exercise Of undelegated power by the
National government, has no affinity in
principle with the modern democracy.
Indeed, the policy of the present admin
istration is the reverse of the policy of
Jefferson. Moreover, it was never held
by Jefferson or Madison that Congress
had 10 power over the territories, to le-
gislate MS to the admission or exclusion
of Slavery. But it was maintained that
sovereignty is an essential attribute Of
a government, such as State, and that
it cannot pertain, nor does it exist in a
territorial dependency. This was the
marked stinction-States are sover-
eignties-territories have no sovereign
ty. Slavery in the early history of the
country, was regarded as local insti-
tuition subject to the municipal regula-
ton of the States wherein it existed.
Now, slavery is held by the administra-
ton to be national, being equally cnti-
tied to the protection of the constitution
with freedom, not only in the States, but
in all the territories. When John c.
Calhoun first advanced the doctrine that
|
Slavery was above and beyond the Con-
stitution; that neither Congress nor the
territories could legislate on the subject,
or prevent it's extension within the lin
its Of our country; that everywhere, ex-
cept prohibited by positive State enact
ments it would have legal existence, the
sentiment found no response, save by a
few Southern nullifers. In short, when
1T announced that slavery was national,
requiring no law to establish it, having
a righttul existence co-extensive with
the Constitution, no Northern statesman
was found so base as to give respect to
such an utterance. The democratic par
ty, until comparatively recent period,
everywhere in the Free States, and in
some of the Slave States, repudiated
such sentiment with seeming scorn
and contempt. But wherein does the
national democracy, SO far as relates to
the nationality ofslavery, differ from the
sentiments uttered by Calhoun, which
only a few years ago were so repugnant
to the country?
On all those vital questions now at is
sue before the country, the democracy
has changed its attitude; its resolutions
setting forth its professed principles in
State conventions, and the lesser prima-
ry meetings of the people adopted not a
dozen years ago, convict it of.being a
party Of changed principles. There is
not single Northern State, in which
the records of this change do not exist.
In our own State, resolutions of the de-
mocracy, adopted in State, district, and
county conventions, contain sentiments.
now utterly repudiated by the present
national administration, and all its fol-
lowers; resolutions which the party now
discard and disown. The claim of the
modern democracy, therefore, of main
tanning the principles of Jefferson and
jackson is simply absurd. Gen. Jack
son, who in his day was the acknowl-
edged head of the democracy, unlike
the modern party of the name ant;ral,,