The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1858-11-06

THE DIsrRACTINa QUESTION OF ls4s REVIVED
IN The DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN 1853
Tho democratic party has acquired and preserved
the confidence Of the people of the United States by
steEny separating from itself all offending members
regardless Of short-sighted and corrupting "exped-
sncy.' Principles, not men, has been its inHexible
rule. Hugh L. White, WIN. c. Rivss, Martin Van
Buren,, were unhesitatingly pucked out and cast
from 1t, when error, ambition, revenge whatever
motive moved them to abandon the principles of the
party.
With the old wing party 'expediency" was
great institution They permitted abolitionists to
enter and take part in their nominating conventions
thereby giving them vote in constructing the plat
form upon which the party go before the poo
plo in presidential canvasses. Thus Andy Stuart,
though an abolitonist was admitted into the wing
conventions he in favor of protective tariff
and other wing measures. Andy Stuart of course,
wanted plank piece Of one, put into the platform
for himself and friends to stand on or at all events
objected to the insertion of such as would prevent
his affliation with tho party
Soon, very soon, the party lost the confidence
OF the people and became utter abolitionized-
kessrs. Seward and Thurlow Weed in the latter
years becoming the controlling managers. The
old wing party dwindlcd away, and, as it dwin-
died, the republican party gained strength and
Importance. until as the former became extinct the
latter reached its point of elimination. The abo-
ton sore, small in the beginning, grew apace, and
soon corrupted the whole body Of the wing party.
Expediency was the morass in which the wing party
foundercd and lost itself
Tho bolder and more honest rule--principles, not
men-has endeared the democratic party to the peo-
pie Of the United States, and commanded the respect
OF even its adversaries. When Mr. Van Buren, and
others were pluckedout and cast from the party,
they had not abandoned all their democratic prnci
pies, but single one only When Mr. Rantoul was
driven from the doors of the democratic convention,
he was democrat in all things save one thing only
When the presidential candidates--White and
Riycs-were cast from the party, they had not aban-
doned all their democratic principles
If expediency had been the rule, none Of these men
nccd have been discarded. Either would have been
esteemed better than an out-and-out opponent But
not so thought the democratic party. As members
of the party they might rightfully claim voice in
the construction of future PLATFORM and thus warp
or weaken. or gloss, or pervert party principle
Outside Of the party they could not undermine its
principles by declaring their heresies to be Or
thodox.
Such has been the practice of the democratic par
ty in the past Is the demoralizing rule of expe-
diency to be at this day adopted Ia what does the
o%&; or
Mr.. Van Buren, in ls4s? Mr.. Van Buren, then took
the ground that Congress might lawf'aAy exclude
slSvery from the Territories and ought to do So
Mr.. Douglas is the inventor and promulgator of
new way of accomplishing (lagfialy, as he says)
precisely the thing by an indirect and less
manly process. He admits that citizens of slave
holding States have the right under the constitu-
ton to 60 into aud settle in any of the Territories
taking with them their property of all kinds slave
property and all He admits this to be a right-
and then invents and publishes to the backrepubli-
cans and others mode whereby the right to hold
slaves in the Territories may lawfully be rendered
nugatory, barren, and worthless. He says the ma
joriy opposed to slavery in Kansas may refuse to
pass the necessary laws to protect slave property
that the majority may lawfully and rghtfulIy do this
So argued the opponents Of the mgitive-savc law.
They admitted tho constitutional requirement as to
the rendition Of fugitives from labor but knew and
acted on that knowledge, that if they did nothing
passed no law the subjectthe constitutional re-
quirement would be nugatory, barren, and worth
less. They claimed the right to do nothing and
insisted that doing nothing was not violation Of
the constitution But the democratic party, and with
than the people of the United States, held different
~. They held that the constitution may be as fla
GRAVITY violated by omission commission-by
emitting the performance of duty as by commit
ting positive wrong fit be rghtful, or, as Judge
Douglas says lawful for the territorial legislature
to withhold the laws necessary to the enjoyment Of
slave property, then it just lawful ard rghtfu
for Congress to withhold mot to pass fugitive
slave law. The constitutional right in each case
wouM be withheld and as rightfnlly or lawfully in
the ono case as the other.
Mr.. Van Buren, said that though the shareholders
may have constitutional right to introduce slaves
into the Territories yet it is lawful to render it nu
gstory for that Congress- has the right in terms to
exclude them, and as matter Of policy, ought to
do 90. Judge Douglas says the shareholders have
the constitutional rght to take with them their slaves
into the Territories but know la,cfm way to ex-