Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1859-11-04
THE OXFORD DEMoCR
Frederick and Douglas.

Frederick and douglas.
The following article from the st. LOUIS
Democrat. in just and tqa,,ing terms c1'
process the treaehsry Of Judge Douglas to-
wards the highmnded. hoocsi Frederick. .,
places in contrast, the integrity Of the one,
and the hypocrisy OF the other. II there
was man upon the whole earth, towards
whom Douglas should have shown mag
unanimous course. ,ha, man was the lameu
ted BrOderick.
Broderick knew ofthe trsichery ofDoug'
las a long time before has death. 81 well
satisfied was he oft that IN private circles
he freely eonversed about the matter. II
was also understood in Washington last
winter that Douglas would have caved in
to the English Swrndlc. had he no, feared
the denuucia,ion Of Broderick upon the
door Of the Senate. This deferred the Lit
tie Giant frpm exposing hi'poli,ieal di'hon'
esiy TO tho world Broderick was not the
man TO desert principle, for polIcy's sake,
but Douglas. what can b, sad Of him. on.
~ tina, in all his past life ho has figured
upon the political arena tie very personif.
cation Of demagogue. Shame upon the
man who in the hour Of peril will desert hi.
friend. and leave him to the tender mereies
OF hear,less foes. But TO the extract
"if there was one man in the United
State. who had irresistible claims on the
friendship and support Of Douglas, il was
Broderick When the enmity which Doug.
Ia. had drawn upon himself in the senate
threatened TO assume the shape Of physical
force, Broderick wa. the Ajax from behind
whose shield he. the Little Giant, shot hi.
arrows Such were the relations which
sub.isted between tho two men. Yet. no
sooner did the news OF the delea, Of the
Douglas Broderick ticket arrive here. than
the Douglas organ. burs, out in eSultan,
editorial. at the result Of the election.
They rrpic'd, one and a!l-,hc Missouri
Republican, the Springfield Register, the
Chicago Timc.. and their numerous echoes
m lllinoi.-ihat Latham and his colleagues
on the Buchanan tickle, were elected. aud
tia, the popular-soycrcicnty ,ickc, was de-
lca,ed They r-jniced at the .ucccs, Of the
ticket which represented the principles Of
jefferson Davis and James buchanan. and
at the defeat Of the ticket which rcrresen.
tel the principle, profcs-ci by themselves,
and their leader, in common with Brodrrick
They even slyly Contributed toelec, the one
and defeat the other. We need not .ay
that all thi. was done At the in.ti:ation Of
Dougla' Tho article already referred 60
IN the Chicago Times. ~. hons organ. per-
mit- NJ 20 entertain m doubt on the sub
get and We challenge the world to rro.
ducc a more nsrrant case Of moral oh!iqui.
" and political ,reaohery and ba.cness
We can imagine nothing which would have
- much embitier,d the Las, moments Of the
true-hcar,cd Broicrick rs this exhibition o,
hl.chcod. sel6.hpc.'. and insra,i,ude.
Happily. he was spared the knowledge Of
il.
Much asws are opposed to Douglas,
We could wish that his character were ire
from the trait which this episode diselo-cs,
or, rather. the existence Of which /, con.
firms, for I, had been often before manifest
ei. True to his own designs, and false to
al besides, he sacrifices bis friend. wi,hou,
the slightest compunc,ion. lie has played
exactly the same role in relation to the PEN
'ylunia election. There he also support.
tho Buchanan ticket. although 1t. cindi.
date., and the platform on which they
stand expressly rrpudiato the doctrines
which he has chosen 10 uphold as the true
Democratic docrine. lie ha, betrayed For.
ney as he betrayed Brodcrick."