The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-09-03


RIO were sold At nAo. q nho Freight engagements
were moderate, while rates were steady.
MIR. Douglas and thu Cond citing
Opposition Views.
The republican journals seem to be as much
perplexed and divided In opinion concerning
the chances ard purposes Of Mr.. Douglas III
the Charleston Convention as are the various
factions Of the democratic party. Take, for ex-
| ample, the conflicting views Of the Chesalier
| Webb, of the Courier, and of the philosophers of
the Tribune Us published yesterday, upon this
subject.
The Chevalier Webb, adopting for his text
late article In the HERALD adverse to the Charles
ton aspirations of Mr.. Douglas, branches off into
an interminable rigmaroe on ''the slave power"
and its bullying" policy with the cringing
"doughfaced democracy of the North" Thus
we are told that for the last forty years South
eru minority, imroteot in itself, has "ballied"
our compliant Northern doughfaces" to its pur-
poses. But with all this bullying, which is now
in full operation against the Illinois Senator, we
are assured by the Chevalier Webb that the
South, If brought to the pinch in the Charleston
Convention, "will unite as readily in the sup
port Of Mr.. Douglas as upon either of the South.
| ern candidates."
And Why noa, we are asked; "fOr," says QUE
| Wall street woTshipper of W II. Seward, "is
not Mr.. Douglas the author of the repeal of the
Missouri compromise? Aud is be net the very
man of all others who has labored most jealous
iy to extend the institution Of slavery into free
| territory by that repeal? And will he not, il
elected, following in the footsteps Of Mr.. Bucha
nan, wink at the introduction of imported Afri-
cans into the Southern States in defiance of the
laws of the land against piracy? Most assuredly
ne will; and go win any President elected by the
slave power and the doughfaced democracy of
| the North in 1860"
Such are the views Of the Cheyaliey Webb
With bis one idea Of Seward, be is evidently
ah aid Of the ingenious Northern anti. slavery
programme of Douglas as a Democrat: candi-
date. 1t is possible, too, if the Republican
National Convention should meet in advance Of
that of the democracy, and nominate Seward,
that the +" slave power" might consent to the
nomination Of Douglas. But the Charleston
Convention will have to lead off, and it will
therefore, be called upon to consider the ex-
pediency Of saving the South, as well as the
policy Of stealing into the Northern anti-slavery
| camp. In this aspect Of the question the
Tribune philosophers come to the rescue. They
| think that the democratic nominee in 1860 twill
| probably be taken from the South" and that
| the party be driven to q Northern candidate
Douglas will not and cannot be the happy man
They think so because the South will rule the
Convention, and Mr.. Douglas has betrayed
the "slave power" she is out of favor with
both factions Of the Southern democracy" The
fire eating presses and leaders are intensely hos
tile to him. Davis, SlidelI Brown, Toombs, and
the men Of that school, openly repudiate him."
while the Southern conservatives "of the type
of Hunter and Guthrie dislike and distrust
him." But even in the North it next appears
the strength Of Mr.. Douglas has been very much
everated.
Finally, our FourieIite philosophers, after can
wasting the whole field, come to these conclu-
sions: that Mr.. Douglas lis too shrewd a man to
desire" the democratic nomination in 1860;
that 1if he really intended to run he
would talk less and write less" but that
after getting the party into a position il
which they viii be beaten by the republicans
be expects to be adopted as the only available
basis Of democratic harmony. The difference
then, between our two wise and sagacions repub.
lcan organs in question, lie simply this: the one
believes that Douglas may secure the Charleston
nomination with the full consent of the ''save
power" the other believes that consent is i'm.
possible, and that the gentleman himself is 80 we'll
convinced of it tina. his only purpose now is
such defeat to the Southern managers Of the
party in 1850 as viii compel them to cspitulate
to Mr. Douglas in 1864, popular sovereignty"
and all.
Who shall decide when such doctors disagree?
Between them we can find no reason for aban.
doning our own opinions Of the present aspi-
rations and prospects Of Mr.. Douglas. On the
other hand, we have every reason to believe that
he expects to coerce the South into his nomina-
ton at Charleston by the pressure Of Northern
majority. But we apprehend that he Is counting
without his host; that he will not in any event
be strong enough to command the twothirds
vote required for the democratic nomination:
and that, should he be able, through Northern
majority, to enforce his platform, it's adoption
will be the signal for the secession of the South
ern wing of the party from the Convention.
Thus we can only regard the movements of Mr.