Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1859-07-23
WHAT rs DEMOCRACY?

elsewhere so far as we can learn their character
by our exchanges, make very frequent mention
of the "great national democratic party" They
speak of it and write about it as the only part,
capable Of comprehending all sections and in
terests Of the country, as the only party dis
posed to regard the Constitution and preserve
the Union. In contrast with it they affect tc
regard the Republican party as an aggregation
of sectional factions, bound together for no 9th
er purpose than that Of making warfare against
the prescrptive right of the democracy to con
troll the administration Of the general govern.
ment. A stranger to our country and her insti.
tutions. after perusal Of their lending organs
would very naturally conclude that all the pa.
triotism in the country is confined to the demo.
cratic party, and with its defeat free government
would be shipwrecked.
What is democracy is question quite per-
tinent for the candid inquirer after political
truth to consider, especially when these AFRO
giant assumptions are made and pretensions put
forth. 1t is well to examine the basis upon
which such modest claims are made and learn,
if possible, the stability of their foundation
1t cannot but be profitable to know whether the
democratic party is so homogeneous in its char
acter that all its members are actuated by a
common faith and are all laboring zealously to
promote one common object, and that object
the welfare of our common country or whether
some other with them equally potent, but less
elevated, bond temporarily unites discordant
and mutually repulsive elements. We think
even hasty examination will convince any can
did reader that whatever of harmony there may
be in the democratic party is founded on iden-
tity of interests rather than upon identity of
belief
1t is difficult to form any Ineligible idea of
the doctrines espoused by the democratic party,
so numerous are the sects which severally claim
to be the sole legitimate opponents of demo-
cratic orthodoxy In many of our Southern
democratic contemporaries we read of "South-
ern Rights democrats" as contra distinguished
from "Nationai democrats y of administration
democrats" in opposition to douglas demo-
crats;" Of democrats who favor the leading
measures of Buchanan's administration, and of
democrats who denounce them as the offspring
Of worse than "Hamitonian Fcderalism'-
Here at the North we have democrats of every
variety of shade, created by the greater or less
degree in which their complexion is colored by
what is called "Lecomptonism." Democrats
who favored the admission of Kansas into the
UNION uhuer the Iecumptvn Cvns,Itu,ivi ure
sternly at variance with democrats who repudi-
ated that instrument as fraud upon popular
rights. Democrats who voted for the English
conference bill' find it difficult to harmonic
with those who look upon that "temporizing
expedient' with positive disrespect. Time and
patience would fail us if we should undertake
to tell of Democrats who are in favor of free
trade and direct taxation; democrats who in
Louisiana are in favor of both these desiderata.
but nevertheless think sugar entitled to some
protection; democrats in Pennsylvania who are
willing to make large concessions on other
points if only the duty on iron be kept suffi-
GENTLY specific; democrats in Kentucky who
think that Mr. Clay's american system" was a
pery mistaken theory of political economy, but
who hold that tax on imported hemp is high
ly expedient and constitutional; democrats in
New England Gmmoderate in their demands
because modest in their numbers) who think
that "the textile fabrics" should be treated with
some consideration by those who patronize su-
gar in Louisiana, iron in Pennsylvania, and
hemp in Kentucky. but who are willing to sac
rifce very large per centage for the sake of
"harmony." And then, we have democrats who
favor internal improvements, and democrats
who denounce them as unconstitutional; DEM
ocrats who think the public lands should be dis
posed of as speedily as possible by general
homestead bill, and democrats who pronounce
this policy unwise, "demagogical and agrarian ;"
democrats who espouse Mr. Clay's plan of "dis-
tribution," and democrats who denounce the
scheme as q rank political heresy; democrats
who believe in the gospel of fillibusterism, and
democrats who sustain neutrality laws demo-
Gratis who advocate the revival of the Slave
trade, and democrats who vote it "unwse, in
expedient, and contrary to the settled policy of
the country"
At present the democrats in all parts of the
country seem to be particularly exercised by
certain divisions growing out of what is called
the "New dogma"-being the definition of the
duty enjoned by the Constitution of the United
States on the National Legislature in the mat
ter of the protection which slave property is en-
titled to claim in the common Territories of the
Union. As this is question which has been
raised between different wings of the democrat
ie party, in consequence of their differing inter
pretations of the Kansas Nebraska bill and the
Cincinnati platform, it might be deemed imper-
tnent for us to express any opinion upon docu-
ments seen to be SO reconcile and obscure even
In the hands of their authors. As it is. there
are democrats who believe in its broadcast inter-
petration as implicitly as the devout Catholic
believes in the dogma of "the imu aculate con-
ception," without knowing or caring for its log
ical relations, while other democrats are without
any faith in it,
There seems to be one point upon which the
democracy are agreed to-wit: "that negroes
have no rights that white men are bound to re-
hal. Il.