The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-01-06

1
in all probability would sustained him, had
he honestly adhered to his instructions to Gov
ernor Walker. But he yielded to Southern
dictation, and not only abandoned Walker and
Stanton, but punished them for faithfully carry
ing out his instructions. He took sides openly
and actively with the ruffan usurpers, and as
sisted them by all the power and patronage of
the Federal Government in forcing a Constitu-
| ton upon Kansas.
This last act, together with his subsequent
efforts to force the Lecompton Constitution
through Congress by corrupt influences, has
completed the disintegration Of the party. 1t
was apparent to Mr.. Douglas, that the policy of
the party, as dogmatically set forth by the Pros
ident could not be sustained by the Northern
people, and he foresaw clearly that by sup
porting that policy longer he would forfeit his
seat in the Senate. He therefore came to
Washington in December 1851, prepared to OPP
pose the Administration Kansas policy vigor-
ously. He did SO, and thereby has probably
secured his reelection.
In the mean time, sagacious Southern men
began to foresee that things had been carried
too far and Governor Wise, of Virginia with
few others, took the part of Douglas !; but the
oligarchy in a body adhered to the Administra-
ton, and placed Mr.. Wise in Coventry The
defeat of the Lecompton fraud, and its rejection
by the people of Kansas unanimously, has
greatly strengthened Southern opposition to it.
Had it succeeded, the case would have been
otherwise In the North, it cannot muster a
corporars guard in its support; and all the in
huence of the Administration has utterly failed
to secure for it even common respect. 1t is
now well settled, that what remains Of Democ-
racy in the free States is Anti-LecOmpton
while the slave oligarchy, with faulty which
is premonitory of destruction or overthrow, still
clings to the idea, that the monstrous fraud
must be sustained, and its enemies put down.
at all hazards. Mr.. Douglas has been cashier
ed as party leader by the Democratic ma
iority in the Senate the Virginia Convention
has refused to congratulate him on his partial
success; and he is denounced in the Southern
Democratic newspapers as no better than
an aboltionist. The whole power of the Ad-
ministration has been exerted for his defeat
him have been summarily punished.
The Democracy" therefore, have at last
divided geographically upon the Slavery ques-
ton. They are not only divided upon this
Kansas issue, which may be said to be settled,
but upon the important question of Popular
Sovereignty The Southern Democracy en-
dorses the Lecompton fraud, and denounces
its opponents as Free-Soilers. The Northern
Democracy, or at least the great majority of
the party, sustains Mr. Douglas in his attitude
of hostility to it. The Northern Democracy
insist that the people of the Territories have
the right to adopt "unfriendly legislation" as
it regards Slavery, and thereby keep the insti-
tuition out of the embryo States. The South
insists that the Federal Constitution carries
Slavery into all the Territories, and that the
Territorial Legislatures have right to eX-
-clude it. They even insist that the Federal
Government is bound to protect them in the
right by laws restricting the TeFsitorial sover-
eighty. q
But a still greater source Of difference is
looming up, and upon which the& South itself
is becoming divided, geographically and SO
cially We alude to the revival of the African
slave trade That infamous pirasy is no longer
subject of speculation. 1t d in practical
operation, and strong and Vigorous party
backed by popular prejudice and by individual
cupidity, sustains it in all the more southern
States. The northern Slave States, which carry
on a profitable commerce in selling slaves to
the Gulf States, equally strong in their an
tipathy to the new foreign branch of traffic
This question will in all probability draw lines
of division in the South, which may override
even the anti-Abolition prejudice for, in add-
ton to the opposing sectional interests involved,
there is the paramount question of danger from
the introduction Of hordes Of barbarians into
society which even now is far from sleeping
securely. We shall advert to this branch of
the subject again, and therefore pursue it no
further at present. f.
But these are not the only points of differ
ence among the Democracy" Indeed, it
would be difficult to mention a,lsngle question
upon which there is anything ike unanmity
For instance, the Pennsylvania Democracy de-
mand Protective tariff while the Southern
Democracy threaten to dissolve the Union if
protection is resorted to. The Democracy is
equally divided upon the questions of a Pacific
Railroad the disposition of the public lands,
and river and harbor improvements. On all
these questions large sections of the party have
abandoned the old landmarks, and followed the
expediency of the hour.
In view of this state of things, we would re-
specially inquire, what is it to be a Democrat?
Who shall define Democrat? Shall it be the
President, or Mr.. Douglas, or Senator Davis of
Mississippi, or Mr.. Hammond Shall it be the
Philadelphia Press the Chicago Times, the
Washington Union, or the Charleston Mercury,
or the New Orleans Delta? We feel assured
that no two Of these gentlemen or of these
presses would agree in their definitions.
Is a Democrat for the tariff policy, or against
it? Is he for popular sovereignty, or against
it? Does he approve the Administration Kan
sas policy, Or Mr.. Douglass? Is he for the
slave trade, or against it?
NO COALITION.
We publish below an extract from a private
| letter, written by distinguished Republican of