Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1859-03-17


dates the beginning of its existence from
the introduction of the Kansas Nebraska
bill. in 1854. Although the time which
has elapsed since the organization Of the
party. is short, yet, circumstances have
arose which have fully developed their
principles. (if they had any and the po
li,ical character Of the men who have been
chosen as the leaders of this great party
of "reform."
One portion of the party creed. which
they dencminaie great principle in gov
ernment, and on which the whole party
superstructure rests, is the detestible doc
trine of equal rights between the white and
black races in the enjoyment. Of the rights
and privileges of citizenship. This doc
trine is repulsive to any person who is
proud of the superiority of his race--who
has any love for decency and virtue; and
no man, except one who is living evil
deuce Of the truth of total depravity."
would knowingly indorse it in the broad
sense in which it is put forth by the lead
ers of the party.
When this party arose. like a mushroom
in foggy night, it flung its banner to the
breeze, which was then strongly impreg
mated with the effluvia of abolitionism, on
which was emblazoned, mo more Slave
States-Fr o Men-Free Speech" &C.,
DC. Many men--preachers, deacons, and
men-who had always considered them
selves too pure to mingle in politics where
such men as Washington, Jefferson, Clay,
and Webster had served their country,
now cried out in the exuberance vf their
joy. "this is the party for u.s. and fil0d
into line with Jim Lane in his co-workers
in rebellious and lawless actc. The avow-
cd object of the party was to increase tn,
power and territory of freedom by the ad.
mission of States prohibiting slavery, and
the exclusion Of those legalizing it. Let
US see if they have attempted - carry ou::,
in one single instance. this cardinal doc
trine in their party creed.
In 1856, on every stump, in every
public square, in almost every schoolhouse
and pulpit. the cry went up against the &C
QUESTION of another foot Of slave territory
or the admission of another slave State.
Democrats, who were in favor Of having
this question settled by the people of the
territories, and thea admitted, were de-
nounced as TRAITORS" Northern dough-
faces" and so on, al intinituna. Yet, the
first territory Minnesota which asked ad-
mission after the advent of this great free
dom party, met with strenuous and de-
telmined opposition from the Republican
delegation in Congress. although, in the
constitution which that territory asked adj
mission under, slavery was positively pro-
1.ibited: in other words, she desired admis-
sion as a free State-just what those free
dom schreechers had been clamoring for.
When We calmly consider the circumstan-
ces attendant upon the admission of Min
nesota, and think of the opposition from
those who were expected to be its friends,
the indignation of every true friend of our
country is aroused against the hypocrites
who would deprive those honest and in
dustrious pioneers from an enjoyment Of
the long expected union with the States.
Minnesota elected her Delegates to form
a State constitution; those Delegates were
legally elected, at an election authorized
by law; they framed State constitution.
republican in form; submitted it to vote
of the people; it was ratified almost unani-
mously, there being scarcely show Of
opposition; Senators were elected and sent
on to Washington, with their constitution,
backed up by one hundred and fifty thou
sand free, white inhabitants, and asked al
mission according 10 the laws of Congress.
And what was the response from the Re-
publican camp? 1t was opposition to her
admission And why? Not because Of
slavery, for that was prohibited; not because
Of non conformity with the requirements
of the constitution of the United States, for
it was pronounced by all to be in the reg
uIar FORM The secret Of their opposition
was because it was DEMOCRATIC. Some of
them say, and may be with some truth,
that their objections were founded on the
negro prohibition clause. This prohibited
negroes from emigra,ing to the State, hold
ing property, de-; the same in substance
as the negro clause in the constitution of
indiana. If is true that this was Their
objection. does il not prove on them the
equality" doctrine charged in this article?
With this view of their action is it not ev-
ident that they will vote against the admis-
sion Of any State whose inhabitants do not
subscribe to abolitiouism?
On the admission Of Oregon, they. as a
party. voted no. Oregon was organized