Daily national Democrat., 1859-10-06

| country. IhlS great principle must he met
and must be decided in the Presidential cleo
tion of 1860. (Cries of you are our choice %
Mr.. Seward, who is the most eminent au-
thorltative expoundei ofthe Republican prin-
ciples according to the modern designation
tells us that there is an irrepressible conflict
between freedom and slayery-free lator aud
slave labOr-which must continue to ragr
until the States shall become all free or be
come all slave. When he utter led that senti.
ment he ought to have felt bound by a sense
ofjustice and courtesy. to have acknowledge
that he orrowed the sentiment from an en-:
neut leader of his own party (Laughter)
| Thr> e Years previous to Stewards Roches
ter speech, Mr.. Lincoln, of Illinois, in maxim
u speech accepting the nomination of the Re.
publican party of his State, had announced
the same principle in more explicit and EN-
phatic language lie told the people of Iii.
nois that agitation would not cease until the
crisis should be met and passed that houst.
divided against itself could not stand-thnt
the Union separated into free and slave States
could not endure permanently. and the con-
test must go on until the States should be-
come all Free or all shye-all one thing or all
the other. Did you ever hear of IL Republi-
can that dissented from this position?
Does not the Republican party throughout
the land, acquiesce in and endorse the doc
trine of Seward in his Rochester speech, or
similar sentiments of Gov. Chase ia Ohio ?
The doctrine Of the leader of the Republican
party is that the States must become all free
or all slave-that they can't endure part free
ana part slave-that the contest must con.
tlnue and increase in fury until one class of
States have been annihilnted by the com
p'ete triumph ofthe other Such is the real
purpose of the Republican party.
| Now, when do you expect to have peace
on the slavery question? When do you ex-
pect to have harmony between Cincinnati
and Covington on-between Ohio and Ken
tucky-if you agitate till the States become
all free or all slave? A voice-when they
change their potics) 4 Republican in the
crowd says he expects that harmony when
freedom triumphs. There you find the en-.
dorsement of the positian of seward and Lin.
coln-that the States must be all free in or
der to have harmony
Let us examine for moment this doctrine
of uniformity contended for by the Republic.
cans on the slavery question. Is that doc
trlne consistent with the genius and princi-
pies of our Federal Constitution assert
that the trainers of the Constitution neither
spect to the local and domestic institutions of
the sovereign States They knew that in II
country broad as this with such variety of
climate, of soil, and Of interest there must
be necessarily corresponding variety in the
local laws aud domestic institutions adapted
to the wants and interests of each locality.
They knew the laws and institutions which
! were well adapted to the granite hills of
New Hampshire were unsuted to the tobac
co planters Of Virginia. They knew the
laws and institutions which were adapted to
the wheat fields and corn fields of Ohio, were
not well adapted to the limitations of Louia
lana. They knew that the laws and institn-
tions which would suit the praires of lii =
nois, were unsuited to the gulches and placers
of the gold mines of California. Knowing
these facts, they framed a system of govern
meat composed of independent States, each
with Legislature of its own, with the SOW
ereign power to make all laws, all institu-
tiOns affecting their national policy to suit
themselves, without the Intervention of Con-
gress or any other power on earth. But let
us suppose for moment this new doctrine OF
uniformity in domestic institutions had pre-
Nsied when the Constitution was formed
what could have been the result? Bear in
mind that the Union was composed Of thir-
teen States, twelve of which were slavehold-
ing States, and one only was free Suppose
Seward or Lincoln had been member o
the Convention which framed the Constitu-
ton, and had risen and fixing his eve upon
the immortal Washington who presided ovei
that august body. had said house divided
against itself cannot st md. This Union com
posed of free aud slave States | cannot en-
dure. There is an rrepressble conflict be-
tween freedom and slavery, free and slave
states which must endure until slavery be
abolished everywhere. or established every
where throughout the republic Suppose he
had succeeded in inpressing this new modern
Repui licnn doctrine on that Convention thnt
Convention that framed the Constitution. do
YOU think slavery would have been abolished
in all the StatesI DO you think the one free
State would have out-voted the twelve
! sIaveholdiug states in that Convention, and
abolished slavery every where, or would the
twelve slave States have out-voted one free
State, aud finally established slavery over
every inch of the American Republic. 10y ir
repalable constitutional provi,ion2 Thus
you see if this modern doctrine of uniformity
on the slavery question prevailed when the
government was founded, We would have
been a united slaveholding nation. with slave
ry fastened on the people of Ohio, to-day.
| beyond the power otresistance. at that Y
the friends of freedom and the enemies OF
slavery only asked that Congress should not
interfere that the federal government should
not use its power either Tor or against, tut
each State be free TO decide for itself The
| Convention acted upon the principle asserted
in the moral trumphs of the day, that error
could be tolerated us long as freedom of opin
ion was preserved to combat it. Th Y were
willing to leave each State as they found it,
free or slave, with the right to coHlnut
slavery rs long as they chose and abolish il
whenever they pleased. Our system Ofgov-
ernmeht was established on that principle
the principle which they had inherited from
the colonies which they had achieved 10y
! their blood in the revolution. The principle
was new to the trainers of the Constitution
| They knew the first serious point of dispute
between the American Colonies and the
| British Government. had arisen on the slave
ry question They kuew that the American
! Colonies, before the Revolution, always
claimed the right to decide the slavery ques-
ton to suit themselves. rs local and do
nestle institution, affecting their internal
pulity. They knew the government had de
MED that right to the colonies, and in lieu
of that right re asserted the doctrine that
Parliament possessed sovereign power ovel
colonies and could biud them in all case
whatsoever, including the slavery question
the same as the modern Republican party
and interventionists North aud South CLAIM
that Congress possesses sovereign power
over the Territories; hence, may intervene il
violation of tie wishes OF the people anc
sanctity of local law, to overrule local legis-
lation, and control the domestic Institutions
Our fathers before the Revolution, elaine,
that it was the birthright of Englishmen, th'
inaienable right when formed Into commu
mites, to decide all local questions to sui