Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1860-08-31

Mr. Douglas 1p1s a Democrat. He held
with our fathers, that slavery was curse to
the master and wrong to the slave. There
was no difference of opinion in that respect
Douglas was against the Importation of Afri
cans to this country. He at one time did moi
believe that the way to christianize man waE
to take him from his home, break the marriage
| tie, sacrifice one-half the lives of his race By
sea and land ignore all those great qualifying
sentiments which are stronger than law-pre
cluding almost the possibility of elevations, de
| nying that the man who raises the corn should
eat the corn-that the man who builds the
( house should live in the house; acknowledging
that he was created in the image Of his Greater,
not that he might work cut his own salvation,
but that he should be in all things subject to
/ the will of another. Our fathers didn't beliexe
that that was Christian Institution. They
didn't believe in this kind of means of chris
| tianizing their fellow men. The universal
Democratic doctrine was that Slavery was a
curse to the master and wrong to the slave
| 1t was in every way unnitiga ted curse and
an unmitigated evil. Before the formation of
the Constitution, they protested earnestly a.
gainst the veto of the British king, who would
not allow them to put down the "infernal traf.
fc." as they called it.
Again, by the Ordinance of1787, every foot
of soil that they tnen owned they declared
should be forever consecrated to free men, and
that the foot of the slave should never be- set
therein.
Mr.. Madison said they were not willing
even to admit that man could hold property in
man. So far from protecting slavery, they ut
terly repudiated the idea that man could hold
property in his fellow man, land SO the Courts
all stood up for the enactment of '87, and all
declared that slavery was the creature of local
law, and that wherever slave escaped into a
foreign territory the slave was free. That was
the common law. 1t was the law laid down
by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. 1t was
the law pronounced by Lord Mansfield in the
Somerset case. in which that eminent jurist
declared that slavery was so repugnant to the
conscience Of mankind that nothing but posi-
tive law could make man slave. Even dis
tracing aud expiring Mexico will not return
a slave because it is disgracefulto our common
humanity.
Now men of Ohio these were Democratic
doctrines from 1776 up to the decision of the
Gratis to say if they were not. Why did they |
change these principles Have they COME to
believe that the unparalleled development of the
free States-physcal, social and intelieetual- |
is an experimental failure 1t is not a failure;
and there is not Douglas Democrat north of t
Mason and Dixon's line, saho has sense enough |
70 keep from falling into the FIRE, who laresay |
that it is failure. The change is because |
their king-the $4,000 Shareholders say So
About 1854 they found the battle going /
against them. and though they had secured !
their share Of the territories. they said they
must have more.oF they were gone. They de-
tornlined to obtain Kansas. You know the
story they told me one Shareholder could whip
i've Internal Y Yankees, aud they would drive
benrout. But l tell yoa those Yankees are
he bravest men on earth. Save me from the
neA who first load their nuskets and then get
lown on their knees and pray to God to stand
,y theln when they shoot. | don't want to
meet them. But how did it come out? They
weept the invaders from the soil of kansas
nd Kansas is free.