St. Cloud Democrat. [volume] (Saint Cloud, Stearns County, Minn.) 1858-1866, 1860-08-09
parted votary. Inscribe the name Broder-

lex in fiery characters upon your banners
--he was your champion and you at least
can afford to do him justice. He rests in
peace on the heights Of the proud city Of
the Pacific, where no ingratitude can long:
er wound him, relieved from the warfare
between heartless factions and where his
ashes will remain an eternal memento of
his faith and his confidence in the ultimate
triumph of down-trodden humanity.
These references have been made for a
single purpose-to satisfy, if doubts exist,
that in the great struggle between the
South and the North, to secure the long
lost equality of the latter, Mr.: Douglas is
against us. Should more recent eviden-
ces be demanded, then let an examination
be made of the Congressional Globe con-
tanning the ballots for Speaker and Clerk
during the last session of the House of
Representatives. Ascertain what the ac-
ton Of the Illinois, Western and North
Western Democracy was during the pro-
tracted contest for an. organization. Ey-
cry vote that Mr.. Douglas could influence
was invariably cast for such candidates as
the South presented, including those of
the most extreme and revolutionary char
acter. He could afford no assistance to
any one not recognized by the propogan-
dists as orthodox upon all questions which
concerned them. And l very we'll re-
member when the name OF COL Forney
was mentioned in connection with the Of.
flee he now occupies, and his fate Was to
be decided, how diligently E'the great ad-
vocatc of popular sovereignty" labored for
his defeat; every devotee of Mr.. Douglas
voting against him with one exception
Mr.. Morris, of Illinois, in whom I have
very great confidence, declined to vote at
all: Col. Forney, who never hesjtated to
advance the fortunes of Mr.. Douglas;
when he could properly do so, was elected
in spite of Mr.. Douglas. Col Forney, I
presume, was not endorsed by the Democ-
racy who swear by the peculiar institution.
Others may choose to forget all this, and I
will not :criminate them for doing so, but
I promise never to forget it. 1 am for
my friends and against those who oppose
my friends. If I am wrong in this, let
charity be extended to mel cannot help
[ have said all l desire to say of the
Representatives of the two Democracies.
There is preference between them. The
one is out-spoken and evident; the other
is concealed and tricky. OF the two I
much prefer Mr.. Breckenridge, and yet I
cannot imagine the circumstances under
which l could be induced to support him.
He asserts that the Supreme Court has
decided that slavery is an existing consti-
tutional institution in all our Territories,
and that it is the duty of the Government
to sustain it where it thus legally exists.
Mr.. Douglas contends the Courts have not
SO decided, but, if they shall do SO, it will
then become the duty of all good citizens
to respect the decision, and of every
branch Of the Federal Government to en-
force it with promptness and fidelity. This
is his platform. If our Federal Court has
not already given a decision in accordance
with the notions of Mr. Breckenridge, no
one doubts it will do SO as soon as the
question shall be brought distinctly before
it. So at best the only point of Disagree
ment between these rival candidates is
that of time only. If, in the language of
the resolution adopted by the Convention
placing Mr.. Douglas in nomination and
just partly quoted, it becomes the duty Of
all good citizens to respect, and of every
branch Of the Federal Government to en-
force, a judicial decision determining the
constitutional existence Of slavery in our
Territories, what becomes of that other
theory Of Mr.. Douglas, that no matter
what the Supreme Court may decide, sla-
very may be excluded from Territory by
unfriendly legislation? ~ - ,',' H.