The Yazoo Democrat., 1860-03-17
THg lRREpREssIBLE CoNFLICr.

1ue 'DlOOuy mAnllestoj as ~ hao p00'
! not ina2propriately called, of Mr.. Senate
/. SEWARD, has, in consequence of subsequen
+ events, the natural and legitimate results o
! Abolition teaching, assumed an importanc
. which its author scarcely expected Th
idea it conveys, the dim dark, dismal vision
: of the future which the mind is forced tt
contemplate, and the bitter end which loom
f up in the distance, seem to have dampeneC
r the ardor and impaired the confidence Of th'
| Honorable Senator and his satellites, in re
gard to the erpediencey of preaching ant
promulgatiDg his true doctrines, at the pres
ent time: and hence, we find them now en-
deavoring to slave over or explain away the
palpabls and obvious meaning Of the Hon
Senator'S pronWncidmento.
The visions Of Presidential honors, now
near at hand, doubtless exercise poten
effect with some aspirants, but the people
must Lot stop their ears nor shut their eyes
to the glaring facts conveyed in the words
of SEwARD-words of bloody import aud
direful consequences apologizing for, aud
explanations of which, though they Grained
down as thick as black berries" cannot al
ter, mitigate, or explain away.
Tie conscience of the Hon. Senator, nat
urally Of an elastic cast, and of his camp
followers, seem, somewhat, to have assumed
the penitential mood of late hence, we find
studious efforts making to explain the mean
ing away. Among those who seem to think
the Senator went it rather strong is Harper S
(neutral) Magazine, which seizes every oppor
tunity, favorable or unfovorable to assail the
Democratic, and bolster up the Republican
party. In the No. for March, there is
notice of speech delivered in the Senate
by Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, who felt the
necessity of defending Mr.. Seward Mr..
Fessenden explained the "irrepressible con-
hict" doctrines thus:
"The true meaning of the famous phrase
respecting the 'irrepressible conflict" was
not that free and slave States could not exist
together as friends, but that if free and slave
laborers we're brought together on the same
soil there would be antagonism,' &c.
Was there ever greater attempt at per.
version? How any intelligent man could
utter such sentence in the face of plain
words, common sense and honesty, in the
face of the American Senate and before the
world, is truly astounding. Let us for a
moment inquire and see how the explanatory
sentence is sustained by the text. Mr.. Sew
ard, at Rochester, said:
'It is an irrepressble conflict between
opposing and enduring forces, and it means
that the United States must become either
entirely slaveholding nation, or entirely a
free labor nation Either the cotton and
rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar
plantations of Louisiana will be titled by free
labor, or else the rice fields and wheat fields
of Massachusetts, and New York must again
be surrendered by their farmers to slaue cug.
tire, de-"
Facts are stubborn things.
"Irrepressible," according to Webster,
means ''iD manner or degree that cannot
be repfessed" Torepress, is to crush, quell,
put down, subdue, restrain; therefore, "irre
pressible" is that which cannot be crushed,
quelled, put down subdued repressed. re-
strained. "Coufict" is collision, struggle,
c0moat, an agony.
1t seems to us, therefore, palpa5le that
Stewards plain and obvious meaning is, that
a coufict, combat, struggle, which is 'irre>
preSsible," " and cannot be subdued, quelled,
put down, or restrained, is now iD progress
between "enduring forces," that is "slave
labor" and ''free labor" the one to force
"slave labor upon the rye and wheat fields
of Massachusetts and New York" which we
say is entirely untrue and unfounded, and
the other to force free labor upon the cotton
fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plan.
tations of Louisiana" which il no doubt true.
And, moreover, to make the idea of the
sentence more obnoxious, Seward adds that
the "enduring force" of 'slave labor" would
render Boston aud New York once more
markets for trade in the bodies and soul, ofI
men,"
In the face of facts, palpable like these,
an honorable Senator from the State of Maine,
attempts to divert the public attention from
the dnimuS of the sentence uttered by Sew
ard, and to lead it into the consideration of
another, and, in his opinion, more favorable
view of the New York Senator's fanatical
remark But tbs futile to attempt it. 1t is
known to all men, that iu the infancy of the
Republic, eight States now called free States,
held slaves; and at the option and discretion
of the people of those States, slavery was
abolished Was any "opposing force" or
resistance made to this measure then by
those retaining slaves? Not at all, men
we're allowed to exercise ther will and voli-
ton in this matter without let or hindrance
from any quarter. And now, if any of the
States in which slavery exists, were to abol-
ish the institution, does any man suppose
that any of the sister States, or the people
of those States would interfere to prevent itY
They most assuredly would not Well then,
does this look like an "irrepressble," ungo
vernable, unconquerable Conflict" struggle
combat, agony, to reintroduce slavery into
"the rye fields, and wheat fields of Massachu
setts and New York;" Such an idea exists
only in the heated and fanatical imagination
of the Senator from New York, and the
hord, Of jackals which surround him.
It has been suggested in some quarters