Daily national Democrat., 1860-03-10

the htpuOlican organization.
Now, we deny the charge in every particular
The Democratic party do not hold to any such
doctrine, nor do they demand that such q test
should be made.-ErPreSs, ysSterday.
Although the language used in the first
paragraph Of the above extract is rather dis
courteous and unprofessional and not warran-
ted by the rules of gentlemanly courtesy be-
tween respectable public journals, yet we
cannot believe that our cotemporary had any
deliberate design to be insulting He GER
tainly could not have weighed his language
when writing it. Could we imagine that he
really meant to accuse us of descending to the
taseness Of ISLANDER" whether of party or
an individual, we should most assuredly re-
ply to him in very different terms from those
which we now employ. Without further
reference to anything of a personal nature,
we come to the suhject.matter of the article
alluded to.
He says that we attempted, in our Thurs
days issue, "to show that that portion of the
Democratic party, who disagree with MIR.
Douglas in his Territorial policy, are section
al-thOt they believe, not only that slavery
is right in the abstract, but that it is politi-
cal blessing" This statement is very incor-
rect. We attempted to show, and did show,
that n certain portion of the Southern Democ.
racy who disagree with Douglas, do believe
that slavery is right in the abstract and is n
political blessing Does the editor of the
Express deny that such opinions are enter
tanned?
The Express editor says again that ce say
that an attempt is being made to establish,
as test of Democracy that a man should
absolutely believe that slavery is a good and
not an epil" And then he says: "Now, we
deny the charge in every particular. The
Democratic party do not hold to any such
doctrine, nor do they demand that such test
should be made Who, tie deuce, said they
did? Not we, certainly. We said that an
attempt was being made to make this thing q
test of Democracy, but that it was the at
tempt of very ultra and sectional portion of
the Democracy, only. The Democratic party,
we cont ended, stood where of old it did, and
where Douglas now stands, on the ground
that it had nothing to do with the moral
right or wrong of slavery. and that q man
who believed slavery wrong. in the abstract
and was yet willing to have it regulated 10y
the local law which established it, was Just
as good Democrat as the man who thought
slavery was positive good and Insisted also
upon its remaining intnct from the hands of
the General Government. Men, who believe,
we said, that slavery is q great national
blessing and that the General Government
should use all its powers to extend and per-
petuate it, are fully as sectional as the Re-
publican party, who contend, on the other
hand, that slavery is great national evil
and that the General Government should use
all its powers to eradicate it. Douglas, we
said, and still say stands between these two
radical and opposing forces, upon the broad
and national ground that, with the question
of the right or wrong of slavery in the ab-
stract we have nothing to do that it is the
creature of local law, and that it is most
properly managed by the local authorities
which have established it; that the General
Government has nothing to do with it further
than to acknowledge the validity of the local
laws regulating the institution, and that the
majority of the people in those localities in
which the question comes up should deter
nine it for themselves aud either have slave
ry or not as they see fit Backing up Doug
las in this position, is in our opinion. ma
iurity of the Democracy of this Union. There
are those, however, who, contending that
slavery is right in the abstract and a national
blessing, desire to see it fostered, encouraged
and extended by the General Government
and they are doing all they can to ingraft thi;
notion into the creed Of the Democratic par
ty. Our language on this head was so plain
in the article which has so disturbed the
equanimity of the Express, that we wonder
that it could have been misunderstood We
said, in reference to the doctrine that slavery
was right in the abstract and great national
blessing and that it ought to be extended and
perpetuated by direct act of the General Gov.
ernment:
1t is well enough for men to entertain
these opinions, Of course, if they like. 1t is
"a matter which concerns their own conscience,
reason and ju lgment But it will not do TO ut
tempt to incorporate them into the Demo
cratic Greed, or TO organize the party on
such basis. 1t would make it purely sec
tional party. Now the men who entertain
these notions and insist that the General
Government shall carry them out in its poll
cy, constitute the party to whom we referred
III the opening of this article, as being the
party directly opposed in the one extreme, to
the Republican organization who occupy the
other The one sectional party contends that
slavery Is an epu, and that, therefore all the
powers of the General Government should
be brought to bear to eradicate it. The
other contends that it is q positive bless
ing, and that the Government should.
therefore, do all in its power to maintain,
extend, and perpetuate it. Here then is a
direct collision of opinions and an open in
evitnble war of sectUns-an "irrepressible
conflict between two opposing forces" for
! which each force is equally responsible. The
| Democratic party, that is the true Old Line
Democracy-best known as the Dt tuglas De.
mocrncy-stand beJweei. these two opposing
forces, and say. "there is no necessity for
such a conflict; entertain such opinions as
you like on the abstract question as to
whether slavery is a good or an evil, a right
or a wrong, but do not destroy the Union,
on account of it the only safe settlement of
the difficulty is TO leave the people of the
States and Territories to iudve for themselves