Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1862-05-29

Tia slsetoss -of MARSHALL County who arc in
favor ola vigorous Prosecution of the war for the
pFeseuaion ofthe Union. all the maintenance Of
the Constitution AMI opposed 10 tho disoyal State
Convention OF the eth Of January last. are. with
on respect to past Political Associations, invited to
meet in Mass Convention. in Plymouth. at the
= Court Honsc. on the Iiih Of June. le62, at o..
clock. P. ". for the purpose of appointing dele
gates 20 represent Marshall County in the Union
State Convention to be held at indianapolis on the
Wednesday following. where candidates for State
cmces viii be nominated to be voted for at the
ne1s general election.
b order ofCcntral Committee
------s- -
Democrats adopting Abolition Doctrines.
Many are tho kicks and curses the radi.
cal. abolilionists havs received, at the
hands Of the democratic party. for their
peculiar anti-slavery doctrines. In the eyes
Of ths democratic party the great crime Of
being an aboli.ionist Was not that they
believed freedom national and slavery Sec
tiousl bot bscssse shey believed and ad.
vocatci the doctrine thst tho laws Of bu.
'fnsdisy, Is taught IN the uoly Scriptures.
hal greater claims on their obedience than
rshs FEDERAL slave COLES. which require the
'sasfsst and return Of fugitive slaves. But
g fhcir credit be. it said land even their
political enemies VIII accord them this. }
thy spplicl their higher law" doctrine
se'cas to The slave question. They did
ssbis because they believed tito be nat :.
tn which rested entirely between their con.
.1eience and tLeir country. that il was q
snsf:ss closely related to their religion. and
amt . marc matter of policy. The demo-
scsetic pasty. either through the Admins
ration or Congress. have always coniroll-
Of this Government. and, never failed in
swnljiug its mighty influence for the protec-
ton. extension and pcrretastion Of African
slssery. They male the laws to suit them
se'ves. and therefore any disposition on
,fhs part VI tbs abolitionists to question
.-tbsir moral fssce was met by the most bitter
cpposition and unqualified hatred on the
part Of the democratic party. Why was
this? Simply bccaus abolitionists..l loved
.nAivsrssl frse.lon and hated slavery. and
s'the might've slave law was inimical to their
principles: while the democrats sneered at
tho theorr Of universal freedom. loved
.-alAveTy. and advocated the doctrine Of the
sight of property in man. and the laws
were made specially to support these prin-
ciplcs.
Bot now matters have underwent con-
-siderabls change. We hayo an Admins
tsstion which worships not at the shrine
of African slavery. We have Congress
which does not believe that the Constitu-
zion was male solely for the protection
Of slavery at the expense of the Govern
ment. Our national Legislators do not
now devote the larger part Of their time
TO the strengthening of slavery. and presto
The democrats change their principles also.
Senator Davis. Of Kentucky. confricr Of
Bright. voorhees,. and vallandigham. rises
on the Senate floor anu says:
Until the Supreme Court OF the Uni
ted States has decided . law to be con-
stitutionsl. every citizen has Q right TO
Judge for himself. upon his own response
biity q the constitutionality of the law.
and be has right to resist it according to
his own Judgment. and to submit him
.self TO the proper courts when his con-
duct shall become subject to their juds
smenf.h szl5A sss4 p
.rsAnl The. Cincinnati Enquirer. one Of
tho ablcst democratic papers in the north
west. ID supporting Davis position. says:
1T viii not be denied that It is
possible Tor o Congress to pass measures
fhat deserve to be characterized as uncon-
stitutional, unwiso. unjust and ubiquitous;
nor will it be denied that. when such meas
ures are passed. every man who stands
iaiusiously. Affected BY them has the right
20 resist 1hoir operation by every means Of
Resistance that he can devise"
The advscsting Of the very doctrine
sbovs quoted Is what has made the aboli.
fi66isis so abhorrent in the eyes Of tht
- $50 Pestys 49, = - ''So = s'Sy
lose tho ascoudency in our National Legis
iAtu1sssheys uulesitasingly seize upon and
stssnuously advocate Tue same unpslatabl'
.doessnss. and apply il to every species Q
Legislation. ghisb rups contrary to thsi
-psfsiplse.: The Democratic party u th'
ysessas time arc advocating tho sans
:.oaioos aoctrines fOr which they hav'
cursed tie abolilionists time and again
and -xay2- Simply because tho in
.ssssts 81 slavery ere endangered. Thi'
doctfias WAS regarded as dangerous in ab
sol:donists. Is il not equally SO in demo
Gsts Il tho people are allowed to exer
ciaes The privilege of regulating an act o
Gsugssssuutif Il u approved By the Unite'
stsscs Supreme Court. then our law
must be regarded IS Of no binding fore
until they receive such approval. Such
doctrine y subvcrsive Of I'll Law and gov
sssmsut. snd can Ieeeivs the approval Q
- ~ >xr@nx>kfno 4hoae vcbo ara deem 4