Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1864-03-07
Democratic convention.

Connecticut Democratic Convention.
The Connecticut Democratic State Conven-
ton met in New Haven on Wednesday last.
Hon. W w. EAros of Hartford. presided. The
following State ticket was nominated:
For Governor-0rigen s Seymour, of Ltch-
field,
For Lieutenant Governor-Thomas h. Bond,
of New Haven.
For Secretary of State-James II. .Hoyt. of
Stamford.
For Treasurer-Andrew L. Kidston, of New
Haven. fsfss- -.t.r. f-i..
For Comptroller-Lloyd E. Baldwin, of Wind
ham.
Previous to ballotng for Governor, It was an
nounced that Hon. THoxAs b. SEYNouR declined
to be considered candidate.
The delegates from the several Congressional
Districts nominated the following gentlemen as
delegates at large to the National Convention at
Chicago, and the nominations were ratified by
the Convention:
Ist District-Hon. W. w. Eaton. of Hart
ford fc1 h f8 iG 12sHao
2d-Chas r. Ingersoll. of New Haven.
3d-Wm. NJ. Converse, of Franklin.
4th-George Taylor, of New Milford.
The delegates from the various counties were
also chosen, as follows:
Hartford County-A E. Burr, of Hartford
New Haven-Nathan A. Baldwin, of Mil
ford
New London-F A. Allen, of New London.
Fairfeld-W F. Taylor, of Dandy.
Litchfed-Roland Hitchcock, of Winchester.
Windham-F s. Burgess, of Plainfeld.
Middlesex-lsaac Arnold, of Haddam.
Tolland-C. F. Sumner, of Bolton.
Each delegate was empowered to select
substitute.
The Democratic Party and Slavery.
1t has for some time been the cue of the ad-
versaries of the Democratic party to stigmatize
il as pro slavery party, and to excite prejudice
against it as the patron and apologist of an in
stitution which is condemned by the civilization
OF the age. That this is an unjust imputation on
the Democracy of the Northern States is dem
onstrsted by the broad and undeniable fact that
slavery was abolished in all the Northern States
in which it ever existed with the warm approval
and hearty concurrence OF all the people Of those
States without distinction of party. No North
ern Democrat ever opposed or regretted the abo-
lition OF slavery in the State of his residence,
much less ever proposed or wished its re estah-
lishment. The head of family who takes the
most careful pains to train up his own children
in the principles of Christian virtue, gives the
strongest possible evidence of his approval of
those principles, even though he may not think
il his duty to interfere with the domestic dsc-
pline OF his iufidel neighbor. II that neighbor
happens TO be his partner in business, the fact
that they are members of the same firm confers
upon neither any control over the household of
the other, however strongly he may disapprove
Of its management. But can there be no virtue
unless il be of that meddlesome and intrusive
kind which violates the sacred right of distinct
families, or of distinct communities, TO beexempt
from the oficious and censorious surveillance of
neghboring families, or neighboring communi
ties? Does man cease to be virtuous because,
in addition to other virtues, he practises the dis
Greet and peace prompting virtue of minding his
own busiDessI
Besides the great cardinal fact, on which we
insist, that the Northern Democrats have proved
their adherence OF slavery by assisting in ex-
peing it from their own States and boiling the
doors against its return, they have expressed
public and constant satisfaction at all move
ments towards its abolition in other States. by
the people OF those States, and equally decided
depreciation of the arrest of such movements by
impertinent outside interference. We could, If
necessary, fill our columns to overfiowing with
citations from the documents, speeches and
writings of Democratic statesmen. IN which il
was urged as strong point against the abolition
crusade of the last thirty years, that il had put
back emancipation in the border slave States
Is this species of argument to be used by
men who approve Of slavery and desire its con
tinuancc2
The pro slavery stigma attempted to be fixed
on Northern Democrats is calumny; il has
always been repelled as a calumny throughout
the ht ed controversies which have prevailed
since the annexation OF Texas.
Among Southern Democrats the slavery issue
was early merged in the higher issue of the right
Of the States 10 control their domestic affairs,
and as it was only by attacks on slavery that this
right assaled, they were led 10 defend the
outpost if il the citadel itself, and there
by furnished a pretext for the calumny against
the Democratic party. But the Democrats of the
North. in rcpelliug the calumny, have steadily
asserted that it was not slavery which they
wished to uphold. but only the constitutional
right of each State to determine for itself (as the
Northern States had done) when il would
abolish slavery, or whether il would abolish it at
all.
The facts we have here stated are of such
general notorety that no person tolerably
quainted with our political history will be likely
to deny them. Ii only remains to apply the
principles which undere them to present issues.
keep in my house small Aquarium and a
few cenary birds. and my neighbor. whose taste
a cage of poisonous serpents, whose breath in
fects the atmosphere of his apartments and i'm
impairs the health Of his family have no more
right 10 enter his house and killor lineage bis
serpents than he has to enter mine and break
nv aquarium But suppose he has disturbed
the peace of the neighborhcod, and committed n
homicide upon of my children: although /
cannot enter his house the officer of the law
may, and II | am summoned as one of posse
i = ~ A. II
his snake cage may be broken to pieces in the
melee, and the life trodden out OF the Kissing
monster, without any grounds of action for
trespass. No magistrate could have issued a
warrant for killing the serpents; but the officer
of the law, once legally in the house. is not re-
sponsible for any damage which may inciden-
tally be done in overp0wering resistance Whe
ther it be the noxious snakes or costly porcelain
dishes that are destroyed. il is all the same. And
SO. when our armies are legally within the Sou
thern States for the purpose of overpowering re
sistance those who make. the resistance have
simply to thank themselves whether it is their
crops, their commerce, or slavery that is Incl
tally destroyed
Now. so far as observe any deviation from
the principles which we have thus stated in the
form of parable, il consists either in an as
sumption that because the officer of the law is not
responsible for damages necessarily incident to
the discharge of his duty, he may therefore do all
other damage that he can; or in the contrary as
sumption, that because the officer had no origin
al right to enter the house. kill the snakes. he
is obliged to leave them in good health Neither
assumption is admissible. The radicalsargu as
though it we're the duty of the officer when once
in the house, to lay about him and do all the
damage in bis power But he cannot 60 beyond
the necessity of executing the law. Even if the
homicide was committed because the man 3
neghbors quaneled with him about his snakes,