Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1865-06-07

81 oy prominent, influential men, that
] thls Union was not TO stand; that the
south was your enemy. In 1910, 1911
ana 1872, we find the same doctrine reit-
Grated by Mr.. Adams the second We
ma 10 the letter, which have lust read
that he says he firmly believes the end
WI come and, by whatever means. even
II II comes by blood, let il come. Are we
| prepared to submit to a state of things
! like this' Are wn IN hao- ,i.Ss~ 1T
lngs year after year, and behold the recent
developments, and say that we feel no ap-
prehension If were to 20 into the
speeches Of Senators | could show Won
that the same idea and the same doctrine.
IN reference TO a dissolution of these
States, has been inculcated by the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts,, Mr.. Wilson,
and the Senator from Ohio, Mr.. Wade.
We find the same dccrine promulgated
by the Senator From New York, TMr.
Seward in remarkable speech delivered,
not in !bis body, but before q portion of
his constituents. remarked before, that
| presented aspecrnen brick, and want
TO follow it up. speak now OF Mr. Sew
ard as politician, making a speech to
the people OF Rochester, as have a right
to do, and shall not misrepresent him
il know it. In that speech, the honora-
ble Senator from New York.
Hitherto, the two systems have exis-
ted in the different States, but side by
side within tie American Union. This
has happened because the Union is a con-
federation OF states. But in another as
pect the United States constitute only
one nation. Increase of population. which
is filling the States out to the very bor-
ders, together with new and extended
network Of railroads end other avenues,
and an internal commerce which daily
becomes more intimate, is rapidly bring
ing the States into higher and more per-
feet social unity or consolidation. Thus
these antagonistic systems are continual
ly coming into closer contact, and collis-
ion results"
The Senator conlinues-I want TO quote
him fully and fairly, and not tear por-
ton OF the speech from the context, and
thus do him injustice:
SHALL | tell you what this collision
means? They who think that it is acci-
dental, unnecessary, the work of interes-
ted or fanatical agitators, and therefore e.
1t 10 an irrepressible conflict between op-
posing and enduring forces, and it means
that the United States must and will soon
er or later, become ether entirely slave
holding nation, or entirely free-labor
patton. Either the cotton and rice fields
of South Carolina and tue sugar planta-
tious of Louisiana will ultimately be till.
ed by free-labor, and Charleston and Now
Orleans become marts for legitimate mer-
chandise alone, or else the rye fields and
wheat fields of Massachusetts, and New
York must again be surrendered by their
farmers TO slave culture, and to the pro-
duc,ion of slaves, and Boston and New
York become once more markets for
trade in the bodies and souls 0: men. 1t
is the failure 10 apprehend this great
truth that induces so many unsuccessful
attempts at final compromise between the
E slave and free States, and it is the exis
tence Of this great fact that renders all
4 such pretended compromises, when made
vain and ephemeSal. Startling as this
saying may appear to you, fellow-citizens
it is by no means an original or even a
modern one"
The doctrine here rroclai med is, that
; there is an irrepressble conflict between
slave labor and free labor. hope the
Senate will pardon me if | digress again
from the line Of my argument, to combat
what, as conceive, is false proposition,
which has no foundation in truth. The
premises of the Senator are wholly incor.
rect; Lut, as long as the conclusions drawn
from are not combatod, they have the
same strength as if the premises were
correct. Now, sir, is there, in fact a con
Yict between slave labor and free labor
If | know myself, | want to be fair and
homes; on this subject; and as humble n'
| conceive myself TO be- and az poor an es
innate as put in any argument of mine
| wish 10 God that might to-day speak
to the citizens of every free State in this
Conrederacy, and could get them, with
unpreiudced minds, to look at this pro.
position a3 it is. What, sir a conflict, an
irrepressible confic. between free and
slave laborl 1t is untrue. 1t is a mis'a-
ken application Of an old principle to au
improper case There is a conflict always
going on between capital and labor but
there il not conflict between two kinds
of labor. By sophistry and ingenuity, o
principle which is conceded by oil, isap-
plied to a wrong case. There is war al
WAYS going on between capital and labor ;
but there is o material difference between
two descriptions of labor, and conflict
between labor in the aggregate ON the one
hand and capital on the other.
Where is the conflict? We know that
as far as labor and capital are concerned,
labor is always trying to get as much cap.
ital for labor as it can on the other han
capital is always trying to get as much la
Dor for capital as it can. Hence there is
an eternal warfare going on between cap
ital and labor, labor wanting to absorb
capital and capital wanting to absorb Ia
Dor. Does that make conflict between
two kinds of iabor2 Not at all. Where
is the conflict in the United Stltes betwe u
slave labor and free labor Is the slave
who is cultivating the rice fields IN Son.n
Carolina, is the slave who is following the
nlow in The rich and fertile plains OF Mss
issippi, in com petition with the man VINO
;s making boots and shoes in New York
al Massachusetts, Is there any conflict
| ah- T. lknrn cnn.