Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1879-02-05
The Radical Difference Between
the Two Parties.

1t has become quite common re-
mark of late, that there is, at pres
ent, no clearly defined line of de-
marcation between the principles OF
the Republican party aud those OF
the Democratic party, and that the
two parties preserve their respective
Identities more through the strength
of organization than anything else.
1t is true that there have recently
been soit-money men who called
themselves Republicans, and hard
money men who called themselves
Democrats, and that neither party
takes decided stand on the tariff
and other national questions. 1t is
also true that slavery has been abol-
ished, and equality granted to the
negro SO far as the Constitution is
concerned. An examination of some
of the State platforms adopted by
the two parties last fall would reveal
the fact that in some instances they
might have been interchanged with
GU, altering a single vote, or doing
violence to single principle. But
it must not be forgotten that there
is radical, and seemingly inrradica-
bic, difference between the Republl-
can and Democratic creeds. The
difference is as old as the govern
ment itself, and was brought to
the surface the other day in the de-
bate over Senator Enmunds' resolu-
ton asserting the power of the CEN
trail Government to protect citizens
in their right to vote for Congress
sional Representatives
In the question of the relative
powers of the central and State gov
erlments is the fundamental cause
of contention between the two par
ties. 1t was hoped that the matter
would be settled by the vast expen-
diture of blood and treasure in our
civil war, and at the termination OF
the war it was generally understood
that it had been so settled namely,
that this was nation with the pow
er of sustaining and enforcing the
provisions OF its constitution and
laws in all parts OF the common
country But there are unmlstakable
indications that theDemocratic mlnd
has forgotten this stern, and hardly
fought-for Interpretation OF the con
stitution, and is again cherishing its
old doctrine of 'State rights" 1t
does not accept the doctrine of the
war, aud fails to comprehend that
it was not the abo ition of slavery,
but the establishment of natlona
supremacy which was decided by the
surrender o. Lee at AppomattoX
There is no wider difference between
the English Tory, who claims that
kings derive their ant hoiity from
God, aud the English Wing who de-
clares they derive 1T from the Par
lament or people, than there is be-
tween the American Democrat and
Republican, on the question OF ma
tiJual or State power. And right
here is the danger to national eXis
teuce should the Democratic idea
prevail. Ask anyone Of the ordinary
mass of Democrats what his party
believes IN, and be will astoulsh
himself 10y finding ont that he don't
know: bat ask the intelligent Demo
crat, and he will, if be is honest, tell
YOU that it is in abridging the pow
ers Of the central Government. Let
us look back and see how tenacious
~ the Democrats have always con-
tended for this idea.
When the federal constitution was
adopted an attempt was made TO
give the central Government coer-
Give power by a distinct clause, and
the matter became a subject of con-
tention which thr, atened the success
OF the whole project Of national
union. Tie Democrats, or their
predecessors Of that day, resisted
stoutly and successfully that propos.
ed provision. though Jefferson sub
sequently admitted that Congress
need not be specially granted such
power as they have it by law of
nature namely, that Of self preser-
walton. Thus early did the adhesian