The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1879-11-21
TIE nEpsBnIcAx rAETY AND STATE
nEeBfTE.

Of the Democratic party on this ques-
ton. The Cincinnati Inquirer has the
following to say as to the position Of
the Republican PARTY on the question
Of State rights before it had occasion
to change It's views in order 70 hold on
to the aiisirs If the government:
~ 1860 the Republican party was
in the buoyancy Of youth, in the hope
and pride of ssnguine ambition, and
in the meekHess Of good behavior,
ike that Of stranger seeking 70 make
friends. Like most boys it was full Of
good re..ointions Without patronage,
it was compelled TO make an appeal to
conscience, TO the sense of justice, to
flss jasgssssst spd 1..ason. aud It Was
forced TO iiase this appeal upon the con
stitution, the fundamental Law of the
land. IL dared not then openly and
hagIantly defy tie constitution, for it
was bnmIy knocking at the gates Of
power. The constitution, even so short
time ago, was held in some respect
and reverence. There was something
lusty party, IN melancholy minority,
without money 10 disbnrse or Offices to
dispense. pleading with millions Of men
to vote for 1t because it claimed to rep
resent an i.lea within the constitution
that hovered about freedom. The Re
publican party never before and never
after occupied "A position 50 eminent.
nd
was in some s.use: made lofty with
hope. 1t seemed to try 10 stand upon
the constitution. and plead foT liberty
for all men. Ia that convention Of
1860 were some If the men who have
lent luster to the Republican party, and
have been identified with its only glo
ries. John 4. Andrew was there from
Massachusetta, brave, eloquent, lofty,
tender, with c0nN lotions made beautiful
by courage and favored with sentiment.
George S. Boutwell,, from the same
State, was there, tame but tenacious,
somewhat dull but firm, not SNOWY but
tireless. Eben f. Stone, who was tenn
porary chairman OF the recent Massa-
chusetts Republican Convention, was a
delegate, and VIM. C!afin and Samuel
Hooper, both since then prominent in
the politics of Massachusetts, were
delegates to this convention. Gideon
| Wells, Of Connecticut, was delegate
at large, as were William M. Evarts
and Preston King, of New York.
George William Curtis was the first
delegate fiom the first district Of New
| York and it vas he, of the melodious
voice and scholarly face, the g-ntl-, cul-
tured dreamer, then 50 much al the
hope of our literature, Who asked the
convention if it was prepared Ia 20
upon the record as voting down ths
declaration Of independence. William
Curtis Ncyes aud James w. Nye were
delegates from New York. David
Wilmot was a delegate at large from
Pennsylvania. Thad. Stevens, the IN.
domitable, the heroic, was also dele
gate at large. Wm. ID. Kelley was
there. Francis p Blair and Mont
gomery BLAIR were delegates. Tom
Corwin, the wit, the man of sunshine,
was delegate from Ohio Joshua Il.
Gliding, fearless, devoted, conspicuous,
was delegate from Ohio. Frank Has
saurek was there, AN eloquent speaker.
David Davis and o. H. Browning were
delegates from Illinois. Carl SchurZ,
of course, was there, a delegate at
large from Wisconsin. From what
convention has this mercenary destruc-
: ZIONIST and place seeker been absent
since Europe spewed him into this
| / L A - l..
we're delegates. Frank Blair, Jr., aud
Gratz Brown were delegates at large
from Missouri. And Horace Greeley,
that strange combination of guileless-
ness and intrigue, of ambition and mod
: esty, of loving kindness and bitterness,
of breadth and narrowness, of philoso-
= phv and fickleuess, of humaneness
broad as the sea and spites as little as
the pebbles it washes on the whitened
shore, a monument of tireless toll until
he filled grave of despair-Horace
Greeley, the hater of Seward, the err
ratio man of unsurpassed sincerity, the
weak man Of power, was there as
delegate from Oregon. Such was the
composition of the convention. Geo.
S. Boutwell,, +. p. Blair, Joseph III.
!. Barrett, of Ohio, Carl Schurz, j. A.
: : Kasson and Horace Greeley were
: among the members of the committee
! on resolutions. The Republican party,
: let us believe, was then honest and ear
: nest. What did this convention, In
that heur, say against the rights of the
Statesl
:, The second resolution in the platform
of this convention declares:
> "That the maintenance of the princi
pies promulgated in the Declaration ot
;. Independence and embodied in the Fed
~ eral Constitution is essen
" tial to the preservation of our repub
!, lican institutions and that the fedora
. !. constitution, the rights of the States
and the union of the States, must ant
shall be preserved"
The Republican party IN 1860 wa
not content with the enunciation of th
to rights of the States. The fourth reso
luton of this platform was as follows
x eThat the maintenance inviolate Q
the rights of the States, and especiall,
ar the right of each State, to order AM
control its own domestic institution
according to its own Judgment exclu
~ sively, is essential to that balance Q
power on which the perfection and en-
O. duranee of our political fabric depend
and we denounce the lawless invasion
er by armed force Of any State or Terri
IN tory, no matter under what pretext, a
among the pravest of crimes.