The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1880-08-28
Fighting for Principles.

What are the principles Lee and
jackson fought for? The question
has instant practical Importance for
every Northern citizen. For Wade
Hampton, who represents the Solid
South with its 13S electoral votes
gained mainly by fiauds pnplh,If
asserts that the Democrats of me
South are contending for 1.-THE same
principles for which Lee and Jackson
fought fol four years" These 1873
electora. votes give possibility of
success, if any Northern States are of
the same mind. What, then, are the
principles for which Lee and jackson
fought. and for which Northern
State will vote, if it votes with the
Solid South?
The right of secession was the prin-
ciple for which Lee and Jackson pro-
fessedly contended. Any s ate, they
claimed, could dissolve the Ur ion at
its pleasure. A simple resolution to
secede, adopted by the temporary
majority or the people or their rep
resentatives in any State, was enough
to rend all ties between the people of
that State and the United States.
Against that doctrine of secession the
loyal people of this country raised
powerful armies, spent money by the
thousand millions, and sacrificed the
lives of two hundred thousand pat
riots. Are they to vote that they
were wrong? Will the people of a
Northern STATE vote that the blood
and treasure of the North were spent
in an unholy and unjust effort? Will
they mark with dishonor the graves
of the braye men who died that the
Nation might live?
Secession had cause. The princi-
pie for which the Southern States Sc
ceded was one of the principles for
which Lee and Jackson fought. Sc.
cession was to preserve slavery. The
right of white men to hold black Inelf
and women in bondage, and to treat
them in every respect as cattle, was
the principle for which the Southern
States seeded. The iron hoofs and
wheels of war have passed over the
institution of slavery, and it is dead.
Every foot of the soil of these United
States has been made sacred to free.
dom by Constitutional Amend
ment. Nevertheless, it seems, we
have to fight the battle over again,
for the Democratic party is still con.
tending for "the principles for which
Lee and Jackson fought for four
years" Does the South stikl fancy
that it can restore negro slavery :?
Apparently. Civil rights are denied
to the colored race. Social freedom
is denied. Political rights, especially,
though guaranteed by the Constitu-
ton, are completely denied to these
unhappy people who were once
slaves. Democratic papers at the
South boldly declare that the negro
race is doomed to extinction or slay-
cry that it can continue to exist at
the South only as a servile and en-
slaved race. But is this one of the
principles for which any Northern
State is ready to vote?
The Democratic party, we may as
well remember, has never yet con-
sented 10 the extinction of slavery.
In some places and at some times, its
platforms recognize abolition as a
fact accomplished, but not as fact
irrevocable and irreversible. There
Is not trace of proof that the Dem
oeratic party, if it should gain power
again, would not revoke enfranchise.
ment, undo abolition, and remand
the colored people, by various legal
devices which Democratic States can
easily contrive, to- a condition Of sla-
very. The acts passed by Southern
Legislatures, Immediately after the
war. wonld have remanded the col
ored race to virtual slavery, as we all
know, and they were therefore re-
voked and held void by the loyal
Congress of that day. Since the Dem
ocratic party came into power 1t has
never been able to pass an act for
such a purpose over a Presidential
veto, o,and therefore has refrained from
the disclosure of its real purpose.
But is there shred OF evidence that
such acts would not be quickly passed
if President could be got to sign
them ?
Really, we cann1t guess how far
reaction may go, if it once begins.
When the little stream, not bigger
than mans finger, trickles through
the great dam, it looks harmless
enough. Yet everybody knows that