Year: 1860

low A.. FIR


The Contrast.


i Our Democratic friends of this county ha,


some young aud gentlemen in the


ranks, who are mbitisnsStp commence the


ascent Of the politicalladder. We know som


of these young men personally, and We thin


we understand the leading political idea


which they are inclined to adopt as the Jude


of their political faith and practice. We wisl


to do something for these young men. w


desire to help them on in any generous ant


worthy ambition. which they may cherish
We take the librtyspf pointhg them to ont
I.ofshs most INIT practical LESSONS, row
beng taught n tifie poiftica world, that was


ever illustrated by the lives and destinies o.


any two public men. 1t is the lesson taught
to American young men by the present


fortunes of two very prominent public men
of this country.


Ten years ago, two men entered the United
States Senate about the same time. Both
were just entering the prime Of life, and held
in high esteem by their partizans in their
respective States. The foundations were just
beginning to break up and move from under
the old political parties, from tho rise and
entrance of new political question, or rather
of an old question, long delayed, now coming
upon the people with force no longer to be
averted. 1t was the question Of Slavery in
the Territories, involving that other question
of the recognition of Slavery by the Constitu-
ton IS National. The Whig and Democratic
parties were both divided on these questions,
so as to leave every member free to take sides
upon them without conflicting with party
tramnels. The inducements on either side
were these: On the pro-slavery side were
the compact force of the slaveholding interest,
the control of all Office and place in the Federal
Government, the unpopulality of Free Soil or
"Abolition" sentiments, and the leading and
influential men of both the Whig and Dem
ocratic parties. No man could hold place
in either political organization who was sus-
pected of being tinctured with Free-Soilism.
Anti slavery meetings were mobbed in the
North, and anti-slayery petitions spurned from
the floor Of both houses Of Congress.


On the anti-slavery side were a small and
party, and the consciousness ofright.
The struggle of 1850 came on. The question
was, Should Slavery be admitted on an equal
footing with Freedom into the new Territories?
The slave power held the Offices and the
rewards of both parties in its hands. The
party had nothing to give, but
was small and despised. The crowd of poll
ticians and Office seekers were drifting bodily
over to the strong side. The towards and
the time-servers, who had not lost all con-
science on the matter, took middle ground.
For the sake of avoiding the issue, they gladly
Jumped in with the proposition made by the
to leave the matter of slavery
entirely to the Territories to decide for them
selves - ConstitutionaUy, the shareholders
added, with the knowledge that they had a
Supreme Court, VIII, would decide, when the
matter came before them, that the Territories
Constitutionally could do nothing about it.


Two rising and able men, from two different
States, just entering the prime of life, each
endowed with talent and popularity at home,
met in the United States Senate. Each had
his mark to make there, and National
reputation to gain. The question was which
side to take. One came from the Empire
State Of the East, and the other from what is
to be the Empire State of the West. The
former chose the side of Freedom, and the
weak and unpopular party; the other chose
the side o: Slavery, and the strong and pow
erful party. These two men were WILLIAM
H. SEWARD and STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS. The
former was Immediately marked as fanatic
and an abolitionist, and set down as dead
man politically. The other was greeted on
all sides as an able and honorable man, and
set down as the coming man, whose path to
the Presidency was now clear and open.


We will not stop to notice particularly their
career during the succeeding ten years; how
Douglas grew confident and arrogant as he
grew popular and prominent; how he showered
and reproaches on the brave little
band of Free.Soilers in the Senate on all
occasions, and taunted them with their weak
ness. Ten years have gone by--and mark
the changel The man who went with the
strong party, against right, is now spurned
and despiscd by the honest and intelligent
men of both sections. The North, when be
betrayed, are now setting their feet upon him
with an inexorable but just indignation, that
neuer will be appeased. The South, to whom
he betrayed them, admire the treason, but
despise and repudiate the traitor.


The man who cast in his lot with the right
side and the weak party stands now the
acknowledged leader Of the strongest and most
vigorous party Of the nation-honored for his
honesty and Independence by all parties,
admired as the ablest and most far sighted
statesman tf America; and, though a private
and unpretending citizen, received with such
ovations, North and South, as no private
American citizen, since Washington, has
enjoyed, and which make his journey
trlumphal tour.


Young men of the Democratic party, do
you read the moral of this ten years. most
instructive drama? 1t is this Take the
side that is morally right, whether weakest or
strongest, and let the consequences take care
of themselves


TEN THOUSAND WIDE AwAKEs AT CHICAGO.
The Chicago Journal says ten thousand