that the organized Territories of the Union to-day sustain to the government under our Federal Constitution. In fact the great cause of revolution was the arrogant presumption of the royal Governors and Officers of the Crown, in regard to the internal and domestic concerns of the Colonies. No gigantic central power or imperial dynasty can rise on the will of this Republic while these memories of oppression and despotism last.

The remainder of this platform relative to Kansas and slavery, consists of unfounded attacks against the Democratic party, clothed in objectionable terms, unbecoming any public body of American citizens, especially those claiming exclusively the title of freemen. The quotations already made connecting the abhorrent practice of polygamy with an institution that prevailed in every State of the American Union except one, when the Constitution was framed, is an insult to the memory of the founders of the Republic, and a foul attempt to disgrace the people of the South, whose patriotic devotion to the institutions of the country is recorded on every page of its history. In all this exciting controversy the South has maintained the defensive.

The pretence for the lawful and unlawful action of the Republicans is particularly found in the apprehension entertained by Northern demagogues that the South intend to re-establish the African slave trade. If this should be effected, the disunionists will be entitled to the honor of the measure, as they are guilty of having perpetuated slavery in several States, which would have renounced it long since, had there been no attempt from abroad to create insurrection. The Charleston Standard, which originated this proposition, re

marks :

"The sentiment of opposition to our institutions has led to further acts of political aggression. The entrenchment of our position has been no impediment to legislative and territorial circumscription. Yielding ground before our adversaries, we have come at last to points beyond which we can yield no further, and the alternatives of surrender or reaction have been forced upon us."

There is no danger of this inhuman traffic being renewed by the South: the only fear is, that the well-known instinctive avarice of abolition merchants may change our humane policy, as they endeavored to defeat its adoption in the Convention of 1787. In opposition to Mr. Madison and his Southern associates, the delegates from Massachusetts and other Northern States succeeded in postponing its abolition, from 1800 to 1808, and urged a continuation until the year 1820, assigning as a reason that their ships were largely engaged in the trade. The course pursued by these Eastern philanthropists at that early day, is consistent with the character of abolitionism ever since, for more slavers have been fitted out in the port of Boston during fifty years past, than at all others in the country. The next issue raised by the opposition to the policy of the Democratic party was its resistance to the repeal of the sectional act of 1820, misnamed the Missouri Compromise. This law, far from being a mutual compromise, partook more of an act of force, and was merely acquiesced in for the sake of temporary peace. It was so regarded by Jefferson and other eminent statesmen of that day. In a letter of 13th April, 1820, Jefferson wrote as follows:

"The old schism of Federal and Republican threatened nothing, because it existed in every State and united them together by the fraternalism of party. But the coincidence of a marked principle, moral and political, with a geographical line, once conceived, I fear never more would be obliterated from the mind: That it would be recurring on every occasion, and renewing irritations, until it would kindle such mutual moral hatred as to render separation preferable to eternal discord." Again on the 22d, he said:

"I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not far distant. But this momentous question, like the firebell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once the knell of the Union."

The threatening aspect of national affairs predicted by Jefferson, in the prophetic words just quoted, was also foreseen by Washington, who, in his farewell address, cautioned the country against geographical lines and sectional parties. There is no question that all the danger through which the country is now passing has resulted from the enactment of 1820, which was inconsistent with the constitution and the whole policy of the government on this subject; for, in the cession of the NorthWest territory by Virginia, in 1787, it was received by Congress with conditions excluding slavery, because the people, who had the sole right to determine the question, had already ordained that it should not exist, the United States merely ratifying the municipal law then in force, in its act of acceрtance of the territory.

The compromise of 1820 was not only an evasion, but a radical violation of the Constitution-a reproach to the intelligence of the day, and a grave mockery of that equality and common independence of the States which the Federal Union has designed to recognize and secure. This base measure of intervention and intolerance was enacted in a spirit of timidity, to allay the bitterness of an already monstrous sectarianism, and restore temporary tranquillity to the country, though at the sacrifice of a great principle, which should have been triumphantly and forever vindicated at the very threshold of its innovation. The same lack of courage that prevented the men of 1820 from settling this question upon the funda mental law of Non-Intervention and equality of rights as between the States, preserved the unprincipled compromise, a stigma upon our National Statute Book, until 1854, when an able and fearless Democratic statesman (Senator Douglas, of Illinois) was found to propose and carry its repeal, against a warfare of fanaticism, and in defiance of sectional terrors, to which the storms of 1820 were but as "dust in the balance." The wisdom and patriotism of the nation has upheld the statesman, and continued in power the party that did the deed.

The Democratic party occupies the same position now as it ever has, and the charge that it is in favor of extending slavery is utterly false. It merely desires the legislation of Congress to conforin to the Constitution and the established policy of the government. The assertion that the Democratic party is sectional, is equally untrue. Its nominations are made by full representations from every State in the Union, and its platform of principles has always been as comprehensive as the Constitution, neither recognising sections nor creeds, but looking forward to the day when the Constitution of the Republic shall extend over this whole continent.

To show the concurrence of the Republican party, when first assembled in National Convention, in the "irrepressible conflict" doctrine, and the incendiary policy of the present time, we submit the following quotations from the remarks of distinguished leaders then made in the Philadelphia Convention of 1856:

In that body, Senator Henry Wilson said:

"I tell you here to-night, that the agitation of this question of human slavery will continue while the foot of a slave presses the soil of the American Republic."

Gen. James Watson Webb remarked:

"On the action of this Convention depends the fate of the country; if the Republicans fail at the ballot-box, we will be forced to drive back the slaveocracy with fire and sword." Rufus P. Spaulding spoke as follows:

"In case of the alternative being presented, of the continuance of slavery or a dissolution of the Union, I am for dissolution, and I care not how quick it comes."

Hon. Erastus Hopkins said:

"If peaceful means fail us, and we are driven to the last extremity, where ballots are useless, then we'll make bullets

effective."

Similar sentiments were expressed by a large majority of the Convention, and, like their sectional resolutions, were responded to with "tremendous applause."

The sectional fires ignited in that Convention rapidly increased, and spread over all the Northern States.

Benjamin F. Wade, Senator from Ohio, in a speech delivered in that canvass, said:

"That there was but one issue before the people, and that was the question of American slavery. He said the Whig party is not only dead, but stinks. It shows signs occasionally of convulsive spasms, as is sometimes exhibited in the dead snake's tail, after the head and body have been burned. There is really no union now between the North and South, and he believed no two nations upon the earth entertain feelings of more bitter rancor towards each other than these two nations of the Republic. The only salvation of the Union, therefore, was to be found in divesting it entirely from all taint of slavery." Nathaniel P. Banks, then Speaker of the House of Representatives, whose name was withdrawn from the candidacy of the Know-Nothing Seceders' Convention, to make way for Fremont, also spoke as follows:

"Although I am not one of that class of men who cry for the perpetuation of the Union, though I am willing, in a certain state of circumstances, to let it slide,' I have no fear for its perpetuation."

Resolutions in conformity with these sentiments were passed by most of the public meetings held in the North, to respond to the nomination of Fremont and Dayton, and they were sustained by Greeley, Barlow, Raymond, and the conductors of other leading journals in their interest; while the Rev. Ward Beecher, Theodore Parker, Dr. Cheever, and a host of ministers of the Gospel, left their pulpits to participate in the traitorous movement.

W. Lloyd Garrison, who said, "if he had a million of votes, they should be cast for the Republican candidate," joined other infidel agrarians in blasphemous imprecations on the country; Fry, of the Tribune, compared Fremont to the "Saviour of the world;" Burlingame called for an "anti-slavery Constitution, anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God."

In the midst of all this, Joshua R. Giddings, for twenty years their representative in Congress, invoked British aid as follows:"I look forward to the day, when there shall be a servile insurrection in the South-when the black man, armed with British bayonets, and led on by British officers, shall assert his freedom, and wage a war of extermination against his masterwhen the torch of the incendiary shall light up the towns and cities of the South, and blot out the last vestige of slavery; and though I may not mock at their calamity, nor laugh when their fear cometh, yet I will hail it as the dawn of a political millennium."

To this patriotic appeal the English and French press responded,

"We rejoice to learn from the American newspapers that Col. Fremont's prospects, as the 'Republican' candidate for the Presidency, are daily brightening. Mass-meetings of his supporters have been held at various parts of the North, at which an amount of popular enthusiasm has been evoked, such as never before marked the progress of the cause of Freedom." London Star.

"Our sympathies are entirely with Col. Fremont. We hope to see no extension of the Democratic principles in the United States. It is dangerous to European governments."-Paris Moniteur.

"We should be sorry to see Mr. Buchanan elected, because he is in favor of preserving the obnoxious institutions as they exist, and the unity of States. There is no safety for European monarchical government, if the progressive spirit of the Democracy of the United States is allowed to succeed. Elect Fremont, and the first blow to the separation of the States is effected."-London Chronicle.

The Paris correspondent of the New York Times said,

"Every political journal of Paris has raised the flag of 'Fremont,' to quote the American style; and if the election depended on the European States, Fremont would be elected unanimously."

The London Times advised a dissolution of the Union. It said :

"The time for all this mere talk is over now, and the northern must fight for his principles, if he wants his principles to prevail. He must either leave the Union, or he must rule the Union."

The spirit of opposition to Democracy and in favor of sectionalism, as a prelude to disunion and the downfall of the Republic there exhibited in the sympathy offered to the Republicans, exists still, and will ever be natural to Oligarchies and Monarchies.

It has been shown that the Republican party contested the election of 1856 on sectional principles, leading to disunion; it is now proposed to show that these principles still control the action of that party, and that they were especially brought to bear in full force in the late senatorial election in Illinois.