Democrats had been opposed to the Union. And, though these facts are plain and conclusive to ali reasonable men, yet it is sad to think that the misrepresentations will not cease, and that the party which arrogates to itself all the virtue is most incorrigibly addicted to prevarication.

The conclusion of the war was followed by the lamentable assassination of President Lincoln and the attempted impeachment of Andrew Johnson, the various "reconstruction" measures and the enfranchisement of the negroes. The latter measure, ostensibly advanced to enable the African to take care of himself, was really intended to increase the Republican vote at the South, but it has not resulted as they anticipated -the black man having shown an unexpected willingness to vote as he pleases, and not having yet got his "forty acres and his mule," is somewhat inclined to go back on his self-constituted friends. And hence the long tales of Southern outrages and crimes-a few, perhaps, too true, but for the most part simply a tissue of falsehood

The next epoch-the reign of General Grant—will long be remembered as the high carnival of licentiousness; of whisky rings, Indian thefts, and Union Pacific steals; of an increase in the President's salary, when it was already, perhaps, too large, and of the "third term" proposition, "squinting," as as Patrick Henry used to say,

towards monarchy. All of this, we think, goes to prove the Republican party a legitimate child of its old Federal ancestor.

The crowning act of infamy, however, remains to be recorded.

The Presidential election of 1876 resulted in the election of Mr. Samuel J. Tilden. This fact is now fully acknowledged by leading Republicans, and was lately admitted in Congress by a distinguished Senator from New York, hitherto

a

"machinist" of that party. It is also confirmed by the official vote as afterwards ascertained:

For T.lden......1,285,992. For Hayes......4,033,768.

Yet through the connivance and corrupt machinery of the "Carpet Bag" governments in the Southern States, established by the Republican party, and the ready compliance of some of its most distinguished men in a grand scheme of fraud, the party leaders were enabled to defeat the will of the people and to install a man in the Presidential office whom they now confess was never elected thereto.

It may be here inquired, if Mr. Tilden was so unquestionably elected, why did not his friends persist in his inauguration? The answer is this: The concentration of troops in and around Washington showed that usurpation was to be supported by force, and the rascality of the "returning boards "-a patent arrangement by which the carpet-baggers in the South were

enabled to count or throw out votes just as they pleased-made it difficult to ascertain for some time what was the real result. If patient submission to great injustice, rather than imbrue his country in the perils of civil war, entitles one to honorable esteem, then Mr. Tilden will, in future years, be remembered with far greater respect than the party tool who was enabled by a gigantic fraud to enjoy, for a brief time, his ill-gotten wages.

This subject will be dismissed with the remark that true to its Federal instincts, this party now proposes that the central government shall be the sole judge of any question of usurpation of power or principles not delegated to it by the people in their charter, the Constitutionwhich may in future arise. When that measure shall have been accomplished the party will be then able to imitate the wolf in the fable. "A wolf went to a brook to drink, and seeing a lamb a little below him, said: 'How dare you muddy the water which I must drink?' to which the lamb answered: Since the water flows from you to me, how can you complain?' Whereat the wolf was wroth," and the party papers of the day give glowing accounts of his gallantry in vindicating his right to drink at the stream, and in punishing the insinuation of the pusillanimous sheep.

CHAPTER X.

THE VIRGINIA AND KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF

1798-99.

Their Authorship and "Obvious Meaning and Import"-Endorsed by the Democratic Party-Originally Aimed at the Obnoxious Alien and Sedition Laws-Proclaim a Warm Attachment to the UnionNo Nullification-No Secession-Constitutional Methods for Redress of Grievances - Views of Their Authors-Extracts-Webster and Hayne-Misapplied by South Carolina-Identical Language of the Hartford Convention.

As the earliest avowal of the distinct rights of States, these resolutions have received much attention. First drafted by Madison and Jefferson respectively, their illustrious origir, as well as their general tenor and import, have contributed to give them a wide reputation. As endorsed by the Democratic party in 1856, in their "obvious meaning and import," it will be interesting to every Democrat to learn all the facts connected with their appearance, as well as the precise ideas of State Rights, which they asserted and promulgated. As the heresies of separation, nullification, and secession have been sought to be justified by appeals to these resolutions, it is essential that every Democrat should understand the true facts. That they are in their obvious meaning and import full of professions of attachment to the Constitution,

and of the strongest desires for the preservation and prosperity of the Union, and that the right of the State to agitate against and procure the repeal of unconstitutional laws of Congress, by the methods prescribed by the Constitution, were all that the authors of these resolutions intended to claim, or have been since claimed by the Democratic party. When it is remembered that several acts of Congress have been pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and that this result was obtained by a just and patriotic opposition to these obnoxious laws, it will readily be perceived that cases may again occur, as they have in the past, which may call for opposition. That this may be attempted by the people of one or more States in concert with other States in the endeavor to procure the repeal of unconstitutional laws, or by calling conventions to amend the Constitution, no one can justly question. But that the resolutions under consideration teach the right of a State or States to oppose a law of Congress by force, was denied by their authors, and has never been accepted by the Democratic party.

The acts of Congress, however, known as the Alien and Sedition Laws, against which these resolutions were aimed, expired in 1801, and have long since ceased to possess any political significance, yet the frequent reference to these resolutions as the origin of the Democratic idea of State Rights, requires a careful consideration of them