Rensselaer Gazette, Volume 2, Number 11, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 14 July 1858 — DUTV OF ANTI-LECOMPTON MEN. [ARTICLE]

DUTV OF ANTI-LECOMPTON MEN.

The following sensible article, from the Indianapolis Journal, expresses our views exactly, and we recommend its careful perusal by Douglas Democrats in districts where they can have no reasonable expectations of electing their own candidates. We hope the Republicans of the First Congressional District will make no nomination, but vote for Judge Hovey, the Anti-Lecompton Democrat. A correspondent writes us quite a lengthy argument against Republicans supporting Judge Hovey, the independent Anti-Admin-istration candidate for-Congruss in the First District. He sap Judge Hovey stands not only openly, but ostentatiously, on the Cincinnati platform, bases his claims to support on his adherence to that creed, and in no respect adopts, or promises to adopt, the views of Republicans. The whole Douglas party, he contends, are separated by an impassable gulf from honest Republicans, and while they continue their adherence to their platform a Republican cannot support them or unite with * hem, without proving false to his own convictions. For these reasons he insists that Judge Hovey shall have no support from the Republicans of the First District, and that no union of the Anti-Admin-istration forces can be made, or should be made if it could. We do not concur. We believe that an honest Republican may cordially support Judge Hovey, and we feel very sure that the Republicans of this First District can do no wiser thing than to support him to a man. It is true that he takes his position on the Cincinnati platform, and that the abstract principles of that creed no Republican accepts;, but there are two practical suggestions counterbalancing this, which we compnend to our correspondent, as he seeinsHo have overlooked them entirely. In the first place,; no Republican can be elected in that District. Even if the Democrats split into two equal divisions, either will be much larver than the Republican vote lor Fremont. " Without the help of the American vote, therefore, ihe Republican strength wouid be utterly inadequate to a contest with either wing of the Democratic party; and such rigid political exclusiveness as our correspondent advocates would drive off an American coalition as promptly and offensively as a Deinocratic^coa lition. The question in that District, therefore, is reduced to this—“ls a thorough Lecompton man, and a blind follower of the pro-slavery policy of the President, preteruble to an Anti-Lecompton Dejrriocratl” Our correspondent would say “yes,” judging from his letter, for he would refuse to support Hovey, and that would be just exactly equivalent to giving a vote for Niblack. A vote thrown away on an impassible candidate is a vote given to the stronge t opposition candidate. Now we should like to know how much better a Republican would feel who had helped send the facile, purchasable'Nlblack back, than one wllio had given his whole strength to send Hovey! In such-a contest we hold it to be the part of true wisdom and patriotism to elect the best man that can be elected, and not waste Strength that might do service, if properly used, in impracticable purity. Our correspondent says “that defeat in pursuing the right is far preferable to victory in the wrong,” and he says very truly, but did it never occur to him that it was wrong to waste effort in doing what cannot be done, when a less good lies within reach that the sairle effort might accomplish? Those men who insist that if they can’t do all that they think right they won’t do anything, are about as mischievous evildoers as live. We hold no such notions. We believe is the duty of an honest man, utul a lover of his coun ry or his race, to do all the good he can, and that is accomplished by undertaking what, can, and not whatcannot, bo done. The martyr cry of “suffering a glorious defeat in the right in preference to winning victory ior wrong,” has done full as much evil is good. It elected Polk, made the Mexican' war, and established the slavery policy in which we are hurrying to the very abysm of mean, perfidious tyranny. A few inen in New York who hated slavery so intensely that they cou.dn’t think of voting for a slaveholder, though he was the only man who would or could curb the slavery tendency of the country, fastened upon us the pernicious and infamous policy that has been followed with longer strides in each succeeding Administration for ten years. The supporters of James B. Birney did more, in their blind zeal against slavery, to perpetuate and propigate it, than Calhoun cou;d have done in fiity years. They, "like our correspondent, would not consent to do a little good that was practicable, (the defeat of the Texas arinnexutiun project.) because they wanted to do a great good that was hopelessly impracticable, (eradicate the slavery influence from our Government.) In such a policy we do not concur. » The second consideration is, that while the adherents of Mr. Douglas insist that they stand upon the Cincinnati platform, the course of events in Kansas has so changed that the support of the declarations of that platform i*> an actual support of freedom. “Free Kansas” is the aim of the Douglas men, as well as of the Republicans. They take their “aim” from the other side of the case from us, it is true, but while we can both aim together, we see no reason in aiming at each other. In this contest they and we demand ihe same thing. They demand freedom lor Kansas, because the people want' it. We demand reedoni for Kansas, because it is right, in accordance with a solemn covenant unjustly broken, in accordance with the true spirit of our Government, and, because the people want it. We have their reason, and our own, too; and as the case now stands, that as the actual problem of freedom in Kansas, and the way to solve it, our additional reason is the only difference between us. On abstract questions the differences are numerous and wide as our correspondent says, hut we can’t see the good reason for parading the differences that must muke defeat, ralher than the agreements that will make Viitory. It is true it would (be a victory far less gratifying to us than would be that of a man agreeing with us in our reasons for demanding freedom for Kansas, as we I left's agreeing in the demand; but it is far mope gratifying than would be that of a man who neither agreed with us in our reason, nor in our demand; and besides, be gained. One that would suit us be gained.

j In separating himself from the great body of his party and resisting the pro-slavery policy of the President at the expense of removal from office and of excommunication from the party, Judge Hovey has shown that i firmness of mind and correctness of princi--1 pie that entitle him to confidence; and, i though there are wide differences on abstrac; questions between him and the Republicans, lie is so far preferable to a Lecompton man, and the practical bearing of the slavery question so nearly obliterates abstract differences, or renders them inapplicable, ttiat we believe his election would be a defeat of the Pro-slavery party hardly i l«#s significant than the election of a | Republican. We hope he will be : elected.