L[ewis] H. D[ouglass] to Frederick Douglass, March 19, 1860

THE NOMINEE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

ROCHESTER, March 19, 1860.

MR. EDITOR:—I have been of late a close observer of the political prospects of the two great parties contending for the control of this mighty, but slavery cursed nation. Of the two parties, Republican and Democratic, the former, in my opinion, seems to have the most reason to hope for victory in the coming Presidential election. Owing to the fact that the supporters of the Republican party are just at present mostly to be found in the free States, the Democratic party has accused them of sectionalism, which charge is likely to prove a scare to some of the leaders of the Republican party, notwithstanding the fact that the noble champion of Republicanism, Wm. H. Seward, has clearly shown to the country, in his recent able and eloquent speech, the utter falsity of such a charge. This charge has had such an effect upon one of the leading Republican journals, if not the leading journal, as to make that journal in a measure abandon the principles of the party, by advocating the nomination of a man who has not heretofore been identified with the party, and who used every means possible to recapture his salves who ran away from him. The advocates of such a nomination do not stop long enough to see that a nomination of this kind would be nothing less than abandoning their principles, or confessing that their creed is altogether wrong.

Wm. H. Seward—a man whom most Republicans look upon as the man who should receive the nomination for President—that

journal give the go-by, on the ground that he is too fully committed to doctrines of the party. How absurd is such a reason; the very thing that best qualifies him to fill such a position, is urged as a reason against placing him in that position. Has not his whole conduct in relation to the party been marked with perfect consistency throughout? Another reason urged against his nomination is, that he is too apt to tell the truth. His assertion that there is an 'irrepressible conflich' going on between freedom and slavery is brought up as another reason against his nomination. Now, every word of it is the truth, and will be the truth so long as the Republican party remains a party, and longer. Why, the party itself was organized for a conflict with slavery. It proposes to oppose the extension of slavery; now, what is this opposition to slavery but a conflict with slavery? How can it oppose slavery without conflicting with it; and will not this conflict of necessity be an 'irrepressible conflict' until slavery or freedom triumphs. Now is it right that Wm. H. Seward should be thrown overboard for giving utterance to this doctrine? Hundreds of thousands of voters will answer no! It is, in my opinion, the worst kind of policy for a party [illegible] on the verge of success, to abandon in the least its principles for the empty honor of a party victory. I contend that the nomination of Edward Bates would be in a measure abandoning the principles of the Republican party. He believes in supporting and carrying the Fugitive Slave Law to its fullest extent—a law which not only extends slavery into the Territories, but into free States. If the Republican party means anything by opposing the extension

of slavery, they must oppose the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, and repeal that law. The nomination of Edward Bates, who upholds and sustains that law as right, would be nothing more nor less than acknowledging that opposition to the extension of slavery was all wrong. Does the Republican party wish to do this? If they do, the colored voters of the party should know it—the more radical portion of the party should know it. There are in this State enough colored voters and radical Republicans—to say nothing of the Eastern States—to make far better for the Republican party to be defeated, with Wm. H. Seward as the candidate, or in other words adhering to their principles, than triumph with Edward Bates, or abandoning their principles.

Yours, for the non-extension of slavery,

L. H. D.