Mr. Ormsby's argument is aimed against the Republicans. Accordingly, he assails the Abolitionists! Now we do not find fault with him because his arguments are pitiably silly,—because an intelligent Abolitionist would refute them instantly,—but because, even if they were sound, they have no bearing upon his point. They are not only nonsensical, but irrelevant.
"For the ignorance of the Southerners," says our author, "we should pity them, and send them our schoolmasters, who, in happy years past, have ever found a cordial reception." Exactly so,—"in happy years past." He then innocently asks, Is it strange that the South should think it necessary that she should have the ascendency in at least one branch of the national government? Oh, no,—not at all,—but as Republicans don't consider it necessary, is it strange that they should, vote as they think?
Here is a sample of most eminently logical reasoning: "The powerful efforts made by the British government to suppress the slave-trade have been far from successful. The exportation of negroes from Africa has not been discontinued, but the sufferings of the middle passage have been increased twofold; showing that an attempt to thwart by legislation the decrees of Providence is of but little avail." If murder were frequent in New York, and an insufficient force called out to suppress it, the consequence being only more bloodshed, Mr. Ormsby, to be consistent, would have to say it was not well to try to suppress murder, the event showing it to be only a futile legislative attempt to thwart the decrees of Providence!
"Not that any Whig was more in favor of the extension of slavery into the Territories, by the general government, than Mr. Fremont, or the best Republican at his back; but the idea of the formation of a party based on the slavery question could not be entertained for a moment by any one imbued with genuine Whig sentiments." pp. 357-8.
There is precisely the old argument of timid conservatism, although its champions are seldom unskilful enough to advance it in a form so easily dealt with. You may be bitterly opposed, forsooth, to the extension of slavery; but you must not organize or even vote against it! Where, then, is the good of being opposed to it?
The object of all this bad logic, bad history, and bad language is to attack the Republicans, and advocate the claims of modern Democracy,—not the Democracy of Jefferson and Silas Wright, but of Cushing and Buchanan. And what is the conclusion? What is the mission of the surviving Whigs?
"The existence of a conservative, enlightened, and patriotic opposition party is the necessary condition of the existence of the Democracy as a national party." p. 355.
"The slightest reflection, after even a superficial observation of the condition of our country, will satisfy any candid person, of ordinary ability, that the reconstruction of the Whig party is indispensable to the perpetuity of the Union. The Democratic party, though now national, if left to the sole opposition of the Republican, which is a sectional party, must inevitably, sooner or later, itself degenerate into sectionalism. This must be the necessary result of such antagonism. But a party based upon intelligence and moral worth must, most of the time, be in the minority of the country, and much of the time exceedingly small. This the Whigs see, and readily accept the conditions of their existence." pp. 363-4.
This, then, is the banquet to which we are invited! The mission of the resuscitated Whig party is to be—not gaining any victory, but—being beaten by the Democrats! It is important to the nationality of the Democratic party that they have a sound and national opposition for them to defeat regularly, year after year,—and this want the Whigs are to be so obliging as to supply!
After all, is there anything very strange in silly men writing silly books?