The Kalida venture. [volume] (Kalida, Ohio) 1841-1865, 1845-04-25
From the Philadelphia Ledger.
Moral Treason.


Moral Treason.
With those Americans unworthy of the
name, who deny our right TO Oregon, and
defend the British claim, we shall use no
ceremony. We regard such advocacy of a
foreign government, and denunciation Of our
own, in a case where all the evidence of
right is on our side, as moral treason. II
such advocates have examined the case, they
sin in spite of knowledge. lfnot, they exhi-
bit traitorous hearts in blindly and ignorantly
taking for granted that their country is wrong
and its enemy right. And when they urge
the power Of the enemy as a reason for
yielding to his unjust claims, they ale quite
as much entitled to contempt for the cowar-
dice, as to execration for their treason. This
language may seem harsh. But il is uttered
considerably, and we make no compromise
of duty to our country, no terms with its do
mestc enemies.
The lecturer exhibits his profound igno-
rance of the law and the facts, in charging
our government with "ignorance or some
thing worse" in the Oregon question, says
that no man in his sober senses can believe
that Britain will tamely permit us to esta-
blish our laws over all Oregon. He says
that Britain "has repeatedly claimed and
maintained rights to this territory before the
whole civilized world, has exercised undis-
turbed authority in it for more then fifty
years" What elevated patriotism What
profound knowledge of the subject! We
admit that Britain has repeatedly claimed
and maintained "rights" in this territory, if
right and aggression are synonymous. 1t
claimed, by virtue of discovery by Drake,
who never saw the territory, and being a
pirate, whose life was due TO the gibbet of
any civilized nation, could have conferred
no right if he had 1t claimed by conven-
ton with Spain, which expressly reserved
all territorial jurisdiction, and subsequently
ceded all such right to us. And it now
claims by similar convention with us, a
convention which expressly denies to il any
such jurisdiction. And Britain has main
tained''rights in this territory. How? Itmain-
tained the rights of the convention with Spain,
by encouraging its subjects to settle there; and
by force of arms in its war with Spain, which
began in 1903, and continued till 1900; and
by an alliance with Spain against Napoleon
from 1909 till 1915, during which period,
Spain, contending for existence at home,
had no leisure to examine and resist the en-
croachments of its ally in distant colony;
and by force of arms against us in the war of
1912; and by the convention of 1918 which
merely allowed a settlement to its subjects,
has violated by military occupation and le-
gal Jurisdiction; and by our careless, short
sighted, unstatesmanlike, unjustifable indif-
ference TO the Characteristic perGdy and ra-
pacity of the British government. In short,
these British rights in the territory, which
are rather wrongs, have been maintained by
British force and fraud, and permitted by
American blindness. And now, when our
eyes are at last opened, domestic traitors set
up these British aggressions as rights against
us!
And no man in his sober senses will be-
lieve that Britain will tamely permit us to
resume our rights! The lecturerer says that
Britain, having expended more than fifty mil
lions of dollars, fifty years ago, in preparing
to redress an alleged wrong to one of its sub
jects in this very territory, would not, at this
day, with pride and power apparently undi
minished, permit the whole territory to be
taken away, and its subjects to be consigned
to a foreign jurisdiction, or forcibly expelled
from their homes. This means that as Bri-
tain would not submit to right, we must sub
nit to wrong; for British pride must not be
wounded, and British power must not be
defed We admit that Britain did spend
large sums in quarrel with Spain about
Oregon. But the protection of British sub
ject was the pretence, the ultimate acquisi-
ton of the country the secret motive. No
careful and enlightened reader of history can
doubt the promptitude with which British
rapacity pursues the weak. But are WE
weak? Must WE tamely submit to wrong
because Britain is proud, rapacious and po-
werful? Having beaten this rufian and rob-
ber among nations, once in childhood and
again in youth, we have little to fear in man
hood, especially when our adversary, like a.
gouty old London banker is bloated and fee
Bile with disease, and cannot walk fast with
out danger of falling.
lecturer TO invest his subject with his British
preiudices, and 10 excite odium against our
side of the question, by presenting to the
British settlers the alternative of submission
to foreign jurisdiction, or expulsion from
the territory. Who " in his sober Senses"
can believe that single British settler would
depart from our territorial government? Or
would not even prefer it to his own? The
laws of both nations being the same, as they
have common origin no British settler
could have single personal right under Bri-
tish rule which would not be guaranteed by
ours. Then why should he abandon his pro-