The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1856-11-25
RAYNER AND THE WING. /"

place, attempts TO sustain the conduct OF
Kenneth Rayner in the following manner:
LAS Mr. Bolts belongs to another State
with him we have nothing to debut to
brand Mr. Rayner as traitor because he
chose to vote for Mr. Fillmore we consider
public insult to every man who voted in
the same way, and we hope every Fillmore
man will treasure this in his memory and
resolve to affiliate with no such party.
Times are sadly out of joint when men are
not permitted to vote as they please, with
out public insult. But person would
infer from such an insult to Mr. Rayner that
he was a man who had no bond to tie him
to the South-that he was man possessed
of no character and that he was tool to
do the bidding of the abolition host of the
North-but is he that kind of man! We
cannot believe it. 1t is true our opponents
find great FAULT with him, and do they not
find fault with every man who goes counter
to their own party notions Yet we are
informed by a man who knows, that Mr.
Rayner is the owner of one hundred negroes,
yet we have men here who own fifteen,
twenty or fifty negroes, and some who do
not own the hair of one, who are terribly
exercised at his conduct, and because he
does not fall in with the Democracy and
become a Buchanan Wing to save the
Union, why he is a traitor
Our neighbor has certainly misstated the
case, to say the least. Rayner has not
been branded as a traitor for choosing to
support FillmOre-not at all-but for act
ing in different manner has he been desig
mated as dangerous friend to the South,
as he has clearly shown himself to be.
Does not the Wing know that Rayner went
to Philadelphia and advocated and advised
Il fusion of the Fremont and Fillmore men
for the purpose of defeating Buchanan in
Pennsylvanial-dO it not know that he
was invited there by abolitionists The
Fillmore men in Philadelphia censure Ray
ner for his conduct much as the demo-
Gratis in North Carolina do. Even Fill
more papers in THIS State have refused to
approve his course, and we cannot think
the Wing would have done so had the
Editor carefully read Rayner's outrageous
speech and letter to the abolitonists. The
Philadelphia News, q Fillmore paper,
speaks as follows about Rayner's mission
to Pennsylvania
Let him go back to the State ofNorth Caro-
lima, fhe d&-e, and tell the people there that the
object of his mission into Pennsy lvania was to
advise the American party to a cOhabitaton with
black Rcpubcanism and Northern Sectonalism,
whose crusade aims the ASSASSIN'S KNIFE AT
THE HEART OF NORTH CAROLINA, as of every
other State south of Mason and DiXon's line"
And the same paper adds:
"For who, then, was Mr. Rayncr working so
ind IL Nj for Mr. lint for
Col. Fremont To secure the election of the
latter, was the whole aim of those who cOncOcted
the Union Electoral Ticket and to aid them in
carrying out the scheme, and thus secure Penn
sylvania for Fremont. Mr. Rayner was brought
here by them. Let him wriggle and twist as he
may, to shirk the responsibility of it, he cannot
escape from it. He not brought here to
serve the cause of Mr. Fillmore, but to aid in
transferring Mr. Fillmorc's friends, unwittingly
and unknOwingly to themselves, in such man
to elect Col. Fremont. How he played
his part is well known"
Now our neighbor can see what some of
the Fillmore papers ut the North say on
this subject-they don't seem to think that
Rayner was working for Fillmore. So it
will be observed that southern men have
not branded him as traitor for choosing
to support Mr. Fillmore, but they have de-
nounced him, and will continue TO do so,
for acting with the abolitionists.
But we wish to reply more particularly
to the latter part of the above paragraph
from the Wing. That paper seems to
think that because Rayner owns one hun
dred negroes, as somebody says. he ought
not to be suspicioned or have his conduct
criticised. Benedict Arnold had great in
terests at stake in this country, but that did
not prevent him from turning traitor. Own
ing negroes does not make man a better
patriot than another who owns mono. 1t is
very unfair to estimate ones love of cOun-
try by the number of negroes he may own.
To discriminate between the Shareholder
and nOn-slaveholder is what the abolition
lists have been trying to get southern peo-
pie to do. But such course will not
answer for us in the South. The nan who
owns but one or two negroes is as deeply
interested in protecting the institution of
slavery rs the planter who owns fifty; and
those who own none are also interested,
for whatever affects the prosperity of the
community in which they live, affects their
interests to a greater or less extent. AL
though A has no slaves, yet he is not will
ing to see anything done that will iniure
his neighbor B who holds this kind of
property.
For conscience sake don't let us in tho
South undertake to draw distinctions be-
tween shareholders and non-slaveholders.
Follow out the argument of the Wing,
and it might be made to appear that the
poor man is less worthy of being trusted
with the management of the affairs of his
than the rich man-simplv because
the one has property and the other has
none.
We have known men who were large
in the South to sell out and
move INTELLECTUALLY they entertained