Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1857-05-21
THE CHARLESTON COURIER.


THE CHARLESTON COURIER.
The Courier, at rather late day, replies to the
sscrudities of the ENQUIRER" published some
time ago on the Right of Secession, Or more cor
rectly, on the contest then raging between 'he
Nsvs, Courier and advertiser, on that SUBJECT
Here is the first objection which the Courier
makes:
"l. The ENQUIRER has initiated the bad exam
ple of the Edgefeld Adrertiser, and gwen name,
as we'll rs locality, to our editorial plurality, anu
that too with an epithet or adjunct lntenaeu' ~
say the least, in rdcule and incivllity, not IN
positive unkndness. This is in violation OF one
Of our own rules, viz never to speak OF orotner
editor by name, unless in kindness, or TO PICK
Quarrel with him, or by way of retaliation. II the
Enouirer comes, however, within either OF our e3-
ceptions. it should make the matter plain and not
lenve shade of doubt to rest on its lntentlon.-
We might retaliate, if we saw fit, and name names
and append epithets by way of designating physi-
cal or other intirmities, or otherwise IN rdicule
of our assailants, but we forbear. 1t will sutnce.
for the present, to remind the juuenites who have
been irreyerent towards one of our firm, erdggera
ted into O premature yfdtherhood or patrlarchate
of the press and that not by way of h[lal respect
but of fragrant rreverence, that the little cnlidren'
in the Bible, "who camc forth out OF the CITY
and mocked" Elisha, and said unto him, "go up
thou bald head; 60 up thou bald head; were
torn to pieces "by two she bears out OF the
woods.
In reply to this charge, we would say, that the
scope of our article was limited to reflections on
the s.knighty tilt and its probable results, and
that we showed as much courtesy to the Courier
as we did to the Advertiser, imita ting likewise the
bad example of the former in the use OF names
and complimentary adjuncts. We cannot see why
the editors (plura of the Courier object so stren-
uously to patriarchal epithets since they seem to
think superior age, gives one editor right 10
sueer at another, to vent his crudties unmoested,
to make monkey-faces at his juniors of the press
and enjoy various other invioluble immunities.-
We used names because it was most convenient,
and we adopted the innocent, and witty epithets
as we thought) of the Courier and Advertiser; ana
if they turn out to be two-edged swords instead OF
tiny pop-guns as we supposed-why lie. them
cut their inventors As for the charge Of irrever-
ence we utterly repudiate it, upon the ground
that all editors are and should be equally respon-
sible at the bar Of public opinion rs they are e.
oually public servants In return for the scr1ptu-
raj illusions we would remind the piously dispo-
sed ssplurality" of the Courier, that the 'Devil
may quote scripture for his own purposes"
"2. The Enquirer wantonly imputes to us insin-
cerity in our views, and in spite OF our express
advocacy of the glorious and unalienable right of
rebellion and revolution, 1.-THE only unalienable
political right by the plain and discoureous IN
timation that were we or named member OF the
firm, convinced, Of the incontrovertibility OF the
right, We or he, would then resort to all sorts OF
special pleading, to eyade, even in cases lmperl-
ously demanding it, the practical assertion OF the
right. We know not who made this village news
paper or either of its editors. searcher O. hearts,
and infalible interpreter of the motives of others
All W, have to say further, this head, is that
gratuitous impeachment of sincerity, or motive,
is an abuse of the freedom of the press.
We confess that the idle dispute rs to whether
q State should take her destinies into her own
hands, when necessary, under the Right OF Scces'
sion or of Rebellion, did wear the appearance of
.exouisiteness, and smack, il not of insnceri
ty, at least of elegant trifiug. Besides we de-
sired to draw from the Courier the practical end
that it had in view 1t is not our fault that we
failed to accomplish that object, and we have the
consolation ofknowng that others besides ourselves
have read the political hairspltting lucubrations
of the Courier without pePeeiying any useful
purpose which such lavish expenditure of ear
nestness and logic is likely to subserve. We know
not who made the plurality of the Courier, arbters
of the freedom of the press ccnsors for the State
generally. We claim the right of enjoying the
fruits of democracy, by judging for ourselves the
limits of editorial propriety, though we are vii.
ling to restrain ourselves within the latitudinous
interpretations which the Courier practically gives
to the freedom of the presa, viz: the liberty of
exercising our wit on others without extending
like privilege to the discomftted knight who
writhes under our lash.
"9. The Enquirer says-"If we wish to unite
the South, and promote her interests, there is one
common ground on which we all can stand There
is one right, which even sophstry cannot deny us,
the Right of Rebellion" That is our ground.
what Mr. Calhoun in his great Michigan speech,
called, sthe glorious right Of rebellion and revo-
luton" Why, then, the quarrel of the Enquirer
W
or prejudice, because we have dared to have and
to express an opinion of our own, on an abstract
but deeply interesting question of constitutional
law, which threatened il not coming events, may
possibly, ere long, bring to practical issue.
1t is plain from this quotation from our article,
that we were taking a practical view Of the sub
ject, and neither seeking or specially avoiding q
quarrel with any one. The Courier and Nsws
were discussing an abstract right, and we desired
to draw down their electricity from the Clouds and
direct it to the true point at issue between the
North and South. But the Courier prefers re-
naming in nubibus. 1t is a matter Of indifference
to ms, whether it goes with the South, when she
puts her robes of independence about her, under
the plea of secession, State-Rights or Rebellion
We will stand with it on either platform but why,
if one right be admitted, should we not grant to
our brothers the other, since the final issue must
me the same in either case? Or, in other words,
if the Courier admits that a State or States, when
the Constitution is fagrantly violated, can and
should resort to the Right Of Rebellion CON it not
permit those who are ticklish about terms, to call
it the Right of Secession? In seeking for plat
form on which the South could stand united and
firm, we certainly displayed no ''unprovoked hos
tility," nor sought to awaken the ire of our city
cotemporary But we doprotest against the cool
and complacent manner in VI hich it talks about ia
deeply interesting question of constitutional law
after the constitution is virtually nulfed. If we
are not wrong in supposng that the South OF no