The weekly Ottumwa courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1857-1872, 1860-03-01
For the Courier.
Democratic Logic.

DSnOCrGtEC Logic.
Mr.. EDITOR: After reading, or rather
hearing read, flor we would not spend The
time to read il ourselves) the editorial of the
last weakly Democratic Union" we could
not restrain hal ha ha! Ignorance, if it
be uuassuming, may be endured, but when
it becomes pompous and inflated, when it ex-
ats itself in high places, then it becomes
the fit subject of ribaldry and jest.
as the Democratic party pro-slavery ?"-
Observe now the arguments
ave then first present the fact that when
this government was founded there were
twelve slave States and one free State.
Second-that during about three fourths
of the time since the orgs nizauon of this
government, it has been subject to democrat
ic rule.
"Now should il not naturally follow"-of
course il slrou'd--that the Democratic party
is not pro-slaverv party2"
Here is logic that would move to envy old
Aristotle himself. And why not? We have
for major premise-"When this govern
ment was founded there were twelve slave
States and one free State" For a minor
premise-"During about three fourths of the
time since the organization of this govern
ment it has been subject to Democratic rule"
THEREFORE the Democratic party is not a
pro- slavery party. The conclusion is inevi-
table
But our learned friend may say we do him
injustice. We have done him even more than
Justice. the Question being logically consid-
cred. for we have given him the benefit of an
Ineligible conclusion. whereas he left his
conclusion to be, in part, inferred.
1t may be, however, that our learned
friend studied different system of logic
from, that advocated hy Bacon and his
school, for am reminded, at second thought,
of an attempt at argument even in his con-
clusion. He says: allow stands the CON-
parison between the free aud slave States
to-day, and seventy yearsago9 Then there
was solitary free State, now there are
EIGHTEEN" Therefore, again, Il suppose lie
is not a pro-slavery party.
Well, how stands the question now, as es-
tablished on this newly invented system Of
logic? Precisely in this wise: "When this
government was established there was but
one free State. The Democratic party has
held the reins of government three-fourths
of the time since the government was found
ed, and now, instead of one there are eigh.
teen free States" Therefore, &c., &c.
This mode of reasoning, call it by whatever
name you please, reminds us very much Of
the Irishman, who was defending himself
against the charges in an Indictment, on the
ground that his FATHER was an honest man
and did no wrong: Tire question is not, WAS
the Democratic party a pro-slavery party
but, IS the Democratic party, AT THE PRESENT
TINE, pro-slavery party?
If our learned friend has proved that the
Democratic party WAS an honest party, land
we will admit that he has, for of yore We
no better position than the poor Irishman
for in his case, the question was not, WAS
the father of Patrick an honest man, but, Is
Patrick HIMSELF guilty or not guilty Of the
charges contained in the Indictment! Tha
question is all in a nut shell, but our learned
friend, with his new system Of logic, has
failed to crack it. Put directly it stands
Is there difference between the principle.
PROGRESSED by the Democratic party of to-day
and those advocated by the Democratic par
ty twenty .ffve or thirty years ago? awe
answer most semphatically," YEs-a differ
ence even more marked than that existing
between Patrick the son and Patrick the
sire.
None there are, who are so lost to virtue a.
to say that Thomas jefferson, the father -oi
the Democratic creed, was not a profound
statesman and an honest and virtuous man
Can we say the same of Franklin Pierce OF
James Buchanan, and not become the objects
just reproach? Or further, can VIC say the
same of the janus-faced Douglas, who once
was read from the Democratic ranks fol
daring to be consistent, but who has now re
turned to his old associations, and thrown be
fore the swine of his own kind, the only
jewel he ever possessed? So much for tn,
argument of cur learned friend.
But do you ask, awho has the effronter,
to say, in the face of these living facts, tina
the Democratic party is pro-slavery in it.
character?" We, sir. have that same eff
fronteryl But We will not stpltify ourselve!
in citing a single fact or instance in proof
That the PRESENT Democratic party is pro
slavery in its character is a matter of histor,
and is denied by none who are candid AM
honest Must, forsooth, the phi'osophe
prove that the radii Of circle are equal
simply because one might be found who wa
ignorant enough to assert the contrary p
Or again, must We be expected to prove tina
you have a nose on your face, it being sh
most PROMINENT feature you possess, shoul
you be pleased to deny the fact?
The Democratic party of to-day not pro
slavery IT'S false The Democratic part
Of to-day of the same blood and lineage a
that Of which Jefferson stood at the head
Such ignorance or impotence as this Nv
know not which it is) excites our suprem
contempt! May we call the Democratic par
, ty of to-day bastard offspring? No, no
even that. 1t is not even entitled to the re
spect due bastard, for it has not drop O
/ genuine blood flowing in its craven viens.
But the worst feature Of this party is no