The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1861-10-18
Shall the Administration Policy be
Changed3

Changeds
The Abolitionists, pure and simple, fell
into exstacies over FRENoST's nigger>confs-
eating proclamation. 1t was to them a
trumpet blast. heralding the birth of new
political millennium. The dear, devoted
nigger. was to be instantly freed from his
shackles, by the magic of word, and to be
made in all things like unto themselves. 1t
was nothing to them that the proclamation
was not merely unwarranted by law, but
was in direct violation Oft. The end justi~
fed the means and no end was so glorious
as that which realized to the enslaved
African the French Republican cry of
"Liberty Equality! Fraternity
So they run riot in their joy, until the
President, obedient to the law, and to his
official oath, confined the vaulting General
within legal bounds. Then their joy turned
to madness and despair. The Press, here,
could see no "light in the future" AWFUL
BROWN, of the Faribault paper, called LIN
COLIN q more pitlable "imbecile than
BUCHANAN; and promised, if God would
pardon him the past, he would never again
vote for q President "oyer five feet ten
inches high" And in this way, to crafty
their fanatical spleen, the whole brood of
Abolitionists sought to bring the President
into disrepute, and to weaken the Federal
Administra ton, at time when the strength
of the Administration and the repute of the
President were the only safety of the Re-
public.
1t is now urged by the same class of pol
iticians that the FREMONT policy should be
made by law the policy of the Government,
on the ground that the Southern States,
being in rebellion, have forfeited all right
to the protection of the constitution and
laws. The Chicago Tribune is the Western
champion of this doctrine. 1t acknowledges
that slavery, within the limits of the States,
ayas legal institution, recognized and pro.
tected by the Federal Constitution. But,
it says, this is no longer the case. The
constitutional obligations to protect slavery
have ceased to exist. The South, by its
own act, has released the Government from
all care over it, and made it justifable to
decree emancipation.
We do not propose to argue the questions
suggested by this Abolition view. We
merely wish to put forward a thought or
two for consideration.
President LINCOLN has invariably taken
this position that secession is legal inn
possibility; that no State or community,
by its own action, can release its people
from the obligation which they owe to the
Federal Government; that, on the other
hand, the Government cannot withhold from
the people of the whole Union the protec>
ton to person and property which it is its
constitutional duty to give; and that these
rights due to, and by, the Government, are
reciprocal and Interchangeable. 1t was on
this ground that the President repeatedly
protested that he had taken up the sword,
not to conquer and subjugate the South,
but simply to guarantee to the Southern
people the enjoyment of their constitutional
rights, and to secure the due execution of
the laws. And query--can this position be
departed from without justifying rebellion 2
Can the Government undertake to withhold
the protection which it is its duty to furnish
to the people and institutions of every State,
without, by the act, releasing that people
from all their obligations to the Govern
ment. This is question which it would
be we'll for all to ponder over, calmly and
dispassonately, before they seek to change
the policy of the Administration in regard
to the civil war now in progress.