The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1862-10-04
Letter Of Col. Cushnan.

Letter Of Col. Cashnan.
We fn6 in Wednesdays Chicago papers
the following letter Of Col. OusHnAN to the
Hon. I. N. ARNOLD, in response to an invita-
ton to attend meeting in Chicago to en-
dorse the Presidents Emancipation Proc
lamation:
OTTAWA, Sept. 26, 1852
Hon. l. N. ARNOLD:
Dear Sir: Ny long absence from home,
to which l have just returned, and in an
infirm state of health, must excuse me
from accepting the invitation rendered by
your committee through you, to attend
the mass meeting in your city. on the 2'th
inst, to endorse the presidents Proclama'
ton. Yet desire to say that can see
no infraction of the constitution SO far as
it relates to the institution of slavery
Believing, as do, that the system is pure.
" State institution, and that the general
evils-the States where it exists refusing
heretofore betn ample, and by the loyal
States held sacred-are in open and armed
rebellion. They may be justly punised for
their future good, by destroying. as far as
lays in the power of the government, their
chief reliance for the support of their un.
lawful acts. At the same time doubt
the policy of the provision to remunerate
the losses occosioned by the necessary acts
of the government to suppress the rebel
lion.
The constitution which may be put up.
on it is too broad, for cannot believe it 10
intended TO pay the citizens residing in
these States for all their losses occasioned
by the necessity te enforce the laws in the
States in which they reside.
With rare exceptions; they should bear
the burden that they, in part, have per-
mitted. Their losses are, in fact, one of
the evils which have accrued from the in
stitution which they, in common with
others. have fostered and nursed for their
individual profit. see no reason why the
loyal States should contribute for their
losses consequent upon the acts of a ma
jority of the community in which they
reside and with whom they have cast their
fortune.
Allow me to tender to the committee
my thanks for their courteous notice of
myself, and, at the same time to congratu-
late you for the vary marked respect with
which your party estimates your exertions
Respectfully, your friend and obedient
servant, WILL H. CUsHNAS.
We confess cur inability to SEQ i. this
letter the unqualified endorsement of the
Presidents proclamation as claimed by tho
abolitionists Col. c. processes simply that
he can see no constitutional objection to
the national government destroying, "ss
far as lays in its power" = species Of prop.
erty on which the rebels place their chief
reliance for support in their unlawful acts.
Nor do we. We have ever maintained the
sufficiency Of the confscation act, which
proposed to free the slaves as fast as we
could catch them. Our objection to the
Proclamation is that it proposes to free the
slaves before we catch them-that, like
Hunters proclamation, it is 5rutum fuzmen
mere wind--intended to stir up insurrec.
ton among the slaves, to be murdered by
thei, masters, when the government il
unable to protect them in acts to which il
would cruelty incite them.
There is one remark in Col C.'s letter
which we hartily approve, and which will
attract attention. 1t is in reference tc
that part of the Proclamation which pro.
poses to remunerate loyal men in rebel
lious states for the loss Of their slaves. II
any body is compelled to pay for these, it
should be the rebellious states themselves.
The loyal states are paying enough to
crush this wicked rebellion, and it ia no
more than right that loyal men in the
rebel states should bear fair proportion
of the sacrifice. We oppose taxing white
people to buy negroes. Besides, abolition
ism, by freeing the negro, proposes to con-
fer benefit on the STAKEHOLDER, not an
injury. The negroes are to be left on the
plantations. The white man: instead oil
owning, is expected TO hire them, by which
arrangement their are to be vastly more
profitable to the planter than if eompelled
to support them a. slaves. This sort of
reasoning, we know is all fol-de rol, but
Abe Lincoln, as an abolitionists, Processes
to believe it sound, and so believing, with
what sort of consistency can he insist that
the slave holder shall be paid in addition
to having this great boon Of cheap labor
conferred upon him?