The dollar weekly bulletin. [volume] (Maysville, Ky.) 1862-1864, 1862-08-28
The Radicals and the Border States--
The Case Fairly Stated.

We extract the following from q recent
number of the New York Journal of Com
merce, one Of the soundest papers published
in the country:
"Now let any man calmly consider wheth =
er the views and opinions of loyal Kentuck-
ians are not more worthy to be regarded as
wholly disinterested than those of men from
Northern States. 1t is said that they may
he Influenced by desire to preserve slavery
1t is answered that that desire is their right
under the Constitution and in the Union. and
the man who desires to deprive them Of that
right is as much a disunionist as the man
who advocates laws providing that Massa
chusetts shall not have cotton factories. or
Illinois shall not grow wheat. This view Of
Kentucky presents all this slavery question
in light which should make it eminently
clear to loyal men sincerely loving the Un-
ion. Let it be bCrne in mind that the radi
cal plans are proposed as law for the U nited
States, and therefore for all the countTv.-
Kentucky is not to be ranked below New
York or Ohio or Connecticut in her desires
and her dem ands, her protests and her rights.
There is strange notion adoat among the
radicals that these border States are only in
the position Of proteges, not exact States but
in sort of semi state condition, TO be man
aged and governed by the general power at
Washington. The idea is fraught with dis
union. We need to keep before US constant
ly the truth that Missouri. Kentucky, NJ ary-
land and Delaware are to-day the equals of
Illinois, Ohio. Pennsylvania and New ersey,
Oh whose borders they rest, aud if Onio want
ed TO abandon the Constitution to day to get
rid of slavery, and kentucky wanted to up
hold the Constitution to save slavery, the
Ioval man is bound by his oaths and his ma
tionality to staad with Kentucky against
Ohio.
"What then dare any Northern or Eastern
or Western man claim as his right under the
Constitution which the Kentucki may not
claim? Who proposes to make distinction
between them? In times like these 1t be-
comes us to open our arms to hentuckians t.
Il ia eminentlv the duty Of the President to
reoard the border State men with all the re-
snect whic anv n or,hern citizen receives
II is the duty of the President and citizen to
Weld implicitly to any constitutional de-
mand or protest of Kentucky, precisely "a TO
anv such from the loyal men OF any other
State
I'VE have said nothing about the vast. the
inestinable value Of the border States III the
present sta te of the country. The President
recognizes their great power. Inc LOYALTY
of Maryland, the preservation OF that State
in the Union and for the Union is Of Vast
military importance, and Kentucky is of al
most equal value to the cause. Had all the
Inhabitants OF the border States, including
Virginia, remai ed loyal the rebellion would
have collapsed long ago. 1t is unnecessary
to dwell on these obvious truths
"At the present moment there are men
who argue with blind enthusiasm ISL avery
has rebelled, and we are no longer bound
TO keep Constitutional obligations towards
Shareholders" But if one kentuckian
slaveh older claims those Constitutional guar
antics for himself, or demands that they be
respected for their Influence on his rights.
all America has no moral right to violate
them. The violation of them would by
some men be pleaded as justification of
forcible rebellion"