Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1863-09-23
From the philadelphia Ago.l
W II A 7 is LOYALTY?


r Editors Philddclohia Age This Is ma y
+ the greatest puzzles Of the dav. TtjS trn,
S we have a definition Of the word Loyalty
. IN all the English dictionaries but Ia,
ouJect OF our anxious solicitude is 10 know
2 what Greeley, Forney, and some othe,
political philosophers Of our times under
stand by that term The word is ex
tremely well baadled ; it is used 10 an
almost unlimited extent by the Admins
tration men in their public speeches, pri
vate conversations and newsraper para
graphs, and Yet the meaning of the word as
limited above, continues TO DO profound
mystery. 1t is pretty certain, however
that loyalty" does not mean "patriot.
ism ;" and it does not appear, from any
indications that we can ses, that "a loyal
citizen must necessarily be good In,
lonlst or supporter of the Constitution.
or consistent friend Of the Federal Gov
ernment, or even steadfast adherent OF
/, the present Administration Allthis VIII
appear plainly enough, it is hoped, as we
proceed with our present inquiry,
Inc meaning OF the word " Loyalty -
II the term expresses anything that an
American freeman ought to love and ad-
mire-must have changed considerably
Wtlhin lhe last eighty years. In the times
OF oui revolutionary fathers, he term loy-
allst was synonymous with tory or trai-
tor and to boast Of loyalty then was 10
acknowledge a preference for arbitrary
power, and a contempt for free institutions
and The rights OF the people. On referring
to dictionary which now Lapnens to he
at our elbow, we find that loyaltv in its
general acceptation, signifies adherence
10 prince or potentate, constant faith
iulness, submission From the same au
thoriiy we learn that loyalistis one
who adheres to his king; one who bro
fesses great loyalty"
The legitimate definition OF lovoltv
therefore. Is, in the first place f" a,iber.
ence to a prince or pOtentate." An who
adhered to that royal scouudrel Charles I
the traitor king who endeayored 10 De.
priye the English people of all their char
taed rights, gave proof OF their LOYALTY.
All who submitted TO the tyrannous exse-
tlohs OF hlng John, were loyalists. All
who we're faithful and obedient 10 that
caprlclous, bIoOd-thirsLy monster. Henry
Nlil, were loyal. All who assisted |
George III to harrass, persecute mud
slaughter the American patriots of ,7G |
were loyal citizens" according 10 the
genuine Specification Of the phrase.
But what application has this precious
word loyalty" in the United States ot
the present time ? We know of no prin-
ots or potentates in what are called the
" loyal States, ," un less A braham Lincoln is
the representative froyalauthorty. We.
for our part, do not wish to institute any
comparison between Honest Abe" and
King John, Henry VIII Charles |. or
George ii though certain Philadelphia
p'per lately attempted TO prove that the
only difference between an American
President and an English monarch is that
Jhe iormer Is elected TO office, while the I
after obteins his official positionby birth
'lghl. This, indeed, is one difference and
very great one but il is rot by any
means the only difference between the {
jhiet Magistrate of this Republic and lbe {
cVereign OF England. An American 2
is directly responsible to the /
'eople --he Is not only elected by them =
'ui holds his office under their superyis- =
on and, If he does not fulfill his ob-
cations to the people, the Constitution Z
royides for bis ejectnent from office with
ut any resort TO revolutionary measures
he President, being accountable TO the Il
eople, and subjectto their authority, is c
ruly the peoples servant" aud not p
helr master. With Q monarch thecase
essentially different whatever may be {,
e his malteasance in Office, he canuot be h
Jecled irom his position except by revo- n
ltlonary movement r. !
ii there is nothing like rovahy in these U
tates, there can be no loyalty for there Il
an be no adherence to a prince orypo- h
'n;ate fthere is no prince or potentaie o.
adhere to. Some OF our Iowa, fellow !,
tzens" are so anxious TO be and remain =,
'yal, that they are willing to make a reg :"
lar potentate of Mr. Abraham L.neoIb. or @
'me6ody else, in order TO have a propeI II
undation for their loyalty. gr I.-'Fl n
we have said above that the LOYALTY of h
lr day is not ALWAYS patriotism. We "
ave 10y al citizens " in abundance who M
e engaged, rs hard as they eahsrRe. in =
cklng the life-blood ofthe Sick RenubIic. 10
ihausiing, by Their embezzlemenis and g.
elr robberies, all the resources ou which Ii
e very existence of the nation deper Dis az
'me OF the most jealous loyalists (elitorial III
res, among Others have aniasSed prince at
'N''NS'i SAsiSG inb commencement OF In
e war, by speculating in Government tL
nlracts,a other neiarious transactions VI
,lch, as the Hon. John p. Hale. IA Re- ..
Iollcan Senator) acknowledged, are more i.
maging to the cause of the Union than In
e operation of all its enemies in the OIL
lu' these ccntract-mongers and specl o., 81,
ots in the blood and tears of their w
lntrymen, may be loyalists, perhaps Cu
t they certainly are not patriots. II rie
We are prepared to prove, if any proof 10
necessary, that the men who now make er,'
londest boasts of their loyalty were az WI
very head and front of the dislinbon da
vement we have documentary ev. ma
nee to show that it began with them. ah'
THAI 1t owes all its success TO tbeir p,"
idious man@uvering. In short. it ma, oil
proved that loyslists, in many cases, are
lnlonists Of the worst sort. HrF ! bIs
Ind, finally. TO cap the climax ofdeceit 10,
false pretension, the chief leyalists sne
not sven - fait FIJI and .nkol;...fp. r