The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1863-06-11

Geo. c. Gin y, of the o ;onto Pioneer.
Each editor in the will pease forward immed>
stely undersigned by mail, his or her and
post Office address.
C. SEYMOUR, Cor sec'y.
Lacrosse, Wis, Nay l, 1858.
The Democracy and Free speech.
The Democratic party, or at least portion
of it, which sympathises with traitors, are
making loud claInor about the restraints
imposed by the government upon freedom of
speech. This new born zeal of the copper
head democracy for the freedom of speech, is
of quite recent date. When the national dem
ocratic party was in power-when it held the
reins of the government in its own hands, it
was the enemy of free speech. In proof of this
assertion, let the record be produced. The
National Democratic convention which assem-
bled in Baltimore in 1852 and which nomi-
mated Franklin Pierce for the Presidency,
adopted the following resolution
"ResoEued, That the Democratic party will
resist all attempts at renewing III Congress, Or
out IF 1t, the agitation of the slavery question
under Whateuer shape Of color The attempt mag
be mude."
Four years afterwards the National Dem
ocratic party assembled in Convention at Gin
cinat and nominated James Buchanan for
the Presidency. At this convention precisely
the same resolution was passed as in 1852;
declaring the determination of the party to
resist all discussion or agitation Of the ques-
ton of slavery. Here then in times of pro-
found peace, when not speck of war was to
be seen in our American horizon, the Demo-
cratic party being in the full tide Of power,
boldly and deliberately declared its purpose
to the world, to suppress discussion on the sub
ject of slavery, under whatever shape or
color the attempt hight be made" And how
did the the Democratic party propose to carry
out its determination to resist and throttle the
freedom of speech, as declared in its Nation
al Conventions Of 1852 and 1856 There was
no law in the free States. iphibiting free speech
Oh any subject although repeated attempts
had been made by the party in Congress, to
procure national Legislation for that purpose.
The country was at peace at home and with
all nations abroad; therefore no military or
der could be expected, to be brought to bear
in the matter. 1t is true Democratic Con-
gress, had denied to the people the right of
petition, and sienced discussion on the sub
ject Of slavery i'll the National Capitol, still
there had been no laws passed to punish the
exercise Of free speech out of Congress. How
then We're the resolutions of the democratic
national conventions to be enforced Evident
ly there was but one way to do it, in the alb
sence Of law; that was by brute force. And
most zealously did the party set about the
work Of suppressing the freedom Of speech by
violence. 1t is a matter of familiar history,
that during many years when the country
was under Democratic rule, no liberation Of
public discussion of the subject of slavery, was
allowed in most Of the principal towns and
cities i'll the Northern States. Wherever anti
slavery men sought to assemble peaceably, to
deliberate on the evils of chattel slavery, their
meetings were broken up by insult and vio-
lence. No matter how respectable, or how
honorable the positions those may have occu-
pied, who attended those gatherings they
were denied the privilege of free speech by
the ruling democracy. 1t is a notorious fact
also, that many of the leading democratic
presses OF the country, approved of their riot
Gus proceedings in the dispersion of anti
slavery conventions and meetings.
A great political change has come over the
country; the copperheads are now in the mi
nority, and since they cannot indulge in their
old practices Of breaking of anti-slavery meet
ings they complain bitterly up being restrict
ed in the freedom of speech themselves. When
there as no war-no imminent danger from
foes without or foes within, it was proper
enough i'll their Judgment to distrub and
mal-treat assemblies of the people, peaceabl y
convened to discuss acknowledged national
evils. But now, when the country is in the
midst of terrible civil war where our ma
tional life is i'll peril, these copperheads are
excessively aggrieved, because they are not al
lowed the full license of speech in traducing
the government, creating disaffection in, the
army; encouraging dessertions. and giving
aid and comfort to the enemy. The govern
ment now exercises restraints on the freedom
of speech and the liberty of the press, accord
ing to the usages of civilized nations when
i'll state of war. No mans liberties are in
terfered with, except in conformity to law,
and from military necessity. The modern
copperheads, who a few years ago were called
democrats, used to interfere with the freedom
of speech and the liberty of the press in time
of peace, without the shadow or color of law,
and when no military necessity whatever ex-
listed.
No man who regards the welfare of the I'm
ion, and who is in earnest for the suppression
of the rebellion, feels his liberties at all re-
strained, in consequence of any existing law
or military order. The first loyal man is vet
to be found, who utters any complaint, be-
cause he cannot say or do, all that he desires
in respect to the war, for fear of the govern
ment. The clamor about abridging the free
dom of speech and the press about military
despotisms and the unconstitutional prosecu-
ton of the war, comes from the sympathisers
with the rebellion. When a man is heard
finding fault-pretending the constitutional
rights of the people are being invaded by the
government, in prescribing free speech, he
may be safely set down as an unmitigated
copperhead. Loyal men feel no improper re-
straints; the disloyal, whose propensities are
to enbarrass the war and make mischief gen
orally, of course feel FESTIVE; they demounce
laws and orders for the punishment of treason !;
verifying the old adage-''no rogue ever feels
the halter draw, with good opinion of the
law"