The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Stroudsburg, Pa.) 1853-1911, 1864-07-14


sist its rendition than voluntarily to ac-
cept its duties? The citizen-soldier feels
when he takes up arms it is to defend,
not destroy, his political rights. The
man who sacrifices his business interests,
and for stipulated time surrenders his
personal liberty, cannot understand why
he should be deprived of his political
rights. The service of arms does not
blunt the judgment or blur the ability of
a citizen to exercise the elective franchise.
1t rather gives him new title to the en-
joyment of such right, and fits him for
the highest privileges of free Govern
ment Unlike the masses of Europe, the
great body of the American people are
intelligent, possessed of educations afford
ing the highest knowledge While war
for time may change the habits of such
people, it cannot affect their sense OF jus
tice, their appreciation of power, and
their love of Government. 1t cannot les
sen their ability for self-governnaent. Ii
it could. the war in which we are now
engaged for the defence of the Govern
ment and the safety of the public veal
had better be stopped Immediately.
The Democratic leaders now oppose
the enfranchisemcnt of the soldier In
the olden time the Democratic leaders,
such as Jefferson, Jackson, Snyder, and
Shuttle insisted that the elective fran
chise followed the flag under which sol
dier fought IF that flag was potent, on
the sea and the land, to protect man in
war, why should it not possess the other
virtues of continuing his political fran
chises? If it made the deck of vessel
above which it waved the soil of the
country represented by it, regardless of
the sea or CLINE in which it Hoated, 80 al
so does it carry with it for the soldier
who fights beneath its folds any political
rights which these heroes enjoyed before
they were mustered into the service; and
on this soundly democratic argument the
soldiers who fought in Mexico were able
to exercise frccman's right in the wilds
of the chapparcl, the heats of the sea
shore, the din of conflict and in the
shadow of battlemented castles, nc same
as if they had been at home in their re
spective wards and precincts. If men
fighting thousands Of miles from home
cut off from all nicaticn-scarcely
Informed at the time on the issues of the
political campaign, were able and entitlod
to exercise the right of the franchise, is
it not fair to suppose that citizens Of Il
like intelligence, engaged in the same
service of the Government within the
limits Of its authority, distant only a few
miles from home, conversaR ut with all the
issues involved in the political contest, in
daily communication with their friends.
and in perusal also of journals discussing
the questions at stake-is it not fair to
suppose that such men are entitled to the
exercise of all their political rights? On
ly those who act from perverted policy
on this subject, will seek to eyade the re-
sponsibility of such question. This is
proven by the judicial history already at
tached to this question. When it was
deemed expedient, as it was undoubtedly
considered by the Democratic leaders
then, the elective franchise was extended
to the absent soldiers in Mexico; but in
the midst Of a war waged by the uphold
ers of an institution from which the Dem
ocratic leaders thrive all their strength.
George W. Woodward, Justice of the
Supreme Court, and lately the candidate
of the Democratic party for Governor, ju-
dicially denied the soldiers the exercise
of the elective franchise; denied our brave
defenders the right almost in the same
breath in which he declared the right of
the States of the South to rebel and Sc
cede from the Union Fair men can see
no difference In an American soldier vot-
ing in Mexico, while fighting beneath the
flag of his country, and the samc soldier
citizen under the same circumstances. vot-
ing in rebellious State. Time nor
place, within the limits Of a free govern
ment, or in the service thereof, cannot
influence, should not be permitted to af-
feet, the rights of a freeman. The gov
ernmert which is not able to insure him
these Inherent rights is unworthy his
The authority Of free govern
ment, which seeks to degrade freeman
while periling his life in its defence, is
despotism more fearful than that which
denies all right to tire governed. 1t is
not possible that such gcyGrnmeot eau
last. At some period In its history, if |
the rights Of its defenders be disregarded
as the Democratic leaders now deny the
right of the franchise to the soldiers, it !
will need arms to protect it both from
foreign and domestic foes, and perish e
ventually, an object to mean for defence. |
In advocating the soldiers right to
vote, the loyal men of Pennsylvania are
sustained by faith in the fact that his
service is such as to secure him not mere
y aH the rights he enjoyed before he en-
tered the army, but increased dignity and
power at the kards of the Republic. The
enemies OF this great principle oppose it !
'nly for reasons of expediency. There
vas a time when the Democratic leaders
claimed that the army was largely and
even almost wholly composed of their
partisan followers.y When the were most