Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1864-11-04
A CALM AND FINAL APPEAL.


to be nation, strong, just, united, or whether
we are to be broken up into half hundred ol
''equal and sovereign Powers, " to use the phrase
of Alexander Stephens; whether we shall de-
mand of the rebels that they shall acknowledge
themselves in the wrong by laying downLtbeif
arms and submitting 10 the Constitution the
supreme law of the land. or whetherawe shall
own ourselves to have committed costly blun-
der, and endeaxor TO- retrieve it by Submitting
to the requirements of the rebel leaders-these
are the important questions which are to be de-
cided on the8 Of November
Whatever the decision of the people il is fin
al. They alone can decide; they must decide;
but having once declared their will, they must
abide by that declaration; they will have an
nOunced policy for four years to come, and
those four years contain our whole future-out
of the policy which rules them will be born our
history for century to come.
The contest is one of principles es-and of prin-
ciples the highest and most important possible
to nation which desires to enjoy lawful liberty.
1t is pity that we should come to this great
discussion with heated brains; that, we should
bring to it bitter prejudices unwholesome ami
mosities, foul accusations. In this wrangling
the object of the elections is forgotten or over
looked, and men become partisans, when, above
all other times they should be patriots.
The question is not who shall be President,
but on what principles shall our government
henceforth be conducted. e On the one side is a
policy which regards this people as a naiion;-
which holds that rebellion is inexcusable, be-
cause unnecessary, under our. constitution of
government, which, unlike any other in the
the world, provides for all amendments which
time or experience may show to be necessary or
expedient; and which believes that the decision
of constitutional majority must be respected
and enforced, or else the Republic perishes.-
On the other side is policy which regards this
people as confederation of States; which pail
ates the shareholders rebellion ON the score of
threatened infringement of their rights; and
which seeks peace by the withdrawal of the ma
rioDal armies and fleets, and the virtual ac-
acknowledgement of the Southern Confedeacy,
with the expectation that out of these measures,
in some mysterious way, will grow in course of
time new Union. Between these two policies
the people are to choose. The upholders of
both profess devotion to the Union; each asserts
his belief that his policy is the best to restore
to the American people the blessings of perma-
nent peace and prosperity. 1t is the duty Of
the people to decide between the two, and to
adopt policy which they believe to be most
certainly conducive to their welfare and honor,
and those Of their descendants ~
There is yet another point of policy in ques-
tion. On the one hand it is held to be our in
terest as nation to encourage and promote gen
eral liberty, because tit is urged) if one class
can be enslaved all classes are injured; if one set
of workingulen may be forced to labor without
wages, these are Stought into competition with
and wrong all other workingmen, who must live
by wages. On the other hand, it is held to be
our true policy TO foster and encourage the sys-
tenn of slavery, to extend TO the slaveholding
class all the privileges they demand, and to use
the national power to guard their property as
it is termed On this point, too the nation is
to decide; and upon its verdict at the polls rests
the question whether our future policy shall ia
vor the extension of liberty or of slavery; whe-
ther slaves receiving no wages, shall hereafter
compete with our free operatives in the facto-
ries, our mechanics in the workshops our steve
dores and labOrers upon the docks, our labor
ers in every branch of industry; or whether
free labor shall be encouraged to press upon
slavery, and shall be secured such vantage
ground, by means of free schools, free speech
and free elections, the slave states, as muslin
the course of time totally abolish the system of
unpaid labor on this continent. 4
These are the issues, and they are SO simple
and clear that to decide ought not to be difficult
to an intelligent people. The labor market in
the free states is already overstocked in time of
peace, and wOrkingmen begin to complain that
low wages and uncertain employment stare
them in the face. Would it not be an incredi-
bic folly for them, by their own vote, to exclude
themselves from one half of the Union2 Is it
not the part of wisdom for them to insist that
free labor shall be everywhere encouraged, and
unpaid slave labor, its unfair competitor, driven
back? t.........-..,, l.... ..,.t-
We have become a numerous and powerful
and wealthy people, by reason of our unre-
stricted intercontinental commerce; the work.
ingman in America has been well paid, and his
family comfortable, because no passports or
trade-guilds no restraints of any kind, preven-
ted him from seeking over the greater part of
the Union the most advantageous market for his
labor. Would it not be incredible folly for
American workingmen to adopt a policy which
will Substitute for the old Union such Seer
manic Confederation as Mr. Belmont is repor-
ted to have recommended in Chicago politi-
cal system in which the mechanic and laborer
is only serf, who cannot adopt trade, cannot
travel, cannot marry, cannot change his abode
nor seek new means of livelihood, without the
permission of the polce2
Finally, property and life have been secure
amongst us, because our laws were respected
and obeyed, and because every citizen, as De
Tocqueville said. felt his own interests to be
imperilled while law-breaking went unpunish-
ed. Would it not be perilous to every honest
and industrious citizen to adopt policy which
would Justify the most atrocious violence, par
ley with defiant law breakers, and thus inevi-
tably bring law into contempt
Under the old Union we were free, happy,
prosperous, peaceful-is it safe to change it?--
While all Americans respected the verdict of
the majority, and submitted to it honorably,
we lived at peace-is it safe to tolerate or coun-
tenance those who resist this decision of the
people, and, moreover, declare openly that they
are tired of the rule Of the majority? Under
the old Union all evils could be cured, all
wrongs redressed, in lawful and constitutional
methods it necessary or is it safe for us to
submit TO other and anti-constitutional methods
of changing our laws? Under the old Union,
the American workingman in the free states was
the most intelligent the happiest, the most
prosperous and the freest man on the earth-win
he be happier, freer, more prosperous or more
intelligent under any new system to be devised
by shareholders and their partisans? Is it not
safer to maintain the old UniOn7 Is it not to
oxary rk;o0D,au'u "a ntpract To olIard iealo1Slv