The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1867-08-22

H.. L. h.
j. C. COVER, Republican luton
j. NJ. GILLETT, STATE Com.
II. F. BELITZ,
w. I. PRICE.
The Madison Journal copies from The Ken
Osha Telegraph an absurdly stale and prepos-
ferrous statement relating to the personal opin-
ions of the editor of THE NEWS. The author
of the article from The Telegraph has become
so VIGOROUSLY filthy with falsehood that he
long ago lost all influence with his own sub
scribers, and has at last found it eXpedient to
seek some other occupation than that of o
common liar for the press. There is not the
first seInblance of truth in any word or line of
the article in question, and the editor OF The
Journal knew it when he gave circulation to
the calumny. t.
We clip the above courteous item from the
Milwaukee NeagS. 1t is an easy matter to call
hard names, and attempt to cover up back
tracks by buster and froth. But mark how
plain tale shall put them down. "The author
of the article from the Telegraph knew where
Of he affirmed, and asserted nothing but what
he has the proof to substantiate, as he intima-
ted in that article. We will make some short
extracts from the Kenosha Democrat published
by Mr.. Cadwallader who was aided in his ed
itorial labors by Mr.. Paul, who was also inter
ested pecuniarily in the office of that paper.
Our first extract is from' the Democrat ofNov'
18th, 1860 the week following Mr. LincoIns
first election. Speaking of the election the
Democrat says:
eff Mr.. Lincoln honestly represents the
opinions of the men who elected him, secession
and revolution arr justiHable. Ifhe does not, he
owes 1t to the south, and the whole country
to disabuse the public mind of this impress
~
Mr.. Lincoln correctly represents this lawless
multiplying, agrarian spirit of the north, and
are determined to have their constitutional
rights respected or dissolve the Union. Are
they wrong in this? Have they no real grounds
OF complaints against the north ?"
In another article in the same paper approx
ing the threatened secession movement of the
south the editor says
These men, and these states are in earnest
non. What form their action may take is I'M
known to US, and probably to themselves
They will be governed in their steps by cir
cumstances. They probably intend to commit
no overt act against the United States govern
ment until the right Of peaceable secession has
been denied them. Should this be done, they
undoubtedly intend revolution. Are our peo-
pie prepared to deny the right of state to Sc
cede for any cause ~
Coming along a little further, we find the
following in the Democrat of Dec. 18th 1860.
1t will be noticed that the southern democra-
cy is still upheld in its scheme of dissolving
the Union:
"Can any one wonder that southern men
should become excited, and southern states
dissatisfied? They could no longer reclaim
their runaway slaves, though the right to do
so was q constitutional one. They could OBJ
tain no redress against the men who forcibly
rescued their slaves in defiance of law, because
OF the personal liberty bills.' They therefore
contend that government that cannot, or
will not, protect their constitutional rights,
has failed in the purposes for which it was
organized, and is no longer entitled to
their obedience. Who shall say they are not
right ?'
A little further along the editor of the Dem
Ocrdt, the present editor of the Milwaukee e
NeoUS, be it remembered, had progressed SO far
as to recognize the argument of Republicans
that secession and dissolution were wrong, but
declared, right or wrong it could not be pre-
vented. On the 4th of January 1861 he says:
"The Constitution may not allow secession;
but South Carolina has seeded. II NAV pro-
vide for compelling an unwilling state to re-
main In the Union; but the loyal states are
utterly unable to execute it. Does any sane
man believe the free states are able by force
of arms to subdue the slave states, and com
pei them to detested alliance Does any one
think such course expedient? We arsuredly
do not.
The time has gone by in the history of the
world when such measures are either expedi-
ent or practicable among people of equal
spirit, equal intelligence, and nearly equal
numbers. The sooner the republicans ac-
knowledge this palpable fact, the BETTER
1here Is no Disgusting our inability to per-
petuate the union of the states by brute
force" -s
One week later, January 18th 1861, still az
guing in defence of the south in its attempt at
dissolution he says:
''The right of secession inheres to the peo
pie OF every sovereign state. Governments
were made by them and can be unmade. Con-
stitutions are adopted and repealed. bv every
free people. What any state by act of com
pact, mas done; If it violate no vested right
she may undo. The laws of one Legislature
are repealable by the next with this single
limitation. 1t has ever been the doctrine of
the Democratic party that no generation can
take from its successors by any act of legisla
ton, the power to amend or repeal This
should be obvious to all. Without This ri0hf
OF each generation to pass on the question of
Its own rights and interests, there could be no
progress IN legislation, or ciVilizationn
In the same paper he says further:
1t Is common maxim of law, that every
right mas means OF enforcement and every
r.
cesslon is undoubted. The Constitution oro.
macs no means Of coercing a state in the Union
nor any punishment for session.
And further in the same paper:
II the people of any state are united in
their opposition to the revenue laws of the
government, they can successfully nulIify such
law IN n, defiance of the United States authori-
but is unqualifedly true" -
Still further from the same uaper:
"The power to make laws. and establish
governments, implies the power to nnmak a
them; as the major proposition contains fine
minor. BY this test the right of secessio,, is
maintained. South Carolina voted hersel f in
10 the Union; she can vote herself ont m
OoHSS%@tsog OF he united States 1caS ratified ba
SegerGL Of the states, 1Utt this cypress understand
ing. This alone, would determine Tie right
of secession" Is IL
Again IN the same paper speaking of the
constitutional right of secession he saws.
They (the trainers of the Constitution \ ex.
pected time 10 come when one or more ~
the States should determine to secede. They
refused 10 incorporate clause in the consfi.
tuition enabling Congress or the President to
use force against seeding state. They de-
cIared any state had an inherent right to Sc
cede a. pleasure, and a forcible union Womb
be an invasion of that right"
A week or two later Feb %, '61. still com.
mending and defending his democratic friends
of the south he says: =
Those who favor coercion, favor war. for
the terms are synonymous to US. All who
vote for enforcing the laws Of Congress in the
seeding States, vote for commencing the,
most terrible and relentless war ever wage6 by
a civilized nation-a war unparalleled in
atrocity, rapine and carnage
No one should be deceived by specious pre-
fences. When George the Third blockaded
Boston he denied its being an act of war. He
only meant to enforce the laws (of Parliament)
and collect his duty on tea? The people mad q
common cause; declared it an act of war !;
maintained their Independence; and George
by the grace of God King of England. was
compelled to acknowledge them free, at the
emo OF bloody war. And so it will be again
II the north attemDt To enforce 3be;,. IsusoDd