The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1870-05-14
'sM:she Getil Mallkt9
ELkTON, MAY II, 1870.
The Traitors Portion.

The Traitors Portion.
We prefer the classification which history
and the civilized acorld have made for
Washington and the patriots Of the Revo-
luton, and Robert E. Lee and the traitors
of the Rebellion. The former have been
consigned by that Judgment to the highest
niche of honor and glory, and the latter,
to the black catalogue, where the names of
Judas Iscariot, Benedict Arnold, and the
whole race of traitors have been placed,
and Justly placed and from this high tri-
bunal there is no appeal. Time, and the
ameliorating influences Of civilization will
not change the verdict; and such narrew-
souled admirers of human butchers, like
the Austrian Hayne and the traitor Forrest,
as that class of little things represented by
The Democrat, cannot succeed in lighting
by one ray the shadows that darken the
cause supported by such men f; but the
odium inherent to their infamy will cleave
to every arologist of their unpublished
crimes.
With the NEST reckless misconceptions,
apparently, of the principles of liberty and
republican government, we find this would
be public instructor in politics and history,
confounding a cause which immertalized a
Washington, with the base efforts in rebel
lion. which damned jeff Davis and Lee
Washington, says this disciple Of Brick
Pomeroy, "fought for the right of self
government, at the head of rebel army,
under rebel Congress, for slave-holding
colonies, and was large STAKEHOLDER HIM
self: and to say the worst slanderous
tongue can utter, Robert f. Lee did not
one lot more Nc Tory ever uttered a
baser SANDER On the Father of his country
than this. Even the misanthrope General
Lee of the Revolution, in his miserable re-
tirement, never penned fouler aspersion
against the name of Washington. Wash
ington and his patriotic army fought for
the liberty of those colonies from the yoke
of kingly power, and not to perpetuate
slavery in any of them. Robert f. Lee
and his rebel army fought for slavery. per-
petual slavery in these States to wrest
them from the humanizins and christianiz-
ing influence of liberty and the rights of
man. which was growing in, not only the
Free States, but all over civilized Europe.
The great difference between the characters
here striven to be blended, is, that the
former fought to release man from the do
minion of kingly rule and class government,
while the latter struggled to restore class
government and perpetuate abiect slavery,
which reduced man to the state of a beast
and chattel. The patriots of the colonies
fought to extend the bounds of liberty, and
establish broader basis of self govern
ment. The rebels Of the slave States con-
tended fer the restriction of self govern
ment and to narrow its privileges to the
enjoyment of class owning extensive es-
tates in land and negroes. These were the
qualifications prescribed by the Constitu
ton Of South Carolina for delegates to the
Legislature Of the State; and this State
was the leader in the cause which Lee gave
his best efforts to establish. Simply the
cause of slavery against liberty. Could
greater difference exist between such a
cause and the cause Washington fought
for? Day and night are not more opposite :;
good and evil are not farther asunder. than
the cause of Washington and that of Lee :;
and yet the littleness of The Democrat has
not been able to discern this great differ
ence.
Not an oppressed soul in the habitable
globe, that has heard the name of Wash
iugton, and net reverenced it! Will ever
one in bondage hail the name of Lee, think
you? Or had he been thousand times
successful, who among the lowly would
have ever blessed his name as a deliverer
Nay, let the names to which The Democrat
delights to sing peans, be placed in the class
with Judas and Arnold, where they prop
erly belong not because they failed, but
because their cause was evil, and they knee
it to be utterly so. But Tile Democrat sees
fit, or has the hardihood, to
Again reiterate the fact, that it was
Northern slave trade influence that placed
the previso in the Constitution of the Uni
ted States, that the slave trade should not
be prOnlDlteu untll loUS.
Reiteration, without it is supported by proof,
is of little or no avail i'll establishing prop
ositien.
We assert that South Carolina and Geor-
gia we're the States that contended for the
slave trade till 1909 and Rutlidge, Pinck-
ney and Butler, of the former State, and
Baldwin, of the latter, were the men whe
represented these States in that contest fol
the extension of the trade. General
Pinckney declared it to be his firm convic-
ton, that, if himself and all his colleagues
were to sign the Constitution, and use theil
personal influence, it would be of no avail
towards obtaining the consent of their con-
stituents. South Carolina and Georgia
cannot do without slaves This is the
testimony of the Federalist in support OF
our charge which we think will stand the
test of The Democrats unsupported reiter,
ation, THAT it was Northern slave trade
influence that placed the prOviso in the
Constitution
But We tire of exposing the garrulous
iolS' VI l.iiioiinS iouSehse pIilteu ny NJ
Democrat All that is not folly is sheer
falsehood, put forth, it would seem, for the
mere love of unblushing etfrentery. or al
inordinate propensity for CAB, aimless, idle
CAB.
How LAWS ARE EvADED.-All the Pacifi,
Railroad companies that have received sub
sides from Congress have had it slip
ulated in their charters that they must us'
American iron in the construction of thei