Knoxville weekly chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1875, 1870-11-02
SIN those Days it Came to Pass,

ocratic party devoted every energy TO pro-
pagate the doctrine of estates rights. The
public mind was constantly fed ON the
Calhoun theory. Public sentiment was
sought to he vitiatcd and perverted on the
question "Hc right Of q State TO socedo.n
This policy developed the rebellion! BY
the devotion and sClf-sacriticing efforts up
on the part of the loyal people throughout
the Union, the rebellion was supposed to
have been crushed "and the question as to
whether State could secede docided in
the RCgdtiUc.n Two years ago the Demo-
cracy proclaimed this fact to the world.
They fought their political campaign UNI
der a banner on whose folds was inscribed
the motto just quoted. But ii turns out
that this was used 10y the Democratic par
ty as the pirate uses the false flag upon
the high seas, to allure the unsuspecting
vessel until within the power of his pratt
cal crew, when he hOists his true colors
and seizes his prize. 1.-THE arbitrament of
war; had settled the question that q State
cannot secede while Democracy was weak
in minority.
But as soon as they are made strong,
through a Republican blunder they pull
down their false cOlors and unfurl their
old secession banner, war worn and battle
Scared, bearing their ancient creed of State
sOUercigBty Now, my Union friend, 20
read the first resolution of the Democratic
platform and see if it does not re-echo the
doctrine preached to you in 1S60-6l, 10y the
leaders of the secession movement? Re
member the speeches of that memorable
period, and answer whether or not the
Democratic party, from the highest to the
lowest, did not burden the very winds with
the cry of, "Will you coerce STATE" 1.-The
States are sovereign and the like bigoted
assumptions. The speeches of to-day, are
precisely similar to those made by Hancey,
Toombs and Davis, in 1861, whenever a
Democrat expresses his true sentiments,as
does Combs, and the most prominent lead
ers of the party.
Insanticipation of an effort to re-indoc-
trinate the people in the theory of Estates
rights and secession, the American peo-
Ole, through the constitutional forms,
adopted the fourteenth article of
amendment to the United States Constitu-
ton, and Congress passed the enforcement
act in,order TO prevent anotherrecurring re-
bellion. This, as in the case of the settle
ment of the question of secession, the DEM
ocratc party declined to he accepted by
them as finality. But rs they hoisted
their flag of incipient rebellion, with the
inscription to their 'unknownGOd'' ofSote
soCcrcigaty, SO they also have boldly en-
tered upon the work of notification Of and
defiance and contempt for this wise pro-
vision of the National Constitution.
The present Democratic Supreme Court
was organized in open violation of this
constitutional amendment, and in utter
enforce tin defiance of both. \ majority
of the Judges had not only been active
rebels but intense in their hatred to the
general Government.
From those members of the Court, who
were elected not on account of their abili-
ty, but especially for their political records,
the Union people expected little. How
ever, there was one man Il member of the
Court who had been Union man, and for
whom Union men voted, thinking that he
would perhaps check the extreme meas
ures Of his associates, and at least give the
Union people liberal construction OF the
law, as eXpounded by the supreme Court
of the United States, for which tribunal ne
always profCsscd to have Il profound re-
VcrCuce.
But, oh ! what a mistake! The man
thus looked to has unveiled himself, and
stands before those whose confidence he
has lost, in all the hideousncSs Of a wretch
ed detOrmity.
True to the old proveTb that, Whom tho
gods would destroy, they first make mad,
he has become the mOuth-piecc of this Reb
cl Court, and has delivered an opinion
which combines all the clements of seces
sion and rebellion, and il at the same tim
weak in statement, contradictory in argu
ment, and withal, entirely unsupported b!
authority, and repugnant to reason.
Time will not permit, while space for
bids, a very extended review Of this decision
Enough VIII only be presented to give tn
reader some idea of what this Democrat
Court is doing. Among the many mon
strOus propositions laid down in the opiIl
ION ferred to, attention is directed to tn
following con the supposition that tn
rebel soldiers knew that the plaintiff il
error was of their political faith and tn
defendant was not, it tOdS natural and 1
accordance ,oih the general usage in tn
tate Wdr, that they should endeavor to d
him as little injury as possible, and that
loss and inconvenience were to be sustained
ihey tcOuld cause these to f0H upon on
tCih tcIOm they ditered, rather than apo
one NTH t0hOm they agreed, UPON THEI
ENEMY IN PREFERENCE TO THEI
FRIEND!n Such is the language of Judg
Nelson, in delivering the unanimous opil
ion of the Court. Thus, the principle
established, that because a rebel rsgarde
Union man his enemy, he therefore Ia
a right to seize and destroy his propert,
But let us proceed a step further! Listen
Read " Had it been established bY pos
tiCc proof, instead of conjecture, that tn
plaintiff in error discovered that the so
diers We're determined to encamp upon h
own land, or that of the defendant,
error, and would take the timber and pr
perry of one or the other, informed theI
that he was a rebel and that defendant,
error, was Union man, and actually o
y,,yIyfII Them In fOE, fIg latter and sylC