Mineral Point tribune. (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1869-1938, 1872-10-17
GREELEY ON THE STUMP /,
His contradictions on the Subject
Of accession.
Is Such Facilitating Man Fit for the
Presidency
From Harper'z Weekly.

litical platform f; but no man can escape
himself, and the public opinion of Mr..
Greeley's fitness for the Office he seeks
can not be changed by these speeches.
They show that upon the most vital
political question of the war he is
either not in accord with the principles
that prevailed in the struggle or that
he does not know what he does think.
These are his words at Pittsburg. AL
luding to the beginning of secession, he
says
Il denied that the great majority OF the
southern people were against the Union
demanded that there should be an open. free
discussion, that Southern people might have
an honest unterrihed, uncoustralned vote
and, If they approved, if the people of the
south said they wanted disunion, would con-
sent tolt knew they would not"
And he continues:
$ And now, to day, if the nation were TO be
iuiperiled, and there was Just two modes of
saving Ito trust the chances of civil war or
the chances OF tree vote of the Southern
people, would very greatly prefer to take
thdllatter chance rather than the former
The first statement is exactly that of
Davis and the secession leaders. Their
States, they said, solemnly voted to Sc
cede. Mr.. Greeley's opinion, that if
there had been an open and free cleo
ton they would not have done so, is a
mere theory. 1t is very clear that the
dominant opinion of the seeding States
was in favor of session.
eff the people of the South said
they wanted disunion, would consent
to 1t. Is the man who says that the
man to be made President of the United
States in 1922 In his message as
Mayor of the city of New York, in
1861, Fernando Wood suggested, upon
similar grounds, that the city might
find it wise to secede from the State.
II is doctrine which is subversive of
all political society. What is "the
South except an opinioul There is
no section of the country properly
known as such, and to speak as Mr..
Greeley does, as if it expressed GER
tain district, is to talk nonsense The
theory is as true of ''the North" and
of "the East, y and "the West" and
" Northwest, and the Centre, as of
" the South. Then the remark be
comes declaration that if the people
of any part of the country said they
wanted disunion, he would consent to
1T. Very well State is part of the
country. If the doctrine is true of six
States, 1T is true of one. And it is
therefore a plain statement that if a
majority of the yoters-tor they only,
IN political sense, are the people-in
any state vote for secession, Mr. Horace
Greeley is in favor Of it; for at Pitts
burg he did not say that he had chang
ell his opinion. And saying this, he
houts the soldiers of the Union, and
prattles about clasping hands over a
bloody chasm.
He proceeds to say that if there were
but two modes Of saving the Union, be
should prefer to save 1t by vote to
saving it by a war. Who wouldn't?
Who prefers q war to a vote2 Who
ever did prefer it? Did any body pre-
fer it in 1860 or '612 He expresses the
at that time in the seeding States,
they would not have seeded. But if
he is mistaken, how then? If a ma
iority vote to secede, then what
Would Mr.. Greeley take the result as
proof that the vote was not " free, y or
would he let the State go! Now mark
the evasion. marx what certainly seems
like duphclty He first says that if
:" the peoplen-that is, the majority
said they wanted disunion, he would
consent to it. But he then adds, if
there were but two modes of saving the
Union, vote or a war, | should prefer
a vote. Yet if the vote were for seces-
sion, it would not, OF course, be mode
of saving the Union, and therefore he
would resort to war. That is to say,
having declared that if State voted to
secede he would consent, he further
declares that secession would not save
the Union. when he had ascertained
that the people wished to secede, he
would make war to force them to re-
main. How heartily the clear-headed
and consistent secessIonlsts must de-
spise their laundering apologistl
If Mr.. Greeley's views in his Pitts
burg speech are correct, there Is no
Union. The whole nation is ut the
mercy of any handful of melcontcnts
Ii the vote of "the people OF the
South may dissolve the Union, so
NAV the vote of any State, and of any
county in any State. This speech WIS,
of course, most carefully considered. F
1t was intended to show his position
upon an essential question, and there
is no doubt OF the significance Of the
words Mr. Greeley used. But at Gin
cinnatl he recalled everything he had
said. OF course his assertion that he
did not think the States would have sc
coded had they had fair election was
of no Importance, because he had con-
coded that the secession of a State
might be determined by a vote.
D.. IL Z, ~, ,,,,nnt his snnnnh uas nrintEAl