Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1872-09-09

Z Dis.sucsis with Difference.
That Mr.. aaley vas a believer in the doc
trine of see ssiou md an advooate of it in
/ speeches, letters sud editorial articles in the
/ Tribune IS -5auaantly established. Thisis his
strong laim upon his supporters at the
| south, with whom it more than outweighs his
yehemen denunciations of southern society and
| the democratic party. That he still holds the
same opinions on this subject there is no doubt.
At any rate his southern friends so understand
it, and advocate his election on thar ground.
The Galveston News, for example, said recently:
IF We understand Mr.. Greeley's senti-
mentS he is secessionist and always has
been. Mr.. Greeley's theory of the government s
The true one, and though little startling, it is
the easiest, simplest and best" If there were
any doubt about Mr.. Grceley's being still
q secessionist in theory, it would be set at rest
by an article 10 his personal organ, or whatever
other instrument il chooses to be called, we are
1ot particular about names, the New York
Tribune OF SATURDAY which says, speaking of
his secession record in 1860 and 1861: ct has
never occurred to us that the position of Mr.
Greeley at that time needed any defence, and we
have, therefore, never undertaken any" This is
candid, certainly. Whether his position needs
auy defence, depends very much upon the
point Of view from which you regard
it, His present supporters, the great
majority Of them, at least are, no doubt,
perfectly satisfied with his record on that sub
iect as it stands. 1t does not, however, recon-
mend him TO republicans, who, before they
Of
to which he now aspires, would ask, not whether
it needs defence, but whether it VIII admit of
any. We know that it contributed materially
to the secession of at least one state, Georgia,
in whose convention the secession articles of
Greeley in the Tribune were read to counterfeit
the effect of the Union speech of Alexander II.
Stephens.
But the Tribune, since it cannot deny, and
will not defend Gree|ey's secessionism, resorts
to the you're another" style of argument, and
| processes TO have discovered that General Dix,
the republican candidate for governor Of New
York, was tarred with the same stick General
| Dix, it says, in the course of a speech made in
1864, used this language:
"If the southern states, after calm delibera-
ton, and after carefully considering all the con-
etQuGuCGs, lldu Will Tue COllStNI Oh the
Others, and with a full recognition of their
responsibility to the Union, to withdraw peace
ably from it, there are many OF us who would
have preferred separation to civil war"
This the Tribune says, goes farther in the
policy OF secession than Greeley has been ac-
cused of going. The Tribune's delinquencies in
the way of inventing ISLANDERS upon its oppo-
uents have been so many and notorious, that
We shnu11 fror,,
Gen. DiX's speech to be a forgery except for the
fact that it was just as easy to invent something
that would have served the purpose better. As
Stunning, however, that Gen. Dix did say what
is imputed TO him, his secessonisnn, if it can be
so called, was of the very mildest type He did
not even say, except by q doubtful inference,
that he would himself, in any event, have pre-
ierred separation to civil war. "Many of u.s."
he said, would haYe preferred it; if the south
| ern states had decided, aCitb the consent Of the
| others, and with full recognition of
their responsibility to the union, to withdraw
| Or, in other words, if the southern states, adj
hitting the sovereignty of the United States
government, and having Obtained the consent
of the other states, had desired to withdraw,
those for whom Gen. Dix spoke would have
preferred to let chem 20. Under those circum-
stances the preference of any person or party
would have been of small consequence The
wish of some states TO withdraw aud the con-
sent Of the rest would have settled the matter
To consent to it at that stage is not dangerous
form of secessionism. The necessity of the con-
sent of the other states and the recognition of
responsibility to the union were the vital points
of difference between the defenders of the union
and the supporters of the states rights theories.
The latter, and Mr.. Greeley among them, main.
tanned the absolute right of the southern states
to secede whenever the majority of their inhab-
itants desired to do so, and denied that there
| existed anywhere the authority to restrain them
in the exercise of this right. As evidence of this
we quote from the Tribune of Dec 10, 1860:
"And if this right justified the secession from
the British empire Of three millions of colonists
| in 1776, we do not see why it would not Justify
the secession Of five millions of southerners
from the Federal Union in 1861"
This seems to us a decidedly different and
more dangerous grade Of secessionism from that
charged upon Gen. Dix.