The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1877-01-10
'rI,e Northern Democracy.

Somebody is credited with the smart
saying that tie Northern Democracy are
"invincible in peace and invisible in
war" The idea designed to be conveyed
is that the Northern Democracy made
loud boasts of intentions TO come to the
aid of the South in the event of war
between the two sections, and then re-
fused 10 comply with their pledge. In
the first place, this is an unmanly
way of evading the Presidential issue,
with which the country is confronted, and
it does not relieve the South from bear
ing her share of the responsibilities that
may result from the threatened attempt
CT the Radical leaders to nullify the cleo
ton and usurp the government. The
attitude of the Nothern Democracy
neither before, nor during the
civil war has any relevancy to the existing
controversy. The issues are different.
The nature of the quarrel is different.
Its bearings upon the various sections
of the Union are different. There is no
similarity between the two; and the pub
lie agent who pretends to find in the con-
duct, or the asserted conduct Of the
Northern Democracy at aby time, mo-
tive for abandoning his cause now, is
paving the way for selling out to the
usurpers.
But in point of fact, it is not true that
the Northern Democracy did make a
pledge to espouse the side of the South
with arms in their hands in the event of
a war resulting from secession. a few
Jealous men in their opposition to the
abolition party, and to its obtaining con-
troll of the government, may have made
declarations which admitted of the in
depreciation, and two of the number we
now remember, the late Daniel S. Dick
enson, of New York, and the late
Governor Willard Of Indiana, but they
we're exceptional cases. To the credit of
the Northern Democracy, it ought not
be forgotten that they did resist with rea
son and argument the encroachments of
fanaticism upon the Constitution, to the
last moment, after every other Northern
organization had been absorbed by the
Radical party, but it is not true that they
ever advised the secession of the South
ern States as a remedy for the evils ofthe
party whose triumphant march to power
they had struggled to defeat, and much
less did they promise to take up arms in
behalf of such q movement if it was
made. Common sense forbade such a
course on their part. The contamination
they least desired was separation from
the South, and to be left in Union
poWerless in the presence of the over
shadowing abolition party which was
predominant in the Northern States. 1t
is { poor return from their constancy
and sacrifices ia opposing the growth
and spread of abolition and its contraliz
ing tendencies, to charge them with
apostacy for net taking up arms against
their own section after the discussion was
transferred from the forum to the field.
SO much for the truth Of history. But
if the facts are precisely as designed to
be conveyed by tile pert remark
above quoted, about ''invincibiiity, and
invisibility' they would not Justify indif-
ference on the part of the South to
the grave Issue now pending; nor render
her people unmindful Of the fact that the
success Of the lneditated Radical usurpa-
ton would maau Lis continuation of
Grantism, The riveting Of the chains APP
OF. Louisiana and South Carolina, and the
overthrow Of the governments in the
Southern States, which Ly superhuman
efforts have wrought out their deliver
arce from carpet bag misrule. Nor
would it absolve them from the obligation
to stand firmly by their Northern allies in
the Presidential election and share with
them whatever response biiities May result
from a bold assertion Of the right to in
augurate the man who has been chosen
President by majority of the people.