The Weekly Kansas chief. [volume] (Troy, Kan.) 1872-1918, 1878-10-03
Democracy and the rebellion.

The Bslletis indulges in the usual squeal over
Col. st. Johns remarks relative To the Demo-
cratic rebellion, and rebashes the same old tune,
that Democrats shouldered their muskets to put
down the rebellion. What Col. st. John asserted,
was the exact truth, establishsAl by history,
aud personally known to every person Of the
age of thirty years and over in the United States
Col st. John did not say that Republicans only
fought to suppress the rebellion. He did not in
innate that no Democrats were in the Union
army. No other Republican speaker ever did.
Any one Of them will freely admit that thou
sands and tens of thousands of Democrats shoul-
dered their muskets and fought for the Union.
When Republicans charge that it was Dsmo-
cratic rebellion, they charge it not upon scat
tered individuals Of the party, but upon it as Q
party organization.
Every member of Congress or other Federal
officer who deserted his post to assist in the re-
bellon, was Democrat, from jeff Davis down.
Every army officer or soldier who deserted his
flag to enter the army of the rebellion, was a
d Democrat. Every man in the North who mobbed
or assassinated Union soldiers, or resisted the
raising Of recruits, was Democrat. The Dem
ocratic organizations of every State and of the
Uuited States opposed and denounced the war
for the Union. Not q single Democratic State
platform ever heartily endorsed the Union cause,
or endorsed it at all, unless accompanied by
some insult that made it censure. No Demo-
cratic National Convention ever uttered q word
in its platform to encourage the Union cause. In
the darkest hour of the rebellion-the hour just
before day-the Democratic National Conven-
tion denounced the war rs a failure, and de-
manded peace upon any terms, even the recog-
| milton of the Southern Confederacy; and to be
consistent nominated General for President
who had been more conspicuous than any other
| in making the war failure. Every Northern
man W who gave aid or encouragement to the rebels
was Democrat. 1t was a Republican President
and Republican Congress- backed by the united
and unanimous Republican party of the North,
that kept the Government running, and crushed
the rebellion. Every Democrat who went into
the Union army, acted under the direction of a
Republican President and Congress. No Repub-
lican ever mobbed or bushwhacked Uuion sold
iers, or discouraged enlistments, or gave eacour-
agement to the rebellion.
These are the plain facts, and they are what
Col st. John referred to. Let the Bulletin or any
other Democratic authority disprove them.
Why even now it is very common to hear men
say, 81 was war Democrat" or, 81 an Dem
ocrat, but was in the Union army" If the Dem
ocratic party, as an org anization, was not dis
loyal and opposed to the war for the preservation
of the Union, why is it necessary for them to quail
ify their political standing by the term irar Dem
ocrati Why necessary to say they are Demo-
Gratis, but were in the Union armyf Why, Ger
tain gentleman who makes hullaLaloo over this
charge that the Democrats!opposed the war, has
repeatedly told that his father-in-law was
such bitter Democrat, that he refused to speak
to him when he enlisted in the army. If they
are now so sensitive that they can't endure the
"waving of the bloody Shirt it is doubtless be-
cause they know too well who caused it to be
bloody.