Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1880-08-26
Fighting for PRINCIPLES.


Gratis of the South are contending for
'the same principles for which Lee and
Jackson fought for four years" These
I3S electoral votes give a possibility Of
success. if any Northern States are OF
the same mind. What, then. are the prin-
cip,es for which Lee and Jackson fought,
and foI which n Northern State will
vote, if it votes with the Solid South?
The right of secession was the princi-
pie for which Lee and Jackson profess
edly contended. Any State, they claim
ed, could dissolve the Union at its pleas
ure. 4 simple resolution to secede,
adopted by the temporary majority of
the people or their representatives in
any State, was enough to rend all ties
between the people of that State and the
United States. Against that doctrine
of secession the loyal people of this eoun-
try raised powerful armies, spent money
by the Thousand millions, and sacrificed
the lives of two hundred thousand pa
triots. Are they 10 vote that they were
wrong? VIII the people of Northern
State vote that the blood and treasure of
the North were spent in an unholy and
unjust effort? VIII they mark with dis
honor the graves of the brave men who
died that the Nation might live?
Secession had cause. The principle
4 for which the Southern States seeded
was one of the principles for which Lee
and Jackson fought Secession was to
preserve slavery. The right of white
men to hold black men and women in
bondage, and to treat them in every re-
spect as cattle, was the principle for
! which the Southern States seeded. The
| iron hoofs and wheels of war have pass
ed over the Institution of slavery, and it
is dead. Every foot of the soil of these
| United States has been made. sacred to
! freedom by Constitutional Amend
ment Nevertheless. it seems, we have
to fight the battle ali over again, for the
Democratic party is still contending for
"the principles for which Lee and Jack
son fought for four years" Does the
South still fancy that it can restore ne
gro slavery? Apparently. Civil rights
are denied to the cOlored race. Social
freedom is denied. Political rights, es-
pecially, though guaranteed by the Con-
stitution, are completely denied to those
unhappy people who were once slaves.
Democratic papers at the South boldly
declare that the negro race is doomed to
extinction of slavery; that it can con-
tinue to exist at the South only as a SER
vile and enslaved race. But is this one
of the principles for which any Northern
State is ready to vote?
The Democratic party, we may as well
remember, has never yet consented to the
extinction of slavery. In some places,and
at some times, its platforms recognize
abolition us fact accomplished. but net
as fact irrevocable and irreversible
| There is not a trace of proof that the
Democratic party, if it should gain pow
er again, would not revoke enfranchise
ment, unto abolition, and remand the
colored people, by various legal devices
| which Democratic States can easily con-
trive, to a condition of slavery. The
acts passed by Southern Legislatures,
Immediately after the war. would have
remanded the cOlored race to virtual
slavery, as we all know, and they were
therefore revoked and held void by the
loyal Congress of that day. Since the
Democratic party came into power in
Congress. it has never been able to pass
an act for such purpose over a Presi-
Dental veto, and therefore has refrained
from the disclosure of its purpose. But
is there a shred of evidence that such
acts would not be quickly passed, if
President could be got to sign them?
Really, we cannot guess how far reac-
ton may go, if it once begins. When
the little stream, not bigger than a mans
finger, trickles through the great dam, it
looks harmless enough. Yet everybody
knows that it will gain power, if left
unchecked, to tear away the most pom
derOus masonry, and to wreck industry
and to destroy life for miles below. Dem
ocratic reaction is of the same nature.
1t crawls through the crevices of the
Constitution very humbly as yet, but it
lacks only the confidence of power to
sweep away all the Amendments, and
the Constitution itself. Wade Hampton
did not talk rashly OF wildly. He knew
the spirit and purpose of the people to
whom he spoke. Democrats find no
fault with his utterance, except that it
was "indiscreet." lie spoke the feeling
Of his party, but spoke it too soon. More
cunning Democrats would have waited
until a Democratic President had been
elected. But, thanks to Hampton,
Northern men can see Just what Dem
ocratic vote really means. 1t means, as
he truly says, a triumph of 1.-THE princi-
pies for which Lee and Jackson fought
for four years. Northern men will look
into the matter Before they vote they
will consider what were the principles
for which Lee and Jackson fought, and
how far Democratic reaction may go,
if it once has chance.-[N. Y. Tribune.
A Wise Deacon.
Deacon Wilder, / want yen to tell
me how you kept yourself and family
well the past season, when all the rest
of us have been sick so much. and have
had the doctors visiting us so often
"Bro. Taylor, the answer is very easy.