The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1891-10-23

coin argued that the alleged Jeferson
party Of his day had entirely abandoned
its original Jefersonian doctrines Oh
personal and property rights. lie stated
the matters then at issue and the posi-
ton Of the two old parties of that time
as follows:
The Democracy Of today hold the
liberty of one man to be absolutely moth
ing when in conflict with another mans
right to property. Republicans, on tht
contrary, are both for the man and the
dollar, but3in case of conflict the man be-
fore the dollar"
Mr. Lincoln plainly states, and his.
torical facts plainly prove, that the SO
called party of Jefferson had abandoned
the high and noble sentiments Of itS
wise and patriotic founder, and in Mr.
Lincoln's day had become the ramp
ant and unreasoning champion of huz
man slavery. It had abandoned the high
and holy doctrine Of the personal rights
Of man, and had become the devotee Of
the dollar. It was the unquestioning
servant of mammon, counting the image
of God as nothing.
In our dayit is both interesting and
instructive to inquire whether the party
founded by Mr.. Lincoln has not also
fallen from its first high and holy estate?
Has not the Republican party Of today
totally and entirely abandoned the doc
tTineso Of Mr.. Lincoln and his co-workersf
It is not difficult to prove that the
money power has completely captured
the two old political parties Of the pres
ent day. Its first victory over the coun-
try was the wounding of the greenback
in 1869, causing the depreciation of the
money on which the life of the nation
depended. Then came the national
banking system in 1868, giving the
money power almost complete control
over the finances and industries of the
country. After that came currency con
traction, the demonetization Of silver and
the refunding of the bonds, entirely sub
ordinating the personal rights and inter
ests of the many to the property rights
of the few. The decline and fall of the
Republican party from the doctrines OF
MI. Lincoln is quite as plain and more
deplorable than was the decline and fall
of the Democratic'part of Mr.. Lincoln's
day from the doctrines Of Mr.. jefferson
Both parties having fallen from their
high estate, the question arises, "Do
they now radically differ" One can
easily prove that in the most essential
particulars they do not. Mr.. Andrew
Carnegie, of Pennsylvania, says they do
Nv 111,
member of congress from Kansas, says
that on the money question there is not
an earthly bit of difference between the
two old parties" Both parties agree in
permitting corporations to control the
finances of the country in their own in
terest, to the great damage of the best
interests of the people. Both parties
agree in permitting corporations to cap:
ture and control the public railroad
highways of the nation, "levying tribute
at will on all our vast Industries"
Both parties agree in permitting for
eign and domestic monopolies to buy up
the lands of the country, reducing the
laboring masses of the people to the po-
sltion of serfs, without the means of ex-
istence except on such terms as may be
granted by heartless landlords. Both OF
the political parties of today agree in d
financial and Industrial policy which is
fast depriving the great middle classes
OF their homes and reducing our labor
ing people to the lowest conditions Of
idleness and abject suffering. In every
stage of these wrongs and injuries both
parties agree in turning deaf ear to the
complaints of the long suffering people,
and they refuse to see the distress they
cause. as did the hardhearted king of
Egypt. In view of all these facts, is it
not high time that the people should rise
in their might, as our patriotic fathers
have done in the great emergencies of
our history, and create new party on
the basis of the personal rights of man,
as so ably approved by Thomas Jefferson
and Abraham Lincoln?
When King George asserted that his
property rights in America were more
sacred than the rights Of the Americans
to liberty, George Washington, Thomas
jefferson and the patriots of their day
protested Whep the Shareholders of
Mr.. Lncoln's day set up the claim that
their property rights in their human
chattels were more sacred than the ne.
gro's right to liberty, Mr.. Lincoln and
the other patriots of his time protested.
Now, when the claim is set up that the
alleged investments of dollars in our
American lands and railroads are more
sacred than the rights of our people to
liberty, may we not be excused for en-
terlng our protests, as did our patriot
fathers under the stress of similar emer-
gencies? These queries are thrown out
to induce thought.
JNo. DAVIS, NJ. G.