Kansas agitator. [volume] (Garnett, Kan.) 1890-1905, 1896-06-19
GARNETT, KANSAS, JUNE 19, 1896.

overreached.
8. The delivering up' of the fugitiv
slaves -constructively by the states to whicl
said fugitives had 1ed-was expressly stipulat
ed in the constitution. See article d., section 2
clause 3. The tariff was (is) the creature o
congressional legislation.
g. Ellsworth, member of the constitutions
convention; Rawle, in his commentaries on the
constitutions Jefferson, John Quincy Adams
Webster, Greeley, Chase and Edwin M. Stan
ton, the Abolitionists; the Democratic party
its press, and many of the Republican papers
previous to 1861, admitted the right of seces.
sion from the Union on the part of the states
(full proof at hand) Corrolary: Secession
rests OH the high moral (ethicaD ground that
separation is better than constant strife, blood
shed or murder; and further, that the right OF
existence for this Union must be demonstrated
by the blessings conferred upon all its sections;
the excellency of its laws; by the "consent of
the governed" and not by it's ability to coerce
the governed!-these unwilingly-" -"subjected"
states, feeling within themselves abundant abil-
lty to enabt better government than is vouch-
safed to them by wholly unchecked and ire
sponslble central absolutism.
10. The plot for the coercion of the South
ern states was covertly hatched by the tariff
interests of certain Northern states, during the
winter of 80 to '6I-patriotsm being the pre-
tense, sectional advantage the controlling mo-
tive for the war of coercion against the South.
H. When the South got tired of darkey-
catching and repudiated constitutional provis-
ions, the South, too, got tired of being tariff
skinned and abused by the Abolitionists, and
showed both her sincerity and manhood by
seeding from the North. why did not the
North secede, from the South, about 1860, in
the interest of liberty? Not she The Union,
though utterly deba1ched, still answered its
chief purposes, that of the tarif-reapers and
prospective monopolists
IL. Coercion doctrines were not sprung un-
til after Southern senators and representatives
had vacated their congressional seats, Oh which
occasion much friendly-or, at least, pretended
friendly ly-hand- shaking and leave-takitg oc-
CURED, the general sentiment concedihg that
separation was best for both parties. Was not
the subsequent annunciation of the doctrine of
coercion perfdous? the interpretations of the
natural contract ex parte, and the Judgment
passed upon the South as traitors an ex post de
facto proceeding?
IL. Did not the avowed intention of coerc-
ion, the manning, repairing and provisioning
Of Forts Sunpter and Moultre and other forts,
cordinq to the purpose of their construction as
oulwarks against foreign foes, but with the
covert intention of using these forts for the
subversion of the independence of the very
states upon whose soil they were built, afford
sufficient justification to the respective states
Tor seizing these forts to frustrate if possible,
The effort of coercion, and in the Interest of
heir independence.
IA. Had not the South, in 81, and again
rom early March until the middle of April,
commissioners at Washineton
to adjust all differences in the way
If peaceable separation? Were these not
reated with shameful duplicity by the Wash
ngtonan officials for purposes of gaining time2
IS. Is any section of this domain the king
If other sections? Was there such an absout-
SIN lodged i'll the national government as to
make lis all "subjects" to its sway? Could
you have inVeigled a single state into this
more perfect unlon' if the rat-trap features
If this Union had been frankly avowed? if the
'eople of the states had unequivocally been
old that the powers vested in the general gov
rnment were "not powers delegated" hut
powers "abdicated" by the states anf. by the
people? See Edward Eve1ett's Gettysburg
speech highly by Abraham Lincoln.
16 Is there any other foundation for coerc-
on than chattel slavery? Do not both rest on
arutal force?-on the denial of liberty?
II. If the state rights may be re-asserted
or "benefcent purposes" can higher motives
De found than those Of independence, of liber-
alton from the enslaving servitude of debts,
municipal, state and national, by which the
heritage of unborn generations is pledged for
he enrichment of plutocrats, both native and
foreign?
Billion-dolar congresses mean an annual tax
of SIS per head for every man, woman and
child OF this blessed C?) land. Is the head of
family OF eight getting $I2o worth of hene-