The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1899-07-25
Was Lincoln A Traitorl
he Raltimnra Sun Saws:

The Baltimore sun says;
Traitor being the fsvorlte
name applied by the imperialists to
all who do not approve of the war OF
conouest against the Filipinos, the
New York Evening Post rises to in
ouire whether it would have been
proper to consider Lincoln traitor
for his opposition to the Mexican
War and for his sharp criticism of
President Polk. The Post prints ex-
tracts from the speech on this sub
iect delivered by Lincoln in the
House of Representatives on January
~, Is4S, in which he severely de-
nouuced the war and srrsigned the
President. Among other things be
said:
"Now, sir, for the purpose of OBJ
tanning the very best evidence as to
whether Texas had actually carried
her revolution to the place where the
hostilities of the present war com
menced, let the President answer the
interrogatories | propose, or some
other similar ones. Let him answer
fully, fairly and oandidly. Let him
answer with facts and not with argu
msnts. Let him remember he sits
where Washington sat, and, so re-
membering, let him answer as Wash
ington would answer. AS nation
should not. and the Almighty will
not, be eyaded, so let him attempt no
evasion-no equivoestion. And If,
80 answering, he can show that the
soil was ours where the first blood OF
the war was shed-thst it was not
within an inhabited country, or, if
within such, that the inhabitants had
submitted themselves to the civil
authority of Texas or Of the United
States, and that the same is true OF
the site Of Fort Brown-then | am
with him for his justification. But if
he cannot, or will not do this-if on
any pretense, or no pretense, he shall
refuse or omit it-then shall be fully
convinced of what | more than sus
poet already-that he is deeply con-
scious of being in the wrong that
he feels the blood Of the war, like the
blood OF Abel, is crying to heaven
against him that originally having
some strong motiye-what, | will not
stop now to give my opinion concern
ing-to involve the two countries in
war, and trusting to escape scrut-
my by fixing the public gaze upon
the exceeding brightness of military
glory-that attractive rainbow that
rises in showers of blood-that ser
pent's eye that charms to destroy
he plunged into it, and has swept on
and on till, disappointed in his cal
culation of the ease with which Mex.
leo might be subdued, he now finds
himself he knows not where. He is
q bewildered, COMPOUNDED and miser-
ably psrplexed man. God grant be may
be able to show there is not some
thing about his conscience more
painful than all his mental perplex-
ity."
According to the imperislist meth
cd Of reasoning, Lincoln WAS
{" traitor" Hs denounced a war in
which the country was engaged and
criticised in the most severe manner
the Administration which was prose.
cutting it. AS the Post pertinently
asks, would Mckinley, Alger and the
rest characterize Lincoln as q trait
or " for his attitude with regard to
TIA Mexican War and his criticism of
President Polk 2 If not, why are
those who oppose the war against the
Filipinos and who criticise President
Mckinley L" traitors 7" Argument
does not consist in calling names.
What the imperislists lack in logic
they attempt to make up 10 vitupers-
ton.