Year: 1867

AhC ACuoSuo 1cteyfupH SOLuc lIHIc
ago published an article affirming that
the present editor of the Milwaukee Ne,cs
had during the war published articles in
favor of secession and had labored for the
rebel cause as far as he dared. The ar
ticle was copied in other papers, at which
the Ne,os became very indignant and in
the style of Democratic papers generally
descends to the lowest slang, and person.
al abuse of the editor of the Telegraph.
1t is the custom of some low-minded
men, when they can offer no reasonable
excuse for past misdeeds, to commence a
huge system of blowing and throwing
mud, hoping thereby to obliterato all
traces of their guilt, but it is of no use !;
not unfrequently it directs public scrutiny
all the more closely to those acts which
they would fain conceal. Such is the
result in this case. The Telegraph goes
back to old files (which are hard things
to cast in ones teeth of the Kenosha
Democrat, published during the first
years of the war by the present editors of
the Macs, and makes some extracts which
prove the statements made in this and
many other Republican papers to the
effect that the Democratic party is re-
sponslble for the late war and the mighty
debt under which the nation groans to-
day. For the benefit of those who easily
forget the words of their party leaders
we give few of those extracts. Here is
one published just after Mr.. Lincoln
first election, Nov l6, 1860:


''The people of the south honestly sup.
pose Mr.. Lincoln correctly represents
this lawless nullifying, agrarian spirit Of
the North, and are determined to have
Their constitutional rights respected or
dissolve the Union. Are they wrong in
his? Have they no real grounds of
complaints against the north Z"


Here we see the right of secession de-
Tended and plea for southern rights.
In an other article of the same paper the
editor says:


s'They probably intend to commit no
overt act against the United States gov
ernment until the right of peaceable Sc
cession has been denied them Should
this be done, they undoubtedly intend
revolution. Are our people prepared to
deny the right of "a state to secede for any
cause


Early in 1861 this Democratic editor
changed his mind a little and came to
the conclusion that secession was unlaw-
full, but he boldly asserts we cannot pre-
vent it, thus using It's whole influence
against the Union cause january 4,
1861 it says:


'The constitution may not allow seces-
sion; but South Carolina has seeded 1t
may provide for compelling an unwilling
state to remain in the Union; but the
loyal states are utterly unable to execute
it. Does any sane man believe the free
states are able by force of arms to subdue
the slave states, and compel them to a
detested alliance Does any one think
such course expedient? Ne arsurediy
do not


About this time too, he attempted to
frighten us from any attempt to preserve
the Union, and at the same time to give
aid and comfort to the rebellion by hold
ing up the weakness of the North through
TIE opposition of northern democracy to
the war He says:


"A majority of our best military COM
manders have been Of southern birth
4H southern men are accustomed to the
use of firearms, aud all are good horse
men. Thousands Of northern men could
not hit a man at twenty PAGES, one shot
in three with pistol, if allowed deliber-
ate aim. The negroes cannot be relied on
for msurrecttoa. Whatever they do will
be for denfense And finally, full one
half the north are unhesitot.nglg opposed
to ,car. Where then is the vaunted
strength of the north to subjugate the
South 1t has no real existence"


Now who was meant by that full one
half of the North but the Democratic
party? But we have given extracts
enough for our purpose, whichis to show
that the Democratic party is responsible
for the war;