Year: 1863

cratic Party.


1t is surprisingly strange that the called
democratic party should nop exhibit such an
exceeding jealousy of the right of free speech
for it is not long since they wared against an
unlimited exercise of that right in the leading
political questions of the day. Yes, the leaders
of that party did not even restrict themselves to
that warning, but ,lso practically denied the
right of petition, which is as constitutional and
sacred as the right of free speech.


Let us, therefore try to explain this strange
course. The key to it, we hold to be expedien-
cy, for no other consideration was ever recog-
nized by the leaders of that party. The ques-
ton ofexpediency, however, was never raised
in regard to the welfare of the wtolc country, but
only as far as it related to party interests.


Shortly after the year 1892, a coalition took
place between certain political leaders of the
North and South The elements constituting
this coalition, organized themselves under the
name of"The Democratic Party" and ever af-
terwards were known by that name. Foremost
among their tenets was that prescribing dis
cussion on the subject of slavery, or as they
were pleased to call it, the agitation of slavery.
This very tenet then must have been unconsti-
tutional according to the present doctrine of the
party that now claims to be exclusively the con
stitutional party. But it served their purpose
then, and its constitutionality or non-constitu-
tionalty gave them no trouble


But, then, times have changed. The course
pursued and principles contended for then,
would not now be expedient That party now
clamors loudly for the right of free speech, for
the purpose of defending the identical interest
against which they denied that self-same right,
which they now so much covet. They ask it
to traduce and revile the government for striking
death blow at that same institution, which
having proved expedient for so many years to
their interests, they have learned to hold more
sacred than even the honor and prosperity o
their country. They do not ask the circum.
stances which compelled the government tc
adopt such policy. That the persons, or men
most directly concerned in that interest, hav,
struck deadly blow at the nations heart, anC
in their endeayors to establish supremely the
pet institution, on the ruins of our common
country, does not, in the eyes of the leaders o
the democratic party justify the government il
adopting such course. Far from that These
men find words of excuse for the heinous crime
the South has committed, not alone against the
country, but also against the common cause Of
mankind.


! 1t is for the purpose of excusing the South
for its abhorrent course, and partially fastening
upon the loyal people of the North the odium
OF having contributed to the destruction of the
glorious fabric reared by our fathers and be-
queathed to us as an inheritance, that they de-
mand the unlimited right of free speech 1t is
not, however, to be forgotten that according to
the laws of all civilized countries the right OF
free speech, even in times of peace, has its lim-
| its. Proof the existence of libel laws. Accord
ing to these laws no one has the right of injur-
| ing his fellow man, and heavy penalties are at
tached to every such offense. Now, in time o;
war, the government of any nation represents
the nation, and may properly be regarded as an
individual, at variance with another individual
in the commonwealth of mankind Any one
therefore, who willfully seeks to injure his gov
eminent, makes himself guilty of libeling his
nation


The leaders of the democratic party who SO
| unscruplously revile the existing government
and in every shape and manner excuse if not
sympathize with the rebellious South, may
therefore properly be called libelers if not trait
ors The latter more So as the language used
by the rebels is almost identical in phraseology
with that of the leading men and journals of Tho
democratic party; and where the phrases are
not Identical the meaning implied is very near.
l
ual the law of self-preservation is pre-eminent
The government inasmuch as it represents the
nation, may, therefore, properly deny sucl
rights as it may deem dangerous to its existence
in time of war, and justify or adopt such other
measures as it may deem expedient to the main.
tainance of its existence


In the duty of maintaining its existence, the
government as well as the people representing
a nation are not alone responsible to their CO.
temporaries, but also to future generations con.
nected or unconnected with 1t. The former
more especially, for as the father bequeaths to
the son honor or disgrace according to his acts
and character, so will our present authorities
and we ourselves, bequeath to our posterity hon
or or disgrace according we shall maintain
or loose our national existence and Herewith
the trust which was confided to our care for the
benefit of future generations


| We therefore consider it the duty of every
loyal man, in the North and South, to set aside
all other considerations and support the gov
ernment in its endeavors to put down this ac-
cursed rebellion Severe cases demand severe
remedies, and we may therefore not grumble
at the temporary loss of rights however dear
and bear cheerfully the burthen which the force
of circumstances impose upon us, keeping oul
eyes steadfastly fixed on the glorious "Stars and
! Stripes" which we will hand untarnshed and
unsullied to our posterty. COLUMBIA.
l