Year: 1863

Why is it perfectly conservative to kill
the slave-Owners, and yet radical to
emancipate the slave ?-NdshUilie Union.


Promising that the Union by figure
of speech here puts the slave-owner for
the rebel in arms, we will answer its
question, for the answer covers the whole
ground of conservatism as opposed to
radicalism in this struggle


The answer is two-fold ]. Because
the latter is contrary to the constitution
and the laws of war, and the former ism t.
.. Because the latter serves to promote
the success of the rebellion, and the
former doesn't.


In other words, the latter is false in
principle and false in policy, tending to
destroy the Union and Constitution, while
the former, on the contrary, is right in
principle and right in policy, tending, in
this most unhappy exigency, to preserve
the Union and the Constitution. There
fore, the one is conservative or preserva-
tive, and the other is radical or destruc-
tive.


Such is the argument against radical
iSm-an argument which we in common
WIN OAHCt NOhoCI NdIlhCS nave utNGIOpeu
time and again, but which it has never
been answered, and never will be. 1t is
unanswerable.-Lou. Journal.


'Such is the argument against" what
the Journal calls radicalism." Such
it truly is, consisting of four absurd and
groundless assertions embraced in the
two ANSWERS of the Journal, which it
does not and cannot sustain by one iota
of proof We thank the Journal for thus
.condensing its favorite folly into two
brief paragraphs, and then admitting
that I" such is the argument against radi,
calism - it covers the whole ground of
conservatism as opposed to radicalism
True to its blockheadism and penchant
for misnomers, the Journal calls its bold
assertions arguments" 1t takes for
granted the very things which it ought
to prove. 1t does well to skip over even
the form of argument, for its assertions
are supremely nonsensical.


Let US look at them q moment The
Journal asserts that it is conservative to
kill rebel slave-owner in arms, but it is
radical to emancipate his slave To kill
the rebel master tends to preserve the
Union and the Constitution, but to de-
prive him of his slave, for military rea-
sons, tends to destroy the Union and
the Constitution. The armed rebel may
be deprived of his life, for that is conser.
yative; but not Of his property in the
negro, who feeds and clothes him, for
that would be radical Now it is certain
that, antecedeEt to the war-re integra-
the Federal Government had no right
either to kill the master or to free his
slave. There is no clause in the Consti.
tuition which authorizes it to do either
and if it does either now, its justification
must be found in that great law of self
preservation, which is above all other
laws. and of greater authority than any
Constitution. The slaughter of thou
sands of armed rebels on the various
battle-felds of this War of Nationality is
the very ultimate of radicalism, which
cannot 90 farther than to blot out ones
existence. The emancipation of the
slave is to his owner the loss of only one
species of property, while the killing O
the owner includes the loss of every
thing. According to the logic" of the
Journal, the destruction of a part is
radical or destructive" while the de
struction of the whole is conservative
or preservativel The Journal argue.
that part is greater than the whole
it is worse to free the slave than to Kill
his rebelious master.


But the Journal processes to thinl
that the emancipation of the slaves il
the rebellious States, who feed ant
clothe and support the rebel armies
serves 10 promote the success of the
rebellion" but it takes care not to ad
vance a word of proof to support ar
assertion which is so supremely preposter
Gus that its statement is its own refuta
ton. If the Emancipation Proclama
tion renders the slaves in the States tC
which it applies unmanageabe, and val
ueless, it is clear that the rebel govern
ment and armies can derive no helT
from their labor, and must fall to pieces


On the other hand, if the Proclamation
be a brutum futmen, it can effect moth
ing for or against the Union cause. Blu
we are told it has exasperated the South
ern people, and made rebels of Iowa
men. We deny it positively, and def,
any one to produce evidence that such i!
the fact Show us one Union man wht
has faltered in his loyalty in consequence,
of Emancipation Proclamations. w
have heard good deal of such stuff, anC
demand the proof 1t is not true; no
one word of it. On the contrary, it il
an atrocious calumny against body o