« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
this country to bespeak your sympathies and co-operation in favour of war to the knife and the knife to the handle. From the editor of the Manchester Examiner and Times, who claims to be more American than Americans, we learn that Conway has been making himself less American than himself and Pro-Federal coadjutors, who he claims to be more American than Americans, in the offer which he made in the name of American abolitionists to Mr. Mason to use their influence to discontinue the war on condition of the Southerns adopting gradual emancipation-for which offer Conway now declares himself to be very penitent and sad, but consoles himself with the thought that no one will be injured by his misguided zeal but himself, although in his letter to Mason he avowed his authority to make his offer in the name of the abolitionists ! O! what gentlemen of honour and standing.
And the “last tip of the last joint" of this sacred thing called honour is beginning to disappear amongst the Pro-Federals, not only in claiming the black heritage of guilt in being more American than Americans theoretically, but practically. This is shown in a letter addressed to the Edinburgh Review, written by Peter Sinclair, Esq., agent to the Union and Emancipation Society in this country. In this letter Mr. Sinclair boldly demands, “What is the issue on the American question ?”
And replying to his own question, he has confidently asserted that the issue in the present terrible conflict between the North and the South “is freedom
or slavery - liberty or despotism - remunerated labour, or unrequited toil—free school, or no school -a bible for all, or no bible for millions !"
To sustain the above position, he lays mighty emphasis on the following charges, made by John C. Breckenridge, Esq., recently Vice-President of the United States, against the present party in power, whom he designates a “Black Republican Party."
"I charge that the present and ulterior purposes of the Republican party are :
“1st. To introduce the doctrine of negro equality into American politics, and to make it the ground of positive legislation, hostile to the Southern States.
“2nd. To exclude the slave property of the South from the territory of the Union, or which may be hereafter acquired.
" 3rd. To prevent the admission in any latitude of another slaveholding state.
“ 4th. To repeal the Fugitive Slave Law, and practically refuse to obey the constitution on that subject.
“ 5th. To refuse to prevent, or punish by state action the spoliation of slave property ; but, on the contrary, to make it a criminal offence in their citizens to obey the laws of the Union, in so far as they protect property in African slaves.
"6th. To abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. “ 7th. To abolish it in the forts, arsenals, dockyards,
and other places in the South, where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction.
"8th. To limit, harass, and frown upon the institution in every mode of political action, and by every form of public opinion.
“9th. And, finally, by the executive, by Congress, by the Postal service, by the Press, and in all other accessible modes, to agitate without ceasing, until the Southern States, without sympathy or brotherhood in the Union, worn down by the unequal struggle, shall be compelled to surrender ignominously and emancipate their slaves."
“Upon the above indictment,” says Mr Sinclair, “the slavery party submitted their case to the people, and the people said we want men holding these views to be our governors. By an overwhelming majority the candidate who brought these charges against the Republican party was rejected, and a man holding principles including all that was contained in these charges, elected.”
Here is a statement made by Mr Sinclair, that the political creed of President Lincoln included all that was contained in Breckenridge's charges !
Let us therefore put President Lincoln on the stand.
Lincoln, what do you say to the charge of negro equality ? “Not guilty” is the response! This is corroborated in a speech delivered by him at Quincy. Illinois, Oct. 13, 1858, when Lincoln said, “I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races!”
Is it true that you would prevent new slave states from being admitted into the Union ? “Not guilty.” This is shewn in his speech made at Freeport, Illinois, August 27, 1858, when Lincoln said, I should be glad to know there would never be another slave state admitted into the Union-but I must add, that if slavery shall be kept out of the territories during the territorial existence of any one given territory, and then the people shall, having a fair chance, and a clear field when they come to adopt the Constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave Constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them into the Union!
Is it true that you would repeal the Fugitive Slave Law? “Not guilty,” says Lincoln ! In a speech which he made at Freeport, Illinois, Aug. 27, 1858, Lincoln said, “I have never hesitated to say, and do not now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave Law!" Is it true that you would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia ? “Not guilty,” says Lincoln! In a speech reported in the "Courier” in May 1860, he said, “ he had not studied the subject—had no distinctive ideas about it-he never thought it worth while to consider it much
but so far as he had considered it, he should be perhaps in favour of gradual abolition, when the slaveholders of the District "asked for it." And although he has signed a Bill which has been passed in Congress for its abolition since the Disruptionyet, at the period of his election, Lincoln could not be held responsible for entertaining such a sentimentand was therefore “not guilty !"
As to the charge of anti-slavery agitation, Lincoln again pleads “not guilty.” Such an agitation he says in a speech already referred to, “would be fatal to the country”-and be“ productive of bad results !” Thus we see, that instead of including all that was contained in Breckenridge's charges, it included at that period none of the sentiments contained in those charges! What a position of “honour and standing” for an agent of an emancipation society ! Who is most to be pitied or prayed for—the agent who propagates such statements or the society which employs him ?
Be this as it may, there cannot be the tip of the last joint of gentlemanly honour or standing in such work!
It is most strange that ambassador Adams and Consul Dudley can be “gentlemen of honour and standing," and keep, as the above mentioned editors say, "very indifferent company.” We had thought, Mr. Editors, that a man was known by the company which he keeps. And that as he who would be wise must walk with wise men, what must be the charac