What Abolition Has Cost Us.
Four years ago our people were united, prosperous and happy. We had no standing army worth the name, nor was there any necessity for any. The Government, under Democratic auspices, rested in calm security upon the will of the people, who were all interested in its maintenance. We had no national debt, and, consequently, all that a man earned by his labor was his own. He paid no national taxes that he felt. He could buy cotton goods to clothe his family for 12 ½ cents per yard, shoes, and every other article necessary for himself and family in like proportion. But how is it now, after three years of rule under Abraham Lincoln? We are compelled to keep under arms half a million of soldiers to maintain the authority of our own people of a government calling itself Republican, and although we have given over two millions of men to put down opposition to the party dogmas of this Lincoln, the horrors of the draft still stares us in the face. The poor man finds himself deprived of two-thirds of what he earns when he buys the necessities of life to sustain a government which four years ago cost him nothing. And yet the people are asked by the present office-holders and Lincoln’s shoddy-parasites to renew their confidence in an administration which has brought all these burdens on us. If Mr. Lincoln and his paid stipendiaries succeed as a natural sequence, those who desire freedom of the press, freedom of discussion, safety of their persons, immunity from conscription, and desire what they earn shall be their own, must, if they vote for Lincoln, hereafter be silent. They will seal their own doom. Let your reason and judgment choose.
When you hear abolitionists charging the rebellion upon Democrats, confront them with the following truths from History:
- That there were no symptoms of rebellion in the South until after the election of Abraham Lincoln, who had proclaimed that this government could not exist part free and part slave – and that he would not be bound by a decision of the Supreme Court if it decided that slaves could be held in the Territories.
- That all the difficulties would have been settled by the Peace Convention, and war prevented, if Lincoln, Chase, Chandler, et al, had desired it.
- That if Lincoln had called Congress to meet on the 20th of May – as he could have done – and called 75,000 men simply to protect Washington until Congress had acted – there would have been no war. The Border States would not have gone out – and the men who fired on Sumpter, would have been punished by Law.
- That at any time since the war commenced, Lincoln’s Congress could have made Peace by simply guaranteeing to the State their Constitutional Rights – and can do so, even now.
- That from 1833 to 1860, the Southern States had respected and executed every law of Congress – while large numbers of citizens in every Northern State, had rebelled – resisted the Broad Seal of the United States of America, tore it up, trampled it under their feet, and assaulted the officers of the Government.
- That in no Southern State – except South Carolina – was there a majority of all the voters who voted for President in 1860, in favor of Secession: and had the war been prosecuted solely to enforce the Laws and defend the Constitution – and put down armed rebels, it would have ended two years ago, and there would not have been now armed rebel in any State.
- That the election of Abraham Lincoln was the immediate cause of this war and all its disaster – and his removal – through the ballot-boxes – will bring immediate Peace and restore the Union.
Geo. H. Pendleton.
The shoddy papers and orators hereabouts are just at present quite busy villifying the character of the distinguished gentleman whose name heads this article; he is denounced as a “disunionist,” as a “peace at any price” man, and as one whose sympathies are against the Government in the present crisis. We present our readers with the following extracts from his speeches made since the war commenced, and showing he utter falsity of those charges. On the 13th of July, 1861, in the debate on a bill for increasing the regular army Mr. Pendleton used this language:
“I will heartily, zealously, gladly support any honest effort to maintain the Union and reinvigorate the ties which bind these States together. I will not vote for an increase of the regular army, for this uprising of the people of the North shows that our brave and noble volunteers are ready and able to do the work now to be done. Neither will I vote for bills of indemnity to the President – for bills which are not intended to relieve the country from its difficulties, but to cover the acts and doings of the administration from fair investigation and honest judgment. Nor will I vote for the suspension of those laws for the protection of personal liberty which the President tells us were passed in too great tenderness of the rights of citizens. I will do what is fairly necessary to give the administration power to maintain the government and prevent disaster to its flag, and enforce obedience to the obligations of the Constitution and the laws passed in accordance therewith.”
Another declaration made by Mr. Pendleton in Congress, March 12, 1862, gives us the means of estimating what the shoddyites consider Mr. Pendleton’s disunionism. “This bill,” said Mr. Pendleton, speaking on the bill for establishing irresponsible and unlawful provisional governments over the seceded States, “ought to be entitled a bill to dissolve the Union and abolish the Constitution of the United States. I AM UNALTERABLY OPPOSED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF EITHER from any quarter whatsoever.”
We have never yet known a canvass in this country, without the abolition leaders resorting to falsehood and calumny against the Democratic candidates. They do this in the hope that they can prevent some persons from voting for them. Sometimes these falsehoods are published in their abolition paper, and sometimes they are retailed around the county by word of mouth. Mr. Neece and Mr. Smith seem to be chosen by these abolition leaders as the victims of their falsehood and calumny, and upon whose devoted heads must be showered their pent up wrath.
The first attack was made upon Mr. Smith. At an abolition meeting in Scotland township last week, one of the speakers asserted that he had been told that Mr. Smith, the Democratic candidate for sheriff, “had written a letter to a soldier advising him to desert and come home, and the Democrats would protect him.” Mr. Smith happened to be present, and much to the dismay and chagrin of the speaker he rose to his feet and pronounced the statement a falsehood – a falsehood so base as to be without the shadow of a foundation.
Being thus foiled in their attack on Mr. Smith, the abolition clique turned their attention to Mr. Neece, the Democratic candidate for Representative, and we find the last number of their paper overflowing with their abuse and falsehood. Mr. Neece has lived from a child in this county, and his character for honesty and probity is too firmly established to be shaken by scurrilous attacks from the two or twenty lying abolitionists who write for the Macomb Journal. The charge in the present case is, that Mr. Neece has swindled a widow lady – Mrs. Elizabeth Irwin – out of some $96, on a swindling tax certificate. The infamy of this accusation may be fully appreciated by reading the following statement from Mrs. Irwin herself and her son Robert Irwin. We introduce them without further comment:
Statement of Robert Irwin.
To the Editors of the Macomb Weekly Journal:
Dear Sir – I take this opportunity to request you to correct a statement in your issue of last week in regard to a certain tax certificate purchased by W. H. Neece in 1860, on the land owned by the heirs of James Irwin, sen’r deceased. The statement as it is made does great injustice to Mr. Neece. – The facts of the transaction are as follows: before the land sales of 1860 my brother, James Irwin, sold Mr. Neece a horse. – Neece was to pay the tax on the land in question, and it was understood between my brother and Mr. Neece in regard to the sale of the land to the highest bidder, that Neece was to see that the taxes were paid, and was to have credit on the purchase of the horse or the amount of the tax. – Sometime after this, brother and Neece settled, Neece only claiming a credit of about twenty dollars, and the balance be paid over to my brother. The settlement was perfectly amicable and agreeable to both Mr. Neece and my brother.
Sometime after this Mr. Wm. H. Randolph persuaded my mother that he could make something for her – that he could recover it all off Neece – promising to pay all cost, &c. The suit was commenced, but nothing was recovered; the suit was abandoned.
As for Neece demanding the double of the tax or any other sum o my mother, or any of us, it is entirely false. The transaction was satisfactory with both my brother and myself, and there never would have been any trouble if it haqd not been for the conduct of Mr. Randolph. You can rely on this fact that Neece never claimed the benefit o his contract off my brother nor was he compelled to pay any amount by virtue of said suit.
Certificate Of Elizabeth Irwin.
I have just read a note signed by my son, Robert Irwin, in regard to a certain editorial in the Macomb Journal, bringing in question the character of Wm. H. Neece. The facts stated in my son’s note are true, as I understand them.
Oct. 3rd, 1864.
Copies of the above notes have been sent to the Journal office, and we will see whether its editor will have the manliness to admit them to its columns.
→ President Lincoln is a chief magistrate seeking re-election by all nefarious means; striving, by abuses of military power, by the subversion of freedom of the ballot, of the press, and of political discussion, by the corrupting power of public plunder, by the distribution of offices and spoils, by cunning and intrigue, to grasp for another term the powers with which in three short years he has almost accomplished the independence of the South and the subversion of the liberty of the North. Can any honest, patriotic citizen vote to re-elect a man of whom his own partisans confess these truths?
→ The following sentence from a a private letter from Munfordville, Ky., addressed to the editor of this paper, contains a question which Democrats will do well to give more than a passing thought:
“I think when abolitionism is put down, we will have Union; but if they succeed in November we are gone – liberties, and all that we hold dear. Will you Democrats of the Northwest stand firm and deliver yourselves and us from Despotism?” Kentucky will vote if she has to vote through scenes of fire and blood. I fear elections will not save us, and that the only salvation for the Democracy is in her strong arm. This is a war upon Democracy, which is the Constitution and State righs. Our Fathers said that Republican Governments could only exist through and by the consent of the governed. May the God of Heaven preserve us!”
We warn the Democrats of this county to be on their guard against the electioneering falsehoods of the abolitionists. These will come in various stripes, and their direct object is to damage the character of the Democratic candidates. Some of these will be retailed verbally, like the one about Frank Smith’s advising a soldier to desert. Others will be published in their journals, where they can find the editors totally oblivious to truth and decency, like the one about Mr. Neece’s swindling a poor widow. And there are others which are distributed in pamphlet form. These are aimed at the Democratic candidate for President, and are the spawning of the dense corruption at Washington. – These are thrust into the hands of the unwary and unsuspecting, like the issues of the counterfeiter’s art, for the purpose of deception and ruin. Let Democrats beware of anything that come from the hands of an abolition leaguer.
→ The abolition press have just now a more difficult balancing feat than any of Blondin’s. They try to convince the soldiers that McClellan is a for a dishonorable peace, and a surrender to rebels. And they try to demonstrate, at the same time, to those the term “peace democrats,” that he is in favor of war to the bitter end, arbitrary arrests, confiscation, and all the wickedness that Lincoln is practicing. Between the two they are decidedly in a bad way.
The Draft. – Drafting in five townships of this county took place at the provost marshal’s office in Mt. Sterling, on Wednesday last. The following is a list of the “lucky” men:
James Langston, William Carnahan,
David Bruner, Thos W. Ausbury,
Jonathan A. Mink, Woodford Chappell,
Peter Van Buren, James Hartford,
George Cox, W. R. Pennington,
Henry Long, Thomas E. Smedley,
James T. Pile, Enoch C. Dawson,
Elijah Keach, Erastus Eastman,
George R. Price, Moore Marshall,
John W. Chipman, John A. Seward.
Democrats 17, abolitionists 2, unknown [?].
Wm Mercer, Thompson Wilkey,
A. J. Grimm, Wm Louis,
John Vaughn, Barton Husted,
Willis Graves, W. B. Swango,
John Carrison, John Douglas,
David Littlejohn, Geo McQueen,
Reuben Nebergall, Solomon Cox,
George T. Harland, Shadrack Mitchell,
Joseph Chambers, David Miller.
Democrats 10, abolitionists 5, unknown 3.
John Kaley, John Basic,
Jas Lawrence, Leander Yeast,
John H. Crall, John Wrell,
N. Towns, Jas Thompson,
Jacob Wagoner, R. L. Smith,
B. F. Hartsook, Elias Steele,
T. B. Little, Jacob E. Meadows,
B. Quate, B. F. Smith,
J. W. Putnam, E Boaz,
I. S. Kelsoe, Wm Work,
A Garrett, D. A. Colleflower,
Joseph Melvin, M. V. Markham.
Democrats 7, abolitionists 3, unknown 9.
W. C. McGrath, Jonas Ringer,
Wm H. Parker, Thos W. Nunn,
Wm McHenry, George Jones,
George Smither, Albert M. Chase,
F M. Bash, Jonas Lindsey,
F M. Beck, Samuel Jones,
John F. Watson, I. P. Monfort,
Robt Littleson, R. M. Hammer,
James Boyd, Archibald Watson,
T. S. Saunders, J. A. Provine,
W. Simmonds, Chas Andrews.
Democrats 5, abolitionists 18, unknown 4.
James Ewing, Moses Hoyt,
Charles Elting, James Boyles,
Geo. W. Curtis, Harvey Dugan,
H Hailocker, Frederick Cruser,
Christian Englehart, Warnell Tracey,
A. W. Laney, Wm D. Stark,
George Hay, Thomas McMahan,
Wesley Dodge, W Thompson,
J. W. Sneider, Herman George,
Samuel Towler, F Thompson,
James Langston, E T Boyles,
Wm Tanner, J. D. Mitchell,
J. M. Bowers Lewis Ebalazer.
Democrats 10, abolitionists 14.
Those in the first column will be taken first, and if any other of them are exempted, those in the second column will be taken in numerical order. It is a pleasant prospect truly.
→ Prof. Clamber, known as the “Wizard of the Alps,” will give another entertainment at Campbell’s Hall on Friday evening. He will introduce a number of new and astonishing feats, and completely puzzle the acutest intellect. No superior to Prof. Clamber in his line has ever appeared in Macomb, and as this will be his last exhibition here, those interested will not fail to attend.
→ Keefer, the indefatigable, go ahead druggist, is now receiving his fall purchases of medicines, drugs, paints, oils, dye stuff and the thousand and one articles which are always to be found in a first class wholesale and retail drug house. Keefer’s goods are always A 1, and purchasers may always rely upon getting exactly what they bargain for.
→ Two showers of rain fell this week – one commenced on Monday morning and lasted all day, and the other began in Tuesday forenoon and continued till night. Both showers were somewhat wet.