Valley Spirit: December 25, 1867Go To Page : 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
A Radical Blow At Grant
(Column 1)Summary: Reports that representatives from the Union Leagues of America and the Grand Army of the Republic met on Dec. 11th and passed a joint resolution urging the National Republican Convention to select a Presidential candidate who believes in the "equal rights of all men before the law" and "universal manhood suffrage." The editors of the Valley Spirit applaud this development because they feel it will force Gen. Grant to make public his sentiments on black suffrage (and might therefore cause dissent within the Republican ranks) and because they feel it will draw clear distinctions between the platforms of the respective parties in the upcoming election.
Full Text of Article:Mr. Staton's Suspension
The National Council of the Union Leagues of America met at Washington on the 11th inst. for the purpose of taking measures to unite with the Grand Army of the Republic in an endeavor to secure the triumph of Radical principles at the coming Presidential election. It is claimed that these two organizations represent a million and a half of voters. The following resolution was unanimously adopted amid the wildest enthusiasm, and it was ordered "that a copy be sent to every member of the subordinate councils and to the Commanders of the Grand Army of the Republic."
Resolved, That the National Council Union League of America is utterly opposed to any departure from the sacred principles of its organization or from those of the republican party, and that we do hereby respectfully but earnestly and firmly urge the National Republican Convention to place no man in nomination for the President of the United States in 1868 who is not in himself an irreversible guarantee that he is a true friend of the cause of Union and liberty, the equal rights of all men before the law and of universal manhood suffrage.
How the impatience of the Radical party is exhibiting itself against the effort to sell out its principles for the prospect of success! How restless it is becoming under the attempt to chain it, with all its cherished hopes for the elevation of the African, to the car of expediency! How it chafes at the suggestion of surrendering the object of its earnest longings, after having surmounted almost insurmountable barriers, merely because it is thought that one man is possessed of sufficient personal popularity to carry the Presidential election, and because that one man is not only suspected of holding conservative principles, but positively refuses to avow what his political opinions are!
This resolution is the rod of terror by which it is expected, or hoped to frighten General Grant into a declaration in favor of "the equal rights of all men before the law and to universal manhood suffrage." If he desires the Radical nomination, he must make such a declaration. That party will not take him as both candidate and platform. There may be a portion of Radicals who would be willing to risk him, but they are the minority. The majority have "universal manhood suffrage: on the brain, and nothing short of an unequivocal declaration in favor of it will satisfy them. If he refuses to throw himself unreservedly into the arms of the Radicals, he must remain where he is and relinquish his hope of being President. If he accedes to their wishes and announces himself in favor of negro suffrage and negro equality, not al [UNCLEAR] the prestige of his great name--not all the eminent services which he has rendered to the National Government--not all his military achievements which have given his name such an honorable place in history, and brought down upon the nation the admiration and wonder of the world, can avail to save him from an overwhelming defeat. The tide which is running over our whole country will sweep everything before it.--Principles will be far stronger than men in the next Presidential campaign. The antipathy of the masses to this odious doctrine of negro equality is so intense, that everything else will be considered of minor importance in comparison with it. The instinctive pride of the American people in the Anglo-Saxon race will assert itself and crush any and every man who writes "universal manhood suffrage" upon his banner.
We are glad to see this evidence of a determination of the Radicals not to surrender principle to expediency. We want an open and fair fight. We want to run Democratic principles alongside of and against Radical principles. We care not who the candidates are so that they are honest and capable. We want the people to have an opportunity to decide between the doctrines of the two parties. We would like to have the contest stripped of all outside issues. If General Grant desires to be made President, and has not the manly independence to declare his political sentiments, we trust that the Radical party will have the independence to leave him where he is. They need not fear that he will be nominated by the Democratic party. There is no intention on the part of our organization to nominate and man whose position on National questions is at all doubtful. We must have a candidate who has a clean Democratic record and who is willing and at all times ready to avow his opinions. Our nominee must be a man who is outspoken in his denunciation of the Congressional policy of reconstruction and the doctrine of universal manhood suffrage. If the Democratic candidate shall be elected, we desire it to be regarded as a triumph over military governments and negro equality. The times call for no half-way measures. There is not middle way now. The negro will either vote or he will not. The Southern States will either be admitted, with their "rights, dignity and equality unimpaired," or they will be held under military governments until they consent to negro supremacy. The next President will be elected by one of the two great parties of the country. There is no such thing possible--with principles as clearly and sharply defined as they are now--as an election by a people's or citizen's party. A Democrat or a Radical will occupy the next Presidential chair. General Grant's fate is sealed unless he opens his mouth. He must declare either for or against universal manhood suffrage.
(Column 3)Summary: Contains a copy of President Johnson's report to Congress, explaining his decision to relieve Secretary Stanton of his Cabinet position. According to the document, the move was based upon Johnson's belief that the "mutual confidence and general accord which should exist" in their relationship "has ceased."
Origin of Article: Washington
Local and Personal--Accident
(Column 1)Summary: Benjamin Schlichter suffered serious, perhaps fatal, injuries while felling trees on Andrew Oyler's property last Thursday. Apparently Schlichter misjudged the direction that one of the trees would fall after he cut it. He ran to avoid to it but was struck on the leg, breaking the bone just below the knee. He also injured his spine. Schlichter was carried to Oyler's house below Greenvillage and was attended to by Dr. Senseny and Huber. Schlichter was in the process of cutting timber for the barn he was building for Oyler when the accident occurred.Local and Personal--The Chambersburg Petition In Congress
(Names in announcement: Benjamin Schlichter, Andrew Oyler, Dr. Senseny, Dr. Huber)
(Column 1)Summary: In response to news that the Committee on Claims had issued an adverse report on the petition by Chambersburg citizens for indemnification for the damages they suffered as a result of Gen. McAusland's raid, the Valley Spirit's editors wrote to Hon. William Koontz, the district representative in Congress, to procure any new relevant information. In his reply, Koontz relates that members of the commmittee "unanimously" concluded that the only people who qualify for compensation are those who suffered losses at the hands of Union soldiers.
(Names in announcement: Hon. William Koontz)Editorial Comment: "We announced to our readers last week, that the Committee on Claims of the House of Representatives had reported adversely upon the petition of citizens of Chambersburg for indemnity for damages sustained by the burning of the town by the rebel General McCausland. Desiring to obtain more information in relation to the report of the Committee than was to be found in the meagre account given in newspapers, one of the editors of the SPIRIT wrote to the Hon. Wm. J. Koontz, the Representative of this District, and received the reply which we print below:"
Full Text of Article:Married
WASHINGTON, D. C. Dec 18, 1867.
J. M. COOPER, esq.
My Dear Sir:--Yours of the 16th ult. has just reached me, and I hasten to reply. The reason that the Committee on Claims acted so soon on the petition was that they have had the same question before them in other cases, and after a careful examination of it, they are unanimously of the opinion that such claims cannot be allowed. Numerous cases from the States of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and the border States generally, have been before them for damages done not only by rebels, but by our own soldiers during the war, and in all of them the Committee refuse to make any allowance. I send you a list of the Committees, by which you will see that Mr. Bingham, one of the first lawyers, [UNCLEAR] the House, is Chairman of the Claims Committee. He tells me that great damage was done in his District by Morgan, in his raid through Ohio, in the destruction of a train of cars, which were loaded with tobacco; the robbery of the contents of a safe; and the burning of the station house and other buildings, and he is decidedly against allowing any claim of this kind.
I am authorized by Messrs. Bingham and Wahsburn to say, that if your people desire it; with the knowledge that the Committee have thoroughly examined the question involved, and are unanimously against the allowance of claims of this kind--they will give me a hearing in the matter.
It looks to me as though there was but little hope, yet I am willing and anxious to do all I can in the matter. I would add that as soon as the Committee reported, I made the arrangement for a hearing provided your people desired it.
W. H. Koontz.
This letter contains information so important to our people that we have taken the liberty of publishing it without waiting to obtain its author's permission. Our own opinion is that it is not worth while to put Gen. Koontz to the trouble of discussing our claim to indemnity before that Committee. No matter how ably or how earnestly he might argue our cause, they would still report against us, for their minds are made up. But as we said last week, it is competent for Congress to an act for the relief of Chambersburg in spite of the adverse report of the Committee, and if our citizens desire it, they can doubtless obtain a vote on the question.
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 22nd, Henry D. Hatnick and Julia Piper were married by Rev. S. H. C. Smith.Married
(Names in announcement: Henry D. Hatnick, Julia Piper, Rev. S. H. C. Smith)
(Column 3)Summary: On Nov. 25th, John A. Brough and Mollie C. Sibley were married by Rev. S. H. C. Smith.Married
(Names in announcement: John A. Brough, Mollie C. Sibley, Rev. S. H. C. Smith)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 17th, Oliver H. Anderson, of Winchester, Va., and Sarah Amelia Wiler were married by Rev. Thomas Creigh.Married
(Names in announcement: Oliver H. Anderson, Sarah Amelia Wiler, Rev. Thomas Creigh)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 18th, D. Martin Miller and Alice V. Miller were married by Rev. Thomas Creigh.Married
(Names in announcement: D. Martin Miller, Rev. Thomas Creigh, Alice V. Miller)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 17th, John S. Stritz, of Washington Co., Maryland, and Kate Lesher were married by Rev. Dr. Schneck.Married
(Names in announcement: John S. Stritz, Kate Lesher, Rev. Dr. Schneck)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 9th, Joseph A. Dubnaugh, of Mechanicsburg, and Annie E. Keeper were married by Rev. C. Price.Married
(Names in announcement: Joseph A. Dubnaugh, Annie E. Keeper, Rev. C. Price)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 19th, James Johnson and Jennie Baker were married.Married
(Names in announcement: James Johnson, Jennie Baker)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 12th, W. H. Nea, of Newville, and Mary Gamble were married by Rev. S. P. Sprecher.Married
(Names in announcement: W. H. Nea, Mary Gamble, Rev. S. P. Sprecher)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 18th, J. F. Burk and Sadie J., daughter of David J. Skinner were married by Rev. William A. West.Married
(Names in announcement: J. F. Burk, Sadie J. Skinner, David J. Skinner, Rev. William A. West)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 17th, Peter Donberger and Virginia Victoria Hasler were married at the residence of John Horn by Rev. J. Keller Miller.Married
(Names in announcement: Peter Donberger, Virginia Victoria Hasler, John Horn, Rev. J. Keller Miller)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 17th, John C. Brandt and Annie Dish were married by Rev. J. Keller Miller.Married
(Names in announcement: John C. Brandt, Annie Dish, Rev. J. Keller Miller)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 24, 1866, Jeremiah Gelwicks and Carrie Doyle were married by Rev. S. H. C. Smith.Married
(Names in announcement: Jeremiah Gelwicks, Carrie Doyle, Rev. S. H. C. Smith)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 5th, John German and Elizabeth Frank were married by Rev. G. Roth.Married
(Names in announcement: John German, Elizabeth Frank, Rev. G. Roth)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 22nd, Henry Poth and Barbara Forney were married by Rev. G. Roth.Married
(Names in announcement: Henry Poth, Barbara Forney, Rev. G. Roth)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 7th, Jacob Bricker and Susan Jones were married by Rev. S. H. C. Smith.Died
(Names in announcement: Jacob Bricker, Susan Jones, Rev. S. H. C. Smith)
(Column 3)Summary: On Dec. 5th, Amos Shearer, 50, died near Spring Run.Died
(Names in announcement: Amos Shearer)
(Column 3)Summary: On Oct. 29th, Jacob F. Huber, son of Martin Huber, of Hamilton township, died in Woodbury, Blair Co., after a short illness.
(Names in announcement: Martin Huber, Jacob F. Huber)
Description of Page: This page contains advertisements.