Revolutionary patriots. They are alike adapted to the condition of the party in success as well as defeat, at all times and in all places. For fifty years they have resisted all the assaults of our enemies, and their success has elevated the Republic to its present power and greatness.

Around these every true Democrat can rally without a division of sentiment; and it is only when efforts are made by the ambitious and designing to engraft new sentiments or make new issues that our ranks are torn and distracted. It becomes then a matter of importance to settle what are questions of principle and what of expediency. It is from a failure to make this distinction that leads one or two professedly Democratic presses in the territory to take precisely the same ground with the Whigs-that our principles may be altered, amended, and varied by every new convention or embodiment which may chance to make innovations. We do not so understand it. We have not so learned democracy. We repudiate the position. If one man or body of men can declare that this or that new measure is a part of our creed, another with the same right may declare that it is not, and thus, like the Whig party, we should be continually oscillating from side to side, chasing shadows and trimming our sails to catch every varying breath of public opinion. We prefer the settled maxims of our fathers as our guide and cannot be driven from their support by the obloquy and insults which certain shortsighted persons may heap upon us.

The question of the adoption or rejection of the constitution will illustrate our position. Is it a question of principle or expediency? A few declare it one of principle only, and they are loud in denouncing every Democrat who does not agree with them. We regret this exceedingly. Whatever our opinions may once have been, it seems clear to us that sound policy requires that the question should be made one of policy and expediency only. The constitution we regard as eminently meritorious and as deserving the cordial support of the people. Many of our best Democrats-old pillars in the edifice do not agree with us. They claim and they have a right to differ with us in opinion. What right have we or any Democratic editor to denounce these persons as "renegades," "demagogues,” and "asses." What right to impugn their motives or their honesty? We appeal to the good sense of the reader-is this a proper course to secure converts to the constitution? Is this the way to secure harmony and good feeling among old friends? We are pained to see so proscriptive and unnatural a course.

Deal meekly with the hopes that guide
The lowest brother straying from thy side;

If right, they bid thee tremble for thine own;

If wrong, the verdict is to God alone!

A great effort has been and is being made to place the Argus in a false position on the constitution. The readers of this paper know that we have constantly urged its adoption. We do now, and shall continue to urge it until the election. Yet for daring to doubt its absolute perfection, for refusing to adopt it as a principle of the Democratic creed, and for refraining from insulting and deriding those who do not approve of it, we are set down as opposers! We appeal to no better proof than our acts to settle this question.

We cannot close this article without strongly appealing to the Democracy of the territory to permit no false issues to blind them, to cultivate a spirit of harmony and concession, and if they cannot agree upon the constitution to disagree like friends and brothersand especially to rally around their chosen principles and show to the world that though they may differ upon questions of mere expediency yet they are firm as the seated hills in support of Democratic republicanism. We urge upon them to avoid recrimination and ill feeling, and to take an elevated view of things and not magnify slight defects in the constitution into insurmountable objections, but to take the whole document as it stands and give it a careful and candid examination and if possible vote for it.

THE GREEN BAY ADVOCATE ANSWERED
[March 9, 1847]

The Democrat publishes at length an article purporting to be written by the editor of the Green Bay Advocate, denouncing the last legislature and the editors of the Argus for entertaining a different opinion from himself in regard to the proper position to be taken in supporting the constituion. The editor can scarce contain himself at the idea that a person making the least pretensions to intelligence or honesty could for a moment suffer his reputation or paper to stand upon his own degraded level. The spectacle, we confess, is most humiliating. It is an anomaly in the politics of Wisconsin and goes far to prove the suspicion commonly entertained here to be correct, that the article in question was written to order by the Democrat clique, and that the editor of the Advocate merely permitted it to appear in his columns. This suspicion amounts nearly to certainty when we examine its peculiar phraseology. It is almost as vapid, shallow, and flat as the wishy-washy dilutions

of the Democrat's editorial columns generally. Egotism, conceit, and a great surplus of large words, and an utter absence of ideas are its most prominent characteristics, except the falsehood of its statements. It evidently originated amid the fumes of a doggery, as such silly twaddle was never uttered in sober earnest; and wherever the strain is elevated above the bubbling scum of the stewhouse it is evidently in places where the editor of the Advocate brushed it up a little to save it from the suspicion of utter idiocy. It is barely possible that to save appearances he will claim it as his own. We doubt it, though. We have always regarded him as a man of too much good sense to assail a brother for a difference of opinion, to misrepresent his position, and especially to ally himself with that scum of moral, social, and political depravity which, disgorged by Federalism onto our ranks in the hour of success, is seeking out every means to destroy the party. If we have ever intimated that he was the author, we retract it, and shall hereafter give the credit of the production where it belongs. We feel certain that it is doing him great injustice to suppose that he could have given birth to such a mess of namby-pamby nonsense.

ANTICONSTITUTION RALLY AT MILWAUKEE

[March 9, 1847]

MILWAUKEE, March 6, 1847

MESSRS. EDITORS: The constitution being all in all at this time, I presume you feel an interest in knowing how the battle progresses here. The great anticonstitutional meeting came off on Thursday evening, pursuant to the call signed by over five hundred citizens of Milwaukee, all Democrats, and all voters. Both friends and foes were astonished at the immense turnout. There were full three times as many as at the meeting of the friends of the constitution a short time since. But about one-third could get into the courthouse; the rest organized on the outside and were addressed by Messrs. H. N. Wells, Holliday, and Brisbin, so that there were in fact two meetings. Of the proceedings on the outside I can say but little, having been within and unable to get out on account of the press. Mr. Crocker was appointed chairman on the inside, and Mr. Kilbourn first addressed them. His remarks were candid, argumentative, and manly, and were listened to with much attention. At the conclusion he introduced to the meeting Marshall M. Strong, who was greeted with overwhelming cheers for several minutes. Mr. Strong spoke about half an hour in his usual calm, clear, and

convincing manner. The style of his oratory is peculiar. Though there is nothing striking about it, yet no man can listen to him without feeling his soul strangely and powerfully stirred up-without feeling that a large and noble soul is communing with his soul at unwonted depths. How strange it seems and yet how welcome in these days of shallow quackery and raving demagogism to listen to a true man! I know not but it may be deemed heretical for me, who have always been a Democrat, to speak an approving word of a veteran Democrat, and a "ripe and good one," but I cannot forbear. All that I have seen of Strong has conspired to give me an exalted opinion of the man. He it was that first dared to "appeal from Alexander drunk to Alexander sober"; he first by his manly stand rolled back the swelling flood of mad fanaticism that threatened to engulf us, and to him chiefly will belong the honor of saving “our beloved Wisconsin" from being converted into a Fourier phalanxa playground for lunatics and idiots. "The people will not sustain him," said every shortsighted popularity seeker, who thought nothing but humbuggery could succeed. But Mr. Strong knew the people better. He knew that they are not the fools which shallow demagogues suppose, and that they will always sustain the man who dares boldly to stand up for right and reason. His course has vindicated the principles of Democracy and the intelligence of the people and saved Wisconsin from disgrace and misery. The few base beings who have so sedulously set themselves to slander and belie him will pass away and be forgotten, while "tongues-to-be his being will rehearse" with reverence and gratitude.

But I have wandered too far. After Mr. Strong had finished, Mr. Holliday, chairman of committee, introduced a manifesto and resolutions, which were adopted with much enthusiasm, after which he made a very happy address, and the meeting adjourned. The utmost harmony prevailed throughout, and everything went off in a prudent and orderly manner. The people acted as if they were deeply interested and in earnest. I think the election will show the

same.

Yours,

JOHN BARLEYCORN

THE SIXTH SECTION

[March 9, 1847]

OBJECTION NO. 3

That the business of the country could not be successfully carried on without small bills for the purpose of remitting small sums at a distance.-Western Star. The above is a weighty objection, truly! We have only to answer that gold may be remitted by mail for about one per cent, which on the aggregate of the sums remitted below twenty dollars would not amount annually to a tithe of what is lost monthly by the failure of banks and the fluctuations produced by paper money. A half eagle may be remitted by mail without adding anything to the postage on the letter containing it, so that a half eagle is just as convenient for purposes of remittance as a five dollar bill.

If the Star is disposed to ask how we could remit sums below a quarter eagle, we will ask him how sums below one dollar are now remitted? If the editor held himself bound to admit anything he would doubtless admit that the convenience of remittance would not justify the circulation of six-penny notes. With our present coinage of gold, we only want one dollar bills for the purpose of remittance to fill the vacuum between the present lowest denomination of paper and the lowest denomination of gold coin. There is now no urgent necessity for two, three, five, and ten dollar bills for purposes of remittance, for an eagle can be sent by mail to any part of the United States for one per cent, and the lower denominations of gold without any additional postage upon the letter.

Now the question is, Does this trifling inconvenience compensate for the average loss of millions annually by the paper system? We do not believe there is one man in a hundred whose own experience will not dictate a negative answer.

OBJECTION NO. 4

That if all paper money or money of a mailable character were driven out of circulation, under twenty dollars, that, in order to get bills of that character for the purpose of remitting large sums, would subject us to a shave by the brokers, and large notes would command a premium in gold and silver.

Large notes would command a premium in gold and silver! Well, that would be such a thing as was never before heard of. Paper money would become so scarce as to command a premium in gold and silver! Get shaved on gold and silver in exchanging it for bank bills! That would be bad news, especially for a “hard.”