First and foremost:
Whig: J. F. Cameron
Merger: Yes; grudgingly
Am I the only one who dreads the level of hatred concealed in every political statement issued in recent times? When did armed threats replace civility? I am a Whig, I am an abolitionist but, above all, I (as the rest of my fellow colleagues) am an American citizen, bestowed with the honor of voicing their needs in this Federal Forum. But, besides local needs, one must also advocate for common sense and the preservation of this Nation's integrity. Many have forgotten this simple truths and caused the current set of affairs, I say. Now, after this digression, to the matter at hand.
The popular militias that have sprung recently need to be controlled, if not, in a short time we'll have armed bands marching throughout the land imposing their political views by blood and brass and hanging those who oppose them. This must be avoided, whether this men may come from Boston or from New Orleans, I don't care. Of the many pieces of legislation proposed on that matter, I throw my support behind Mr Cameron's ((post #476)) as it had been presented. I shall reconsider after further modification is made. Only Art. 8 deserves a comment, in my opinion. Federal arsenals should also store a portion of the militia's weapons, not only artillery. I admit that I am no military expert but it strikes me as unnecessary to have all the weaponry available to them when there is no sign of immediate threat (border states are excluded, of course). Large stocks of arms should be controlled; if I had a dozen cannons and 500 rifles in my backyard what could I be possibly planning to do with them? Duck hunting in Ohio?
A. de Jong, Rep. of Massachusetts