The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-16

inc quite Tcduy 10 Iloct any responsibility 10 which
he may see fit TO hold me, here or elsewhere, for
what Ihaye said But, Continued Mr.. To- neither
will | be misrepresented. My colleague says that
the scope of my remarks is 10 identify him Mr. ID
with the peace party Of the late war and represent
him as opposed TO providing means for carrying on
the present contest. Now, sir, charged him with
no such thing an unwllllngness to provide means
to carry on the war. | did not say or intimate
that he was unwilling TO vote the necessary
means TO prosecute the war. On the contrary,
repeated his language, that he was "fOT his country
right or wrong" But what did say, and what !
suL say, and what shall continue to say, L., that
he has IA strange way OF supporting his country
right wrong" 1t is strange way 10 support
ones country right or wrong, 10 declare, after war
has begun, when ii exists both in law and In fact,
that the Is aggressive, unholy, unrlgheous and
damnable on the part Of the government Of that
country; that that government rests It's respOn-
sDIllly and It's wTOngfulness. 1t is strange way To
support ones country, right or wrong, IN war, TO
tax ones imagination to the utmost to depict the
disastrous consequences of the contest; to dwell
on what II has already and what II will cost in
future; to depict her troops Frustrated by disease
aud dying with pestIlencc: IN word, TO destroy rs
far as possible, the moral force of the government
IN the struggle and hold up to It's people and
the world, as the aggressor that merits their CON
demnauon 1t was for thus that arralgned my coll
league, and that ! intend to arralgn him. II was
because his remarks, far as they could have any
influence, were evidently calculated to depress the
spirits of his own countrymen, to lessen the moral
force OF his own government, and TO inspire with
confidence and hope the enemies Of his country.
Mr.. DELANo here rose, and was understood to
say, "What chance had / under the gag-rule, TO eX
press my views before war was declared""
Mr.. i. IN continuation. The responsibility of
the gag rule does not rest on But fthe gentleman
had no opportunity TO express his views before the
recognition Of the war, after the war was declared to
exist he had better left them unexpressed. He had
better have dsne as others DID, say nothing at ALL lr|
what he had to say calculated to InJure his
country.
In the next place, my colleague says that he did
not say that the war was a democratic war. We'll,
sir, he may not have used that precise word but he
certainly understood as substantially charging
It on the democratic party. lie assuredy did hold
the administration responsible for II. lie assuredly
Did call II II presidential war. He assuredly did
charge, indirectly # not directly that 1t was intend
ed for the conquest Of California. And II this Is not
making the democratic party-that party to which
the President owes his eecton-that party that is
responsible for the admInlstratlon answerabe for
the war, pray what more is necessary to make It
answerable'
Thirdly. My colleague says that he did not say
that the war is war against Omnpotence, nor did
he use any terms equivalent to that Well, sir,
what have 10 say on that matter Is this. | came
into the House while my colleague was speaking
He was perhaps half through his speech when
entered the hall consequently heard but the lat
ter half Of It When he closed, the gentleman from
Illinois, behind me, Mr.. DouGLAss, took the floor,
and replied to him. In that reply understood HIM
to attribute to my colleague the above remark. |,
of course, supposed that he had used 1t, and believe
It was the impression IN the hall that he had done
! supposed that he had made 1t IN the part OF
his speech that had not heard, that, If made az
ter entered the hall, had escaped my notice. The
next day, just as was rising to speak, IT occurred
to me that, as had not heard the remark myself,
would inquire of some who had heard the
whole Of my colleagues speech, whether he had
made H. made the inquiry Of the gentleman from
New York, on the other side of the House, who
was sitting by my side. lie answered that he had
distinctly understood my colleague to use the re-
mark
Mr. DELANO. Why did you not inquire Of
me-
Mr.. THURMAN. Because you was not in
House
Mr.. DELANO. | was at my room
Mr.. THURMAN. 1t was not my place to hunt
you up. You were understood to have made the
remark. heard no doubt expressed about it. You
certainly did say that the "unhoy,"
"unnghteous," and "damnable.' What room
was there for to doubt What was there to
even suggest doubtn my mind?
Mr.. DOUGLASS said that his friend from Ohio
MIR. THURMAN was under slight mistake as to
the of word which he attributed to his
MIR. It's colleague, Mr.. DELANo. The Ian
guage which he (Mr. DoUGLAss) had attributed to
Mr DELANo, and that, too, with a certain knowl-
edge of its accuracy, that "the war IN which we
are now engaged was an unhoy, unrighteous, and
damnable war" The gentleman Mr.. DELANol did
use these terms several times IN the course Of his
speech. When spoke Of the opponents Of our
country in this war, having designated 1t war
against "Omnlpotence," | had reference more
especially to the genteman's colleague over the
uav Mr. (,IDDtNcS | althonph !, b,yo koo,
used by others Probably not precise IN
clearly designating to whom | referred
Mr.. THURMAN (resumlng) | certainly under
stand the gentleman from Illinois as referring to nv
colleague from the Mount Vernon district MIR
DELANo. 1t was to him that he was replying
tic designated no other person. My other col
league Mr.. GrDDNGsl had not, so far as | know,
spoken on the bill under consideration. | had no
idea that he was referred TO. But, sir, whether
there Is mistake not about the use of the OK
preston "war against Omnlpotence," whether those
who understood my colleague from Mount Yer
non to employ that expression understood him
correctly or not, there is thing about which
there Is no mistake, and that is, that he de-
nouuced the existing an 'unholy unright-
eous, and damnablc war" These terms he did
use, and these terms he did repeat; and now leave
1t to all, whether they or are not equivalent"
to the expression about Omnlpotence. If this war
Is "unhoy, unrighteous and damnable" let my
colleague explain how it is that it is not a war
against Ommpotence, as much any human war
fare can be said to be against Omnipocnce. What
would be a war against Omnpotence, if an 'unhoy
unrighteous and damnablc war; is not
Mr.. DELANO rose and read u short extract
from the report of Mr.. THURMAN's remarks IN the
lnteligencer, in which the words democratic war, -
"war against Omnipoence," &c, were marked with
inverted commas, as quotations.
Mr. THURMAN (resuming.) That report
was not made by me. have had nothing to
do with 1t, and never it until this morning
when found 1t in the lntelllgencer 1t is in the
man, however, correct. There are some errors in
it, 1t Is true-but my only surprise is that there are
no more, interviewer, as my remarks were, with the
extracts referred to in the report. One of these err
rors my colleague has alluded to. 1t consists in
making me represent that he had brought it as a
charge against the advocates Of the war, that they
went for their country right or wrong, and were
ready to fight for 1t. This is an entire misappre-
henson of my remarks. What said was, that
my colleague had stated that, as war now existed,
he was for his country, right wrong, and that he
would fight for it; and then J went on to show
what strange way he had of going for his
right or Wroup-what gin1ular 40