New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-06-02
Truth EindiCated.

We have lately taken occasion, with all
practicable breyity and moderation of Ian
guage, to examine the position of Mr. Web
ster before the country as expounded and
illuminated by himself. We have shown
the exposition to be unsound and the IL
Elimination delusive But if this be true of
the master what shall be said of his newest
disciples and admirers?
We have no objections to the friends of Mr..
Webster clarifying him to the full extenttheir
inclination prompts. Butwe do not feel like sit
ting quiet when these eulogies imply censure
upon other distinguished public men, whose
course on the Slavery question we consider
more consistent, more honorable, and more
true And we are still less inclined to be
passive when those commentators involve
Justification of cotemporary history. Dis
tant papers in the West and South, with
here and there a dependent organ in the
North, are now, and have of late been
speaking and dwelling upon the voluntary
sacrifice that Mr. Webster made, in making
his 18th of March speech; therein abandon
inc the "Proviso," giving his support to the
Fugitive Slave law, and otherwise sig
niying his willingness to subscribe to
the heated demands of the slave power
generally. For doing this, Mr. Webster
is now eXtolled as being prominently ma
tional, as rising above sectional prejudices,
and doing an act, or acts, of eminent pro-
priety and patriotism.
This commentator is covert censure
upon all other Northern statesmen who did
not 60 with him. The idea conveyed, and
intended to be conveyed, is that Mr.. Web
ster alone, of all the prominent Northern
public men in Congress. was statesmanike
IN his views, national in tone, and compre-
hensive IN his Judgments That tn Sc who
differed from him, of whom the category
embraces such men as John Davis, William
II. Seward, VIM. l.. DAYTON. Robert c.
Winthrop, and 50 forth, were not national,
patriotic, stateSmanhke, or comprehensive
in their views and conduct, but on the con-
trary, were sectional, prejudiced, narrow,
and partiZan. This is the obvious import of
all the eulogies upon Mr. Webster in which
his new found friends indulge We repel
the imputation they convey and we deny
the allegation upon which they rest, name
", that Mr.. Webster made a voluntary sac
rIfce in breaking away from the great body
of Northern men and going directly in the
face of has then well-known and oft repeat
ed sentiments. The statement is a falsif-
cation of notorious facts. Mr. Webster
never intended TO make any sacrifice, and
he never thought he was making any Sacri-
fce IN taking the ground he did in the eth
Of March speech He never intended
anything Of the sort al the time, before
or aiterward, unless perhaps he may
have done it since he discovered the
results of his summerset.
Ii there Is anything particularly nation
Al or patriotic IN mans backing out OF MS
previous opinions and positions, in order to
gain Southern support, So be L. We are
willing Mr. Webster Shou!d have al the
credit OF SO much a this But we DENY
him the merit of any intended " sacrifice. -
Mr.. Webster was undoubtedly oyer-per-
suaded into making that speech, and
into giving In his adhesion 70 Southern
views on the slavery question, by Southern
men, who ate aud drank with him.
and beset him, morning, noon and
! night; who fairly beleaguered and