Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1860-07-06

.o!SdS- ~ Js3I u.l sci - LF5 ~ p +t-ufs 81
\ bHE saic9 dzsb & IL .Ts1smaio ii ssd9ai syh 70
-7cbo ea5Trdq Us 8 bsiiina
+-< s;44s.nLa-l 221-a---.-zL "a -la...Is.d All
svsIJ IL szII 9dj u b1u0I .....Z-.7Ia.53 1I1
bra ,br'4isvs!o 0; Jnsv sH NOJ 1Asai
= -assszs2ssaz : I - - : s:s.Ss
cans, you do so only t9 dspounee US as reptile
or at the best as no better than outlaws
Fou VII, grant a hearing to pirates or murder
efs, but nothing like ii 10 !" Black. Repubii
cans; III all your contehtions With one, an
otier, each -of, you, deems an uncopditonai con
: dennatioh off, Black RepuBIi ieanism eni" as th;
! first thing to be attended to- f6rdeed, Asuct
oendefhhatien of Us seems 70 be aEiiii indispen
sa6leq prerequisite a1lfceSseyy 80 to SPEAK
among 'yea TO be-, ,adhlftfea or permitted Il
speak at aHS2 iu s7nSZ nal IA 5sn51aa. ~
sfEoN, can you, or n9f, be prevailed apSn to
Pa'ise- and tonsides whether this Is qdile jdst
to us, or even 10 yourselSes4 9~4s19ni na 8'ii9
loBdtiag oforsardrgaar eHarsesiiand specifiea-
tiopss aGasalsaiI oHgrsnou to bear
nsedenyand 1usfiy1nEss9lq tesi: 10 slts1iiio I'd
0tAjo5l sag gMNeO areI seetiOnahd Wei sadenysitti-
,ChatdsGdas sha issue gsdu1 the baGasn iof.pr6of
IfsgupoRESa. 7Raa sPneduce Iranp Proef;I and
~.haa sIit! od NYhEaal4ht tsany rtrfy7haa nezexis.
tsaee in yeuri sectieh44getsanoneEotss inolyuup
section. GtEhei fact dsSdbstautially 'true but
does it groEe the issue r. r it Adoesa then in
case, We shonld without. change spfo pfipciplesa
begin to get votes in .yourd sectieHswe should
cease, thereby TO be. sectionaE,. Yen cannot
escape this conclusion j and yet are you4wilr1
ling to abide by it? D It you are, you will prob
ably soon lind that we, have ceased to be- sec
| tional, for we shall get votes. in your section
| this very year. > You will then begin TO dis
cover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof
does not touch the issue. The fact that we
get no votes in your section is fact of your
making, not of ours. 4rls..5.,7 Isl p. .r.E -.
And if there be fanlt in that fact that fault
is primarily yours, and remains 90 until you,
show that we, repel you by some wrong princi-
pie or practice. If we do repel you by any
wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours;
but this brings you to where you ought to
have startcd-to.a discussion of the right or
wrong Of our principles IF our principles,
put in practice, would wrong your section for
the benefit of ours, or for any other. object, |
then our principle, and we with it, are section
al, and justly opposed and denounced as such.
Meet us, then, on the question Of whether our
principle, put in practice, would wrong your
section and so meet it as if it were possible |
that something may be said on our side7 Do
you accept our, challenger? No? Then you
really Believe that the principle which our IA |
thers who framed the Government under which /
we liveSthought so clearly right as to adopt it, |
and indorse it again and again, upon their Off
cial oaths, is, in fact, so clearly wrong as to
sdemand your condemnation without moments |
consideration sHI - dzoI III aTar + |
Some Of you delight to Rannt in our faces
the warning against sectional parties given by I
Washington in His Farewell Address Less I
than eight years before Washington gave that I
warning, be had, as President Of the United /
States approved and signed an act of Congress 7
.enfocing the prohibition of slavery in the
N Northwestern Territory; which act embodied |
the policy Of the Government upon that sub
ject, up to'ahd at the very moment he penned
that warning and about one year after he !
penned it he wrote Layfayefte that he CON
sidered that prohibition a wise measure, ex-
pressing in the same connection his hope that |
we should some time have a eonfedeFaey of
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sec
tionalism has'siHee arisen upon this subject, is |
that warning a weapon in your hands against |
us, or in our hands against you? Gould
Washington himself speak, would he cast the
blame of that sectionalism upon US, who sus-
tain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it
We respect that warning of Washington, and
we commend it to you, together with his ex-
ample pointing to the right application of it.
But you say you are conservative-eminent-
ly eonserratiye-while we are revolutionary,
destructive or something of the sort. What
is conservatism? 3? Is it not adherence to the
old and tried, against the new and untried p
We stick to it, contend for, the idential old
policy on the point in controversy which was
adopted by our fathers who framed the Gov
ernment under which we live; while you with
one accord reject and scout, and spit upon
that Old policy, and insist upon substituting
something new. Trdt, you disagree among
yourselves as to what that substitute shall be.
You have considerable variety of new propo-
sitions and plans, but you are unanimous in
rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the
fathers. Some of you are for reviving the
foreign slave trade some for Congress forbid
ding the Territories 10 prohibit Slavery with
in their limits some for maintaining slavery
in the Territories through the Judiciary /; some
fo the .gurreat pur-rinciple" that "if one man
would enslave another, the third man should
not object" fantasticaly called Popular Sow
ereignty :" but never man among you in fa-
vor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal
territories, according to the practice of our
fathers who framed the Government under
which we live. Not one of your various
plans can show precedent or an advocate in
the century within which our Government
originated. Consider, then, whether your
claim Of conservatism for yourselves, and your
charge of destructiveness against US, are bas-
ed on the most clear and stable foundations.
Again, you say we have made the slavery
question more prominent than it formerly was
We deny it. We admit that it is more prom
inent, but we deny that we made it SO. 1t
was not we, but you, who discarded the old
policy of the fathers we resisted, and still re-
sst, your innovation and thence comes the
greater prominence of the question. Would
you have that question reduced to its former
Go back to that old policy
What has been viii be again. under the same
conditions. If you would have the peace of
the old times, re-adopt the policy and precepts
of the olden times.
You charge that we stir up insurrectiou
among your slaves We deny it and what
is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John
Brown John Brown was no Republican
and you have failed to implicate single Re-
publican in his Harpers Ferry enterprise
If any member of our party is guilty IN that
matter, you know it or you do not know it.
II you do know it, you are iuexcusable to not
designate the man, and prove the fact. If You
do not know it, you are inexcusable to assert
it, and especially to persist in the assertion
after you tried and failed to make the proof
7 ou need not be told that persisting in o I