Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1860-06-14

~
fault = vsimsriIy you're, aud pains so IN
I'll you sh6wibsi we repei ycu 6y som
wrong principle ot prictice. if we do re
pei you by any wrong principle or practice
the fault Is ours; but this brings you :,
where yon ought 10 have sfHrted--to o dis
cussion Of the right Or wrong Of our prin
ciple. If our principle, pt in practice
would wrong your section for the benefit o
ours, or Tor any other object, then our prin
ciple. and we with it, are sectional, and arc
justly opposed uad denounced as SUCH
Meet Us, then. on the quest ion Of whether
our principle. put in practice, would wrong
! your section; aud 80 meet IL as If il were
possible that something may be said on our
SIDE! d. you accept our challenge! No!
Then you eally believe that the principle
which our fathers who framed the Govern.
men. under which we live thought so clearly
right az TO adopt it, md indurse IT again and
sgsin, upon their oflicis os,hs, is, in fact
so clearly wrong as to d~mand'your condem
nation without a mOmenl's consideration.
SOme Of you delight to d ,unt 10 our faces
the warning against sectional parties given
by Washington IN his Fire veil .Address,-
Less than eight years before Washington
gave that warning, he bad, as President ol
the United States approved and signed on
act OF Congress, enforcing the prohibit ion
Of slavery in the Northwestern territory.
which act embodied tke pClcy Of The G ~
ernment upon that subject, up to IN at the
very moment he prnned it ne wrote IIisye,-
lie that he considered that prohibition a wi.e
measure, expressing in the sune connection
his hope that we sh Iuld some time have a
cJnfederacy OF Free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing rh t sec
tional'sm has since arisen upon this subject
is that warning weapon in your hands
against us, or in our hands against you!-
Could Washington himself speak, would he
cast the blame OF that sectona ism upon US ,
who sustain his policy, or upon yon who re-
pudste it! We respect that warming of
Washington, and Se commend it To you to.
gether with his example pointing lo the right
application of it.
But you say you are conservative--emin-
emily ccnserv tive We are revolution
ery, destructive, rr something of the sort.
What is conservatsmi Is it not adherence
to the old and tr ed against the new and
unlriedi We stick to, contend tor, the ijen.
tica old policy on the point in con,rversy
which was adopted by our ia lhers who franz
ed the Government under which we live;
while you with one accord reject and scout,
aud spit upon hat old policy, and insist up
OH substituting something new. True, you
disagree among yourselves as To what that
substitute shall be. Yuu have cunsderabl
variety of new propositions and plans, but
you are unsnimous in rejecting and denounc.
ing the old ,licy OF the ia hers. Some Of
yon are for reviving the foreign slave trade;
some for Congressional Slave Code for the
Territories; some tor Congress iorbidding
the Territories TO prohibit Slavery within
their limits; some for maintaining slavery
in the Territories through the JUDICIARY;
some for the "gurreat pur-rinciple" that "if
pne man would enslave another, the third
man should not object" fantastically called
Popular Sovereignty" bat never a man
among you in favor 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 a precedent
or an advocate in the century within which
our Government originated. Consider, then,
whether your claim Of conservatism for
yourselves, ard your charge of destructive
ness against US. are based on the most clear
and staple foundations. +
Auain you saw hal m ado ha olo
question more prominent than formerly as
We deny it. We admit that it is more pro-
minent, 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
resist, your innovation; and thence comes
the greater prominence of The question:
Would you have that question reduced to lis
former proportions! Go buck to tina; old
policy. What has been will be again, under
the same conditions. If you would hav,
the peace Of the cid times, re-adopt the poll
icy and precepts of the old times.
You charge that'we Stir up Instructions
among your slaves. We deny il; and what
is your prooR ,qurper's Ferry john Brown!
John Brown vas no Republican,; snd you
hare failed TO implcate single Republican
in his .Harper's Ferry enterprise. IL any
member of our party is guilty in that mat
ter, you know it or you do not know it. If
you do know it, you are inexcusable 10 not
designate the man, and prove the fact If
you do not know it, you are inexcussbe to
assert it, and especially to persist in he as.
sertion after you tried ard failed to make
the proof. You need not be told thar per-
sisting in charge which one does not know
to be true, is simply malicious SANDER.
Some Of you admit that no Republican
designedly aided or encouraged The Harper's
Ferry affair; but still insists that our doc
triues and declarations necessarily lead to
such results. We do not believe il. We
know we hold to no doctrine, and make no
declarations, which were not held to and
made by our fathers who framed the Govern
ment under which we live. You never dea I
fairly by US In relation to this affair. When
il occurred, some important State elections
were near at hand. and you were in evident
glee with the belief that, by charging the
blame upon us, you could get an advantage
of us in those elections The elections came.
and your expectations were not quite fu ILL