Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1861-01-16


Aes'Ss. Editoss.-wheu Archbishop Til
!otson took up the weapons OF controversy
IN ,detenre of our holy faith, he, professed
10 nave found topic of argument which
would make its truth MS certain and as
satisfactory as the testimony Of our
senses of seeing, hearing and feel
ing. The subscriber is able to show,
Oy arguments equally satisfactory, which
party is the aggressor in the bnleful con-
lroyersy which now threatens to over
Whelmi our beloved country in the most
enormous calamities. This is bod as
serton, but it Will ''beNr the test of humnu
scrutiny, of talents, and of time" When
tue unhappy disputes about our Mexican
eonqpests were terminated by the compro-
mise; measures of 1850, the public mind
accepted those measures asa Iinnlitv ON
the slavery question, and settled down iu-
to state OF APATHY on that subject, very
much resembling torpor. This was the
view of the matter takcnb by the Democrat.
lc National Convention which assembled
at Baltimore tn June, 1852 They bore
their testimony in tile following: language:
.'4feSOIped, That the Democratic party
will resist allattemPts at remcrving in Con-
Eress Or out of ii, tue agitation 0f the sla-
very nesnoni under whateyer color or
or shape the attempt may be made.
Mark the Significance Of this Language.
II tue agitation had not ceased how could
Y 26e .renes0e3. The Wing Convention ut
Philadelphia, at nearly the same time,
adopted resolutions almost identical with
tue foregoing, and the resolutions of hOIh
Conventions may we'll he said to have heeu
ratified Iy the men whU voted for Frank
lin Pierce, the nominee OF the one, and for
Gen. Scott, the nominee of the other.-
moreover we had ut that I me third
party, the number of Whose Rdherents lust
serves to show how far the sentiments ur
the two great parties above numrd fell
short of being universal. John p. Hale
was the nominee of that purity, nnd recri-s
4 we'd 1928 votes. Gen. Scott received
one million three hundred aud ninrty-
three thousand aud eighty-uinc, and
Franklin Pierce received one million
five hundred aud nincty-six thousand
three hundred and uineIy-fve votes. Here
We have evidence equal TO mathematical
demonstration, that II mere trile less thnn
ninety-ive per cent of our people were
qrdently desirOus of the reign OF peace.
harmony and fraternity, and the evernst-
ing exclusion of the slavery question from
our national cOuncils. Aud n mere triile
more than five per cent. were willing to
take the risk and encounter the dangers
OF continued agitation Now we are abIe
to determine which party was tile ug-
gresOr in the fearful sectional quarrel
which threatens to dclnge the fair fields
of our beloved country in blood. On the
perhdy which broke this sacred pledge of
peace and fraternity, thus made by the
baltimore Convention, in the face Of high
Heaven, rests the guilt of nggression.-
| What can excuse this periidy2 If any mOp-4
in that convention from the Cotton. StafSs;r9
or the Central Slave StatgeS or the FrSe
States, was. dissatisfied WIN the the exist
ing territorial arrangements of the nation,
why did he not arise and oppose the ndop-
| tiOn of this evtr-memOrable resolution
and give fair warning that the Missouri
Compromise must be repealed. And iflhc
convention coucnrred with him, why did
not that body make a frank declaration to
that effect, There was n good political
reason for their silence; had they made
such declaration Franklin Pierce wouli
not have received as many votes as John
r. Hale did: Yet these same men, in
few brief months, after having by means
ot,these hollow pledges of peace and broth
erhoOd, induced us to delegate to them our
political power, opened; their Pandora 8 box
upon us, by bringing in their bill for the
repeal Of the Missouri Compromise, and
4 urging it 4throughs6Oth branches of. Com
! gress with indecent haste and unmanly
artifces. Why was this pledge made, or,
if made, why asitbrOkcn? Wlat reason
Iiexisted for the repeal of this great measure
.liofpeacs, in January, J s54, that did not
equally exist in June, 1859. If 'Justice to
the South demanded it at the one period,
did it not equally demand it at the other.
What change of circumstances has render
ed the doing of that necessary in 1854,
which the great Democratic party Ind in
1852, so sOlemuly pledged itself not tn do?
The only possible answer is none, nOne.-
! The repeal of the Missouri Compromise
was apparently as capricious as it certMin-
ly was perfidious. These men cannot even
shelter themselves under the wings az our
Supreme Court. That melancholy tribunal
ibid not volunteer the-perEOrmaiiee of its
tpotitical functions for three whole years
after the repeal of the Missouri ComprO-
mise.
r Itisgperhaps worthwhile, to- remind the
reader, that the most cunning, selfish ana
] proAigate of the political leaders, who ef-
tected the. repeal, the very man who first
volunteered to carry the torch into our
National Temple, had a little before in n
great eoncourse of people, pronouncen
the Missouri Compromise u sacred thing
,,csponized in the hearts of the American
IpeOple, never to lie touched or disturbed
by ruthless or reckless hunds, That it
tt''had g Originin the dleRrts Of all faithful
and patriotic men, who destretl.to preserve
and perpstuate the blessings of nnr gIori-
Gus Union an origin akin to that Of the
Constitution itself. and arising from the
same kindly and fraternall affection 7and
calculated forever to remove the only dam
ger which seemed to threaten Mt some dis
taut day to dissever the bonds of our gIo-
Fious Union" Yet when the pettiest prin-
ciple of partiEan expediency demanded the
repeal of this great measure, of peace and
brothethood, not its sacred origin. mos its
unspeNkable utility in preserving the Union.
nor pltghted faith, was able egto deterfits
eulogists from eoncurring, with nltra