New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1862-03-03


tha People iato voting az iinst Lii COLI. by the
menace of slaveholding Rebellion. nnd
failed. they now turned upon the Republi-
can politicians, and tried the same experiment
upon then. hoping to find them more tmorous
or more pliable. What they proposed was in
substance just this: "You Republicans have
" elected your President by assuring the Peo'
"pe that he and you would resist the planting
" of Slavery in the Federal Territories; but,
" seeing that the Shareholders will rebel ard
" break up the Union if you do this. We
"requiro you to back square out Of
your avowed principles, break tho pledges on
" the strensth Of which you Won the election, and
" agree to measure off liberal share Of tue
I" Territories to be given up TO Slavery" We
defy any intelligent man to say that this was
not, in substance, just what they e1acted oil
US, and what Dir. Barlow in effect stgmatzes
US as unpatriotic for not accepting. We bad
chosen President on distinct, well defined,
important principle; and We were required to
surrender that principle rs condition prcce.
dent to our obtaining the power which the
election had given us. To that end, Congress
was besieged throughout the Session Of 1861,
and Peace Congress assembled to coerce it
into making the surrender.
There was nothing new in what waA called
the Crittenden Compromise" OF that Sesaion.
1t was moved az an amendment to the Oregon
Admission bill by Dir. Douglas in loi7, carried
through the Senate by 80 Yeas to ~ Nays.
and thea beaten in the House ty the decisive
vote of III Nays to 50 Yeas-only thee Mem
bers from Free States voting for 1t. The
Senate then retedcd by ~ to 20. aud Oregon
wa. organized a. Free Territory without
equivalent or counterpOse. What the Repubii-
cans we're asked 70 do in 1861 was just what
both Wings and Democrats from the Free States
had peremptory, and oil bat unanimously, re-
fused to do in Is47. And our refusal to 20
further in Difference to Slavery than either
Wbies or Democrats would do fourteen years
before. was and IL made "A proyocsticn aud e.
cuse for the Shareholders Rebellion.
Why should Republicans have voted for That
compromise, Would such vote have truly en-
bodied their own convictions NotoriouslJ
not. We were reqa;,ed b. vote So We be-
lieved wrong upon 10 other confederation than
"the argument Of fear'-tecause we must 30
vote or tho Slave Power would break up the
Union.
We did not surreBder-the great body OF
the Republicans did not-apd Secession
became Rebellion. Nr. Barlow and those like
him profess TO think this rebellion wrong, and
to be put down BY tho strong arm Of the
Nation. BI u 1t ntre wrong 10 Joment re-
bcitiom for any erist'ag n"son, ras not
eqrauy orcng TO eocroe party 10 surrender rs
principles by h,eo,s Of such REBELLION Between
the Two processes, what is the essential diff
ference ?
We speak Of the pa.t only because OF It's
bearing on the Immediate future. The game
Of Reconstruction il in the same hands and 10
be conducted on the ZANE principles with
that OF Reconciliation. The Republicans were
urged year sgo to surrender their principles
ior he sake of Union and Peace; they will be
called OH again 10 DO SO whenever the machine
~ mall have been adjusted. Already the Coincide.
rate emisspries in Europe urge that We are no
Whit less Pro-savery than the Rebels are
TINT our quarrel concerns Tariffs more than
Savory. Border-State counseis and Democratic
scheme. for future sscendancy oil tend in the
,aus direction. We trust that they may all
be banled, and that tie sacrifices and suffer.
ings caused by this most wicked rebellion
Will DO sanctifed 10 the enlargement of the
area OF Freedom.