East Saginaw courier. (East Saginaw, Mich.) 1859-18??, 1862-02-04

take whouy away from II. ~
In what respect can il lie claimed thai
i the great division of parties for the pas,
twenty years had what is called ca cnl
7 nination" in the. ware As ii the two
parties had steadfastly differed, urtil they
flally took up arms aud proceeded t.
7. hgltt abont their iiffereucesfl "
The fallacy OF the idea is, manifest
! from history. The Democratic party
who were on the constitutional siile ol
the controversy, are certainly mot the
rebels. More than this, the rebellion was
not begun for the defense of Democratic
principles. 1t was the work OF men who
avowed dsunion as their object, and used
anti-slavery as their raeans Of rallying
forces.
Nor we're Southern Democrats on the
side of the rebellion. Virginia would
not join il North Carolina woull not
join it. tennessee would not join it,
South Carolina wrs the only State in the
South where there is any reason to be-
lieve there was a majority in favor Of
disunion one year ago. There were
more Sootherners and advocates of
slaveryi in the South year ago who were
opposed to the rebellion than who ia
vored it. II has been stated hundred
times by every Northern paper, and no
one doubts it, that slavery" was actually,
in majority, for the Union. 1t is hardly
worth while, in the face of that fact, to
call the rebellion CONTAMINATION" of the
controversy Of the past twenty years.
Let any man carry himself back to the
position one year ago, and ask, is the re-
bellion now III progress tile elimination
Of party differences? Millions of slave
holders were then standing up for the
Union. They warned the nation that
among the Southern people were disaniou.
ists who gained strength out Of Northern
fanaticism. They besought the North
for help against rebellion, in tones that
will ring with melancholy y cadence down
the future ages of our national life. They
pleaded with the Northern. States in
terms that might have moved the hearts
of rocks, to send them assurances that
the Constitution would be upheld, and
Southern rights respected. Did Massa.
chusetts reply? Did New York reply ?
What were their replies?
They asked arguments with which to
save fhe South from the wiles of the dis
unionists. They said, "repeal your Per
sonal Liberty bills, do anything by which
we can prove that you are not the fanatics
these disunionists among US say that you
are" s. t.... III -.I l.,la.s1H
Were those men, the large majority Of
the Southern shareholders, the mon who
had been active for years in the contro-
versy of which The World speaks, were
those men rebels, aud was the rebellion
they ,osre seeking to qasN the Continuation"
of their side OF the controversy The
idea is untenable, and history will not
accept it. t...,- --
We look back at the Peace Conven-
ton of last spring with undesirable
sorrow. There were in it good true
Southern men, ready to sacrifice lie,
property, anything for the Union, who
begged with tears for some help against
the disunionists among them atihe South.
There were men there from the North,
who scoffed at their tears, derided their
forebodings, had engagements in court
when the final vote to save or sink the
Union came on; and perhaps we ought
not to be surprised If Northern members
of that Convention are now found circu-
lating petitions for universal emancipa-
ton, aud teaching that the Union is al
ready dissolved .,.,-, ~,
Here is the point where the historical
connection fails. The men of the South
who helped to annex Texas, 10 repeal
the Missouri compromise, to do all the
other acts that are charged on slavery,
were oppos ell in majority, to the rebellion,
and were only silenced by the vigor of
minority. Now what becomes Of the Sc
quence of events? 1t is pain that all the
events aud acts charged had no necessary
effect in producing rebellion; that they
did not groW 10 rebellion, nor were they
the seed, or the stem, from which it
sprung; and it is equally plain that the
supporters Of slavery were, not even In
majority, for rebellion. What then has
become Of the argument that slavery is
responsible for the rebellion? ssq
1t is, perhaps, vain to attempt the con-
version of any man from his views ON
this subject which have been formed dur
lug these trying times. We, all Of us,
think quickly, but we think strongly, and
fud it difficult to get lid of our ideas
once formed. t...,,-., va
But to our minds, it is the height Of
injustice to charge on the Democratic
party that its principles have eliminated
in this rebellion, when the truth stares
us in the face that for years Northern
arty denounced the Constitution, aud
demanded its overthrow, and Democratic
principles, North and South, have been
sternly set against that party. ga
We have said, aud we repeat, that the.
rebellion is the child of sin. But that it
was begotten Of abolitionism,, nursed by
abolitiouism, educated, fed, clothed, and
at last turned loose on the world by abo-
itionism to perform its horrible mission,
is truth that is written on its very
visage. We fear the child will not be
removed to deserved death. till its father
aud its nurses, from whom it derives its
chief support 20 day, arc either removed,