Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1863-08-20

SNe6hsDI - Wop OAOEOu by tu0 buppUttbfb U
. Bell and Everett. II was not the proposition O
John ]. Crittepden alone; although he Offered
u u, he did 10 alter consideration and agreement
of vaet number Of the Senators feprssentine
slave and non.slAyeholding States. Now, MI,
bfough undertook, at the -beginpipg of this
campaign, 10 bis speech st Marietta, to say that
the Cfittenden Compromise had been offered Ia
the seeding States, and they had refused It.
Now, IhAyetoo high o regard for Mfy lBrougb,
personally, to suppose that be knew anythipg
about IL, because there never was statement
90 utterly false as that. He took Il from the
Republican newspapers, but by this time We
have ascertained that anything thatis published
IN Republican newspapers 10 not 6t to be boz
lieved; nobody believes II, not even their own
readers. Bat he cannot conduct this campaign
with such ammunition as shat. Now say, frtt,
tnat the Clitsenden Isopositio required two
thrd vote Of the Senate, then two-:hird vote Of
sue House Of Representatives. You see it was
not 10 the power Of sll the Democrats Of the
South together to carry the proposition through
the House Of Congress; II necessarily required
The votes Of the Republican members In order
70 give It two.thirds OF tho Senate in the first
place, then tEo-,hIrds Of the House of Repre-,
aentatiyes. That being SOL need not WadS
tnIough the volumes Of the Congressional
Globe In order to verify thir,-I give this
standing challenge to Mr.. Bfougb, or Col.
Anderson, or any other orator Of the Republi-
can party, 10 show me 10 those three eyentfui
monlha, when by day Or by night the Crit!enden
proposition was urged. challenge them to
show me any action where single Senator or
member from the slaveholdipg States voted
against the Critsenden proposition, and then
SHOW me siDgle ineiance when any Republican
Senator voted for IL. That Is the question.
Men show their opinion by their votes. l took
0 part, o very humble part, In those eventful
transactions. ! was present at all those debates,
and In all those conferences, and daily end
hourly did bear my colleague, who then was
BENZ +. Wade, and Others Of his party, decleie
that they bad no compromise to offer and none
TO accept Not merely did they reject the Crit
tenden proposition, but every proposition of ev-
cry sort, and when my lamented friend Stephen
A. Douglas rose and asked them to make q
proposition, they refused to make any of their
own. Now, these Representatives say that the
Crittenden proposition would have been dishon-
ofable; II 1t would have beea diahonorabIe they
ought not to have accepted 1t. Bat let us fi.s5,
In order to know that, ascertain what was the
material point Of it. The only point In regard
TO which there was any controversy, was the
subject Of slavery In the Territcries, 10 rsstor
the Missouri Compromas line, and provide that
north Of that line, 36 deg. 80 Dnir.,, slavery
should not be tolerated, but In territory forming
States soutb OF that line, it might be tolerated.
Was that dishouorable, my Republican friends .
Cries Of "No." i need NO. 70 back to the fac.
that Il was the original policy Of the Government,
that by the ordinance OF 1851 ,slavery was zclnd
cd from the Territories north of the Ohio, and b,
leaving out the slavery clsuse, slavery was toler.
ated south of it; aud so the States came into
the Union, Ohio, Indiana, illinois, Michigan and
Wirconsin as Aon-slsvsholding States, and
Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama and MISSISSIPPI
pi 90 slaveholding States ; and when we acquir-
Cd the territory from France, by what Ia known
as the Louisiana purchase. In 1920, that line was
extended to the weetermost border Of this pos
session, BY virtue of which Arkansas, Texas
and Missouri csme In o. slave Ststea and Iowa
% non-slayeho olding State. Ipass from that
and come to the fact ii al ID the year 1854, when
this self styled Republican party was establish.
Cd, that the excuse gistnior breaking up the
Wing party, the excuse for seeding from the
Democratic party, vas that In the Ksnsas-Ne-
bsaska act, the Missouri Compromise had been
Violated, that the soiemh plighted faith between
North and South had been set aside. Now, /
am not here to argue that question; IL is among
the dead Issues OF che past. HLetbne grant all
shat was said against Do; lebme give our Re-
publican friends the advantage of all the srgu-
nent on that sabjsos for the present, and shat
then9 Why, In 1860, when the Missouri Com
promise yas offered back, did they not accept
ln Dishonorable to accept II In 1867 Then
itwas dishonorable to complain Of its abfoga-
ton In 1854. If the Critsenden Proposition was
2 diehonorable propositon then, then the Repub.
lcan party was, o dishonorable parry from the
beginning; so they may take either horn Of the
dilemma. While they would do nothing 10 the
way OF compromise, the South continued in
state OF alarm, and violent men, assumed the
lead OF Southern opinion, and led many Of theae
States, and finally most Of them, into . mad ca
reer Of Secession and disunioh! !Aialh 20 ngiA
it -'oa A(ooNctusIoN TO MonaoW.J9a smi. ga