Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1863-04-16

proclamation out Of your hat and kick Il
to the four winds? How can you expot
to embrace chimney sweep without get
ting SCOT on your gsrmentsP IL you
don't want to bo called Abolitionists, you
had better at once leave your present COM
pany. II you will sail in the Abolition
boat, vote for Abolition candidates and
act with the Abolition party, don't expect
to be called any thing but an Abolitionist;
that il just what you are, and you can't
get round it. If you are honest in your
profession oI Abolition views, if you be-
lieve the Government can only be presery-
ed by the Abolition Of slavery, why do
youindignantly reject the very term which
expresses that sentiment? Can any onr
explain these inconsistencies upon any by
pothesis consistent with honesty Of pur-
pose and manly sincerity? Why call
Democrats secessionists? Is there any
one fact in the history of the Democratic
party. in its platform OF public declSra-
tions, which affords the least ground FOR
the application of such a term to theu?
When and where has the party not made
the preservation, before it was disrupted.
and restoration of the Union since, lis
permanent purpose? What personal or
party sacrifice. what concession for the
preservation of peace aud Union have
Democrats not been willing to adopt?
What Democratic paper, recognized BY
the party as such; what Democratic con-
vention ever uttered OF adopted seces-
sion sentiment? Ii there are any such,
they can certainly be shown, and in the
absence OF proof, the entire abolition par
ty unite in CHASING all who do not agree
to their policy. as secessionists Is thai
an honest cause which seeks to promote
itself by libelling its opponents?
Not being able to convict US by the
facts, this Abolition party seek to imput,
to ms motives to accord with their repre-.
sentations; ii we do not talk secession, ol
act secession. why they insist that W,
think secession, and like the honest leu
ton who desired to correct his boy 70
profanity, and not being able TO establish
he charge satisfactorily, exclaimed
"Vel, den, you thinks damn, and | whil
you for dat
Democrats have not changed; they hol'
to the same principles to-day which the.
held when the Abolitionists were denounc
ing the Union as a compact with hell
and an agreement with DEATH" they vii
defend the Federal Govenmet in all it
Constitutional powers, as they did whe
the Abolition States nearly all nullified
law of Congress and repudiated their oil
l. legations to the Constitution; they wi
- stand by all pledges which they gave on
year ago, or ten years ago; they believe
> that the Abolition policy would destro
'' the Union then; they believe it will N,
y restore the Union now. We point TO OF
record for the proof Of all this. How
it with the Aboltionists; will their recol
" stand any such test? Let us seq. Durin
u the winter OF 1862, the following resol
y" ton passed the House of Congress, evel
y Democrat voting for it, and only two r
publicans voting against it:
~ Rssolrsd, That neither the federal COVER
It ment nor the people or governments OF Il
lao non-slavehodIng states have purpose, or
constitutional right to legislAte upon, or
Gu terfere with slavery in any of the states Of t
yi- Onion .....
~ In less than sixty days from enteril
on into this pledge. the same House passed
M bill for the abolition OF slavery in the D
Igs trict Of Columbia, by the vote OF eve
4 d Republican and against the vote of eve
Gg Democrat in that body. And in
a. months after the passage of the foregoi
LEI resolution, the same House, by q vote
IL 7sto 81, every Democrat voting sgai
nd it and none but Republicans voting for
Al passed resolution declaring "tbAt
Proclamation Of the President. of the d
Of Sept. %. 1852, is warranted by
H. Constitution" &c. a.. f.ar
Now who has changed ? Certainly
-. the Democrats Who are Abolitionis
' Every man who acts with this party