Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1863-05-13
WHO WAS IN FAVOR OF COMPROMISE.

The political enemies OF the hepuOiican
party have made it standing charge that it
was opposed to fair compromise of the dit
ferences existing at the outbreak of the rebel
lion, and is therefore responsible for the war
It matters not that the leaders among the reb-
els have themselves exploded the accusation
| repeatedly and effectually by declaring that at
the time they wanted no compromise, would
have entered into none in fact, that if a blank
sheet of paper had been offered them upon
which to write their own conditions, they
would have rejected 1.-THE charge has been
reiterated as often as opportunity has offered
In view of this fact, David Dudley Field, Of
New York. has recently done excellent
| thing, in the effectual expose Of the falsity of
the accusation alluded to. He was member
OF the Peace Congress that met in Washing
ton city in February 1861, from which strong
| hopes of some accommodation which would
| avert war we're at one time entertained, and
his statements go TO the proceedings of that
body, which was composed OF representatives
| from rather the more conservative elements
adjustment of differences were poss ble, 1t is
| fair to infer that it could have been had there
at least so far as the disposition OF the South
was favorable to it. Mr.. Field first submitted
| the following
| ssThe Union of the States under the Const-
| tuition is indissoluble and no State can secede
from the Union, nullify an act of Congress,
or absoiye its citizens from their paramount
| obligation of obedience to the Constitution
and laws of the United States"
This was laid on the table by the majority.
Mr.. Field then proposed the following:
alt is believed to be the true intent and
meaning of the present Constitution that the
| Union of the States under it is indissoluble. +"
This was rejected by the CONSERVATIVES" /"
| Governor Roger S. Baldwin, Republican, }
of Connecticut, then submitted the following
"WHEREAs, Unhappy differences exist which
! have aiienated from each other portions of the
| people of the United States, to such an ex-
tent as seriously to disturb the peace of the
nation and impair the regular and efficient ac-
| tIon of the Government within the sphere OF its
constitutional powers and duties and
"Whereas, The Legislature of the State of
| Kentucky has made application to Congress
| to call convention for proposing amendments
to the Constitution of the United States; and
| ssWhereas, Ii is believed to be the opinion of
the people of other States that amendments to
| the Constitution are or may become necessary
| To secure to the people of the United States
| every section the full and equal enjoyment of
| their rights and liberties, so far rs the same
may depend for their security and protection
! on the powers granted to or withheld from the
Federal Government in pursuance of the ma
tional purposes for which it was ordained and
| established,
eThis conference does therefore recommend
| to the several States TO unite with Kentucky
| in her applications to Congress to call conven-
| tion for proposing amendments 20 the Constitu-
| tion of the United States, to be submitted to
the Legislatures of the several States, or to
conventions therein, for ratification, as the one
| or the other mode OF ratification may be pro-
| posed by Congress, in accordance with the pro-
visions in the fifth article of the Constitution. -
| This proposition was susta ined by Mr.. Field
and all the Republicans; but it was vehement
! ly resisted by their opponents and defeated.
Yeas, eight States; nays, thirteen States.
Erery Stare State represented in that Congress-
DelaW are, Maryland, Virginia, North Caroline,
Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri-all voted
| nay.
Here ii will be seen was determination
manifested on the part of the men who assum-
ed to represent the south, to oppose even the
| endorsement OF the abstract doctrine of the in
dissolubility of the Union. They were un-
/ willing to put themselves upon the. record a.
| gainst secession. They ready to sup
port proposition which did not involve
more or less directly the theory of their inde-
pendence of Federal Government. To haye
compromised with them would, therefore,
| have been compromising away. instead OF
preserving the Union. No basis OF peaceabIe
adjustment, it is plain, could have been ar
ranged with them which would have been ac
| ceptable to the Democracy OF the North, if
their professions of Unionsm are TO be relied
/ upon. Finally the proposition adopted by the
Peace Congress was opposed By the Republi-
cans. it being the same as that rejected to the
| bitter end by the Democrats of the free States
! at Charleston Convention. When 1t was pre-
sented to Congress it met with no success
| whatever. In the Senate, Mason and Hunter
| of Virginia, Green of Missouri, and Lane OF
Oregon. denounced 1t; and when il was put
! to the vote, only thee Senators out of thirty
| seven gave their voices in its favor. In the
House its fate was scarcely better. This
shows conclusvely how far the Republicans, or
in fact any party of the North, where respon-
| sible for failure to compromise at the tim 6
| the war of ofdissolution began.
The Lynchburg( Vs.) Repablicau OF the 9th