Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1865-03-28
The Woodstock Standard on the Freeman
and the Convention in 1862.

convention IN lSO2 with Governor Smith IN
the proclamation for the extra session. We
don't understand the Standard TO assert that
our statement was not literally correct, that
MIR. Smith did not oppose the resolution which
we quoted, which indeed cannot be denied
but our contemporary says, substantially, that
those who opposed that resolution were Just as
good anti-slayery men as those who favored it,
that their opposition was matter of expe-
dieney and not of principle. We submit to the
good sense Of the Standard, that this is mat
ter OF opinion, and in our opinion those who
opposed the resolution in question were not at
that time, as earnest workers in favor of free.
dom to the slave as those who favored the res
olution. And we think the Standard agreed
with us in this opinion in 1862. Nor do we
lind in the history of the convention, as given
by the STANDARD, imperfect as that history is,
anything to con trovert this position. This is
the resolution,-and we beg our readers to study
It carefully ito see what there IS "rabid' or
" radical " in IL
i" Resolved, That we accept the Emancipation
Resolution recommended by the President, and
adopted by more than two-thirds of both Houses
of Congress-the abolition of Slavery in the
District of Columbia-the prohibition Of slavery
henceforward and forever in the Territories-the
Seward. Lyons treaty for the effectual suppression
OF the Slave Trade-as pledges that the Govern
ment has cut itselfiree from all completely with
slavery, and will hereafter, in no partisan sense,
but according TO the true Interpretation of the
Constitution, administer the Government in the
interest of freedom. And We hope at some fu-
ture and not distant day, to see this country
delivered from the curse of slavery"
How could any man whose anti-slavery views
we're not put in abeyance-put down and chain
ed down-object to this resolution The Stand
ard approved it, it says, and we know the press of
the State, with the exception Of few Mcclellan
conservative papers, approved it. No DEM
ocrat who cared to act with the Union party
opposed it. MIR. Dlingham's speech in the
convention was fully as antislavery as the res
clution. Why should anybody oppose it?
We think we know the secret of the hostility
to the resolution. We believe that there were
some pro-slavery gentlemen in the State who,
in the spring and summer OF. 1862, were hard at
work to eliminate from the Union party in Yer
mont its anti-slavery element, and to make it
u grand consolidated, conservative, =" Union as it
was and constitution as it il" party, in which
anti slavery doctrines, as active, working princl-
pies, were to be wholly ignored, We believe
that an attempt was made to use the convention
OF 1862 to advance that object. The resolution
in question, was introduced for the express pur-
pose Of heading of that movement, aud it did
the work most efectually No democrat, whose
alliance was worth anything, was disturbed
by the resolution, and Republicans with " con.
servative " tendencies were given very plainly to
understand that the republican party of the
State would MT be made into " conservative
machine by any " no.rarty' cry or hOcus pocus
whatever
But the Standard says, that gentlemen who
spoke against the resolution, declared that they
opposed it as matter Of expediency, while they
agreed with it in principle. We would remind
the Standard. thar tho moo. eorious opposition
which anti-slayery principles have met at the
North, is from those persons who agree with the
anti-slavery men all the way until the moment
for action comes, and then desert them. Anti
slavery action is a much better test of the hon
eSty of anti-slavciy principles than any amount
of profession. Bishop Hopkins says ho is an
anti-savery man, and DESTROYS of doing every.
thing that is erpedient to be done to accomplish
that result Is he therefore as good an anti
slavery man as Senator Sumner, who never loses
an occasion to put his principles in practice 2
In short, we believed then, and we believe now,
that the spirit which ANNA ted theihostili,y to
this resolution in the convention of 1862, was a
conservative" spirit, whose direct and ineyita-
BILE tendency was to save slavery from the con-
sequences Of the rebellion, while the spirit OF the
resolution and of those who favored il was the
active, working antslavery spirit,which believed
then, and believes now in hitting slavery the
hardest blows, never sparing it anywhere on any
plea of expedency, or for the sake Of the alliance
of any man or party. The President was then
feeling the pulse Of the people, and gradually,
with faith none of thc.strongest, and purpose
as yet quite unsteady and unsettled was making
his way toward the procamations of the Sep
tember and January following and while he
was doing this, men stood up in a convention in
anti.slavery Vermont and argued against a
resolution approving the steps already takon,-
and ''reciting those steps specifically 50 that no
cunning casulstry could make the words mean
something else-gadly accepting them as guar
antces that the government stood pledged to
freedom, and expressing the hope that the curse
of slavery might some day be banished from the
land
But the Standard in this year of our Lord 1865,
and reading the history of the convention Of
1862 by the light of subsequent events by the
grand progress Of lr~dom which seems now to
DO within reach offs iiaal tIiamph, says that
those who opposed tia, resolution were Just
as good nnii-slavcrY mon as those who favored
it, and calls us % malignant" and 4" malicious, -
beOaasl wo Unlimited that one gentleman
who opposed ;ha; RESOLUTION had maio progress
IN anti slavery views since then.
Docs tot the Standard know that pros!den.
Lincoln has more ban once s4id that he never
has ben in advance OF the people in his anti
slavery policy, ihs, be has only kept abreast Of
popular OPINION moving when that moved,
pauSins when that paused, and that ev.ry stem