Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1865-03-28
From the Woodstock Standard.
Then and Now.

From the Woodstock Standard
Then and Now.
We remember at Republican State Conven-
tion, which assembled 10 Montpelier in July,
| 1862, the following resolution was introduced and
adopted after VIOLENT opposition;
=" ResOlued, That we accept the Emancipation
Resolution recommended by the President, and
adopted by more than two-thirds of both Houses
Of Congrsss-the abolition Of Slavery in the
District Of Coumbia--the prohibition Of slavery
henceforward and forever in the Territores--the
Seward Lyons treaty for the effectual suppression
Of the Slave Trade--as pledges that the Govern
ment has cut itself free from all completely with
slavery, and will hereafter, in no partisan sense,
but according 10 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"
Among the gentlemen who opposed this reso-
luton was j. Gregory Smith, Of st. Adams.
Mr. Smith il now Governor Of the State, and
in his proclamation calling an extra session Of
the State Legislature Gov. Smith says that the
passage by Congress Of the constitutional amend
ment is the occasion "of profound rejoicing to
the people Of this State, as the contamination Of
their long cherished hope and desire, the harbin.
ger Of glorious emancipation to a race, and of
regeneration 10 a nation"
The Governor has made some progress 10 anti
slavery views, evidently, since the summer Of
/ 1862 FREEMAN.
We are not disposed to deny the right Of the
press to criticse at all times the acts Of officials but
the above which is as unjust as il is malicious, shall
mi ,Nas allapuaI | % ua nouaulf thu
cord.
The resolution was introduced by Mr.. Willard,
then and now editor OF the FREEMAN, and under
rule Of the convention went to the committee
on resolutions, which was compose of such men
as Daniel Roberts, Fred. L. Woodbridge, Caro-
lus Noyes, Worthington G. Smith, Charles Cum
mings, Bliss n. Davis, and Jo. d. Hatch, some Of
whom at least will be recognized as leading anti
slavery advocates, though perhaps the FREEMAN
would not class them as Of the rabid sort with
which it fraternizes. The committee reported
series Of resolutions endorsing in general terms
the administration, leaving out entirely Mr.. Will
ards more specific one He thereupon moved
his resolution as an amendment te the report
Of the committee, and in its support was aided
by Daniel Roberts, Daniel Needhsm, Lawranoe
Branard, and Others. The amendment was op-
posed, on the ground Of policy alone, by Fred.
H. Woodbridge, now 10 Congress, William I.
Nichols, now leading State Senator from Rut-
land, and James Green Of Waterbury, man ss
thoroughly anti-slavery then and now as the edit.
or OF the FREEMAN ever was Mr.. Woodbridge
was the principal speaker against the resolution,
and his argument was, substantially, that "the
one great issue Of the times is the suppression OF
the rebellion. 10 meet this successfully will be
the Distinguishing and aabsorbing feature Of Mr..
Iincoln's administration. 10 aid him In doing
this, the whole northern people we're ralying
with singular unanimity, but upon the subjects
named IN the resolution the people were not so
unanimous. Therefore, lest il might prove an
element Of disoord, and so, in tact, divert the
'ympathies Of the people from the policy Ct ths
President, he was opposed to It's passage.
Those who are at all conversant with the
history of political parties in the State for the
past four years know, that in 1862 the attempt
was being made to draw more thoroughly to the
support Of the administration that large and re-
spectable class OF men called war-democrats,"
who stood reldy to support heartily the war, but
who could not see their way clearly regarding oil
the anti-slayery acts of the administration. 1t
was honestly feared by many that to adopt res
olution like the one proposed would widen the
breach irrevocably between the two parties, and
lose to the administration the support Of this body
Of men, whose aid was absolutely essential to
successful conduct OF the war. Many OF these
men were in the convention, watching the result
with considerable anxiety, and as it is a fact Of
some importance in support Of tie views express
ed by Mr.. Woodbridge, that not one Of them
took part in the debate, or indicated 10 any men,
ner whether they would accept the resolution IL
adopted.
We have stated fully the ground, and The ,ohoie
ground, OF opposition to Mr.. Wizards resolution,
but what, our readers may ask, has oil this to do
with Governor Smith The question Is pertinent,
and the burden Of proof is on the editor OF the
FIREMAN. Let him show. We have examin-
ed carefully the Free Pres, very elobrate account
Of the proceedings of the convention, which we
copied at the time, and also the Boston journals
telegrai h report and subsequent letter from the
capital, and we cannot discover that Mr.. Smith
took any part whatever in the discussion. And
yet, the Jonnai's letter, signed "Now and Then,"
was written for the express purpose Of giving
the history Of the resolution IN question. For
ourself, we may say that at the time, as our files
show, We were decidedly in favor OF the resolution,
and hence we feel it more cur duty 10 do justice
to those who opposed it.
This reference 10 the record and statement Of
facts are sufficient to show to un-
biased readers the injustice, the petty personal
maIiguity, Of the FREEEAS's fling at the Govern
or. It carries the idea that the Governor oppos-
ed the sentiments of the resolution, which is a,
far as possible from the truth, and the editor of
FREEMAN knows it. It's pity he hadn't suf-
fcisul honestly 10 state the ground Of opposition
10 the resolution, when he made his charge, for it
makes all the difference in the world whether
man opposes thing as in ITSELF wrong or asa
matter of policy only.