Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1867-03-07

while Mr.. Buchanan was yet President.
They seized and appropriated the forts,
arsenals, armories, ordnance, arms, mu-
nitions, custom houses, post offices, sub
treasuries, &C., throughout nearly half
the Union, without shadow of resist
ance-his Democratic Secretaries Of War
and the Treasury being conspicuous, ac-
tive disunionists, and he himself, with
most of his counsellors, playthings in
their hands. Before Texas was out Of
the Union, according to rebel computa-
ton, the bulk of our little army hadbeen
betrayed by its commander, Gen. Twiggs,
and surrendered to three rebel commit
sioners-February 10, 1s61-a fortnight
before Mr.. Buchanan went out of office.
If ever q government forbope.tillsmitten
on both cheeks, and till tobacco juice had
been spit into its eyes, then did the Fed
eral Government.before graphing with
the shareholders, rebellion. And yet,
from first to last, the Democratic journals
and canvassers represented the war for
the Union AS waged by Mr.. Lincoln and
the Republicans, and assumed that the
rebels were assailcd and standing on the
defensive! ..
10. Democratic protests and remon-
strances, public. and private, against the
war astcruel, fratricidal, wicked, revolt
ing, abhorrent, &C., were abundant
throughout the struggle; not one of them,
so far as we can recollect, addressed to
the rebel chiefs, but all assuming that Mr..
Lincoln and the Republicans were waging
hostilities needlessly if not wantonly, and
might have an honorable peace whenever
they would. Thomas II. Seymour, of
Connecticut, was the author of one of
the earliest of these paralyzing missives;
and he was nominated by acclamation by
the Democrats of Connecticut as their
candidate for Governor in 1868, and his
election enthusiastically supported by the
party.
IL. In this city, one of our Democratic
journals, the Daily News, was an open,
unqualified contemner of the war on our
side and champion of the rebellion, from
first to last. 1t did its utmost to prevent
enlistment in the Union armies, elllogised
the rebel chiefs, and proclaimedth that they
could never be subdued; systematically
magnified their successes, and denied or
belittled their rcverses; and was well un-
derstood to be their stipendiary and tool.
In full view of these facts, its editor was
in 1862 made the regular Democratic can
didate for Congress in one of our strong
Democratic districts, running the same
ticket with Governor Seymour, and re-
ceiving nearly the full vote of his party;
and he has since been chosen by that
party to a seat in our State Senate.
l.. AS to the propositions, speeches,
acts and votes of Nallandigham, Bayard,
Bright, May, Josh Allen, Jack Rogers,
and other Democrats in Congress, inclu-
ding Benjamin G. Harris's vaunt that
the rebellion never could nor ought TO he
put down, we leave them to Mr.. Ashley,
or whoever shall see fit to answer Messrs.
n fioII nj tn
their folly. Just word, however, to the
former of these gentlemen. One of the
very foremost Democrats in his district is
(or was) General Archibald G. Niven,
who, very early in the war, wrote let
ter to nephew who meditated enlist
ment to fight for the Union, urging him
not to do so, and representing the war
on our side as cruelty oppressive and un
just. That letter was published; and
thereupon General Niven was made the
Democratic candidate for Senator in Mr..
Winfields precise district, and received
the full Democratic vote, by which he
was returned elected; but the Senate, on
a contest, gave the seat TO his Republic
can competitor, Judge Low.
We might multiply such facts to in
finity; but need we? Suffice it that, as
the result of most anxious, intent con-
temptation o. the history of our great
struggle, we domost undoubtedly believe
that the Democrats as party, were not
at heart for the Union in its terrible
struggle with secession-that they did
not rejoice at its triumphs nor dcplore its
defeats. We do not say that majority
of them wished the Union permanently
dissolved; we know, and have often
stated, that they did not; but they be-
lieved that Union defeats and disasters
would discredit and destroy the Repub-
lican ascendancy, and that they would
thereupon come into power and COAX the
rebels back into the Unionby all manner
of concessions and prostrations to the
slave power. They had no notion that
the Union could, or should, he saved
otherwise than by letting the slavehold
ers have theirway in it, and the road to
this, they realized, lay not through Union
victories, but the contrary.
Firmly grounded in this conviction,
are we ut liberty to proclaim it? Do we
deserve to he knocked down and stamped
on whenever we say what we believe?
or only to he branded as liars? What say
you, Messrs. Winfield and Hunter?
..r ...#