Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-02-11
PoIIticnIWlstorv.

Dayton, we will coDcede, has many ad-
vantages. 1t is flourishing place. 1t has
its Opera House, and chief among its at
fractions is the Journal, the editor of which
Is a most learned man. He informs us that
the recent Civil War commenced befort
LINCOLN was inaugurated. The political
and the War history of the country make II
appear that it occurred after LINCoLN's in.
auguration. 1t is, furthermore, unchal
lenged political history, that had the Crit
tenden Compromise been betimes agreed tC
in good faith by the Republican Members
in Congress, there would have been no Wal
there would not now be the taxation that
the people can scarcely pay, and which II
sitting business and enterprise.
Throughout the entire campaign of 1860
such journals as the Dayton Journal secuted
and sneered at the idea of War orattempted
secession following the success of the Re-
publican party. The people were warned
and pleaded with not to put the Republican
party into power, lest War, and perhaps
dismemberment Of the Union
would ensue. 10 this the Repub-
lican politicians and the Republi-
can journals replied there was not the least
possible danger; that it was merely mis-
erably patched scarecrow, set up by Dem
ocratic demagogues. They pledged their
word to the people, that instead of trouble
dogging the heels of Republican party
success at the polls in 1860, smiling plenty
would walk hand in hand and bestrew the
land with bounteous prosperity. At pc
riods during the War, Republican journals
and speakers were free to declare. that II
the Democratic party had not divided al
Charleston it would not have been defeated
at the Presidential election In 1860, and
hence there would have been no War.
In the days of the Whig party, when it
succeeded to power In the Federal Govern
ment, there was neither War nor attempted
secession. How is this to be accounted for,
if the recent War was War set on foot by
the Democratic party to retain power?
Was not the Democratic party in the days
when the WING party was formidable just
as fond of and just as reluctant to yield
power as when the Republican party first
carried the free States for its Presidential
candidate in 1860? Assuredly. There
was this difference between the Whig and
the Republican parties. The former was
considered National, whereas the latter sOas
and is Sectional. Its sectionalism-its pro-
pelling motive power-contemplated the
uprooting and extinction of an institution
peculiar to the Southern States. 1t was to
get out of the way of this power, when its
strength was proclaimed through the bal
lot-boX in 1860, that induced the South to
embark in the secession enterprise. And
for this undertaking the Democratic party
is in no way whatever responsible. Itwas
the Democratic party, aided by the South,
that carried westward "the star of empire"
that gave the country cheap and good
Government, and restrained the monopo-
lists. Through their sectionalism and un-
compromising spirit, the Republican party
leaders are responsible for the calamity
War, violations of the Constitution and in
tolerable taxation-that has befallen the
country since 1860. So will impartial his
tory adjudge them. When editors, who
have been War champions par excellence,
by perversion of truth undertake to
throw the responsibility of the War on the
shoulders OF their political adversary, it is
more than half conceding that the War
should have been prevented, if it could
have been done. and this the congressional
history of the country shows could have
been done, had it not been for the Repub-
lican leaders.