Terre Haute Daily Union, Volume 2, Number 87, Terre Haute, Vigo County, 26 April 1858 — Page 2

Page PDF (11.64 MB)

Back to issue view

CJe J9«ilijt#iU0n

I. M. BROWN, Editor. r/_.„ T. •. Mile, ANWiata UlMr.

TERRE-HAUTE.

MONDAY MORNING. APRIL SC. 1858.

Far Prrtiint la I

JOHN J. OHITTfiNDBN, Of Kea tacky.

TKRRC-HAOTS. April 17, 1858. MILTON 6SKM,

ESQ: —An article ap

peared in the Tribune of the 14th instant —which has been re-prodnced by the} Wabash Ezprett of this morning—wherein you have endeavored to inatructthe pnblic by charging me with political inconsistency, and by assailing, what yon are pleased to call, my "favorite" idea of "letting slavery alone." If there wa« not enough in the joint hope we have so long professed to experience, for the final trinmph of common cause, to stay your hand in this profitless undertaking •—I wonder yon did not find it in an acquaintance of twenty years, the whole of which has been unmarred by a single act or thought of unkindness on my part. As all our past intercourse had led me to suppose that yon entertained no such feelings towards me as are indicated by this article, you may well imagine that it greatly surprised me —and that this surprise was, in no way, diminished by the fact that you did not send me a copy of your paper which contained it. j-

Yon rest yonr justification for this first breach of so long and uninterrupted a friendship, upon a pretext too flimsy to avail you, when you pretend to fiud it in A recent editorial of the Tetre-Haute Union:* You say that it is a "fact" or a

4'supposed/act,"

that the Union "is own

ed and controlled'' by me, and that it "reflocts my sentiments and my will, in all things." You do not assert this as a "fact." I am therefore, left to infer Jthat you merely "supposed*' it to ba so. If tUid is all, it seems to me that it was duo to yourself—whether yon regarded it as duo to me or not—-that you should not have acted thus precipitately upon a mere "supjtosed" state of case—but that you should have made inquirj of me, or somebody elso, what the real fact was. Had you done so of mo, I could have told you —as I now do—that the Union is neither "owned" nor "controlled" by mo, and that I am, in no way whatsoever, responsible forwhat appears in its columns. It was established by a company, to advocate American principles. I am one of the stockholders iu that company. The Sen-

stock. He and his assistant have tho entire care of the paper, an'd are alone responsible for its contents. I doubt not that they would recoive kindly—and perhaps adopt, advice given them by me or any other member of the company, in reference to the objects for whioh it was established. But it is not'true that my associate stockholders have left it to "reflect mf sentiments and my will, in all things." For example:—it has placed at the head of its columns the name of Mr. Crittenden for the Presidency in 1860. Now, although Mr. Crittenden, if a candidate, will have no more ardent supporter in the Union than me, yet was not consulted about this movement and had no knowledge Of it toll it was actually made.

As to the particular article which has excited yon so mueh, I can only say, that I never saw or heard ofit till it appoared In print. I have never, op to this moment, read your article to which it is a reply. Having been absent from the State, for a portion of the "past two months**-—du-ring whioh time, yon say, the Union has been assailing yon—I really did not know that yon were thus assailed. Had the Union "reflected my sentiments and my will," say to yon, in the spirit of frankness, yon would wet hetve beets. There are not enough of as Americans that we should exhaust ourselves npon each other, to the amusement of both Democrats and Republicans^ To wist both of these parties. I would unite American* so closely together that but a single spirit ahoold animate them all, not only here in our own State, but all over the nation. To convince yon «f how little I have know* of the cause of ^disagreement between yon and the editor of the Union, I assure you that I have not w*n half a dosen of yonr papers for more .than two months. I do not know upon 4^at groundjtm based yonr objections to ^tho icaoiutions of the meotiag hew—«xit yoahave stated them hi the article now before mo.

Under

for editor, Mr. Br™., ta'lb. l.rge.t 14th, th.t yon t.ke exception, tb.t ™.- rtMkbolJn-K.wni.g mow th.nb.lfthe ®f

all those circum-

stances, 1 am utterly at a loss to know

why yon have desired to involve ma in a controversy of this kind, wheal never, in all my life, gave yon the slightest reason for supposing that I doubted the sincerity of your political professions.

This attempt to hold me responsible for what appeared in tie Union, grew out of my refusal to support Col. Fremont for the Presidency. It was invented merely to furnish a pretext to those Republican editors who were sodesti.ute of

honor Or truth as to charge tbte I had

At one place in youfr article—referring to the article in the Union—yoti Say: "We will not do Col. Thompson the injustice to suppose that he is capable of writing such sublimated nonsense as this." Then why represent me to your readers as responsible for it Is it fair or usual to hold a man aceonntable for what he does not write? If you do not "suppose" me "capable of writing such*' an article, why parade my name before the public as you have done? I* it justto roedr creditable to yourself to assail me under snchucircumstances Let me say to you. in all candor, that there is danger that you Way damage your own reputation for fairness, by thus exposing yourself to the suspicion of having concealed tho real motive of yohr attack npon me. w.4~ *3,, say, that if I do ^otTcbntrol the Union, I should, for my own credit, "renonnce once and forever all responsibility for its vagaries." It cannot have escaped your observation that I hare declared over my own name, in the Union, that I was not, In any way, responsible for what appeared in it—and the real and responsible editors have made the same avowal. These joint declarations

Bhould

our

'the time was when Col. Thompson held very different doctrine from this."

But I plead not guilty to yonr 'arraignment. When was "the time" that I "held a different doctrine 1 have no knowledge of it. If you have any information on this subject, I apprehend you will find it of ®o more value than any other "ettppoted fad." There was an attempt once to manufacture something of that sort by the Washington Union, but Hs *nthors got ashamed of it. TW stale story was re-vampel, under Republican auspices, in the late Presidential canvass. But I really did not snppoee that you conld hare been misled either by those who inv%nted or those who repeated the accusation.— Since they have misled you, permit me to, set ftn riffht

When Snt a candidtiSfor Congress, in 1841, Mid whea the agitation of the qoesUon was confined to^avety Uthe District of Columbia. I d^ared^ in a printed cironlar, thatIwou^«rf wte W i*l«&re with there. I was elected with thii» pledge, and (aithfnlly adhered to it. in every vote I gave.

When again a candidate 1WT, I toiterated this pledge, and refused to«yit myself to the doctrines of ihe W9mol

prominent members of the Democratic that I had fiVWn itWrit IbWla Congress quered prp party, and that for my support of Mr. Fill- in favdr'ofthe not icy 0 &*ff*e-S(M party. oferM&ws!

A.t_^•

certainly

have weighed somewhat against the influence of a "supposed fact"—especially in reference to an article which you did not 'suppose" mo "capable of writing." If they do not, it is not likely that they would acquire, with you, any additional mportance by repetition.

I learn now, from yonr article of the

A.non»«

n.eet.ng here,

Territories, or in the District of Colum-

itorrec, u» «u ... .. bia—but should let it alone." And then publican Governor of Massachusetts, gave

you follow this, with the declaration that in Congress, when he was a IWro*, to judgment. mm ^i'e«liarM

Iras again slocted with these pjMjfc. "fl «k«ii faithfully adored to them m| vote jg reference^ gave. ft_ JlmfcfMjpfwi

iW1 Wl,

MiJed

party, and that for my support of Mr. fillmere, I was to be rewarded by the payWTS!- r*~J pW S mentofa sum of money that had long that the charge waifahe, and that I was to ttrntefieet.^ JSvery -effort before been voted me by Congress, and strmglyoppofBd to^jbatrpai^|pd#t§i^»l- ^—•»—!-1 —1 which woald have been paid nearly two year {before the Presidential election, but er. for ihe falsehood,'fraud end turpitpde of a Democratic administration. The invention served the purpose of scoundralism for which it was intended, and I had scarcely expected to see it revived with an endorsement so respectable yours, as the fonndation for sueh an attack as yon have made npon me.

fardr of the policy 0tosftie-scil |Mty. Hfr knew pettnnaily smd -well,

er. I made a speech dnring that Congress which excited the eeverest condemnation of that j»rty 3l can^sqtrcely guppoee that you are willing to give your, endorsement to this ^alseb^od of Greely's—-and^yet his statement has furnished the ^nly Toundatiou fpr the charge of inconsistency against me, of whiicb 1 ha^e any knoweledge. I would have answered-it- -through the New York Tribune had not its- tjdlumns been closed to me. I can do it asi^sily ^now. It gives me no sort of trouble. Perhaps the game is not worth the powder, as I am nat a seeker after political offioe or distinction, and never will be. But since you have thought proper to give it the weight of yonr endorsement, soniebody might imply, were I to let it pass, that intended to treat you Vkith^ disrespect. Nothing .conld be further from mjr intention,, or wish.

nature

wbioh MMrti, ••tw'co"^."TZjuZ th!, m,Unc.«wdl« .nybodr10 legl*Ut« on tbe mbjMl of «Uv«ry in tho

lit*

sTppoaa YVi'il—wh'.l woold th.t b«vo oblig.bi.p.rt, fro^wbid. «ca«d |b. to do with th. rwolotion. of tbo mating P""S« °r th, bill. Tb. l.An.0. if tb. here They were adopted by the unanimous vote of a large nnmber of Americans, and were designed to express their sentiments—not mine. Consequently neither their force nor truth will be impaired by any inconsistency of mine^ fj,

I confess, frankly, that I was not a little embarrassed in the 80th Congress. I found a large number of the: Northern Representatives with whom I acted in party association, disposed to make the "Wilmot Proviso'' a governing principle. Upon several preliminary questions, which were not final, I was disposed to go with them, without committing myself to their policy npon the final vote. Your experience in legltlatibncienablee

and effect of such votes as I

they .r. co^oo

l.gi.Uuon. Th.y.r.

something like the vote that the present Re-

—that his vote did great harm, but mint did not

A gentleman from Ohio

I dsMNttced the agitation of

slavery, and distinctly avowed that I was infcvorof* oppoeed the aoqamtionof new tamtety to make slave Statea out of. became I eewidared this oqnivalent to amployinf the power of tbe Federal Government for that puTyow. I

m» 'T""'0' .J .1

introduced Comittee on

The charge that my coarse daring the Mexican my servioe in Congress after this election them by this country—and my amendtfl was- inconxisiaai with my present' profes sions originated with Horace Greet]—who leave them jut as they were until farther holding oat the idea that slavery in the i« it 1 (._*«_*« ii i_ hitftrtfll 1fl tlii aiiHA thin9ftft tlift

WSS^SSmm. Iffc. mi tvwaaa & Jl haI faVAV

milJ op_..

any special

Im \VuOlO

discharge the Committee of the Whole from the Kansas and Nebraska bill to

to exdudt slavery. Being notonty willing from my retirement.

to oblige a friend, but pejdlhctly so that a

olntion. But I did toot thereby—as you know—commit myself to vote for the bill when reported. Every legislator knows that if be consents to let a bill be introduced he is not thereby, committed to vote for it. At the time I gave this vote, every intimate friend I had in Congress knew ths^irsi^i^lideMi^ipon its as a if

I should hivo voted also fbt the celebrated resolution offered by Mr. Gott, directing a bill to be reported, abolishing the elaoetredein t^e DiktrMt of Columbia, but for the fact that thsce waa attached to as offensive and insulting to the South. I thetefore, voted agaiast it, s®d fully explained

rsaaona in a speech,. In that speech I took ea strong grounds against "Slavery km" aa 1 do sow« The doctrines advocated in that speech. yet maintein without change so far as 1 Ma aware.

When the Civil and diplomatic hill was pending in the House on the last sight of tho wsdon, in Marah 1819^ with" tibe "Walker amendment,' "as it wae called, added to ft hythe Senate,! mcved an amendmet hi lion of thai. Itwas ehargod

alent to the **Wtbno( PronN.11 It not, as he wry well knew when he tade

acqnisition

siebt, •senily ftrof Sesi as a laatxesortd

is utterly regardless of the truth, when a legislation. They woald have been so, I District is the same thing as the slaw* trade falsehood will ser^e hip euda.^ I le^i^ougbt'-iwihwStjk,i4 -fi^i unjust to Mr. Clay—for the Hon. H. D, Scott,' of this city, refused was concerned, but their condition, in while he did preeshis bill to put a stop to to vote for Mr. Baaks for Speaker, hV as^ *&ir itopeets, veqoirad tome fagfsation, jthe tmffie is- «hm when ^ronght from-

—1

mewith bitternesa, ttotonly charg- #ieiKlilit thegfdSto^ aodwH^i *V

formed a corrupt eoalition with certain Ing that I had 'ihflneneedMr^ Sobtt,' but which theyvwtfeAei*! go tinned, aa con- Knt mid that •n mm. A im Vi »n Vk A I lAtviAAva

of erwH^iji sla would never have voted for

fwired'i

know

how difieult it is to separate from one's friends npon such questions. An esteemed personal and political friend from New York, introduced some resolutions in favor *of excluding slavery from territories that might be formed out of such country as might be afterwardS acquired from Mexico—the war being then in progress. A motion was made to lay th*m upon the tatie and I voted against it, because I was' wilHng that my friend should bring proposition to a final vote upon its merits. I should then have voted against the resolution if it had been pnt npon its passage. You understand the

peace and qiiiet and

would have given back to Mexico the whole of jibe acquired territory,gold and all^r rather than have put at haz^jhe safety and security of ^he Unibn^-^

As I was unwilling to do any thing to •create slavery in these Territories,so my amonaatopropoted folotlboh*. ofM«-

iM confnn. they were. OTUl July 4th ,ctn,,„isl,no6of

1850. In mrown mind, the ground of that .» thM. laws

compromise Was this would, of course, be subordinate to the Constitution, so if the Southern States had the right, under it, to occupy any part of the common territory of tho Union with their slaves—as Mr. Calhoun and other* insisted—the question could be submitted to the Courts so as to have it judicially decided before it could be agitated in Congress again. I have not time to examine the debate now, but I recollect one distinguished Southern Senator who took the same view of it that I did. The most of Southern gentlemen, however,.took

degree

Now. Sir, you have the whole

aistency is founded. Can you see any .. .!• t»

thing in it to soautn the chKge? Ith.nk

not and that yon cannot help seeing that you have been misled by the statements of

0llW,*• B2

"•"'•"O" »^^ng^tb. w|OTh ^nniril.ng t.^by

ComttlM on Torrilorwf to riport biU to without Mm. notion .u.c yon b.v. .n-

to th. Honse.to org»ni« lh. T.rritori«...nd Urtly. ng.in.t »y «onM«»,thu. 4»wn m. ^oIotioil,

bill should be reported, I voted for this res- the right to legislate on the subject of sla ... .• .• 1 i^l

for the District upon nil other questions of internal, commercial, and domestic policy? And^ why *61 s$po* this most important of all—the questton of staveryf— Mr. Clay thought they hed an undoubted right to legislate on that? subject, when, in 18561 he introduced and pressed through to its consummation, a bill to abolish the ifaf* tfetie in the Distriet of Golumbtn.~-~ CoL Thompson then Wd to the same doetrine, and so did every other tone Ameri-

And nOw, because we hold to the «uae doetrine itiB, while the Colonel has fallowed fmw lights, the fidelity of our principles is to be called in ^oestionr

For my *9* ittrt Iei«ioto*ee»ly ^see *h«t relation ft has to the proceofings of the American mesdng held here. Thaw TO aota word our resolutions qusstiouiag tho Conttitutiomol jtosser of Congmsaover almy iaths Disteict of Col«phi% They weee^ U* as they related to that queation, uelaed aialusivuly toths syrfwry ofexCrcmng thatpowe®. Hmtmeetiag did aet iatsud, so fcr as I ^dorrtood Ha •ii uisQi to ralsa mf qeestioBlhaa tib/wirshdl l%Mr erter «setMnoa with yoti about the qwestiob of Con-

different view. My own impression still legislation by Congress over slavery in the is, that I was right and they wrong- Strict of Columbia. When you say though I do not express this opinion with that I onoe held a different doctrine, you

should have been otrsful not to make thb so as to mislead your readers, by

c,s®^ft^

was not legislation, and master and slave there.

Territorial governments had been exhausted, and Congress was abont to sdjourn. It Columbia, ^c. yofa ubt Uiat this waaeven doubtful whether the Constitution w, ^mosi identically, the,resolution of oyr and laws of the United States exteiided over them. This opinion did not fayself entertain, and thinkl ppce voted agsinst' a propoaition to1 extendthhm there, for tho reafeOn that I thought them there already. B,pV soipe orour most distinguished men thought diflferently. and Mr. Webster was yery decided in entertaining a different opinion.

iMr.Calhoun

differed with Mr. Webster, and I was iaelined to concur with him, for I could not understand how the constitution^ and laws of the -United States did not reach every part of the National domain. One object of my amendment, therefore, was to settle this question, arid to do so I *as willing to vote to extend the constitution over the territories, although I had before voted that it was there already/ When I offered the amendment, I stated that it was done in- the spirit -of compromise, which wis the only feeling that has ever influenced ma,^rinj^e„ whoje slayery _excitement!

be mmld nff in ilfrteif fri$ the relation of Tbe 5th, in the the

meeting here* to which you, so much to my surprise, haw expressed your opposition wl nJtv.' Mrtainoo'v

That Mr. Clay considered the slave4tade andslacerya very different things is snffieipntly indicated by tho Taot, tiiat he devoted a separate resolution to each subject. His 6th resolution was fn favor of prohibiting the slave-tmde, \n slaves brought into the District "from States or places beyond" its li.uits. And in defending it, he ..id:

of confidence in my own do it at something of a venture.

record, upon which this ch&rge of incon-

'1 do not mean by that, the alienation and transfer of slaves frojm the inhabitants within the District-—the sale by one neighbor to" another'of a slave which the,one owns and the other wants, that a husband may perhaps be put along with/his wife, or a wife with her husband. 1 do not mean to {ouch at all the right of property inrslaves perions living within ths' DUttid," .'MX

The doctrine her*,advanced was precisely consistent with what Mr. Clay had said, in 1839,iu his speech oa the receptions of petitions for tho abolition of si a very. II is idaa was that the granVof ppwer to Congress, over the District, was for a specific purpose—£**at of government and-that this grSnt carriedaloilg with it "whatever

zip' ,'$i i'i .. ,,

power is necessary to accomplish thatob-

f|0m (lod„

... v. posing any such legislation. I fear you

yon

Yon goon to uy: -If CongfM. b.s not .h.h-

7 .. ... it with me—it is an old Whtg habit, acvery

tho District of Columbia, pray tell ..... a a a re re us who hast Ddes not Congress legislate

•iacipws is to be &„&***** IstU mlons. After his mtheeupporl I waa equally nenioas the support of Mr. Kllmoie's administntion because it let it dbms. For that, amongst other lessons, advocated the nomination of

„ie

tb wcrto.bol^,U

b,,t conlent t0 c0nce,ic

lh"

You will see then, that it is you who have "followed off new lights," not me. I am precisely where I alwsys was-f-rcady to concede now as 1 always have done, that to the opinions of no other man w'.iom I have ever known, have I yielded my own as I did to those of Mr. Clay. Liko hiin. a I yet oppose, as I have always,done, any

mtght exist. He said: "The language moy possibly be sufficiently comprehensive to include a power Si abblition, bat it would not at all thence follow, that the power could be rightfully exercised

And

either you or I greatly mistake what Amer-

#a» icanism is, when you represent it as pro

I .• A..,

have not thought of thb as carefully as

ought to have done, or as is your cu8-

writlca 80nl(!„h.t

1 It on or it id it

^•re otbw mitteim in yonr Ut y)U

.t ran-

-A ''*4* '*t -ifttrM

0m'

th.t I «r.«ly m.U

ldd[ttl_ ordnw. Mt

wilboat ri in lhe ch,ogM

....r pretty freely npon tbU favorite topic."-

All this, I concede, is something of ahab-

difficnlt to get rid of. I begun to form it at the very beginning of my political life. The first political address 1 sver wrote was that of the Convention of Whigs in this State that nominated Gen. Harrison, in 1886, and that let slaoery alone** I reported, but did not write, the address of ths Contention of 1$40, by wbfch he wai re-nominated, and that let if alone. I wrote that of tho Convention of 1844, which nominated

MT.

Clay, and that let it

alone. I did not help to nominate (Sen. Taylor, in 184S—having advocated the nomination of Mr.: Clay-but supported him with all the seal I possessed, because

Xr. FBlmtnvin 18^2,but yielded, willing ly, to that of Qoii. Bdott, beeanss be was ly upou&effroonl that h« considered the oompromiss measures let sfasuiy

ofl85Va/«^,a^

weold let slornry

xf^Fmhsmcy cf upon (he ground that they If if— aad I nersr have yet heard that my Whggery

'was qnestiomk. it|it 4^ wonderful then, that train^d pI j|jjve ^|en in? such a school ss tl^s, ilthmjlil hj^e- acquired ths habit of "ringing we ohiriigos pretty freely upon this favorite topic Why, I I thought it was far more for this reason tihan lor any ability I possessed that I was selected to write the addiesj for our American State Convention during the last Presidential contest. Yoii- recollect alLaboat,Utet».an4 how earnestly yon and I labored, aide by side, upon the daotpnes of fi#i£atf^ss, eject 4r. Fillmore.— We were together^ in the Convention, and ^pre both |laced upon the ,committee^to prepare the address.

snre

thatjit'waft npon you* sugg^stipfb-r-jtwaH. at all events, by your approbation—that the duty of preparing it was-devolved on me. *perfertnetf it as well as I could, and the addrase^X. prepared was chiefly designed to enfbree the doctrine'that slavery should be let alonej by showing that both the other parties were-in favor of, and ihat the American party was opposed to slavery agitations That address was signed by you as well as mei^ It was printed at your office, and my recollection is that you fne i^iipsctal commendatory notice, in the Tribunht* I certahfly supposed, all the time, that yon really approved of ita doctrines. And if I had doubted alwut it, the doubt would have been remove^ lor the additional fact that, at our State American Couvemion in Febniary last, Tve adopted, unanimously a resolution against slavery agitation—which is equivolent, of course, to letting it alone. '/-'J

In August, 1855, I made aspeiohhere, which was priuted and circulated, pretty extensively, in which I expressed very fully what my opinions were on the subject of slavery. It was called, by the Republiians, a pro-slavery speech, and 1 was denounced as a pro-slavery man, yet it was after that when 1 waa selected to prepare the American address, and placed with yonr consent,, -upon the Fillmore electoral ticket. The sentiments^ of that speech were expressed by me wherever I spoke during the canvass of 1866, and niy recollection is that wh«n I expressed them in a speech W»«ae in New Albany, you noticed the speech, in commendatory terms, in tire Tribune.5 'I'l #1 V/

You should not taunt the Americans of Vigo for the vbfe.we gnvc for Governor in 1856, byssying that we only gave Morton 10 majority ovsr WUlard, and that, before that t'nic, the county gave about 800 majority ftgainsitho Democratic party* In thofirst placj you give us a largfr majority than we ever, had cxccpt when Harrison was A cau-lidate, and then yun seem to fcgei ill it Whigge y, wh««n there \va« a Whig party, was not merely something in anlajo i*m to democracy, lut that it had principles of its own. What claim had Morton, npon us, as old Whigs, for our votes, and in what respect did the canvass between him ati Willard involvo such issues as those which, before then, had been involved in the contents between the Whig and Democratic parties? Up to about that timi he had always been a Democrat, and I do not know that he had recanted either any of his former devotion to the principles of that party, or his long continued hostility to Whig principles.— We had a right, if he had done so, tohave some other evidence of it, than that furnished by confining his opinions to a single question—that of slavery. A Governor of a Bute ought to have something else to do than merely to make a fcss about slavery. In my opinion, when he is In a free State, it is his duty to let it alone. But besides this, we did not agree ipith him about slavery. He was nominated by a Convention which adopted, as one of its cardinal principles, ths following resoIition* iV ».# «6i .ttW awaos the admission of nave $tmu

iuto the

Union, formed oat of Territories secured to freedom fcf the Missouri ?«myremise, er MhtrwiK." The election of Morton would have been an endorsement of this idea as a fundamental article of political faith—and tbe Americans of Vigo, as a body, were not willing to do so. Some of them voted for him notwithstanding, because they were anxious to best Willard. Others did not vote at all. I was of this latter number. 1 never saw the time, and never

the Daiou, merely because it is slave State,—whether North or-ftouth of tbe

vail, the Union will not survive ittsacesss. That was the opinion of Mr. l/lay —-often expressed Aud ^am rejoiced, beyoudej.pieesion, to

tion to inducc thoss

W1"

16 UM lot of attotlker Kwrtwkltt—no Issa caUaat sad scarcely less distinguished thanhiswas—toexerciaa iuln^uoe enough •ser

this

perplexad and

who uttered this (ian-