Boon's Lick times. [volume] (Fayette, Mo.) 1840-1848, 1840-07-04


moral and political evil" The resolution i in these
words: "ReSOired, That our Senators and Repre-.
sentaives be requested TO use their utmost eXGrti-
ons, and to AXE every means, to prevent the extern
sion OF slavery within the territory Of the United
SLntcs, west of the Mississippi, aud the new States
TO be formed within that territory, tchich The conSL
tuition uSi treaties made under il, CiR ao,o Every
candid mind will in moment perceive, that there |
Is 10 inconsistency between the vote on the admis-
sion OF Missouri and the vote on the Ohio rcsolu-
tion. Harrison's vote in Congress was no doubt, |
with other grounds, given On the principle, that
the right To hold slaves guaranteed 10 them by
the treaty which coded Louisiana 10 the United |
Suites. Large settlements Of French, ard some OF
Spuniards ana Americans, existed III upper Louis
inna many of them holding slaves. These places |
were embraced within the bounds Of Missouri. |
Above her boundary, no white settlement existed; !
ur il they did they had no slaves; that the Ohio
resolution requesting slavery tn be excluded West
Of the Mississippi, where the constitution and trCa
ties made under it, will allow" does not conflict
with the vote the Missouri question at all. This
attempt OF the Central Committee betrays either
great ignorance of the true state of the case, or
great willingness to misunderstood it. 1t was per.
fectly competent for Congress TO provide that the
new States to be formed west OF the Mississippi, |
(uut Of the bounds OF Missouri aud where there
settlements aud no shareholders, to be eiicc
ted by it, should he free States Not so with Mis-
shareholders before the acquisition of her
tied there with their slaves They had 50 purchased
aud settled, without any restriction against slavery.
The treaty and the consultation protected them
and when Missouri presented her constitution with
the slave feature in it, she had right to admission.
But what right would have been violated by passing
prospective law such as contCInp lated by the Ohio
resolution! None ut all. But too strongly for
this Committee, Gen. Harrison has said, al do MOI
believe that Congress can abolish slavery in the
District Of Columbia without the consent Of Vr.
ginia and Maryland, and the people of the District
and yet Mr.. Van Buren, born, educated, and hav-
ing lived all his life in free State with all his
early sympathes and prejudces against slavery, Is
the exclusive friend OF Southern interests and the
deadly foe Of abolition. We shall look into thi.
matter. How stands The account!
In 1919, Mr.. Van Buren, in the Senate of New
York, voted to instruct Rufus King, a Senator in
Congress froln that State, to vote against the adj
mission Of Missouri into the Union, unless the
right to hold slaves was stricken from her consti-
tuition. This no one denies.
No period, perhaps, in our national history, had
excited so much alarm in the patriots bosom. THE
news from Washington" says Mr.. Jefferson, speak
ing upon that subject, "camo upon inc like the sound
Uf fire bell in the night" Yet this Mr.. Van Bu
red, who famed the flame which had Ike to have
cUnsumed-aud, but for the noble self sacrifice Of
Gen, Harrison, might, perhaps, have consumed this
glorious fabric Of human liberty, is "the eXpec
fancy and rose Of the fair State" the exclusive
and Gen. Harrison is the abotionist, the enemy Of
the South, the foe TO the quiet nation Of these
States! o shame, where is thy blush
Mr.. Van Buren, was in Congress from New York,
in 1922. In the Senate he voted to restrict the in
PRODUCTION of slaves into Florida We refer to the
journals Of that session of Congress for proof Of
the fact. lie was mainly instrumental by his votes
and his speeches in the Convention Of New York,
For amending her constitution, in giving free me-
Eroos the right to vote who owned $3.50 worth OF
freehold property. We refer you to the life of Mr.
Van Buren,, by his friend w. w. Holland, P. 1928.
At page lS2, it is admitted and distinctly stated
that he voted with the ma jority in the Convention,
against confirming the right of voting to whie men.
The majority were in favor Of comforting this high
privilege upon free negroes worth freehold estate
Of the value of $250-and SO voted Mr.. Van Bu-
rem
BY reference to tho same book, page $50, it will
be found that he concurred in the course which
extended the privilege (of vUtihg) to all who paid
any tax, or did any military duty, worked on
Highways, though he would have preferred an addi-
ton to the last qualification, requiring the voter,
ia he possessed neither of the other Quaifca-
iOms, to be householder" So that you perceive,
iellow-citizenS, If warworn soldier, one of Wash
ington's own life guards, who had lost leg in the
battle should have been too poor to pay his taxes
too Old to work, do military duty, Mr. Van
Buren, would have denied him the high privilege Of
voting, unless he were q householder, whilst he
aided in comforting it upon a free negro who pos
sessed freehold OF the value of $3.50!
In the same book page IA, you will find that he
voted for resolution which originated in the House
OF Representatives of New York, and which came
to the Senate, and was passed unanimously, in
s!racLing The Senators and requesting The Represent
tatices 0t that STATE IN Congress-, "io oppose The
admission as State into the Union, Of any terri.
torn mt comprised piihiR the original LounGary Of
the United States, TithOUt making prohibition Of
sarery therein an Indispensable condition If ulaiS-
sion"
In 1896, Mr.. Van Buren,, in letter to Julius
Amis and others of North Carolina, ai1irms the
right and power Of Congress to abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia, without the consent of
Virginia and Maryland or the people of the D,s-
ifict Gen. Harrison, in his letter to Mr.. SlOO de-
mes that right. Such even is HOaC Mr.. Van Burcn'>
opinion We refer you for proof, to his letter to
this same Democratic Central Committee, published
as part Of their address.
In his letter Just alluded to- lie says--''thc rcu-
ton OF master and slave is matter which belongs
to each State, within its boundary" -(stll, how
ever, maintaining that Congress can abolish it
within the District of Columbia Now, how long
has Mr., Van Buren, thought so Why did lac not
think so, when u Senator in the n. Y. Lerisa-
turc he voted for the resolution Of instruction to
oppose the admission of any new State without the
restriction against slavery as above quoted. Gen.
Harrison sacrificed himself with the people Of his
State, in restricting the opponents Of Missouri
he was martyr to his princiPes--he has been
tried in the furnace Of persecution--he boldly en-
tered the breuch, defended the rights of Missouri
and the constitution Of his country against the UNI
holy and almost reasonable attacks of such men
as Martin Van Buren,. Yet these Democratic Com
men DrnnounCn the the friend # hn