The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1844-08-15

the lnconteslible evidence on which thew
) are based discard them. But if you be-
IaeDe, then we simply ask you to act upon
your conviction Of truth at the ballot box,
; that great lever Of political reform. Who
and by what power, we ask, were the
nominations OF those parties made and con.
trolIed at Baltimore last May? What but
the calling dictation Of slaveholding over
seers and the Texas scheme sacrificed Mr.
Van Buren, 10 James X. Polk and Geo.
M. Dallas! Says the leading and ablest
organ of the democratic party at Wash
ington, " Nerer was there q more remark.
able proof Of The power Of the South when
united, than IN controlling The nomination
Of that cO~nrention." But did not the same
power also control the nomination of
Henry Clay? Saysanother southern and
leading slavehoIdiug organ,
"Mr Clay isl southerne., a Virginian
by birth, a citizen of a sIavehoIding State,
and a Shareholder himself. All his con-
n%eclions by blood and marriage are in The
sIavehoidlng States, which must be the
home of his children and grand children"
To render the reasons for his nominal
ton if possible still stronger had he not
declared before hand that slavery was
sanctifed by Legislation ?-that he was
opposed TO emancipation gradual or imme.
date ?-and that neither the wing or dem
ocratic parties had any designs or aim at
abolition? And then, as if to make 'assur-
ance doubIy sure Mr. Clay but few days
before his nomination publicly reendorses
these sentiments ia his speech before a
large meeting Of his slaveholding bfeth-
rem al the capital of North Carolina. This
speech the National ~Intelligencer declares
to the people is she chart of whig prin-
ciples." But still further, what caused
the rejection of honest John Davis'' as
candidate for Vice President but his sym-
2athy for poor Latimer? What caused
the rejection of Willard Fillmore but the
publication ofhis unconditional hostility TO
the annexation of Texas? And what, but
a caucus of the southern members of that
convention, caused the nomination of The.
odore FreIingbuysen? Would he have
been nominated, think you, if he had not
been orthodox on the question of slavery?
The recent letter of President Lindsey,
his classmate while in college, what Mr. f.
WaS not and neUer had been an abolition
list" Can answer this question. The dec
l@aration Of the leading whig organ at N.
Orleans that Mr. F. was sound on all
subjects affecting southern rights and
southern lnstitutions'-and Mr. Freling-
huysen's public declaration that he
viewed WITH ABHoRRENCE the proceed
angS Of GbOlatiOnlStS'-that they were ia
%natics, increasing injury and sealing OPP
preston may all serve as a solution of the
mystery why a caucus Of southern menu
bers' should nominate him. And this is
the party, which, in certain localities at
The North, and for certain special purpos-
es, claim to be friendly to abolition-in
fact style themselves 'tor all practical pur-
poses the true liberty party" contendipg
for the abolition Of slavery!
For forty.eight out of the ffty'six years
since the adoption Of the Federal Consti-
luton this government and people have been
ruled by slaveholding and servile exec
utive, welding, in behalf Of that peculiar
institution all the immense power and
patronage in the possession Of that high
fuuclionary. He who is now President of
the United States, with every menber of
his Cabinet, is a STAKEHOLDER or completes
ly %serviIe 10 the interests of slavery
Every nominee TO that Cabinet, from the
Free States, who was not considered true
on the question of slavery was promptly
rejected by a Wing and Democratic SEN
ate ; while uncompromising Shareholders
were unanimously confirmed without di.
vision in their room. Well may we say
lin view of these facts, in the words of
John Quincy Adams, shat the question of
slavery is the great question on which
your interests are concerned in the gov
ernment OF the United States Two hun.
dred and forty thousand shareholders now
rule more than seventeen millions of peo-