Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1844-08-30
Compliment to our Senators.

At the time the resolutions of the last legislature
OF Vermont upon the subject of slavery were pre-
sented in theU. S. Senate by Mr.. Phelps, and the
question whether they should be received was laid
on the table, without note of remonstrance from
either of our Senators, David Lee Child, one of
the strongest Clay men in the nation, and one
whom the wings often quote as san honest and
consistent abotionist," being present, and wit
Messing the whoe affair, paid our senators the fol-
lowing compliments
"VERMoNT HAD BETTER LEAVE OFF PASSING
ANTI-sLAvERY RESOLUTIONS, OR ELSE SELECT
DIFFERENT MEN TO PRESENT THEM"
DC Isn't the Waterman alarmed lest Mr..
Phelps should be defeated, and pro SLAVERY man
elected to fill his place? .....
We think it high time that Vermont should bel
represented in the Senate of the United States by
men who will show some reStiueneSS, at least, un
der the fagranty unconstitutional gag that is APP
piled to the mouths of northern freemen on the
subject ofslavery. During the last session, this
gag was applied-and where was the indignant
protest from Vermont against it? During the last
session, too, the doctrine was boldly promul gated
by the two Clay wing senators from Kentucky,
that petitions aud circumstances upon the subject
ofslavery might be received from men " disavow-
ing any connexon with the abolilionists," while
the same could not be received if preferred by alb
OhtlonistS-thus, not only carrying out Mr.. Clay'S
idea of placing " abotionists beyond the pale of
common sympathy" but beyond the enjoyment of
the most clearly defined constitutional right-that
of petitioning for redress Of grievances but
both of our senators, elected, as they were, with
abolition professions on their lips and abolition
instructions in their pockets, were silent the
grave! During the last session, also, the senate
exhibited their unparalleled favoritism for slavery
by refusing to receive and print certain resolutions
from Massachusetts, while they received and or
dered to be printed counter resolutions from the
State of Georgia; but not voice was heard from
Vermont against this outrage upon the equal
rights and privileges of the States.
Now, why are these things so? Are our sena-
tors at heart in favor of supporting savery' Are
they " SINNERS above all other mem" Probably
not. They know very well that our rights are
tramped on, and undoubtedly would be glad to
vindicate them; but, alas, should they open their
mouths, and utter the indignant voice of treemen,
their pro slavery party is dashed to atoms and ut
terly destroyed! Our senators may endeavor to
exonerate themselves from some of the above
charges on the ground that, as other States were
more immediately concerned, it would have been
immOdest to interfere in that which more properly
belonged to other senators; but when those sena-
tors most basely betrayed those rights which be-
long equally to all the States, and are as dear to
Vermont as to any State in the Union, did not the
interests of their State require them to defend its
rights?
! If mOdesty prevented them from interfering in
behalf of our dearest constitutional rights, what in
l the name of heaven would warrant them in over
G stepping the bounds of ordinary usage? Would
b an inuasion of our country By Great Britam?-
= What were they elected for? To repel any in
b fringenent upon our rights, in the first place-and
: take lessons in modesty afterwards, if at all.
e The fate of ANY wing who should jeopardizo the