The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1844-09-19

Ty was u UDOTdl evil vi winch lneT6 was
no remedy but in the application ofmoral
means; and that all political ac!ion on our
part only tends TO strengthen the evil by
arraying one portion ofthe country against
another, thus closing up the only avenue
through which the south can be approach
ed by the benevolent operations, or inhu.
enced by the noble example of anisIavery
men at the north This conviction may
be wrong, but it is nevertheless worthy of
profound consideration, since it is enter
tanned In common by the great majority Of
the friends of freedom, and is the only pro.
fessed ground Of difference between the
Wing and Liberty parties of the present
day. was no. little surprised, there.
fore, that you should treat it so cavalierly
as not 10 give it some brief notice in the
long and crcuitous excursion TO which
tina, letter melted you. ~
The subject was once more interesting to
you, and endeavored to strengthen my
position by referring to tie concurrent ties
timony of your own opinions, entertained
within singl twelve month. and since
i commenced taking your paper 1t
would have been easy for you 20 have ac-
knowledgcd The fact that you formerly
held such opinions, or if otherwise, to
have denied and disproved it. But you
seemed to be facelious on the subject, and
thought it strange that " should see such
a wonderful change in the principles of
your paper since l became a subscriber
TO it,"
This word subscribe was used for a
we'll considered purpose. You knew We
ry we'll that, had taken the Voice of
Freedom long time previous to my sub.
scripion to it; you knew this at the time
my name was entered on your list inApril
last; and you knew it only week before
the publication of the letter in question, for
while the manuscript was in your possess
| ion, you received full explanation of the
fact. With this knowledg &c, therefore, and
this metamorphosis Of language, you pro-
ceeded 10 prove that what had said was
not true. Did you intend to impeach the
witness ? or deny the testimony? The
quasi contingency ,h4t ;"perhaps took
the paper from your former partner
somewhat relieves the first supposition.
And possibly the admission, that she only
doubt you had entertained on the subject
of acting politically against slavery
was in regard to the expediency of
organizing a distinct political party"
was intended as a sort of disclaimer 10 the
second. But it was at best paradcxical
and apparently heterogeneous, although l
will not Judge your motive. Such meth
cd Of s1punging an important fac, how
ever, will be acknowledged nowhere but
in a Jackson Congress. Ard il il is at
tempted here, it will obige me to refresh
your memory by referring TO some oflhe
old files oflhe Voice of Freedom publish.
ed in 1912, and by your efforts at Mont
peier, through the members of The Legis.
lalure and otherwise, TO establish "Neu
trail paper" and oppose and prevent the
organization ofa "Third Parry 10 Yer
mont. ~
But leave this topic and proceed 10
notice your next criticism, in which you
say that slavery cannot be sin against
The laws that created it," This is very
true. and by referring 20 my letter you will
find typographical error, as no such sen
timent was advanced. nor is it in harmony
with the sense OF the passage in which i,
occurs. The passage itself is expressive
of very plain truth, that slavery is
sin against God, Of The State which legal
ICES i, and OF the individual supporting it,
and though it may seriouly affect the po-
itical social, or pecuniary Interests oflhe
whole people, still it must be regarded sole
y as a moral question, out of the States
among which ii existS.' But this view Of
the character of the institution does not
meet your approval, as it does not accom-,
modate Itself to The new position OF polite
al antislavery men. And You enquire "if
! slavery 10 The States cannot be reached by
nnlilicaI aclinn why are the shareholders