The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1844-03-28
V o L. V. NO. 40

'i'e kAiio) aoout iouI years OF age, the
truth Of which you will not deny.
1t will be time to answer your general
and vague charge of "personal attackn
when you quote the language in which it
was made. Until you have done this am
quite willing to leave it with the public to
decide. on referring to your communication
in the Voice of the 9TH of March, from
phat quarter this 'attack' camel You
can not be ignorant of the fact tthat every
individual who makes his name, his senti-
! ments, his professions or his actions public,
that they thenceforlh become public prop
erty, and are legitimate topics of public
comment and discussion. II was with this
view that my forthcoming article Ipronl-
ised week before last (Which you seem to
| deprecate beforehand was written. You
must also be aware that have chosen no
| masked battery behind which to screen
myself. The subject and signature was
selected in the article published in the Voice
of the 29lh Feb'y, without the least refer
ence TO you or any other individual. Under
| these circumstances you voluntarily chose
10 throw yourself into the breach by an
open attack on that article and its author.
You probably gave US your name under the
impression that it would add weight 10 your
opinions. And ifyou did not, at that time,
sufficiently count the cost ;sor if you pre-
ferred lie deal IN mere assumptions, rather
than proof, il is not my fault. selected a
signature not because desired concealment,
either OF my name or principles, and allho'
you may have had no certain knowledge,
still you have probably been aware Of the
writer's real name from the publication of
his first article. But you say that you
aimed only at his 'principles.' What
then becomes of your complaint that the
writer was concealed 'behnd a masked
battery when you make no pretence that
he concealed his1princples But enough
OF this. Lei US now turn TO The main question.
What is the true issue? See Inv estigator
Of the 29,h Feb. and MARCH, A. First
The Wing State Committee and yourself
profess 10 be in favor of abolshing The
odious institution of domestic Slavery
Second. You, and The Wings generally,
clai m identity of political and liberty prin-
ciples with those Of George Washington
and Thomas Jefferson. On both these
questions have joined issue and demanded
the proof.
In sustaining this issue, am perfectly
aware that nearly everything with your
party is at stake - nay, the YER salvation
OF the Wing party in some Of the free States
is almost entirely depending upon their
success in maintaining their position on
the above questions.
But, with all your efforts, where is the
evidence you have produced TO sustain the
above issue? You have not overhrown
single position, nor falsifed single Stale
ment. You have not ventured TO deny
single authority or fact, put forth in either
of my previous articles. Y GU have il is
true, in both your pieces attempted, in a
singular manner, TO eulogize Henry Clay
10 portray the immense debt of gratitude
due TO him; but you must have poor opin-
ion of the intelligence of reading people
if you imagine they will be willing to accept
of this as evidence that Mr.. Clay or The
Wings are opposed TO slavery, or that they
are the true disciples Of Washington and
Jtferson!
! do you the justice, however, 10 admit
that you have, in some measure at least,
given up the high tone of assurance indulg-
ed in your first article, and in your last
have made the attempt TO prove that for
which you had previously given US nothing
but assertion. You aud your party are
entitled TO the full lwneft of this proof
But before considering it, allow me to say
that you have entirely abandoned the issue
made by the Stale Committee that "Me
Wigs contend for The abolition # The
odious institution Of domestic Slarery."
You do not even pretend 10 bring part cle
of evidence TO sustain it, What Henry
Clay said on this subject in 1878 and
1927, is contraiicted by every public an d
private act of his whole life - by his pub.
lished sentiments and recorded votes on
the question of slavery, many time sine G
those periods, down to the year 1912. You
must be aware, Sir, that this is the great
and most important question; and your
entire failure TO show that the Wings, as
party, are opposed to slavery looks ominous!
; We will now turn 10 your evidence in
support of the claim of the Wing party to
| identify of nrin cinles with thnsp of WASH.