Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1844-08-01

ule1ited the most severe castigation at our
| hands. Our first offensive" language was
contained in little paragraph relative to his
pretensons to the term Democratic. We rid
iculed the idea of his calling himself s'Deal-
oefatie Whig," when the grand leaders Of the
{ narty TO which he belongs do not claim that
title. We did not question his Democracy as
an American citizen--we question no mans
patriotisrn-but we did think that no man
| possessed Of common sense (nuch less the ed
tor Of the Republican, who claims to be 50 We
ry'Fsensible and intelligent )could be 80 dumb,
as not to know that there are two great politi
cal parties in this country, universally known
as the Democratic or Republican, and the
Wing party; nor did we suppose that any 'Ssen-
sible and intelligent" man could be found, who
could not instantly refer to the principles Of
those parties from the mere mention Of their
names In short. as we had occasion 10 re
mark formerly, the names Of parties are I'M
derstood by every sane man, to designate their
principles We said, further, that the editor
of the Republican might with more propriety
prefix TO Whig the term Federal, than Demo
cratic Can the editor Of that paper name one
mar, calling himselfa Federalist-who will
acknowledge that he has always been FEEDER
alist--who does not noao belong to the Wing
party Of the present day? We do not know
Of solitary instance. II there are those in the
ranks of the Republican party who were ossee
Federalsts, (and we do not say that there are
none) they will not say that they are Federal
lists still. But we do know men belonging to the
Wing party, who acknowledge themselves to
be Federalsts now--that they have always
been so--and that they have never changed
With a full knowledge of this fact, which we
need not go far to prove, we disputed the right
Of the Republican to the term Democratic.
The Republican further says:
1.-The Sentinel says s+that Dis,aaio1, is not
more vehemently talked Of among the Democ-
racy of the South than it is among the anti
annexation-W hig- Abolitionists Of the North. y
Here the editor evidently means to insinuate
that the Wings of the North are aboitionists
and hence that they oppose Immediate Annex
alton on the ground OF hostility to slavery. If
the editor does then mean TO charge that the
/ Wings Of the North, more than the Locolocos.
constitute the Abolition party-and that none
but Wing Abolitionsts in the North are op-
posed to Annexatlon-we pronounce the as
sertion unqualiiedly false. We aver, and the
Sentinel cannot disprove it, that the question
Of Annexation, however much it NAV be con-
sidered party question in the South, it is not
SO looked upon in the North generally. IF SO,
then Mr. Van Buren, must be Wing Adolf
zionist, for he wrote a long and able letter a.
gainst it. So also must be Slas Wright, who
received the unanimous nomination of the Lo-
cofoco Convention for Vice President, for he
voted against the Treaty. So also must be
Messrs. Allen of Ohio, Atherton of N. Hanp-
shire, Benton Of Missouri, Fairfield of Maine.
Niles Of Connecticut, Tappan of Ohio, all
Northern Locofoco Senators, for they too voted
against the Treaty. So also must be the per
sons composing hundreds Of Polk and Dallas
meetings that have been held in the North,
for they too have denounced the Annexation
scheme. What now becomes of the Sentinel's
charge Of Whig-Abolitionism We advise
the editor to be cautious in making declara-
tons, without having proof to sustain them. y
We did not say that there are no Abolition
lists among the Republican party in the North;
but we think it can be established most clear
~, that as party, the Wings of the North do
oppose the annexation of Texas ''upon the
ground Of hostility to slavery" The tone of
the press, and the tone of popular assem-
blages, prove it. The fact that almost all the
master spirits Of Federalism in the North
.4da'ns, S}ade, Dagis (honest john Seacard,
and others-are known to be Abolitionists, and
opposed to the admission Of Texas, prove it
The conduct of the Northern and the South
c?7o Wings, in Congress, last winter, upon the
adoption Of rule to secure the South from the
assaults Of the Abolitionists, prove it. What
are the facts in this case? When the vote
was taken on the rule prohibiting any action
on Abolition petitions, tlcenty-Sir Northern
Democrats voted in the affirmative, and not one
Northern Whig voted with them; and all the
| Democrats from the South voted in the affirma-
tive, and only sigteen Southern Wings voted
with them. These are facts, and cannot be
contradcted by the Republican; the Journal of
the House Of Representatives show them to be
So
In regard to those Democrats who voted a
gainst the late treaty for the annexation Of
Texas, we would only say, that the views Of
those distinguished men are not based upon
hostility to slavery. They objected to the
manner in which that treaty was gotten up
They do not place the ultimate annexation of
Texas upon precarious foundation They
thought, as We think, that the subject should
have been referred 10 the sovereign people, at
the approaching contest; that if according to
tne well-aettled principles Of municipal and
International law, Mexico hiss hoc acknolwedg-
ed the independence Of Texas, then ought the
former receive compensation for it. This
{ question, is one about which we differ; al
though it is a fact, that in 1886, Mexico did
conclude treaty of peace with Texas, and
afterward, most treacherously, abrogated it
We leave the decision Of this question to wis
!, Jyyo that those I)emo-