Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1847-11-12
VERMONT PHOENIX.
Brattleboro, Friday, Nov. II, IS47.


Br Tho . Democrat iaboru to escape the represch
Of dSecuftssy, in copying parts Of arcie csieula-
ted to convey false impression Of views, BY rep
resening the parts omitted foreign to The discussion.
The object Of article to show that had Just
claims against Mexico which ought not to be aban-
dohed-although the war was unjust and unjnpthable
--becaase tic wrong and injustice were done u.s. not
the Me1icans, inasmuch tho greatest suf.
fefers by the war; and might have obtained satisfaction
Of our claims by negotiation, and thus avoided H. We
sought to show that condemnation Of the was
approval Of the conduct Of Mexico, and therefore
we had subsis,ing claim upon her which should not
be relnquished and for which we might properly
ceive territory. The "Democrai" copied the part Of
article which asserted claim upon MEXICO and that
as her the technically justified and thence
imputes argument for the acquisition Of
riiory from her, thst approved Of the war. Even
now he preiends that the ground we took in that
article oifsd TIE decentralization whereas il was the
very object Of the passages omitted to prove the
uafy. sscb sopbisty unworthy of paper pretend.
ing 10 caodor and fairness.
We have repeatedly inquired Of the Democrat"
whether he would support Presidential candidate OPP
posed to the principle OF the wilmot Proyisol This
question he has answered. and he ignorant
that such question has been asked, we repeat II.
simple answer--yes No-is wanted and " he will
be aided at all by TO the question from
u.s. We answer-No.
But the Democrat refers to the refusal Of the Mas
sachusctta Wing Convention to the ques-
ton, and tnumpbsntly asks how hold them bp
examples In this respect The answer is ready. Wa
have not done go The article which he refers
ia answer TO his question in the " Democrat Of Oct
2ie What Is the abstract difference In the positions
t1ken by the Wing aad Democratic Conventions Of
Massachusetts the territorial question i'-snd Ia
his that this ubec, we hsd separated from
the Wing party. and tina, the Wing Convention had
dropped the Proviso resolution for No More Terri
tory" We showed the latter assertion to be unfound
ed IN fact snd the difference IN be that the whg'
adopted and the Democrats rejected the Prosso reso
ton. We think the Massachusetts Wing conventior
should have passed the resolution Of Mr. Parey though
Twas fairly embraced in tho wilmo Proviso resolution
They did not, like tho Democratic Convention Of Thu
State, adopt il a matter Of eIpedieney. and accom-
psny II with another resolution pIedging ihemselse,
,nq4aifsdy to support the Presidential candidate &c
lecied by the Democratic National Convention, what
ever his principles or opinions. The Democrat mus
excuse US for being suspicious, when the Adminsir.
ton organ the members Of the Cabinet. and the Demo
cratic Convention Of the States Of New York, Msssa
ehusctts and Connecticut repudiatc the Proyso which
only year ago received almost the unapimous supper
Of the same men. The Democrat" must k,so,o tina
IL was the rgeetiOA Of the prOvso by the New YorI
Democratic Convention. which drove portion Of III,
Democrats from their party TO the whigs, who adope,
iil and that the action Of the New York and Massa
ehusotis Democratic Conventions in reference TO III,
Prosiso precisely alike. How. then, can he pre-
tend that either Of them in favor Of III Tn
"Demoerr seems to imagine that those who oPpos'
the acquisition Of territory. arc necessarily op
posed also to the wimo, Provisoye, the fact is di
reo,ly the reverse