The Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1837-1867, 1847-11-13
From tho Green Mountain Freeman.
"No More Territory"

To the Editor-ofthe Freeman The cd
ilorial article in your paper of the 18th, head
ed, "No More Territory" calls for the rea
sons for making this neiO issue;uud your quer
les seemto imply that the wings, in adopt
ing it, have sacrificed n great moral prncipl,
10 party eXpcdieucy. II is this implication
which gives point aud importance TO the Or
ticlc, and Which induces me 10 reply to you
call.
The reasons which have pressed them
selves on my Judgment in favor of tho new
issue, will be stated MS briefly as possible.
II may be proper first 10 define this new
issue as NIUE By Me WhigS. 1t isuoI, as yom
article supposcs, no more territory free or
STARE" but is limited to the permanent acqui-
sition of MEXICAN territory by FORCE OF
ARMS by conquest or by treaty of peace.
The new issue then, (tcrscly eXpressed,) "N0
,-Herican TERRITORY has u single reference TO
the present war; and is to be understood ms
declaring, that no Mexican territory ought to
be permanently acquired ms the.frtlts of the
present war. The new issue, with these
qualifications, covers all the ground, which
the present crisis in our foreign relations re-
qurCs.
1t is proper, also, to state, that the new is
sue, does not repudi0te the Wilmot proviso,
but stands in front Oft lfany territory be
acquired in any quarter, or at any time the
wings insist that it should be or become free
territory.
dhe great object of 1.-THE principle involv-
ed n] the Wimot proviso is 10 prevent the
extension of slavery; and the joint considcra-
ton presented, is, which issue will most eff
iectually secure that object.
4 prefer the new issue, because,
|. II can he with more certainty applied
The Wilmot proviso will require majority
in both Houses ofCongress, whereas the new
issue can be secured by the negative vote of
less than majority Of the Senate nlonc,--
uhe vote OF two thirds being required to rati-
iy a treaty.
2. Tho Wilmot proviso will require a u
Mon ofthe members of Congress, of both
parties, from the nonslaveholding States, in
both Houses, to carry it against tho entire
vote Of the south. Have we any assurance
oftlat union? Who defeated that proviso
at the last Congress? Our opponents-then,
as nOtG, professed 10 be in favor of the pro
yiso--yet it met an arranged defeat.
3. Both issues will require the assent OF
the President; and TO elect a President who
rwi!l sanction it, will require that our oppo-
neuts adhere TO the proViso at The ballot Dor.
Have we good assurance that they will there
support it as party? look with distrust TO
the approving resolutions of State Conven-
lions, when see the opposition ofiheir lead
ing politicians, and leading presses. refer
for example, 10 the letter of Mr. Buchanan,
and the tone ofthe Albany Argus.
repeat, then, that the proviso cannot he
adopted without majority in both Houses
and the assent of the President-while the
entire Wing strength in the Senate, though
less than n majority, can secure the ae,c issue,
and this alone, in my Judgments a sufficient
reason for its adoption.
a. The ne,O issue, will secure the votes
81 of the Senators from the Slave-holding States
sscithom ,ctich the more than one third vote
cannot be obtained.
S. The Wilmot proviso, if applied in its
most efficient form, will not afford an ade-
quate security against the extension Of slave
ny.
The principles of the proviso are similar to
those of the ordinance of 1887: but their APP
plication, in the present emergency, Is wide
ly different When the ordinance was adopt
ed, the Western Territory was a wilderness.
The ordinance was compact between the
Continental Congress and the future inhabit-
ants of the Territory: compact between the
Supreme Legislator and proprietor of the soil
and the purchaser:-a compact under which
n free population grew up,and which, though
in the early stages oftheir settlements, earn
es attempts were made to introduce Slavery,
yet under the stringent inhibition, had by the
time of admission into the union, ripened
into the settled principles of freedom. In
this way the ordinance has produced its full
and abiding effects.
But what is the condition ofMeXico? Can
abe same effects be expected there by the ap-
plication of the ordinance? Our sine qua non
demands about n fourth ofthe Territory of
Mexico;--with population dense or sparse,
according to the quality of the country;a pop
ulaton ofmi2ed foreign races-of different
Religion, Laws, Education and feelings;--a
population almost incapable of being brought
within the pale of modern ciyilzation--un-
der Government which had, at no very re-
mote day, abolished Slavery, mot from choice,
but because it was necessary 10 the SUCCESS
of her own emancipation from Spain. What
can be expected from such population, pos
sessing large extent of land suited TO Slave
labor-and saeabe only to Slave owners?-
Add to this The fact that the entire Slave
States hold the doctrine that Congress has no
constitutional right to attach the Proviso to
d the acquisition of Mexican Territory; that
their political COW entions and State Legisla-
lures have decided, in advance, such act to
be null and void.
Let il however be understood that Con-
gress has the right to impose the Proviso;-
and suppose the Proviso be imposed-and
continued in force up to the very admission
OF the territory as Free States, into the Union
and then suppose such state, after its admis
sion, should by law or constitutional pro
vision establish Slavery; by what mode OF
process could or tUoul6 that act be nullfied
sustained as it would be, by half the State.
of the Union?
The probability is, that every Mexican
State, which deemed it for its interest, woult
establish Slavery: that the same causes woulc
operate there, which have so recently, oper
,ated to that end, in Texas
q. III this he correct view 0f the 81 %