Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1847-11-04
CORRESPONDENCE.


The editorial article in your paper of the
18th, headed, "No More Territory" calls for the
reasons for making this nc,O issue and your
queries seem to imply that the wings, in adopt
ing it, have sacrificed a great moral principle to
party expediency. 1t is this implication which
gives point and importance to the article, and
which induces me to reply to your call.
The reasons which have pressed themselves on
my Judgment in favor of the new issue, will be
stated as briefly as possible,
1t may be proper first to define this new issue
as made by the whigs. 1t is not, as your article
supposes, "nO more territory, free or %sIa0c," but
is limited to the permanent acquisition of MExI-
CAN territory by FORCE OF ARMS by conquest
or by a treaty of peace.] The new issue then,
(%tersely expressed "NO Merican IerritOry,"
has a single reference to the present war and is
to be understood as declaring, that no Mexican
territory ought to be permanently acquired as
the fruits of the present wal. The new issue,
with these qualifications, covers all the ground,
which the present crisis in our foreign relations
requires.
1t is proper, also, to state, that the new issue
does not repudiate the Wilmot p%roviso, but stands
in front of it. If any territory be acquired in
any quarter, or at any time the wings insist that
it should be or become free territory.
The great object of the principle involved in
the Wilmot proviso is to prevent the extension of
slavery and the Joint consideration presented, is,
which issue will most effectually secure that OBJ
ject.
prefer the new issue, because,
l. 1t can be with more certainty applied
The Wilmot proviso will require a majority in
both Houses of Congress, whereas the new issue
can be secured by the negative vote of less than
a majority of the Senate alone the vote of two
thirds being required to ratlfy a treaty.
2, The Wilmot p%roviso will require a union of
the members of Congress, Of both parties, from
the nonslaveholding States, in both Houses, to
carry it against the entire vote of the SOUTH
Have We any assurance of that union! Who
defeated that proviso at the last Congressl Our
opponents-thcn, as nor, protested to be in favor
of the proviso-yet it met an arranged defeat.
3. Both issues will require the assent of the
President and to elect a President who will
sanction it, will require that our opponents adj
here to the p%royiso at the ballot Dor. Have we
good assurance that they will there support it as
a partyl | look with distrust to the approving
resolutions of State Conventions, when | see the
opposition of their leading politicians, and lead
ing presses. | refer, for example, to the letter
Of Mr.. Buchanan, and to the Albany Argus.
| repeat, then, that the p%roviso cannot be a.
dopted without a majority in both Houses-and
the assent of the President-while the entire
Wing strength in the Senate, though less than a
majority, can secure the neU issue, and this alone,
in my Judgment, is a sufficient reason for its a.
doption.
L.. The neV issue will secure the votes of the
Senators from the SIave-holding States, mithout
Which the more than one third vote cannot be OBJ
tanned.
5, The Wilmot p%royiso, if applied in its most
efficient form, will not afford an adequate secu-
rity against the extension of slavery,
The principles of the proyiso are similar to
those of the ordinance of 1887 but their APP
pllcatlon, in the present emergency, is widely
different. When the ordinance was adopted, the
Western Territory was a wilderness, The ordi-
nance was a compact between the Continental
Congress and the future inhabitants of the Ter
rltory "a compact between the Supreme l.egis.
lator and proprietor of the soil, and the purchas.
er "a compact under which a tree population
grew up, and which, though in the early stages
of their settlements, earnest attempts we're made
to introduce Slavery, yet under the stringent in
%hibition, had by the time of admission into the
union, repaired into the settled principles OF
freedom. In this way the ordinance has produc.
ed its full and abiding effects.
But what is the condition of Mexico? Can
the same effects be expected there, by the appli.
cation of the ordinance? Our sine qua non de-
mands about a fourth of the Territory of Mexi.
co;-with a population dense or sparse, accord
ing to the quality of the country a population
of mixed foreign races-ot different Religion,
Laws, Education, and feelings "a population
almost incapable of being brought within the
pale of modern civilization-uuder a Govern.
mcnt which had, at no very remote day, abolish
ed Slavery, not from choice, but because it was
necessary to the success of her own emancipa-
ton from Spain. What can be expected from
such a population, possessing a large extent Of
land suited to Slave labor-and saleable only tC
Slave owners? Add to all this the fact that the en-
tire Slave States hold the doctrine that Congress
has no constitutional right to attach the Provisc
to the acquisition of Mexican Territory that
their political conventions and State legislatures
have decided, in advance, such act to be null anC
void.
Let it however be understood that Congress
has the right to impose the proviso and sup.
pose the Proviso be imposed-and continued in
force up to the very admission of the territory a:
Free States, into the Union; and then suppose
such State, after its admission, should, by a law
or constitutional provision establish Slavery; by
what mode or process could or wOuM that act be
nullifed sustained, as it would be, by half the
States of the Union?
The probability is, that every Mexican State
which deemed it for its interest, would establish
Slavery that the same causes would operate
there, which have so recently, operated to thai
end, in Texas.
6. If this be a correct view of the character
of the Mexican population-in connection will
the fact that they are now excited almost to mad
ness, by the evils inflicted on them in this un
natural War that has engendered a hatred anC
thirst for revenge, which two generations will no
d~issipate the acquisition of Mexican Terri
f tory, cannot, at this time be desirable But a
| gainst this, the ne,O issue is the only security.
7. Is there no danger of our 0Uarice of Ter
| ritory extending to the conquest of the whole q
= Mexico? Necessity may place the administrator