Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1848-10-20

REMARKS.


to answer the inquiries contained in the above
communication, and We think have presented
reasons for preferring Gen. Taylor that ough
TO be satisfactory.
We advise Mr. IIescock TO read them.
Ills inquiries cover tie whole ground Of ih'
present political controversy and to answer then
particularly would be not only repetition Q
much that has been said by us, but would oc
cupy too much space
We will, however, enumeraie a few of III
reasons why, in cur opinion. those opposed I
the extension of slavery ough, to support Gen
Taylor.
Mr. Hescock objects to Gen. Taylor's 6delii
on this question, because he is Southern ma
and shareholder" and argues from these fact
that he must be in favor of slave extension an.
he seems to base his preference for Alr Van Blu
rem upon the opposite inference, drawn from tn
fact that be is a Northtrn man, and not a slave
holder.
Are these differences justified by facts, and the
experience Of the past Let us look at the past
who originated, supported and approved the
Ordinance Of 1851, now called the Wilmot Pro
visor Itwns Thomas jefferson, Southern man
and stakeholder, aided by nearly every South
ern man and stakeholder then in Congress.
In the great battle for the right Of petition for
slave emancipation, who were its friends and
who its enemies? The Wings of the North uni
te,lly, and full onc-half of the Wing members O.
Congress from the South, voted uniformly for it.
while both Northern and Southern Democrats
opposed IT,
Again--who raised the question Of annex
ing Texas, for the avowed purpose Of making it
a slave State? Who urged and finally eonslinl-
mated that infamous scheme, and who resisted it
TO the last? Let the records of Congress show.
1t was brought forward by Northern Demo-
Gratis, and carried by the united and almos,
unanimous vote OF the Democratic party, North
and South and it was opposed not only by the
Northern Wings, but by the Wing party Of he
South, composed Of ".SouleFR men and Stare
holders"
The final vote in the Senate was taken in
February, ls45--twenty- seven voting in the af-
frmative, and twenty-five in the negative. One
vote changed from the affirmative to the negative
would have defeated the b aud prevented the
h addition of FIVE new slave States to the Union
Let US sec how the affirmative and negative
vote was made up. Only THREE Southern
Wigs, Merrick of Md, Henderson of Miss,
and johnson Of In, voted FOR the bill, and
they have since been repudiated by the Wings
Of those States TWELVE Southern Whigs vot-
ed AGAINST annexation, viz Bayard and
Clayton Of Del, Pierce of Md, Rires and Arch
or of Va, Manglm of N. c., Foster and Jarra-
gin of Tenn, and Criienden and Morehead OF
KY 1t IS needless to add that every Northern
Wing Senator voted against the annexation, and
this made up the negative vote.
Now for the affirmative, EVERY DEMO
CRATIC SENATOR, both North and South,
poied for annexation. THIRTEEN of these were
from Free States, and among them were AMer-
ton and Woodbury. of n, H., Niles of Ct, Tan
pan of Ohio, and John A. Dir, the present Van
Buren, candidate for Governor of New York.
Here was question having for its professed
and known ultimate object, the creation Of new
Stare States Yet upon this question, TWELVE
Southern Wig Senators, and all Of them Stare
holders, too, were found voting AGAINST IL,
while THIRTEEN Democratic Senators from the
Free States voted FOR it. A bill creating fire
ne,O Stare States, had hcelce Southern IYhiq votes
in the Senate against, and thirteen Democratic
votes from Free States for it.
These things were done in open day. They
were published to the world. The design of
Southern Democrats to annex Texas for the
purpose of making il a slave State, was not con.
! Iaa. l.I l..a =