Southport telegraph. [volume] (Southport, W.T. [i.e. Kenosha, Wis.]) 1840-1850, 1848-10-27

foru. Let the soil of our extensive domain
be ever kept free for the hardy pioneers of
our land, and the oppressed and banlshed OF
other lands, seeking homes of comfort and
fields of enterprise in the new world.
To this resolution. as we'll others adopted by
the Convention, Mr.. Van Buren, replied, that he
could in good faith give them his hearty and cordial
support, and with reference 10 the Wilmot provso,
stated
"The measure is right in itself; and
what is right may always be done with ul-
innate safety. The present generation
stand in the same relation towards these
very extensive territories i'll which the sa-
ges of 1887 stood towards the northwest
ern territory. If we ACT as wisely as they
which reflect such undying honor on the
policy of that day, will follow the labors
and perpetuate the memories of those by
whom it is upheld"
Can the position of Mr.. Van Buren, be doubted
The north is in favor of Free Soil and the Wilmot
provso-the north and the north alone, nominated
Mr.. Van Buren,, and by what rule of human nature
shall we Judge that he will betray the north Ii
Mr.. Van Buren, were the trucking servile, that his
enemies claim him to be, sufficient motive could
vet be found to infer that this principle, committed
to his hands by the north, is not safe with him. But
his whole life furnishes conclusive proof that this
principle is not only safe with him, but has in him
a most ardent supporter, We cali attention to the
following facts in the life of Mr.. Van Buren,:
|. In the Senate of New York, goth
January, 1920, he voted for the following
preamble and resolution Whereas, the
inhibiting the further extension OF Slavery
in these United States, is subject of deep
concern to this State; and whereas we con-
slider slavery as an evil much TO be deplor-
ed, and that every constitutional barrier
should be interposed to prevent Its further
extensions: and that the Constitution of the
United States, clearly giving Congress the
right to require of new States, not conprls-
ed within the original boundaries of the
United States, the prohibition of Slavery,
as condition of their admission into the
Unlon-therefore
ReS0iUed,(if the honorable Senate concpr
therein) that our Senators be instructed, and
and Representatives in Congress be requested
to oppose the admission of States into the
Union, of any territory not composed as
aforesaid, making the prohibition of Slave
ry therein an indispensable condition Of
admission.
2. In 1921, he voted in the New York
Convention for Glowing the colored citizens
Of Il o Stn+ tl,.. rirht II c,iH
3. In 1922 he voted for the passage of
law by Congress, that every slave imported
into the territory Of Florida, either directly
or indirectly, except by a citizen OF the
UnIed States, removing there for actual
settlement, and being at the time the actual
owner of the slave, should be entitled to
immediate freedom.
SO said the Louisville Journal in 1910.
4. August, 1887, while President of the
United st ties, he rejected the application
of Texas for annexation to the union.
5. April, 1e43 when the South was IL
hitting for the annexation of Texas, he
wrote powerful letter in opposition TO it,
iust before the meeting of the National de-
mocratic Convention at Baltimore, and in
consequence of it, lost his nomination for
the Presidency.
6. In 1913, before any general move
ment Of the People in opposition TO slave
ry extension, after his party had been con,
soil lated in support of nominees pledged
against the Wilmot Proviso, and while as
yet none of the first class of statesmen in
the country had taken an independent and
a consistent position in relation to preslden-
tial nominations and the question of sIave-
ry, he courageously y, at the request OF his
friends, entered his protest against the ac~
ton and the nominations of his party, vim
Dictated triumphantly the doctrine of the
WiImot proviso, and followed up his pro-
test by an avowal of his purpose to with
hold his supper from those nominations.
And this is the man whose opinions in
favor of Free Soil have been " received
within sixty or ninety days - National
Era.
Not only have we this testimony, but we have the
testimony of such men Horace Greeley and Tom
Corwiu, for they have both said if they thought he
could be elected they would support him They do
not oppose him because he is not right but because
they think he is not available
Thus you have before you the candidates, with
the positions they occupy on this great question
Do you desire freedom for these immense terrific
ries Do you consider the question OF absorbing
importance Ifso, how can you sustain for the
chief office in your gift, men opposed to your de-
sires in this respect. Consider the matter These
men now stand, holding particular opinions upon
the chief question before the country; the only
mode you have Of recording your own opinion, is
by the vote you give on these men. Whichever
one you vote for his opinions thereby become
your opinions, and in the successful candidate is
embodied the opinions of majority OF the nation.
If then you vote for Cass or Taylor, you express
the deliberate opinion that the proviso should not
be extended our new territories, and II either
of them is elected such becomes the will OF the ma
ION. If you do not desire this, why assist to ac
complish it. You can record your opinion in ac-
cordance with your conviction of right and it will
Lave its weight. If Cass or Taylor is sure TO be
elected, the greater the reason for your voting with
the true Free Soil party, for as they are both The
representative of the same principle, strong mi
norty is the more necessary TO hold the successful