Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1849-08-03

pursuit, that you can continue separate from the
Wing psriy2 Can you fluid Il in your con-
sciences 10 join band Of such merconary poliii- |
clans for the purpose Of wsging war upon your
old friend,7 We feel persuaded that the men
who broke loose from their old political ties in |
their zeal for the cause Of human freedom will |
not now lend themselves, and prostitute their
principles TO reorganze and recruit the discom-
flied Northern allies Of the Shareholders and TO |
enable them TO reconstruct the "bond Of union |
between the Northern and Southern Democra-
Cyl"
60 The Democrat Of this week attempts an |
answer to our remarks npon the slavery ques-
ton, but we submit that il s in truth. cognori
Of everything slledged aud inferred by US, aud
virtual abandonment Of one Of the few commend. |
able doctrines adopted by the Coalition conven-
ton. We hope the old AbolitioniSts will not
fail to read this article Of the Democrat, which Is
now their repu,ed organ. II they eau oct with
party whose leaders entertain such sentiments,
they may safely enter the fold Of Democracy,
North and South.
The Democrat says, Il Is not necessary for
them to show that "fhey are opposed and we in
favor Of the extension, but that il is, sufficient
to show that the free soil question has nothing
to hope from tho Wing party" And the proof
Of this allegation is triumphan,ly alledged to
consist in the fact tina, portion Of tho Southern
Wings are in farOr Of the extension Of slavery.
Does this prove there Is nothing to hope from
The Wing psrty1 The Democrat we'll knows
that the Southern Wings who favor slavery. do
no, amount to ons-ten,h Of the Wing party,
and If Il depended on the action Of the Wig
party alone, there would be in Congress a ma
jority Of ten 10 one against the extension Of
slavery. Suppose the Democrats in Congress
bad absiAined ron voting on the subject, viii II
I be pretended, that slavery would have found
majority? No one, respecting truth. will make
such a preiension. The records OF Congress
show. that large majority Of the Wing. have
. slusys voted against every project for EXTEND
ing slavery. How then can Il be asserted there
is nothing to hope from the Wing party? 1t Il.
. because. not Southern alone, but Northern Dem
: ocrais have voted with the shareholders, that
limits. II is not because Southern Democrats
. vote for slavery that we arrirn the Northern
e Democracy. but because the Northern Demo
}. Gratis also vote for ,lavery-becsuse they uined
!, their own convictions Of duty. and voted with
: the shareholders, for tho miserable purpose Of
!, securing their political support-beea they
have, treaehsrously to the cause Of freedom, up
: held the slave interest as "bond Of union be-
: tween the Northern and Southern Democracy"
!. Let Democrats adhere to their distinctive poliii-
c cal principles, if they have any-let them sdvo-
cate British free trade, an impraciicable sub
J. treasury, and oppose all internal improvements
st let them preserve their own organization and
y contend for the ascendaney; all we AJAX Of then
70 Is, to role rih ds northern H1igs on PROPOSE.
lion: Tor extending ..,.ry u .ssy I'll DO .Ai
IL or Free Soil parties This Is plain indisputn.
N Bile fact-and we challenge denial-ths Nor1Aern
s. Wing; hare oisroys and uniformly rofed on ae
n side Of Emancipation, and f NotAern Democrat,
IT had voted with them, the curse of slavery had
l. nerer been extended
The Democrat defends and jus,iies The anne Z.
1t alton Of Texas This was too plain for denial
II but We thank him for the admission The al.
lodged justification is placed upon the prcyou,
E. existence Of slavery in that State, and upon
10 preeedsnts drawn from the admission of Florid.
d and the adoption Of the Federal Constitution
with provisions ,oleraiing slavery. The idea o.
y enc neral trrsag as;iy;sy, by precedent, GnOiA
., or, is hew to US, unless indeed, the Democrat
,e like Mr. Calhoun, regards slavery as mora
y right. ], is system of moral ethics that we il
m not acknowledge, and we leave il for further
m rlueda'ion by the Democrat, with the single 70
Of mark ,st neither the Constitution Of the Unites
,e States nor Of Florida make slavery right, or jus
IN tfy its extension. But if it did-if il Furnishes
u, a binding precedent for the admission of othei
ig slave Staes,what becomes Of the coalition resolu
D. ton that "no more Stare Sdies' should be admit
ne ted into the Union? We pause for light. Blu
Of Texas did not stand in the relation Of othe
N territory Of the United States II did not beion
n to US. 1t was an independent State. or a prov
n inee Of Mexico, and rs such we were under n,
obligations to receive it. II was entirely option
ly al with us to admit or reject, and we could i'm
nc pose such conditions to the act of annexation
n We chose. Some conditions were imposed an,
Re accepted why was not the exclusion of SLAYER,
:" one Of themf We could as legally and certain
IN y 1" justly impose that, as the transfer to us
O. the power Of taxation. The Wings desired il
fe and insisted upon the condition of excluding
4 slavery but the Northern Democrats went il
re with the South, and rejected the condition.
Mt But this is not the worst view Of the infamou
tn trucking Of Northern Democracy to the slav
I'd power. Not sirtA part Of tho territory O
70 Texas is inhabited There is enough unoccupe,
b. territory within il to form FIRE nsto Safes WI,
y; was that unsettled country lefi to be filed will
OF slaves. Why was it not reserved as territor,
Of the United States, and subject to its contro
le and regulation Why was Texas admilie,
to with Constitution granting to her the right I,
G. gil that vast unsettled country with slaves an,
&c then annex them 10 US as slave States? If ex
ID sling slavery justified the admission Of Texas a
81 slave State, il surely did not apply to territor,
III still uninhabited. Butiherc WASH justification
as The Constitution Of Texas was before Congress
10 when she was annexed, and we could have mad
% the perpetual exclusion of slavery condition o