Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1849-05-03
Freedom VS. Slavery.

We extract the following from the speech Of
the Hon. J. &. Palfrey on the Territorial CUES
ton, delivered in the House of Representatives
feo' 10, l049. We invite particular attention
to the position which he occupies on this ques'
ton. The speech of Mr.. Palfrey represents the
subject of slavery in its true light-Mr. Palirey
says
."'Agaln, gentlemen are fond of charging us
with raising sectional question. They say that
we are pressing controversy between North
and South, and they undertake to rebuke us In
the words OF the Father of the Country, IN his
Farewell Address. This charge of exciting sec
llonal divisions, makes the staple OF not lew
speeches which have heard in the House and
It colors the whole tissue of The two famous AID
dresses recently put forth from the secret night
| y coEclaVe In this Capitol. Sir, deny utterly
the correctness of this representation. So far as
| am concerned, the abettors of slavery shall
nave no advantage from statement so entirely
unfouneed in point of fact, This is no question
between the North and Seshh 1t is question
between comparatively small number OF slave
holders living in the South on the one side, and
on the other, theva majorityo American free
men who hold no slaves, living both at the South
and the North. Who are these gentlemen who
assume to put themselves in the place of the
southern section of the United States, and to say
when they cannot have their way, that the South
is assalled? Do they constitute the whole pop
ulation of the South, and they pretend thus to
Identity themselves with it? How many are
uhol afA bo ,uh,
population South of Mason and DXon's line, in
lo40, was 4,0O9,l76 the whole number of slave
holders among them cannot possibly exceed 3O0,'
OUO. With what face does mere fraction of a
population undertake to speak for the whole
and to complain that a sectional question is mo-
we'd when only the encr0achments Of one limited
interest within that section are resisted? No
Sir; the Shareholders of the South are not the
South. Far tromit And not only are they not
the South, but they represent an interest abso
lutey antagonstic and hostile to the interest ant
welfare Of that large majority of the citizens o.
the South, that does not hold slaves, an Interest
altogether more opposed to the well being o.
Southern non-saveholders than to the well be
ing of the citizens Of the Northern States We
OF the North have great reason to complain O
slavery IL aas done, and does us great ant
grievous injustice. But il does not control ou
State Governments, and to that extent make Us
its slaves. 1t does not, by its presence among
us, make our honest industry disreputable. |
does not strike the dread of knowledge from GU
lips. All this it does for the Southern non
STAKEHOLDER. And yet, when we undertake tt
resist some new impudent pretension which
puts forth, we are to be complained of as raisin!
a sectional question, and encroaching on tn
South, vast majority of whose citizens are ia
more wEonged by it than ourselves
No, sir repeat it; this is noquestion betwee
North and South. 1t is question simply be
tween the friends of Slavery and the friends c
Liberty, South as well as North. The Souther
non-slaveholders belong Of right to our party
the party of the free. That is the natural pos
same aVbn'tr',meH powts.Fe~mrcH alifoys'us an
insults humanity, grinds them in the dust. The
are about to understand this, unless promisin
signs deceive. And when they do and hay
learned to speak for themselves; we shall Sc
how long it will be that shareholders will COZ
tinue TO call themselves the South"