Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1849-11-29

shamefully degrading and unholy, / have
but to refer you to the columns of the Atlas,
and the Evening Post of few months back
They then christened it by its right name
Especially would | refer you TO a resolution
of the barnburners at Utica, III June Ioso,
when they resolved they would not sup
port any candidate for Office who was not
openly identified with them in principle,
feeling and action" on the slavery question.
Are the Marcys, the Croswels, the Dicken-
sons, the Lofts, the Chathelds, identified
with them in feeling and action on that
question: In short, have not the Barnburn-
ers Knocked out the very keystone that
bound the Buffalo archl Can we sustain
them in such an act
ask your attention now, by way of con-
trast, to the other ticket presented TO the
people of the state There | see the names
of Joshua A. Spencer, Washington Hunt,
Christopher Morgan, Samuel Stevens, Al
yah Hunt, Nelson J Beach, Benjamin Squier
and Hezekiah c. Seymour. These men
are no strangers to us, or to our Anti Slave
ny principles. Their views are our views
their sentiments are our sentiments. They
are all sound to the core.
Mr.. Spencer, Mr.. Alvah Hunt and Mr..
Beach have been State Senators. All their
votes on the slavery question, in every form
and ramifcation, are recorded upon the right
side; recorded just as yours and mine would
have been, in their places.
With Mr. Washington Hunt | have long
been acquainted. / served with him two
years in Congress, and have known and
marked his whole course in public life. In
q 4
pending, he was the first Wing that broke
ground on the Texas question on distinct
anti-slavery principle. In February, 1916,
he spoke and voted against the admission
of Florida as a slave State. He was de-
nounced by the southerners as an abolition
ist for so doing. In 1S47 he made an able
speech in reply TO Jones of Georgia, and
G.. J. lngersoll of Pa, in defence ofthe Will
mot proviso Indeed he went as far as N.Y.
self or Mr.. Adams ever ventured on all those
questions. Ills whole course challenges the
strictest scrutiny, and his friends will be
proud at contrasting it with the tame and
spaniel-like course Of Mr.. Lott, his Hunker
competitor.
With Mr.. Morgan have had less person.
al acquaintance, but enough to know that
during his four years in Congress, though at
an early period Of the slavery controversy,
he never gave wrong vote. The North
never had truer friend nor the South a.
more troublesome foe, than when they at
tempted back hug with XII Morgan."
Samuel Stevens, for Attorney General is
known to be one of the ablest lawyers in the
state, and as to anti-slavery action, he did
while member of our state legislature,
early define and ably defend his positions
against Texas, in favor OF the right of petit
ton, and the other anti-slavery questions
So of Mr.. Squler.
These are the eight nominees of the wing
party. They are all and every one of them,
as You and are, Anti-Slavery, Anti-Texas,
Anti-Sub-Treasury, Anti-Free-Trade, Will
mot Provso, Protective Tariff, Internal I'm
provement men. They would, as we verify
believe, each Of them, act Oh each of these
these questions, just as you or | would if
elected in their places; while four of the
other ticket would act squarely against Us
on all, and the other four on all but one Of
these issues. Is there no choice What
more could we desire than the wing nomi-
nees will do if elected.
You and | did not cease to be Wings
when we fal,ered in our supper, of Gen
Taylor. We have by no means lost our
preference for Wing over Loco(oco prin-
ciples. We all cherish an attachment
10 them still. How, then, in the name
of honesty and decency, can we go over
and support that striped ticket? You
and believe the great interests Of the
country would be beneii BY protec-
tive tariff. We are in favor of Internal
improvement and opposed to the Polk
and Tyler Vctoes. How would our
views on these matters be promoted by
going for men who have always opposed
us?
Nor is this all. This is u State Flee
ton. Questions of State policy are in
volved in it. We are in favor of lib
eral prosecution and early completion OF
the State works, opposed to the stop
and tax policy of our advcrsaries, OPP
posed 10 losing the millions which they
caused to be expended on unfinished
morks; and opposed to paying millions
more in shape Of damages to contractors
driven from the public works by their pol
icy. We are in favor of the new con
stitution; half our enemies fought il
from the outset. We are in favor Of q
general diffusion of the blessings of Ed
ucation among the masses.
Now, fellow citizens, one or the other
of these tickets must be elected. Yol
and | must act either positively or mega
lively in the matter. There is no mid
die ground, no third party. The Alb
clifton or liberty party was nearly o.
quite absorbed in the free soil movement
l do Lot learn that its friends seriousl,
contemplate its resuscitatlon. Which
party shall we support :? The success.
of which ticket will best promote ou
cherished principles? Shall we go, cal
we go, with the party that has Away
fought us on these issues Or shall W.
go for those men whose acts prove then
faithful and true, and who, if elected
would do to the extent of our desire.
the very thing we would do:
/ conccde honesty and integrity TO tn,
masses of tile Barnburuers, i'm the Anti