The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-02-19
I II E R E,P U B i | c.
WASHINGTON:
TUESDAY MORNING. FEBRUARY 10. 1850.

The Now Hampshire Democrats and tho A gil
tators OF Slavery.
The proviso editor of the Union is verv
much hurt at late article of ours, in
which we proved that many of the agita-
tors in New Hampshire belonged to the Lo-
cofocos, who at home are Aboltionists, and
in Washington city "allies of the South. -
The Union, of February 14th, denies this
fact; and, after grossly abusing JOHN P.
HALE, JAMES WILSON, and Amos Tuck,
proceeds to say:
The following fact stands out prominently in
the history of parties in New Hampshire, viz: that
before the annexation of Texas and the treason of
John p. Hale to tho Democratic party, (Which act
of trsachery he sought to justify the pretext of
opposition to the admission of Texas,) that party
iods as free from all faint Of ABOLITION or Free Soil
ism as the Democrats Of Virginia. They opposed
all agitation Of the slavery question, and they op
posed the Abolitionists in every FORM In Con
grcss, the representatives Of State in the Union
were more firm in their resolve to put down all
agitation on the subject Of slavery. II was a New
Hampshire member (Mr. Athcrton) who offered
the resolutions concerning abolition petitions in
1888. The New Hampshire members voted for the
2lst rule, prohibiting the reception Of abolition pefi
tions, and stood by IL from its first adoption to it's
repeal by the entire Wing party of the North, a
portion OF the Democratic representatives and
some Wing representatives from the South. The
New Hampshire members in both branches of
Congress, with the exception of John p. Hale.
voted for the admission of Texas into the Union
And up 10 that time NOT resolution epey passed the
Legislature Of Neir Hampshire denouneing slavery or
interfering ,oith IL in any ,cay."
Now, let us see how far this party was
free from the "taint of Abolitionism'' be-
fore the annexation of Texas. Texas was
annexed in March, 1845. But in 1888.
when MARTIN VAN buren, had the dough-
faces in good drill, always ready to vote
as he ordered; when Messrs. BURKE.
ATHERToN, & Co. were the allies of
chivalry, and the chivalry their dupes !;
in 1888, six years before Texas was an
nexed, Mr.. BURKE was the editor of a
paper in New Hampshire. He was then
in Congress, and the VAN buren, men
were saying TO the southern men, the Abo-
litionists in New Hampshire are all Wings;
but unfortunately some member of Con-
gress got possession of one of Mr.. BuRKE's
papers, and 10, and behold this Van
Buren, friend Of the South, who now SAYS,
up to the annexation of Texas the Demo-
Gratis were as free from staint of abolition.
or free-soilism, as the Democrats of Vir-
ginia"-thisV an Buren, editor wrote articles
TO the Democratic Abolition
lists" not to vote for the Wings. This
appeal was published in the .frgus and
Spectator. Will the editors of the Union
deny this ,
BY reference TO the debates of the day,
we find thaton the 18th January, 1910, ten
years ago, Mr.. STANLy, of North Caro-
lima, made speech, in which he referred
to numerous cases in which the Locofocos
we're in alliance with Abolitionists and in
that speech he referred to Mr. Burke,
'oho did not pretend to deny what Mr..
STANLY charged.
We quote the following from Mr.. STAN
LY's speech:
81 remember, sir, at the last session Of Congress,
inquired IL there were any abolitonists in New
Hampshire who support the present adninistra-
ton. ] was uniformly answered, no; they all be-