Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1850-05-02
W. 1sterism and TaYlorislA.

The last Brandon Post, in lucid article in
reference to the inconsistency of that portion of
that portion of the Wing presses who condemn
the position of Mr. Webster, and join with the
rest of tHeir party 10 commenting and sustaining
that Gen. Taylor on the slavery question, holds
the following language.
ain this war of words aud giants, it would,
perhaps, be interesting, if not instructive, to en-
auire what is the difference between Mr.. Web
ster's position and that of Gen. Taylor? If they
are the slme in principles, then we have the tes-
timony Of one branch of the wing party, that
the ground now occepied by that party, is an a.
bandonment of their former attitude on the sub
iect of Slavery and its extension
The position of Mr. Webster is-the admis-
sion of California as State--the admission Of
four more slave States carved opt of Texas,
whenever they apply for admission, without OBJ
,ectinns by Congress Territorial governments
Tor New Mexico and Utah or Deseret--:tcithoiH
he Proviso --and the passage of the tugitve from
Service bill.
The position of Gen. Taylor is-the adInis-
sion of California as a State and the admission
of other tates as fast us they present them
selves, without inquiring whether they tolerate
slavery or not-ao. territorial government for
New Mexico and Utah-entirc abstinence from
lsgislation by Congress upon the subject of the
abolition of slavery and the slave trade and the
extension Of slavery!
Each OF these grounds is an abandonment Of
the position assumed by the wing party of the
North, especially of New England, previous ia
the last Presidential election. The doctrines
proclaimed BY that party, while they were elect.
ing Gen. Taylor, wcre-ho more slave States
no more slave Territory--the immediate prohi
btion of slavery in all the Territories by act o
Congress-the abolition Of slavery in the Dis
trict Of Columbia and wherever it existed unde
the authority of Congress, and no more conces
sons and compromises With the South On tn
subject Of slavery. Does any wing deny this
! Now, whose departure fIOm the Northern
wing ground is the greatest ME. Wcbstor's Q
Gen. Taylors? For our part we can see it'll
. or no difference. Mr. Websters course is tn
- most reprehenslble-mo tnctured with subsel
v vency to the south and recreancy to freedom
for he is northern man--heretofore on avowe
anti-slavery cbampion--fully and unrcservedl
committed to Northern anti slavery doctrines.-
J. Gen. Taylor IS a southern man-a slavehold'
q as never committed to anti-savery doctrir
y, or action in uny way. He was elected by h
. supporters in the North declaring him to
e what he never was, friend to free institution
If and foe to slavery extension and slavery pro
l. agandism
- But the proper enquiry is not now, which
'e these men is most worthy oc condemnation {
l. their attitude on the Slavery question; b
re which is most pro-slavery in the policy al
a. measures he advocates. We think the positi,
- -. of Gen. Taylor on the whole, is more dsastro
y to freedom than Mr. Webster's, General Ia
l. lor is opposed to all legislation for the Terit
10 rcs no proposes to leave them ,OihOm amigo