The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-06-13
FRIDAY, JUNE Is. 1861.
Jehn Van BureR and the Vermont Dcmee-

FR1UAI, JUNE lSs 1901.
Jehn Van Bures aaA the Vermont Dcms,
raey.
We insert to-day the proceedings of the Ve
mont Democracy in Convention, and the speec
of JOHN VAN buren,. Both the convention an
Mr.. VAS buren, proclaim their devotion to tn
Union a la WEBSTER and FooTE. The CONVEX
ton also declares for free grants of public land
to actual settlers, and in this respect agrees as
with Mr. WEBSTER, General CAss, and Gener,
CAss's Tennessee friend and correspondent, M
A. o. P. NICHOLSON. The Washington Repul
lie, we believe, is in as great quandary on th
subject as it was on the Compromise measu re-,
1t went for General TAYLOR and Mr.. CLAY, bu
as they differed on the Compromise, the Repul
lie went against the Compromise, for Genera
TAYLOR, who opposed it, was President Whe
Mr.. FILLMORE became President and supporte
it, the Republic changed editors and principles
and supported it also. So now Mr.. WEBSTER
whom the Republic admires, has declared 70
the policy of buying votes with the public land
But Mr.. CLAY has always opposed it, and Mr.
FILLMORE also--so tho Republic opposes-bu
in such way as to leave the door open for q
change on this subject, in case the head of the
Wing party is changed.
The Republic asserts that Mr.. CALHOUN was
in favor Of granting the public lands to the
States in which they lay, and says that this was
about the same thing as to grant them to actual
settlers. This is a great mistake. Mr.. CAR
HoUN advocated the cession of the public lands,
to the States respectively containing them, upon
the condition that the States should sell them,
and at a price not below the regular rate, and
to pay into The federal treasury proportion Of The
price received equivalent TO ,chat oas deemed The
net proceeds Of such rates. Mr.. CALHous's OBJ
ject and proposition were the reverse of the
plan now endorsed by Mr.. WEBSTER. Mr.. CAL
HoUN wanted to secure the sale of the public
lands-to secure the nett proceeds for the fed
eral treasury, and to give to the States the man.
agement and patronage Of the land system, in
stead of the federal government The plan now
proposed, abandons the policy of selling, and
proposes to give them away. And since these
lands are now by the recent spo!iation acts of
Congress devoted to free-soil, the effect of the
proposed policy is to unite the Northern manu-
facturers with the Abolitionists, for the three
fold purpose of defrauding the South of her
share Of the value of the public lands, Of aug
menting Northern favor and population, and Of
imposing additional duties to supply the deficit
in revenue arising from the surrender Of the
land sales.
We observe that this policy of giving the pub
Tic lard away, is u tavorite element Of the free
soil platform. 1t has been adopted not only in
Vermont, but in several of the Western States
by that party, and recently at Democratic
meeting in New York, and as the Democratic
party of the North has been growing more and
more free-soilish, it has been growing more and
more favorable to this agrarian scheme. 1t
would be precisely the same thing in principle
and in policy to distribute the public money
from the subtreasury in the city of New York
TO the people there, as to distribute the public
lands, now chiefly in the North, to those who
apply for them. But since the California robbie
ny and the Texas bribery-events which over
shadow all the previous history of public turpi
tude the standard of public principle has been
40 much degraded, that the public mind is pre-
pared for any scheme of fraud or outrage.
The Vermont Democracy and JOHN VAN Blu
Rem assert, the one in resolution, and the Other
in his speech, that the Constitution ofthe United
States is anti-slavery-that the settled policy O
the government, before and after the presen
Constitution was adopted, was to restrict slave
ry TO its then existing limits. This is favorit
and fundamental position of the Free-soilers
and in fact of the North generally. For withou
assuming it they could have had no respectful
pretext for the Wilmot Pnviso, which the North
ern States adopted with such unanimity.
In the Northern speeches and addresses OF
this subject, we find that this assumption pro
ceeds from the Ordinance of 1887. We have
repeatedly shown that this very Ordinance, taker
in connection with the circumstances of the day
proves the reverse of what is claimed under il
by the North. 1t was applied to portion onl,
of the common territory of the country, and {,
so much only as equalized the non-slapeholdinl
,oih The slareholding area Of the Union. 1t ex
cluded slavery in express terms from the North
west territory, and left it unrestricted in tn,
Southeastern territory And we hold distinct
ly, that since an express prohibition was required
by law to exclude and express permission wal
not required to admit, the inference is plain tina
slavery, instead of being a special, local, and
statutory institution, is on the contrary general
and prevails everywhere in the United States
except where specially prohibited. Such is the
entire history of this country on this point
Slavery owes its existence among us, in no case
TO statutory authoriy-it nerer has been erclude'
ercept by express statutory enactment. Thi
completely crushes the entire Northern or Free
soil pretence, of the sectionality, locality, sps
ciality, and unconstitutionality Of slavery. Br
it is obstirately and desperately ignored by tn
North We are determined however, sine