The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-08-14

| The ''pretended report" passed without con-
tradiction at the time, apparently because it
escaped General PIERcE's observation. That
it attracted notice at the time, and on the spot,
is evident from the letter Of Mr.. B. F. AVER,
who states in his letter to Mr.. HIBBARD that
he saw "the reports copied by the Republic
when they first appeared" and conversed sin
regard to them with several persons" who
heard the speech. The anomaly remains I'M
explained, that reports which are alleged to be
scandalous fabrications were allowed to circu-
late in the town in which the speaker lives
without any attempt to correct their misrepre-
sensations.
Passing from these particular reports, Cen
eral PIERCE proceeds to strengthen his denial
by reference to his general public conduct.
my opinions and the avowal of them" he
says, shave been everywhere the same"
"My action and my language in New Hamp-
shire touching this matter have been at all
times and under all circumstances in entire
accordance with my action and language at
Washington" Mr.. PIERCE is willing to
stand by the record and let US recapituate
|
language" in New Hampshire, that we may
test the value Of his present declaration. 1t
is on record that Mr.. PIERCE was a men,
Der Of the State Convention in June, 1876,
and that in that capacity he was one Of
committee who reported resolution re-
affirming the sentiments and opinions of
the Northern Democracy in relation to
slavery, and setting forth that they deplored
it, existence. and regarded it Gas a great
moral and social evil" 1t is on record, again.
that on the Goth November, 1850, General
PIERCE attended a meeting at Manchester,
New Hampshire, and delivered speech in
which he asked, "Who did not deplore slauerys"
and in which, replying to his own interroga-
tory, he said, "The men ,cho ,could dissotue
the Union did not hate on deplore sLapery
more than he did," And yet again it is on
record that the State Convention which sat
late in 1850 had General PIERCE as one of its
members, and that the convention unanimously
adopted a resolution declaring "that the hold
6 ing of human beings in bondage is curse
to any country; that zee are opposed to
slavery, black or white, in all its forms,
and under rhatever circumstances" Now
here are three instances selected not from
journals personally hostile TO General PIERCE,
but from quarters known TO be person
ally friendly to him. And each instance
affords strong collateral testimony in favor of
the accuracy of Mr.. Foss's report of the New
Boston speech, and against General PIERcE's
averment that his "opinions and the avowal Of
them" have uniformly agreed with his opin-
ions as expressed at Washington. The pre-
sumption is that the General PIERCE who "de-
pIored" slavery in 1916, and "hated" it in
1850, may also have ''loathed" it in 1852.
The probabilities are against General
PIERCE on another ground. The Manchester
Union Democrat, friendly print, in its out
line of his New Boston speech, reports that he
spoke Of slavery as having been introduced into
this country "against the moral sense of the
uorld ;" and the Nashua Gazette, which is
also friendly, reports his vindication of the Flu
gitive law as resting upon the fact that it lem
braces no single principle more obnoxious to
the North than the Fugitive Slavc la,c Of
l. 1893"
To give full weight to his present letter, it
is necessary, then, that General PIERCE should
show that the records of the State Conventions
have been falsified to his prejudice-that his
own organ, the New Hampshire Patriot. pub
lished at Concord, has wilfully misrepresented
him-and that two other friendly journals en-
tered into conspiracy with two abolition jour
nails for the purpose of placing him in false
position before the country.
Even this is not all that is necessary. The
records of New Hampshire prove that for q
series of years the Democracy of that State
took advantage of every opportunity to reaf,
firm their hostility to slavery, and their IN
abated determination to enforce the Wilmot
provso. They did this at their public meet
ings, in their State Conventions, in their Legs
lature, and through their delegations in Con-
gress So far as we know, it is not alleged tina,
at any portion Of this period General PIERc E
was at variance with his party in the State.
On the contrary, j, is known that he acted with
them; and though we admit that tor the heresies
of individual members of the party he is in nc
respect responsible, we are yet constrained to
feel that he shares the responsibility Of the ac
ton Of the party in its aggregate capacity, SC
far as he is known to have participated in it.
General PIERCE appeals to his votes in the
Senate and House of Representatives to dis
prove the charge of uttering Freesoil senti
ments. We cannot be suspected of having
done him injustice in reference to these por
tons of his public life. In our notice of his
public character. written on the day after his
nomination at Baltimore, we expressed ar
opinion that he was sound upon the slavery
question. We formed the opinion upon Con
gressional documents, and at once gave him thu
; full benefit of it. 1t has since transpred that
in our hurried search, we omitted his VOTE
} against the act "authorizing Edmund Brooke
to remove to the District of Columbia TIVE
slaves, owned by him prior to his remova
from Virginia"
"Votes in the Senate and House Of Repre-
sentatives" are good as far as they 20, bu