The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1852-07-24
IMPORTANT FREE SOIL CORRESPON-
DENCE.
Letter frem Senator Chase, Of Ohle, to Hen.
b. p. ButIcr, Of New Yerk.
IcoEcLUDED
WAsHINGros Cry, July Is, 1852.

DEAR SIR:-
To approve of any of these acts, or to acqui
esce in any of them, except the act providing fol
the settlement of the Texan boundary, and tht
payment of the Texan debt--whch was in it'
nature repealabe-seemed impossible fol-
| Democrats who had pledged their faith to free
dom at Buffilo and Utica
| Under these circumstances, the Democracy OF
New York met ia convention at Syracuse
on the 10Th of September, while the compro
mice Congress was yet in session. A united
ticket for State officers was again nominated
| but the resolutions uttered no condemnation OF
the obnoxious measures Of the compromise
which the free soil Democrats in Congress had
perseveringly opposed urged no action against
nationalized slavery; failed even tn Iecommed
the repeal or modification of the fugitive slave
law-more odious and more irrec0ncllabls with
Democratic ideas than the alien and seditioD
lawsuit "congratu lated the country" upon
the passage Of the compromise measures, styled
by the convention, "The recent settlement, by
Congress, of the questions which have unhsppi
ly divided the people of these States!" Con
currence in this action by the radical Democracy,
was q virtual abandonment Of the posi- lions
maintained at Rome and Utica, and even of the
lower ground takes by the mass convention at
Syracuse.
Disregard of the claims of freedom, far less
marked than this, had accustomed the HerkiDer
movement Of l847. Now, however, acquies-
cence was judged expedient by those distin-
guished citizens who possessed their confidence,
and again the free soil Democrats, with visible
reluctance on the part of many, sustained the
nominations of the convention.
The same conventional action, followed by the
same acquiescence, was repeated in 1851.
Still the free soil Democracy of New York
was uncommtted to the support of national
candidates nominated upon any other thnn the
nntionAl Democratic platform of l840, l844 and
l848 which platform referred to slavery only
by one resolution, which had gener lily been
construed by the New York free soil Democrats,
as discountenancing, not constitutional oppo-i
ion to nationaized slavery, but demonstrations
=, Interference by Congress with slavery in the
States.
Under these circumstances the Baltimore
convention assembled in May last. AS in l848
0 in 1852 slaveholding conventions had decar
ed in advance their determination to support no
candidates nominated or not nominated by the
national convention entertaining those views Of
slavery which the free Damocray of New York
had repeatedly avowed which were cherished
| az sound and constitutional by large proper
ton of the free State Democracy, and which had
been solemnly proclaimed as the convictions of
the whole Democracy of Ohio, by each successive
convention from l848 to 1852 inclusive. AN
Democratic state men Who would not take the
test oath of allegiance to slavery were proscribd
az inadmissite candidates even for nomination.
As in l848, 80 in 1852 many of the slave States
were represented by numerous delegation ,
whose united clamors, upon all questions not
taken by States, were able to drown the voices
of the delegations Of the free States, generally
| equal only in number to their electoral votes
These numerous delegations were appointed
| and ATTENDED in open disregard of the recon
mendation Of the national convention of 1913,
that the Democracy of each State should send no
more delegates than the State was entitled to
have electors in the electoral college and yet,
when it was proposed, upon the first day of the
convention, TO contine each State to the recon
mended number of delegates, and thus ensure
to each its proper weight in the convention, it
was opposed with such vehemence and pertina.
city, that the proposition WAS finally abandoned
and the inequality again submitted to. The con-
vention, thus constituted, under the operation OF
the two thirds rule-which made a nomination
impossible without the concurrence of the dele
cation from the slave States-nominated Frank
Pierce, of New Hampshire, and William r. King,
of Alabama, as candidates for President and Vice
President of the United States. have no word
to utter in disparagement of the Just claims OF
either of these distinguished citizens to respect
and honor for their private virtues and public
services. shall speak only of their relations to
| the Free-ol Democracy of the country, and of
their positions on the great question of slavery
which is not settled, whatever politicians or
political conventions may affirm.
! The record of General Pierce, SIS Represen-
tatiye and Senator in Congress, presents him as
the denier of reference and consideration to the
petitions of the people against nationaized
slavery, and as the supporter Of the extreme
resolutions of Mr.. Calhoun in favor of slavery
No public record, within my knowledge, indi
Gates his position during those years following
| his return from Mexico when the New Hamp
shire Democracy took ground against territorial
slavery and nationalized slavery in this District
In his recent letter, accepting the nomination Of
the Compromise Democratic convention, how.
ever. after declaring with what "pride and graft
tude" he should cherish the recollection Of the
fact that "the voice which first pronounced" for
him, "and pronounced alone" came from Vir
| ginia he proceeds to say.
81 accept the nomination, upon the platform
adopted by the convention, not because it i.
expected of me as candidate, but because the
principles it embraces command the appreciation
| of my judgment, and with them | believe can
safely say, that there has been no word or act
of my LID in conflict"
The whole political life Of William r. King
the nominee for Vice President, has been marked
by hostility to the principles of the freesoil
Democracy.
With franklin Pierce, he opposed the refer
ence or consideration of petitions against sav
erv, and sustained the Calhoun resolution in
1887. At later period he united with the OPP
ponents of the right of petition in denying to
petitions of this character the poor privilege Of
reception. In 1850 he even went 80 far as tc
move to lay upon the table the question of re
ception of a petition against tho extension OF
slavery into New Mexico and California, and, OF
course, voted for the mo ion, t e effect of which
had it prevailed, would have been to prevent the
bare reception of the pc i,ion. In respect tc
territorial slavery, he has ever maintained the
extreme doctrine that every Shareholder is war
ranted by the Constitution in taking his slaves
into any national territory, and holding them
there until prohibited by the State law, after the
g