The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-07-21

| MT. AVER remembers to have seen the re-
ports cited by the Republic at the time of their
appearance, and they made such an impression
on him that he conyersed with several persons,
who agreed In pronounclng them "ahalost en-
| tire fabrlcations." Here we have the admis.
sion of the fact, that has been denied in some
quarters, that the reports as published in the
Republic did appear in the papers from which
we quoted them at the time alleged. This is
important Nor is it less important that though
General PIERcE's friends saw these reports,
they did not think il prudent or ezpedisnt to
make any public denial Of their correctness at
the time. Notwithstanding the great political
excitement that prevailed, and the great i'm
portance Of correcting these alleged perpersions
| and tabrieations at the time and on the spot,
several Of General PIERcE's friends were
aware of the publications in question, conversed
about them, and 1T them slide!
The extracts which Mr.. AVER gives from the
Independent Democrat, and the Manchester
Democrat, of recent dates, show that the perfect
unanimity Of which the Union has boosted in
the Democratic party has not extended to New
Hampshire and that some of the abolition
journals calling themselves Democrats continue
| to stand out against the Democratic nomina-
! ton, in spite Of the sudden conversion of
HENRY b. STANTON and MARTIN VAN buren,
As to Mr.. CAMPBELL's letter, it is very
general in its character, and does not state that
! the writer was present at the meeting. The
honorable Senator and Representatives from
New Hampshire, aware of the awkward gap
which this makes in his testimony, have patched
it by stating that Mr.. CAMPBELL ,Das present;
but we think that Mr.. CAMPBELL does not
state his means of information with sufficient
distinctness and precision to render his testi-
mony in its present shape of much interest.
We should like to see the portion of the letter
which is given in asterisks. Mr.. CAMPBELL
himself seems to be aware of the insufficency
and nconclusveness of his testimony, and
therefore promises that his correspondent shall
hear from them again, and that "speedily."
The publication Of the Union proves dis
tinctly that the Manchester and Concord Dem.
ocrats belong to the HALE wing of the De-
mocracy in New Hampshire, and entertain the
same sentiments in regard to slavery which
are openly protested by the long list of Inde
pendent Democrats who boted with STANTON
and the VAN BURENs in lS4s, and have since
found their, way back into the true DEMO
CRATIC fold hand in hand with Mr.. SoULE,
Mr.. FORSYTH, and the Secessionists, under the
banner of Southern Rights nomination and
the resolutions of 1898. The Manchester and
Concord Democrats hold fast to their faith,
whatever it may be; the VAN BURENs and
those who act with them have abandoned it.
That is the only difference between them.
The whole publication Of the Union is I'M
satisfactory and inconclusve. Mr.. PIERcE's
general character" on the Compromise ques-
tons needed no propping. But the Union,
which is fighting the present battle exclusively
on southern and sectional ground, forgetting
that there is a North, denies the soundness of
General ScoTT, Virginian, on the question Of
slavery, and on this issue alone, as it seems to
us, presses General PIERCE upon the country.
The Union alleges that General PIERCE repre-
sents, and embodies in his person the sentiment
of the slave institutions. We admit that if he
loses this prestige he loses every thing. 1t is
conceded that he is no general. 1t is conceded
only by its negative merits; and if he is
stripped Of the only strong recommendation
that is claimed for him by the Union, it is OBJ
vious that his case is very hopeless one.
Hence the nervous and phrenzied irritation which
his friends display when it is alleged that he
has made very unnecessary and very offensive
expression of his personal views in regard to
the institution of slavery.
That such personal opinions are not consd
cred Inconsistent with fidelity to the Compro-
mise in the State of New Hampshire, and that
they are to some extent entertained by the De-
mocracy of that State, we infer from the follow
ing resolutions which 1--WE learn from the New
Hampshire Patriot, published at Concord)
were adopted by the Legislature of that State
on the 22d June, l847, "euery man elected as
a Democrat uoting in tauor Of them, and nearly
all the Federalists present uoting against them"
The italics are the Patriots:
"l. Resolped by the Senate and House of Represen
tatiues in General Court conpened, That we regard
the institution of slavery moral social and
political eui, and such deeply regret its erist
ence, and are willing to concur in all reasonable |
and constitutional measures that may tend towards
its removal; but we are unalterably opposed to all
movements having for their object or probable Of
feet the dissolution of our National Union, or the
violation of our National Constitutions Constitu
ton and Union which must be preserved, and which
can be preserved only by strict adherence to the
solemn compromises which lie at its foundation
80. Resolued, That the policy to he pursued in
reference to slavery now existing, is left by the
Constitution with the States within which it exists
and that al; 49,
individuals or bodies Of men can efficiently lc.
Ultimately control that policy, ard that it is no
part of the duty of our State government to le
gislate upon the subject OF slavery within such
States
"3. Resoired, That attempts at unauthorized in
reference. unfrendly attacks, and angry external
agitatons. by exciting the prejudiccs of the slave
holding communities, while they may endanger
the safety Of the Union. tend rather to fasten than
to loose the bonds of the ensla we'd.
-. Resolued, That in all territory which shall
-