Washington sentinel., 1853-11-05
JUDGE BRONSON's ALLEGED FREE
SOIL LETTER.


faction. His letter of Jnly -, lS4S, is cited
as the proof, and the only proof, 10 sustain the
charge To be sure it has been stated in some
journals, and copied into others, whose editors
knew better that Judge Bronson voted for Van
Bnren in 1913, and co-operated with that fac
ton in opposition 10 General Cass. All such
assertions We unqualiGedly pronounce to be
unfounded.
The charge against Judge Bronson in sub
stance is, that the sentiments uttered in that
letter are similar, either in letter or spirit or
in both, to those held by the Van Buren faction
in 1913. Permit us in the first place to OBJ
serve that it is very strange, if Judge Bronson
held freesoil opinions in lSiS, that he should
oppose Van Buren and throw the whole weight
Of his character and influence in favor of Gen.
Cass. We have already stated that such was
The fact, and no respectable authority dare
yainsay it. In this same connection we viii
further say, that it would be very singular that
Judge Bronson should have been selected as
standard bearer by the national democracy OF
New York, unless it had been well established
that his sympathes well as his principles
accorded with those owned by that party.
Let rs first see what the letter does not state.
l>t 1t no where says that the author is in favor
Of the Wilmot proyiso. ID. 1t no where says
that he is in favor of congressional Legislation
prohibiting slavery in the territories. 3d. 1t no.
where says that upon the application of any
territory for admission into the Union as a
Sy.fa ,c;th n constitution, folarot;pf, c1oyary
that he would be in favor of excluding il, for
that or any other cause 18th. 1t nowhere
says that he is i'll favor of an Independent party
organization, based upon the agitation of the
slavery question in any form. 1t requires at
least concurrence in one or more of these po-
Sitions to make a man a freesoiler, but yet a
careful reading of the letter will clearly show
that neither one can be properly deduced
from it.
What then, does the letter state? lst That
the Van Buren, organization is impolitic and
nnwise. The rehuke is given perhaps as forci-
bly, as politeness warranted, inasmuch as the
letter is in reply to as courteous an application
as that faction could make. I'd. A legal opin
ION, in which nearly, if not quite, all democrats
north Of the Potomac concurred, and with
which portion Of the south agreed, that the
territory acquired by the treaty with Mexico
was free-that slavery having been abolished
by the Mexican law, the original statns con-
,inued after acquisition, and would continue
until positive enactment and virtue Of law made
il otherwise.
We are aware that Mr.. Calhoun. Judge Ber-
ricn, and others, held a contrary doctrine
Their view was that at the very moment of ac-
QUESTION. the Constitution of the United States,
which recognized property in slaves, fastened
itself as it were with all its privileges, upon the
new territory, as the supreme law, and that by
virtue of the same, slave property could be car
ried there with as much security as any other
kind. 1t is hardly necessary for us to say, that
we concur in this opinion. But we now appeal
TO the democracy of the country, whether this
latter doctrine was ever requredand insisted on
as an article ofparty belief? What convention
ever proclaimed any such end? What plat
form was ever constructed of such material !?
When and where did the democracy accept any
such issue? If the slogan had sounded any
such rallying cry as that, how many of the
chieftains and clansmen would have left their
northern Businesses for the fray? In plain,
downright Saxon, we say that if the holding OF
any such doctrine as that was essential to
soundness, then nearly the entire northern de-
,nocracy was tnsound. The whole question
was one Of lar, and not Of party politics. A
southern democrat even. who sustained the
opinion held BY Judge Bronson, would not have
been considered as deserting either his section
or his party.
Sd. That if southern members Of Congress
should ever attempt TO iasten slavery BY positive
enactment, upon free territory, that it would be
the duty of the north to resist ii: but that, un-
Ill such an attempt was made, true policy de
nanded that the subject should not be agitated.
We again appeal TO the democracy whether
any such attempt ever made; whether the
right to do so was ever claimed by the south.
ern democracy, and whether if j, had been
done, il would have been evidence Of any an.
soundness for northern democrat to have re-
sisted it. A large portion Of the southern de
nocracy claimed that the slave owner, without
any legislation by Congress, has the right TO in
troduce his slave property into California and
New Mexico, but neither that or any Other
portion Of the southern people ever asked any
congressional Legislation on the subject
II would have been contrary to the doctrine
held by tho southern democracy 10 legislate a,
all upon any such subject. II was a matter
outside the Legislative power Of Congress
and TO which its jurisdiction did not extend
The southern democracy would lave been false
10 ITSELF to its own creed, and to It's own in
ierests, had il besought Congress to enact any
law authorizing the introduction Of slave prop.
crty in the acquired territory. And if any such
legislative action had been invoked, we, south.
ern as We are in all our principles and feelings,
boldly say, Judge Bronson and the democracy