New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1853-07-23
SATURDAY MORNING, JULY %, 1855
THE COURIER REFUTED.

growing DISSATISFACTION OF tne Unioh uelho
has induced many of the prominent party pa
pers devoted to the President reluctantly 10
support his appointments. In these enorts 70
excuse the Administration, not oeihg apie "
deny any longer the miserable and dirty coaii-
ton which gave them victory at the price OF
shame and dishonor, they boldly athrm, ruth
out anu eridenee Of a change Of principles,
that many of the recipients of Executive
patronage were freesoilers, but that they are so
no longer. This may be the case with some
few, although we doubt it, and in the absence
of any remuneration of freesoilism, the pre-
sumption is that they still wage unrelentng
war upon Southern institutions,
Hear the Louisiana Courier
"Some Of these men (ofice- holders) may have
been freesoilers few years ago; but the true
question is--are they freesoilers NOW ? Were
they freesoilers when General Pierce appointed
them Have they been freesoilers since the
compromise act and the fugitive slave law went
into effect If they show themselves to be
under the influence of the exploded and obso.
lete sentiments of the freesoilers at this mo-
ment then, as we have more than once declared,
the President is semi officially bound to dismiss
them from Office.
Yes, neighbor, the most of them are freesoil-
ers now, and were, moreover, freesoilers when
they received their appointments They have
been g freesoilers since the Compromise act and
Fugitive Slave law went into effect and yet,
instead of President Pierce's doing, in that
event, what you declare he would, he hugs
them the more closely to him, and with lavish
prodigality heaps favor upon favor on them, at
the expense Of the honest and patriotic men,
bers of his party.
The freesoil organ, and the most powerful
and influential Of the freesoil leaders, did, whilst
declaring for Pierce and giving him the heart
lest support, announce to the country that they
and their freesoil friends not only regulated
,cith seorn md Indignation the siauery resO-
buttons of the Baltimore Convention, but
deemed the election of General Pierce the best
mode of achieving what remained. una
chieved of the old abolition platform made by
them in 1S4S. We will cite some paragraphs
from those organs to show how unfounded and
preposterous the assumption is. that, because
they sustained the Baltimore nomination, they,
thereby, approved of the platform of the Balti-
more Convention. The Albany Atlas, in speak.
ing of the Baltimore Convention, repudiates the
platform in the following language:
cas- it is, we know that the parties are his
torical in character, and are to be judged by
their traditional principles, and by their iden-
LITIGATION with present measures, and net by
platforms and that conventions which re-
quire the concurrence of ttc0-thir and other
safeguards, and assent 10 their nominations,
and shuttle off their resolutions NTH barren
tn0jorif,I III rho c{OSP g-ec0GUjzp ms fUrf ~
When has the Atlas endorsed the Compro-
mise When has it demonstrated any loyalty
to the principles of tho Baltimore platform
When has it ceased to be the firm and undeviat-
ing supporter of the freesoil faction in the State
of NewYork' Yet this very sheet is recognized
by the Administration as the exponent of its
views and policy, and is the recipient of the pa
tronage Of the Government.
The following is from the Buffalo Republic,
the oracle of the Van Buren, party of 48;
"We 20 for Mr.. Pierce with pleasure We
are entirely satisfied with him. He is the man
for the times. But as for the resolutions of the
Baltimore Convention on the subject of slavery,
we have nothing to do with them. They do not
express cur sentiments or the sentiments of any
considerable portion of the democratic party of
the free Htates''
The Buffalo Commercial says, in reference to
the sentence of communication by the Wash
ington Union. that it amounts to nothing so long
as the patronage of the Administration is Law
ished upon abolitionists.
The following is from the n Y. National Dem
ocrat. 1t clearly shows what kind of feeling is
vegitating in the minds and hearts of the con-
aervatiue democrocv nf NAuVort
But while such dsorganizing freesoil and
abolition organs as the Evening Post are fiat
tered with the favors Of the Administration,
they may be expected to treat with cool derision
or slight contempt such unmesning bulls Of ex-
communication as this flaming but harmless
pronunc iamento of the Washington Union''
To denounce the Buffalo Republic one day
and give $1,000 worth of advertising the next
looks not very consistent or apparently very
sincere. The Hon. B. f. Butler, in his reply to
Mr. Chase clearly shows that he did not place
himself upon the Baltimore Platform, Hesays
"The slavery resolution of the Baltimore
Platform Irejected promptly and teithout re
serue,"
"Ihaue no desire to Explain a,Uay or quQl.
Vy any Of the pledges Of the Buffalo Platform.
They bind as to opposition, perpetual and IN
compromising, TO the encroachments Of the
slave potcer, and to uRcedSing efforts for free
soil, free speech, free labor, and free men
Mallory, Campbell, Hays, and host of other
freesoilers, during the Presidential canvass re-
pudiated the slavery resolutions in the very
breath that extolled Gen. Pierce 1t was only
the ether day that Mr.. Hays, the o. s District
Attorney for Illinois, reiterated his freesol prin
ciples in letter addressed to the public
Our readers have an abundance of fact.
spread before them to be competent to Judge
how wholly baseless are the assertions of tn,
democratic organs, that the treesoiers, by the
adoption of General Pierce as their candidate
adopted the Baltimore platform. The organ
of the freesoilers declared most unequivocally
against the platform on their own part and on
the part of the faetioR. If the freesoilers had
designed that their support of Pierce should b.
regarded as an endorsement of the Baltimore
democratic platform, they, at least some of then
organs would have made it known We ask
Can any proof be advanced that they ever ex-
pressed their appreciation Of the Baltimore nlot.
form' On the contrary, they uniformly dis
countenanced it. We are told by the Wosbi,,,
ton Union that "there trere Northern d,ma-
Gratis ,oho had been ia favor of the tV;J,po,
prouisO, and more recently opposed 10 n,
adoption Of a portion Of the Conpronise ;.
who were members of the convention. But We
deny most emphatically that they sanctioned
the platform. If they did SO, We challenge the
III Il.