Washington sentinel., 1853-10-11
THE NEW YORK FREEsoILERs.

We see in many quarters futile and rdicu.
Ions efforts made to establish the belief that
the New York free.soers abandoned their dis
organizing hereses and planted themselves on
the national platform durngthe last presidential
canvass. Their condition forced them to vote
the democratic ticket; but that was all if the
declaration oftheir organ, the New York Ecen-
ing Post, and of many of their prominent lead
ers, arc entitled to any consideration.
That journal, Immediately after the adjourn
ment of the Baltimore convention abjured the
platform and affirmed, impudently and stouty,
that il was entitled to no consideration. because
it was not actually adopted but was put to the
vote by temporary chairman. and pronounced
carried at a moment of disorder and confusion
when only few individuals knew what was
going on. The Post accepted the nominees, but
repudiated the platform as the work Of the con
vention and its words were quoted by the Scott
journals throughout the middle and southern
States. in order to injure the democratic nomi-
nees and degrade the democratic party by in
culcating the beliefthat IL had not planted itself
on broad national grounds, but had undertaken
TO cheat and deceive the people by putting forth
spurious declarations as to principles and in
tentions.
The action of the frce-soil leaders at the last
session of the New York legislature, and in
the meetings to send delegates to the Syracuse
convention. and their violent and unprincipled
conduct at that convention, were in keeping
with their previous venality. and make the proof
conclusive that they never intended to fall into
the ranks Of the national democracy but in
tended to seize on its organization and WELD it
for their selfish and corrupt purposes. 1t is
vain to prate of the union of lS49. There was
no legitimate union effected then. There was a
coalition for Office. and nothing more. The
attempt was made at Rome TO unite the frag
ments of the party on basis of common prin-
cples. but it failed because Mr.. John Van Bu-
rem and his disorganizing followers would not
consent to any basis that did not recognize
their treesoil heresics Afterwards coalition
was formed at Utica by dividing the State Offices
but. it was one of those impure alliances that
good men will sometimes Weld to because of an
out Slde pressure. ana uluef the IL
lead to a lawful and reputable connection.
No one can have forgotten the course pursued
by the freesoil leaders in and out Of New York
Immediately after the pretended union of 1919.
While the glavery question was before Congress
in 1850. they had 10 association with the nation
al democracy. but were bitterly and ferocous-
ly hostile-eager to foment discord and make
their reasonable purposes effective When
these things are fresh in the public mind is il
not an insult to the public intelligence to say
that. in ls49. the freesoilers had reentered the
democratic party. and were bound to it BY law
ful bonds And when these and subsequent
events are considered. is it not an outrage
on common sense TO affirm that the freesoil
party has ever abandoned its hercscs and
broken up its distinctive organization Or to
represent them as men holding national union
sentiments. and actuated by an honest desire
10 serve party which they have betrayed ?
Such conduct. coupled as il must necessarily be,
with an effort to blacken the character Of men
like Daniel s. Dickinson. G. c. Bronson, and
Charles O'Coupor by painting them as fac
tious disorganizers, merits and will receive the
stern rebuke of the sound democracy of the
country.
ESSAYS have been put forth on the policy Of the
President, and that policy has been generally
confined TO consideration of the appointments
10 Office in the State of New York. This course
is calculated to degrade the chief magistracy
and infict irreparable injury on the administra
ton, in order TO prop up the fortunes of hand
ful of bad men, to whom the party owes nothing
but Indignation and scorn. Has it come 10 this,
that the policy of an administration is to be
narrowed down to the manner in which office
is distributed? Is It's position on all the grea,
national and international questions that have
divided parties, to bc thrown aside as matter.
...l.l - - ,...o,,;a,o /, . NO., ., Ia ,,r,