Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-03-23

lis the Patriot CT 1910, so and 81, Eaen no
Democratic necromaneer held sway at Washing
ton, or the Patriot Of 1854 most likely 70 speak
the honest sentiments If the editors heart, and
the true and acceptable doctrines 'of Democracy
Every one can Judge for himself dalss have my
opinion.
In your paper of March Sd, you formally open
the batteries of the Patriot in favor of the Ne
braska Bill in favor of the repeal Of e,e Mis-
souri, Compromise, and in favor of the doctrine
of non Intervention, by t'ngress, with Slavery
in the territories Democracy has not thus been
Taught in Vermont before, an 1871, the Demo-
cratic State Convention proclaimed .he doctrine
of Intervention, by Congress to prohibit Slavery
in the territories already free. as one of the doc.
trines OF the Democratic partyof Vermant 1t
pledged the party to the principles Of thc Wilmot
Proviso In 1913, after Gen Cas- had Commit
ted himse f to the non intervention doctrine. in
his famois Nicholson letter, the State Conyen-
ton OF the Democratic party passed resolutions
distinctly and dire lily repudiat;as that daclrne
and claiming that Congress had Gepowr III pro
hibit the introduction Of Slavery into. trce.tsaza
tory, and ought mmcdiale'yto crcz;Ii
was before the union of the DemS
Suffers in 1919 Nov, sir, ~
repeal of the Missouri Comps o1ll:
the doctrine of non inteventon, v5IFs
enc OF tlleestablished doctrines of the Fem
Of Vermont, repeatedly affirmed by Cenvs
Of the party both Stale and County enl adVo3
Gated by its leaders III the editorial ranks aad BY
none more zeaously than yourself!
But upon what ground do you now rerr.'inn
the doctrines of the. Vermont Demacrar aD.
seek to sustain the rsLea Of the Ali.-~~>; 90.
promise. and tn principles Aof. non i.fs 4
You say that the Missouri comptau. ap.s.sy
federal measure and that
-" they attempted under The speco,ss ysstefss
of seeking to resist the further sp cad of Slavery
to form = NoRTHERN party, which.w I'm .hem
selves for its leaders should be completed hnbued
with their old Fede al doctrines and perfectly \
subser,ient TO their intcie ss We repeat, that
the whole controversy out of which grcw the IA
nous Missouri compromise acas more a struggle
fer geographical p0ccr than contest To ;,rerent
The ritcasion Of S'arcry, though Slavery vas the
Osteosble source of the contest
Yo tn II proceed to make extracts from letters
which parport to have been written by Mr.. JEFF
fesson, both be ore and after the Missouri Com.
promise, which you adduce as proofs Of the corr
RICHNESS of your position Now, sir. have
great respect for Mr. Jefferson, and for his prin
pies, but cannot consent to take the stateme
even of Mr. Jefferson, of fact, as trte, if
evidence i'll the case proves tina, he WAS n,istakt
You undertake to establish the postio that
was Federal measure to establish :" Norther
party,' to rtnstate the Federa|isis II power =
Now, sir, did Southern Democrats lola with th9
Federalists to form Northern Federal party
Do you believe that Did not the Southern men
who W re in Congress, understand as well az
MIR. Jefferson, or yourself whether the design of
the Missouri Compromise was to build upa
Northern Federal partly If they did, do you,
or does any body, believe that they would all,
both Democrats and Federalists, have united in
such project No body is stupid enough to be-
lieve any snch thing. Wei, then, what are the
facts ! The Compromise, as it now stands in the
! clSIth oCN'loH VI itiC dCl vi bouEicsS hppCoStu
March 9th, 1929, was first introduced into Con-
gress by Mr.. Thomas, Senator from Illinois, acho
had Arrays roted against the Missouri restriction
as applied 10 the State, ,riM the S0atA, and it f. i,
nally passed the Senate by "a yeas to 30 nays
D-J7the yeas embraced erery Southern Senator,
ercept Nathaniel Macon Of North Carolina and
William Smith Of South Carolina! With two1
exceptions, all the Southern Senators, whe'he
Democrats or Frd'raIsts votedln its favor, Th9
nays embraced a. the Norihern Senators, bot
Federaliss and Democrats, except two Senate
from Illinois, one from Rhode Island, and Of
from New Hampshire At this time the lead
of the Democratic party were from the Sou
, and among the distinguished Democrats in Il
+ Soutl, who voted for that measure, was VILLA
$ KING, late Vice President. elected on thu
! same ticket with Franklin Pierce In the House
r its most distinguished champions were the most
f distinguished and influential Democrats Of that
day with Henry Clay, a Democratic Speaker, at
their head. 1t was approved by a Democratic
President, with Democratic Cabinet, among
whom were William H. Crawford, John G. Cal
houn. and William Writ all Southern men! 1t
was rather Southern Democratic than North
ern Federal measure. 1t was e-eminently q
Southern inca ure, and was resisted by them
ern Democrats and Northern FederalistrtSseih9
The Northern Federaists we're alii;auS
to dividing line between Freedes
as the Democrats, and some Of the
guished of them, resisted the mef
insisting that all the territory Should be free. and
that no more Save States should be admitted into
the Union. The idea that the Federalis,s were
the peculiar champions of the Missouri Com.
promise, and were in favor Of establishing rr,-
graphical division between Slavery and Freedom
is entirsy fa~cieus, sad Is cou,radicted BY the
facts in the case.
You next fer, MI. Editor, to Mr. JeGsI lT
disapprnyal of the Compromise because
lished "a line of division between ,sdl1i
tons of our confederacy" coincidl
marked principle, moral and politicaS
evil, even in MIR. Jefferson's view Of itN
td6hshng such line, and not in maintaipnS(
after one party to its establishment has reabsa 4
all the benefit that ii ever can from it Does any I
body, who knows anything of Mr. Jeierson's
principles, believe that he objected to it because
it restricted Slavery, or that he would now vote
to repeal the act establishing it, and throw open
the door to the introduction of S avery into the
Territory hithpytn nrnt,ctaJ h, al NJ, a;r NJ