The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1856-05-27

ZIONIST,
/ And we desire the reader, as he goes along,
to bear in mind that Mr.. Fillmore has never
revoked, cancelled, taken back, or disavow-
| ed in any shape or form the opinions and
sentiments he has uniformerly expressed in
| favor of abolitionism. The inference is,
therefore. irresistible that they are his set
tied and cherished principles, which he
would act upon and carry out whenever an
opportunity might be presented for him to
do SO. 1t is impossible that Southern
people can sustain man with such re-
cord, for the important Office of President
of the United States, at this important cri-
SIS in the history of abolitionism. We de-
sire also that the reader bear in mind that
it is such man that the Know Nothings are
supporting, while they have the impudence
to charge Gen. Pierce with abolitionism.
We are indebted to the columbia Times"
for the drawing up of the following sin
dictment," from the record, against Mr.. Fill
more. The Times is an american"
paper, but one of the number, that cannot
swallow Willard Fillmore, although he has
been tied to ''greasy" Southerner, to
make him 60 down the more readily.
Is Mr.. Fillmore an abolitionist In proof
of the affirmative of this question, we adduce
to go no farther back in his political
history-his votes in Congress in 1885,
In December of that year, Mr.. Anterior,
of New Hampshire, offered the following
amongst other resolutions:
That all attempts on the part of Con-
gress to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia, or the Territories, or to prohibit
the removal of a slave from States TO States
or to discriminate between the institutions
of one portion of the COnfederacy and
another, with the views aforesaid, are IN
violation of the constitution, destructive to
the fundamental principle on which the
Union of the States rests, and beyond the
jurisdiction Of Congress-
There can be no doubt that this resolu-
ton enunciated principles vitality important
to the South-principles which underlie the
Constitution and are the very bulwarks of
slavery. Were the South to concede that
Congress has the power to abolish slavery
in the District of Columbia, or the Terri
tories, or to prohibit the Interstate slave
trade, she would betray into the hands of
her enemies all the defences which the Con-
stitution has thrown around her peculiar
interest. The principles embraced in the
resolution are the very opposite of aboli-
tionism, and any one who should refuse his
hearty assent to them, must, by consequence,
be an abolitionist. Now, we find that Mr..
Fillmore voted against the adoption of Mr..
Atherton's resolutions. 1t follows, there
fore, that he was an abolitionist in 1888.
He also voted against the following resolu-
ton, offered by Mr.. Wise of Virginia -
THAT Congress has no power to abolish the
slave-trade, or to prohibit the removal of
slaves between the States and the District
of Columbia, or Territories of the United
States" On the 18th day of December of
the same year, he voted for the following
resolution presented by Slade, of Vermont,
a VIGOROUSLY rabid abolitionist:
"NVhereas, there exists and is carried on
between the ports in the District of Colum-
bia, and other parts of the United States,
and under the sanction of the laws thereof,
a trade in human beings, whereby thou
sands of them are annually sold and trans
ported from said District to distant parts of
the country, in vessels belonging to citizens
of the United States: and whereas such
trade involves an outrageous violation of
human rights, is disgrace to the country
by whose laws it is sanctioned, and calls for
the immediate interpoSition Of Legislative
authority, for its suppression:
Therefore, to the end, that all obstacles
to the consideration of this subject be re-
moved, and a remedy for the evil speedily
provided, Resolved, That so much of the
fifth resolution on the subject of slavery
(AthertOn's) passed by this House, as re-
LdteS TO the remOuaL Of SLaUes, from State to
State, &C., be, and hereby is rescinded.'
Who has not heard of the infamous reso-
luton offered in Congress by the infamous
Colt, which proposed that the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia should
be referred to the people of the District for
their decision at the ballot-box, and that the
SLaUes themselves should be aELOwed to cote
IN the decision Of the question:! We do not
now recollect in what year precisely the
resolution was introduced, but we well
for it. His vote on this squestion alone
would stamp him an abolitionist of the
blacklist hue, were there not another particle
of evidence against him.
1t is fresh in the memory of every intelli-
gent man, that, for many years in the early
history of abolitionism, Congress was flooded
with incendiary abolition petitions. To put
stop to the fearful inundation, which
threatened to engulph all other legislative
business, and to prevent its undermining the
Constitution and the Union, the House of
Representatives adopted the celebrated
'2lst Rule" which was in these words:
''No petition, memorial, resolution, or
other paper praying the abolition of slavery
in the District of Columbia, or any State or
Territories of the United States, in which
it now exists, shall be received by this
House,or entertained in any way whatever
A rule manifestly right and proper; for
no petition should be received or entertained