The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1856-07-08

the democracy was cut down, and q free
soil know-nothing Congress elected. But
seeing the mischief likely to result from
this, many patriotic wings within the.last
twelve months have united with the demo-
Gratis, and enabled them to carry the State
elections; and could they have at the same
time voted for members of Congress, we
should have had an entirely different rep
~esentation in the present House. Is it nots
strange that gentleman in the position of
Mr.. Reade should not know that the cleo
tiOns of members of Congress in the North
took place two years ago, or in 1854, and
not last year, in 1855 You would natu-
rally suppose that even if he did not read
any of the newspapers when at home, he
would at least, by few months associa-
ton with the northern members. have as
certained at what periods their elections
came off, and thus avoided the mistakes
which he makes on the 10th page of his
pamphlet.
AIy colleague also assails President Pierce,
on the ground that there are among his
appointees to Office free-soilers. The men
alleged to be of that class hold compara-
lively subordinate stations; and on behalf
of the President it is contended, that in
every instance, before any such were ap-
pointed, they were understood to have pro-
viously abandoned their former obnoxious
views, and adopted the national principles
of the democratic platform of the Baltimore
convention of 1852. But to test my col
leagues consistency, let us see how Mr..
Fillmore stands on this question. He Is
presented by Mr.. Reade for your sufrages,
as man without fault. In my canvass
last summer had occasion to put this mat
ter right, and / repeat what l then in sub
Fillmore's cabinet from tho free States were
Messrs. Webster, Corwin, and Hall. Mes
SIS. Corwin and Hall, both, during their
Congressional course, showed themselves
in their speeches and votes to be not only
free-soilers, or Wilmot proviso men, but
thoroughly anti-slavery in all respects,
neither of them, to my knowledge, having
differed with the abolitionists on any prac-
tical question. Mr.. Webster himself had
repeatedly voted for the Wilmot proviso,
and on one occasion claimed the authorship
of that principle, and said that Wilmor had
''stolen his thunder" In his speech of the
9TH of March, 1850, which was regarded as
conciliatory in it's tone, he said that he
would not vote to put the Wilmot proviso
on the Mexican territory, because in that
territory slavery was already excluded by
the existing law, and the proviso was unne-
cessary. In making this statement, do
not wish to detract from the general liber-
ality of Mr.. Webster's views on that coca
sion. AS to Mr.. Fillmore's appointments
in the North to foreign missions, and other
high stations, they were in every instance,
a far as l know, made from the ranks Of
the free-soilers Or Wilmot proviso men,
By free-soilers, I intend to designate all
those who were in favor of Congress, by it's
legislation, excluding slavery from the ter
ritory of the United States. A great many
of these appointees of Mr.. Fillmore were,
by their service in Congress, personally
known to me, and as far as know or be-
lieve, they were in that sense free -soilers.
If he ever did make an appointment in q
free State to any Office of a person who
had shown himself willing that the common
territories of the Union should be opened
to southern men and their slave property,
as we'll as to northern ones, do not know
it, and have no reason to believe it. Nor
did Mr.. Fillmore, in making these appoint
ments, require the individuals to renounce
their former views.
The case, then, between General Pierce
and Mr.. Fillmore ought to be thus stated
General Pierce appointed few men who
had been free-soilers to inferior Offices, af.
ter they had renounced their former views
and professcd conservative national sem
timents, while Mr.. Fillmore appointed
from the North to all Offices, high and low,
none but free-soilers, without requiring
them to renounce any previous opinions.
If, therefore, Mr.. Reade is opposed to
Pierce for the reason stated by him, he
ought, if consistent, to oppose Fillmore with
ten times as much zeal. I regret to be
compelled to go into this matter, because
Mr.. Fillmore, when President, in accor-
dance with his oath of office, showed him
self willing to execute the laws as well for
the benefit of the South as the North,
and was otherwise conservative in his ad-
mlnistration. But, gentlemen, waving fur
thef notice of Mr.. Reade's letter, the prin-
cipal points of which have sufficiently ex-
amined, let us turn our attention to the pres
idential candidates now before the country.
James Buchanan, the nominee of the de-
mocracy, is statesman admirably fitted
for the station of Chief executive of the Uni
ted States. His opponents are charging
him with his having held certain erroneous
opinions forty years ago, in his yonth.-
With as much fairness it may be affirmed
that Mr.. Fillmore was an abolitionist, be-
cause, at a much later day-viz: 1885,
when a candidate for Congress, he declared