Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1858-07-17

ms Republicans.
Resoired That hcnceforth all compromises with Sla-
very are Mt end, and ralying cry shall hence
forth he the repeal Of the Fugitive Slave Law, and Of
he inter STATE Stare trade. 1nE ABOLITION or SLA-
VERY IN THE D1srmCr OF COLUMBIA, the prohibition
of Slavery in all the territories of the United States,
and the admission Of no more Slave States into the
Union"
The Freeman claims that this was the first
organization of the Republican party in this
State and that the resolutions did not pass with
out the protest of the editor of THE PHOENIX.
We may as well observe at the outset that we
have never conceded the right or power of that
convention to bind us in any form or manner.
1t was not convention of the Republican par
ty of Vermont upon its existing basis, or any
thing similar thereto. 1t was like it only in
name. In June, 1854, the Wings of this State
met in convention at Rutland, in numbers I'M
usually large. That convention nominated Ste
phen Royce for Governor, Oscar L. Shafter for
Lieut.. Governor, and Henry NJ. Bates for Treas
urer. Mr.. Shafter, who was about to leave the
State, declined, and the Wing State Committee
subsequently substituted the name Of Ryland
Fletcher in his place. This ticket was called
the Wing ticket, and Gov Royce was elected
as a Wing and nothing else" The wings at
that time constituted a majority of the voters in
this State, and none ofthen attended the Mont
pelier convention save bakers dozen or so
who had axes to grind, or personal or local in
terests to serve. Even these were guilty ofthe
same double-dealing that has lately character
lied the actions of some Of our prominent men.
We denounced such conduct then and we de-
nounce it now. We protested against the bind
ing effect of any resolutions got up inthat way,
and our protest still holds good.
But conceding for the purpose of this argu-
ment that the convention of July 10, 1854, was
a Republican convention in such sense that
the Republican party as it is now organized, is
bound by its action, how far do these resolu-
tons go to prove the assertions of the freeman.
" The repeal of the inter State slave trade" is
cited. Is that principle of the Republican
Collamer, who is as good lawyer as he is a
sound Republican, made q speech, in which he
said, in reference to this very point, that the
Supreme Court of the United States had de-
cided that jurisdiction in one branch of a case
carried with it, entire and complete jurisdiction,
over the whole subject. Hence the power to
legislate against the inter slave trade between
the Slave States i'm plies the power to establish
the same trade between the non-slaveholding
States-a consummation not very desirable to
the North. In this view of the case the claim
of such right on the part of Congress would
not be very desirable
"The abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia" is relied upon to sustain the position
of the Freeman. Since the retrocession of a
portion of the District of Columbia to Virginia
we believe no effort has been made to procure
the abolition of slavery in the remaining por-
ton of the District. Among all the resolutions
adopted by Republican State Conventions, as
well as the National Convention, we do not re-
member having seen a single one making that
plank in the Republican platform. But grant
that both of these are Republican principles and
sanctioned by the party in the State or nation,
we cannot see that their exercise affects in any
way the status of slavery in the States. They
do not go so far as that except by very doubt
~! !l ,,rT'.'' "a, 4ecoru OF f6o4 anu depGs fix
all that is claimed for it we are unable to see
how it sustains the position assumed by the
Freeman.
In 1856 the Wing State committee and the
State committee appointed by the Montpelier
convention of the preceding year, united in the
call for State convention, which convention
took the name Republican" In further sup
port of its position the Freeman quotes the first
of series of resolutions adopted by that con-
vontion, to wit
"Resolred That do hereby re-affirm in all their
parts the resolutions and pledges of the State Conven-
ton Of the treemen Of Vermont held the 18th of Ju-
ly, 1854"
Now by conceding that the convention of the
18th of July, 1854, was Legitimate Republican
convention,-that the resolve against the slave
trade between the slave States and the re-
solve favoring the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia, were sound Republican
doctrines,-all of which assumptions we deny
and give the reasons for our denial,-what is
proved Not what the Freeman claims. to wit;
that non-interference with slavery in the States
has not been promulgated as Republican doc
trine, but simply this, that interference was by
one set OF men, at one time recognized.
But let us examine the record a little further
The Freeman quoted the first resolution of 1855.
1t could not be that its editor read the whole
series. If he did not he was careless if he did
we hardly see how any one but him could adj
vance the doctrine he is contending for. The
9th resolution of that same series from which
he quotes reads as follows -
Resolred That in the sentiment of " No SLAVERY
OUTSIDE OF THE SLAVE STATES" SLAVERY Lo-
CAL FREEDOM NATIONAL" implying that Slavery, a
local evil and the creature of local law is TO be t G
erer andista'bed By the Federal Government IN he
states ~here crisis and its extension beyond that
INIT forever excluded by positive prohi6ition-we
nhd ground OF settlement Just alike to the Slave-
otates and the free and therefore practicable and wise
FOR such settlement pledge our support and here
by invite the cooperation of all the States in the Union
disposed to meet the question in the spirit of Justice
and patriotism"
If that resolution does not ustain THE Pup-
MIX so far as this paper has undertaken to de-
fine the position ofthe Republican party of Ver-
mont on the question of Slavery. then we con-