The Marshall Statesman And The Liberty Party

Our neighbor of the Statesman has advanced several positions in his discussion ot the policy of a third party, which deserve attention. - Among other things, he soys that all theoriee, all governments, all religión, all principies in moráis, all literature, all science, is at wnr with 8lavery. It is the cur6e of God, and the nation who inflicts it, even as his agent, hns been cureed. How much more those who enslave the innocent. The Editor then asks, Shall we make such a qnestion a party qiiestion1?" We answer yes; and chiefly because this curse of God' is upheld, defended, and perpetuated by the action of both our national parties. Wbile other influences ai e pressing hard ngainst it, these parties sustain it. The Statesman will not deny that the whig party, as such, as a whole, is decidedly proslavery- Tbat paper will not contend that the national whig party is either neutral, or ani-slavery, but must we think concede that it is in favor of sustaining this curse of God,as deraonstrated by the folio wing specifications: 1. While they have been in power, with a whig President, and a majorüy in both Houses, they have continued the slave auction3 at Washington nearly two years.and for anything that appears to the contrary, they intend to give the traffic the national eanction through all coming time.2. They keep in Blavery in the Federal District thousands of immortol beings who are constitutionally free. 3. They hold 25,000 in Florida whcm they might constitutionally set free by act of Congress 4. Tliey have greatly endangered the peace of the country, by demanding a compensation or price for freemen, whotn they termed alavés. 5. They have committed the inlerests of our country very largely into the hands of the tslaveholders, bynppointing about tvvelve out of fifieen foreign ministers from that class, wlule the poptiïation of the free States to that of tha Slave States is as two to one. 6. They have refused to recieve the remonsirances of tens of thousands of legal votes against these outrages, thereby insulting them, nnd their sacred rightg. 7. They have selected for their next President, as "the embodiment of whig principies," a man who holds elaves by physical force, and has avowed liimself against all emaneipation, gradual or immediate. Thus slavery is upheld by the action of the political whig party; and henee it is that we are compelled to act politically to obtain the removal of this national curse of God which flipv nnhold.The Statesman quotes from us as follows: "Aain, we have whig metnbers of Congres. Have they ever advocatcd 'the pure principies of human líber tij there? Jay, hove they even defended the t i 'ghts of their conslilumls when they have been trampled on in boih Houses?" We wrote these questions in reference only to our own metnbers frorn this State. We now repeat Ihe question . Have Woodbrtdge and Portbr, and Howard even defended the rights of the legal voters in this State? Have they not suffered a gag in each House to be in force continually without qne word of remonstrance? Will the Statesraan answer? - And if ihey have not done it, what reason have we o think their whig euccessors will? The Statesman thinks we did Mr. Taylor tnjustice in saying that if elected to Congtess he would not defend and carry out the principies of human liberty as contended for by abolitionists, and enumerates us efforts in Ihe Legislature of New York, in securing the passage of the jury trial law, defemling the right of petition, Sec. To this we need only say, that we had no intention of misstating the position or sentiments of that gentleman, (who is favorably known to us by reputation. although not personally,) and when we knowthat he defends the principies of tke Liberty party as openly and fully as he now does a protective tariff, we vvill readily adir.it that he would defend them if elected to Congress, and will cheerfully retract whatcver we raay have said to the contrary. We intended to say something of the Follovi ing extraordinary positions: "We assert that the whigs of tne northhave, on all occasions done all that lliey could do for the cause ofhnman liberiy; and that an effort to do more than they have done, would, like every effort of injudicious zeal, have resulted in injury to the slave." But we leave thia to the consideraron of our readers, merely asking them how long before the Gags will cease, or slavery be abolished, if their representatives and senators continue to do as they have done. Our ncighbor of the Statesman is very prone to dweil on the acls of lYorthern whigs, just as though the southerners did not coristitute any ponion of the party. Now thisis not a fair representation of the case. -The party is a national one- a unit- and is responsible for all its rational doings. He who votes a whig ticket, acts ín unisón vvith Clay and Stanley, and Preston, and tnany other womenwhippèrs, not a few of whom are ready to hang up every abolitionist -like a dog."- Wliy then attempt to draw a distinction between Northern and Sodthern Whigs? ore they not all responeible for the acts they jointly produce?