The Whig Party "Antislavery."

1 vo or threo weeks sincev, we referred to nn article in the State Journal which asserted tlmt 'the Whig party - the tohole Whig party, north nnd south - is becoming more and moro antislavery." Th is was news to us. We called upon the Journal to show, if it could, that "the whole Whig party" had ever pertbrmcd a single anfislavery act, or tlint it had expressed through its conventiona n. single antislavery principie. The Journal has replied, asserling that "the Whig party is the only true anlislavenj party ," and adducing the resolutions ofConvcntions, kc in support of its poáition. Nono rcjoice more sincerely than we do to find the views and principies ofour political antagonistsapproximating toour own, and at first sight it might look rather ungracious in us to put on a repulsive aspect, whiJe our ncighbor, the organ of a proslavery party, is trying with all lus might to bring up his lagging brethren to the antislavery standard. And here we will take occasion tosay thal wearewell convinced that the Editor of the Journal is at heart a sincere philanthropist, and labors for the amelioration of society. - He goes for public economy, for a radical reform in our judiciary, for temperance, for peacc, for good moráis, for political integrity, for general education, and for the extensión of private and social virtue. The addilion of antislavery to thw catalogue of excelloncies secms to be naturaland proper; and since he claims it, we are disposed to concede the appellation, in a restrictcd sense, to the Editor and his paper. We have not forgottcn the remarkable uncourteosnes.:,not tosa y abuse, ivhich ourselves persopally and the Liberly party have received at the hands of that paper; but we make ita rule in these matters to overeóme e vil with good, by overlooking all personal indignities and injuries, whilewe are earnest and uneonipromising in contending for tnatters of principie. Besides, these faults to which we refer we attribute in this case rather to the embarrassirig position of an anlislavery Editor, acling as an exponent of a proslavery party, than to any intention of wilfully doing us wrong. Dut to return. While we thus concede to the Editcr and his paper as much antislavery character as they shall prove to be entilled by their works, we can by no means admit that "the whole Whig party" is, in any sense, antislavery. As this is a favonte assertion of a portion of the Whig press, we deern it worthy of examinatiün, that we may know whether the assertion be true in any sense, and if and if so, to what extent.The prefix "anti" implies opposition of feeling or aclion, or bolh. Thus every body knows that an Anti-mason was one who was opposed to Masonry, and acted ogainst that institution in every proper eflectual way, by talking, lecturmg, writing, printing or voting against ir. The same is true of an Anti-Monnon or Anli-Papist. The prefix al w aya implies opposition. Let us upply this principie to the case before us. In what sense, then, is the whole Whig party opposed to Slavery? i f there be any opposition, it will be manifested ín its principies and its acts. We will examine each of these in order. lë to Sla ver y a Whig Piunciple? In ascertaining the principies of a party, we know oí no better standard than that laid down by Greely of the N. Y. Tribune, as follows: "We recognize no Whig doctrine hut those which tie Whig party has avowed through its convenlions; we deny the right of any man toputforlh any of-her as Whig doctrines, lf any man or body wishes an article added to the Whig creed, ]et him submit it to the next National or State or City Whig Convention; ifadopted there we will recognize it as Whig doctrine to the exlent of the aulhority of the body proclaiviing il: but we cannot have every man who controls types or makespeeches altering our principies at pleasure."huw Miuius me case.' Liet us apply this standard to ihe Whig party. If the whole party are anti-s!avery, they must have declared it at some National Whig Convention. Can any tliing be found in their proceedings? It cannot! They were silent on Slavery, except that they unanimously nominatcd for President a man who has publicly declared in reference lo acquiring Texas, "I.donot think that the subject of Slavery ought to affect the question one toay or ihe other."Nonalional VVhig Convention has uttered a syllable n favor of nntislavery. The most that can be fairly claimed by the Journal is, that the whole Whig party, in their national capacity, have not expressed any opinión on the subject, one way or the other. But perhaps the Whig parly in a ma jority of the States have come out for antislavery. What arethefacts? There are twenly-six States, all of which, (unless South Cnrolina be excepled) have held Whig State Conventions. How many of ti.om jmve declared for antislavery as a principie of the party? The State Journal cites one- Michigan.- Here, then, we have one Whig State Gonvention for antislavery, andFivE ore silent or are opposed to it! Does this look like "the whoh Whjg party" being antislavery? But beforo we go any further, let us examine the nature of the antislavery of the Whigs ofthisone Sfate - Michigan: becauso. if the Liberty pnrty and Whigs of Michigan hold the same sentimcnts, they may perliaj)S act togelher. The Journnl quotes from resolutions passed by thcm last July at Marshall, as follows: "That this Convent ion regard the annexation of Texa to the United States. :is an open viojationof treaties, &c. - and as the last resort of Locofoco Iree tradors, andsouthern nullifiers to extend and perpetúate the instituí on of slavery, and to dissolve the Union." We donotsee that the Whig party hero took any ground directly for themselvcs against Slavery. But we wil] suppose them pledged to the full extent against the extensión and perpetuation of slavery by admitting Texas. It does not appear that they iiad any objection to niain taining slavery as it is in all the States, Territorios and the Federal District: and the same Convention unanimously voted that t!ey had full confidence in a candidate for the Presidency whodeclared that in this very matter of admitting Texas "it would be umcise to refuse a permanent acquisition (Texas) which will exist as long as the globe remains, on account of a temporary institution" (slavery).1 luis we find íhnt ono Whïg Slate Gonvention was, in the smallest sense, nntislavery, and tipenty-fivc were not aniislavery in nny sense. Let us now descend to the Congressional disfricls. Wc Itave not before us the proccedings of any out ofour State, but the Journal snms up its testimony in behalf of our three districtsas follows: "Congressional District Convention, at Clinton, in August last- "Tlmt the principies of tho Whig party may be sumnied up to be a tarJ} which shall protect the industrial interests of the country, &c &c, and opposition to the annexation of Texas to the United States with its slavetj and its debts." Similar, or more pointed resolutions, against the extensión and perpetuation ot slavery by annexation of Texas, were adopted by the conventions of the western and northern districts - all our districts nominated an5ai-evcandidatss for Con?ress."1 líese resolutions, it will be seen, only express opposïtion to the extensión oí slavery by tlie admission of Texas. - They said nothing aboutabolishing slavery in our nation, or any part of it: and if the Journal at any time nttempts to convey an impression that this was the case, it does it uníairly. Henee ve see ihat the antislavery oftheWhigs and ofthe Liberty party are totally unlike iri character - the one is conservativo and defensive ngainst the slavery oChJoreign nation, the other radica!, aggressive and destructive ofthnt which curses our own land. But the Journal refers us to "the repeated adoption of antislavery resolutions by the Whig Legislatures of Vermont and Massachusetts, and the antisluvery resolutions introduced inlo the New York Lcgislature, & voted for by every Whig." This we are willing lo admit as evidence of the antislavery s'entiments of the individual members, but they are no dcclaration of the principies ofthe Whig parly in those States. Had they been, they would have found expression through their State Conventions. We are not aware ihat the Whig Conventions of those States have taken any othffr antislavery ground than that involved in opposition to Texas.In answer, then, to theinqujry, whether opposhion to slavery be a Whig principie, we findthat "thé whole Whig party," in their national capacity, have taken no position respecting it whalever: that the Whigsofonly four States have expressed themselves ngainst Texas slavery in a State capacity, and their opposition extended only to the slavery of a foreign nution: leaving twenty-two States in which they have been altogetlier silent respecting it: while in not one of the twentysix States, so far as we know, have the Whig party, through their State Conventions, expressed the slightest j tion to oppose the existence of Slavery in any part of the United States! If such be the facts, we would respectfully suggest to our neighbor whether he has not done much injustice in ascnbing to his party a principie of action to which siich a vast majority of them seem to be entire sirangers. U'o come now to our second inquiry-"Is Opposition to Slavery a Whig Pjiactice?" A fair way to test Uu's, is to show what I they might have done, and what they have done. They have had a rnnjority of both Houses of Congress and a Presidont of their choice. 1. They might abolish the abominable SlaneTrádeíh Washington. 2. They might have set free every slave iu the Federal District nnd in Florida. 3. They might have abolished the traffic in slaves between the States. 4. They might have repealed tho odious; unconstilutional and unchristian act , of 1793. j ,5. Thcy might have used the power of the Federal Gcvernment for discouraging Slavery by appointing only NonSlaveholders to ofiïce. All these things they might lmve done, or at ony ratc, they might hnv o attemptcd to do them. Y of hot a single one of them has been donc,or has been attempted; and yet the State Journal, in the face of these facls, has the assurance to state that "the whole Whig party" is becoming more and more antislavery, and it is "the only truc antislavery party!" While, however, we thus disagree to the nssertion that the Whig party is already antislavery, we are pleased to find the State Journal is laboring for its conversión, and that it is al ready spoken of by many of its readers as an abolition paper. We would not ihrow the least obstacle in the way of its reformatory efforts, but we can not permit its erroneous statements on antislavery subjects to pass unnoticed.