Worcester Daily Spy

Whig Hypocrisy

In answer to the arguments of Free Soil and other Anti-Slavery speakers, it has been constantly affirmed, that the Whig party, in the Free States, is essentially an Anti-Slavery party,—that its principles are abhorrent to the vile system, and that the only ground of difference between the Whig and the Free Soiler, is in the choice of measures. Thousands of the voters of Massachusetts are retained in the Whig party only by the belief that the resolutions of former campaigns are still valid, notwithstanding the statute of political limitations, the defection of the arch-apostate, and the Fugitive Slave Bill. In other words, the Whig party of Massachusetts would lose more than half its members if they knew the honest sentiments of their present leaders. A few instances will show, conclusively, the spirit which now governs the Whig press.

A man was recently lynched, in a southern State in defiance of law and of the constitution, merely for the expression of his sentiments while listening to a Secessionist orator. As our papers had dwelt with suitable indignation upon the forcible liberation of Shadrach, it might be supposed that such an open infraction of our great bill of rights, by Southerners, would be as severely commented on. But the Boston Journal, a sheet whose apostasy from the cause of freedom and humanity, is only equalled by its satanic hypocrisy, narrated the lynching in words which no free man could read in cool blood. The matter was with this religious and Anti-Slavery Journal an excellent joke, and "glad of it," "good enough for him," was the burden of the whole article. Other papers commented upon the same account, but none with such pro-slavery gusto as this infamous sheet.

The question of gradual emancipation, it is well known, has been prominent in recent elections in Kentucky. Cassius M. Clay, aided by a body of friends, whose talents and character will equal any similar number of men in that or any other State, has been striving against the perpetual feature in the pro-slavery constitution of Kentucky. One would think, that in such a cause, the whole North would have but one feeling, one voice; that the hearty encouragement of every lover of impartial liberty would greet the ears of this band of undaunted patriots, and that every sign of progress would be hailed with delight. How is it with these Whig editors, who have, heretofore, with bland voices declared that they were "as much opposed to slavery as any one else?" How much sympathy have they to bestow upon men, who at the risk of reputation, and of life itself, are battling for the great cause under the very Upas-shadow of this system? To know fully, read the Journal's account of the vote received by Cassius M. Clay. The vote amuses this paper wonderfully, and the editor evidently thinks it a very laughable affair. The same paragraph was stolen by an obscure print in Worcester, (though marred in the stealing,) and was inserted, probably, for the purpose of showing to the Anti-Slavery voters of this city, its sincere attachment to the sacred cause of liberty, and its sympathy with those who are endeavoring to prostrate that system to which the Whig party is so sincerely and resolutely opposed!

Can hypocrisy go farther? After all these open, palpable instances of devotion to slavery, will Whigs stultify, not to say forswear themselves, by protesting their unalterable attachment to liberty? Even if they should so protest, will the good people of this free commonwealth longer believe them? I proposed, Messrs. Editors, to mention other instances which have occurred within a month, but will leave the subject for another day.

Truly yours,
Daniel Boone.