Boston, June 5, 1848.

Mr. Editor:ーThe principal topic of interest here, is the nomination of General Taylor by the Whigs.

If anything were wanting, after the quiet submission with which the Northern Whigs received the annexation of Texas and the war with Mexico, to show their complete subserviency to the South, we have it in the alacrity with which they generally respond to the nomination of Gen. Taylor. The Whig papers of the North have pretended that opposition to the extension of slavery is one of the principles of the party. Many of them have denounced the Mexican war as unjust, outrageous, and unconstitutional. Yet now they advocate the election to the Presidency of the military chieftain who commanded the army of invasion, who, in his proclamations to the Mexicans after the first battles, justified the war; who has "never yet expressed a political opinion;" but whose celebrity has arisen solely from his success in the war; who is one of the largest slaveholders in Louisiana; and who has yet to express the first word in opposition to the extension of slavery. Not a Whig paper "in good standing" in Massachusetts, has refused to support the nomination. The Boston Whig of course opposes Taylor; but this does not form an exception, for that high-toned journal was long ago excommunicated from the party.ーWm. S. Robinson, Esq., the late editor of the Lowell Courier, deserves honorable mention. Since the nomination of Taylor, he has retired from the editorial department of the paper. He cannot, he says, as a Whig, support the nomination, and retain that self-respect which is the most valuable of an honorable man's possessions. The Boston Journal, the Salem Gazette, and papers of that stamp, which have made some pretension to anti-slavery feeling, have fallen into the pack, and joined the cry like so many whipped spaniels. The Courier, the most liberal and independent "sixpenny" in Boston, has thus far preserved a non-committal course. But I have it from good authority, that although the elder Buckingham firmly refuses to write a word in favor of the nomination, the paper will finally support Gen. Taylor.

The course of the Northern Whigs during the last four years, shows that they are either most cowardly poltroons, or most miserable hypocrites. They have been noisy in this clamor about Northern rights; they have been justly lavish of their denunciation of the Democratic party for its adhesion to slavery; and yet, in the midst of their professions, they go to Philadelphia, and hasten to outdo the Democracy in devotion to their Southern masters. While the Democrats nominate a demagogue and a doughface, but still a Northern man, who has never held a slave, the Whigs put up one of the largest slaveholders in America.

I was at a Whig ratification meeting in a neighboring city a few evenings since, where one of the speakers, a delegate to the Convention, piously said he believed there was a hand of Providence in the nomination of Gen. Taylor. Were it not that "God is everywhere," we should have no reason to suppose He was in the Whig Convention. Another speaker, the Hon. Geo. Lunt, of Newburyport, attempted to manufacture some thunder for himself from the fact that he was the only one of the Massachusetts delegation who voted for the nomination of Taylor, thus glorying in his shame. He tried to make it appear that the nomination of the General

was in great peril at one time in the Convention, and that if he had not come to the rescue, it would have been great. In the course of his remarks, he said, referring to Judge Allen and Mr. Wilson: "I do not wish to cast any imputation upon the other members of the Massachusetts delegation, but as for them, I repudiate them now and forever."ーIt really moved my indignation to hear a creature like Lunt, the Northern man with Southern principles, the man conspicuous in the Legislature for promoting a vote of thanks to the American troops for their success in invading the homes of the Mexicans, and slaughtering the women and children; the man who, as Chairman of a Committee of the Legislature on the subject of slavery, insulted the lamented Follen, who was, in his characteristic quiet and gentle manner, addressing the committeeーto hear such a man talk of repudiating Judge Allen. A ruffian repudiating a gentleman—a jackass a lionーwould be as much in character. Mr. Allen is not as consistent an anti-slavery man as he ought to be, but he is incomparably superior to the Hon. George Lunt, as a gentleman and an honest man.

The Post published a day or two ago a correspondence between one S. D. Bradford, of Roxbury, and some Southern slaveholders, touching the Jackson's slave-trading transaction. It seems that Bradford felt grieved that Theodore Parker, in his "Letter to the People of the United States," should have accused his "lamented friend: of having been engaged in one instance in the domestic slave-trade, and wrote to some of the General's intimate friends to get a refutation of the slander. The refutation amounts to this, that instead of the General's having driven (in 1841) a coffle of slaves to the South and sold them there, he drove a gang from the South to his plantation, where some of them still linger out a wretched existence. He took them for debt.

There is a difference 'twixt tweedledum and tweedledee.

ENO.