Newspaper Page Text
‘♦'You misunderstand the reasons which
(induced me to form this resolution, if you
suppose it can be changed either by repeUt
lig to me the unmerited commendation* of
100 partial friends, of the INFAMOUS and
malignant FALSEHOODS of tkost who 1
jdespise too much to toll them, foes,”
j The Governor is evidently in a bad hu
mor with somebody ; and those who have
approached great men have always found,
often to their surprise and regret, that great
men are but men. Gov, Taste well once ex
ercised a deserved influence over the opin
ions of others—but for years past he has
had but little intercourse with the world, or
with those about him. He has always held
peculiar notions oh the subject of mopey
and currency, and may be classed with the
hard money, money-making, money-loving
men of the present day. It is not surprising,
therefore, that he should get out of temper,
when he finds that there are those in the
community around him who deny the au
thority of his opinions, and assert their de
termination to oppose Mr. Van Buren, his
support to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Governer tells us thnt he does not
recollect that Mr. Van Buren has recom
mended a single unconstitutional act! Now,
to say nothing of the militia bill, and of
Mr. Van Buren’s recommendation of its un
constitutional provisions, what will Gov.
Tazewell say of the proposition to place
the State Institutions tinder the control of a
federal bankrupt law ? Is that not uncon
stitutional ? The proposition was so de
nounced by Mr. Calhoun, and will be so
denounced, we are sure, by Gov. Tazewell,
unless he is under a hard- money mania.
We are indeed surprised to hear a states
man, so experienced as Gov. Tazewell, put
his support of Mr. Van Buren on such
grounds. Does he not know that Mr. Van
Buren’s policy is to recommend nothing. —
He is always exclaiming, “it was not I,”
“I did’nt do it.” But the truth is that Gov.
Tazewell has so long separated himself
from the people, that he has lost his influ
ence over them, as he will find in yielding
to those who have provoked this letter is a
means of controlling them. The people
intend to elect old Tippecanoe, and it is
useless for the Governor to get into an ill
humor, or to use any hard names about it.
He can’t prevent it, and it is the part of
wisdom to submit with dignity : for submit
he must, willing or unwilling.
From the Reformer.
MR. FORSYTH.
Some days since we noticed the antici
pated visit of Mr. Forsyth to Georgia, to
reclaim the sinking fortunes of Loco Foco
ism, to which theatre he had been called
by the drooping spirits who are now endea
voring to prop the Administration. In this
dirty work, however, the office-seeking
Secretary has been disappointed, by a pain
ful malady which overtook him at Freder
icksburg, Va., while on his way to Qeor
gia, and he was compelled to decline the
pleasure, but has taken the occasion to
send his ‘'loving friends ” a Circular, not
“hoping to find them in the same state of
health,” but warning them against aboli
ti on and its evil consequences. The Sec
retary, either from the influence of his bod
ily malady, or from that mental agony
which a place man feels when anticipating
defeat, has perpetrated a very weak and
feeble Circular, and one for which the in
telligent portion of his “valuedfriends” will
not feel under many obligations, in their
particular strait. He has not made the
slightest attempt to defend the Administra
tion on a single charge that has been pre
ferred against it, but has contented him
self with an account of the progress of abo
lition in Europe, and concludes with a let
ter from the Pope of Rome to his brethren
in Spain, in which he denounces slavery.
Severe as the Secretary’s “ disorder ” may
be, we opine that the voice from Georgia,
and the Union, will produce upon him who
loves office so well, a disease,which will en
able him to travel with more facility from
Washington, than his recent effort has evin
ced. Since the above was in type, we have
received a letter from a gentleman now at
the North, eontaning the following extract
from his Washington correspondent: t
“ Mr. Forsyth started for Georgia a few
days since—got as far as Fredericksburg,
Va.—heard that it was all up with him in
Georgia—feigned sick—returned to Wash
ington, and is now here, more sick at heart,
than in body.” 0
From the Southern Recorder.
Mr. Forsyth is out in a political circu
lar, and we consider it the weakest effort
of his life, whether its manner or its matter
is the subject of criticism. It is most ordi
nary in style, and its matter is absolutely
sillier than the usual partizan flummery
which floods the newspapers of the day.—
The only thing creditable, so far as its
composition may be regarded, in the whole
affair, is the letter of the Pope of Rome to
the Catholics of South America, which
Mr. Forsyth gives us by way of an appen
dix, and which shows very clearjy that
the Pope is anti-slavery, and on that ac
count is probably deemed by Mr. Forsyth
highly objectionable as a candidate for the
Presidency of these United States. He is
a better writer than Mr. Forsyth, any way,
and no more of an anti-slavery man than
Mr. Forsyth’s political friends, Gov. Mor
ton, Mr. Bancroft, Van Buren’s Collector,
Brownson, another of Van’s officers, of
Massachusetts, or Van’s leading N. York
organs, the Era and New York Post, to say
nothing of the Van Buren candidate for
Governor, whom the Whigs of Vermont
have lately so signally defeated. The
Pope is no more anti-slavery than these po
litical friends of Mr. Forsyth and Martin
Van Buren, and thousands of others that
might be enumerated ; and we see no good
reason why Mr.Forsyth should be so piqued
with the Pope, and yet so cordial, political
ly at least, with scores of others who think
with the Pope on this subject. But we
have neither time nor room for further com
ment on this bald and decrepit political es
say. We leave the matter to be further
discussed between Mr. Forsyth and the
Pope, who have more interest in it a great
deal than the people of Georgia.
COMMUNICATIONS.
No. 111.
It is true that Gen. Harrison has advo
cated llie doctrine, that the constitution be
stows upon Congress the Internal Improve
ment power, and in accordance with such
opinion, has voted appropriations of money
for national works. But it is not true that
he is therefore a Federalist: In order to
prove this by such opinions and votes, it
would be necessary to show, that they have
been uniformly entertained and given by
federalists alone —that they have been adop
ted and advocated by the federal party ex
clusively, and never have been entertained
by the republicans, nor could be, by one
professing the republican creed. The Ad
ministration of the elder Adams is general ly
referred to as being most federal in its mea
sures, and dangerously latitudinous in its
constructions of the constitution. Now,
during this Administration, not a single
act was passed by congress in the exercise
of the internal improvement power. It is
not denied, however, that Mr. Adams con
ceded the power to Congress. But so did
Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, Mr. Monroe,
John Quincy Adams, Gen. Jackson, and
Mr. Van Burfti. We find the following
sentiment in the last annual message of Mr.
Jefferson. He is speaking of an expected
surplus of revenue. “ Shall the revenue
be reduced ? or shall it not rather be appli
ed to the improvement of roads and canals,
&c.” Mr. Madison, in his last annual
message, made use of the following lan
guage : “ The importance which I have
attached to the establishment of a univer
sity within this district on a scale and for
objects worthy of the American nation, in
duces me to renew my recommendation of
it to the favorable consideration of Congress.
And I particularly invite again their atten
tion to the expediency of exercising their
existing powers, and when necessary of re
sorting to the prescribed mode of enlarging
them, in order to effectuate a comprehensive
system of roads and canals, such as will have
the effect of drawing more closely together
every part of our country, and by promo,
ting intercourse and improvements, increas
ing the share of every part in the common
stock of national prosperity.”
The following is an extract from one of
the messages of Mr. Monroe. “Good roads
and canals will promote many very impor
tant national purposes. They will facili
tate the operations of war, the movement of
troops, the transportation of cannon, of pro
visions, and of every warlike store, much
to our advantage and the disadvantage of
the enemy in time of war. Good roads
will facilitate the transportation of thp mail,
and thereby promote the purposes of com
merce and political intelligence among the
people. They will by being properly di
reeted to those objects, enhance the value
of our vacant lands, a treasure of vast re
source to the nation. To the appropriation
of the public money, to improvements having
these objects in view, and carried to a certain
extent, Ido not see any well founded consti
tutional objection.” In these extracts from
the messages of Presidents Jefferson, Mad
ison and Monroe, it will be perceived that
the constitutional power over the subjects
of internal improvements, and the expedi
ency of using it are distinctly and unequiv
ocally recognized and conceded. Were
they federalists or republicans ? By whom
were they placed in power ? Mr. Jefferson
was the founder of what has been termed
the republican party, as contradistinguish
ed from th efederal. Mr. Jefferson’s sup
porters were termed the republicans. Mr.
Adams’ the federalists. Mr. Madison, af
ter Mr. Jefferson, was the great leader of
the republican party, and ( though opposed
by Mr. Van Buren,) was placed -n power
by its adhesion and support. Mr. Monroe
was the candidate of the same, and so dis
pirited and broken down was the old federal
party that he was run and elected for both
of his presidential terms without opposi
tion.
Do the editors and partizans of Mr. Van
Buren recollect’these facts, while charging
General Harrison with federalism, for en
tertaining the same opinions ? Do they act
a fair and honest part in the game which
they are playing ? Is it manly and honora
ble to tell the people that the General is a
federalist for the above opinions, and yet
tell them Jefferson, Madison and Monroe
were republicans. Why do they not tell
the whole truth ? Why do they not inform
their readers and friends that the opinions
of Gen. Harrison upon the subject under
consideration, were the same as those of
Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison and Mr. Mon
roe. By doing this they know that they
would convict themselves of absurdity, or
calumny, and that the people knowing the
whole truth would repel with indignation
their shallow reasoning, their impotent
conclusions, and their unjust and libellous
attacks upon an able statesman, a success
ful commander, and a virtuous, honest,
and patriotic citizen.
I could show, were it necessary to tax
the time and patience of the reader with the
extracts, that Gen. Jackson repeatedly vo
ted as a member of the Senate of the Uni
ted States, for objects of internal improve
ment by Ihe General Government- So 1
did Mr. Benton, Richard M. Johnson* *nd
many others of the “Democratic party.”
It is strenuously, pertinaciously, and ma
lignantly urged against Gen. Harrison, that
he voted for the celebrated bill of 1817.
“ To set apart and pledge as a funff for In
ternal Improvement, the bonus ams United
States share of the dividends of the National
Bank.” This is charged upon General
Harrison as an unpardonable crime, without
the’ least regard whatever to the feelings of
oldi friends or recent al lies. One migh
have supposed, that the relationships lately
established between the Administration,
and a distinguished 1 Senator from South
Carolina, would have wrested from the
former, this special weapon of attack. But
not so. The game has become so desperate
that it must be used even, if, in the thrusts
which are so desperately and wantonly
made—Mr. Calhoun must receive the deep
est wound. What is the history of this bill
of 1817 ? Who was its originator, and un
der whose aupices was it carried through
both houses of ihe National Legislature.
Unfortun atelv for the present position of
Mr. Calhoun and his pretensions to politi
cal immutability and infalihility he was the
patronymic of this bill, and to the shame and
confusion of the slanderers of Gen. Harri
son, let it be known, that two thirds of the
members of the Republican party were its
constitutional sponsors. It was absolutely
considered at the time to be a republican
measure, and as proof of the fact, it not
only received the votes of two thirds of the
republicans, Mr. Forsyth and Col. John
son being among the number, but it was
opposed by the votes of more than two-thirds of
the Federalists. We will now look for a
moment to the career of Mr. Van Buren,
to see what has been his course in reference
to the subject matter of this disquisition.—
There is no necessity to go as far back as
1817. We can catch this upright and
consistent democrat in the federal folds of
this system some years later. We find him
in 1822, voting appropriations for the Cum
berland road, and also for the establishment
of United States toll gates upon that road.
No one can deny that this was the highest
and most doubtful exercise of power over
the subject of internal improvements, that
has ever taken place under the constitu
tion. But Mr. Van Buren it will be said
has changed his opinions. Beit so. Up
on what question has he not changed his
opinions whenever his purposes required’ it.
This is one of the many objections that may
be urged against him. Mr. Van Buren’s
present opinions upon this subject, can- be
no recommendation of him to the South, even',
if that section of the Union is opposed to the
power in question, upon both constitutional
grounds and expediency. There is not the
least probability, that Congress will seek
to use it, as heretofore, except for purposes
to which there could be no objection from
any quarter. While Gen. Harrison stilT
entertains his former opinions, opinions
held in common with many of the old lion
hearted Patriots of the revolution—those
who fought and bled for the liberties which
we enjoy, he nevertheless believes that as
the States and private enterprize have done
and are doing so much for Internal Im
provements, it would now be most expedient
for Congress to abandon the exercise of the
power for all public works, but those of a
character essentially necessary, and the ac
complishment of which, comes neither with
in the province nor the means of the States.
This is no desertion of former opinions, no
right about face Van Buren manouvre for
political effect, but a wise and statesman
like view of the subject—a salutary con
formity of the legislation of Congress to the
actual state of affairs ; a just and proper
abandonment of the use of a constitutional
power now rendered inexpedient because
no longer necessary.
I think I may now safely say, (whatev
er views the reader may entertain on the
constitutional question) that Gen. Harri
son’s opinions and votes in favor of Internal
improvements, can by no means convict
him of federalism. If they make him a
federalist, they place him at least 1 in very
good company. They put him down by the
side of some, wh6 saw the flame as it as
cended from the sacred altar of ’76 ? who
threw into it the incense of their hearts, that
it might ascend to Heaven in invocation of
the God of battles to shield us from danger
and to crown us with victory—they place
him by the side of the wise and grey head
ed fathers of the constitution who framed
and devised it, and who knew how to ex
pound it, and under whose counsels and
auspices we have gone on from infant great
ness, to the strength and glory of manhood.
And the people will soon place him where,
by bringing back the government to the
measures which originated in the wisdom
of those ancient fathers, he can shake to the
flying winds, the innovations and experi
ments, the delusions and usurpations, by
which that strength has been temporarily
shackled and that glory obscured only to
burst forth with increased and I trust un
fading splendour. MADISON.
Washington, Wilkes County, Ga.
September 23, 1840.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NEWS.
Sir: —The frantic agonies, and malignant
howlings of the organs of the present Adminis
tration, are cheering evidences of the signs of the
times. The people have aroused themselves
from their slumbers of years, and the hissing of
the crushed vipers, the pimps and parasites of
power, attest the mighty energy which they have
brought to the rescue of the country. After
every public, free discussion of men and mea
sures, the defeated minions of the present dying
faction, retreat yelling and howling back to their
dirty kennels, like whipped curs, and pour forth
their treasured venom through those common
sewers of filth and falsehood-—the Van Buren
press of this State. But it is all in vain—their
organs are known and appreciated by the pub
lic. They have ceased to exert power for good
or evil. Nobody looks for any thing but false
hood from them sand nobody is ever disappointed.
Their only hope left, is to bring down other chan
nels of public information to a level with them
selves ; but they have miscalculated the intelli
gence of the yeomanry of the land. They have
no longer power left to betray or deceive them.
Let every patriot rejoice thereat.
One of the favorite topics of these scavengers
of party, to gull the public, is abolition. They
evade the great issue formed by the country
against the Administration, though they have
ruined the currency of the country—plundered
the treasury —punished virtue, rewarded vice—
annihilated our commerce—destroyed our credit
at home and abroad—lifted up free negroes on a
level with free white men, at the ballot box and
in courts of justice—and recommended a stand
ing army of 200,000 men, to silence those whom
they cannot buy; they evade all these, and still
cry, ** Abolition ! abolition !! abolition !!!”
What are the facts 1 Harrison voted with us on
the Missouri question ; he now, and at all times,
declared the measures of the abolitionists weak,
presumptuous,, and unconstitutional. That
if slavery be a sin, it is our sin ; if an evil, it is
our evil. That the non-slaveholding States have
no constitutional or other right to interfere with
the question in any way ; his conduct has at all
times corresponded with his declarations. All
of which is sufficient to satisfy any honest South
ern man. Van Buren, on the other hand, has
supported, by his votes and declarations, every
unconstitutional principle for which the abolition
ists contend. No abolitionist contends for the
right, in Congress to interfere with slavery in the
States ; but they do assert,
Ist, That Congress has power to abolish sla
very in the District of Columbia;
2dly, In the Territories ;
3dly, To prevent the commerce in slaves, be
tween the different States and Territories.
Van Buren yields every point. He has de
clared Congress has power to abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia. He voted on the Mis
souri question, that they possessed that power
over the Territories; and he voted in the Senate
of the United States, on the Florida question, in
favor of preventing the internal trade in slaves.
Freemen of Georgia ! be not deceived. Ixx>k
on this picture and upon that, and say at the bal
lot box, which of the two is the abolitionist.
Your fellow’ citizen,
TALIAFERRO.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDE
PENDENT PRESS.
Sir. —lt has been my peculiar pleasure,
to read your very witty remarks in your
last paper, in reply to my castigation of
the 10th inst. However you may mani
fest a disposition to evade and throw off
the responsibility of defending your favor
ite candidate for the Presidency, in all his
“deeds of misrule and disgust,” by throw,
ing yourself upon the platform of dignity
and privileged order, I am happy to assure
you that sush slang will not satisfy the un
prejudiced anxious searchings of the peo
ple after truth—those who are the advo
cates of a free and independent govern
ment, looking with no ordinary degree of
hatred to every thing which borders on a.
rislocracy, or has in the least the appear
ance of subverting that noble principle
which is contained in our declaration of
rights, “ that all men are created free and
equal.” Upon this broad basis is placed
the only hope of the future security of a
people who were born to be free, and made
so, by the straggles, the efforts* and the
blood of or forefathers, and who have, the
most of them, long since slept with their
fathers in the land of silence. And pos
sessing, I trust, a feeling of high respect
for the liberties of a people, with whom I
was bred and born, I deemed it no very
great departure from the track of duty,
when I assumed the responsibility ofdirect
ing them to the quick sands of danger, and
with all‘the true and patriotic feelings of
an American, warned them to flee the wrath
that threatened the temple of liberty.
And as far as you are concerned, it was
perfectly a matter of indifference with me,
whether your opinions were taken into con
sideration with those who may have read
the controversy between us, believing that
your political ethics were made up of such a
strange combination of materials, that it
would require all the Nullifiers and Demo,
crats of the age to unriddle them. In fact
I did not seek your opinions—and to use
your own very courteous and classical man
ner of expressing it, I “would not give a
button for your opinions on any subject
whatever.”
In reference to your epithet of “ small
fry” which you have thought it necessary
to call to your aid, by way of disentangling
yourself from the net you have fallen into,
I have very little to say—but in the lan
guage of a great man,on a similar occasion,
I remark, that “respect for the public, and
for myself, allow me only to say that like
other similar missiles, it has fallen harm
less at my feet, exciting no other sensation
than that of scorn and contempt.” If you
intend the appellation, as applying to hum
ble parentage, I admit the correctness of
the epithet—l sprang from parents poor,
but I trust honest —who gained their living
by the “sweat of their brow,” and occupied
no better dwelling than that thrown togeth
er by the handsof industry—presenting not
to the passing stranger the appearance of
a costly dome, but the more humble hovel
of a “log cabin,” with the “string of the
latch always out.” If this admission will
answer your purposes, I am perfectly wil
ling that your vanity should be fully satis
fied, by making any use of it which your
dignified character may permit you to do.
For, be assured, that it has been a point
“nearest my heart,” to live with an eye sin
gle to the good of my country at large —
the respect of the community around me—
the honor of a young and growing family—
based upon a good name, of which, I trust,
I have many living witnesses.
But, the appellation of small fry seems
applicable in another sense, in which it
affords me no little pleasure in using it.—
You remark, that you had “committed an
error in condescending to notice Dr. Price’s
questions.” No doubt of it—the people
of Wilkes, who have been carefully exam
ing the controversy think so, but it seems
that you did not become informed of your
condescension soon enough to escape the
frying which 1 gave you. Those who were
present at Mallorysville,well remember the
singling out, in a public crowd, our humble
self, and then and there applying the lash
—why did you not argue your questions bd
fore your own people, and tell them the
wondersofthe Administration without deal
ing with small fry, or “condescending,” to
notice “every little upstart itching for no
toriety,” at a public meeting of your party,
where the controversy between us should
not have been called in question. Sir, you
have discovered your mistake too late—
you seemed not to have had sagacity suffi
cient to see your “error in condescension,”
until you had fallen into the “fryingpan',”
and now it shall be my prerogative to deal
with you “as seemeth good and if I have
been so fortunate as to be “thrown out up
on the surface of the great political waves,to
catch minnows and other small fry,” I am
particularly cheered with my success in
getting you entangled in the net, as one of
the species so beautifully described by your
own pen. Sir, your case as connected
with this controversy, very much reminds
me of an old friend who was not very stead
fast in matters of truth. The old gentle
man was not, by the way, particularly
fond of smallfry, which will more readily
appear in the sequel, and atone time sta
ted that he had eaten eighteen shad —the
brethren hearing of this remarkable coinci
dence, arraigned the brother before the ec
clesiastical tribunal—the charge was made
and proof adduced ; the old veteran, how
ever, strong to his purpose, insisted on the
correctness ofhis statement. Being ques
tioned as to the possibility of such a thing,
he stated, that he had “fryed them all up
into a double handfull f!” The application
is with you.
I now come to the discussion of the ques
tions propounded to you—though I almost
feel it unnecessary to touch them again,
as yow have virtually admitted the correct
ness of my charges against Mr. Van Bu
ren, by entirely passing over them in si
. lence ; but as there are other and more im
portant matters of fact involved in this con
troversy, than tllie mere settlement of it
between us, I shall again revert to them,
and argue them singly.
1.. Can you sustain the charge, that Gen.
Harrison is an Abolitionist ? To which
you reply, in a very vague manner, that
Gen. Harrison, considers it “a calumny to
be called friendly to slavery —calling it an
evil, moral and political.” Well, here is
strongproofof Gen. Harrison’s abolitionism.
Was Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Mon
roe, Madison, and hundreds of other public
men, Abolitionists ? You will answer me
■ emphatically, No! Did they not possess
opinions similar to those of Harrison ?
Yes—then, why were they not termed Ab
olitionists ? Because at that day, such
charges were not found to answer the ends
of a few designing politicians, and corrupt
demagogues, for the purpose of proping up
a sinking dynasty. But fearful, that some
hold may be taken, I will quote the express
words of Gen. Harrison, so often harped
upon by the opposition presses, to show
how utterly farthey fall from proving him
an abolitionist through that medium. He
says, “ I am accused of being friendly to
slavery. From my earliest youth up to the
present moment, li-have been the ardent
friend of human liberty. At the age of
eighteen, I became a member of an aboli
tion society, established at Richmond, Vir
ginia.” Let the anxious enquirer after
truth observe when this letter was written,
and the circumstances under which it was
penned. The letter was written in 1822,
upwards of eighteen years ago, when Gen.
Harrison was a candidate for Congress
from the State of Ohio—he living in a non
slaveholding State, and being opposed to
slavery himself, which his yarmest advo
cates do not deny, found it necessary to re
fute a charge made against him, for elec
tioneering purposes, the purport of which
was that he was friendly to slavery, because
he voted with the South on the. Missouri
question. His reasons for voting with us
on that question are plainly and emphatical
ly expressed in his own language, which I
shall quote. After stating his connection
with the society in Richmond, which was
to procure the “freedom of slaves by every
legal means.” He says:
“ I deny that my votes in Congress, in relation
to Missouri and Arkansas, are in the least incom
patible with these principles. Congress had no
more legal or constitutional right to emancipate
the negroes in those sections of Louisiana, with
out the consent of their owners, than they hawe
to free those of Kentucky. These people were
secured in their property by. a solemn covenant
with France when the country was purchased
from that power.”
Now I ask any candid mind to point out
any thing improper in this ? Does it not
bespeak a bold and fearless spirit—a spirit
which skulks from no contest nor evades
question. But, says he, “I became a menu
ber of an abolition society at the
eighteen, in Richmond, Virginia.” WWIt
let us examine this also. The opponents
of Gen. Harrison are very careful and ju
dicious, when using this as an instrument
of opposition, not to inform us what was the
nature and object of this society, No, they
keep this in the back ground,—and deal
largely in epithets—it was called an abo
lition society, that is all sufficient for them.
I will explain what I understand to be the
object of it, it was to obtain the release of
such slaves, “ and procure their freedom by
every legal means,” as were kidnapped and
brought there by dishonest scoundrels w
were flooding the country with them, and
making slaves of them, whose title to them
were as flimsy and thread-bare as the
charges made against Gen. HaiVlson—in
deed he was the “friend of human liberty”
—the battles fought and the victories won
in the cause of his country, all, all, pro
claim him to be the “ardent friend of hu
man liberty.”
Another feature in this picture, to
the fallacy of applying it to Geii. Harrison
to prove him an Abolitionist is, that it
was formed upwards of fifty years ago—
and that in Richmond, Virginia, a slave
holding State, and slaveholders members
of it. Is it not a fact beyond contradiction,
that at that time such a being as an Aboli
tionist, according to the modern term, would
have heen as strange a sight in Richmond
as a Baboon in a pulpit—such principles
as are now held and propagated by the Ab
olitionists were not dreamed of fifty years
ago when Gen. Harrison was a member of
the society referred to. It carries contra
diction in the very face of it. But coming
down to a later period in the history of Gen-
Harrison's public life, I quote from his
Vincennes speech to show his opinions in
reference to the Abolitionists and their
schemes of horror and death—and after
reading them, let him that would dare cir
culate the foul slander, take care that he
does it not in public—least his veracity
may be called in question, and his devotion
to Party become stronger than his love of
country. He says:
“ I have now, fellow-citizens, a few words
more to say on another subject, and which is, in
my opinion* of more importance than any other
that is now in the course of discussion in any
part of the Union. I allude to the societies
which have- been formed, and the movements of
certain individuals, in some of the States, in rela
tion to a portion of the population in others. The
conduct of these persons is the most dangerous,
because their object is masked under the garb of
disinterestedness and benevolence; ana their
course vindicated by arguments and propositions
which in the abstract no one can deny. But,
however-fascinating may be the dress with which
their schemes are presented to their fellow
citizens, with whatever purity of intention they
may have been formed and sustained, they will
be found to carry in their train mischief to the
whole Union, and'horrors to a large portion of it
which it is probable some of the projectors, and
many of their supporters, have never thought of;
the latter, the first in the series of evils which are
to spring from this source, are such as you have
read of to have been perpetrated on the fair plains
of Italy and Gaul by the Scythian hordes of
Atilla and Alaric ; and 6uch as most of you ap
prehended upon that memorable night, when the
tomahawks and war-clubs of the followers of Te
cumseh were rattling in your suburbs. I regard
not the disavowals of any such intentions upon
the part of the authors of these schemes, since,
upon the examination of the publications which
have been made, they will he found to contain
every fact and every argument which would have
been used if such had been their objects. lam
certain that there is not in this assembly one of
tliese deluded men, and there are few within the
bonnds of the State. If there are any, I would
earnestly entreat them to forbear, to pause in their
career, and deliberately consider the conse
quences of their conduct to the whole Union—to
the States more immediately interested, and to
those for whose benefit they profess to act That
the latter will be the victims of the weak, injudi
cious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional efforts
to sen e them, a thorough examination of the sub
ject must convince them. The struggle (and
struggle there must be) may commence with
horrors such as I have described, but it will end
■ with more firmly riveting the chains, or in the
utter extirpation of those whose cause they ad
vocate. Am I wrong, fellow-citizens, in apply,
ing the terms weak,"presumptuous, and uncon
stitutional, to the measures of the emancipators 1
A slight examination will, I think, show that lam
not.”
In his Cheviott speech, he says :
“ If 1 am correct in the principles here ad
vanced, I support my assertion, that the discus
sion oh the subject of emancipation in the non
slaveholding States, is equally injurious to the
slaves and their masters, and that it has no sanc
tion in the principles of the Constitution.”
I now call upon those who are the gratu
itous distributors of the charges made
gainst Gen. Harrison calmly and dispas
sionately to ask themselves, how it could
be possible for Gen. H. to have been an
Abolitionist 50 years ago, and still be one,
and yet use such language and apply such
epithets as are used in the quotations above?
A further elucidation of this part of my sub
ject! is unnecessary. I hope that honest
hearts and better heads will bestow the
meed of praise where it is mostly deserved.
2. Did not Mr. Van Buren oppose the
admission of Missouri into the Union, be
cause of slavery ? This you did not deny
—you cannot deny it successfully ; but as
I have before me a preamble and resolu-
