Newspaper Page Text
MR. DAWSONS’REPLY TO MR. CAL
HOUN.
Gkeene-bjro’, 28th Aug., 1833.
To the Editors of the Recorder and Journal .-
Gentlemen: —You will favo.- me by pub-
Hsbing in your paper, the enclos' d reply to the
communication ot the Hon. John G. Uaitioun,
published some short tunc since in iJK* intel
ligeacer, and other papers.
Respectfully,
VvM.C. DAWSON.
•1 have read a communication of the Hon.
Mr. Calhoun, of South Carolina, to the pub
tic, published in the National I ntelligencer, pur
porting to be a reply to certain parts of a speech
delivered bv me tn Congress, on the Bill mak
ing appropriations for the suppression ol Indi
an hostilities, and to carry into cli’ i t the
Treaty with the Cherokee Indians, &c., de
livered on the 31st day ot May, last. 1 his
communication 1 can not consider otherwise
than very extraordinary ; and have had some
difficulty in conjecturing the object the honor
able Senator had in making it—and perhaps
I aril now mistaken in the impressions made
on mv mind, as to his object and his motives;
he certain y has in a great measure mistak n
mine. His communication is marked, with
language at least uucourteous, and by no means
justified by the speech he replies to, or war
ranted by those rules of action which have
usually governed bis course ; a.'l this however
I disregard--the speech and his communica
tion are before the public. The Senator says,
“ whatever may have been my motive, I have
done him great injustice, both in what I have j
stated, and in what 1 have omitted to state,” i
which (he says) is his object to correct by his i
communication. I can assure him 1 designed :
to do him no injustice. But the honorable |
Senator alledges, that “ 1 have done him great
injustice in what I have stated,”
lean not find in the extract he has made
from my speech, even disconnecting it, as he
has done, from the preceding and subsequent
parts, a single allegation or charge against him.
My remarks were directed against the Gene
ral Government. The Senator, as Secretary
of War, negociated the Treaty of 1819, with
the Cherokee Indians ; what I said in relation
to it ho has applied to himself—be it s>; he
perhaps had his object and motives in assuming
his position.
The question suggests itself, what pnrt of
the speech has done the Senator injustice?
The fol’owing extract is cited by him, I pre
sume, as an evidence of the charge :
“ The‘lower towns,’ who thus made known
their desire, iu the year 1808, to continue the
hunter-life, and also the scarcity of game
where they then lived, and their wish, under
those circumstances, to remove across the
Mississippi river, on some vacant land of the
United States, were chiefly that portion of (he
Cherokee tribe who were in the occupancy of
the lands which the United States were to ob
tain for Georgia- Notwithstanding this dis
position of the Indians to surrender their lauds,
as early as 1808, the United States did not
embrace it, but, on the contrary, abandoned her
duty, and made no effort to obtain the land
until this treaty of 1817, which extinguished
' the occupant right of the Cherokee Indians to
nearly all the lands contemplated by the com
pact of 1802. Georgia now thought her just
rights were secured ; and that soon her forests
Would become fields, and her population in
crease. Notwithstanding these just expecta
tions, this treaty of 1817, against which no al
legation had been made of fraud or injustice,
Unless it was considered a fraud in the United
States to comply with her contract, and to have
done an act of justice to Georgia, was, by ar
ticles of contention made between John C.
CalhoUn, Secretary of War, being specially
authorized therefor by the President of the
United States, and the chiefs and headmen of
the Cherokee nation of Indians, duly author
ized and empowered by said nation, at the city
df'WttsLington, »u the 27th February, 1819,
readjusted, and, so far as the interest of Geor
gia was involved, measurably abrogated, and,
on its very face, virtually declared, that the
United States did not intend to comply with
the articles which she was solemnly pledged
to fulfil.”
These statements contained in that extract,
so far as they relate to the effects produced by
the treaty of 1819, the Senator says, “are
destitute of any foundation.” This bold as
sertion would justify me in the use of language
equally uucourteous.
The treaty of 1817, as it shows on its very
face, contemplated “ a division line between
the upper and lower Towns, so as to include
ell the waters of the Hiwassee river to the
upper Towns, that by thus contracting their
society within narrow limits, they proposed to
begin the establishment of fixed laws, and regu
lar government. The lower Towns, to make
known their desire to continue the hunter life,
&C., and under the circumstances, to move
across the Mississippi.” The chiefs of these
towns, knowing that under the compact of
1802, they could not long remain in Georgia,
but would have to surrender, were willing then
to do so, and go west ; to cflec’ which, the 3d
and 4th articles of the treaty of 1817, in rela
tion to the taking of the census, and the ex
change of lauds, were entered into , and had
those articles been faithfully carried out bv
the Government, the “lower towns” would
have long sinco boen removed, and “ nearly ail
the lands contemplated by the compact been
procured for Georgia.” The Senator denies,
“that the treaty nf 1819 readjusted that of
1817.” Did not the treaty of 1819 readjust
the 3d and 4th articles of 1817 ? I quote the ■
Senator’s own words: “The Cherokees, in {
order to avoid further delay, made the liberal
offer to cede one-third of their territory on this i
•ide of the Mississippi; which was accepted,
as well from its liberality us from a desire to
avoid expense aud trouble of taking the census,
required by the treaty ot 1817.” To avoid
this very axpeuse and trouble, Georgia has
been postponed in obtaining her lights, by the
• treaty of 1819; hence the allegation, that the
treaty of 1817, so fur as “the rights of Geor
gia were involved, were measurably abrora.
ted by that ofl819.”
It remains now for me only to show, that
the treaty es 1819, “on its very face virtually
declared, that the United States did not intend
to comply with the compact.” I refer to the
preamble, in these words:
“Whereas a greater part of the Cherokee
natianhave expressed an earnest desire to re.
main on this side of th« Mississippi, and being
desirous, in order to commence those measures
which they deem necessary to the civilization
and preservation of their nation, that the treaty
between the United States and them, signed
the eighth of July, eighteen hundred and se.
ventecn, might, without further delay, or the
trouble or expense bf taking tho census, as
stipulated in the said treaty, be finally adjusted,
have offered to cede to the United States a
fract of country at least as extensive as that
which they probably uro entitled to under its
provisions, the contracting panics have agreed
to and conclude the following articles.” °
This treaty also granted 640 acres, as re.
•ervations, to certain heads of Indian families.
Thus arrangements were made and measures
adopted by which the Indians were to remai
east>-of the Mississippi, within the limits < i
Georgia. By the recervations the Genen I
Government placed herself in violation of th .
compact of 1902-for instead of extinguishing
;hc Indian occupant riuht, the title is made
absolute in die Indian in fee.
The Senator says, it" 1 had examined the
UTaties of 1817 and ISI9, and compared them
before 1 made “ these unfounded assertions,” 1
would have found, that the treaty of 1819 “ did
not readjust a single article or provision oft lie
treaty of 1817 ; nor abrogate it, or si t it aside,
so far as the interest ofGeorgia, or any other
interest was involved, in the Slightest particu.
lar. ” I fthese assertions are correct, why has
not the 3d ai.d 4'h articles ot the treaty of ISI7
been executed ? Why was not the census
taken of the lower Towns ? And the exchange
of lauds, as contemplated, consummated?—
The Senator will find, on examination, his as
sertions not sustained by the facts.
To show the Senator that my views in rela
tion to the treaty of 1810, are net peculiar to
myself, 1 will refer him to several public do
cuments, emanating from the Legislature of
Georgia,- the Congress of the United States,
and distinguished individuals, who have ex
pressed the same opinions I have, and made
them public many years ago,
I begin with the remonstrance of the Le is
lature of Georgia, adopted in the year 1819;
it was drafted by the late Col. Duncan G.
Campbell, and approved by Governor Clark.
Extracts from “ the memorial, remonstrance
and protest of the Senate and House ot Repre
sentatives of the State ot Georgia in General
Assembly metadopted unanimously.
“In 1817, commissioners acting under the
authority of tha United States, treated with the
Cherokee nation of Indians, some of whom re.
sided within our limits. By this treaty, the
j interests of Georgia were more regarded, and,
wo believe, a plan laid which would have re
i suited in the epeedy extinction oj the Indian
! claims within our limits, and upon terms, not
only ‘peaceable’ and ‘reasonable,’ but con
venient, and beneficial to the Union.”
“How we can be defeated of the interest,
and divested of the title wich resulted from tha
treaty, becomes a point of enquiry, and of lee',
iug importance. Your memorialists acknowl
edge the legality of no measure, which seeks
thus to defeat or divest them. Ou the contrary,
they insist upon the validity and the execu
tion of that contract in all instances, in which
it conveys a benefit.”
“ Your memorialists beg leave farther to call
in question the articles ot convention between
the United Stales and the Cherokee nation of
Indians, concluded on the I~lh February, 1819.
We consider these articles as furnishing a fair
subject for the animadversion ot Georgia.--
They profess to nullify in a great degree the
provisions of the treaty of 1817, and to set up
tiieir own provisions as substitutes therefor. As
objectionable us the original was,ibis substitute
is the more so. If the grant of reserves in
first, furnished grounds of complaint, those in
ti.e last are much more offensive ; for the pos
sibility of reversion is not retained. Shall we
be told that all these measures find their justi
fication in policy, and their apology in benev
olence? Shall this treaty be passed upon us
in the imposing form of humanity, and we
compelled to subserve its views and pay blind
obedience to its commands ? We trust that
we may be heard; and that, it in uttering our
complaints, we shall speak with an unbecom
ing boldness, our excuse may bo found in the
expended catalogue ot Indian aggression, and
the aggravated series of frontier suffering.”
Thus the Legislature of Georgia, unanimous
ly assert, and the Governor approves, that the
treaty or articles of 1819, “ profess to nullity
in a great degree the provisions of the treaty
of 1817, and to setup their own provisions, as
substitutes therejor,” yet the Senator says,
“ the treaty of 1819, did not readjust a single
article or provision of the treaty of 1817, nor
abrogate it, nor set it aside, in the slightest
particular, so far as the interest of Georgia, or
any other interest was involved”— here, is an
issue, between, the Governor and Legislature
of Georgia, and the Senator—the presumption,
is that the public functionaries of the State
know, something of the rights and interest ol
the State.
Extract of a letter from the Hon, Wilson
Lumpkin, to Governor Clark, dated
Milledgeville, Nov. Sth, 1819.
“Sir.— Under the treaty concluded at the
City of Washington, in February last, between
the Cherokee nation and the Secretary of War,
a small portion of kind was acquit cd within
the limits of Georgia.”
Extract from the report of Mr. Gilmer :
“ By the same eighth article of the said trea
ty, all the Cherokee Indians, who may choose
to do so, are authorized to become citizens of
the .United Stales. The committee are not
aware of the existence of a power of conferring
tho rights of citizenship in any other branch
of tho Government than Congress. They
think it unnecessary to make further comment
on this part of the subject. The State of Geor
gia, would, however, have had less reason to
complain at present, notwithstanding all these
causes, if tho remaining terms of this treaty
had been executed as agreed upon. The In
dians contracted that they would, in addition
to tho lauds which they had ceded absolutely,
convey an additional quantity which should
bear the same proportion to the whole quan
tity of lands belonging to them, as the Indians
on the western side of tho Mississippi river,
bore to the whole nation. The number of all
tho Indians were to be ascertained by the
mouth of June, 1818, and commissioners were
then to be appointed to divide the lands ac
cording to the proportion just named. The
Stale of Georgia had a right to expect that
those lands would be laid off within its boundary.
| But the United States make another treaty
I with the same Indians, to wit: on the twenty
! seventh day of February, 1819, by which they
yield up to the Indians all the advantages deriv
ed from the former, upon certain conditions.
The committee are of opinion that tho United
States had no such power.”
■ The foregoing extracts, show, the opinions
of Governor Lumpkin and Gov. Gilmer.—
Tho report asserts, that tho treaty of 1819,
“yields up to the Indians, all the advantages
derived from the former, (the treaty of 1817,)
upon certain conditions ;” yet it is'said by the
Senator, tho interest of Georgia, “ is not effect
ed in tho slightest particular.” This is the
second issue, long since tendered the defender
of the treaty of 1819; why was not the report
of Gov, Gilmer, attacked ?
I also, annex the following, which sustains
what the Senator has been pleased to say, has
done him great injustice.
Extract of a letter from tho Georgia Dele
gation in Congress, to the President of the
United States, dated,
“ Washington, 10th March, 1821.
“ It is with deep concern that the necessity
is felt, es pressing upon the General Govern
merit the considerations that are due to its
character for good faith in its contracts with a
member of the Union. Since the year 1802,
implicit reliance has been placed in the Gen
oral Government, and the just expectation has
been indulged, that in the execution ofits high
duties, lhe Executive Administration would
carefully and steadily pursue tho object for
which the faith of the Union was pledged,
‘ the peaceable extinguishment, on reasonable
terms, of the Indian title to all lands within lhe
territoiial limits of Georgia.’ In ISI7, the
public declaration of the President to Congress,
that an arrangement had been made by which,
in exchange fpr lands beyond the Mississippi,
a great part, if not the whole of the lands
possessed by the Chcr-.k. e tribe eastward of
ihat river, in the Slates of North Caiolina,
1 ciiaessce and (.<■ orgia, and in the Territory
ot Alabama, would b ; soon acquired, gave a
just expectation, th it the national i vet J
to Georgia would be redeemed, la the eight
years which have succeed d, these auticipa
lioi.s of the President, Lav- I; .an ri alizcd every
where but in Georgia. •. tafcicccssive pur
chases made since 1 hi: t pcr’ls" have crowd, d
the Cherokees out ol T< tmc.-sbe, Alubuma and
North Carolina, almost altogether into Geor
gia ; and the terms upon v, Inch tin y have been
made, have created all it,<. dtfiicuilies now' en
countered in the p< ;-:t I';,l acquisition on reason
able terms, of the lui us upon which the Cher
okees are now permitted to remain—difficulties
which are every hour increasing, from the
policy pursued by the General Government,
it is, with all due rc-j.-cet, a subject of serious
enquiry, what produced tha extraordinary
change in the wi.Jn.s of the Cherokee tribe, as
expressed in the treaty of 1817 ? How it hap
pened, that the. Cii.trck os of the Upper Towns,
most of whom were with, nt the limits of Geor
gir, ai.d who desir; J to bo fixed permanently
on the lands on w hich they then lived, were
induced, in 1819, to abandon their designs,
and many of them to b.-come inhabitants of the
region beyond the while the Cher-
okees of the Lower Towns, (most of them
within the State of Georgia,) anxiously desir
ing to remove in 1817, w; re iti 1819, tempted
to remain, and filled with the desire el" a per
manor, t establishment there?”
'I llis letter of the D •!.--g.Hio:i cf Georgia in
Congress, was written in 1824, and directly
attacks the treaty of 1819, in terms as strong
and direct.
Extracts from the “ Report of tho select
committee, to whim was referred the Presi.
dent's message of the 30.1 i .‘d.ucb., 1823, rela
ting to the compact of 1802, between the
United States and the State ot Georgia : also
a memorial of the Legislature of said State,
upon tha same subject.”
“The attention of Congress has been called
to the arrangements made with the Cherokees
in 1817, and 1 819. The arrangement ot 1817,
was for the purpose of carrying into effect the
wishes of the Ch; r kees, as declared to Mr.
Jefferson in 1808. by a deputation from the
upper and lower towns. The lower towns de
sired to continue the bu.iters life, and for that
purpose wished to remove across the Missis
sippi. The wishes of the upper and lower
towns wore granted, and arrangements made
for the removal of the latter across the Missis
sippi. No line was drawn between the upper
and lower towns, although a rcqticjtwas made
of the Indians that it should be Ifce by the
United Slates. The arrangement of 1817,
provides for the fulfilment of the wishes ex
pressed in 1808, and the promises of the
Government of 1809. The wishes of the
lower towns was a removal beyond the Missis
sippi ; of the upper, a contraction of their so
ciety within narrower limits. By the 3d and
4th articles, it. was agrofed that a census should
be taken of the population beyond the .Missis
sippi, and of those who chose to emigrate thith
er ; and a census of those who chose to remain
in their present location. The territory oc
cupied by them on this side of the Mississippi,
was to be divided according to the relative
numbers of those who had migrated, and would
migrate, to the remainder; and that portion
which fell to the migrators, was to be received
by the United. Stales, m place of the lands fur
nished to the Cherokees, beyond the Missis
sippi. From this plan, the extinguishment of
the title of the Cherokee Indians was anticipa
ted, and would have taken place, hail it bet a
executed m its spirit by the General Govern,
ment. (See No. 3—extracts from Mciflins’
letter.) It appears, however, that the census
was never taken, and that in 1819, a deputa
tion of Cherokees was permitted to come to
Washington, to adjust finally the difficulties
arising out of the treaty, of 1817. The lower
Cherokee towag in tho limits of Georgia, did
not remove beyond tho Mississippi. Most of
the removals took place from the upper towns,
out of tho limits of Georgia. In place of the
proportion of lands tob) abandoned according
to the treaty ol 1317, a fixed quantity was ac
cepted,a very small and worthless part of w Inch
is in Georgia.”
“ The treaty is made in consequences of
the earnest desire ot a, great part of tho Cher
okee nation to remain on this side of the Mis
sissippi, to commence the measures necessa
ry to the civilization and pres rvalien of the
nation. The committee are surprised that the
occasion was not taken to satisfy the Indians
that their continuance in Georgia was impossi
ble, unless Georgia consented to if, aud still
more so, that the Indians should be incoura
ged, by this preamble of a treaty, made at the
seat ot Government, under the eves of the
President, to entertain that expectation. The
treaty of .1817, & that of 1819,' show a strange
forgetfulness of the limited extent of the pow
er of the United States over the laud in cues
tion. The Secretary of War, acting under
the directions of tile Executive Magistrate, aud
pursuing tho example set in 1815, seems to
have imagined that the United States aud the
Indians could do, lawfully, whatever suited
th'-'ir mutual convenience, without regard Io
the State of Georgia ? an error which had
been previously committed in treaties with the
Creeks. No difference was made, between
Indian lands within the limits of the State
claiming the cvci tual juristic.ion ai d soil,
and the Indian lands, where the soil is the
property of the United States. Provisions
are made in both treaties, for vesting individu
als with tho fee simple titles to laud, and Io
convert them, bv ira-liort process, into citizens.
The right of the United States to do either is
absolutely denied by the committee. The Gen
eral Government can take the properly of
individuals for public use, but the constitution
withhold the power even to prejudice lhe claims
of any state. Congress can establish an uni
form rule of naturalization ; the Executive
Magistrate cannot make, by an Indian treaty,
special exceptions to the established rule. The
effect of such acts on the part of the General
Government was to be anticipated. The In
dians were taught the value of property, and
the advantages to be obtained by a continuance
in their present position.”
Extract from a spot ch of Mr, Cobb, of
Georgia, delivered in the House of Represen
tatives, of the United States, 17th March,
1820 :
‘•At present, I know of no other method, by
which this condition of the cession on the part
of lhe United States can be performed, but bv
a removal of lhe Indians. That this meas
ure, under any circumstancrs, would bo good
policy, will not bo doubted. In 1817, the peo
ple of Georgia were inspired with a hope that,
this would be speedily done, under a treaty
concluded with the Cherokees by Governor
McMinn, and General Jackson & Merriweth
er. By this, an arrangement was made f.r
the removal ot a large part of that nation to
territory of the United States, west of tho Mis.
rissippi. A part of the nation have been re
moved. The arrangement substantially was
an exchange of Territory. A census was to
be taken, and in the proportion, of lhe
nundJers who migrate to the West, lands on
the east of lhe Mississippi, should bo ceded to
the United States. IIo: ever great the hope of
substantial benefit the State of Georgia might
sustain from this treaty, she has been disappoin
ted in the rdsult. Indeed the whole arram-e
--meut seems tube at an end. Although ah
G'J Tv $ v- ♦
the J. d’a: s inhabiting the ‘ lower towns,’(and
id ,!■<!.•.,- principally it. Georgia,) were desi
ruus of removing only twelve month? before,
iZ '‘’ms, by it subsequent treaty, c-included at
this phtceln 1819, if.t ‘a greater part of the
(.’in in kee nation’ now desire to remain on the
cast ia the Mississippi, in order to commence
lla.se measures necessary tot’their civiliza
tion mi t the preservation ol their nation.’ It
is tin.', that by each of these cessions, more
lai.ii.; Were yielded bv the 1 idiatis. But, as
usual, di:! vitln,able part of them is within other
'■■t.iies, with whom the United Stales, have no
contract. Unproductive hills and mountains
arc the portion of Georgia.'’
Citizens of Georgia, can you believe, that
I h ive done great injustice” to the lion.
J-ilm C. Calhoun, i s any thing stated in my
speech in relation to the treaty of 1819?
Alter you sb.JI read the speech and compare
it with the foregoing report of the Select
Curnmiiice, in Congress, and the speech of that
;.bie and distinguished man, the late Thomas
. Cobb—whose name has been so oiten as
si ct.tled with the interest, the honor, and ccun
ei's ofihe State, and of the United States;
and whose mind touched no subject, without,
shedding light on it. When he said the trea
ty of 1819 did injustice to Georgia, in a speech
i;i the Congress oft he Unijed States, why did
not the Senator then delbnd, and show that the
lissertiou Was “destitute of foundation ?”
1/Ibavedone “injustice” to the Senator,
in am, thing I have said against the treaty ol’
1819, so has the Legislature ofGeorgia. Gov.
Chirk, Gov. Lumpkin, Gov. Gilmer, the
v> hole of tho Georgia members to Congress,
in 1824, the, report of tile Select Committee in I
Co. aress, in 1823, and the 'lon. Thomas W.
Cobb in his speech, in 18'20. I again ask,
why at tliis late day has it become necessary
to defend the treaty of!819, which has boen
h-'i r -peatedly denounced smee the day of its
ratification by the Senateof the United Stales?
Can it be that the Senator is correct, and all
others who have expressed contrarj opinions
on the subject, incorrect? All the authori
ties of Georgia,without regard to party, have
been consistent ia their opposition to the trea
ty of 1819 ; that treaty has been discussed
nod denounced in the Stale, for years. I re
peat, I am unconscious of having done, or in
tending, in any thing I have said, to have done
any injustice to the Senator: if what I did
say is injurious to him, it is not my fault—•
what assertions I have made are true, and
have been made by many others.
Having, I trust shown that no injustice has
hern done by me to the Senator, in w bat 1 have
said, it now remains forme, to defend inyseli
lor what the Senator says, “ I omitted to
s.iy.” He says, “ common justice required (to
say nothing (shall 1 say) political relations)
unit while he was arraigning my alledged po
litical demerits against Georgia, he ought not
to have fi»rgol my merits.” ' I have not arraign
ed “ bis political demerits,” nor had I forgot
ten “ his merits.” I discussed neither—nor
was it my object to do so. I was commen
ting on the acts of the Government, not on Mr
Calhoun's “ merits,” or “ demerits ” He
•ays, “I ought not to have omitted to inform
the House, and my constituents, as an of set
at least, that he whom I was holding up in so
censurable a light to them, for the treaty of
1819' was the anther of the plan' for removing
the Cherokees, and all Southern tribes of Indi
aristothe west of the Mississippi, which has
added so many millions of fertile acres to the
Statv-3 of Georgia, Alabaman, Mississippi,
Tennessee and North Carolina ; and will, in
a short time, remove tho last remains of the
aboriginal race, beyond their limits.” The
S> nator must pardon me for that “ omission-’’
1 did not know the fact before I saw it in his
ccmmimicatiou. 1 had" heard the plan attri.
billed to others. I now state to my constitu
ents, byway of supplying that “ omission,”
that the Senator says, “be was the authorof
the plan.”
The Senator says. “I seemed to forget that
the Government has never, and probably will
never realize one cent from tho ceded lands in
North Carolina and Tennessee.” No, sir, I
did not forget, for in no part of my speech have
I said any thing of the sales of the lands in
North Carolina, by the General Government.
1 spoke of the fertile kinds obtained elsewhere ;
1 said “to disencumber the Government of
bar d bt, taxes hud been increased by lhe Tar
iff of 1816 ; lauds were obtained forthepur
pose of sale, so that the proceeds might go
i to th > Treasury of the Union. The treaty
es 1817 obtained lands for Georgia, for which
the General Government had to expend, not
receive; hence the modification of the tretay
of 1817. by the one made at Washington city,
in 1819, by which Georgia lost her rights;
and the rich and fertile kinds of Alabama and
Tennessee were obtained, sold, and the pro
ceed applied in paymenntof the public and
other debts of this Government; to all this
Georgia, in ISI9, remonstrated and submitted
—injustice increasing, as it always does, by
submission to it.”
I will say to the Senator, there are many
things which I shall ‘ omit to say’ at this lime,
connected with treaties for the benefit of Geor
gia ; and (lie appointment of Commissioners;
and the ratification of a treaty by the Senate
of the United States. These things I “omit
ted to s iv,” for 1 had no di sire to injure any
one, even justly.
I.i th? conclusion of the S -nator’s commit,
uicatio", ho says, “ns to the motive of tha
honorable member, I have nothing to say. I
t v r have given him any cause or provoca
tion fnrthe uncalled for attack ; unless indeed
the inis fortune of differing from him, on the
irreat question of the day, may be regarded tis
su-'h.”
Why this conclusion ? What is this “ un.
cailral for attack, which is without cause, or
provocation ?” Nothing but an attack on the
ire.ii', vi 1819, which happened to bo negoci
tied by tha S.mator ; not at all involving the
“ political merits or demerits” of the Senator,
•'unless indeed,” he considered himself, the
treaty, and the Government, the same thing;
* i .id k iows of no excuse I had for this “ un
cal h\l for attack,” “unless indeed,” it bo the
misfortune of differing from him on the great
qu:. stioii of the day.
I .assure the Senator, that if he has adopted
the rule, that a difference of opinion, on even
the groat question of (he day, as he is pleased
to call it, among political friends, is to be
“ cause or provocation” sufficient “ for an un
called for attack,” not to apply tho rule to
me, for I trust I shall never abandon a politic
al friend, for the “ mere difference of opinion,
upon a question of expediency.” Was lhe
Senator abandoned or proscribed by the Nul
hfiers, in 1834, for defending lhe Bankofthc
United States, ai d proposing to recharter it for
twelve years? Was he proscribed by his
friends in Georgia, for his difference ot opin
ion upon a question of great interest to the
State, in the Senate of lhe United Stales, in
1836? live Gov. McDuffie, Gen. Ilayrie,
Gen; Hamilton, and others, been abandoned
by your portion of the State Rights party, fir
differing with you on the Sub Treasury, and
particularly the “ specie feature ?” My speech
was not dictated by such a feeling. My re
ply h is bm> i written, I trust, under more com.
p >sure than your communication seems to have
been. I’he obj ret of your communication I
think I understand. Absence from home, and
other cause;?, ha v 3 delaved this publication.
WM. C. DAWSON. I
From the Southern Recorder-
Monticello, [near WaynesvHle,] (*
September 13th, 1838. $
Gentlemen : —I have received your com
munication covering it resolution adopted at a
meeting of the citizens of Franklin county,
calling for my “opinions relative to the consti
tutionality and expediency of a United States
Bank,” and requesting that 1 “ make known
my choice for the next President, between
Van Buren, Clay, Webster, and Harrison.”
I also observe in the Recorder received by the
last mail, a call made by a number of most re
spectable citizens of Taliaferro county, on the
candidates tor Congress, for their views on the
great questions of divorcing the Government
from all connection with the Banks; the es.
tablishment of a National Bank,” tec.; and in
regard to the “ re organization of the Pct Batik
scheme.”
Having been so unfortunate as to receive
these interrogatories at so late an hour, I beg
leave to reply to all cf them in this communi
cation ; which I am admonished by the near
approach of the first Monday in October, to
make as brief as is compatible with a proper
respect for the sources from whence they em
anate,
I have ever been opposed to a National
Bank, and"firmly of opinion, that. Congress has
no power under the Constitution to incorpo
rate one. Jt is well known that the conven
tion which framed the constitution rejected a
direct proposition to grant the power, and this
ought to bo conclusive evidence that it cannot
rightfully be exercised to carry into effect any
: of 'he express grants of power in that instru
ment.
It is mv opinion, that the two Banks of the
United States, which have existed forty years,
since 1791, have been the great instruments
which have controlled Southern commerce,
and directed it through Northern channels, to
the incalculable injury of the interests and
prosperity of the South. lam therefore un
alterably opposed, on grounds of expediency,
to the establishment of such an institution.
A statement of some facts may be proper to
(sustain this opinion. In 1791, the first Bank
of the United States was chartered, with a ca
pital of The mother Bank was
located in Philadelphia, with a capita! of 54,-
700,000; a Brunch in New-York, with a ca
pital of $1,800,000 ; one in Boston, capital
$700,000. Thus giving to those three cities,
$7,200,000. of the capital authorized by the
charter, auddistributiug the balance, $2,800,-
009, to all the slave holding or staple growing
States, as follows : to Baltimore, $690,000 ;
Norfolk $500,000 ; Charleston $600,000 ; I
I Savannah $500,000; New Orleans $300,000; |
and $200,000 to the District of Columbia. :
These branches were governed by the mother i
bank, and enabled it with its large branches i
in New York and Boston, to control the com- !
merce of the South. There appears no good !
reason why this unequal and unjust distribu- I
t'on of the capital of the bank should have !
been made. In 1790, one year previous to
the act of incorporation, the population of
Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts, I
whore near three-fourths of the capital was '
placed, amounted to but 1,135,210; and the j
population of Maryland, Virginia, South Ca- '
rolina, and Georgia, where less than one fourth '
of the capital was employed, amounted to '
1,409,653. Nor dot sit tppeitr from the ave- '
rage exports of 1791 and *’92, of the staple I
States and the Northern States, that this ine- I
quality in the distribution of the favors and
patronage of the Government, can be justified. ’
The average exports for the years above na
med from the staple States, was $9,335,750,
and from the others, $10,546,619. By de
ducting the amount of foreign articles export
ed from the Northern cities, we find their ex
ports of domestic produce do not much exceed i
those of the staple States. Thus we perceive I
that the latter, with an export trade almost if
not quite equal to the others, received but about:
one-fourth of the capital of the Bank. And ,
this is by no means the extent of the disparity.
The bank was made the depository of the re- i
venues ot' the Government, which from 1“91 '
to ’99. may be set down al an average of about j
$6,000,000, exclusive <.f loans and Treasury ;
notes; and from 1800 to 1811, inclusive, to [
about $12,000,000 per annum. Mostly collec- |
ted and disbursed at the North. Thus giving
the bunk an active capital for the first eight
years of its existence, of above $>14,000,000,
in the Northern cities—more than six times as
large as that employed in the staple States;
and of about $20,000,000, during the last 12
years of its action, or nine times more than
was used in cilies of the South, I speak in
round numbers. The notes were made equal
’ to specie, as far as the fiscal action of the Go
vernment was concerned, by being made re
ceivable in payment of the public dues.
The exports of domestic produce, mostly of
Southern growth, increased from $18,500,000,
in 1791, when the bank was chartered, to $45,-
294,043, in 1811, when the charter expired.
Tho immense capital it had wielded for twen
ty years—during which time there was but a
comparatively small amount of bank capital in
the staple States, and that controlled and Znni
ted in its action by this national institution—
had enabled it to extend its loans and discounts
to the capitalists and merchants of the North
ern cities, who became the purchasers and ex
porters of the produce of the South, and con
sequently the importers for the whole country.
The process w s very simple. A merchant
or capitalist in New York, Philadelphia, or
Boston, could by obtaining a loan from the i
bank, send his agent to lhe South, purchase
cotton, rice, or tobacco, pay for it in draffs on
the North at a premium, cause the pulieyof in
surance and bills of lading to be forwarded to
the North, draw on London, sell his sterling
bills at ten per cent, advance, and pay bis debt
to the bank ; and if i'.is cargoes sold in Europe
for no more than he gave for them at Charles
ton or Savannah, the domestic exchange would
pav commissions, perhaps all charges, and the
sterling exchange would be a clear profit.
Tims, on an operation of otic hundred thou-
sand dollars, the capitalist was almost certain
to make eight or ten thousand profit. His bills
of exchange w ere purchased by importers of
goods, who obtained loans from the bank to
pay for them. This completed the operation,
and sent the mighty current of Southern com
merce through the Northern channels, and
caused it to deposit its profits in Northern ci
tics. The duties on tho goods imported were
paid in those cities, and deposited in lhe bank,
to increase its pow er, which thus became ir
resistable. No Southern bank could compete
with it, or venture to accommodate Southern
merchants with such extensive loans. Under
lhe operations ot this system, the imports of
Now York increased from $2,505,465 in 1791,
to $10,304,581 in 1795. Pennsylvania, du
ring the same period, from
, while lhe import trade of the Sou.
them cities declined with corresponding rapi
dity, or did nerf keep pace with their exports,
which is the same thing.
Another National Bank wits chartered in
1316, with a capital of s3s,ooo,ooo—made
the depository of the revenues ot the Govern,
inent, and its agents for the payment of its
debts. Thus w-as this new institution render,
co more powerful titan its predecessor, and en.
abled not only to control the commerce aud
exchange of lhe country, but tffs.t lhe value of
property from Maine to Mississippi. The
distiibutiotl oi its capital was quite as uncqiiul
as that of the old Bank, and its operations as
decidedly in favor of the commerce of the
North, and as oppressive to that of the South.
Through the instrumentality of its branches
it restrained the circulation of the Banks at the
South, while those of the northern cities were
permitted to expand theirs; rendering our
Banks mere loan offices, and depriving our
merchants of the necessary faeilitms to enable
them to participate in the commerce of the
country. Its whole end mid aim seemed to be,
to control the commerce and exchange of the
South and render them subservient to the in
terests of the merchants and institutions of the
North. If proof of this were wanting, ttie
language used by the President ot the Bank
in his ri port to the committee of Congress in
183'2, would be conclusive. He says- “1 he
whole force of the institution was therefore
directed to strengthen that place, (New-York)
and the distant branches were directed to
avoid incommoding it, and the Atlantic branch
es near them, bv drafts upon them, but to pay
their balances to them, with as little delay as
the convenience of their respective localities
would permit. This is the whole policy of
the Bank in the last six months. It will be
-seen therefore, that without a diminution, there
is an actual increase of business \i\ New York,
and a large increase of domestic bills at the
Brandies—the increase of New York being
for the purpose of protecting the interests there ;
and tho increase of the remittances being from
the West and South, to sustain New* kork, and
the Northern Atlantic branches.” “In assu
ming this part, on the present occasion, the
Bank deemed ilselfonly as it was designed to
act by the Congress which created it, and pla
cing itself in its true natural altitude to the
Go/ernment and the country.” Speaking of
the importations in New York, he says—“ The
southern produce furnishes the greatest part
of the means to pay for these importations.”
Many patriotic persons entertain the opin
ion that a National Bank is necessary to regu
late exchange, establish a uniform currency
and enable the Government to collect and dis
burse its revenues with economy; and that to
attain these objects was the design of Congress
in the establishment of the late Bank. Such,
however, seems not to have been the opinion
of the great financier at the head of that i asti
tution ; be takes the ground at once that it was
designed to Control the commerce of the coun
try, by aiding or sustaining some points, or
places, which of course could not be done ex
cept at the expense or depression of others—
or in plain English, the South must be deprived
of her commerce, that New York and other
Northern cities may flourish.
It is not a little remarkable that Southern
men should attach so much importance to the
regulation of exchange, or as the matter is un
derstood, to a low rate of exchange on the
North. I am ready lo admit that much loss
has been sustained by Southern met chants iu
the payment of debts due at the North at the
time the Banks suspended specie payments;
and that a trifling inconvenience attends trav
elling from the South to the North. This
state of things will be almost entile.y remedied
by the resumption of cash payments, and the
sales of goods made with a view to cover the
rate of exchange. But it must not be forgot
ten by the Southern Planter, that whatever
the rate ot exchange may bo on the North, it
operates ns a bounty, or premium on direct
importations, a'.ul that if exchange on N. York
could be kept at ten per cent for ten years, it
would unquestionably relieve us from the com
mercial trammels of that city, which do not
cost us much less than twenty five per cent
per annum on the whole amount of our ex
ports.
The cheap ,- a;ismr and disbursement of the
funds of the Government and a uniform curren
cy, are no doubt desirable objects ; but, they
sink to insignificance in comparison with the
great commercial interests of tho staple States.
Ihe two or three per cent more or less
which the Government may pay on the amount
of its revenues—which ought not to exceed
fifteen millions ot dollars—and the trilling dif
ference which might exist in the currency
and exchange at a time of general specie pay
ments by the Banks, or as regulated by a Na.
tional Bank, cannot be ol the slightest moment
to the staple States, when compared to the
vast importance ot being relieved from their
commercial dependence and the establishment
ofa direct trade with all the world.
I oo not hesitate to give it as my well con
sidered opinion, that if a Bank of the United
Sjates had never existed, exchange on the
North and Europe would have been in favor
ot the South from the time Cotton began to
form an important item in our exports, to the
present hour.
The duties on imports are paid almost ex
clusively on articles purchased in foreign coun
tries with Southern produce, aud collected in
Northern cities : and it deposited in Banks,
and permitted to be used in their business, serve
to increase their power to perpetuate the as
cendancy ot the North and the commercial
i vassalage of lhe South. You will therefore
perceive that I am in favor of an entire sepa
ration ol the revenues and influence of the
Government from Banks, and of course op
posed to the “ re-organization of the Pet Bank
scheme.” The history of which, and the cir
cumstances attending its signal failure, are so
fresh in the recollection of every one, that fur
ther allusion to them is deemed unnecessary
The Sub-Treasury bill, as it was called, in
troduced and discussed during the two list
sessions of Congress, contained, in my opinion
I several dangerous and mo t obnoxious provis
ions ; and had it become a law, would have
placed the revenues of the country in the
hands of the President of lhe United States
and as far as money can confer power in our
country, w ould have re: dered his unlimited. 1
have stated that (he duties on imports were
paid almost entirely by the South, aud that
they arc collected in Northern cites where (he
goods are imported. The payment of them in
specie,would mmy opinion,in a very shortlime
prostrate our banking institutions, and operate
most oppressively on oUr commercial and agri,
cultural interests. New York, where the lar
gest amount <->f duties is collected, would be
come the recipient of this current of specie.
From that point it would be distributed to the
Land Offices of lhe West, to meet existing lia
bilities for purchases of public lands, and
throughout the Northern States and cities, to
meet tho enormous amount of Government ex
penditure; and there-is no operating cause to
bring any portion of it again to the South. It
was the boast of New Y'otk in lhe spring of
1837, that there was enough dues to her from
the Cotton growing States alone, to pay her
debt of more than stixty millions to Europe!!
Our debt to New York, and other Northern ci
ties, is constantly accruing, and if specie were
required in payment of the duties on their im
portations, tin i> collecting agents at the South
would draw it from our Banks, until their
vaults would be emptied or they should suspend
specie payments. When the Bank of Eng
land, in the b< ginning of 1837, refused any
longer tn sustain the great houses, which had
been in the habit of accepting American bills
to almost any amount, and the New Y ork mer
chants could i.o longer draw on Loudon fur the
payment of tbeif liabilities or the purchase of
goods, they w ere compelled to demand specie
of their Banks, and thus drove them in a few
weeks to a suspension of specie payments.
Our Banks were compelled to adopt a similar
course for a stmtiar reason—our merchants i
owed those of New York, and their debts must
be paid. That city therefore became the point
where specie was most valuable, because
most wanted \ and had our Banks continued to
pay specie their vaults would have been drain
ed. If revenue in the Nor
thern cities were to be collected in specif*,
similar results would follow.
It appears bv returns of the amount of spe
cie in New York on the Ist April last, that
there was—
Specie in Banks, $3,229,298
Do in circulation, 1,000,009
$4,229,304
It has been stated by high authority, that
six millions of specie would be sufficient to
meet the revenues and disbursements of the
Government. I am of opinion, howevever,
that at least twice that sum would be necessa
ry by the time the whole a mount of the reven
ue would littve been required in specie under
the operations oi the Sub Treasury bill, had
it become a law. But ‘aking sti* millions ah
the probable amount; i t leas't sods filths of
that would be required in New Yc'rk, b frOttt
four to five millions per annum. This Wdult?
more than double the amount of specie in
Banks and circulation, and give a very great
impulse to paper credits in that city, and of
course to commercial enterprise. Thus
strengthening our great commercial oppressor
and rendering our day of deliverance more dis
tant and doubtful. r ou will hence perceivu
that I am decidedly opposed to what was cal
led “t/ie specie clause” or the twenty third sec
tion of the Sub Terasurv bill. In fact, the de
tails of that bill were in my opinion altogether
objectionable and of a most pernicious tenden-
cy.
I am in fivor of a divorce of the Govern
ment from Banks, but I am not in favor of pla
cing the revenues of the country, in specie, or
in paper, in the hands of any man ! The keep
ing of the public revenue has been thrown
forward as the main and important question
by those who desire to have the uncontrolled
disbursement of it. — There can be no difficul
ty in providing safe depositoiies for tho reve
nues of the Government. The main questions
are, how much shall be collected, and how and
by whom expended ?
I am “requestedfto make known my choice
for the next President between Van Buren,
Clay, Webster, and Harrison*” These men
all stand charged with a long catalogule of un
pardonable political sins against the South*
They were all advocates and supporters of tha
Tariff or American system, as it was called.
They were in favor of the Force Bill, and the
doctrines of the Proclamation. They enter
tain the opinion that Congress has power under
the Constitution,to abolish slavery in the Dis’t*
of Columbia, and the right and is in duty bound
to receive Abolition petitions, and they are all
—except Mr. Van Buren—in favor es a Na
tional Bank, and ofjgiving to it the deposite of
the public revenue.
Mr. Van Buren has ever manifested such a
total want of political integrity and firmness
as to afford the Southern States no guarantee
that he will, in good fnitb, pursue any measure
intended to protect or promote their peculiar
interests, longer than policy may dictate to se
cure their votes.
Mr. Clay is charged with having said that
the operations of the Tariff would so reduce
the value of property at the South,"a3 to in
duce the planters to manumit their slaves.
Whether he has made this delaration or not,
is matter of little importance. If he posses--
sea one half the knowledge of political econo
my attriouted to him, he must have known that
such would be the tendency and probable result
of his American Sv stem, if the people of the
South had been so lost to all sense of their
rights and ii terests, as to have submitted
undisturbed operations. Hu
ted the 11 ig ol a Fif ty Miilio
his lust great move tor, the IWk-.- ,
says in language—not lo be imsbtat .
to the commercial and \
of tho North, “make me President,
give you a Bank of Fifty Millions.”
the father of the and
seeks to be the father of a National Bank.
Such a progeny, leagued with such a parent,
would consolidate the Union into an unmitiga
ted despotism, or bteak it into fragments.
The opinions of Mr. Webster, are so well
known and so universally condemned in Geor
gia.as of tile most ultra federal cast—that I
presume no party in the State would think for
a moment ot supporting him for the Presiden
cy.
Mr. Harrison entertains opinions similar to
those of Mr. Webster and Mr. Clay.
You will therefore perceive that neither of
the candidates you have named can be my
choice for the Presidency.
It elected to Congress and the election off
the President should devolve on the House of
Representatives, 1 shall feel bound to give my
vote in accordance with the will of the people
ot Georgia, as expressed at their Ek do al
College.
Y’our fellow citizen,
THO’S BUTLER KING.
New-York, Sept. 11th, 1838.
Gentlemen, — Y’our communication did not
reach me until this day. Whilst my name is
before the country, the political opinions I en
tertain are the properly of the State, if tt please;
hence I dare not withhold them.
Your inquiries are, first, our opinion of the
constitutionality of the United States Bank;
tecomily, our choice for President, between
Mr. Van Buren, Mr- Clay, Mr, Webster, and
Gen. Harrisoji.
On the first point, tny earliest [impressions
were derived from the old Republican party.
The same were strengthened by the concur,
ring opinions of tha sama class of politicians,
known as Troup men, ami afterwards as Stalo
Rights men or Nuilifiers. These impressions,
thus derived from politicians in whose integri
ty and intelligence 1 have always confided,
have ever been, that no power to charter such
a corporation was granted expressly by the
constitution. The same order of politicians
likewise taught mo to discountenance implied
or constructive grants of power, particularly
when the necessity or occasion for exercising
such, had been t'uliy aud fairly before lhe eon
veutiou that framed the constitution.
If '.he differing opinions ot very great men,
or of the same great man at different times, be
referred to as authority, the safest decision
would be to pronounce it unconetitu'local,
since infractions of that ii.strumeiil by indirect
means, are most easy and dangerous, being
more readily accommodated to u pliant con
science.
Touching the second point, I have hereto
ioie said w hat. might suffice ; but lest some one
v\ ho might expect to be represented by my vote
on the Presidential question, should have causo
for disappomtmeni, I fuel > t due to such and to
yoti.it possible, to be more explicit.
Gen. Huirison, with me, is out of the ones
tion. I would lake Mr. Clay or Mr. Van
buren before Mr. Webster: nevertheless, I
esteem turn as an ornament to the age ami
countly, and except one or two important
points, uccidedly superior to either of the two.
1 placed under the necessity of voting and
deciding between Mr. Van Buren and Mr.
via}, 1 should vote for Mr, Van Buren, 1
can cmifeelve oi hut one reason forthatchoice,
and would regret th® necessity that would