Newspaper Page Text
©range Heportcr.
C. H. C. WILLINGHAM, EDITOR.
£a Grange, Georgia.
Thursday Morning, January 1,1857.
Cnu yon goo This 1
Tho*e Indebted to Ibla nfflcc for SIBSCRIPTIOX,
OVERUSING or JOB WORK, sre reqaested lo roll
and lellle, ai we are compelled to bare money.
Eureka I—iAd verdict
want to buy a farm, Adcert'uel
want to sell a farm, Advertise!
want employment. Advertise i
want to buy or fell cattle, Advertise!
want to sell good., Adre.tisr I
want to buy or eell grain, Advertise!
want to buy or sell a house, Advertise!
want to buy or sell a lot, Adcrrlise !
want to ndraneu your interest* generally,
in the Ln Orange Reporter !
If yon
If you
If you
If you
If you
If you
If you
If you
If you
Ad cert in
Tlio card of Mr. Stephens, nnd the
roply of Mr. IIii.l thereto, together with the
correspondence between theso gentlemen, oc
cupy so much of our space that wo are unable
to givo our usual variety.
Iha?" Mr.-T. A. He nKr; has retired from the
Madison Family Visitor nnd will be associated
with S. A. Atkinson in the publication of the
Augusta Evening Dispatch Tito Visitor pass
es into the hands of Mr. N. C. Guernsey.
Godey’s Lady’s Hook.—Wo will send Godly
nnd tho Reporter ono year fur $ I in advnnco.
Thoso desiring to subscribe will find the pres
ent n good timo to do so as each publication is
just entering into a now yonr nnd a new vol
ume. Send in the uioncy nnd wo will forward
tho '‘Hook” nnd tho Reporter.
Cutting Scrape. — A man by the name of
W«, McGee was severely cut by Wesi.ey
Smith at Harrisonvillo iu this county, Inst Sat
urday. McGee is partially deranged, and
Smith being drunk, ns we lenrn, took offense
at him nnd .slabbed him with a knife on the
back part of the neck. It is thought McGee
will recover.
Volume Thirteen.—This number commen
ces the thirteenth year of tho publication of
our paper. We are determined, as far as we
have tho ability, to enter the now year with n spi
rit caloulatod to make tho Reporter an interest
ing and useful journal ; and hope our patrons
nnd the public will givo us all possible encour
agement.
Tho usefulness of tho Reporter might bo
moro extended if our friends would exert thorn-
behalf which they might do with
Iegroes—On Clirist-
nvero thronged with
i as happy, ns merry
fo have kind masters
hher, nnd his crcif of
“nigger worshipers”
hdientions of hnppincss
Ion here, nnd compnr-
thn t of tho^iniserablo
lie could not failed to
of tho folly of the dam-
Tne which lie endeavors to inculcate
ho minds of his credulous and unsuspecting
pcoplo. In fact, the negroes here behaved them
selves very well, notwithstanding they were
allowod all possible liberty and freedom during
the holidays.
New Year.—Wo greet our patrons nnd
wisli them a happy NEW TEAK,—and hope
our communon for tho novt twelve months will
bo quite as pleasant as the past. We like to
boo every body enter tho New Year with hearts
lieaviug with joyous hopes of the future—to press
forward in whatever vocation in which wo may
bo ODgnged.
Another year is numbered witli tho things
that were, und Timo is still speeding on with
rapid wing. Old thiugs are growing older and
fading iu the dim vista of the past; another
year has faded away and a bright New Yenr
has dawned upon us—inspiring us with now
hopes and gladdening our hearts witli newer
joys. Another year has dawned in which we
may accomplish much good or much evil; and
it is our duty to do that good which lies iu our
power.
Let us welcome in tho glorious Now Year ;
let our hearts swell with gratitude nnd thanks
giving to tho Ailwiso Providence for the mani
fold blessing Ho lias bestwowed upon us, and
humbly nsk for a continuance c his divino fa
vors during the preseut yoar. Let a spirit of
happiness and joyousnesj pervade every heart.
Let brother meet brother ns brother and neigh
bors salute each other with kindness and affec-
tion.
In conclusion, wo greet our patrons with the
■compliments of the season and trust that an
other year will pass plonsantly, with all, and
that all may still move on prospering and to
prosper.
A happy New Year to ail.
Muscogee Superiob Court —This Court ad
journed on Saturday last, having accomplished
that Herculean labor for a Superior Court of
this county—a clearanoo of the Docket. Hut
Judge Worrill is a working niau, and is indeed
a model judicial oOiccr Muscogee couuty has
seldom been so ciear of the law for many years,
and has never bad a more popular or efficient
judicial officer ou her bench than Judgo VVor
ill.— Enquirer.
[Advertisement.]
It is our firm belief, that in nine eases out
of ten, coughs, colds, and all bronchial irrita
tions, however severe, may bo cured by tho use
of Wistar’s Halsatn of Wild Cherry. A tin
gle trial only is needed to prove this.
Plcasrs. Illll’ii nud Stephens’ Dimculty.
From the' Constitutionalist.
A CARD.
The latter ot H. II. Hill, Esq., published
in the Constitutionalist of tho 26th ult , (cop
ied front the Savannah Republican,) abound
ing, as it docs, with the grossest perversion of
truth upon matters relating to myaeif, though
not of great weight in themselves, should have
been noticed at an earlier date, but for the
pendency of a correspondence between him
and mo upon another subject of a tnucli higher
grade, in importance, which required prior ad
justment—that wns a report which had reach
ed mo of bia speeches at Thomson nnd Au
gusta near the close of the late canvass, in
hich, os was communicated to me, he bad
said, in substance, at both of theso places, in
alluding to the discussion at Lexington with
mo, nnd tho discussion at Washington with Mr.
Toombs, '* that lie lmd charged them (Messrs.
Toombs nnd Stephens) with having betrayed
tho Whig party, and having neted towards it
worse than Judas Iscariot • For though he
betrayed his master, yet ho did not abnso them
afterwards—that ho bnd thundered this in their
cars and they cowered under it.” An expla
nation of this language took precedence over
nil minor issues. And I nm now compelled by
a sense of duty to myself nnd tho publio, to
make known that tho correspondence referred
to nnd just terminnted, in relation to it, Mr.
Hill has proved himself to mo to be not only
nn impudent braggart nnd an unscrupulous
liar, hut a despioahlo poltroon besides. All
these I proclaim him to be, holding myself,
notwithstanding what has passed, and this de
nunciation, still responsible, even to him, for
what I say, if ho be not insensible to slianio
nnd degradation, however lie may ho as to
“ fear.”
The public, tboreforo, will cxeuso mo for not
saying nny tiling further upon this version of
the facts relating to tho very immaterial ques
tion, so fur ns l wns concerned, ns to whether
he did or not hack out from a discussion in
Elbert.
I will niso, I trust, bo excused even by the
most fastidious, fur the language now used to
wards him, which my own self-respect, on or
dinary occasions, would forbid. Hut when a
mendacious gasconade sets up wantonly to
nsporse private character nnd malign individu
al reputation, nnd then rcfuscB that redress
which a gentleman knows how to nsk ns well as
how to grant, no course is left for the most
courteous and decorous, nnd tho most upright
nnd honorable, but to put the brand of infamy
upon him — there to remain until a radical
change in his clinractcr, nnd especially in his
conduct, cither in giving personal insults, or
making proper amends for them when given,
shall rctnovo it.
Alexander II. SrErnENS.
Washington, D C., Dec. 12, 1860.
From the Chronicle and Sentiwl.
LETTER FROM MU. HILL.
La Orange, Go, Dec 18, 1856.
Mr Editor:—I have this morning read tho
“card” of lion. Alexander II Stephens, dated
at Washington Oily, Deo. 12th, ami published
in the Constitutionalist of yestorday It shall
ho answered ns its merits demand. The cor
respondenco between Mr Stephens and myself,
so far as any purpose of mine wns concerned,
was not intended for publication ; but ns Mr.
5. lias ailmlcd to it in his card, nnd, as nn in
npoction will show, has given it a fnlfc version*
it is proper that the public should see the whole
of it, and then “enter judgement.” I scud it
to you with this Mr Stephens first made nn
issuo of veracity in his letter of October 31,
about going to Elbert. I stated the facts on
this subject in my letter of 5th November, and
gavo it ns my opinion that Mr. 8. would not
deny the facts there stated. Ho does not do
it—As dare not tin it—hut lie goes on to say
that the letter abounds “with the grossest per
version of truth upon matters relating to him
self,” and then, without a single specification,
dismisses this branch of tho controversy, by
saying tiiey are of “no great weight in them
selves,” Ao., and was a very “immaterial ques
tion,” &c.
It is well fur him that he abandoned this is
sue. he made it, hut soon found it was a ri
diculous retreat from a mortifying defeat, and
every position assumed by him in relation to
it, false either in letter or the impression which
lie sought to make, nnd known to him to be false;
because bo is compelled to know my statement
is correct, arid can now bo proven by disinter
csted gentlemen, if ho dared to deny it, nnd
specify what he denied.*
Now, I will prove, that with more of wound
ed pride than honesty, nnd prompted more from
mad mortifiontion than a Renso of truth and
propriety, ho bns made another issue, and in
doing so has only increased the ridiculousness
of his position, nnd made more palpabio the
meanness of his nature nnd disposition
In his letter of tho 12th inst., ho alludes to
wknt ho calls “a subject of a milch higher
grade,” and that was tho following language
which he soys was communicated to him ns used
by me at Thomson and Augusta : “That I had
charged them (Messrs. Toombs nnd Stephens,)
with having betrayed tho Whig party, nnd hav
ing acted towards it worsc*tlinn Judas Iscuriot
—for though he betrayed his mauler, yet he
did not abuse him afterwards—that ho had
thundered this iD their years and they hnd cow
orod under it ” Hy his own showing, this is
tho language lie desired explained, and it is the
correspondence in relation to it (this language)
by which lie justifies his challenge, nnd when it
was declined, proceeds to utter his denuncia
tion against mo with characteristic impotence
and imperiousness. Now, I will prove tlmt
this is not only a d.sercditablo evasion but an
unmitigated falsehood. My witness, I admit,
is discredited, nud lias been often proven to be
guilty- of false statements, but as bo testifies in
this instance against himself, probably some
slight crcdcuoc may be given to his statements.
Look at liis letter dated the 22d of November,
and you will find that he quotes this very lan
guage, and says my explanation on “that point
is satisfactory," and then proceeds to nsk other
questions -‘rendered necessary,” ns lie snys, by
the character of my letter of 18th November
—the very lottcr which on that point eomplaiucd
of is admitted to bo satislactory. The man is
so given to falsehoods that lie disputes himself
Tho truth is, the language which I did use, arid
which hurts so badly, lie knows was justifiable,
bcoausc provoked hy him, and lienee his com
plaint could not he based on that foundutio r
Hut his sore would not if t him rest—ho ui
•Since writing this portion of this article, I have
received another letter from a highly respectable gen-
tti-mao, (whose name with many others, can be given
if desired) in which he says:
"1 read your published letter to Mr. Stephens, (Nov.
6. ) stating the (acts in (lie case relative to your gulng
to Klbcrt, or to Washington ; every item of which I
think you could substantiate, if necessary, by at IcuHt
twonty witnesses—myself umong the number.”
*
mm
have an issno—tho only effect of wh]
know would bo to prevent tho pos»i“
another “Lexington blister,” and if
not get up this issue in nny other way,
follow his natural proclivities and lie
This ho could do easily—without effort
gentleman baa thus made two issues g
out of this Lexington disoussion. The fin
abandons as “immaterial,” and the scco
proves by himself to be a falsehood Yi
says my correspondence proves to him Ih
am a “braggart, a liar, nnd a poltrobtl?
Tho public can judge from the corres]
ence itself whether this is not like all e
has said on this subjeot. His atntemcn
evidence. But let us see by facts hotr he
stands on ench of these points.
I am informed that somo time sinoe In a
speech ot Lexington, ho compared himself.to
Moses, nnd I know in the discussion with me-tfc
bragged disgustingly "I nnd Toombs” and a
few others, (underlings, he at tho top always,)
passed and framed the Compromise measures
of 1850—told Webster how to fix up the Whig
platform of 1852, nnd did almost overy thing
else of importance for many years in Congress a
The records do not show it—very badly kcpttrqr-
tliey ought tc bo corrected. At Mt Moriah,
in Jefferson county, when asked publioly Jiy
somo of his friends whore ho should go in tho
then disruption .if parties, ho drew himself ijp',
assuming the air of a Jupiter Tonans, and
stretching forth his “red right arm,” *
"come to me j come to me. Alexander Ifll
Stephens, Ac. Wonderful Saviour I Ho
compared himself to an eagle and other peonlo
to owls, and talked about how he soared! ajd
so he did soar beyond all location! I could nil
columns with evidence on this subject, hut I
should say tho foregoing is enough for the pre
sent to prove him a "braggart
Now let us sec how this imperious nrbitrer ot
character stands the test of the second charac
teristic which ho attributes to mo. During ih®‘
discussion at Lexington I referred lo, nnd quo
ted a passngo in Mr Brook’s speech at Ninety
six, nnd asked Mr Stephens if lie endorsed it.
In his reply he said lie did not know that. Mr.
Brooks had used such language—it had not been
read. I immediately handed it to him, point
ing to the portion quoted, nnd asking him,
(Steplicns) to read it. lie commenced roading-
and, when lie reached the portion I hnd quoted
he skipped, nnd commenced reading below I
quietly stopped him, and nsked him to go hack,
and ns I was sitting under nnd beliiud hini^J
gently took hold of his arm to point him to lhc
omitted part, and lie absolutely pulled against
mo. Tho thing was so palpable, that a little
hoy fivo years old detcc ted it, nnd exclaimed
“lie skips.” After he was thus compelled to
go back, ho read it, and found it precisely as I
had quoted it. He then told the people tint
I had misrepresented Mr. Brocks; ilmt .hf
Mr. Brooks, had not advised us “to tenr up the
already tattered Constitution”—that these were
not Mr Brook’s words, ns I had said, but that
Mr. Brooks said these are the Abolitionist’s
words, that they would tear up the Constitu
tion, Ao. This lie said with the balance of the
sentence before bis eyes, and which I then rend.
“Tear up tho already tattered Constitution,
scatter its fragments to the winds, and hutjd-a
lates to what was ssid in tho discussion.—
did not take it as offensive at the time —
tod ino to discussion afterwards—saw me
days before his first letter was written—
os with me—had a long bnsinoss transaction
>nd social conversation, and not a word of dis-
tisfaction was whispered. He forged bis
lovanoo — manufactured his excuse — noted
a pretender in his challenge, and is tbere-
a poltroon.
Mr. Stephens speaks of my asporsing “ pri-
ato character,” and “maligning individual rm^
elation.” This is false—unconditionally, aoW
lately false, in fact, in conooption and in pur
ose. J never said anything against his privato
__ r, nor do I deal, in publio discussion or
at dinner tables, with privato characters. Bat
even on this point 1 cannot release Ijim without
a stripe. At the dinnor table in Lexington,
on tlio very day before tho disoussion, at tho
house of a distinguished gentleman, and when
most of tho listeners were personally strangers
to mo, tliis very man, A. II. Stephens, did ob
perse my “privato character,” and malign my
“individual reputation.” This bo did falsely
and maliciously.
My privato character is the jcwol I prizo
above all others. I was bore, raised and edu
cated in Georgia, and if tho man, woman or
child enn be found whom I ever willfully de
ceived, in privato or publie life—in politics,
law, or social intercourse—I hereby unseal his
and authorize him to speak. It is a real
solution to know that on this subject, nt
nst, I enn defy tho slanderer,Imock tho tra-
duccr, and despise the venom of even Alexan
der H. Stephens. I hope no one wilt suppose
that cvcd now I entertain anything like a feel
ing of hatred for Mr Stephens. Fur from it
—I would not harm a hair of his head Up
to the Lexington discussion, I entertained
.something of respect for him, though the
character of many of his statements prior to
hat time shook my faith in him considerably
>ineo I saw him, felt him, and weighed him,
nd knew him, ns nt Lexington, all tho depths
if unutterable contempt are exhausted in the
dca I have of his utter want of fairness, and
nndur, and truthfulness as a debater. In our
iscussion at Lexington, 1 deemed it a duty,
n reply to his slander of honest men, to draw
S picture of his own course, nnd show it to
lim. The very sight of his own picture run
him mad It was truo to lifo, and therefore
the more hideous. Henco his soro. He had
hoen allowed to misrepresent until ho con
cluded lie had a right to do so, by lapse of
time and immemorial usage. His ndverso pos
session of falsehood lie deemed furnished an
absolute bar to the entry of truth by the stat
ute of limitations.
No man saw any ground for a ohnllonge in
nny of my speeches—no man can find it in our
.correspondence, and I bclievo every candid
man will admit, that my letter of tho 1 Bill
November ought to havo proven satisfactory
to any gentleman. The truth is. Mr. Stephens
lias discovered that I have found him out, and
if you want a man to hate you, let him bo
nwnro that you arc honest nnd that you know
ho is mean. I say to Mr. S , that while I do
know his faults, I nm willing to regard them
twiili much nllownncc, nnd not talk about them
ns much as he supposes; because I honestly
bclievo the mnn lias perverted, distorted nnd
It is
Southern Confederacy.” Did the Abolitionists
sny they would build a Southern Confederacy ?
Here wero two falsehoods iu rending ono padL misrepresented until ho can’t help it.
graph! frj* ‘necessary for his comfort. Ho is n
Ho afterwards rend, or pretended ♦« reed, maniac on the subject of falsehood,
what ho called the “Know Nothing oath.RUnd
conumjnccd It wlthrtlio Words, "Tou^vili,
appointed to office,” Ao., nnd then made nn aT-
gumont to provo this oath ivas illegal, nnd went
through a theatrical ceremony of holding up
tlio Constitution, nnd closed hy depositing it in
tho keeping of some little hoys. (I understand
in Elbort he deposited it in tlio keeping of a
good old woman.) I nsked him for the very
body oven knowimi his opinion, nnd when “I
nnd Toombs” killed tiio bear, Fillmore said,
Nancy nin’t we bravo. In reply to all this-
stuff, I produced and rend Mr Stephen's pub
lislicd declarations in 1852, applauding Mr,
Fillmoro for his advocacy of thoso measured,)
and his firm adherence” to the policy which 1
sustained them
lie told the
This letter is long, hut my reliance is the
jqnnd it require* Bpace-tq-stnlc them. The
nngungo is severe, but not so wanton as that
which lias called it out. I did not commence
this controversy. Mr. Stephens was scarcely
out of tho stand at Lexington, before, kooping
time with tho new discovery in electricity, he
lormod his throat into a wiro for the passage
of counter currents—dinner going down and
paper from which ho rend, nnd I took it and p nnllors .coming up-originating the version
showed the people that this very sentence wide*- ' abo “ t f “ ,n B to ®. ll ; ort . f To general,t,cs I have
lie sought to prove was illegal, commenced,
“If it can bo done legally, you will, when tip- ””” *
pointed to office,” Ac , ho (Stephens) leaving
out tlie words, “if it can bo done legally,” Ac".
Now, render, bow do you suppose this truthful
impeacher of other men’s veracity justified this
deceptive garbling. Witli nn effrontery nndj^
imperturble gravity which surpassed even Simon
Suggs, when, after swindling his neighbor out
of his horse, by n legerdemain, known only
to jockeys, lie said, “integrity is the post I
allers tie to.” Mr. Stephens told the peoplo
lie rend ns much of the document as suited
his purpose ” His purpose 1 amidst all His
prevarications, this one truth slipped out by.
accident, ho rend enough to suit his purpose,--*
Ho next spoke of the passngo of the Corapro
miso Measures of 1850, nnd the part Mr. Fill
moro acted, which lie illustrated hy ono of thoso*
classical nnccdotcs which so distinguish ltji*
gentleman's oratory, about Nancy Ggliting tho!
Bear, nnd her husband remaining in tlio loft
until Nancy killed the bear, mid then coming
down nnd saying “Nancy nin’t wo brave.”—
So, said Mr S , when “I nnd Toombs,” and a
few others, wore fighting the bonr, (passing tlio
Compromise) Mr Fillmoro wns in the loft,
vert, lie will hut confirm his title to the char
acter given him There are many facts known
to mo, not slated ; but I havo no disposition to
prosocuto this controversy, oven against a mnn
who originates falsehood to injure me, and ap
peals to malice to sootho his self-provoked
wounds.
I regard duelling as no evidence of courage
—no vindication of truth, nnd no test of tho
cliaraoter of a truo gontlcman. I shall bo
“braggart, liar and poltroon” enough, now and
forever, to dcolnro that what the laws of God
and my native Stato unite in denouncing ns
murder, could givo me no satisfaction to do, to
attempt, or to desire. This determination is
but strongthoned, when tlio contrary oourso
involves the violation of my consoienco and
tho hazard of my family, as against a man who
Jias neither conscience nor family. But I
have hnd, and sbnll continue to havo courage
enough to do my duty firmly and truthfully,
•nd to defend myself nny where nnd everywhere,
even in the Eighth Distriot; and if any gen
tleman doubt it, tbero is n short and easy way
to tost it. Very truly, Ac.,
B. H. Hill.
[COPIES.]
CORRESPONDENCE.
Crawfordville, 11th Nov. 1856.
Sir :—I havo been informed that in your
speech at Thomson, and also in Augustn, iu
... alluding to a discussion you had with Mr.
lem. lo get out of this dilemma,j Tootnbs at Washington, nnd myself nt Lexing-
people ho wns not speaking of MiMkoti, you said in snbstnnoo that “you hnd ebarg-
Fillmorc—he told tho Bear aneodote to rWiWH upon them (Mr. Toombs and myself,) Hint
rest- Hipv I
-tfeonceal anything I did say at any time, b«-
cauao ray motives were right and my declara
tions “from the bouso-tops.” Sl
At Thomson, Augusta, and S%ir places, I
did allude to the discussions nt Lesgton and
Washington, espceialiy the first, butTaqsn say
with entire oertainty, that I soid do
the subjeot of your enquiry than I di
{ our presence at the time of the discuss):
loxington.
■ During the disenssion at Lexington, x
spoke of the “Know Nothings” (os you bn
been pleased to term the members of the Ami
icon party) very severely or contemptuously)
and as I ondototoodjt; and among other things
you read a portion of what yon oalled the
‘■onth,” and doc 1 ® 1 '®' 1 il illegal, nnd you spoko
of Lane, “one of tho forty-four,” as a Judas,
and said he was “our ally," Ac.
At Washington, Mr. Toombs spoke of tho
Americans, if possiblo, still more bitterly, and
described them “ as snoaking at midnight
around back lots,” and even ministers ns “tell
ing lies and getting out of them by equivokes,’
Ac , Ao To both of you I mado reply, nnd
a portion of the reply was the samo to both,
and, in (be reply, alluded to the manner in
which you hnd on former occasions treated
theso men, when thoy wero alluded to as “mid
night conspirotors,” “treason plotters,” and ns
comparable to “French Jacobins,” Ac. I then
spoko cf the characters of many of theso men
who wero brought under this terrible denunci
ation : referred to tho fuct that thoy were up
right members of/tlio various IraucheB of the
Christian churcir ; wero among the very host
members of society ; hnd never violated any
law; nnd wero men into whoso keeping wo
would bo willing to trust our families, our rep
utation nnd our property ; that among them
wero to be found the greatest number of your
early and best friends—men who had made
you—hnd taken you by tho hand and given
you their business and made you rich ; hnd
placed you in tho National councils nnd kept
you there, nnd thus made you great, nnd even
if you differed from them now, that difference
on such questions of propriety could not justify
you iu using tho position they hnd given you
thus to denounce them. I then spoko of your
habitual nnd particulor reference to Judas, and
I added : "that Judas did betray his Lord,
but even Judns never abused his Lord after he
betrayed him.”
These are the facts on tlio “Judas” branch
of the argument—the only ono to which you
have addressed your enquiry. Now as to the
manner in which “I intended it to be under
stood.” I intended it to he understood ns sim
ply in reply to tho charges mnde; neither
more nor less. It was iu reply at Lexington
and Washington, and on every occasion after
wards when referred to, it was hy way of nar
rative os in roply, nnd in no other manner.—
Tlio samo charges seem to have been mado
wherever I went in Eastern Georgia, and the
same manner of treating the so-culled “Know-
Nothing” onth, had been adopted by you du
ring the canvass of Inst year So the people
soid. I ncvei abused cither you or Mr. Toombs
—saw no one who so construed my remarks
I spoke of the reply ns a reply, nnd mado in
your presence. May havo said “thundered it”
—not certain ns to those words. Do not re
member that I said in any speech, “you cow
ered under it”—may liuvo said iu conversation
that somo of your friends wero reported ns
saying so, and that tlio people, as far ns I
knew, deemed tlio reply not out of plnco, hut
woll-timkd lyiibmoriled. Lkjow my main *b-
jeet wns to report the facts as the best form
in which I could present the nrgument. I
never abuse nny-hody—never myself make
personal issues in public-speeches, but gener
ally reply to any thing which I consider merits
a reply: and frequently, if not always (and I
now bclievo always,)nlluded to your self and
Mr. Toombs with a distinct disclaimer of un
kind fcolings, because I never bad such feel
ings for either of you. But I deemed it my
duty to meet your argument to tho best of my
humble ability, whorover I met it or heard it,
nnd that, too, wether the argument nssumed
tlicsbapo of lodgic, sarcasm or ridicule, nnd I
never attempt the latter species of arguments,
uni - s in reply to something of the kind first
uscu by tlio adversary. I never make shots
except at those who build batteries
What I said nt Thomson, Augusta or else
where, on the Judas allusion, you heard at
Lexington. How I snid it you saw, nnd to
what it was said in reply, nnd therefore why it
was said, yon know; nnd whoever represents
otherwise misleads you, either hy misrepresent
ing mo, or by substituting their own applica
tions for my statements. I had almost snid I
was willing to submit to your own judgment,
whether the whole wns not in strict accordance
witli tlio rules of parliamentary retort
Tho publio mittd has strangely had yourself
and brother Linton and mysolf on several occa
sions, lighting or quarrelling about something
growing out of this Lexington disoussion, but
hoping these tilings will bo in tlio future what
they have been in tho past, entirely imaginary
and without foundation in cither fact or fccliDg.
I am, very truly yours,
B. H. Hill.
lion. A. II. Stephens.
eule mo! which, ot course, made mo Presi
dent in 1850, and the candidate for thut offici
in 1856 ! !
He denied Hint ho lmd abused Stephen A.
Douglas, especially on tlio slavery question, in
1852. I appealed to tlio audience beforo me
to provo otherwise, and stated what I my self
had hoard Mr S. say in La Grange, and voices
responded from every part of the audience,
“he did it hero—wo hoard him !” I could go
on and state moro falsehoods equally ridicu
lous—his Lnno charge — tho introduction of
Judas—a favorite illustration with Mr. Ste
phens—aud many other things, but it seems to
mo unnoccssnry, and it is no pleasant task thus
to exposo him, if I was able to count his false
hoods ns fast as lie told thorn I have meu-
tioued fivo, given as instances, at ono timo, in
uuueu iivu, given us iiisiuuucs, ui. one iimo, in HEAR am : i reeoiveu yuur lunur oi ii
one discussion, nnd before a largo audience of ’to day, nnd proceed to givo a prompt reply.
intelligent people, and by whom every word
can be proven, if iio.dcnioa them. It scorns to
mo this makes tlio gentleman n perfect “Colt’s
repealer," in tlio matter of telling falsehoods.
Keep cgol, Nancy, this is worse than tlio bear-
fight!
To ths third point Tbo gentleman cannot
specify a single sentence, word or syllable, in
my letters to him, my spceob in his presence,
or my remarks about him, that is not strictly
true and confined to him as a publio man. The
only grievanco which ho specifies in his card,
ho admits in his letter is satisfactorily explain
ed. Everything elso iu tho correspondence
they had betrayed tho Whig party, and had
acted towards it worso tliuu Judas Iscariot—
for, though ho betrayed bis master, yet ho did
not abuso him afterwards—that you had thun
dered this in their (Toombs and Stephens) ears,
and thoy cowered under it.
Plonso lot rao know if it bo true, that you
on tho occasion ailndcd to, used such language,
or intondod yourself to bo understood as using
such innguage, or any of like import; at least
so fur as I am concerned.
Your early attention to this will oblige,
Yours, most respectfully,
Alexander U. Stephens.
To B. H. Ilill, Esq., LuGrango, Ga.
La Grange, Ga , Nov. 18, 1856'
Dear Sir: I recoived your letter of lltli
I did not say at Thomson, or Augusta, or
elsewhoro, that you nnd Mr Toombs “had be
trayed the Whig party, and bad acted towards
it worso than J udas Iscariot,” Ao.
This, perhaps, is the application which your
informant himself made of what I did say.
It is not possible for me now to recall tho
prcciso words used by mo at the time alluded
to, nor at any other time ; but tho substance
of what I snid about the disoussion at Lexing
ton and Washington, I well romember, though
I OQnuot designate preoiscly how much I said
at any one placo, as I sometimes snid mors
than at other times ; hut I havo no disposition
Crawfordville, Ga,Nov. 22, 1856.
Sir:—Your letter hearing dato tlio 18th
instant, (mailed or post marked tlio 20th,) wns
received by me to day. In reply to tho in
quiry made in thine to you, of the 17th iust.,
you sny that you did not, nt Thomson, or Au
gusta, oi* elsewhere, say that I and Mr Toombs
“had betrayed tho Whig party, and hnd actod
towards it worso than Judas Iscariot,” Ao.
This is satisfactory on that point You,
however, go on to say that nt Thompson, Au
gusta, and other placos, you did allude to the
discussion at Lexington; but that you said on
those occasions no more on the subject of my
inquiry (contained in my 'otter of tho 17th
iust) than you did say id my presence at Lcx-
iDgton. And you givo what yon intondod, I
suppose, as tho substance of wbat you there
said, Ac.
Now, waiving all comments on this report
of your remarks at Loxiugon, ns given in your
letter, allow mo to ask you further, whether
nt Loxington, in tho only allusion you made to
Judas Iscariot, you did not expressly stato
that you did not apply that to me?
I wish, also, to bo informed whether, in your
“nnrralive” nt Thompson, or clsowlicro, you in
tended to bo understood as having imputed
trcachoay in mo to tho Whig party, or any
other body of mon?
An early and distinct reply to these addi
tional enquiries, rendered tiecossary by tho
oharncter of your lottcr, is desired. Very
respectfully,
Alexander. H Stephens.
To B. H. Hill, Esq , LaGrango, Ga.
La Grange. Ga., Nov. 24th, 1866.
Sir ; By tho mail of yostordny (Sunday) I
received your letter of :
yon m«de two enquiries, and ask
plies: \ .
1st. Whether in the allusion to Judas Isca
riot at Lexington, I did not expressly state
that I did dvt apply that to jjm.” My re col
lection is this i In yoar first spoeeb yon made
your charges against the Americans, alluded
to in my letter of the 18th, and introduced in
the character oT Judas and " his allies." Id
my first rejoinddr, I made the reply alluded to,
and without qualification, expecting yon (if J0d
wero dissatisfied or desired explanation) to %
speak of it in your conclusion. Yon did not
do so. In |my conclusion I again mentioned
it, and added voluntarily—“ of coarse, my
friends, I do not mean to say that Mr. Ste
phens is a Judas.” This I added, because
I did not wish tho audience to consider me
personal, but as using a figure of your own id
reply, and (as I must now tell the feeling that
actuated mo) becouso I did fool somo com
punctions for making thnt last speech at all f
as it Bccmcd cruel to add anything after youv
last speech. I always disclaimed personal un-
kindness, for certainly I felt none.
2d. You nsk “ whother in my narrative at
Thomson, or elsewhere, I intended to be un
derstood ns imputing or having imputed treach
ery in you to tho Whig party or any other
body of men ?”
In my letter of the 18th, I distinctly stated
in reference to my meaning, that “I intended
it to bo understood as simply in reply to tho
chargo made, Dcithcr more Dor less.” By tho
light of yonr owp moving, then, you can,
learn my answer. \ <
Yonr remarks were csrtarnly as offensive rb
any thing said by me, nnd wero tho firnt made,
nnd I might also havo been writing letters call
ing on you for explanation, but as I entered
that contest to use the sword of the tongno
and tho shield of fact, I intended to bo satisfied
with tho result, nnd so I am And what was
said thcro wns said to the publio, I had and
have no objections to its use in reply to similar
points made any time to any peoplo.
I never, in disenssion, first enter tho field of
ridiculo or personal reproach, but if my adver
sary takes thnt path, I generally follow, and if
I get too close on his heels for his comfort, he
must blame only himself.
Instead of discussing tho principles advo
cated hy the American party, have you not for
the last eighteen months been abusing tho
members of that party ns “midnight conspira
tors,” ‘treason plotters,” "French Jneobins,”
Ac.? Have you not compared them to every
thing monstrous among men, beasts or insects?
Have you not searched tho whole field of ridi
cule, from “ Doodle holes” to “Bear-fights,”
with which to engender prejudice against this
parly ? Did you not at Lexington, call them
the allies of the obolitionigt Lnuc, who has
never actod witli them ror been of them, but
who was one of - tho immneulnto “ forty-four?”
And did you not pretend to read whatyou
called tlio Know Nothing oath, (which you
snid Mr Fillmore had taken,) nnd did you not
rend a portion — leaving out tlio very quali
fication which your argument wns designed to
prove it did not contain ? Did you not in that
very connection talk a good deal about Judas ?
Were these charges just—wore they trust
Bns it not abuse ? And who were tlio men
thus denounced ? Can yon find better any
where ? Will you ever find men who can or
will do more for you than these men have dono ?
Do you really believe they ore dangerous to
their country f Vftfy, mit, 1 hat repeat whaV
you know when I sny,J^"‘^^ -
our country, o4F4feti
fought, these men 'w
and tlio last to leave it. W
Romo has fallen, nnd the (fbths and' 1
may tako it Now then to the poinlf: ...
discussion with mo you do so treat these men,
must I say nothing in reply ? If I do reply,
can your illustration returned bo out of placo ?
If the arrow did pierce, it »ns|tnken from your
own quiver. And if I mado you foel tlio ono
shot, how do you suppose your old friends have
felt, when you have mado thousands ?
If you had not made tiio charge, I should
not have made tho reply If you had only a
political meaning, theu the reply goes no fur
ther. If you _uicnnt nothing, so did the ro-
ply.
Your treatment of the Whigs is a matter
between you and them: nor is it matorial to
me to how many parties yon may have be
longed, or how you left them: or they left you;
but when you speak of my political associates
whether whigs or dsmocrats, in tlio manner
mentioned, then the hour for defence and
retort has eomc, nDd will not be suffered to
pass idly away. By your own words construe
mine: by your own mcaniug judge me, nnd
harshly or kindly as you may. Tho chargo
was mnde, the reply followed—and thero thoy
are—tako both or tako neither, If you wero
in a glass house, you ought not to havo thrown
stones: if you did not live in a glass honse, no
stone, thrown by mo, has harmed you.
Your right to refuse to join tho American
party and to join the Democratic party, is
unquestionable: and tho motive and the fact
are both unquestioned by me. Tho right of
your old friends to refuse to follow you is
also unquestionable, and neither you nor they
should bo compared to Judus nor charged with
treachery to thus obeying tho dictates of your
honest conviction. Nor havo I done so, or
intended so to bo understood by nny body.
But if you compare theso men to Judas,.or_
apply tlio other opprobrious terms mentioned,
to them, their organization, tlioir principles, or
their conduct, I shall call it by its right name
—abuse; und in resorting to such abuse, leaving
his treachery out of the question, I Bay you do
what tlio record docs not show against Judns-
ahuse tho men who for twelve years'fedyou with
“five loavcB and two fishes,” indefinitely multi
plied!
I hope you now nnderstand mo. I never
havo mado, and do not now make any charge of
treachery against you. No man regrets moro
than I do your opposition, and especially the
character of your opposition to tho American
party. It has boen unjust to tho party—gross
ly unjust and untrue to the motives of the
men and tlio principles thoy advocate. It has
becD unjust to yourself, aud tho student of your
early history will have no right to anticipate
such a sequel. But in tho discharge of what
I deemed my duty, I replied to your charge,
and whilo tho chargo remains, the roply must
keep its company.
Yours, very truly,
B. II. Hul.
Hon. A. H. Stephens.
Washington, D. C., Nov. 29, 1851)
Sir:—Yonr lettor bearing date tb
inst., (mailed or post marked
not reaob Crawfordville, whqjjji ,
until after I left for this ]'
It has just eomc to hand
been forwarded, audJ8|'