Newspaper Page Text
MB AGRICULTURAL AND MERCANTILE INTELLIGENCER.
Printed and published on Tuesdays and Fridays, by tfJariuadukc /. Slade, at Fire Hollars per annum, payable in advance.
VOL. I
The Advertiser & intelligencer
Is published on Mondays and Thursdays at Five
Dollars per annum, in advance. Advertisements
inserted at the usual rates: those sent without a
specified number of insertions, will be published
until ordered out and charged accordingly.
Sales of Land, by Administrators, Exe
cutors, or Guardians, are required, by law, to be
held on the first Tuesday in the month, between
the hours often in the forenoon and three in the
afternoon, at the couurt-house in the county in
vhich'the property is situate. Notice of these
sales must be given in a public gazette sixty days
previous to the day of sale, .
Sales of negroes must be at public auction, on
he first Tuesday of the month, between the usual
hours of sale, at the place of public sales in the
county where the letters Testamentary, of Admin
istration or Guardianship, may have been granted,
first giving sixty days notice thereoi, in one of the
public gazettes of this State, and at the door of the
court-house, where such sales are to be held.
Notice for the sale of Personal Property must
be given in like manner, Forty days previous to
the day of sale. , „ r ~
Notice to the Debtors and Creditors of an Es
tate must be published for forty days.
Notice that application will be made to tne
Court of Ordinary for leave to sell Land, must be
published four months.
Notice for leave to sell Negroes, must be pub
lished for four months, before any order absolut
shall be made thereon by the Court.
“The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.”
Hum the Georgia Jauraul.
REVIEW
Of the Correspondence between General An
drew Jackson and John C. Calhoun,
President and Vice-President of the Uni
ted States, on the subject of the course of
’ the latter in he deliberations of the Cabinet
of Mr. Monroe, on the occurrences in the
Seminole War —and the papers to which
said Correspondence has given rise.
The article, upon which it is our intention
to bestow a few reflections, has drawn a cur
tain upon scenes wholly new in this country,
and altogether discreditable to the move
ments of elevated life. The American peo
ple have long fluttered thems Ives that vir
tue, at least, is the ruling trait oftheir great
men, and that whatever of cunningor perfidy
existed in the natio: , was to be found in the
humbler walks of lift, the invariable attend
ant of penury and want. Mliat a delusion
must be removed by the subject before us!
Upon the great surface of the moral world,
duplicity is the growth of every soil, and the
fact is fast approaching a fix and confirmation,
t hat its more favored a id congenial region, is
in the highest rank's of society. The evi
dences of treachery, and ail its corrupting
consequences, have so signally crowd and upon
the political events of this country, and have
been exhibited in s ich rapid succession, be
fore the American people, that it should a
waken no surprise if one were to declare that
the federal government is the most deceitful
upon which the sun, at this day. pours its.
beams. We know the assertion is a strong
o.ie, hut to the man who stauoa aside upon
some retired elevation, unavved by the stern
ness of power, and unmoved by the seduc
tions of fame, and attentively beholds the
million of secret currents that are forever ur
ging men on in the pursuit of office, he will
he constrained to say that it is not stronger
than true. The remark is not applicable to
the constituent elements of society. They
are comparatively pure and passive ; hut ope
rated upon by the combined influence of av
arice and ambition, passion and power, they
are often driven into surges that threaten to
whelm every thing that is found drifting up
on their summits. Ties is precisely the pres
ent aspect of the “gr. at deep” of political af
fairs in the United States, produced by the
essay we are now about to examine. Con
taining the figure, the storm is up and still
rages ; none dare predict who is to be lost, or
who is to he saved.
We propose to investigate this subject, dis
passionately,—not with any great hope of en
lightening any one, —but with a view to warn
the peopL not to fall into ranks, with a blind
and reckless devotedness to men, vvithou
carefully examining the claims which they
have upon their countenance and support.—
As they have been appealed Io in the most
studied and solemn fo in, so, in the most cool
and deliberate manner, should they make up
t!i ir verdict.
They owe it to their self-respecl. They
owe it to their virtue and integrity, as it is an
event brought on, not l>y their agency, not
to commit themselves on either side, until
they have duly weighed and considered all
the evidence submitted to their inspection.
justice he done, and let the guilty party
fall into that merited contempt which always
waits the unsuccessful issue of selfish mo
tives.
The pamphlet is addressed to the people
of the United States, and the testimony laid
before them, doubtless, with a view to tiici*"
impartial decision. Asa part of that com
munity thus invoked, we feel authorised to
suTunit our judgment; and having nothing to
disguNe, we are free to say that Mr. Cal
houn h. s not sustained himself. 'I he rea
sons for ti.’ opinion shall now he frankly
given.
In the first place, wo do most seriously ob
ject to the manner of the address. It is an
a, Veal to the sympathies of the people ; an
attempt to h arrow up their feelings, and un
der the compassion which a most suing com
plaint never fails to produce, it is hoped to
a ducothetn into favor, contrary to t!i< u bei
u. r judgment. This is a species of political
tj.rihpicv y tint the American pul-lb ought
to despise, because it implies an effeminacy
iii their understanding, adverse to sober in
vestigation, and easily touched by the whin
ing arts of supplication. But a cause thus
supported, seldom fails to betray itself, and
he who the rather chooses to risk his fortunes
upon the feelings, than upon the firm, staid
judgment of a community, will sooner or later
find himself upheld by the most deceptive as
well as unsubstantial props.
The address too, is not only very artful,
but very uncandid. It is intentionally long
in its details, and complicated in its facts,
constantly breathing the sighs of persecution
and breaking out upto the groans of injured
innocence. The latter deceive—the former
are not understood : consequently, the mind
is drawn oil’from the true question, and rising
from such a mixture of cold suggestion and
cunning sensibility, most persons believe
something must be wrong.
It is said of those who practice that kind
of deception, called slight of hand, that they
principally succeed by their powers of dis
tracting the attention of spectators at the crit
ical moment of performing the trick. A
mused and called ot"to a foreign object, that
individual point of time is eagerly seized to
play otY the delusion, and the fraud becomes
complete. Not until e this manoeuvre is the
communication of Mr. Calhoun. Stript of all
the parade of facts, and the pageant of long
rendered services, hard earned fame, and all
that sort of self-devotion, what does the case
amount to? In the spring of 1818, General
Jackson, in continuat on of his splendid a
chievements, performed duriug'the last war,
called on by the gov a i anient to chastise and
subdue the combined forces of the Lower
Creeks and Scminol? tribes of Indians, who
had carried on a most inhuman predatory war
upon the States of .1 labaina and Georgia, al
most from the clos i of the war with England
and the Indians, (V.wn to the above mention
ed period. As usual, success attended his
valour, and the eni my find from before him,
in every direction; but encouraged and sup
ported by English emissaries, and countenan
ced secretly by the Spanish authorities in
Florida, they sheltered themselves in that
Province. From which it was their design
ty sally forth agr n upon the frontiers of the
States to renew their work of plunder, ra
in ad murdr r. This was readily perceiv
ed by General Jackson, and he foresaw that
his operations would prove entirely ineffectu
al unless their refuge was destroyed. Actua
ted by reasons so forcible, and fortified, as
he believed, with the permission of his gov
ernment, he (lid not hesitate to capture, Flori
da. This course gave great inquietude to
Mr. Monroe, who thereupon called a cabinet
council which, though, it broke up without
censuring General Jackson, Itad, like most
councils, some of the agitating materials,
that intrigue never fails to put in operation,
tending to the accomplishment of ultra de
signs. Under the boasted, but often affect
ed virtue ofsecrecy, only so much of the pro
ceedings of this meeting, over and above the
honorable acquittal of General Jackson,
came to light, as was designed, artfully, to
leave upon Ids mind the belief that a serious
attack had been made upon h s merited fame
by William If, Crawford. And that but for
the warm defence urged in his behalf by Mr.
Adams and Mr. Calhoun, a reputation which
had cost him so much danger and toil, would
have received an insidious stab. General
Jackson remained the dupe of this delusion
for something like twelve years; and nothing
hut that singular fatality, with which, per
haps, the retributive justice of heaven has
bound the workings of infamy, that some
where in its course through time or eternity,
it will be arrested, saved him from being un
deceived only at that bar where a long, woo
ing address loses its charm to mislead.
General Jackson receives information which
to him, is utterly astonishing, and which, as
he himself acknowledges, tries his faith to
the last degree: that Crawford was friendly
to him, and that Calhoun was the reverse! !
Now, this is the plain simple state of the ques
tion. Ingenuity may wring it as it pleases,
treachery may torture it in every possible
shape—disappointed ambition may smooth it
with all the arts of sophistry—pretended pu
rity may lord it with facts, dilate it with ar
guments, and drench it with tears, stiili it is
nothing more than the foregoing unvarnished
tale, llow is General Jackson to act ? lie is
sensible of having injured Mr. Crawford.—
Let us fer a moment withdraw the correspon
dence between these two great personages,
and suppose them face to face. This would
he the language used by them. General
Jackson, with his usual frank and unconceal
ed manner, says: Sir, you know you have of
ten given me to understand that you stood by
me and supported my character in the seri
ous investigation which took place, of my
conduct in Florida. I have lately learned
that, so fir from having your friendship on
that occnron; you were the first man to move
an enquiry into my conduct, and perhaps the
only man for censuring inc. Can this be
true ? What kind of an answer ought te be
expected from a question so direct ? By all
that is due to candor —by every considerarion
which gives value to sincerity—which adorns
the truth and gives unfading lustre to fidelity,
was lie rot entitled to a a reply as open and
unequivocal as the question had been honest
and manly? Is this te oil r ictet of tin t
reply? Does Mr. Calhoun answer and
nay :—General Jackson, it is not true; or,
1 never gave you to understand that I sup
port'd you in that council? These are tile
only two replies that could or ought to have
boon n Lined to a question so simple. But,
MACON : TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 1831.
instead of one or the other of these answers i
what does lie say? 1 appeal to the people—
as their public servant, acting so long for
their best interest, having the constitution
constantly in view—always governed by a
strong feeling of duty, and a stronger sense of
the public welfare, whether I ought to answer
such a question—whether I ought to be ar
raigned for my official conduct—whether 1
ought to be questioned for my constitutional
privilege—whether General Jackson, though
he is President, should put me upon the rack
for opinions exercised in the faithful discharge
of public duty—a duty which I porformed
fearlessly for my country, and from certain
letters of Mr. Monroe’s private corrcspon
j dence with General Jackson, he had a right
to believe that ha took Florida contrary to
orders—Fellow-citizens, this is all a plot to
ruin my political standing—l can convict
General Jackson’s informant of falsehood, in
some part of his statement, if he will only
give me up all the names of the persons con
cerned in the plot, and all their letters, and all
the other information which 1 may need.—
This is a foul plot, and 1 have been most in
humanly treated, anhused and traduced! Is
this a fair answer io a fair question? In vain
General Jackson replies:—Mr. Calhoun, I do
not upbraid you with official misconduct. I
I do not arraign your motives. They are
with your God. Ido not question your pub
lic or priv ate rights. Ido not denounce yeur
opinions. They are sacred. But 1 only ask
you have I been deceived? la it true that
you were for censuring me, for my con
duct in Florida, when you told me and my
friends you were not? Understand me: do
not mistake the question, it is r.ot your o
piuion I blame. No one denies your ui.e ; s
tionable right on that point. But it is the
denial of that opinion of which I wish to i • n
formed. it is the doing of one tiling, a r ;
saying another. Did you not attempt to mak
me believe you were for ne, when it turns
out you wore against me? And did you not
seek the more strongly to confirm this im
pression by laying it upon another? Tijs is
t..e true question between us. Do not attempt
to divert the public mind, bv long and labor
ed statements, and by assailing their pity,
from what every body must perceive is the
true and only ground. What is the response
of Mr. Calhoun? —It is all a plot, a foul plot
against me. I will not answer the question
any other way than by saying that you treat
me very ungenerously in withholding the let
ters and names of the conspirators—in arraign
tng my official conduct, and in believing
William 11. Crawford’s statement, though by
my present mode of treating you, you have
every right to believe it true!
What could General Jackson do? With
that scorn which conscious integrity ever
idols, ho says to Air. Calhoun: “ I regret that
instead of a negative, which I had a right to
expect, 1 had the poignant mortification to
see in your 1 tier an admission of its truth.
Understanding the matter now, I feel no in
terest in this altercation, and now close this
correspondence forever.”
We shall now attempt a more methodical
analysis of this correspondence. Mr. Cal
houn, with a sensibility amounting almost to
agony, rests his defence mainly upon two
grounds.
1. 'J hat Mr. Cranford has been guilty of
fal chood.
2. That the whole affair is a base intrigue,
andfoul plot against his poll ical stand
ing.
I. 'i'lie first position is attempted to bo sup
ported by negative testimony, and this is of
two kinds. 1. Mr. Crawford’s enmity of long
standing, and recent evidences of its exercise
towards Mr. Calhoun. 2. The testimony of
Mr. Monroe, Alt. Wirt and Mr. Adams, as to
their want of recollection of a particular fact,
the certificate of Air. McDuffie, and the Diary
of a Mr. Garnett, as to his confessions.
The first gentlemen who are made to enter
upon the stage, (more, to bo sure, in the cha
racter of “ lamp lighters,” than in any other,)
are Wilson Lumpkin ad Daniel Newnan—
They both give Mr. Calhoun the alarm that
certain “political jugglers” arc plotting a se
paration between him and Gen. Jackson, by
representing that Calhoun lias pursued a de
ceptive course towards Gen. Jackson, on pre
vious occasions. Air. Lumpkin states: “ I
feel the more at liberty and authorised to make
this communication, because 1 know, of my
own knowledge, you and your friends are mis
represented upon this subject. However.
Gen. Jackson, himself, must secand know the
object of these shallow efforts." Again: “ I
do not know one conspicuous friend of yours,
but what has constantly, zealously, and uni
formly, supported Gen. Jackson, from the day
that Pennsylvania declared in his favor, <o the!
present time. How, then, can it be possible
that General Jackson can suspect the friend
ship, constancy, or sincerity of you or your
friends? No; he cannot —he will not —he
does not. I have quite too much confidence
in the General to believe such idle tales.”—
Air. Newnan states: “ I hope Mr. Calhoun
will take the earliest opportunity of seeing
General Jackson, and potting all tilings
straight; fori cannot believe; for one moment,
the allegations of W. 11. C.” These letters
are addressed to Mr. Calhoun in the month of
January 1629. How must he have felt,
knowing what lie did, when these his friends
expressed such a solicitude to guard him
against the effect of misrepresentations, which
he, in his own heart, knew to he true? Why
did be not undeceive these persons? Why
lid ho not sav: Gentlemen, tier ■ was a time
when I beli v and General Jackson acte I wrong,
anf. under the strong obligations of fidelity to
the constitution of my country, I moved an
enquiry into his conduct, in the Seminole war,
with a view to censure him, though that war
was to save your own women and children
from the tomahawk and scalping knife?—
Think you these men would have felt and
pronounced such confidence in the falsehood
ofWm. 11. Crawford’s “allegations?” They
would have gone to their graves in the belief
that Craw ford was a “political juggler," but
for the late unfortunate devclopement which
General Jackson has and will and does be
lieve, in spite of the “confidence” of one of
the gentlemen, is no “idle tale.”
Ilow they feel and w hat figure they cut be
fore the world, is far from provoking the en
vy of, perhaps, any one but Mr. Calhoun
himself. In looking round for a situation on
which the eye could rest for relief, his, we
confess, is the only one tiiat proffers any com
fort.
The next is the testimony of Mr. Monroe,
Mr. Wirt, and Mr. Adams. It Seems’jthat in
Mr. Crawford's statement, made through Mr.
Forsyth to the President,lie had alleged these
facts, viz: “My own view s on the subject
had undergone a material charge after the
Cabinet had been cont end. Mr. Calhoun
made some allusion to a letter that Gen. Jack
son had written to the Preside it, who ImA for
gotten that he had received such a letter, but
said if he had received such a one, he would
find it, and went directly to his cabinet, and
brought it out. In it General Jackson ap
provesof the determination of the govern
ment to break up Amelia Island and Galvez
town ; and gave it also as his opinion that
Florida ought to be taken by the United
Slat s. He added, it might be a delicate mat
ter to decide, but if the President approved
of :t, he had only to give ft hint to sortie con
fidential member of Congress, say Johnny
Ray, and he would do it, and take the res
ponsibility on himself. I asked the Presi
a- at if the letter had been answered : he re
plied, io; for that he had no recollection of
receiving it. 1 then said that 1 had no doubt
thai General Jackson, in taking Pensacola,
believed lie was doing w hat the President
wished. After that letter was produced, un
answered, I should have opposed the inflic
tion of punishment on General Jackson, who
had considered the silence of the President as
a tacit consent; yet it was after the letter was
produced and read, that Mr. Calhoun made
the proposition to the Cabinet for punishing
the General.” Mr. Crawford further states :
“that letter had a most important bearing on
his mind."
Three leading facts are presented in this
statement:
1. That there was a confidential letter
from Gen. Jadkson to Mr. Monroe.
2. That its contents were as represented
by Mr. Crawford—and,
3. That it was before the Cabinet, and had
its influence at least upon Mr. Crawford.
The first fact is admitted both by Mr.
Monroe and Mr. Calhoun. The second is
not denied by any one, and receives the most
satisfactory confirmation from the fact that if
Mr. Crawford’s statement of its contents had
been untrue, Gen. Jackson having written it
himself, must better recollect it than any one
else, and he would not surely have sub nitted
an erroneous account of it to Mr. Calhoun.—
For if he knew any part of Mr. Crawford’s
statement to he incorrect, it ought to have
admonished him to take care of the rest. —
Then these two points are proved. The on
ly difficulty is as to the third. Here Mr.
Calhoun reminds us of the lawyer, who never
j fails in a bad cause to try to impeach thecred
-lit of the witness. It is a rule of evidence
I that if the witness lies in one part of his tes
timony, it destroys his credit to all the rest,
and perhaps never was a rule so much tortur
ed by the profession where all other hope fails.
A witness is examined, cross-examined and
re-examined over and over again, to make him
slip in some small particular, arid then what
an uproar about his inconsistency ! The jtuy
from the beginnings the end uf a long, loud
and boisterous speech, never hear the last of
the shameless, barefaced lie that the witness
had sworn to! Now just so is the clamor of
Mr. Calhoun. He seems to rest his "'hole
hope on a supposed inaccuracy of Mr. Craw
ford, and that as to a point of time. He
brings in Mr. Monroe to [trove that Mr. Craw
ford’s recollection is incorrect, and his own
witness has to have his recollection refresh
ed before he can testify: for Mr. Monroe ex
pressly declares to Mr. Crawford, “as the
question w hether that letter w f as mentioned in
the C binet involved the correctness of my
memory, I did not wish in replying to Mr.
Calhoun’s letter, to rest on my memory alor e,
•n l in .consequence made an appeal through
a friend to Mr. Wirt, who declared that it
was not mentioned in the Cabinet, nor brought
before if, ami that he had never heard of it
before.” Consequently upon Mr. Wirt’s
Memory does Mr. Monroe testify, and yet this
second hand recollection is to outweigh Mr.
Crawford’s! This is proving the frailty oi"
memory with a vengeance. But if Mr. Wirt’s
more vigorous intellect is to furnish the proof,
t proves too much. His memory is entirely
too-trong. He not only recollects that the
letter was not before the Cabinet, hut that
there n :ver was such a letter at all! Just
as well may it he contended that no suchlet
er ever existed, hi cause Mr. Wirt “never
heard of it before,’' as that it was not before
the Cabinet, because he also had no recollec
tion of it. This kind of evidence will not do
against the positive testimony of a man of, at
least,equal with Mr. Wirt, especially
is we shall shew presently, ho is upheld by
die most satisfactory aid. Mr. Adams’s tea*
timony is of the same eharacUr
It is, at last, nothing more than a trial of the
strength of memory, and to say that one man’s
recollection is not to be trusted because it
varies from anothers, is striking at the form
ation of all testimony, not committed to wri
ting. Memory is entirely the creature of
circumstances, and is exercised in a greater
or less degree, according to the force with
which it is impressed. If it were not for the
power of association, nothing could be recol
lected for one instant. No fact goes upon
the memory without being accompanied with
many others which serve as pointers to bring
it up whenever it is wanting, and hence
whenever a long treasured circumstance is
searched for in the mind, we begin to feel for
it through some of the striking agents with
which it was first communicated. Now ac
cording to the interest of inducement which
operates at the time of receiving the impres
sson, in that same degree will it be retained,
and brought up when required. Wc know
not what parts of this Cabinet council most
interested the different members of it, what
particular range or direction their minds took
on that occasion. But this much we do knew;
Mr. Craw ford not only gives the fact without
qualification, but gives, according to the phi
losophy oi memory, the most forcible reasons
for its truth. lie went to the Cabinet pre
i pared to support Mr. Calhoun in the course
that was to be taken against General Jack
son, and doubtless had, in prev ions conversa
ions, so assured him, hut that alter he got
ihere, “ his views underwent a material
change.” What had changed them ? No
man who knows either the moral or physical
courage of Mr. Crawford, will dare ascribe it
to fear. What was it then? It was this let
ter ? And, having worked a most singular
change in his opinion, does not every one
perceive that powerful association of which
we have been speaking, and which would
chain the fact so strongly to the memory, that
nothing but disease or death would remove
it?
But has Mr. Crawford nothing but his un
assisted recollection to sustain him? Let us
bring into one view Ins corroborating proofs.
Lot it be borne in mind that the Idler and its
contents are proven,and the cabinet meeting
took place on the 15th and lOtiiof July 1818.
Let all the members of Mr. Crawford’s state
ment be properly arranged and constantly re
collected.
1 That Mr. Calhoun made n proposition to
punish Gen. J citson
2 That the kit r was brought by an allu
sion from Air. Calhoun.
3 That Air. Monroe had forgotten it.
4 That it had not been answered beoause
it hod been forgotten.
Now we ass rt that tile above is the only
.air and matt rial analysis that can. he made of
the statement, and which it is said, and at
tempted to be proven, by Mr. Calhoun, is
false. We invoke the candour of an impar
tial community only for one moment
On the first point, then, is any further proof
wanting than Air. Calhoun own acknowledg
ment? He has at least convinced General
Jackson of it, and that was the principal ob
ject for furnishing the statement. But lest it
may he taken back in some future supple
mental communication, or be made the sub
let of another plot, what says Air. Wirt, Mr.
Calhoun’s own witness, on this point ? He
says, “among other ideas thrown out fob con
sideration, according to the usual course oi
Cabinet consultations, i think that at the first
meeting, you suggested the propriety of an
i iqviry into the conduct of the commanding
General.” Does this need aid ? Listen to
what Mr. Crowninshield states, “1 remember
too that Mr. Calhoun was severe upon the con
duct of the General; but the words particu
larly spoken have slipped inv recollection.”
This last fact not only supports Mr. Wirt but
shews what the Lawyers call the ultimo. —
They were not words of heat and passion.
We may then fairly conclude that the first
point is made out.
On the 2d point—that the letter was brought
up bv an allusion from Mr. Calhoum Air.
Alonroe is the first witness we shall call to
the stand, and as he leans towards Mr. Cal
houn, his evidence will have great wc ight.
What does he say to Mr; Calhoun? “The
letter was laid aside and forgotten by me, and
1 never read it until after the conclusion of the
war, and then I did it on an intimation from
you that it required my attention.” When
did the war conclude? In the month of May.
To what time does Air. Monroe i.itend that
the word “then" shall refer ? If to the “con
clusion of the war,” then this letter was
brought up the “intimation” of air. C’. some
where between May and July, the time of the
meeting. But more of this anon. Let us
here connect a confession oi Mr. Calhouns on
this subject, which everyone will perceive
lias a very important bearing. In his long let
ter to Gen. ra! Jackson, after “coming over
the sick bed scene of old Air. Alonroe., and
the reading of the letter, he says, “ I.thought
no more of it. Long r/!'cr, 1 think it was at
•fie commencement of the next s -sion o.
Congress [Dec. 1816] I heard some allusion
which brought the letter to my recollection.
It was from a quarter which induced ino to
believe that it came from Mr. Gnwfo'd. 1
-called and mentioned it to Mr. M.,and found
that he had entirely forgotten the letter. Al
ter searching some time, he found it among
some other papers, and read it as ho to and me
for the first time. Ah! Air. Calhoun! \oi:
heard some allusion to the letter! From u
quarter that induced you to believe it cum
from Mr. Crawford? You called and men
tioned it to Mr. Monroe! Found he had en
tirely ; rgot'en it t Aft* eeawhirg mu
time found it, and read it for the first time. —
Wonderful coincidence with Mr- Crawford’s
statement, if the evidence will only change
the point of time to Mr. Crawford’s state
ment ? Let us see hew far this can be (lorn -
But before wc proceed, let me ask you,Mr*.
Calhoun, you who stickle so much for all tho
facts, and all the names, and all the letters to
help you prove a “foul plot” why did you not
state the “ ip/arter ” from which your infor
sprung, that induced you to believe it came
from Mr. Crawford ? Perhaps from this very
source, Mr. Crawford will be able to provtv
that insead of your reminding Mr. Monroe of"
the letter in December, it was exactly at or
near the loth day of the prececding July.—-
But we think he will be able to do it at all
events.
On the 21st of December, 1818, Mr. Mon
roe writes to General Jackson : “ Your letter
(meaning the aforesaid famous letter) to me,
with many others fiom friends, was put aside*
ie consequence Of my indisposition and tho
great pressure on me at the time, and never
recurred to until after my return fromLoudcm
on the receipt of yours hy Mr. 11. and then,
on tiie suggest ion of Mr. Calhoun ” Connec
ted with this argument, which has been ably
used before, by a friend of General Jackson*
it is very important to bear in mind some
(latte, Mr. Monroe returned from Loudon ea
on the 14th, of July, 1618, and answers the
letter received hy Ilambly on the 19th of the
same month. Then if it was “recurn and tod / ’-
ter his return from Loudon, on the roc ipt of
Gen. J’s letter, r by Humbly ,” it follows conclu*-
sivelj*,that it was adverted to between the
14th and 19th of July, and the meeting of
the Cabinet being on the 15th and 16th of
that month, a very strong presumption arisea
that it was done at one of these meetings and.
upon the suggestion of Mr. Calhoun. At all
events, so near the time as to slip the onusf
from Mr. Crawford. Now what becomes of
Mr. Calhoun’s statement that he called Mr*.
Monroe’s attention to the letter at the meeting’
of Congress in December ? Does not every
body perceive, that to say the least of it, hist
memory misgives him on this point, and vet
1 lie holds Mr. Crawford bound to recollect to
a minute when a particular fact occurred
Though all the other facts are true, yet if
there is the variance of a hair’s breadth,
as to time, n matter almost immaterial, and
always subject to uncertainty, the witness
must lie discredited.
The foregoing argument receives addition \
al strength from another statement of Mr*
Monroe’s made to Mr. Crawford. In his let**
ter to him he says: “I lay in bed more th: a
a week, during which that letter was removed
and every thing relating to that war h vii g*
been previously arranged, it was forgotten and
never read by me until after the meeting of
the administration and the decision as to th®
<tour.se to be pursued in reference to its mar *
agement. My impression is that I read it;
then on a suggestion of Mr. Calhoun that ic
required my attention.” Mr. Monroe is vague*
and indefinite as to time. It might have been
just before ox at the time of the meeting of
the administration, as well is after, and thi i
is confirmed by the singular fact that in every
mention of the letter, by every individu 1,
who says any thing about it, the President h
forgotten it, and Air. Calhoun is the very man.
who brings it to bis recollection. But if the o*
yet remains any doubt on this point how c it.
ft longer ex-d after the t i nony of Mr |
Crowninshield 1 We rare not ibr his tiiiii*
culty about time, if his other facta are tru'.—
And that they are true who can doubt? This*
ditliculty only proves what we have :JrMv
adv n ed, < o . uncertain our memory is as
time. Let any man try himsell on tnatpo.ut
and see whether he can call to recoil ction
the exact jwriod, at which any of the leading
transactions of his past life have occurred,and
yet, would he doubt them because the indi
vidual point of time has slipped him ! How
unreasonable to require of Air. Crawfords ab
solute certainty as to time when Air. Crown
inshield, Mr. Monroe and Air. Calhoun him
self, have all shewn so much uncertainty in
that particular? Then what says Mr. Crown*
inshield? “ I do recollect of a conversation a
bout a private letter which Mr. Calhoun, I
believe asked for, and the President said be
had no got it, hut upon examination found
ho had it. 'This letter contained information
and opinions respecting Spain and her colo
nics, the Floridas } but the particulars I can*
not now undertake to say or state correctly.
I remember, I think, your stating that the cir
cumstances then spoken of did fully explain
General Jackson’s conduct during the cam
paign.” After this evidence no candid man,
no man who is not given “ over to believe a
lie,” can for one moment doubt of the sub*
st intial truth of Mr. Crawfords statement.
The third and fourth points of Air. Craw
fords statement, viz. that Air. Alonroe had
forgotten the letter and that it hail not been
answered, because forgotten, arc already a
bundantly proved by the r< f rcnecs made to
sundry letters. What remains of Mr. Craw
ford’s.statenient upon which any fair and lion*
■st reasoui rcan cast the shade of suspicion ?
It s established beyond all reasonable cavvl.
The next is Mr. McDuffie’s statement, he
says Air. Crawford(in the summer of 1819)
“ spoke without any kind of reserve as the
resjiccti'.c parts trA nby the different mem
bers of the Cabinet while the subject was un
der d< .11 be ration. He stated that you had been
in’ favor of an enquiry into the conduct ofGe
•leral Jackson, and that he was the only mem
ber of the cabiuat that bud concurr.l with
vou.” Now adrrvt all this, and indeed, for
nur own parts, we cannot conceive of testimo
ny more in favor of Mr. Crawfard than thrsj-
no. a