Newspaper Page Text
IiB“LV TO THE EDITORS OF TOE GEOR
GIA JOURNAL. ANJt> THE CHRONICLE
AND SENTINEL :
titKTUBMEK: Having been informed of
t.Jie unparalleled excitement that prevailed in
Georgia upon the subject of me Presidential
election, before. I wrote my c.rcular, l appre-
Jiended that I should incur the displeasure of
many highly esteemed liiends.il 1 dafe i to
think lor myself, and pursue in that coldest
the dictates of an honest judgment. No one
regretted more than 1 the piospect of’ a divi
sion among those who had been s.) long asso- ,
ciated upon those principles which i have !
always cherished, and which 1 shall ever
advocate, as the best safeguards of constitu- 1
tional liberty. While you are endeavoring
to impress the mi ads of your readers, in order (
to excite their prejudices against me, (because ;
1 prefer the election of Mr. Van Buren to that j
of General Harrison) he kind enough to tell
them that, in doing so, I have neither repudi J
ated, condnmned, nor abandoned, a solitary :
principle of the Slate Rights party. But you j
desire the inference to be made, that 1 have |
made a wonderful change, because I preler
Van Buren to Harrison. Let us see how
this stands: Neither Van Buren or Harrison
is a State Rights man ; bsth having been
opposed to those political principles and doc
trines that brought the State Rights parly
into existence. The whole party was, there
lore, so long as it made our ptinciples the lest,
standing alike opposed to hoth. I, then, as
a mem Ire r of the party, was against Harrison
as well as Van Buren; and, if 1 should now
prefer Hariison to Van Bu en, and support
nim, might you not say what a wonderful
change! Judge Colquitt was, a short time
since, opposed to General Harrison, and it t
now lor him to reconcile how he is for him.
By stating the case in this way, you will per
ceive that the Journal would be busy in giv
ing reasons for having undergone some slight
change within the last few weeks. And I
should he glad you would charge home a
similar change upon every Slate Rights man
who gives his support to Harrison. You
will, in this way, clearly perceive that an issue
is now made; by the very making of which
every member of the party, no matter which
candidate lie may prefer, is equally made
liable to the charge of having changed. I
will refer you to the very appropriate remarks
made upon this subj ci in the editorial offne
Georgia Journal of the 23th of Apr'.’,, ‘That
a nomination of General Harrison by the
convention will produce ihe effect of forming
a new , to the destruction of the State Rights
party, mu t be evident to all who reflect upon
the subject,’ &c. This issue, which is a for
mal dissolution of the parly, 1 had no right to
anticipate; and, when 1 learned that it was
at all probable, I labored to prevent, not by
endeavoring to get up Van Buren meetings,
as I understand is currently reported in pri
vate circles, but by desiring the nomination of
Harrison to be opposed, that a split nfght
thereby be prevented. Almost the entire
State Rights parly responded to the resolu
tions passed at Milledgeville last winter; and
I think you will do me the justice to say that
I have been among the last to abandon the
position assumed by the party. And yet you
seem to wish it understood that I have
changed, while the mass of the party are con
sistent. lamto be jeered lor associating in
this election with our former opponents in
Georgia, while those who advocate Harrison
would gladly embrace every Union man in
the State, who would come to their help in
the contest, and trumpet forth every acquisi
tion from their ranks as a happy omen for
success. The editors of the Chronicle and
Sentinel, I suppose by way of reproach, say
that I am now associated with Cosam Emir
Bartlett; and do the editors deem it a re
proach? if so, they are entitled to its benefit;
for Cosam Emir Bartlett is the editor of a
paper in Florida, and has hoisted the Harri
son flag. But, gentlemen, apart from this,
you must permit me, in the spirit of kindness,
to notice a lew of the remarks you have been
pleased to make upon my circular and upon
me, which, if not so intended, is calculated to
affect my character. This I had no right to
expert, especially from the editors of the
Journal, whose personal knowledge of me,
and of my motives, enabled them to know
that, in their strictures, they were doing me
manifest injustice. The frequent charges of
‘ retailing slander, stating falsehoods, sup
pressing truth, garbling to deceive, 5 &,c., with
which your editorials abound, by which my
character is assailed, 1 will show you, are not
supported by the facts upon which you rely;
and, it you have inadvertently fallen into
errors, you will, as honorable men, correct
them ; but, il’your attack has been a studied
design to injure or destroy my character in
order to elevate General Harrison, it will
merit the censure of eveiy honest citizen of
the land. As you are at the head ol leading
and influential political journals, you will par
don me for saying that abuse is not argument,
by it you may succeed m pampering prejudice,
to whose empire every principle of justice and
political truth may be sacrificed, but it usually
indicates bad hearts,a weak cause,and vicious
purposes.
It sometimes happens that, when truth is
too forcible to be palliated or denied, abuse
and even vulgarity are subterfuges to escape
from its force. You say that I charge Gen
eral Harrison with being an Abolitionist. —
Here is our first issue. I say I have made no
such charge, and your saying that I d.d is
not supi>orted by any part of my circular. I
say this: that he was nominated ‘with the
view and for the purpose of obtaining strength
by procuring the votes of Abolitionists. 5 This
truth is 100 universally admitted for a denial,
and you have, therefore, carefully evaded its
point. I proceed to give evidence of what
has transpired here during the ptesenl Con
gross, showing the character of the two par
ties upon the subject of Abolition, to which 1
iiojie you will look with attention, as it deeply
concerns the interest ofGeorgia ; and its truth
none denies. I slate this : Ti.at ‘ much pains
has been taken to throw poppies over the
eyes of the South by attempting to prove that
General Htrrison himself s not an Aolition
ist. 5 Now di you nark what I said; that
the efib r t to put the people to sleep and off
their guard was by attempting to prove that
General Harrison himself is not an Abolition
ist. While I, in my circular, place that sub
ject upon different ground, and show that fie
ought noi to lie trusted upon that subject, by
reason of the influence through which he was
nominated ; by reason of the ciarscL r ol nor
thern Whigs, shown by their voles in Con
gress upon that subject; bv reason of the
Aboiit onists claiming his nomination as an ad
vancement and triumph of their principles;
by reason of his being opposed to slavery and
desiring it abolished; and by reason of his
refusing to say now whether he is an Aboli
tionist or not. These are the grounds l tod}<
in mv circular, none of which you deny, or
can deny; hut content yourselves to divert
public attention from those issues which 1
make; and attempt to do the very thing which
1 say efforts aie making at the South to
accomplish, by debating a question which
admits of argument.
I say in mv circular explicitly, ‘ Whether
he is the advocate of the present action of the
Abolitionists is immaterial.’ While you are
attempting to prove that Harrison is no Abo
litionist, I charge that ‘official letters and
speeches prove this: that lie is opposed to
slavery and desires it abolished.’ 1 then give
an extract from his circular to prove what?
that he is an Abolitionist? No; hut to prove
his opposition to slavery. You say that 1
garbled this letter in order to prove he was
an Abolitionist. I want you to pub’.Ui the
entire letter once more, and let every candid
man determine whether any and every part
,)f the letter does not prove what I alledge it
M f 3 l,j she*. Look to my circular, ’at page 6,
n id, after making the extract, see what Isay
|it demonstrates; ! say, ‘ This circular proves
j that he is unfriendly to slavery, and that he
considered it a calumny to be considered
friendly, necessary lor liiru to repel; and it
I proves that he was so anxious to retain the
! Irieridship of (he Abolitionists, that he actually
thought it necessary to obtain a certificate
that he was a member of an Abolition society.’
Now I ask you if any part of the circular
which I omitted disproves what I state the
circular proves? But does not the residue
of the letter prove tlie same tacts? Why did
General Harrison, so many yea is after, get a
certificate that he had been a member of an
Abolition society ? Do you not know that he
obtained this certificate from Judge Gatch,
in order lo satisfy the Abolitionists that he
was friendly to their cause? I do not ask
why he joined the society originally; hut I
ask any man to define the object he had, so
many years after, Ibr procuring this certifi
( ate that he had been a member of an aboli
tion soe'ety. The* - object is too plain. H,e
considers it slander to he accounted friendly
to slavery; and yet slaveholders are invited to
make him Fresident.
You charge me with making a garbled
extract to prove that he was an Abolitionist,
while my circular plainly shows that you have
been guilty of a very manifest misconstruc
tion, or a wanton attempt to deceive your
readers at the expense of my character.—
What else do I say ? that * if other proof be
necessary to show that he is opposed to slave
ry, and wishes it abolished, read again that
part of his speech (a part of which has so
often been pubished in his defence) in which
tie says: should I be asked if there is no wav
by which the General Government can aid
the cause of emancipation, [ answer that it
has long been an object near my heart to see
the whole of its surplus revenue appropriated
to that object.’ This extract was ‘made to
prove his anxiety to have slavery abolished •
and I once more challenge ’Jou to publish the
engre speech, and poim me to a solitary letter
or syllable that disproves the charge. You
have too much ‘uteifigence, therefore, to sup
pose that it was necessary for me to publish
■he entire speech, where no part of it
contradict, 0 r (Improves what I allege it
proves, I ask you to state, as candid men,
‘who ought to have proper regard for truth
and virtue, if any part of that circular or speech
of General Harrison’s disproves what I aver
it does prove? And I then leave it to your
own sense of justice to say whether your
charge of gaihiing, to deceive, is not unjust
and unfounded.
I Will not charge you with having made a
willul misrepresentation for the purpose of
exciting prejudice against my character, for
I have charity enough to hope that you have
misunderstood what I think is very plainly
written ; and that, calling your attention to
your mistake, will induce you to look over my
circular once more, when it will doubtless
afford you great pleasure to make the neces
sary correction. You are very welcome to
all your evidences bv which you attempt to
establish that he was not some years ago an
Abolitionist; his opposition to slavery
cannot deny ; that he is anxious to have it
abolished you cannot deny ; that the hope of
gelling Abolitionists’ voles influenced his
nomination you cannot deny ; that the advo
cates ol the Abolitionists who are in Congress
are his supporters, you cannot deny; that
the Abolitionists hailed his nomination a tri
umph of their principles and the overthrow
of slaveocracv, you cannot deny; that the
Abolitionists of the State of Ohio, where he
lives, and where they ought to understand
his feelings best, give him a cordial support,
you cannot deny; that he is now in the charge
of a committee, and refuses lo answer friends
or foes upon this subject, you cannot deny;
and that these various cennccting circumstan
ce? very far outweigh a vote given twenty
years ago, or declarations made from four to
six years hack, when there was much less
excitement upon that subject than at present,
I think no candid man will deny. If a Presi
dent should be elected, though he should be
an Abolitionist, having no such influences
operating upon him, fie would have no powei
to destroy our right of property in slaves; but
with such influences brought lo bear upon a
President opposed to slavery, and anxious to
have it abolished, presents an alarming and a
fearful prospect for the South. The number
of Abolitionists in the Slate of Ohio is said to
have more than doubled since one word has
been .made public from General Harrison
upon the subject. I desire to call your atten
tion, in the next place, to a few mistakes you
have accidentally made upon the subject of
his Federalism. I say accidentally, lor 1
should dislike to lose my high regard for your
sincerity and candor in placing every tiling
very fairly before the public tfiat interests that
public, whether it would favor or militate
against your newly discovered and highly dis
tinguished cand'date. 1 shall notice those that
strike directly at my feelings and character.
You complain, in the first place, that in the
extracts which I made from Randolph’s
speech and General Harrison’s reply, that
the extract from the reply is only about one
ha If ot tiie speed.; and you of the Chronicle
and Sentinel, say, that in the latter part of
the speech which you publish, that there is a
positive and equivocal denial of the charge.
Here you and I are once more at issue, and
we must appeal to the facts to see whether I
or you be sustained. Lock to my circular,
and to the charge made, which I allege Is not
denied, but admitted, and which the editors
say is not admitted but denied. The charge
is, that he was an open, zealous, and frank
supporter of the sedition law and black-cock
ade administration , viz : he supported the
administration that enacted the alien and
sedition laws, and wore as a badge, a black
cockade; which was the administration of
the elder Adams. Is not this the charge?
This charge the Journal says 1 iias not been
made to appear otherwise than by the charge
of John Randolph and the inferences of Mr.
Co'quitt. In answer to this, we have equal
evidence to the contrary, which we shall take
occasion to lay before our reade-s.’ What
equal evidence is it that the Journal places
before its readers to prove the contrary ?
This: that in the same speech, he declares
his opposition to the alien and sedition law's.
Suppose this be true, and that he tvas really
opposed to those acts of the administration,
does that prove he did not support the admin
istration? The charge is, that he was an
i pen and frank supporter of the black cockade
administration, and the proof relied on to
disprove it is, that lie was opposed to the
alien and sedition acts. If that proof is suffi
cient to refute the charge, it follows of neces
sity that every member o! a party must sup
port every act of the party, or it demonstrates
that he does not support that party. I made
no charge that lie supported those particular
acts of the Administration ; and, consequently,
if there was undoubted testimony that he did
not, it does not disprove the charge. If my
character is to be assailed for truth, let the
charge be made fairly, and not by an evasion
such as I have noticed. I challenge you or
both o| you to republish the whole speech,
which you say I have garbled, and show
where he has denied the charge. I repeat
that he has not done so. He does not any
where deny that he supported the Adminis
tration ; but he does deny being in favor of
the alien and sedition laws. The extract
upon which you rely to disprove the charge
is this : 1 But sir, said Mr. .Harrison, my op
position to the alien and sedition laws was so
u'ell known in the Territory, that a promise
was extorted from me, by my friends in the
Legislature by which I was elected, that 1
would express no opinions in Philadelphia
which were in the least calculated to defeat the
important objects with which I was charged.
As I had no vote. I was not called upon to ex
press my sentiments iu the House. Tfteßepub- I
lican party were all in favor of the measures I
wished to have adopted, but the Fdderaiists
were in die majority ; prudence, therefore,
and my duty to mv constituents, rendered it ;
proper that I should refrain from expressing !
sentiments which would injuriously affect their j
interest ; and which, if expressed, could not
have the least influence upon die decision of j
Congress.’ Is there any remark in this part
of General Harrison’s speech that denies his I
support of the black cockade Administration ? j
Certainly not ; and yet I am to be reviled as j
a.retailer of slander. Upon this speech of:
General Harrison’s I beg leave to make a
tew remarks: If tie was a Republican, arid j
acting with the Republican party, do ywu not !
think it strange diat he did not, during his j
stay in Congres--, in any of his intimate pii-j
vate conversat.ons with members of the Re
publican party, communicate to them that lie
was opposed to the alien and sedition laws? 1
I will, hazard the opinion that not one man I
out of a thousand, in the State of Georgia,
who, though restrained by policy from offend- !
ing his political adversaries, by letting them
know his true sentiments, but would have j
told them lo his political friends. The alien |
and sedition laws, so bitterly opposed, so long
debated, and so warmly contested, and vet 1
General Harrison tells no one at Philadelphia
during bis stay in Congress, that he wpf, op
posed to them. That he was opr, oset j l to
those laws I shall not deny; bm Id,, deny
the probability of his being of Vne Republican
party at that time, and veVmt&e no comma
mcation to Ins political mcmls of his opposi
non to those metToun*. To my mind, this
quotation mat'g hy the Journal, will strength
en the charge i make. I can readily enough
how, if he stood in opposili >n to his
party, he might deem it prudent to make no
noise about his opinions; but if he was a
Republican, and agreeing with his party
upon a subject so exciting, his would be a
very rare case, if, in his intimate and private
conversations, he made no intimation of his
feelings. But let me ask what sort of a states
man he exhibits himself to be? At a time
when every press was muzzled, and every
tongue palsied, by law, that men in authority
might not be exposed, ‘ prudence and duty
rendered it proper lie should refrain from ex
pressing his sentiments.’ When every Re
publican in the land was fired with a just in
dignation for this outrage upon the freedom
ol speech and the press, this fuun and intre
pid, man was restrained by ‘ prudence and
duty from raising his hand or voice in de
fence of these important prerogatives of free
men. He may have been opposed to iliose
laws, but he admits his opposition was a
secret at Philadelphia (where Congress was
then held,) and that he did not dare, either in
private or in public, to give his aid in staying
the tide of tyranny and oppression that was
beating down the institutions of his country.
To my mind, the whole speech will exhibit
him totally unworthy of the support of any
true-hearted Republican. It was no time for
silence. It was no time for any patriot to fold
his arms, under the pitiful pretext of‘jdhg,
tdtnce and duty .’
But againj the Journal quotes this part of
the same speech : ‘ As I was on terms of inti
macy with the gentleman, it is very probable
that he might have heard me express senti
ments favorable to the then administration.
I certainly lelt them, so far, at least, as to the
course pursued by it in relation to the Gov
ernment of France ;’ and says that the point
in this remark of Harrison was the support be
gave the administration cn the French ques
tion. General Harrison here declares it pro
bable that lie might have expressed senti
ments favorable to the then Administration,
and says, ‘ he certainly felt them, so far, at
least, as to the course puisued by it in rela
tion to the Government of France;’ but does
he say he felt them no further favorable, than
such as arose from its course to the French
Government? No; lie felt them ‘at least’
that far, but does not deny but that he ap
proved every measure of the party, except
the alien and sedition laws? It certainly is a
very feeble attempt to get rid of the charge of
being the supporter of tiiai Administration, by
saying that he supported it at least so far as
to its course with the Government of France.
This alleast is likewise an important admis
sion, in exhibiting his position as to the Fede
ral and Republican parties of that day. How
stood the parlies with relation to the French
Government? Let it be remembered, that
this subject was as marked as any other by
the division ofthe parties at that time, The
Republican party was denounced as a French
faction , and the most bitter invectives were
heaped by the Fe .eralists and Federal presses
upon Mr. Jefferson and the IT publican party,
as allies to the French. The history of those
times will show that the Republican party
was charged with a design to subvert the
Government by an alliance with Frntice.
The pure patriot, Mr. Adams, in reply to the
people of Arlington and Sandgate, said, —
‘ That he had iong seen the exertions of dan
gerous and restless men, misleading the un
derstanding of well meaning citizens, and
prompting them to such measures as would
sink the glory of America, and prostrate her
liberties at the feet of France.’ The Feder
alists, under the pretence of fearing a French
invasion, on the 16ih July, 1798, passed an
act entitled, ‘ An act to augment the army ol
the United Stales, and for other purposes;’
by which act the President was authorized to
raise twelve additional iraiments of infantry,
and six troops (if light dragoons, and to ap
point two major generals, an inspector gen
eral, three brigadier generals, and an adjutant
general; and on the 3d of ATarch. 1799,
passed * An act for the better organization of
the troops ofthe United States, and for other
purposes,’ by which lie was authorized to
appoint a commander of the army and a
quartermaster general. The heated opposi
tion by the Republican party, to raising this
enormous standing army, will not have been
forgotten by any who Ined at that time, and
is 100 well identified wiih the history ofthe
parties of that day not to have claimed the
attention of every reader of politics.
Tie denunciations of the standing army
by the Republicans, as a leading and favor
ite measure of the Administration, and their
bold declarations that a mercenary army in
time of peace was quartered on the country,
under the false pretence of a French inva
sion, give rise, in part, to the unjust reproach
of its being a French faction, organized to
overturn the Government. Gen. Harrison’s
support of the black cockade Administration
of the elder Adams, ‘so far, at least, as to
the course pursued by it in relation to the
Government of France’, is some evidence
that lie was not a Jeffersonian Republican.
Although l p-udence and dtuy’ sealed his
lips when the gag law of the Federal Admin
istration was fastened on the speech and.
press of a fiee people, I will presently show
you tfiat he had no committee to keep him,
from forming new issues’ with the Republi
can party in their opposition to the standing
army. He was favorable to the black
cockade Adm nistration, ‘at least, so far as
the course pursued by it in relation to the
Government of France,’and I will now show
you that he was favorable to it, at least ,
so far as this standing army was concerned.
In order to do this, so that the facts may be
properly understood, I will state the connec
ting circumstances. I have before me
‘Bache’s Philadelphia Aurora,’ which was the
leading organ of the Republican party of that
day, in which I find in the paper issued on the !
Bth of January, 1800, the proceedings of!
Congress of Wednesday, January 1, 1800, |
when the House resolved itself into a com
mittee of tlie Whole, Air. Alorris in the chair;;
afier transacting some other business, Air. I
Nicholas, of Virginia, a Republican, andj
Warm friend cf Mr. Jtffetsop, moved the
following resolution:
1 Resolved, That so much of the act passed
the ltiih July, 1703. entitled ‘An act to aug
ment the army of the United States, and lor
other purposes,’ as authorises the President of
| the United States to-raise twelve additional
regiments of infantry and six troops of fglil
I dragoons, and to appoint two major generals,
| an inspector general, three brigadier generals,
! and ;.n adjutant general; and so much of the
I act,passed da 3J March, 1799, entitled ‘An act
I for the better organization of the troops,and for
j other purposes,’ as authorizes the appointment
i ofa commander of the army and a quarter
master general, ought to be repealed/
Upon this resolution a long debate ensued
| arraying against eacli other the proafnent
| men of the contending parties. If I give you
extracts from some of the speeches on both
! sides, to show you the character ofwhioh the
| debate partook, some partisan editor will hope,
! b .v raising the cry of garbled, to have you be
i ev e the reference is Cut t. fue , I will take the
liberty, however, ti making a few extracts, as
you would no*; expect me to transcribe all the
; debate iha* took place dui ing six weeks occa-
I s ’ ona l ‘Viscussiqp. Against this resolution, in
troduced hv Mr. Nicholas, the two distinguis
hed statesmen of which General Harrison
speaks in his reply to John Randolph, in 1826
to wit: Mr. Bayard and Mr. Marshall, and
the equally celebrated Air. Otis and Mr. Har
per. took an active part, and, unfortunately
lor General Harrison, -prudence and duty,’ did
not restrain him from standing by the side of
this fedt ral junto, and makinga speech against
reducing the Federal standing army that had
been raised under the act of 1798. Against
these were arrayed Mr. Randolph, Air. Gal
latin, Mr. Nicholas, Air. Jones of Georgia,
and Mr. Macon. There were other speak
ers, whose names I have not mentioned, who
took sides according to the party to which
each was attached. Mr. Harper, who was
ti e chairman ofthe committee of Ways and
Aleans, in part of hi? speech attempts to show
the probability of a French invasion in conse
quence of expected aid from the Republican
party. He says: ‘There exists among us a
gieat and powerful parly which is impelled,
by party spirit, by animosity against its rivals,
by jealousy of the Administration, by its own
political system, or by whatever other motive,
to exert all its force, with unabated zeal, and
at length with complete success, for wresting
from the Government every means of defence,
for depriving it of all means of exerting nation
al force, for robbing it of all hope of public
support, by withdrawing from it, completely,
the. public confidence. That this party, in
fine, abntjd whose existence she is but too well
informed, and whose principles mid views it is
not natural for her to mistake, has at length
obtained an ascendency in our councils, and
will not fail in the pursuit of its own plans,
whatever they may be, to serve effectually her
cause, by tying up the hands of the Adminis
tration, separating the nation from the Gov
ernment; and neutralizing, by means of that
division, the national force.’ Again, in speak
ing of the manner in which France had con
qured other countries, he says. ‘We know
that it is by fomenting eternal discontent, by
availing themselves ofthe weakness resulting
from die jealousy of Government, and party
divisions, that they have triumphed and still
hope to triumph over other countries. In
other countries ihey have found parties that
aided their views, and when they see a party
here pursuing measures exactly similar, why
should they not expect some aid from that
party?’ These charges are made by a lead
ing Federalist against the Republican party ;
and, in reply to some of tnC opposers of the
standing army who had ridiculed the idea of
an invasion, or conquest by France, ii“ says:
‘ln all probability she would not wish to effect
what gentlemen would call a conquest, she
might not even hope it* But her purpose
would be completely accomplished by placing
hersell at the head of that party v\h ch she
considers as favorable to her views, by aiding
that parly to posses its.lf of the Government,
and then compelling it. to rule according to
tier will. This she has done in other countries,
and she will hope to do it here also.’ You
thus see the character ofthe debate, where it
partakes of a party cast. During this debate
John Randolph was so severe upon the mo
tives ofthe Administration, and its mercenary
army, that he was attacked in the theatre a
few nights after; of which the editor Ihus
speaks: ‘lt ha JEegn repeatedly charged on
the Administrating that the standing army
was raised upon an alarm, for which there was
no real or creditable foundation. IfliasTbeen
said it was intended for home serviced Upkeep
the Democrats in awe ; to preserve order and
regular government. Examples have already
occurred to sanction these assertions ; private
seem it y has been violated ; the freedom ofthe
press attacked by military force. It only re
ma-ined to menace the legislature. A mem
ber of Conga ss who liatl expressed himself
with the independence of a freeman, and the
severity ofa Republican, on the establishment
of mercenary armies, was attacked in the
theatre a few nights ago, by a band of those
military heroes, in a manner disgraceful to
any men professing to be honorable, or laying
the least claim to decency or courage; and
afterward they made off.’’ By this you may
imagine the degree of party excitement that
prevailed upon this question; and whether
there is the slightest probability that any Re
publican at that Congras? would have been the
advocate of the standing army.
If you will look to the address which acom
panied the Virginia resolutions of 1798, you
will find an allusion to this subject. In de
scribing the manner by which these United
States might be converted into a monarchy,
they say, ‘And lie may come at length to
avow, that so extensive a territory as that of
the United States can only be governed by
the energies ofa monarchy ; and that it can
not be defended except by standing armies ;
and that it cannot be united except by con
solidation. Measures have already been
adopted which may lead to these cons’ q ie: 8 s.
They consist in fiscal systems and arrange
ments, which keep a host of commercial and
wealthy individuals imbodied and obedient to
the mandates ofthe Treasury. In armies and
navies, which will, on the one hand, enlist the
tendency of man to pay homage to his fellow
creature, who can feed or hom r him ; and on
the other, employ the principle of fear, by
punishing imaginary insurrections, under the
pretext of preventive justic
The speeches of Air. Randolph, Mr. Jones,
of Georgia, and Mr. Gallatin, in favor of re
ducing the army, were long and able ; expos
ing the false pretences for raising it, and urged
ilie passage of the resolution offered by Mr.
Nicholas. Where was General Harrison ?
As he had no vote, if he was a Republican at
a time of such excitement, upon a subject
urged with so much unanimity by the entire
Republican party ; I should say, if he differed
with his party, ‘prudence and duty’ ought to
have restrained him from expressing ‘his sen
timents,’ ‘which, if expressed, could not have
the least influence,upon the decision of Con
gress.’ But not so ;he made a speech against
The motion made by the Republican party,
and in favor of a Federal regular standing ar
my ; an.armv charged to have been raised for
the,purpose of creating a national debt, and
in imitation ofthe British Government, over
awing and subjugating opposition. But lake
his own words, as reported in the Aurora,
published on Wednesday, the sth day of
Febuary, 1800: ‘Mr. Harrison said the reso
’ iution had been so ably spoken to, that it
would not be expected to receive any new
| light from what lie should add; but, when it
was recollected that he had no other way of
expressing his opinion on any subject that
came before the House, than by taking a part
in the debate, not having a vote in the House,
he trusted he need make n® apology for rising
on the present subject, which to him appealed,
an ignpottant one. He was fyUy of an opin
on that disbanding so large a portion t.f the
milnary force, would be attended with disas
irous consequents. In giving this opinion,
he was sure he spoke that ot°nine-teml sos
his constituents; and, that they would with
much readiness bear their portion of the ex
pense which would be necessary to maintain
these lorces, than that they should be dis
banded. The employment of his past life,.
Mr. Har-rison said, had led him to believe
that tr, o much reliance was placed on the
milit’.a. Were valor or alertness the only
requisites in the formation of a good soldier,
he should willingly give the militia that char
acter 4 ; but these were only partial qua'ities
compared with those whom they might he
called to meet. What would their valor do
if attacked by the military tactics of a Bona
parte, or a Messena. Nothing short of dis
cipline will do for our forces; and are our
militia well disciplined? No sir, they are
not. Mr. Harrison said he had experienced
the inconveniences of a militia army. In 179,4
he went out with a number of militia, in his
part of tiie country, against the Indians.
When brought into action they behaved very
well, they did not want courage ;• but after a
very short service, they wanted to go home,
they were anxious to see their families, there
fore numbers deserted, and left the army m
a state which was almost the cause of its
destruction. He had experienced seven
years service, but he was sorry to say, that
such was their conduct that he never could
think of trusting the country entirely to their
protection. They might do well with regu
lar troops and no doubt would. Under these
impressions, and from this experience, he
knew he spoke the will of a great portion of
his constituents. He sincerely hoped the
resolution would not pass.’ This is the re
ported speech of Mr. Harrison, the candi
date for President of the United States. It
shows that he was the supporter of the black
cookade Administration, at least , to the ex
tent of opposing the Republican parly in
their attempts to reduce the standing army,
and exhibits him acting in concert with those
distinguished Federalists Marshall, Bayard,
Harper, and Otis. I mention the names of
these gentlemen because their notoriety as
Federalists will be every where acknowledg
ed. But, that General Harrison, with a
knowledge of the facts that one untutored
and half-armed militia, during the Revolu
tionary war, stood up in the country’s de
fence, without money and often without
bread, endured the summer’s sun and win
ter’s cold, half clad and often without shoes,
without deserting the standard of their coun
try,should, in an American Congress, declare,
that from seven years’ experience, he was
sorry to say that such was their conduct he
could not think of trusting the country en
tirely to their protection, gives evidence of
devotion to the Federal patty, which would
well warrant the charge made by John Ran
dolph, t hat he was its frank, open and zealous
supporter. Is it not too much, that a
man not entitled to a vote, should be so mad
dened by his Federal zeal, as to make a
speech 10 favor the views of that party ; ad
vocate a large standing army, and cast an
unwarranted reflection upon the militia?’
‘ T he employment of his past life had led him
to believe that too much reliance was placed
on the militia.’ Who are the militia of the
country, upon whom he does not wish the
country to rely ? The whole strength of the
country; every man who is subject to do
military duty ; the very men who have some
thing to defend, and who, at the call of their
country, have never yet failed to rally around
her standard, and do battle for her honor.
A regularly hired soldiery have not the same
interests at stake. The militia of the coun
try must always be its strong defence against
her enernis ; standing armies are the neces
sary appendage of those who reign in car
nage, and wade to power through seas of
blood, but are not the appurtenances of a
— - j r 1 .
free country, cultivating the arts ol justice
and peace. In this country there is no dan
ger that the military spirit of its citizens will
be extinct. So long as they can get their
bread by the sweat of their brow, they will
never want strength of body to support the
fatigues of military duty ; when they have
wives and children, property, friends, and
home, they will never want courage to de
fend them; and while they are allowed the
use of arms, they will never forget how to
use their muskets, either to repel an invader
or to crush a tyrant. It was a Federal mea
sure, to go hand in hand with the alien and
sedition acts, to have a standing army, to si
lence the murmurings of a discontented peo
ple. Hear a few remarks upon this subject
from Mr. Gallatin, in his reply to Mr. Bay
ard, when he is treating of the purposes for
which the army had been augmented. He
says: ‘But the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Bayard) views this subject in a very
different light. His conclusion was, that,
knowing the existence of such party’ (mean
ing the Republican party,) ‘ it was necessary
to have an army, in order to defend this
country against an invasion, inasmuch as a
considerable pari of the militia could not be
trusted with its defence. If a party dots
exist so inimical to our Government as to
join an invading enemy in order to subvert
it, they must be supposed to subvert it with
out invasion. It is impossible to mistake the
meaning of the gentlemen. When they
ground the necessity of an army on the
supposed existence of a party, let them ex
press themselves as they please, either they
mean nothing, or they mean that an army is
necessary, not only against an enemy, but
against a party of the people. Let the gen
tlemen be silent about party, or let them can
didly acknowledge that this army is intended
to suppress party.’ I
A standing army, which Mr. Gallatin, one”
of the first men in the country, says that the
Federal members ought to acknowledge was
intended to suppress party; an army necessary
against a party of the people; forsuch a stand
ing army, or rather, against a resolution for
its repeal, General Harrison made his speech;
and yet 1 am to be villified and abused in
Georgia by such presses as are reckless of any
man’s character that may at all interfere with
their wishes to palm off General Harrison
upon the people of the State as a Jeffersonian
Republican. Let the charge I made in my
circular stand, that he was a Federalist, anti
supported the black cockade adminut ation
of the elder Adams. You mistake when you
say that the charge is denied by his saying he
was opposed to the alien and sedition laws. But
how do you reconcile his statement made to
Mr. Randolph in i826: ‘Having no vote, I did
not think it proper to take part in the discus
sion of any of the great political questions that
divided the two parties’ The provisional
army of 1800 was a political question that
divided the parties. General Harrison took
part in its discession; and yet he says • pru
dence and duty* restrained him irom doing so.
But again; if lie sustained the course of the
then administration in its conduct toward
France, it is difficult to learn how he could
have been opposed to the sedition law. This
law was actually understood to have been
passed as a part of its system of defence
against France. In the file of papers to which
I have alluded (Bache’s Philadelphia Aurora),
I find a motion made bv Mr. Macon to strike
out the second section of the sedition law; upon
which a debate took place; and in the paper
that issued on Friday, the 29th of February,
ISOO, a speech of Mr. Gallatin is reported in
favour of the motion, which he delivered on
Thursday, the 23d of January. In this speech,
Mr. Gallatin refers to the object of enacting
this law in these words: ‘ When the sedition
law was proposed and adopted was it brought
up with a view of ameliorating the common
law, because its severities for this species of
crime were too severe ? No, it tvas undoubt
edly brought forward as a measure of defence.
It was thought tliai therew*s not power in the
judges to carry into effect such punishments
as were thought by a majority essentially
necesssury to support the Government, it
I was tLereibre brought up as a part of tfie gen
eral defensive system. When a motion was
made to repeal it during the last session, the
j committee appointed to report on the subject
did report on it as a part of the measures ol
defence against France.’ Upon the same day,
on the same subject, ‘ Mr. Smith concurred
in the idea with the gentleman from Pennsyl
vania (Mr. Gallatin), that this bill was cer
tainly brought forward as a matter ofdefence.
The bill was first brought into the Senate in
a very objectionable, shape, indeed; it was
changed there, and underwent other altera
tions in the House. It was thought a meas
ure essentially necessary to guard against the
treachery that was at that time apprehended
fromtheFrench. Another proof oft hat principle
was, thaithe bill was made to continue in foice
about the probable time that this necessity
might arise. There was then nodoubt ol the
connexion of the bill with other measuresul de
fence, entered into at that peiiod.’ The
standing army was one of the measues ofde
fence against France; this General Harrison
supported. The sedition law was a measure
of defence against France; and General Har
rison says he supported the then administra
tion, ‘at least, as to its course toward the
French Government.’
There is another part of this speech of
General Harrison, upon which I made no
comment, and therefore did not quote, to
which I now refer, as given in the Chrouicle
and Sentinel, viz: (To the question asked by
Mr. Randolph, whether Mr. H. recollected a
conversalion between Mr. Nicholas and him
self, in relation to the negroes and pollitics of’
Virginia,) Mr. H. ans wore and, ‘I racollect it
perfectly well; but can that be adduced as evi
dence of my favoring the sedition law ?”
Upon this pari of the controversy I made no
comment, desiring to place before my con
stituents only such facts as I believed would
not be disputed. I could not have believed j
that the editors of any decent press in the
state would have urged that General Harri
son’s declaration that he was opposed to the
alien and sedition laws, was a denial of his
being a supporter of the Administration of the
elder Adams. But as the Chronicle & Sen i
nel has referred to the occasioned
by Mr. Randolph’s asking him about the
conversation with Mi. Nicholas, he shall he
entitled to its benefit. I suppose the editors
of the Chronicle and Sentinel will admit that
the remarks,/which he says were made in
jest to Mr. Nicholas, were, that ‘he thanked
God tie had, by his removal, gotten rid of
Virginia negroes and Virginia politicians’
I take it for granted that this remark,as Mr.
Harrison says, was made in jest, to liis, rela
tive and friend, Mr. N.cholas; but why such
a joke? Was it not the natural jest of a friend
and relative, with whom he differed upon the
subject ot politics?* What could have given
point to the joke? Nothing but its being the
humorous taunt of a political adversary !
Does not the jest give some evidence of these
relations being arrayed, although friendly,
upon different sides of the politca! contest?
In my circular, 1 did not think proper to ar
gue every little circumstance that had a ten
dency to strengthen the position I was pro
ving. But this additional extract, which the
Chronicle and Sentinel says I have omitted,
of General Harrison’s speech, certainly does
not disprove what I alleged, but goes in con
fi mation; and yet that paper would have it
understood I had made an omission, which
would exhibit General Harrison very differ-
ently. The Chronicle & Sentinel is welcome
to all the praise they bestow upon John Ad
ams and Mr. Marshall; it may be very just;
but I have not, until lately, heard any Repub
lican press attempt a vindication of their
characters as politicians. And since it has
become important to make a Federalist Pres
ident, the editors may after reading this reply,
write an article, and vindicate the Federalists
for raising a standing army , and their newly
discovered hero, tor making a speech in its
favour, as very patriotic; and, to finish the
chapter, they ought to abuse Mr. Nicholas,
Mr. Jones, Mr. Macon, and Mr. Gallatin, al
ter the style that the partisan friends of that
pure patriot, John Adams, did, for weakening
and opposing his pure and patriotic black
cockade Administration. That the Chronicle
and Sentinel should be driven to eulogize the
characters of John Adams and Judge Mar
shall, as politicians whose purity and patriot
ism were never doubted,results from necessity
no! choice, I apprehend. lam charged with
suppressing truth, for not saying Jefferson did
not remove General Harrison, when he came
into office. After my circular was prepared
for the press, but before it was printed, I no
ticed the remarks made by the committee in
Macon, where they slated that General Har
rison had been appointed Governor of Indi
ana by Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison; this
I desired to correct, and stated it was a mis
take; and now for the f.cts: In 1800 he re
ceived that appointment of John Adams; they;
said he received it of Jefferson and Madison
thus far lam right. In 1801 Mr. Jefferson
came into office ; I say he did not appo nt him,
but found him in office; this is likewise
true. I say that he did not remove him
which is likewise t ue. He did not receive
the appointment from Mr. Jefferson, but from
Mr. Adams; Mr. Jefferson found hm in efface
and did not remove him. But it is f-*. and he
appointed him at the expiration of three years
if so, it contradicts nothing I say ; for, as by
law, the appointmet had to be renewed, it
only proves that, upon appl cat on by his
friends, he did not remove him, but continued ‘
him in the appointment; he being a Virginian,
and the relative of Mr. N cholas, who vves a
MMgom friend of Jesse son.
IBriie Chronicle and Sentinel supposes, that
because the electors for President and Vice
President were elected by the Legislature in
1824, that, therefore, I have misrepresented
the facts. This attack, made bv your paper,
would be a very unjustifiahlo one, even it I
had been mistaken as to there bavin” been i
discussion up >n the merits ofMr. Van Buren I
in 1824. The only pa it of the statement
which I made, to which your remarks can !
have any application, is that which speaks of
our having vindicated him under these char
ges. That he received the electoral vote of
Georgia, in 1824, you admit; but in your
anxiety to create some unfavorable impression
as to the truth of my remark, you say there
was no candidate in nomination for Vice Pres
ident, nor do I believe there was a nomination.
But will you dare to say that our papers did
not mention the name of Martin Van Buren
for Vice President before the meeting of the
Legislature in November? Do you not
know that one of the reasons for urging him
at that time was the hope of influencing
the election in New York? And do you not
know that the Georgia Patriot, by way of de
rision, in writing articles upon the subject
after that election, called Warren Jordan, who
was one of the electors, Warren Van Buren?
This branch of the subject I leave, however,
with those whose memories will be sufficient
to correct an error, if one exists. But tor
what purpose did I refer to the elections ol
1824 and 1532, and the support of the Stale
Rights party having been given to him at
those periods ? Was it not lor the purpose of
showing that I could not, with any propriety,
urge his votes given prior to 1824 and 1832
as reasons why IJcould not vote for him in the
present contest? This being the use and ef
fect of the argument I made, let us see wheth
er the quibble you raise effects its force. You
grant that the electoral vote of Georgia was
given as I state in 1524, by the party of which
I was a member, but deny that the claims of
the Vice President were canvassed at that
I time; and dial namj were surprised \
I received the vote. Let every ;
i for true, and does it w oaken t
1 gmneut that ! n rthe i
I drawn from it ? V
j you it does not. L -vmi ihave b . ....
to have shown that . i g*-';.g ~:m .v,,.
j Van Buren were made in 1832, maiife, cion.-j,
were then canvassed, and that the popular
| voice ol the State, at that time, sustained I.)::.
You do not deny but he was then, in
| abused tor his vote of instruction to liufu ,
King, upon the Misson i question! You ,;o not
deny that he was upbraided for his vole given
in changing the Constitution of New York,
which was called his vote tor free sul
liage! Nor do you deny that the Tioup par
! tv of Georgia recommended him, in the fece
|of these charges, to the people of the Stale
|as worthy of their confidence; and that,
’ through their aid, tie actually did receive the
vote of the Stale for Vice President! 1 say
that we did.so then, without even making a
demand for nis opinions upon the subject of
slavery. And I then say that, since that time,
we have his repeated declarations and acm
in our favor upon the subject; and that I
should now urge those votes, with unbecom
ing grace, as reasons why lie could not get
my vote. Your effort, therefore, would seem
to have been intended to lead off the public
mind Irom the object and strength of the ar
gument, to some collateral point, upon which
a controversy might arise. For you well
know, that it in nowise interferes with the
force of the argument, whether ti e charges
were made in 1824 or in ISS2, so that the
charges were made, and by us, at least, pal
liated, and then vindicated by our votes.
We opposed Mr. V'an Boren in IS3G, and
urged these votes as objections, because we
were choosing between himself and Judge
White, of Tennessee; both mem hereof il.e
old Republican pa’tv, but both opjroscd tf>*’
nullification. Judge While was irot jut
up by the Fede.al leadens and by ab
olition influence. In making choice,
thereof, of Judge White in pielirence to
Mr. Van Buren, we had this io sustain us.
I that by it we were opposing* the candidate
put. forward by the author of the proclamation:’
and that we were supporting a man certainly
sound upon the question of slavery, lie
was a slaveholder, and denied the const tu
tional right of Congress to interfere with
slavery in the District of Columbia ; while
upon the other hand Mr. Van Buren lived in
a non-Slaveholding Stale, and did not deny
Congress the right to legislate upon the sub
ject in the District. In seleciing ’between
them, therefore, both being from the Repub
lican ranks, I was decidedly in favor ol Judge
Y\ bite. As I stated in my circular, if we had
tieard nothing from Mr. Van Buren aliei
ward, inasmuch bis vote favoring 1 he’ resti -c
----tion of Missouri, and liis vote in altering the
constitution of New York, and liis noi deny
ing that Congress might legislate upon the
subject in the District, it would afford good
reasons why he could not get the vote of
Georgia in these days of abolition excitement.
But, after liis election, lie gives us a pledge
t at lie will veto any hill in any wise interft r ng
with slaveiv, and has given uprated insu
rances since that to the same t fleet. You
will at once see that we then had the right to
urge against him the above reasons in his
opposition to Judge White, who was entirely
free from those objections. But in the pres
ent contest the case is very different; in the
first place, we have his repeated pledges since
then that he would exercise in our behalf
bis veto power ; and we see almost the entire
democracy of the whole Union resisting aid
putting down these fanatics; in the second
place his opponent, General Harrison, is,
and always has been, opprs.d o :i .very, and
anxious to have it abolished; in the third place,
abolition influence was felt in liis nomination,
and the Abolitionists every where hailed it as
an advancement of their principles; and, in
the fouith p ace, be is the candidate of the
Federal party, and was a supporter of the
black cockade administration of the elder
Adams. You must perceive the vast ihtler-
choosing btween Van Buren ar.fl
Judge White in that contest, and in the die. ee
now Ibrced upon the State-rights party be
tween Van Buren and Harrison. We yield
ed the strict State-i ights ground tb.cn, but we
did not quit the Republican ranks but now,
for the sake of opposition, we are asked to
fall in line with the old Federalists, our ancient
foes, to place at ihe head of the column a
black cockade Federalist of 1800, and march
in the procession where a standard floats to
the breeze with this significant met to : ‘Tip,
Tyler, and the Tariff.’
The Chronicle and Sentinel likewise urge
ihe fact, that the elder Adams made some
appointments Irom the Republican ranks.
This is true ; but were ‘like ■angel’s lew
and far between;’ and I will defy you to
p.oduce a solitary instance of two appoint
ments made to the same individual, in the
tame time, and under similar circumstances,
to any member ol* the Republican party. In
your anxiety to sustain lb e pure and patriotic
administration of the eider Adams, in order
that you may he the better enabled to sustain
his particular friend General Harrison, you
say the only questions which were asked
were, ‘ls lie capable? is he honest?’ I tliould
be glad you would iefrtle pub ic to where
they may fnu this piece of political history. I
know that it is quoted as a declaration made
by Mr. Jefferson, but I am at the first ol such
a principle having ever been claimed for that
pure pat\iot , John Adams. The appoint
ment of such men as Patrick Henry, Eibridge
Gerry, and General \\ ashinglon, could nev
er be a test question in any administration.
I Their distinguished services to the country
!in the days that tried men's souls, would
! compel any adn inistralion to pay them honor
and respect. Patrick Henry, whose elo-
Lquence and zeal had enkindled the mighty
(fires of tire Revolution, and sustained and
cheered the spirit of independence whenever
1 it was languid or desponding, could scarcely
hall under the ban of Federal proscription,
j without arousing the energies of an indignant
people, that even their standing army could
i not have withstood So as to Ihe distinguish
ed Gerry, who lived in Massachusetts, the
same State with Mr. Adams, and was a fa-
I vorite with both parties. But General Wash
ington, in many of the prints, is named as
having received a command from Mr. Ad
ams, and hence they desire it inferred that
the Republicans were not proscribed, and ins
may be ingenious, but is not sound argument
or inference. Gen. Wasbinton, justly called
the father of his country, was claimed l y all
parlies, and lie allied himself exclusively to
none. He looked over this vast country as
the patrimony of a land of brother?; his father
ly and affectionate embrace encircled ail,
and be labored to harmonize all. In Ins cab
inet and bv his side we find the leadeis ol
both parties; all listen to bis counsel, anil rev
erence the man. To bestow on the distin
guished individual who led our armies to vic>
torv in the war for independence, the com
mand of an army can be no evidence against
the proscriptive spirit of that Administration;
it would have been the most successful mode
of getting rid of jealous, contending aspirants
for command, and of courting popular favor.
But are the same circumstances applicable to
Harrison? Did Lis distinguished services
place him above party cabal, and the voice of
a mighty people demand of Adams these ap
pointments? I think upon reflection you will
grant, that the cases are not parallel.
I have noiiced such testimony as has been
offered to the public, intended to prove that
Gen. Harrison was a friend and supporter
of Jefferson and of Maddisoi; and l
not pretend to deny but it n >: be true,
for there are some men who a!\ uirta
for the victor. There is oi.e and
- that he supported the hi