Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

wnm : Br evict JL THOni'SOX. [From the Petersburg Va. States man.] GEN. IIAKRiSUN. We to day publish an article con taining, among other things, a speech delivered-by Gen Harrison in January 1800, against the reduction of the stan ding army raised by the Federal Ad ministration of the elder Adams. Time and space prevent our making such comments on the conduct of the Gene ral as occur to us, but we cannot re- j train from taking a hasty view of the course pursued by him during a long life, much of which has been spent in ' public office, fr.nn which we may learn -on what are founded his claims" to the | support of the American People for «he highest office in their gift. The few remarks which we will make, are intended as an introduction and supple ment to the communication of .Messrs. Hives and Oromgonlc. When in the session of 1 7J>»- 1800, he entered l|je House of Kopregqnta tives as a delegate from the north-wes tern territory, we have his own autho rity for declaring, that he did not deem it prudent to take an active part in the discussion of the great questions, which nt that time, divided the Federal and Democratic parties. I U-sib.us of eon- j ciliating both parties, for the purpose of carrying through certain schemes for the hen-lit of las constituents, lie,, ■for a time, endeavored to preserve a neutrality in the dcath-s! niggle which was at that time going on between the Anglo-Federal party, headed by Ad ams and Hamilton, and the Democratic party, in tliclront ranks of which were found Jefferson and Madison, the fa vorite sons of Virginia, and founders of 1 the Democratic Republican school of I politics, la times of high parlv ex citement, neutrality is impossible", and, the attempt of Gen. 14. to remuiu neu tral failed, as e«crv such attempt must. I Before the close ot the session of Ctm gress. he discovered that he had noili i .g to expect from the course Ik: had adopted—that promotion was not to ■ be obtained, hut as the reward for ser vices rendered. He, therefore, doff.-d his ipretended neutrality, and on the tMh January delivered the speech in support ot Air. Adams' Standing Ar my, nor did he remain long uureward ed. j In ‘die month of May, fimr months af ter the. delivery »f this speech, lie was Appointed bv the l’resideiit Governor j .— — *-*l Indiana Territory, evidently ns a , leWitrd for services rendered in sup porting ;ind defending the Administra tration, known as the reign of terror, j The newspapapers of the time attri buted his promotion to lliese services. 1 lie editor of .the Aurora, commenting on this unexpected appointment, re marks. that “Sniicho 1 1. id got the G-iv- ■ ernorship of 15arralaria ;is the reward of’his fidelity.” The true position of General Harri s'»•» during his prc'-ijfied neutrality, did no! escape the eagle-eve of John Randolph; and this as well :is his sub sequent hearty support of Air. Adams though conveniently forgotten bv Gen. H. and his friends, was doubtless well Temcnilieied by Mr. |{. who was no less distinguished tor the relentivencss of his memory, than the penetration of his mind, and justified him in declaring on the floor of the Senate cliamher.'tiiat ' be, (den. II.) irus mi open, zealous atari trunk su/t/iorler of the. Sedition IMW anil Uluik (Joe lade Administra tion. n It Gen. IDs. own speech, his subse quent appointment to a lucrative of fice, and tin- positive uncontradicted declaration ol such a man as John! Randolph, are not sufficient to identify him with the darkest days of Federal ism, and to brand him with principles alien to Republicanism, there can be no reliance placed on human testimony. His imbecile career in military life, •would be passed over in silence, did not his friends invite investigation by their unscrupulous attempts to convert him into a Hero, by casting the false light of flattery over a period, ■which nothing but the valor of subal terns, and privates, prevented from be ing darkened by defeat and disgrace.— What was the battle of Tippacanoe •but a surprise by night, in which much -of the best blood of Kentucky was poured out, and the flower of her youth was saved from extermination by the ofdav, and their native bravery? Why should the credit of the battle of the Thames be given to Gen. 11. to the exclusion of the officers of inferior grade who determined on the pursuit of the British army, and especially of Col. Johnson who fought the battle, and returned from it covered with wounds and glory? Who is entitled to the praise for the defence of Fort Meigs, the General, or the subordinate whose superior skill, (by the admission of Gen. H. himself,) enabled him to make good his defence? Add to this, that his name was stricken from a re solution of thanks, when bis deeds were. fresh in the minds of men,and the coun try was lavish in bestowing favors oil her deserving sons —his resignation in the midst of the war, and what is left of military fame? What but a distal for the service, or a consciousness of imbecility, could have dictated his re signation? Is the cause alleged by himself, sufficient to acquit him of the charge of weakness or lukewarmness? Did Washington, when opposed and reviled by Ids enemies retire in disgust from the service of his country, be ■ cause the wisdom of his measures and Ids own motives were brought into question? No. Conscious ot the pu rity of his motives, and confident in the wisdom of his policy, he stood unmov ed, immovable, in the darkest hour of a protracted struggle ; and by this means placed himself in the highest nitcli ol the temple of fame, where he stands unapproached, none equal, none even second to him. 1 Compared to the conduct of Washington, how docs ; that of Harrison sink into contempt.— We would not be understood as reflec ting on the courage of Gen. Harrison, we disclaim such an imputation. We wish him to enjoy all the praise that is h:s due. Nothing could have induced us to touch Ids military life, but the un jusliHalile attempts of his partizans to , clothe him \' ith honor, at the expense of other men. I.et his friends give him what he is entitled to. and he may en joy it in peace; but let them not claim I lor him talents, which they know, and many of them confess ho docs not pos sess. We find him in the Senate during the administration of the younger Ad ams, veriliying in part the prediction, that they who fell with the first Adams would rise again with the second. Os the administration oflhe younger Ad . ams, as of the elder, he was the open, zealous and frank supporter, and in re ward, he received an appointment as minister to Colombia. Thus we find Gen. 11. while in political life, support ing the two most hateful Fcdcial ad* m nisi rations, and receiving pay for sendees rendered in the way ol an ad vancement. A thorough Federalist, he honestly supported federal measures ( and was rewarded I ry federal men. — This wits natural and not to lie won dered at, liar complained of. 1 1 is re ferred to, not to cast dishonor on his j name, but to prove his anti-Ropublican i ism. Cmild his Insl my <md here, it were well—but it tr.itst uot-his course I for the last four years, and his present ! position is enough to tarnish a brighter name than his—it is disgraceful to him | self, and to the country. Brought out by die Federal, Aboli lion nnu nnti-mnsoiiu: parlies of the I north, so great a contempt had the Soulli for his talents, and so great a distaste lor his principles, that all their hatred to the present chief magistrate could not drive them to his support,' and lie suffered a shameful defeat. Brought out ag in by the same par ties, to which is now added the whole : strength of the Tariff, Internal Jin ; provement, B;r k. and all other sections | of the moldy Whig party, ho presents the degrading spectacle of a candidate fi >r the highest office in the world—an office bestowed by freemen lor defence of their rights, and a manly an open at tachment to principle—studiously con cealing his opinions on subjects of vital importance. Still worse, still more de j grading to himself bis followers, we find him surrendered to a commit tee who have announced it as iheir de termination, that Gen. 11. make no fur ther declaration of opinion while occu pying his present position. Never was there a time which required a more ex plicit declaration ofopinion, and never before this has there been found a man wife dared to announce to the South, that he would make none. Is it come to this, that the South, that Virginia especially, will worship a veiled pro phet? It is impossible—better would he “war, pestilence and famine,” than so base a desertion of long cherished principles. GEJf. WH. 11. tIAKKIKON AND A NTANDSNG ARIttV. CoKHKSPOKDENCE. PETERSBURG, May 18, 1810. lion. Francis E. Hives : Deaii Sm :—At a meeting of the Democratic Vigilance Committee held at Powell’s Hotel, on Saturday even ing, the 16th instant, a committee of j six—to wit: Messrs. May, Osborne, Wallace, Branch, Martin and Butts, were appointed with power to com municate with you to obtain docu ments which we .have it not in our power to get here—and to ask the aid. of Mr. J. W. Jones and Gen. Drom goole, if you should not have leisure to procure them. Some of the oldest of our commit-i tee, have a distinct recollection, that 1 about the year 1800, Gen. Harrison made a speech in Congress, opposed to. AICISTA, CA., SATrRDAY JIRKMXU, Jl\n: la, is;:>. ■ • ■ .the reduction of the Standing Army, and generally in favor of the policy pursued bv the elder Adams. We think that the speech alluded to will be found in an old file of the Aurora. B. 11. MAY, Chairman. House of Representatives ) Mav 25, 1840. \ To l)oet. B. H. May, Chairman of the Democratic Com mittee of Correspondence of Pe tersburg,' Fa. Sir • —ln reply to so much of your j communication as relates to the politi- 1 cal posture of Gen. Harrison in 1800, i we have to state, that we have exam ined the journals of the House of Re- j present a lives, and have also had refer ence to the files of the Aurora of that period. It is known to yourself and to your I colleagues of the Democratic Vigil ance Committee. that soon after the a doption of the Constitution of the U. States, the Federal parly manifested their principles and policy, not only by I a latitudinous construction of the pow- j ers conferred on the Government, but by an undisguised admiration of Bri tish Institutions. They manifested a partiality for Great Britain, and her in terests in preference to the nations of I'.urope—particularly France. So great were their partialities and prejudices in favor of every thing En glish, that Mr. Jefferson denominated their feeling an “anglo mania”—a mad ness in favor of F.ngland. In this spi rit originated Jay’s treaty. It was o pcnly charged by the Republicans of that day that it was the result of a dis honorable subserviency to the wishes of the British Ministry. It was the source of a strongly marked political division in the country. It was warm ly condemned by the Republican par ty—so much so, that their Represen tatives in Congress, with Mr. Madison in their front, believed themselves jus tified in refusing an appropriation to carry it into client. Whilst the Federal party were ma nifesting tlieir devotion to the interests of Great Britain on one hand, on the other they showed an exasperated an- j t'rpathy to ihu French Republic then ! struggling into existence. They evin ced a strong disposition to engage in a j war with France. The smallest in-1 discretions—the slightest errors of that! enthusiastic ualiuu, m the cxtacioa of i their new-born liberty, were magnifi ed into horrid crimes—and the citizens ! of America, in direct consistency with <heir own glorious struggle for free dom, were instigated by Federalism to unite with the crowned heads of Eu rope iu their infamous crusade against the very existence of the French Re public. The whole policy of the Ad ministration of John Adams was. ma nifestly, to annoy and harrass the French Republicans, and, iu very en mity to the principles of their Revolu tion, to impede tlieir advancement to the establishment of their independ ence upon the great fundamental doc trine of popular sovereignty—the ina lienable right of the people of every nation to abolish an existing Govern ment, and to institute in its stead one of their own free and voluntary adoption. 'Flic Alien Law, whilst it violated the doctrine of impartial neutrality, whilst in open repugnance to the Con stitution, it superadded judiciary to magnified executive power, was evi dently designed to banish, at the des potic will of the President, some dis tinguished French refugees, who, by virtue of the law of nations and in conformity with the genius of our free institutions.had sought an asylum with in our borders. The .Sedition Law, under which Cooper and Lyon were fined and in carcerated, constituted a distinctive feature in the policy of John Adams and his associates, in their adminis tration of the Federal Government. Without equivocation or denial, it was advocated and adopted by the infuri ate partizans of a President, in heart a monarchist, for the avowed purpose of suppressing the voice of remon- j strance and reprobation, for the law less and unconstitutional purpose of si lencingthe loud eomplatnts of the con- j stituent body against the obnoxious ! measures of tlieir representatives, for | the indefensible purpose of preventing popular reason from demonstrating that the measures which it denounced were of an anti-republican tendency, and, if pursued, must end “in absolute despotism, or, at best,a mixed monar chy.” Such feelings, and such a course of policy on the part of the Fe deral Party who, then, with outstretch ed hand and firm grasp, held the reins of Government, produced between A merica and France what was familiar ly known in thalday by the term “qua si war.” Whether a standing army should be created and sustained for the purpose of intimidating France, ma , king war on her commerce, and evi dencing our disapprobation of her re t volusanary agony for self government : was a question which completely and thoroughly divided parties during the administration of John Adams, and " ~s, at that day, of preponderating in fluence in the scale of American poli tics. Let it bo sufficient for the pre sent to remark, that the Republican ; I Party opposed the creation and sup-j j port of the standing army of John A j dams. The Federal Party originated, I advocated, and enacted, with the ap probation of the President, the several laws bringing this army into cxist : cnee. * An net of Congress, passed 10th Ju ly, 171)8, entitled "An act to augment the army of the United States and for J other purposes.” And again on the 3d M uch, 17!)!), an act passed, enti tled ■ An act for the better organizing the troops of the United States, and for other purposes'.” In the succeeding Congress, at its ; first session, on January 7th, INK), the ! following resolution was moved and i seconded, viz: “Resolved, That so much of the act j passed the Kith of July, one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight, enti- j tied ‘An act to augment the army of the United Slates, and for other pur-1 poses,’ as authorises the President of the United States to raise twelve ad ditional regiments of infantry, and six troops of light dragoons, and to ap- j point two major generals, an inspec tor general, three brigadier generals, and an adjutant general; and so much of the act passed thofid of March, one : thousand seven hundred and ninety- 1 nine.« milled, ‘An act for the better or ganizing of the troops of the United j States, and for other purposes,’ as au thorises the appointment of a conimati- 1 J dor of the army, and a quartermaster 11 t general, ought to he repealed.” “Ordered, That the said motion he j committed to a committee of the whole j < House.”. 1 1 Oil the fltli January, 1800, Mr. Har- I risen, (the present Geu. Win. 11. Har-1 i rison, the nominee of the Harrisburg i Convention for the Presidency) made ! a Fnceeli against the above resolution. This Speech is to lie found in Du-, jane’s Aurora of the sth February, • j 18011 s and is therein thus reported : “Mr. Harrison said :—The resolu -1 ‘aionUi' l v-been so ably spoken to that : j “it could not he expect d to receive any i I “new light from what he should add— I “but when it was recollected that lie “had no oilier way of expressing his “opinion on any subject that came he- '■ “fore the House than by taking part in j “the debate—not having a vote in the j "House—he tilisted lie need make no “apology for rising on the present sub- j “ject, which to him appeared an impor- j “taut one, “lie was fully of opinion that the “disbanding so large a portion of the ‘■military force would be attended with I “disastrous consequences. In giving j “this opinion, he was sure he spoke “that of nine tenths of his constituents, j “and that they would with much more 1 “readiness hear their proportion of the j "expense which would he necessary “to maintain these forces than that they "should he disbanded. “The employment of his past life, “Mr. 11 arrison said, bad led him to‘lie- j “lieve that 100 much reliance was pla “ci'd on the militia. Were valor or “alertness the only requisites in the j “formation of a good soldier, he should ! "willingly give the militia that charac-! “ter. Hut these are only partial quali fies compared with those whom they I “may be called to meet. What would “tlieir valor do if’ attacked by the niili “lary tactics of a liounaparte or a “Massena? Nothing short of discip-j “pline will do for our forces. And are “our militia well disciplined ? No Sir, “they are not. “Mr. Harrison said lie had experi enced the inconveniences of a militia “army. In 17!) 1, he went out with aj “number of the militia of his part of “the country against the Indians.— “When brought into action they be “liavcd very well; they did not want “courage, but after a very short ser j “vice they wanted to go home, they! ! “were anxious to sec llieir liimilies, anil i “therefore numbers deserted and left “the army in a state which was almost “the cause of its destruction. “He had experienced seven years j “service with the militia, but was sor “ry to say, such was their conduct that ! “lie never could think of trusting thoj “country entirely to their protection. “They might do well with regular “troops, and no doubt would. Under “these impressions, and from this expe dience lie knew he spoke the will of a “great proportion of his constituents ; “he sincerely hoped the resolution “would not pass.” This is. doubtless, the speech to which allusion is made in your communica tion in the following language;— “borne nl the oldest ot our committee have a distinct recollection, that about the year 1800, (Jen. Harrison made a speech in Congress opposed to the ro j dilution of the Standing Armv. and [generally in favor of the policy pursu ed hv the elder Adams.” Above, we 1 inform you Sir, where, we, pursuing j your indication, have found Mr. Ilar i rison’s Speech in the Aurora, deemed i by all the old Re publicans good au thority. | Permit us to remark, (as we are in friendly correspondence.) that it does I seem, that! Jen. Harrison opposed the reduction of a “Standing Armv that in this he differed from the great mass of the Rcpubiicansoflh.it epoch ; that he did not entertain that confidence in die militia power of the States of this Federal Union as the proper and na tural defence of a free people, which is solemnly embodied in I lie Virginia Bill of Rights, and reiterated in the in augural address of Thomas Jefferson. I We refer von to the annexed article of our Hill of Rights, adopted before the Declaration of Independence, and i lo the extract from Mr. Jcfibrsun’s in augural. “Article 12. Bill of Rights of Vir ginia. adopted till) May, 1770: “That a well regulated militia, com posed of the body ol the people, train ed to arms, is the proper, uatur.il, and sale defence of a free State; that Stan ding Armies, in time of peace, should lie avoided as dangerous to liberty ; and that, in all cases, the military should he in strict subordination to, and [governed by the civil power.” Extract from Mr. Jefferson's Inau gural s “A well disciplined militia, our best “reliance iu peace, and for the first mo “inents of war, till regulars may re “ lieve them.” Tlh; foregoing resolution proposing a reduction of the army, was under debate for several days.—Being a lead ing party question, and in a time of considerable excitement, it produced a great deal of interest, and attracted nine'll consequence to its determination. The vote which we subjoin, taken from the journal of the House of Represen ; tativos, is, we believe, with a very few • exceptions, a party vote, and will he so pronounced by the oldest members j ol your committee, who yet retain a ! distinct recollection of that period, and ot the prominent men who then pla v- I oil their respective parts on the theatre ol’ political action. On the 1 Glh January, 1800, the !(Chairman reported that the committee : of the whole House had disagreed to ! the resolution proposing a repeal of i the acts authorizing an increase of the armv T’he question was taken that the j House do agree with the committee of the whole House in their said disagree ment. Resolved, in the affirmative—Yens | 00, nays 3!). (Gen. Harrison not vot ing, because nut entitled to a vole.) Those who voted i;i the aifirmative, [ were— William Alston, William 11. Ilil!, •George Baer, Ueiij. Huger, liailey Bartlett, James It. lmlav, James A. Bayard, John Wilkes Bittern, .Joint Bird, lleiirv Lee, Jonathan Brice, Silas Lee, John Brown, Samuel Lyman, Clinst’r (I. Cliamjdni,James Linn, William Cooper, John Marshall, Samuel W. Dana, Lew is It. Morris, I John Davenport, Abraham Nott, Franklin Davenport, Harrison G. Otis, I John Dennis, Hubert I’age, ' George Dent, Josiali Barker, j Joseph Dickson, Jonas l’latt, William Edmond, Leven Powell, Thomas 17vans, John Reed, Aliiel Foster, John Rutledge, Jr., Dwight Foster, Samuel Sewali, i Jonathan Freeman, James Slieafe, ! Ilenry Glenn, William Shepard, Samuel Goode, Samuel Smith, ChaUncey Goodrich, Benjamin Taliaferro, Elizur Goodrich, George Thatcher, William Gordon, John Chew Thomas, Roger Griswold, Richard Thomas, William Bany Grove, l’eieg Wadsworth, ■ Kobt. Gndloc Harper, Robert Wain, | Thomas Hartley, Lemuel Williams, and Archibald Henderson, Henry Woods. Those who voted in the negative, are— I Theodorus Bailey, Aaron Kitchel], ; Phanuel Bishop, Michael I.uib, j Robert. Drown, .Matt hew Lyon, i Gabriel Christie, Nathaniel Macon, Matthew Clay, Peter .Muhlenberg, W. C. Cole Claiborne,Anthony New, j John Condit, John Nicholas, j Thomas T. Davis, Joseph .1. Nicholson, j John Dawson, John Randolph, j Joseph Kggjeslon, John Smilie, j Lucas Bimendorf, Richard Stanford, I John Fowler, David Stone, J Albert Gallatin, Thomas Sumter, | Edwin Gray, John Thompson, Andrew Gregg, Abram Trigg, John A. Hanna, John Trigg, Joseph LI mater, Philip Van Cortland!, David Holmes, Joseph I!. Varnum, George Jackson, and James Jones, Robert Williams. The foregoing vote, which wc have copied from the Journal, incontcstibly establishes the fact that the resolution. VO:..J— - declaring .that tin; arts r.atlion. ' Standing Army ought to be re; t was sustain 'd by tile Republic!.. e-- i tv. it whs <i parti/*question.- • old Republicans on ymir conn. I will Ik: more compliant than vv ■ to (o .trast the ayes and tines on h question, l’ardon us, however. , . ; making emphatic reference to a names on each side. On the Fee a! side ol the question we find— James A. Bayard. William 11. Mill, Samuel \\ . Dan, i. Joint Wilkes It;lit r., Abie! Foster, Henry l.oe, Samuel (iiHxle, Samuel Lyman, ltoger (irisuolil, John Marsliall, William Uauy <irove, Harrison Gray Oi. , Kolit G undine Harper,l.even Powell, tVu. Archibald Henderson, On the Republican side we find— Matthew <'lav, Nathaniel Macon, Wm. C. ('. (.iaiborne, Peter Muhlenberg, John Dawson. John Nicholas, Joseph Eggleston, John Randolph, Albert O lilatin, David Stone, Joseph Heister, Thomas Sumter, Michael Leib, Philip Van Corllandt, Matthew Lyon, Joseph U. Varnum. General Harrison made his speech on the lltli January, ISOO. On the lgib day of May, ISOO, lie was nominated by the 1 resident to he Governor ol Indiana, and on the next day his nomi nation was confirmed by the Snntc. From these facts there can be no doubt that General llnrrison was completely identified with the old Federal party, i as it existed under the administration | of John Adams. There lire oilier subjects mentioned in your letter, but they have been quo ted in the newspapers, aud are now undergoing discussion. The speech which wc furnish, and die parly vote from the journals, we have not seen as vet published. We regret that our able, virtuous and distinguished colleague, Joint W. Jones, has been prevented, bv Severe indisposition, from engaging f» rsunuHij with us in this investigation, twhich accounts for the want of I;;,-, signature to this reply.) tlie r suit of which we communicate. W e arc ae.lborio Ito say, that not only will Mr. Jones, but that all our Democratic ;:•>'!■ agues will most cheerfully aid, at al! tu , s. in giving to the ) haitqcralie \ .gii.inee Committee of Petersburg, aiul o . Ge niocratic friends generally, ilw 'lee the Slate, all sucli inform;.;i • ii-■ y ntay require, apd which m.; -, . .in;, our power to procure. For »r,i. !.us, we tender you our willing ; In conclusion, sir, vve caiuiot !*irb. , to express our high gratification—our honest pride, ns Virginians, that you and your colleagues manifest a deter mination to investigate, on juimi/iie, •! the relative claims and qualifications of the candidates for the Presidency. Sir, wc speak from our hearts, when we declare- our admiration of your ■ example. You evince a noble deter minate.a to disregard the senseless cla mors of revelry, and the wild huzzas ol intoxication, by which it is endea vored to enlist the passions and to overwhelm the reasons of the people. Your, sir, and your colleagues, would not (it is not in your moral and politi cal code) encourage a morbid appetite, and administer provocatives to a vitia ted taste, for the mere purpose of pro curing a party tiiumph. You would not base a political vic tory upon the degradation of the mo rals of your countrymen! If we are defeated, and wc cannot anticipate any such disaster, let us preserve the proud consciousness **f having done nothing to impair our moral and political integrity—of hav ing committed no act calculated to lessen confidence in the intelligence of the people, and in their capacity for self-government. Make known to your fellow-members of the committee, and to the Republicans of the‘"cockade of Virginia,” the willingness of ourselves and colleagues, to aid you and the citi zens of the commonwealth generally, in the momentous struggle i;i which vve are involved. We are, very sincerely and respect fully, vour friends and fellow-citizens, ‘ ' FRANCIS lu. lllVi S. G HU. C. DROMCOOI.E. HIGH SWEARING. At a late Whig nice ling at Fan ~!i Hall. Ihiston, 1,. G. Austin, ~ .q, e.,ik on the Whigs to swear ••; y i:.e Lo and sinews of the muruore-i i . to elect Harrison: another. if;,- deoarted spirits ol tlie sigfi'-cs Dcclaration of Independence , t third, “* by the North Star.’ \\ . multiplicity of gods the Wo have by which to swear ffi. ov -.1 oavv of Democracy ! Notwithstanding u.;., array, wc opine the Whig priests will find themselves in the same predica ment as those of Baal in the olden time —they may call on their gods, but they will not answer—being stu pified by hard cider.— Rochester Daily Advertiser.