Newspaper Page Text
TH i: SOTTHERNEB. ,
mm T by Gil!' k TUtBPMN.
' “'phi > ('//if S—M O 7 W £ V.' ’
THE SOI BftERER will lir ia-aed weekly
uniil l!ii' l-l of NoTeiwhern-xt* lr«m tile Const.!//*
tioimli-i O.Vi.-f. Atipn-H, (i--
TERMS —One Oull.tr— l'nt/nhle i t mlcanrr.
KiieUv oi Tiif. rxR.QiMTv
To tlie Eiditom of tho Ccrgtß Joui n«l nnd
the Chronicle and Seotinc!.
Genti.f.mkn: —hern inform."! nf iOr* nn
pnmlielcil eirimmrn. th.o prevailed ii t.cnrw/n
upon the subject of (he Presidential eh rtioo, 1.*.-
fore I xvrote my circular, t apprehended 'hi** I
•houd incur f«fiwplrnMir*» <d mnnv higidv e-.-
teemed friends if f dar*i! to llcnk ?«»r tuvself,
purime in that fnntfuf the dictate- of an
judgment. No one rPßfft*<u more than I the p ! "s
perl of i division e nong Hi* •"* who bad So n so
lor: 2 Msoriitf nno?i those n f iM**plr* wliirli I have
always cherished. andwhi'h I shall ever uiv**ciitc,
a* the hfM safeguard* "t cnii‘ , t'iirinr»nl libertx
While you are endeavoring to impress ilo* urnd*
of your rp(i»le r n, in order t*» r xn‘i* lliHr prejudices
against me, (because I pre Vr the sleriimt of M*.
Van Ruren to that of General Hnrrs**ii.) So I ind
enough l" tell them that, in doing ***. I have iieltht r
repudiated, condemned, nor abandoned, nsoii'my
princph* of th * Slate Rig 't‘ early Rut von d« -
sire the irforc re to he made, that I have made n
wonderful change, herons# 1 pefer \ nn f ’uren t«»
Harrison sos us see how thi*■ stands: Neither Nun
Ruren or Harrison ih a Mate K*qhts rriaii; b«uh Imv -
iug been opposed to those political prinrr !<•* and
dttetrines that h'nnjrhl the Mute Wight* party into
existence. The whole pany was, therein re, so
long ns it made our principles the test, si tiding
alike opposed to both. 1, then, ns a member of the
party, was against Hnrrtson as we!! as \ an Ilmen;
and, if I should now prefer Harrison to \ an Ruren,
and support bun. might y*ui noi say what a won
derfnl chmge! Judge ('o’nuitt was, a • *r« lime
since, opposed to General lL?rrt»oii, ut t! it s now
far littn to reconrile lu*w In* i* forlum By st»' ng
tfie case in this way* you wd! perceive tftar tho
Journal would he h«isy in giving reason* f.»r having
undergone some slight rhang • within the lt».-i few
weeks And I should he pled v• • n would cherjp
home a suridar change to ev/ rv ■'■'lute l(r ht» in ti
who gives Ills support »-* H thm.ii Von \\i I, in
this way, clearly perci ive *hnt in issue is now
made: hv the very making of w :, n h, every no m
her « f the niriy. no mal'er which rand date !•«•
may prefer, is • qnnl'y u «de hibls to tin* charge of
hn\ ing changed. I wiil r f'er yon to the vrv f tf»
propriatr remarks made upon t!"s stihjc# ' mih
edit'Mi 'l of the (ieorc-a Jour* nl *•! the %r 1 1» of
April, “That a nomination of C»c n eral Hario**nhy
the ('onveiition w ill |»roduce die U'cci of foriiittm a
new, to the df*fruction of /hr Shi'r fnrl f,
must hp rrtrfrnf to oil who Ttflcrl iifioo the suiurrf,
Arc. Tins, issue, which i* a formal dissoltr :• »r» <*f
the party. Iliad no right, to aii'icimte; and. when
I learned lhat it was nl nil pr«»hah|e, I labored to
prevent, not hy endeavoring to pr| nn Van Ihnen
ineelint's, ns 1 »s cum inly reported in
private circles, hut hy desiring the uoiutn.ation <*l
liarrison to he opp«*sed, that h sp»it might therchv
he prevented Mmontthe entire Slate Kiyhts party
res |m*ruled l«» the resoluiions passed nl Milleilge
ville last winter; and i think you will do me the
justice to say that I have hcen ntnottg lli«* lest *o
aSamhtn she position nssumeti bvlhn pnrtv • And
yet you seem to wish it iiiu! |a rstood that I have
eliangrd, w liile the mi- h of the pnrlv tire emtsih
tent. lamto he jeered lor associating it- this elec
ton with our 'ormer opponents in Georgia, while
tlio-e who ndv<M‘ tie Harrison, would gladly er
brace cvery f’nion man in the Stale, who would
come to 11 1 * ir help in the contest, and trumpet for li
every acquisition from their rank* as a happy omen
for fsneeess. The editor? of the (’hromele anil
Sen inel I suppose hy wav of reproach, say I lint I
am now to sue nt< d w ih t osatn I'niar Dart left: und
dors t!»c editots ilei'oi it n repronch? if so. they lire
entitled to its benefit; for < nMUti Kinar llartlett is
the <■ h «»r of a paper hi I'lorida, n"cl lias hoisted
th * Ilnrrisou Hi;. Hut. gentleiui u, at art f*-UT* this,
yon taint permit me, in the spirit of kind- e .*», to
notice a few of the >a tii nli" \mi have hecn |*leas«al
t » make upon riy eir< nlnr and upon me, which, if
net?** intended, is « alcuhted to ndeet my rdmrar •
t *r. Tins I had in* right to expert, espee ally from
llo* cd»t**rs of the Journal, whose persona* know
ledge of me, and «*f my motives, enabled them to
know that, tti iheirstrictures they were doing me
manifest injustice Tin* frequent charges of re
t nlin" nhimlrr, shititi" falsehood*, su/titrcssiutT fruth ,
f!mhlinn to f/.svt Ti e, dc , with which your - ditonals
iih/niiid, hy w hich my character is nssni'ed, I vxill
show you, ar** not supported hy tho facts upon
which you r* Iv; ami. if y<*ll have inadvertently
faheri into errors, von will, ns honorahle mi ti. e*>r
re* t them; hot, if yotir «r|.o k lias been a studied
delicti to injure or destroy niy character in order
lo elevate fienernl Ham on. it will merit the cen
sure of every l»one‘t citizen *»f the land. As yon
are at the head of lending and influential political
jo irnnb, yon will pardon me for saying that nhtise
is not argutnenl—hv tt y«»n may snreceil hi pamper
ing prejudice, to whose empire every principle of
justice and politiral truth may he sacrificed, but it
usually iii<!i* ntes bad lienrls, a weak cati&c, and
vinous purposes
It sometimes happens that, when trirh is too f*»r
cilde to be palliated or denied, abuse and even vul
garity ar«» subterfuges to escape from its force.—
You say that I charge Heueral Harrison wi’li being
an Aholit**m*st. Here is our first issue I fav I
have made no such charge, and your saying that I
did. is not supported hy any put of »rv circular.
Isay fhi : that he was mmnnaicd ‘‘with the view
nn«l f*»r ft.#* purpose nf obtainiug th hy pro
curing the votes of Ahiditionists ” This truth is
t**o universally admitted ‘hr a denial,a id you have,
therefore, carefully «‘vnded its point. I proceed
t" give cv ol "ii.-e of wliil has transpired here du
riti* the present Congress, showing the character
of the two panics upon the siihfc. t of nbubtioii. in
which I hope y«*u vv;'l look with utteirion, cs it
deeply g*itieerns the interest of t-eorgin; ami its
truth none dentes. I state this: That “much paint I
has been t ikcti to throw poppies over the e\ c*» of
the South hv altcmpdng to prove thatHenornl llnr
rison himself is pot an Abolitionist.” \mv do you !
mark what I said; tliat the effort to pul the people
to sleep .and oflT their guard we.* by nttempti**g l*> j
prove that 'Joneml Harrison himself is not an Ab
olitionist While I, in mv circu'nr, place that sub
ject u;»o id iTore it gr *nt»d, end show that he ought
not to be trusted upon tb;»t >ubjert, by reason of
the inflnenee through which lie was iioimnated; 1
by reason of the character of northern NN liigs. ,
shown hy their \ .tes in (-oncress upon lhat subject; I
by reason of the Abolitionists chinning Ins icmn »- !
lion as an advaneeinent e.vl tiiuniph of iheir prin
ciples; by reason of his being opposed to slavery |
and desiring it abolished; and by reason of Ins re !
fusing to say now whether he is an \hoiitioiin : or j
i»"t. These are the grounds I took in mv circular, ;
none of which yon clem', or can deny; hut content j
yourselves to divert pub ic attention from those is- j
sues which 1 make; and attempt to do the \cr\
thing which I say efforts are making at the South ;
to accomplish, hy debating a question which oil- ,
mils of argument
I sav in my circular, explicitly, “Whether he is |
the advocate of the present uo:p>nof the Vbo'ition*
ists is immaterial.'* While you are attempting to ;
prove that Harrison i« n«* NbohtioniM, I charge that
**official htters and speeches prove iliis: lint; In* i
opposed to slavery and desire' t abolished " I *fn n
give an ex? art from hi? nrctcarto prove what’
that he is .an Abolitionist? \*». but to prove h s op
position to slavery You say that I garbled tins
letter in order to prove die was an Aholiiiouist. 1
want you t*» publish the entire letter once more, '
ami let every candid man determine whether any
and every part of the letter tlors net prove \x* e.t I
allege it establishes. Look to my circu'nr. at page
6, and, after making the extract, see what ! sav it !
demonstrates; I say, “This circular prove* lhn» lie I
is unfriendly to slavery, and that he considered it a i
ea umny to he considered friendly, necessary f.»r
him to repel; and it proves that lie was *oanxious |
to retain the friendship of the \h«*li - ioni*t', that lie
nctually thought it necessary f«. obtain a ceriifi* ate
that he was a member t*l nn abolition society ”
Now I ask you if any part of t*’e circular which 1
omitted disproves what I state the cm ular proves?
But does not the resume of the letter prove the
same farts' Why did (>etiernl Harrison, so many
> ears after, get a certificate that lie had been a mem
ber of an Abolition society ? !*o v**u not know that
he obtained this certificate from Judge t»aich, in
order to satisfy the Abolitionists that he whs friend
ly tolheircan.se' Ido not ask why he joined the
society originally; hut l ark* nv man to define ihc
object he Imd. so many years after, for procuring
this certificate that he had keen a member of an
abolition society. The **bj ct i- tort plain. He
considers it slander to be a* e anted friendly tosla
very; und yet slaveholders art* invited to make
Inin President.
Aou charge me with making a garble d extract to
prove thru tie w»- an Abolitionist, wlolg my cin n-
| la- pluinlv shows the* you have been guilty of s
very manifest misconstruction, ora wnntonettempt
. to deceive your readers, at the expense of my
' character, what else do Isay? that “if otherproof
be necessary to show ihst Im p. opposed to slavery,
and wi-he* it abolished, ren*l ogam lha: part of In*
speech lup.irt of which has been so often p« hi'fc »-
ed in his defence; in which be * ys: “Shwil'l 1 he
asked if there is no way hy which lhef»on« r«l t»o
--vernment ran aid the cmise <*f einnncipati«»n. Inn-
I swer that it has long been an ol ject near my lieari
to see the whole of it* surplus revenue np r p.iutcd
’o that object.*" Thin extract was ir.flde to prove
!iia anxiety to linve slnvi rv abolished; and I once
more challenge von I** publish the entire speech,
arid point me to a solitary letier or syllable that d/S
--uroves the charge. Y »i have too Muich intelligence,
i i reform, to Mip|><i,e it was necessary lor ine to
puhinh the entire speech, where no part of it con
tradict* or disproves w hat I ai'egeit prove*. I a*R ■
\ou to state, as eavuli men, who ought to have pi»*
per regard for iruib and virmre, if any port of that
circular or sprcrh of General Harrison’s disproves
*vh»t 1 aver 'td«*c* prove? And I then leave it to
your own sense 0 f justice to snv, whether v* nr
charge of garbling, to deceive, is not unjust and un
founded.
I will not charge von w ith having made a wilful
misrepresentation for the purpose of exciting pre
judice against mv character, for I have chanty
! enough to hope that yno have misunderstood ,lf, d
mbcnnstrned what I think *s very plaitily written;
and that, calling your attention *o your mistake,
will induce you to look over mv circular once m >re,
when it will doubtlcs* nff »rd you great pleasure to
make the necessary c* rrectlon. A "tt are very wel
come to nM yonr evidences hy w’ ich you atu inpt
t»* esfnb!i>h 1 1i*.t he wi" not some ) ear* ago an Ab
olitionist: his opposition to slavery von cannot deny,
'hat lie is noxious t«* have it abolished, yon cannot
dertv: that the hope of getting Abolitionists votesiu
flucnccd Ins nom nation yon cannot deny; that the
advocates nf the AbnlitioniM* who arc in < ongress
arc hi** supporters, you cannot deny; that the » no
liiioni*ts liai!«*d hi* nomination a triumph of their
principle* and the overthrow of shiveocrncy, you
• cannot deny: that the Abolitionists of the >lntc ol
Ohio. wh»re he lives and where they ought to tin
’ dors'nnd his feehnea best, give him a rordtr.l M»p
r> *rl, von earn *t deny; that he i* now in the • barge
of n committee, and refuse* to answer friends or
foes up m this subject, you rnnnoi deny, 'n-'i
these various connecting circumstances very far
outweigh a vote twenty year* ngo, ori.eela
| rations made fr.... four to six year# hack, vv icn
• i f.re was much le?s excitement upon that subject
than at present. I think no candid mart will deny. If
a Present sh nld he elected, though he should be
in Abolitionist, having no such influences operating
up n ! *m, he would have no power to destroy our
right of property in slaves; hut with s ich influen
ces brought to hear upon n President oppo ed to
slnvsry,andnnvious P* In.veil abolished, prCTents
' an ala*minp and h fearful prospect for the South.—
The nnrrher of Abolitionist* in the State of Ohio
sn**l in have more then doubled since one word
has been mnde public from General Harrison upon
the sul ject. I detire to call yonr attention, in the
r ■ next place, to a few* mistake* you have accidentally
made, upon the subject of lu* Federalism I *ny
’ acrid/ ntnlly, f»»r I should dislike In !n*e my high re
gar*! for your sincerity und ttintior in placing every
1 thing very /niriy before the public that interests
that public, whether it would favor or militate
against your tinr , y discovered nod highly distin
guished candidate. I shall notice those that strike
tlireclly at mv feelings and character. Aim com
plin:*, in the fir** plat e, that, in the extract* which 1
' mndefrom Randolph'* speech and General IT.-rri
! son's rep y, that the extract from the reply is only
about one ha'f of the speech: and you of the
Chronicle and Sentinel, sav, that in the latter part
of the »pcecft which you publish, that there is n pos
itive ai d equivocal d* ni lof the charge. Here you
t»t:d I are once more at issue, and we trust appeal
to the fuel* to see whether I • r you he mislh ii« /I
I ook t" my circular, and tothc charge nmilc, which
; I I nflrdge is not denied, hut admitted. an*l which the
editors say is not admitted, tmi denied The charge
is, that lie was an open, nalou*, an*l frank support
er of the sedition law ai d black cockade adminis
tration; v r lie supported the administration that
enacted the alien and sedition law*, and wore mn a
ha ’ffc, a black cockade; which wns the adininistra
, tii'ii of the elder A darn* I* not this the charge?
This charge the .bmrnnl says “has no? been mnde
to appear otherwise than by the charge of John
Rnudn'ph and tho inferences of Mr Co'qnift In
answer to this, we hav** equal evidence to he eon
i 1 trary. which wc shall take occasion to lay before
our readers.” Wlmi equal evidence is it that tho
» Journal places belorc'ii* readers to prove the con
trary? This; that in the same speech, he declares
■j hi* opposition to the alien and sedition laws. Sup
. pose In* he true, and lhat he wi»* really opposed
to those nets of the administration,does tlmt prove
I he du| not support the nilminbiriil on? The charge
i is that lie wns nn open and frank supporter of the
black eockade administration, «nd the pri*of relied
on lo disprove if i*. that he was opposed to tlie alien
1 and sedition nets. If that proof is sufficient to re
r flit elite charge, it follows of necessity that every
member of a party must support every act of the
i j party, or it demonstrate*, that he does not support
I Hint party. I made no charge that he supported
those particular acts of the Administration; and,
consequently, if there was undoubted lest ntony
f i that he did no*, it dors not disprove the charge. If
i ' my character is to he a**.a tied for trirh. let the
I charge he met nirlv, and not hy nn evasion such a*
j I have noticed I challenge you or both of you to
republish the wcole speech, which you say i have
r irhled, nttd show where It" has denied the charge.
I repent that he lias not done so. lie does not any
where deny that lie supported the Administration;
I t hut he doc* deny being in favor of the alien and
i sedition laws. Tho extract upon which you rely
. ,to disprove the charge i* this: “But, sir, said Air
Hairisoii, my opposition to the alien and sedition
law* was so well known in the Term* ry, that a
I pi •t. i o wa* extorted from me, hy my friends in
i the Legislature hy which I was elected, that I would
express no opinions in Philadelphia which were in
the least calculated to defeat the important obj# cl*
, with which I xvas charged. A* I had no vote, I
t\;ii not called upon to express mv sentiments in
the H »n*c. The Republican party were all in fa
vor of the measures 1 wished to have adopted, hut
the Federalists were in th** majoii'y; prmb nee,
there'ore, and mv duty to my eonslituenls, render
ed it proper tliat 1 should r* frain from expressing
1 s< uiiincnis which would injuriously nffict their in
: tcrest; and which, if expressed,could not. have the
least influence upon the decision of t'ongress.** Is
there any remark in ibis | rtoftienernl Harrison’s
speech tl at denies his support of the black cockade
Ain in siration? (Vrtninlv not; and yet Inm to he
reviled as a retailer of slander. Upon this speech
! of General Harrison's I beg leave to make a few
I remarks: If he was a Republican, and acting with
th** Republican party, do you not think it strange
that he did not, during his stay in Congress, in any
ol hi* intimate private conve sations with members
of the Republican party, communicate to them that
he was opposed to the alien and sedition laws? I
I will hazard the opinion that no one man out of a
thousand, in the State of Georgia, who. thoueh re
: strained hy policy from offending his political ad
vcr>aries, by lilting them know his true sentiments,
hut would have told them to his political friends.
The alien and sedition laws, so bitterly opposed, so
. long debated, and so warmly contested, and yet
General Harrison tells no one at Bhdailelplua, dn
i ring hi.s stay in Congress, that he was opposed to
• hue. Ti nt hv was opposed to those laws I shall
n*»t deny; hut I do deny the probability of his being
of the republican party at that time,and yet make
no « viHitunicalion so his political friends of his op
position to those mensnre*. To my mind, this quo- !
ta?" u trade hy the Journal, vxill strengthen the !
charge I make. I can readily enough perreive how,
it in* stood io opposition to this party, he might
derm it prudent lo make no noise about his opin
i n•: but if lie was a republican, and agreeing wi:h
his party tip* n a subject so exciting, his would he
‘ a v* rv rare case, if, in his nitnna e and p>ivote cou
rt s.rhi ns lie made no intimation of his feelings
But l« t me ask v. hat sort of a statesman he exhibits
i house!'to he .’ At a time when every press was
muzzled, and every tongue palsied, by law, that
in* n in autho.ity might not he exposed, “ prudtnce
| and duff/ rembred it proper he shun d refrain from
expressing his sentiments.” When every Repub
lican in Hie land was fired with a just indignation
for this out rage upon the freedom of speech and the
press, this firm and intrepid man was restrained hy
“prudence und duty*’ from raising his hand or voice
hi the defence of these important prerogatives of
freemen He may have been opposed to those
ia*.vs, l ilt he admits I is opposition was a secret at
I'hilarli'lphia where Congress was then held), and
that he did not dare, either in private or in public,
to give bis aid in staying the tide of tyranny and
oppression licit was heating down the institutions
ol his country. To my lAind, the whole speech
will e.vl ihit him totally unworthy of the support of
m v true-hrnrtcd Republican It is no time for si
lence. It was no time for any pa’riot to fold his
arm*, under the pitiful pretext of “ prudence ui.d
duty."
But again, the Journal quotes this part of the
same speech : “A* 1 was on terms of intimacy
with the gcmleman. it is probable that he
might have heard me express sentiments favorable ,
to the then administration. I certainlv felt them, |
«u far, at least, a* to the course jipnntd by it in re
laiion to the Government of France:** and says, j
that the point iri thin remark of wap the ,
support he pave the Administration ott the French :
question, ten. Harrison here declares it probable *
that he might have expressed eerpimen*" favorable j
to the then Advetnistration, and says, “he certain
ly fid*. them, so far, at least. a» to the course poian- ;
ed bv it in relation to the Government of France ;
but does he say he felt them no farther favorable. ,
than such as arose from its course to the French j
. (iovemment ? No; he fell them at least that far, j
I hut does not deny hut that he approvedgt.very ntea- j
sure of the party, except the alien and sedi’KHl
I laws ? It certainly is n very feeble attempt to Ifd j
j rid of the charge of being the snpj orier of lliat
: Administration, by saving that he* supported it at j
least, so far as to its course with the {
of France. This at least is likewise an important
admission, in exhibiting his position as to the Fede
ral and Republican parties of that day. How
stood the parties with relation to the French Go
vernment ? Let it be rerrtembered, that this sub
ject was as marked as any other by the division of ;
the parties at that time. The Republican party I
was denounced as a Vi each faction, and the most j
hitter invectives were heaped by the Federalists j
and Federal presses upon Mr. Jefferson and the
Republican party, as allies to the French. The
history of those times will show that the Republi
can pariy was charged with a dt sign to subvert the
Government hv an alliance with France. The
pure patriot, Mr. Adams, in reply to the people of
Arlington and Sandgate, said, “That he had long
seen the exertions of dangerous ami restless men,
misleading the under-landingof well-meaning ci
zens, and prompting them to «urh measures as
would ►ink the glory of America, and prostrate
her liberties at the feet of France.’* The Feder
alists, under the pretence of fearing a French inva
sion, on the !6<h July, 1798, passed an act entitled.
* An act to augment the army of the IJ. States, and
for other purposes;’* by which act the President
was authorized to raise twelve additional regiments
of infantry, and six troops of light dragoons, and
to appoint two major generals, an inspector gene
ral. three brigadier generals, and an adjutant gene
ral ; and on the Hd of March. 1799, passed “An net
for the better organization of the troops of the U.
States, and for oilier purposes,” by which he was
authorized to appoint a commander of the army
and a quartermaster general. The heated opposi
tion by the Republican party to raising this enor
mous standing army • will not have been forgotten
hv any who lived a» that time, and is too wi ll iden
tided with the history of the parlies of that day
not to have claimed the attention of every reader
of jsiliiirs. The denunciations of ilie standing nr
my by the Republicans, as a leading and favorite
meanre of the Administration, and their hold de
clarations thnt a mercenary army in lime of peace
was quartered on the country, under the false pre
tence of a French division, gave roe, in pari, to
the unjust reproach of its hoing a Ftenth faetie.n,
organized to overturn the Government. Gen. Hnr
ri oti's support of the h'ack cockade Atfministrh
li »n of the eider Adams, “so fur, at least, as to the
c uino pursued by it in relation to the Gox emnrent
of France,” is tame, evidence that he was not a
Jeffersonian Rep .hliran Although "prudentrand
duty ” sealed his lips when the gag lain of the Fe
deral Administration was fastened on the speech
anti press of a free people, I will presently show
you that he hr.d no committee to keep him from
"fanning wie issues" with the Ke| uh'ican party
in ilu ir opposition to the standing army. He was
favorable to the black cockade Administration,“at
lead, so far ns the course pursued by »r in relation
to the Government of Fiance,” and I will now
show you that he was favorable to it, </t least, so
far nN this Mending army was concerned- In order
to do this, so that the facts may ho properly under
stood, I will state the concerting rirciiip'-tanros.
I have h< fore ine “Bat lie’s Philadelphia Aurora,”
which was the leading organ of the Republican
party <*f that day, in which I find in the paper is
sued on the Bih of January. 1900, the proceedings
o r Congress of Wednesday, January I, 18(H), when
the Hon e resolved itself into aC ’inaiittce of the
Whole, Mr Morris in the chair ; after transacting
some other business, Mr. Nicholas, of Virginia, a
Republican, and warm friend of Mr. Jefferson,
moved the following resolution :
“Retailed. That so much of the act passed the
I full July, 179:5. entitled ‘An act to augment the
army ol the IJ. Siaies, and for oilier purposes,’as
authorizes the President of the (J. Stales to raise
twelve additional regiments of infantry and six
troops of light dragoons, and to appoint two major
generals, an inspector general, three brigadier ge
nerals, and an adjutant general; and *n much of
the net, passed the 3d of March, 1799, entitled ‘An
net for the better organization of the troops, him! for
o her purposes,* ns authorizes the np|>oiiitment of a
eommamh r of the army and a quartermaster gene
ral. ought t<* he repealed.**
fpon this resolution a lung debate ensued—ar
raying ngain-t each other the prominent men of
the contending parties. If | give you extracts
from gome of the speeches on both sides, to show
you the character of which the d< hnie partook,
some partisan ed tor will hope, t y raising the cry
of garbled, to have you believe the reference is
not true I will lake the liberty, however, nf ma
king a few extracts, ns you wnu'd not expect me
to transcribe nil the deh ite (lint lock place during
six w ecks occasional discussion Against this re
solution, introduced by .Mr. Nicholas, the two*dis
tinguished siniesmeii of which General Harrison
speak- in his reply to John Randolph, in Id 2d, to
wit: Mr. Rnvnrri and Mr. Marshall, and the equal
ly celebrated Mr Otis and Mr. Harper, took an ac
tive part, and, unfortunately for Gen. Harrison,
“ p-udtrae and duty" did not restrain him from
-landing by the *ide of tins federal junto, and ma
king a spot eh against reducing the Federal stand
ing army that hid been raised under the act of
1798 \gninsi these were arrayed Mr. Randolph,
Mr Gallatin. Mr. Nicholas, Mr Jones, of Georgia
and Mr Macon. There were other speasers,
whose names 1 hove not mentioned, who took
sides according to the party to which each was at
tached Mr Harp< r. who was the chairman of the
Committee ol* Ways anil Means, in part of his
speech attempts to show the probability of a French
invasion, in consequence of expected nul from the
Republican party. He says: “There exists among
usn great and nowerfid party which is impelled,
hv party spirit, by animosity against it - rival*, hv
jealousy of the Administration, by its own political
system, or by whatever other motive, to exert all
its force, with unalmted zeal, and nt J. ngih with
complete success, for wresting from the Govern
wont every means of defence. Cor depriving it of
a I means of exerting national force, for robbing it
of ali hope of public support, Ry withdrawing front
it, completely, the public confidence. That this
party, in fine, about whose existence she is hut too
well informed, and w hose principles and viewsil is
not natural for her to mistake, lias at length obtain
ed an ascendency in our councils, and will not foil
in the pursuit of its own plans, wha'ever they may
he, to serve effectually her cause, by lying up the
hands of the Administration, sppnrnttng the nation
from the Government, and neutralizing, by means
of that division, the national force.” Again, in
speaking of the manner in which France had con
quered other countries, he says, “We know that it
is by fomenting internal discontent, by availing I
themselves of the weakness resulting from the jea
lousy of Government, ami party divisions, that they
have triumphed and still hope to triumph over oth
er countries. In o her countries they have found
parties thnt 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 leading I
Federalist against the Republican party ; and, in I
reply 'o some of the opposers of the standing army
who had ridu tiled the idea of an invasion, or con
quest by Franee. he says: “In all probability she
would not wish to effect what gentlemen would
call a conquest, she might not even hope it. But
her purpose would he completely accomplished by !
placing herself at the head of that party which she
considers ns favorable to her views, by nidingthnt
party to possess itself of the Government, and
then compelling it to rule according to her will.
'Phis she lias done in other countries, and she will
hope to do it Imre also.” Yon thus see lhe charac
ter of the debate, where it partakes of a party east
During this debate John Randolph was so severe
upon the tnotix es of the Administration, and its mer
cenary army, that he was attacked in the theaire a
few niehis after; of which the editor thus speaks :
“It lias been repeatedly charged on lhe Admiais
(ration, that tlm standing army was raised upon an
alarm, for which there was no real or creditable
fnunduti »n. It hoa been said it was intended for
home service ; to keep the Democrats in awe ; to
presen c order and regular government. F.xnm
p!es have already occurred to sanction these as
sertions; private security lias been violated ; the
freedom of the press attacked by military forte.
It only remained to menace the legislature. A
member of Congress who had expressed himself
with the independence of a freeman, and the $e
verity of a Republican, on the establishment of
mercenary armies, was attacked in the theatre a
few* nights ago, by n hand of those military heroes,
in a manner disgraceful to any men professing to be
honorable, or laying the leaiijftbim to decency* or
courage: and afterward thdPSfcde jftlfjlllJ
you may imagine the degree of ]
that prevailed upon this qneation &*nd “wlrtplmr
there is the slightest probability that «ujr Republi
can at that Congress would have bc*m Jh® advo
cate of the standing army.
If you will look to the addresses wHMi accom
panied the Virginia resolutions of 179\jrou will
find an allusicu to this subject. In describing the
manner by which the United States might he con
verted into a monprey, they say, JtAnd he may
come at length to ".vow, that so extensive a terrißv
ry as that of the U. Stales canonly be governed by
- energies ol a monarchy ; sndtbst it eairnot be
defended except by standing snoie*; and that tt
cannot he united except by consolidation. Mea
sures have already been adopted which may lead
to these consequences. Tbev consist in fiscal sys
tems and arrangements, which keep a host of com
mercial and wealthy individuals imbodied and obe
dient to the mandates of the Treasury. In armies
and navies, which will, on the one hand, enlist thefl
tendency of man to pay homage to his fellow-crea-"
tore, who can feed or honor him ; and on the oth
er, employ the principle o r T ar, by punishing im
\ aginary insurrections, under the pretext of preven
! live justice.**
The speeches of Mr- Randolph Mr Jones of
Georgia, and Mr. Gallatin, in favor of reducing the
army, were long and able ; exposing the false pre
tences for raising it, and urged the 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 en
tire Republican party; 1 should say, if he differed
with his parly, “prudence and duty” ought to have
restrained Inin from expressing “ his sentiments,”
“which, if expressed, could not hove the least in
fluence upon the decision of Congress.” But not
so ; he made a speech against the motion made by
the Republican party, and in favor of a Federal re
gular standing army; an army charged to have
! been raised for the purpose us creating a national
I dent, and in imitation of the British Government,
overawing ard subjugating opposition. But take
his own words, as reined in the Aurora, publish
ed on Wednesday, the sth day of February, 1800.
“ Mr. Harrison said, the resolution had been so
ably spoken to,fhat it would not he expected to re
ceive any new light from what he should add ;
hut, when it w*nt recollected that he had no other
way of expressing his opinion on any subject thnt
came before the House, than by taking part in the
debate, not having a vote in the House,he trusted
he need make no apology for rising on the present
subject, which to him appeared an important one.
He was fully of an opinion that disbanding so
largo a portion of the military force would be at
tended with disastrous consequences. In giving
tins opinion, he was Hire he spoke that of nine
tenths of his constituents ; and, that they would
with much more readiness bear their portion of the
expense which would be necessary to maintain
Jhese forces, than that they should he Cithanded.
The employment of his past life, Mr Harri-on said,
had led him to believe that too much reliance was
phin don the militia Were valoror alertness the
only requisites in the formation of a good soldier,
ho should willingly give the militia thnt character;
hut these were only partial qualities compared with
those whom they might he called to meet. What
would their valor do if attacked hy the military
tar tics of a Bonaparte, or n Masson*. Nothing
short of discipline will do for our forces: and are
our militia well rise iplined? No sir, they are not.
Mr. Harrison said he had experienced the inconve
niences of a militia army. In 1794 he went out
! with a number of militia, in Ids part of tho coun
try, against the Indians. When brought into action
they behaved very well—they did not want cou
rage ; bur, after a very short service, they wanted
to go home, they were anxious to see their fami
lies—therefore numbers deserted, and left the
army in a state which was almost the cause of its
destruction. He hail experienced seven years’
service, hut he was sorry to sny, ti nt sorb was
their conduct, thnt he never could think of trusting
’j the country entirely to their protection. They
might do well with regular 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 candidate for
President of the United States. It shows that he
was a supporter of the black-cockade administra
tion, at least to the extent of opposing the Republi
can party in their attempts to reduce the standing
army,and exhibits him acting it* concert with tho e
| distinguished Federalists, Marshall, Bayard, Har
per and Otis. I mention the names of these gen
! tlemen. because their notoriety ns Federalists will
1i he every where acknowledged. But that General
I Unison, with a knowledge of the fuels that our
untutored and half-armed militia, during the revo
lutionary war, stood up in the country's defence,
, without money, and often without bread, endured
the summer's sun and winter’s rold, hnlf elsd and
often without shoes, without deserting the stand
i ard of their country, Humid, in an American eon
i cress declare, that from seven years’ experience,
I he was sorry to say. that such was their conduct,
he could not think of trusting the country entirely
to their protection, gives evidence of devotion to
the Federnl party, which would well warrant the
charge made hy John Randolph, that he was its
fmnk , open and zealous sit/tjmrfer. Is it not too
much, that a man not entitled to a vote, should be
so maddened hy his Federal zeal, ns to make n
speech to favor the views of that party ; advocate
a large standing army, and cast nn unwarranted
ri flection upon the militia ? “The employment of
his past life had led him to believe that too irurh
reliance was placed on the militia.” Who are the
militia of the country, upon whom he does not
wish the country to rely? The wlade strength of
the country ; every man who is subject to do mili
tary duty; the very men who have something to
defend, and w ho, nt the call of their country, have
never vet failed to rally around her standard, and
do battle for her hone r A regular and hired sol
diery have not the same interests at slake. The
militia of the country must always he its strong
defence against her enemes; standing nrmtesarc
the necessary appendages of those who reign in
carnage, and wade to power through sons ol Mood,
hut are not the npptt'tennnces of a free country,
cultivating the arts of justice and peace. In this
country there is no danger that the military spirit
of its citizens will he extinct. So long ns they can
get their bread hy 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 defend 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 w ith the alien and sedition
acts, to have a standing army, to silence the mur
muring* of a discontented people. Hearn few re
marks upon this subject from r. Gallatin, in his
reply to Mr. Bayard, when he is treating of the
purposes for which the army had been augmented,
lie says—“ But the gentleman from Delaware (Mr
Bayard) views this subject in a very different
light. His conclusion was, that knowing the exist
ence of such party,” (meaning the Republican
party,) “it was necessary to haxean army, in order
to defend the country against nn invasion, inasmuch
as a considerable part of the militia could not he
trusted with its defence. If a party does ex
ist so inimical to our government, ns to join an in
vading enemy in order to subvert it, they must be
supposed to subvert it without invasion It is im
possible to mistake the meaning of the gentlemen.
When they ground the necessity of nn army on
the supposed existence of a party, let them ex
press themse'ves ns they please—-either they m**an
nothing, or they mean that nn army is necessary,
not only against an enemy, hut against a party of
the people. Let the gentlemen be silent about
party, or let them candidly acknowledge that this
army is intended to suppress party .”
A standing nrmv, which Mr. Gallatin, one of the ;
first men in the country, snva thnt the Federal 1
members ought to acknowledge was intended to
suppress party; an army necessary against a party
of the people. For such a standing army, or rai her,
against a resolution for its repeal, Gen. Harrison
made a speech ; and yet 1 am to be viilified and
abused in Georgia, hy such presses as are reckless
of any man’s character, that may at all interfere
with their wishes to palm off General Harrison up
on the people of the State as a Jeffersonian Re
publican. Let the charge I made in my circular
stand, that he was a Federalist, and supported
the hluck-cnckade administration of the elder Ad
ams. You mistake w hen you sny that the charge
is denied by his saying he was opposed to the alien
ami sedition laws. Rut how do you reconcile his
statement made to Mr Randolph in 1826: “Hav
ing no vote, I did not think it proper to take part
in the discussion of any of the great political ques
dons that divided the tico parties.'* The provision
al army of 1800 was a political question that divi
ded the parties. General Harrison took part in its
discussion ; and yet he says, “prudence and duty”
restrained him from doing so.
But again; if he sustained the course of the then
administration in its conduct toward France, it is
difficult tn learn bow he could have been opposed
to the sedition law. This law was actually under
stood to have been passed as * part of its system
' sjr3inst France. In the file of papers to
Wbfrli F have alluded, (Bathe's Philadelphia Aero
rajl find a motion made by Mr. Macon to strike
out llKMerond section of the sedition law; upon
which a dehate took piaco : and in the paper that
issued on Friday, the 28th of February, 1800 a
speech of Mr. Gallatin* is reported, in favor of the
motion, which he delivered on Thursday, the 23«1
!of January. In this speech, Mr. Gallatin refers to
* the object of enacting this law in these words :
’ “When the sedition law waa proposed and adopt
ed, was it brought up with a view of ameliorating
the common law, beeanse its severities of this spe
cies of crime were too severe? No, it was un
doubtedly brought forward as a measure of de
fence. It was thonght that there was pot power
in the judges to carry into effect Mich punishments
as were thought by a majority essentially necessa
ry to support the Government. It was therefore
wrought up as a part of the general defensive sys
tem. When a motion was made to repeal it during
the last session, the committee appointed to report
on the subject, did report on it as a part of the mea
sures of defence against France ” l*pon the same
day,onthc same snbjcct, “Mr Smith concurred in
the idea with the gentleman from Pennsylvania
r.Mr. Gallatin) that this hill was certainly brought
forward ns a matt' r of defence. r Hie Mil was
first brought into the Seriate, in a very objectiona
ble shape indeed : it was changed there, and un
derwent other alterations in the Ho-.se. It was
thonght a measure essentially necessary to guard
against the trencher* that was at that time appre
hended from the French. Arother proof of that
principle was, that the hill was made to continue in
force about the probable time that this necessity
might arise. There was. then, no doubt of the
connexion of the bill with othev measures of de
fence, entered into nt that period.'* The standing
army wa« one of the measures of defence against
France ; this. General Harrison supported. The
sedition lew was a measure of defence ngnin«t
France ; and General Harrison says he supported
the tfien administration, “ nt 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 Cbrouiele and Sentinel, viz : (“To the
question ashed by Mr Randolph, whether Mr. H.
recollected a conversation between Mr Nteho’as
and himself, ?n relation to the negroes and politics
of Virginia,) Mr. H answered, * I recoVect it per
fectly well—hut can that he adduced as evidence
of rav favoring the sedition law?**' Upon this
part of the controversy I made no comment, desir
ingto place before my constituents only such facts
as I believed would not he disputed. I con’d not
have believed that the editors of anv decent press
in the State would have urged that Genera! Harri
soa’s declaration that he was opposed to the alien
and sedition laws, was a denial of his bein' a sup
porter of ihe administration of the elder Adams.
Rut ns tiie Chronicle and Sentinel has referred to
the interruption occasioned by Mr Randolph’s
i asking him about the conversation with Mr. Nicho
i Ins, he shall he entitled to its benefit. 1 suppose
the editors of the Chronicle and Sentinel will ad
mit that die remarks, which he says were made in
jest to Mr. Nicholas, were, that “ he thanked God
he had, by his r* moval. gotten rid of Virginia ne
j groesand Virginia politicians ” I take it for grant
j ed that this remark, on Mr Harrison an vs. was made
in jest, to his relative and friend, Mr. Nicholas;
hut why such a joke? Was it not the natural jest
of a friend and relative, with whom he differed upon
the subject of polities? What could have given
point to the joke ? Nothing hut its being the hit
I morons taunt of a political adversary 1 Does not
! the jest give some evidence of these rela ions being
j arrayed, although friendly, upon different sides of
| the political contest ? In my circular. I did not
thick proper to argue every little circumstance
j that had a tendency to strengthen the position I
was proving. But thia additional extrnrt, wl ich the
Chronicle and Sentinel says 1 have omitted,of Ge
| nernl Harrison's speech, certainly does not die
prove what I alleged, but goes in confirmation :
and yet that paper would have it understood I had
made an omission, which would exhibit Gen. Harri
son very differently. The Chronicle and Sentinel
is welcome to all the rraise they bestow upon
John Adams and Mr. Marshall; it may be very
i just; hut I have not, umil lately, heard any repub
lican pre-s attempt a vindication of their charac
ters ns politicinna. And, sirc*> it h*«* become im
portant to mnke a Federalist Pres-dent, the editors
may. after rending this reply, write an niticle, and
j vindicate the Federalists for raising a standi* e
| army , and their newly-discovered hero, for mnk-
I ing a speech in its favor, as very patriotic ; nr d. to
! finish the chapter, they ought to abuse Mr Nicho
las, Mr. Junes, Mr and Mr Gallatin, after
the style that the partisan friends of that pure pat
riot, John Adams, did. for w eakening and opposing
his pure and patnotie bfnrk-eockatfe administrafim
That the Chronicle and Sentinel should he driven
to eulogise the character* of John Adam* nnd
Judge Marshall, as pu'it’rinns who*e purity and
patriotism were never doubted, results from neces
sity, not choice, l apprehend. lam charged with
suppressing truth, for not snving Jefferson did nos
remove General Harrison, when lie came into of.
fice. After my circular was prepared for tie
press, hut before it was f rtnied. I noticed the re
marks made by the committee in Macon, where
thev stated that Gen Harrison had heen appointed
Governor of Indiana by Mr. Jifferson and Mr.
Madison ; this I desired to correct, and stated it
was a mistake ; and now for the facts In 18(M* he
received that appointment of John Adams; they
said he received it of Jefferson nnd Madison ; thus
far lam right. In IHOI Mr. Jefferson came into
office ; I say he did not apfioint him. hut found
him in office; this is likewise true. 1 snv th.it he
did not remove him, which ta likewise true. He
did n»»t receive the appointment from Mr. Jeffer
son, hilt from Mr Adams ; Mr Jefferson found him
n office, and did not remove him. Rut it is said
he appointed him at the expiration of three years;
if so, it contradicts nothing I any ; for, ns by law,
the appointment had to he renewed, it only proves
that, upon application bv bis friends, he did not re
move him, hut continued him in the appointment;
he being a Virginian, and the relative of Mr. Nicho
las, who was a bosom friend of Jefferson.
The Chronicle and Sentinel supposes, that be
cause the electors for President and Vice President
w'ere elected by the Legislature in 1824, that, there
fore, I have misrepresented the fact. This attack,
made by your paper, would be a very unjustifiable
one, even if I bad hern mistaken ns to there having
been discussion upon the merits of Mr. Van Ruren
in 1824. The only part of the statement which I
made, to which your remarks ran have any appli
cation. is that which speaks of our having vindi
cated him under these charges That he received
the electoral vote of Georgia in 1824, you admit ; I
hut in your anxiety to cren’e some unfavorable im
pression as to the truth of my remark, you say
there was no candidate in nomination for Vice Pre- ,
Bident, nor do 1 believe there was a nomination, j
But will you dare to say that our papers did not j
mention the name of Martin Van Ruren for Vice i
President before the meeting of the Legislature in j
November? Do you nolknow that one of the reasons j
for urging h m at that time w ns the hope of influene- 1
ing the election in New York ? And do you not
know that the Georgia Patriot, byway of derision, j
in writing articles upon the subject after that elec
tion, called Warren Jordan, who was one of the 1
eh rtora, Warren Van Burnt ? This branch of the
subject T leave, however, with those whose memo
ries will he sufficient to correct an error, if one
exists. But for what purpose did I refer to the ;
elections of 1824 and 1532, and the support of the
State Rights party having heen given to him at
those periods? Was it n it for the purpose of show- i
ing that I could not, with any propriety, urge his
votes given prior to 1824 and 1832, a6 reasons why !
I could not vote for him in the present contest? ;
This being the use and effect of the argument I !
made, let us see whether the quibble you raise ef
fects its force. You grant that the electoral vote of
Georgia was given as I state in 1824. by the party !
of wh ch 1 was a member, but deny that the claims
of the Vice President were canvassed at that tune,
and that many were surprised when he received
the vote. Let every word be taken for true, and
does it weaken the force of the argument that
I made, and the conclusion to be drawn from it?
Voureood seme must tell you it does not. It
would have been sufficient to have shown that
these charges against Mr. Van Buren were made
in 1832, that his claims were then canvassed, and
that the popular voice of the State, at that time,
sustained him. You do not deny but he waa then,
in 1832, abused for his vote of instruction to Rufus
King, upon the Missouri question? You do not deny
that lie was upbraided for bis vote given in chang
ing the constitution of New York, which was call
ed his vote for free-negro suffrage! Nor do yon
deny that the Troup party of Georgia recommend
ed him. in the face of these charges, to the people
of the Slate, as worthy of their confidence ; and
that, through their aid,be actually did receive the
vote of the State for Vice President! I say that
wo did so then, w ithout even making a demand for
his opinions upon the subject of slavery. And I
then say that, since that time, we have his repeat
ed declarations and acts in our favor upon tbe tub.
ject; and that I should now urge Those votes, with
unbecoming grace, as reasons why he could not
get ray vote. Your effort, therefore, would seem
to have been intended to lead off the public mind
from the object and strength of the argument to
some collateral point, which a controversy
mightarise. For you well know, it in no w ise in
terferes with the force of the argument, whether
the charges were made in 1824 or 1832,50 that the
charges were made, and by us, at least, palliated
and then vindicated bv our votes We opposed'
Mr. Van Buren in 183fi, and urged these votes as
objections: because we were choosing between
himself and Judge White of Tennessee; both mem
bers of the old Repnblican party, but both opposed
to nullification. Judge White was not put up by
the Federal leaders and by abolition influence. In
making choice, therefore, of Judge White m prefe
rence to Mr. Van Buren, we had this to sustain ns;
that hy it we were opposing the candidate put fori
ward hy the author of the proclamation, and thst
we were supporting a man certainly sound upon
ihe question of slavery.
He was a slaveholder, and denied the ennstita
tionnl right. of Congress to interfere with shivery
in the District of Columbia; while upon the other
hand Mr. Van Buren lived in a non-slaveholding
State, and did not deny Congress the right to legis
late upon the subject in the District. In selecting
between them, therefore, both being from the Re
publican ranks. I was decidedly in favor of Jndga
White. As I stated in my circu'ar, if we had heard
nothing from Mr. Van Ruren afterward, inasmuch
his vote favoring the restriction of Missouri, and
his vote in altering the constitution of New York
nnd his not denying that Congress might legislate
uoon the snbjeet 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
his election. he gives us a pledge that ha will veto
any bill in any wise interfering with shivery, and
has given repented assurances since that to the
same effect. 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 these objections But in the present con
test the case is very different; in the first place, we
have his repeated pledges since then that he wonld
exorcise in our heha'f bis veto power; rfnd we see
almost tbe entire democracy of tbe whole Union
resisting and putting down the - eTanntic*; in the ae
rond place his opponent. General Hnrri*< i, is. ami
always has been, opposed to sis very, and anxious
to have it abolished; in the third place, abolition in
fluence wns felt in his nomination, and the Ahnlj.
tionists every uhere hailed if as an advancement of
their principles; and, in the fourth p'aca, he is the
candidate of the Federal party, an I was a snpport-
I er of the black cockade administration of the elder
I Adams. Yon must perceive the vast difference in
- choosing between Van Buren mil Judge While in
j that contest, and in the choice now forced upon the
State Rights party between Van Ruren nnd Harri
son. We yielded the strict State Rights ground
| then, hut we did not quit the Republican ranks: hm
! now, for the sake of opposition, we are asked to f*'l
I ill line with the old Federalists, our ancient Ibew,
j to place at the head of the column a black cockade
Federalist of 1800. nnd march in the procession
where a standard floats to the hreez« with this sig
nificant motto; “Tip, Tyler, and the Tariff.”
The Chronicle and Sentinel MVewise urge the
f cl, that the rhter Adams made some appointments
from the Republican ranks. This is true: hut they
were “like argcl’a visits, few and far between;”
an<' I will defy yon to produce a solitary instance
of two appointments made fofhrsnme individual,
in the same time, and under similar rirctimstances,
to any ram be rof the Republican party* In your
anxiety to sustain the pure and jta'rin'ir admin ; 9'ra»
turn of the#lder*Adams, in order that yoti may he
the hotter enabled to sustain his particular friend
General Harrison, you say the only questions which
were asked wore, “Is hectpable? ts he honest?”
I should be glad you would refer the public to
where they may find this piece of political history.
I know that it is quoted ns a declaration made hy
•Mr JefTcrmn, bnt I am »i ;h«* firstof such a princi
ple having ever heen claimed fer that pure patr o',
John Adams. The nppoin ments of such men ns
Patrick Henry, F.lhri ! ge Gerry,and General Wndi.
ington. could never be a test question in any admin
istration. Their distinguished services to the coun
try in the days lhat tried men's souls, would ••nm
pel any administration to pay them honor and re
npert. Patrick Henry, whose eloquence and z*»al
had tnkindhv 1 the mighty fire* of the Revolution,
ami sustained and cheered the spirit of indepen
dence whenever it was languid or despond ing, com d
scarcely fall under ihe bun of Federal proscription,
without aroiiripg the energies of an indignant peo
ple, dial even their standing mniv con'd not have
withstood So as to the distinguished (Jerry, who
liven in Massachusetts, the same Stale with Mr.
Ad mss, and was a favorite with both parties. But
Genera! Washington, in many of the prints, is nam
ed as having received a command fern Mr, Adams,
and hence they desire it inferred lhat the Repufei*
••ans were n*>t proscribed This may he ingenious,
but is not sound argument or inference. Grnrtnl
Washington, justly cnlle : the father of his country,
was claimed by all parlies, nnd he allied himself ex
clusively to none. He looked over this vast coun
try as the patrimony of n land of brothers; his father
ly nnd affectionate embrace encircled all, and h»
labored to harmonize all. In his cabinet and Hy hi*
! * ; d«’ we find the leaders of both parties; all listen
; to lis counsel, and revere pee the imn. To h< slow
on the distinguished individual who led our armica
to victory in the war for independence, the c m
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 nd
of jealous, contendi g aspirants for command, and
of conning popular fnvor. But are the same cir
cumstances applicable to Harrison? Did his dis
tinguisiied services place him above pnrtv raharl,
ami the voice of a mighty people demand of Adams
these appointments? I think upon reflection yo*
will grant that the cases are not parallel.
I have noticed such testimony as has been off r
ed to the public, intended to prove that Gen Ha.-
neon was a friend and supporter of Jr tfe r*<n und
Madison; ami 1 shall not pretend to deny but it
may he true ; for there are some men who always
hurra for the victor. There is one thing quite cer
tain, that he supported the black-co. hade adminis
tration of the elder Adams, and Uis Jederal stand
mg army tlmt was raised to enforce the alien and
sedition jaws, ami to awe that spirit of discontent
that was seen to breathe in the resolutions of 172(4
and *‘J9. If ihe proof shows that he supported Jef
fer.-on nnd Mud ism's administmt ons, it is much
more strong to show he supported the younger A
daina. Then we have oniy to show that be sup
ported Jackson’s, nnd we have proof that lie has
supported every administration, through “prudence
and duly ,” that we have ever had, until be himself
is brought up as a candidate. By ihis testimony,
he is quite as firm as a weathercock, that a!wa s
yields to the wind He certainly sup, or led that
part of Jackson’s administration for w hich the nul
lifies of Georgia fell out with him. Rut no matter
how many changes he may have passed, lie is now
supported “at least” by Judge Burnett, an honest
federalist, and by those who ad vocate Federalist*
every where ; and a politician, so versatile while
young, now, in the siliy-eighih year of his age, put
at ilie head of the column by Federal and abolition
influence, it strikes my mind oiignrs badly for hia
supporters who profess to advocate Republicanism.
In writing my circular, which seems 10 have call
ed up ihe gall of many of my former friends, I made
no ks.—lli upon a solitary member of ihe State
rights parly whose choice for President should dif
fer from mine. V\ hat, then, has rendered it neces
sary Inal feelings of hostility should be arrayed •-
gainst me, and every effort employed to blast ror
repuiation 7 An issue was formed, in forming
Which I had no agency, but, on the contrary, ex-
Prevent. A candidate was m-
V, » i . e , c reß ; de " cy nho ‘‘“d been previous
ho d or„,“ f | in c fit for n ,ir Ml PP° rt ; and yet, I must
t pretented from telling my constituents my rea
sons of preference, without uttering one word of
complaint against any one else. The convention
was to meet 111 June ; and if I had received a no
mmatioii, and had exorcised the ordinary privilege
of a freeman by voting between the candidate*
presented as my judgment instructs me witl be best
fore preservation ol a republican form of govern
ment, I should at once have been charged with
laving concealed my sentiments and deceived my 1
/tends. l^cn rented to me to be necessary,
irom proper respectfor my ow n honor, and due re
gard lor my friends, thatthey should know my hon
est convictions of duty. To have done this with
out giving my reasons for the choice, would have
subjected me to censure as capricious. A sense of
duty, therefore, prompted me to publish the circu
lar through which you have labored lo charge me
with retailing slander, suppressing truth, garbling
to deceive, and publishing falsehoods ; mall which,
by a slight review, you will be found to have been
in fault, and my statement, undeniably correct.
\ou will, to some e*tent, have excited prejudice,
w hich may serve your purpose, by preventing *
proper inquiry after truth. For myself, lam sure I
entertain no feelings of animosity against any of
ray old friends, but have the warmest attachment
for them and their interest. Every cord of affec
tion and friendship that is or shall be severed be-