Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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-