they think our candidate for the Presidency don't suit us. Most of them
cannot find out that General Taylor has any principles at all; some,
however, have discovered that he has one, but that one is entirely wrong.
This one principle is his position on the veto power. The gentleman from
Tennessee [Mr. Stanton] who has just taken his seat, indeed, has said
there is very little, if any, difference on this question between General
Taylor and all the Presidents; and he seems to think it sufficient
detraction from General Taylor's position on it that it has nothing new
in it. But all others whom I have heard speak assail it furiously. A new
member from Kentucky [Mr. Clark], of very considerable ability, was
in particular concerned about it. He thought it altogether novel and
unprecedented for a President or a Presidential candidate to think of
approving bills whose constitutionality may not be entirely clear to his
own mind. He thinks the ark of our safety is gone unless Presidents
shall always veto such bills as in their judgment may be of doubtful
constitutionality. However clear Congress may be on their authority to
pass any particular act, the gentleman from Kentucky thinks the President
must veto it if he has doubts about it. Now I have neither time nor
inclination to argue with the gentleman on the veto power as an original
question; but I wish to show that General Taylor, and not he, agrees with
the earlier statesmen on this question. When the bill chartering the
first Bank of the United States passed Congress, its constitutionality was
questioned. Mr. Madison, then in the House of Representatives, as well as
others, had opposed it on that ground. General Washington, as President,
was called on to approve or reject it. He sought and obtained on the
constitutionality question the separate written opinions of Jefferson,
Hamilton, and Edmund Randolph,--they then being respectively Secretary of
State, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney general. Hamilton's opinion
was for the power; while Randolph's and Jefferson's were both against
it. Mr. Jefferson, after giving his opinion deciding only against the
constitutionality of the bill, closes his letter with the paragraph which
I now read:
"It must be admitted, however, that unless the President's mind, on a view
of everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clear
that it is unauthorized by the Constitution,--if the pro and con hang
so even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of the
legislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion.
It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition,
or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative of
the President.
"THOMAS JEFFERSON.
"February 15, 1791."
General Taylor's opinion, as expressed in his Allison letter, is as I now
read:
"The power given by the veto is a high conservative power; but, in my
opinion, should never be exercised except in cases of clear violation
of the Constitution, or manifest haste and want of consideration by
Congress."
It is here seen that, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, if on the
constitutionality of any given bill the President doubts, he is not to
veto it, as the gentleman from Kentucky would have him do, but is to defer
to Congress and approve it. And if we compare the opinion of Jefferson and
Taylor, as expressed in these paragraphs, we shall find them more exactly
alike than we can often find any two expressions having any literal
difference. None but interested faultfinders, I think, can discover any
substantial variation.
But gentlemen on the other side are unanimously agreed that General Taylor
has no other principles. They are in utter darkness as to his opinions on
any of the questions of policy which occupy the public attention. But
is there any doubt as to what he will do on the prominent questions if
elected? Not the least. It is not possible to know what he will or would
do in every imaginable case, because many questions have passed away, and
others doubtless will arise which none of us have yet thought of; but on
the prominent questions of currency, tariff, internal improvements, and
Wilmot Proviso, General Taylor's course is at least as well defined as is
General Cass's. Why, in their eagerness to get at General Taylor, several
Democratic members here have desired to know whether, in case of his
election, a bankrupt law is to be established. Can they tell us General
Cass's opinion on this question?
[Some member answered, "He is against it."]
Aye, how do you know he is? There is nothing about it in the platform, nor
elsewhere, that I have seen. If the gentleman knows of anything which I
do not know he can show it. But to return. General Taylor, in his Allison
letter, says:
"Upon the subject of the tariff, the currency, the improvement of our
great highways, rivers, lakes, and harbors, the will of the people, as
expressed through their representatives in Congress, ought to be respected
and carried out by the executive."
Now this is the whole matter. In substance, it is this: The people say to
General Taylor, "If you are elected, shall we have a national bank?" He
answers, "Your will, gentlemen, not mine." "What about the tariff?" "Say
yourselves." "Shall our rivers and harbors be improved?" "Just as you
please. If you desire a bank, an alteration of the tariff, internal
improvements, any or all, I will not hinder you. If you do not desire
them, I will not attempt to force them on you. Send up your members of
Congress from the various districts, with opinions according to your own,
and if they are for these measures, or any of them, I shall have nothing
to oppose; if they are not for them, I shall not, by any appliances
whatever, attempt to dragoon them into their adoption."
Now can there be any difficulty in understanding this? To you Democrats
it may not seem like principle; but surely you cannot fail to perceive the
position plainly enough. The distinction between it and the position of
your candidate is broad and obvious, and I admit you have a clear right to
show it is wrong if you can; but you have no right to pretend you cannot
see it at all. We see it, and to us it appears like principle, and the
best sort of principle at that--the principle of allowing the people to
do as they please with their own business. My friend from Indiana (C. B.
Smith) has aptly asked, "Are you willing to trust the people?" Some of
you answered substantially, "We are willing to trust the people; but the
President is as much the representative of the people as Congress." In a
certain sense, and to a certain extent, he is the representative of the
people. He is elected by them, as well as Congress is; but can he, in the
nature of things know the wants of the people as well as three hundred
other men, coming from all the various localities of the nation? If so,
where is the propriety of having a Congress? That the Constitution gives
the President a negative on legislation, all know; but that this negative
should be so combined with platforms and other appliances as to enable
him, and in fact almost compel him, to take the whole of legislation into
his own hands, is what we object to, is what General Taylor objects to,
and is what constitutes the broad distinction between you and us. To thus
transfer legislation is clearly to take it from those who understand with
minuteness the interests of the people, and give it to one who does
not and cannot so well understand it. I understand your idea that if a
Presidential candidate avow his opinion upon a given question, or rather
upon all questions, and the people, with full knowledge of this, elect
him, they thereby distinctly approve all those opinions. By means of it,
measures are adopted or rejected contrary to the wishes of the whole of
one party, and often nearly half of the other. Three, four, or half a
dozen questions are prominent at a given time; the party selects its
candidate, and he takes his position on each of these questions. On all
but one his positions have already been indorsed at former elections,
and his party fully committed to them; but that one is new, and a large
portion of them are against it. But what are they to do? The whole was
strung together; and they must take all, or reject all. They cannot take
what they like, and leave the rest. What they are already committed
to being the majority, they shut their eyes, and gulp the whole. Next
election, still another is introduced in the same way. If we run our eyes
along the line of the past, we shall see that almost if not quite all the
articles of the present Democratic creed have been at first forced upon
the party in this very way. And just now, and just so, opposition to
internal improvements is to be established if General Cass shall be
elected. Almost half the Democrats here are for improvements; but they
will vote for Cass, and if he succeeds, their vote will have aided in
closing the doors against improvements. Now this is a process which we
think is wrong. We prefer a candidate who, like General Taylor, will allow
the people to have their own way, regardless of his private opinions;
and I should think the internal-improvement Democrats, at least, ought to
prefer such a candidate. He would force nothing on them which they
don't want, and he would allow them to have improvements which their own
candidate, if elected, will not.
Mr. Speaker, I have said General Taylor's position is as well defined as
is that of General Cass. In saying this, I admit I do not certainly know
what he would do on the Wilmot Proviso. I am a Northern man or rather
a Western Free-State man, with a constituency I believe to be, and with
personal feelings I know to be, against the extension of slavery. As such,
and with what information I have, I hope and believe General Taylor, if
elected, would not veto the proviso. But I do not know it. Yet if I
knew he would, I still would vote for him. I should do so because, in my
judgment, his election alone can defeat General Cass; and because,
should slavery thereby go to the territory we now have, just so much will
certainly happen by the election of Cass, and in addition a course of
policy leading to new wars, new acquisitions of territory and still
further extensions of slavery. One of the two is to be President. Which is
preferable?
But there is as much doubt of Cass on improvements as there is of Taylor
on the proviso. I have no doubt myself of General Cass on this question;
but I know the Democrats differ among themselves as to his position. My
internal-improvement colleague [Mr. Wentworth] stated on this floor the
other day that he was satisfied Cass was for improvements, because he had
voted for all the bills that he [Mr. Wentworth] had. So far so good. But
Mr. Polk vetoed some of these very bills. The Baltimore convention passed
a set of resolutions, among other things, approving these vetoes, and
General Cass declares, in his letter accepting the nomination, that he has
carefully read these resolutions, and that he adheres to them as firmly
as he approves them cordially. In other words, General Cass voted for the
bills, and thinks the President did right to veto them; and his friends
here are amiable enough to consider him as being on one side or the
other, just as one or the other may correspond with their own respective
inclinations. My colleague admits that the platform declares against the
constitutionality of a general system of improvements, and that General
Cass indorses the platform; but he still thinks General Cass is in favor
of some sort of improvements. Well, what are they? As he is against
general objects, those he is for must be particular and local. Now this is
taking the subject precisely by the wrong end. Particularity expending the
money of the whole people for an object which will benefit only a portion
of them--is the greatest real objection to improvements, and has been so
held by General Jackson, Mr. Polk, and all others, I believe, till
now. But now, behold, the objects most general--nearest free from this
objection--are to be rejected, while those most liable to it are to be
embraced. To return: I cannot help believing that General Cass, when he
wrote his letter of acceptance, well understood he was to be claimed by
the advocates of both sides of this question, and that he then closed the
door against all further expressions of opinion purposely to retain
the benefits of that double position. His subsequent equivocation at
Cleveland, to my mind, proves such to have been the case.
One word more, and I shall have done with this branch of the subject. You
Democrats, and your candidate, in the main are in favor of laying down
in advance a platform--a set of party positions--as a unit, and then of
forcing the people, by every sort of appliance, to ratify them, however
unpalatable some of them may be. We and our candidate are in favor of
making Presidential elections and the legislation of the country distinct
matters; so that the people can elect whom they please, and afterward
legislate just as they please, without any hindrance, save only so much as
may guard against infractions of the Constitution, undue haste, and want
of consideration. The difference between us is clear as noonday. That
we are right we cannot doubt. We hold the true Republican position. In
leaving the people's business in their hands, we cannot be wrong. We are
willing, and even anxious, to go to the people on this issue.
But I suppose I cannot reasonably hope to convince you that we have any
principles. The most I can expect is to assure you that we think we have
and are quite contented with them. The other day one of the gentlemen from
Georgia [Mr. Iverson], an eloquent man, and a man of learning, so far as
I can judge, not being learned myself, came down upon us astonishingly. He
spoke in what the 'Baltimore American' calls the "scathing and withering
style." At the end of his second severe flash I was struck blind, and
found myself feeling with my fingers for an assurance of my continued
existence. A little of the bone was left, and I gradually revived. He
eulogized Mr. Clay in high and beautiful terms, and then declared that we
had deserted all our principles, and had turned Henry Clay out, like an
old horse, to root. This is terribly severe. It cannot be answered
by argument--at least I cannot so answer it. I merely wish to ask the
gentleman if the Whigs are the only party he can think of who sometimes
turn old horses out to root. Is not a certain Martin Van Buren an old
horse which your own party have turned out to root? and is he not rooting
a little to your discomfort about now? But in not nominating Mr. Clay
we deserted our principles, you say. Ah! In what? Tell us, ye men of
principle, what principle we violated. We say you did violate principle in
discarding Van Buren, and we can tell you how. You violated the
primary, the cardinal, the one great living principle of all democratic
representative government--the principle that the representative is bound
to carry out the known will of his constituents. A large majority of the
Baltimore convention of 1844 were, by their constituents, instructed to
procure Van Buren 's nomination if they could. In violation--in utter
glaring contempt of this, you rejected him; rejected him, as the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Birdsall] the other day expressly admitted, for
availability--that same "general availability" which you charge upon
us, and daily chew over here, as something exceedingly odious and
unprincipled. But the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] gave us a
second speech yesterday, all well considered and put down in writing, in
which Van Buren was scathed and withered a "few" for his present position
and movements. I cannot remember the gentleman's precise language; but
I do remember he put Van Buren down, down, till he got him where he was
finally to "stink" and "rot."
Mr. Speaker, it is no business or inclination of mine to defend Martin
Van Buren in the war of extermination now waging between him and his old
admirers. I say, "Devil take the hindmost"--and the foremost. But there is
no mistaking the origin of the breach; and if the curse of "stinking" and
"rotting" is to fall on the first and greatest violators of principle in
the matter, I disinterestedly suggest that the gentleman from Georgia
and his present co-workers are bound to take it upon themselves. But the
gentleman from Georgia further says we have deserted all our principles,
and taken shelter under General Taylor's military coat-tail, and he seems
to think this is exceedingly degrading. Well, as his faith is, so be it
unto him. But can he remember no other military coat-tail under which a
certain other party have been sheltering for near a quarter of a century?
Has he no acquaintance with the ample military coat tail of General
Jackson? Does he not know that his own party have run the five last
Presidential races under that coat-tail, and that they are now running the
sixth under the same cover? Yes, sir, that coat-tail was used not only for
General Jackson himself, but has been clung to, with the grip of death,
by every Democratic candidate since. You have never ventured, and dare not
now venture, from under it. Your campaign papers have constantly been "Old
Hickories," with rude likenesses of the old general upon them; hickory
poles and hickory brooms your never-ending emblems; Mr. Polk himself was
"Young Hickory," or something so; and even now your campaign paper here
is proclaiming that Cass and Butler are of the true "Hickory stripe." Now,
sir, you dare not give it up. Like a horde of hungry ticks you have stuck
to the tail of the Hermitage Lion to the end of his life; and you are
still sticking to it, and drawing a loathsome sustenance from it, after he
is dead. A fellow once advertised that he had made a discovery by which he
could make a new man out of an old one, and have enough of the stuff left
to make a little yellow dog. Just such a discovery has General Jackson's
popularity been to you. You not only twice made President of him out
of it, but you have had enough of the stuff left to make Presidents of
several comparatively small men since; and it is your chief reliance now
to make still another.
Mr. Speaker, old horses and military coat-tails, or tails of any sort,
are not figures of speech such as I would be the first to introduce into
discussions here; but as the gentleman from Georgia has thought fit to
introduce them, he and you are welcome to all you have made, or can make
by them. If you have any more old horses, trot them out; any more tails,
just cock them and come at us. I repeat, I would not introduce this mode
of discussion here; but I wish gentlemen on the other side to understand
that the use of degrading figures is a game at which they may not find
themselves able to take all the winnings.
["We give it up!"]
Aye, you give it up, and well you may; but for a very different reason
from that which you would have us understand. The point--the power to
hurt--of all figures consists in the truthfulness of their application;
and, understanding this, you may well give it up. They are weapons which
hit you, but miss us.
But in my hurry I was very near closing this subject of military tails
before I was done with it. There is one entire article of the sort I have
not discussed yet,--I mean the military tail you Democrats are now engaged
in dovetailing into the great Michigander [Cass]. Yes, sir; all his
biographies (and they are legion) have him in hand, tying him to a
military tail, like so many mischievous boys tying a dog to a bladder of
beans. True, the material they have is very limited, but they drive at it
might and main. He invaded Canada without resistance, and he outvaded it
without pursuit. As he did both under orders, I suppose there was to him
neither credit nor discredit in them; but they constitute a large part
of the tail. He was not at Hull's surrender, but he was close by; he was
volunteer aid to General Harrison on the day of the battle of the Thames;
and as you said in 1840 Harrison was picking huckleberries two miles off
while the battle was fought, I suppose it is a just conclusion with you
to say Cass was aiding Harrison to pick huckleberries. This is about all,
except the mooted question of the broken sword. Some authors say he broke
it, some say he threw it away, and some others, who ought to know, say
nothing about it. Perhaps it would be a fair historical compromise to say,
if he did not break it, he did not do anything else with it.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a military hero? Yes, sir; in
the days of the Black Hawk war I fought, bled, and came away. Speaking
of General Cass's career reminds me of my own. I was not at Stiliman's
defeat, but I was about as near it as Cass was to Hull's surrender; and,
like him, I saw the place very soon afterward. It is quite certain I did
not break my sword, for I had none to break; but I bent a musket pretty
badly on one occasion. If Cass broke his sword, the idea is he broke it
in desperation; I bent the musket by accident. If General Cass went in
advance of me in picking huckleberries, I guess I surpassed him in charges
upon the wild onions. If he saw any live, fighting Indians, it was more
than I did; but I had a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes,
and although I never fainted from the loss of blood, I can truly say I was
often very hungry. Mr. Speaker, if I should ever conclude to doff whatever
our Democratic friends may suppose there is of black-cockade federalism
about me, and therefore they shall take me up as their candidate for
the Presidency, I protest they shall not make fun of me, as they have of
General Cass, by attempting to write me into a military hero.
While I have General Cass in hand, I wish to say a word about his
political principles. As a specimen, I take the record of his progress in
the Wilmot Proviso. In the Washington Union of March 2, 1847, there is a
report of a speech of General Cass, made the day before in the Senate, on
the Wilmot Proviso, during the delivery of which Mr. Miller of New Jersey
is reported to have interrupted him as follows, to wit:
"Mr. Miller expressed his great surprise at the change in the sentiments
of the Senator from Michigan, who had been regarded as the great champion
of freedom in the Northwest, of which he was a distinguished ornament.
Last year the Senator from Michigan was understood to be decidedly in
favor of the Wilmot Proviso; and as no reason had been stated for the
change, he [Mr. Miller] could not refrain from the expression of his
extreme surprise."
To this General Cass is reported to have replied as follows, to wit:
"Mr. Cass said that the course of the Senator from New Jersey was
most extraordinary. Last year he [Mr. Cass] should have voted for the
proposition, had it come up. But circumstances had altogether changed. The
honorable Senator then read several passages from the remarks, as given
above, which he had committed to writing, in order to refute such a charge
as that of the Senator from New Jersey."
In the "remarks above reduced to writing" is one numbered four, as
follows, to wit:
"Fourth. Legislation now would be wholly inoperative, because no territory
hereafter to be acquired can be governed without an act of Congress
providing for its government; and such an act, on its passage, would open
the whole subject, and leave the Congress called on to pass it free to
exercise its own discretion, entirely uncontrolled by any declaration
found on the statute-book."
In Niles's Register, vol. lxxiii., p. 293, there is a letter of General
Cass to ------ Nicholson, of Nashville, Tennessee, dated December 24, 1847,
from which the following are correct extracts:
"The Wilmot Proviso has been before the country some time. It has been
repeatedly discussed in Congress and by the public press. I am strongly
impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the
public mind upon this subject,--in my own as well as others',--and that
doubts are resolving themselves into convictions that the principle it
involves should be kept out of the national legislature, and left to
the people of the confederacy in their respective local governments....
Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by
Congress over this matter; and I am in favor of leaving the people of
any territory which may be hereafter acquired the right to regulate
it themselves, under the general principles of the Constitution.
Because--'First. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the
requisite power to Congress; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtful
precedent beyond its necessity,--the establishment of territorial
governments when needed,--leaving to the inhabitants all the right
compatible with the relations they bear to the confederation."