CHAPTER II.

1852.

THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS OF 1852—ELECTION OF GENERAL FRANKLIN PIERCE

TO THE PRESIDENCY—BUCHANAN’S COURSE IN REGARD TO THE NOMINATION AND

THE ELECTION—HIS EFFORTS TO DEFEAT THE WHIG CANDIDATE.

In arraying themselves for the Presidential election of 1852, the

Democratic and the Whig parties might have had an equal or a nearly

equal reason to look for success, if they had been equally consistent

with their professed principles on the subject of the compromise

measures of 1850. But while the Democrats, both by their “platform” and

their candidate, gave the people of the country reason to believe that

the great national settlement of 1850 was to be adhered to, the Whigs,

although promising as much by their “platform,” did not, in the person

of their candidate and his apparent political connections, afford the

same grounds of confidence. The nominating convention of the Democrats

was the first to be held. It assembled at Baltimore on the 1st of June,

1852. Mr. Buchanan was one of the principal candidates for the

nomination, but it soon became apparent that neither he, General Cass,

Mr. Douglas, Mr. Dickinson, Governor Marcy, or any other of the more

prominent leaders of the party would receive it. The candidate finally

agreed upon was General Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire, a younger man

than most of the others. He had been a Senator in Congress from that

State for five years preceding 1842, and had served with spirit in the

Mexican war as a Brigadier General of Volunteers. As a candidate for the

Presidency, he represented in the fullest and most unqualified manner

the resolution adopted by the convention as a part of its “platform,”

and which pledged him and his party to “resist all attempts at renewing

in Congress, or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under

whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.”

On the other hand, the Whig convention, which assembled at Baltimore on

the 16th of June, nominated General Winfield Scott, to the exclusion of

Mr. Webster and President Fillmore, after fifty-two ballotings; and

although the resolutions, with a strength equal to that of the

Democratic “platform,” affirmed the binding character of the compromise

measures of 1850, and opposed all further agitation of the questions

thus settled, as dangerous to the peace of the country, seventy

delegates from free States, who had voted steadily for General Scott as

the candidate, recorded their votes against this resolution, and many

Whig papers in the North refused to be bound by it, and treated it with

utter contumely. The result was the election of General Pierce as

President, and William R. King of Alabama as Vice President, by the

almost unprecedented majority of one hundred and five electoral votes

more than was necessary for a choice. General Scott obtained the

electoral votes of but four States, Massachusetts, Vermont, Kentucky and

Tennessee; forty-two in all.

The reader will be interested to learn from the following private

correspondence how Mr. Buchanan felt and acted before and after the

nomination of General Pierce, and also how one of his prominent rivals,

Governor Marcy, felt and acted towards him and others. It is refreshing

to look back to the good nature and cool philosophy which could be

exhibited by such men in regard to the great stake of the Presidency:

[GOVERNOR MARCY TO MR. BUCHANAN.]

ALBANY, May 31, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR:—

When your very kind letter of the 19th inst. was received, my time was

much taken up by several transient persons passing through this place

to Baltimore for a certain grave purpose. I delayed a reply to it

until this annoyance should be over, but before that happened, I was

unexpectedly called to New York, and have but just returned. This is

my excuse for a seeming neglect.

I assure you I rejoice as much as you do at the removal of all

obstructions, real or imaginary, to the resumption of our free and

friendly correspondence. I needed not your assurance to satisfy me

that your course towards me had been fair and liberal, and you do me

but justice in believing mine has been the same toward you.

Perhaps there has been a single departure from it, which in candor I

am bound to confess, and hope to be able to avoid.

On being called to New York a few days ago, when the delegates were

passing on to Baltimore, Mrs. Marcy proposed to accompany me, but as

she is a zealous advocate of yours, and on that subject has a

propagandist’s spirit, I did not wish to have her associated too

intimately with these delegates, particularly such of them as had

favorable inclinations towards me. I suggested, therefore, that it

would be best for her to delay for a short time her visit.

This little battery (excuse a military figure of speech) has kept up a

brisk fire for you. To this I have not made much objection, but I did

not wish to do anything myself to put it in a position where it would

bear particularly on my friends in this critical moment of the

contest. I submit to your candor to decide whether, if you had a

wife—would that you had one—a glib-tongued wife, who was ever pressing

my pretensions over your own, would you not have manœuvered a

little to restrict her operations, under reversed, but otherwise

similar circumstances? If you declare against my course in this

instance, I shall think you err, and ascribe your error to the fact

that for want of experience you do not know the potency of such an

adversary. An enemy in the camp is more dangerous than one outside of

it.

While in New York, I conversed with many delegates from various

sections of the country and of all kinds of preferences. From what I

heard, I became more and more apprehensive of serious difficulties at

Baltimore. If it be mere preferences the convention will have to

contend with, it might get on without much trouble, but I thought I

discovered a strong feeling of antagonism in too many of the

delegates, particularly towards those who stand in a hopeful position.

Still, I cherish a strong hope of an auspicious result to the party.

If you, who have such fair prospects, have schooled yourself into a

sort of philosophical indifference as to the result, you can readily

conceive how complaisantly I, who scarcely have a place on the list of

those that hope they shall receive it, look upon the result. Those who

never climb up cannot reasonably dread to break their limbs by a fall.

You, too, have got into a “Scott correspondence.” I have read your

letter with pleasure and satisfaction; it goes the whole figure as it

ought to at this time. I had no difficulty in my response except in

regard to the exercise of the veto power. I cannot but think that is a

promise “not fit to be made,” but any objection to meeting it directly

would have been construed to mean more than was intended, and I

responded to that as I did to the other interrogatories.

Very much to my surprise, but not so much to my regret, I find in the

_Journal of Commerce_ of Saturday, two of my private letters, written

last summer to a leading barn-burner, Hon. John Fine, formerly a M. C.

from Governor Wright’s county. They will serve to vindicate my course

and repel the charge much urged against me by Mr. Dickinson and a few

others, of having compromised my position on the adjustment measure in

order to conciliate that section of the party.

The course I pursued towards them, and from which I have never

swerved, but have succeeded in carrying out, is clearly disclosed in

these letters. I had no agency in bringing them out. I have not seen

them since they were written, and did not know that they were to be

published.

Mr. Dickinson and a few of his friends are very decided—not to say

bitter—against me, and scarcely less so against all the other

candidates except General Cass. They are professedly for him. Mr. D.’s

friends—it would be uncharitable to say he himself has any such

thoughts—hope to bring about his nomination, and are shaping things so

far as they can for such a result. They believe that his and their

advocacy of General Cass, and sturdy opposition to all others, will

give him nearly all of the General’s friends in the event he has to be

abandoned, an event which will not deeply grieve them; and they

flatter themselves that the great favor with which Mr. D. is regarded

in the South will render it easy to detach from you and transfer to

him most of your supporters in that quarter. If you and General Cass

are killed off, and he inherits the estate of both, his fortune will

certainly be made. I do not comment upon the practicability of this

theory. Well, if he is nominated, we must turn in and do what we can

for him. Here, where he has been so bitter against the C——rs and

against me, because they are willing to give me their support—where he

denounces them as not belonging to the Democratic party—we shall have

a hard task on our hands, and can hardly hope to give him the vote of

the State; it will therefore be the more necessary that you and your

friends should secure for him that of Pennsylvania. I know it is not

kind to speculate on the chances of another rising upon your downfall,

and therefore I will dismiss the subject; nor is it friendly to

trouble you with this long letter at a critical conjuncture, when you

want your time to cheer and guide your friends at Baltimore.

My epistle would be defective if it did not contain Mrs. M.’s express

desire to be kindly remembered to you.

Yours truly,

W. L. MARCY.

[MARCY TO BUCHANAN.]

ALBANY, June 6, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR:—

In my most hopeful mood, if it can be truly said I have been in such a

state of mind, I did not look to anything but a remote contingent

remainder. I cannot, therefore, say that for myself I feel any

disappointment at the result of the convention.

None of its proceedings—not even some of the latter

ballottings—changed my settled convictions. There was a time when

reflecting sober-minded men felt more than I expected they would feel

at the prospect of success of Young America. Some of the agents and

agencies at work in that direction caused considerable alarm.

I hope the course of my few friends in the convention has given no

dissatisfaction. If they had earlier quitted me, they could not have

gone together for any one, though some would have gone for you. I fear

more than half would have acted with the friends of Cass and Douglas.

They were about equally divided between hunkers and barn-burners, and

it seems to me that no course they could have taken could have changed

the result.

About the time the ballotting commenced, I met with a passage in the

last number of the _Edinburgh Review_ which struck me as ominous of

your fate, and as it is as good consolation as I can offer you, I will

extract it, though it is rather long:

“Men (says Chamfort, a French writer) are like the fiends of

Milton—they must make themselves dwarfs before they can enter into the

Pandemonium of political life in a Republic. (Perhaps, if nature has

made them dwarfs, it is the same thing.) Even in America it is

notorious that men of this stamp (men of pre-eminent genius and

abilities) are all but systematically excluded from high public

office, and at best she recognizes only a single Webster among a

wilderness of Jacksons and Harrisons, Taylors and Scotts.”

“And they must learn per force, painful as the truth must be, that

commanding talents, especially of their order, are not really in

request or needed for the ordinary work of democracy or autocracy.” I

protest against the error in classing Jackson, yet there is in this

extract some consolation for yourself and General Cass.

It does not suit my case, and moreover I am not in a condition to

require consolation either from profane or sacred writings.

What do you think of the nomination of General Pierce? For our own

State, I think it is about as well as any other that could have been

made. I do not like to make an exception. We cannot make much out of

his military services, but he is a likeable man, and has as much of

“Young America” as we want.

I should like to read a letter of sage reflections from you about this

time, as you are of my sect—a _political optimist_, not a better

scholar—I know it will not take you long to digest your

disappointment; but what will your State feel and say in regard to the

result? This is a matter of public concernment. I should like to have

your speculations on that point.

There is a person in my house who has been more solicitous about the

ballotting on your account than on mine and at times exhibited much

exultation at your prospects. Her disappointment is greater than that

of any other one under its roof.

I console her by an assurance of what I really feel, that you or any

one else, so far as happiness is concerned, are better off without a

nomination than with one, even if it was sure to be followed by an

election.

Yours truly,

WM. L. MARCY.

[MR. BUCHANAN TO THE HON. DAVID R. PORTER.]

WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER, June 4, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR:—

From the result of the ballottings yesterday, I deem it highly

improbable that I shall receive the nomination. The question will

doubtless be finally decided before this can reach you; and I desire

to say in advance that my everlasting gratitude is due to the

Pennsylvania delegation, the Virginia delegation, and the other

Southern delegations for their adherence to me throughout the

ballottings of yesterday. I can say, with the most sincere truth, that

I feel far more deeply the disappointment of my friends than my own

disappointment. This has not, and will not, cost me a single pang.

After a long and stormy public life, I shall go into final retirement

without regret, and with a perfect consciousness that I have done my

duty faithfully to my country in all the public situations in which I

have been placed. I had cherished the belief that the Democracy of

Pennsylvania had claims upon the Democracy of the country, which if

asserted by the proper men in the proper spirit would be recognized in

my favor. It seems I have been entirely mistaken both as regards my

own standing and the influence of my State. I should not have believed

this, had not our claims been presented and urged by a faithful and

able delegation, fully equal, if not superior, to any which it was in

the power of the State to send.

It is possible, should the nomination for the Presidency fall upon a

Southern gentleman, that a proposition may be made to give

Pennsylvania the Vice Presidency. Should such a contingency arise,

which is not very probable, I shall not, under any circumstances,

consent to the employment of my name in connection with that office.

Indeed should I be nominated for it by the convention, _I would most

assuredly decline_. It is the very last office under the Government I

would desire to hold, and it would be no honor bestowed on good old

Pennsylvania to have it conferred upon one of her sons.

When I speak of final retirement, I only mean that I shall never hold

another office. I shall always feel and take an interest in favor of

the Democratic cause; and this not only for the sake of principle, but

to enable me to serve friends to whom I owe so much.

From your friend, very respectfully,

JAMES BUCHANAN.

[MR. BUCHANAN TO THE HON. CAVE JOHNSON.]

WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER, June 24, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR:—

If it were possible for me to complain of your conduct, I should give

you a good scolding for not performing your promise. We were all

anxiously expecting you at Wheatland from day to day; and if you had

informed me you could not come I certainly should have met you in

Philadelphia. I was very anxious to see you, and now God only knows

when we shall meet. Whilst life endures, however, gratitude for your

friendship and support shall remain deeply engraved on my heart.

I never felt any longing or anxious desire to be the President, and my

disappointment did not cost me a single pang. My friends were faithful

and true, and their efforts deserved if they could not command

success. Personally, I am entirely satisfied with the result. When

opportunity offers, I hope you will not fail to present my grateful

acknowledgments to Generals Laferty and Polk, and to Messrs. Smith,

Thomas and Shepherd, for their kind and valuable support in the hour

of trial.

It is vain to disguise the fact that Pennsylvania is, to say the

least, a doubtful State. I much fear the result. If defeated, no blame

shall attach to me. I will do my duty to the party and the country.

Both personally and politically General Pierce and Colonel King are

highly acceptable to myself. What an inconsistent race the Whigs are!

They have now ostensibly abandoned their old principles, and placed

themselves on the Democratic platform—Fugitive Slave Law and all. From

this we may expect river and harbor improvements intended to catch the

Southwest; and such a modification of a revenue tariff as they knew

would exactly correspond with the wishes of the Democratic ironmasters

of Pennsylvania. I, however, indulge the hope, nay, the belief, that

Pierce and King can be elected without the vote of Pennsylvania.

I was in my native county of Franklin a few days ago, and whilst there

went to see a respectable farmer and miller, who had ever been a true

and disinterested Democrat. I had been told he would not vote for

Pierce and King, and being both a personal and political friend of my

own, I thought I could change his purpose. In conversation he very

soon told me he would never vote for Pierce. I asked if he would

abandon the principles of his life and vote for the Whig candidate. He

said he never had given and never would give a Whig vote. I reasoned

with him a long time, but in vain. He said the Democracy of the

country ought not to suffer the national convention to usurp the right

of making any man they pleased a candidate before the people. That if

the people yielded this, then a corrupt set of men who got themselves

elected delegates, might, in defiance of the people’s will, always

make a President to suit their own views. That the Democracy had but

one mode of putting this down, and that was, not to ratify the choice

of the convention. He said that for himself he had felt very much

inclined to oppose Mr. Polk for this reason, but had yielded and given

him a cordial support; but if the same game were successfully played a

second time, then the national convention and not the people would

select the President, and the most gross corruption and fraud would be

the consequence. He disliked both General Cass and Mr. Douglas; but

said he would have supported either, because they were known, their

claims had been publicly discussed, and each had a large body of

friends in the Democratic party, and there must be a yielding among

the friends of the different candidates brought forward by the people

of the country.

These were the reasons which my friend gave in the course of a long

conversation. I state them to you, not that the withholding of his

individual vote is of any great importance, but to show how many

Democrats feel. I had heard the same reasons before among the people,

but not so fully discussed; and my letter, published in the _Union_ of

yesterday morning, had a special view to these objections.

They could have scarcely made a respectable fight against me in

Pennsylvania. In many counties my nomination would have shivered the

Whig party. In this county, where the Whig majority at a full election

is 5,000, I do not believe they could have obtained a majority of 500.

But this is all past and gone.

Miss Hetty has but little expectation of being able to procure you a

suitable housekeeper. She will try, however, and should she fall upon

one, will write to you.

Please to present my kindest regards to Mrs. Garland and the little

boys and girls, and believe me ever to be,

Your faithful and grateful friend,

JAMES BUCHANAN.

[MR. BUCHANAN TO JOHN BINNS, ESQ.]

WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER, July 26, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR:—

Although I have too long omitted to answer your kind letter, yet you

may rest assured I sympathized with you deeply in your affliction for

the loss of her who had so long been the partner of your joys and your

sorrows.

My own disappointment did not cost me a single pang. I felt it far

more on account of my friends than myself. Faithful and devoted as

they have been, it would have afforded me heartfelt pleasure to

testify my gratitude by something more substantial than words.

Although I should have assumed the duties of the office with cheerful

confidence, yet I know from near observation that it is a crown of

thorns. Its cares carried Mr. Polk to a premature grave, and the next

four years will probably embrace the most trying period of our

history. May God grant us a safe deliverance! With all due admiration

for the military services of General Scott, I should consider his

election a serious calamity for the country.

General Pierce is a sound radical Democrat of the old Jeffersonian

school, and possesses highly respectable abilities. I think he is firm

and energetic, without which no man is fit to be President. Should he

fall into proper hands, he will administer the Government wisely and

well. Heaven save us from the mad schemes of “Young America!”

From your friend, very respectfully,

JAMES BUCHANAN.

[MR. BUCHANAN TO NAHUM CAPEN, ESQ.]

WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER, June 26, 1852.

MR DEAR SIR:—

Many thanks for your kind letter. I felt neither mortified nor much

disappointed at my own defeat. Although “the signs of the times” had

been highly propitious immediately before the Baltimore Convention, I

am too old a political navigator to rely with explicit confidence upon

bright skies for fair weather. The Democracy of my own great State are

mortified and disappointed, but I trust that ere long these feelings

will vanish, and we shall be able to present a solid and invincible

column to our political opponents.

The Presidency is a distinction far more glorious than the crown of

any hereditary monarch in Christendom; but yet it is a crown of

thorns. In the present political and critical position of our country,

its responsibilities will prove to be fearful. I should have met them

with cheerful confidence, whilst I know I shall be far more happy in a

private station, where I expect to remain.

With my ardent wishes for the success of the History of Democracy, I

remain

Very respectfully your friend,

JAMES BUCHANAN.

[MR. BUCHANAN TO ALEXANDER McKEEVER, ESQ.]

WHEATLAND, near LANCASTER, July 26, 1852.

MY DEAR SIR:—

I have received and perused your kind letter with much satisfaction,

and, like you, I am far better satisfied with the nomination of

General Pierce than I would have been with that of General Cass or any

of the other candidates. I sincerely and ardently desire his election,

as well as the defeat of General Scott, and shall do my duty

throughout the contest in Pennsylvania in every respect, except in

going from county to county to make stump speeches.

It is my intention to address my fellow-citizens of this county, on

some suitable occasion, on the Presidential election, and express my

opinions freely.

My recommendations to the governor were but little regarded, but I

made but very few. I can say with truth that your disappointment

mortified me very much, because upon every principle of political

justice and policy you were entitled to the place. Should it ever be

in my power to serve you, I shall eagerly embrace the opportunity.

It is impossible, as yet, to form any accurate conjecture as to what

will be Scott’s majority in this county; but I cannot believe it will

reach that of General Taylor. I am glad to learn your opinion that the

majority in Delaware county will be less than it was in 1848. Pierce

and King can be elected without the vote of Pennsylvania, but it would

be a burning shame for the Democracy of the Keystone to be defeated on

this occasion.

From your friend, very respectfully,

JAMES BUCHANAN.

The most important service rendered by Mr. Buchanan to his party in this

election—and with him a service to his party was alike a service to his

country—was a speech made at Greensburgh in Pennsylvania, on the 7th of

October, 1852, in opposition to the election of General Scott. It

deserves to be reproduced now, both on account of its clear exhibition

of the political history of that period and the nature of some of the

topics which it discussed.

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS: I thank you most sincerely for the

cordial and enthusiastic cheers with which you have just saluted me. I

am proud, on this occasion, to acknowledge my deep obligations to the

Democratic party of Westmoreland county. The generous and powerful

support which I have received from your great and glorious Democracy

throughout my public career shall ever remain deeply engraved on my

heart. I am grateful for the past, not for what is to be in future. I

ask no more from my country than what I have already enjoyed. May

peace and prosperity be your lot throughout life, and may “The Star in

the West” continue to shine with increasing splendor, and ever benign

influence on the favored Western portion of our Commonwealth for ages

to come!

I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, upon the nomination of Franklin

Pierce and William R. King, for the two highest offices in your gift.

This nomination has proved to be a most fortunate event for the

Democratic party of the country. It has produced unanimity everywhere

in our great and glorious party; and when firmly united we can stand

against the world in arms. It has terminated, I trust forever, the

divisions which existed in our ranks; and which, but a few short

months ago, portended dire defeat in the present Presidential contest.

The North, the South, the East and the West are now generous rivals,

and the only struggle amongst them is which shall do the most to

secure the triumph of the good old cause of Democracy, and of Franklin

Pierce and William R. King, our chosen standard bearers.

And why should we not all be united in support of Franklin Pierce? It

is his peculiar distinction, above all other public men within my

knowledge, that he has never had occasion to take a single step

backwards. What speech, vote, or sentiment of his whole political

career has been inconsistent with the purest and strictest principles

of Jeffersonian Democracy? Our opponents, with all their vigilance and

research, have not yet been able to discover a single one. His public

character as a Democrat is above all exception. In supporting him,

therefore, we shall do no more than sustain in his person our dear and

cherished principles.

Our candidate, throughout his life, has proved himself to be

peculiarly unselfish. The offices and honors which other men seek with

so much eagerness, have sought him only to be refused. He has either

positively declined to accept, or has resigned the highest stations

which the Federal Government or his own native State could bestow upon

him.

Indeed, the public character of General Pierce is so invulnerable that

it has scarcely been seriously assaulted. Our political opponents

have, therefore, in perfect desperation, been driven to defame his

private character. At first, they denounced him as a drunkard, a

friend of the infamous anti-Catholic test in the Constitution of New

Hampshire, and a coward. In what have these infamous accusations

resulted? They have already recoiled upon their inventors. The

poisoned chalice has been returned to their own lips. No decent man of

the Whig party will now publicly venture to repeat these slanders.

Frank Pierce a coward! That man a coward, who, when his country was

involved in a foreign war, abandoned a lucrative and honorable

profession and all the sweets and comforts of domestic life in his own

happy family, to become a private volunteer soldier in the ranks! How

preposterous! And why a coward?

According to the testimony of General Scott himself, he was in such a

sick, wounded, and enfeebled condition, that he was “just able to keep

his saddle!” Yet his own gallant spirit impelled him to lead his

brigade into the bloody battle of Churubusco. But his exhausted

physical nature was not strong enough to sustain the brave soul which

animated it, and he sank insensible on the field in front of his

brigade. Was this evidence of cowardice? These circumstances, so far

from being an impeachment of his courage, prove conclusively that he

possesses that high quality in an uncommon degree. Almost any other

man, nay, almost any other brave man, in his weak and disabled

condition, would have remained in his tent; but the promptings of his

gallant and patriotic spirit impelled him to rush into the midst of

the battle. To what lengths will not party rancor and malignity

proceed when such high evidences of indomitable courage are construed

into proofs of cowardice? How different was General Scott’s opinion

from that of the revilers of Franklin Pierce! It was on this very

occasion that he conferred upon him the proud title of “the gallant

Brigadier-General Pierce.”

The cordial union of the Democratic party throughout the country

presents a sure presage of approaching victory. Even our political

opponents admit that we are in the majority when thoroughly united.

And I venture now to predict that, whether with or without the vote of

Pennsylvania, Franklin Pierce and William R. King, should their lives

be spared, will as certainly be elected President and Vice President

of the United States on the first Tuesday in November next, as that

the blessed sun shall rise on that auspicious day. We feel the

inspiration of victory from the infallible indications of public

opinion throughout our sister States.

Shall this victory be achieved without the voice or vote of

Pennsylvania? No President has ever yet been elected without her vote.

Shall this historical truth be reversed, and shall Pierce and King be

elected in November, despite the vote of the good old Keystone? God

bless her! No—never, never, shall the Democracy of our great and

glorious State be subjected to this disgrace.

And yet, strange to say, the Whigs at Washington and the Whigs

throughout every State of the Union claim the vote of Pennsylvania

with the utmost apparent confidence. To secure her vote was one of the

main inducements for the nomination of General Scott over the head of

Millard Fillmore. Is there one unprejudiced citizen of any party in

the United States, who can lay his hand upon his heart and declare

that he believes General Scott would make as good and as safe a

President as Mr. Fillmore? No, fellow-citizens, all of us must concur

in opinion with Mr. Clay, that Fillmore had superior claims and

qualifications to those of Scott for the highest civil station.

Availability, and availability alone, produced the nomination of

Scott.

The Whigs well knew that the Democrats of the Keystone were in the

majority. What must then be done to secure her vote? Pennsylvania

Democrats must be seduced from their party allegiance—they must be

induced to abandon the political altars at which they have so long

worshipped—they must be persuaded to renounce the principles of

Jefferson and of Jackson, by the nomination of a military hero; and

this hero, too, a most bitter and uncompromising Whig. General Scott

is none of your half-way Whigs—he is not like General Taylor, a Whig,

but not an ultra Whig. He goes the whole. Is there a single Whig

doctrine, or a single Whig principle, however odious to the Democracy,

to which he is not devoted, which he has not announced and taught

under his own hand? If there be, I have never heard it mentioned. Nay,

more: these odious doctrines are with him not merely strong opinions,

but they are absolute convictions, rules of faith and of practice. The

Bank of the United States, the Bankrupt Law, the distribution of the

proceeds of the public lands among the States, the abolishment of the

veto power from the Constitution; in short, all the Whig measures

against which the Democracy of the country have always waged incessant

war—are so many articles of General Scott’s political creed. When

asked, in October, 1841, whether, “if nominated as a candidate for the

Presidency, would you accept the nomination?” after expressing his

strong approbation of all the Whig measures to which I have just

referred, as well as others of a similar character, he answers: “I beg

leave respectfully to reply—Yes; provided that I be not required to

renounce any principles professed above. My principles are

convictions.”

I will do him the justice to declare that he has never yet recanted or

renounced any one of these principles. They are still convictions with

him; and yet the Democracy of Pennsylvania are asked to recant and

renounce their own most solemn and deliberate convictions, and vote

for a candidate for the Presidency, merely on account of his military

fame, who, if elected, would exert the power and influence of his

administration to subvert and to destroy all the essential principles

which bind us together as members of the great and glorious Democratic

party of the Union. Is not the bare imputation, much more the

confident belief, that the Democrats of Pennsylvania will renounce

their birthright for such a miserable mess of pottage, the highest

insult which can be offered to them? The Whigs, in effect, say to you:

We know you are Democrats—we know you are in the majority; but yet we

believe you will renounce the political faith of your fathers, that

you may shout hosannas to a successful general, and bow down before

the image of military glory which we have erected for the purpose of

captivating your senses.

Thank Heaven! thus far, at least, these advocates of availability have

been disappointed. The soup societies and the fuss and feather clubs

have yet produced but little impression on the public mind. They have

failed even to raise enthusiastic shouts among the Whigs, much less to

make any apostates from the Democratic ranks.

What a subject it is for felicitation in every patriotic heart, that

the days have passed away, I trust, forever, when mere military

services, however distinguished, shall be a passport to the chief

civil magistracy of the country!

I would lay down this broad and strong proposition, which ought in all

future time to be held sacred as an article of Democratic faith, that

no man ought ever to be transferred by the people from the chief

command of the army of the United States to the highest civil office

within their gift. The reasons for this rule of faith to guide the

practice of a Republican people are overwhelming.

The annals of mankind, since the creation, demonstrate this solemn

truth. The history of all the ruined republics, both of ancient and

modern times, teaches us this great lesson. From Cæsar to Cromwell,

and from Cromwell to Napoleon, this history presents the same solemn

warning,—beware of elevating to the highest civil trust the commander

of your victorious armies. Ask the wrecks of the ruined republics

scattered all along the tide of time, what occasioned their downfall;

and they will answer in sepulchral tones, the elevation of victorious

generals to the highest civil power in the State. One common fate from

one common cause has destroyed them all. Will mankind never learn

wisdom from the experience of past generations? Has history been

written in vain? Mr. Clay, in his Baltimore speech of 1827, expressed

this great truth in emphatic terms, when he implored the Almighty

Governor of the world, “to visit our favored land with war, with

pestilence, with famine, with any scourge other than military rule, or

a blind and heedless enthusiasm for a military renown.” He was right

in the principle, wrong in its application. The hero, the man of men

to whom it applied, was then at the Hermitage,—a plain and private

farmer of Tennessee. He had responded to the call of his country when

war was declared against Great Britain, and had led our armies to

victory; but when the danger had passed away, he returned with delight

to the agricultural pursuits of his beloved Hermitage. Although, like

Franklin Pierce, he had never sought civil offices and honors, yet he

was an influential and conspicuous member of the convention which

framed the constitution of Tennessee, was their first Representative

and their first Senator in Congress,—afterwards a Judge of their

Supreme Court,—then again a Senator in Congress, which elevated

station he a second time resigned, from a love of retirement. He was

brought almost literally from the plough, as Cincinnatus had been, to

assume the chief civil command. The same observations would apply to

the illustrious and peerless Father of his Country, as well as to

General Harrison. They were soldiers, only in the day and hour of

danger, when the country demanded their services; and both were

elevated from private life, from the shades of Mount Vernon and the

North Bend, to the supreme civil magistracy of the country. Neither of

them was a soldier by profession, and both had illustrated high civil

appointments. General Taylor, it is true, had been a soldier, and

always a soldier, but had never risen to the chief command. It

remained for the present Whig party to select as their candidate for

the Presidency the commanding General of the army, who had been a man

of war, and nothing but a man of war from his youth upwards. This

party is now straining every nerve to transfer him from the

headquarters of the army, to the chair of state, which has been

adorned by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Jackson, without even a

momentary resignation of his present high office,—without the least

political training,—without any respite, without any breathing time

between the highest military and the highest civil honor. With what

tremendous force does the solemn warning of Mr. Clay apply to the case

of General Scott!

Far be it from me to say or to insinuate that General Scott would have

either the ability or the will to play the part of Cæsar, of Cromwell,

or of Bonaparte. Still, the precedent is dangerous in the extreme. If

these things can be done in the green tree, what will be done in the

dry? If the precedent can be established in the comparative infancy

and purity of our institutions, of elevating to the Presidency a

successful commander-in-chief of our armies, what may be the

disastrous consequences when our population shall number one hundred

millions, and when our armies in time of war may be counted by

hundreds of thousands. In those days, some future military chieftain,

desirous of obtaining supreme power by means of an election to the

Presidency, may point back to such a precedent and say, that in the

earlier and purer days of the Republic, our ancestors did not fear to

elevate the commander of their conquering armies to this, the highest

civil station. Let us not forge chains in advance for our descendants.

The fathers of the Republic were deeply alive to these great truths.

They were warned by the experience of past times that liberty is

Hesperian fruit, and can only be preserved by watchful jealousy. Hence

in all their constitutions of government, and in all their political

writings, we find them inculcating, in the most solemn manner, a

jealousy of standing armies and their leaders, and a strict

subordination of the military to the civil power. But even if there

were no danger to our liberties from such a precedent, the habit of

strict obedience and absolute command acquired by the professional

soldier throughout a long life, almost necessarily disqualifies him

for the administration of our Democratic Republican Government. Civil

government is not a mere machine, such as a regular army. In

conducting it, allowance must be made for that love of liberty and

spirit of independence which characterize our people. Such allowances

can never be made,—authority can never be tempered with moderation and

discretion, by a professional soldier, who has been accustomed to have

his military orders obeyed with the unerring certainty of despotic

power.

Again:—What fatal effects would it not have on the discipline and

efficiency of the army to have aspirants for the Presidency among its

principal officers? How many military cliques would be formed—how much

intriguing and electioneering would exist in a body which ought to be

a unit, and have no other object in view except to obey the lawful

command of the President and to protect and defend the country? If all

the political follies of General Scott’s life were investigated, and

these are not few, I venture to say that nearly the whole of them have

resulted from his long continued aspirations for the Presidency. At

last, he has obtained the Whig nomination. He has defeated his own

constitutional commander-in-chief. The military power has triumphed

over the civil power. The Constitution declares that “the President

shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United

States,” but the subordinate, the actual commander of the army, has

supplanted his superior. What a spectacle is this; and how many

serious reflections might it inspire! In times of war and of danger,

what fatal consequences might result to the country from the fact,

that the President and the commanding General of the army are rival

and hostile candidates for the Presidency! But I shall not pursue this

train of remark. It is my most serious conviction, that General Scott

would have stood far higher, both before the present generation and

posterity, had he never been a candidate for the Presidency. The

office which he now holds, and deservedly holds, ought to satisfy the

ambition of any man. This the American people will determine by a

triumphant majority on the first Tuesday of November next. This will

prove to be one of the most fortunate events in our history—auspicious

at the present time, and still more auspicious for future generations.

It will establish a precedent, which will, I trust, prevent future

commanders-in-chief of the American army from becoming candidates for

the Presidential office.

Again:—To make the army a hot bed for Presidential aspirants will be

to unite the powerful influence of all its aspiring officers in favor

of foreign wars, as the best means of acquiring military glory, and

thus placing themselves in the modern line of safe precedents, as

candidates for the Presidency and for other high civil offices. The

American people are sufficiently prone to war without any such

stimulus. But enough of this.

I shall now proceed to discuss more minutely the civil qualifications

of General Scott for the Presidency. It is these which immediately and

deeply concern the American people, and not his military glory. Far be

it from me, however, to depreciate his military merits. As an American

citizen, I am proud of them. They will ever constitute a brilliant

page in the historical glory of our country. The triumphant march of

the brave army under his command, from Vera Cruz to the city of

Mexico, will be ever memorable in our annals. And yet he can never be

esteemed the principal hero of the Mexican war. This distinction

justly belongs to General Taylor. It was his army which at Palo Alto,

Resaca de la Palma, and Monterey, first broke the spirit of the

Mexican troops; and the crowning victory of Buena Vista completely

disorganized the Mexican army. There Santa Anna, with 20,000 men, the

largest, the best and the bravest army which Mexico has ever sent into

the field, was routed by less than five thousand of our troops. To the

everlasting glory of our volunteer militia, this great, this glorious

victory, was achieved by them, assisted by only four hundred and

fifty-three regulars. The Mexican army was so disorganized—the spirit

of the Mexican people was so subdued, by the unparallelled victory of

Buena Vista, that the way was thus opened for the march from Vera Cruz

to Mexico. Yet God forbid that I should, in the slightest degree,

detract from the glory so justly due to Scott’s army and its

distinguished commander in the battles which preceded their triumphant

entry into the capital of Mexico.

But I repeat, my present purpose is to deal with General Scott as a

civilian—as a candidate for the Presidency, and not as a military

commander.

The sun presents dark spots upon its disc; and the greatest men who

have ever lived, with the exception of our own Washington, have not

been without their failings. Surely General Scott is not an exception

to the common lot of humanity. In his temper he is undoubtedly

irritable and jealous of rivals; whilst the Presidency, above all

other stations on earth, requires a man of firm and calm temper, who,

in his public conduct, will never be under the control of his

passions.

General Scott has quarrelled with General Wilkinson—he has quarrelled

with General Gaines—he has quarrelled with General Jackson—he has

quarrelled with De Witt Clinton—he has quarrelled with the

administration of John Quincy Adams—he has quarrelled with the people

of Florida to such a degree that General Jackson was obliged

reluctantly to recall him from the command of the army in the Seminole

war—he has quarrelled with General Worth, the Marshal Ney of our

military service—he has quarrelled with General Pillow—he has

quarrelled with the gallant and lamented Duncan—and unless report

speaks falsely, he has quarrelled with General Taylor. Whenever any

military man has approached the rank of being his rival for fame, he

has quarrelled with that man. Now, I shall not pretend to decide,

whether he has been in the right or in the wrong, in all or in any of

these quarrels; but this I shall say, that a man possessing such

forethought, discretion and calm temper as the Presidential office

requires, might and would have avoided many or most of these

difficulties. A plain and sensible neighbor of mine asked me, in view

of these facts, if I did not think, should General Scott be elected

President, he would play the devil and break things?

General Scott is, beyond all question, suspicious, when the President

of the United States, above all other men, ought to look upon events

with no prejudiced or jaundiced eye. No man ever exhibited this trait

of character in a stronger light than he has done towards the

administration of Mr. Polk. He was selected by the President to lead

our armies in Mexico, with my humble though cordial assent. The

political life or death of the administration depended upon his

success. Our fate, both in the estimation of the present times and

throughout all posterity, depended upon his success. His defeat would

have been our ruin. And yet he most strangely conceived the notion,

that for the purpose of destroying him we were willing to destroy

ourselves. Hence his belief of a fire in the rear more formidable than

the fire in the front. Hence his belief that, jealous of his glory, we

did not exert ourselves to furnish him the troops and munitions of war

necessary for the conquest of Mexico. Did unjust and unfounded

suspicion ever extend thus far in the breast of any other mortal man?

The admirable and unanswerable letter of Governor Marcy, of April 21,

1848, in reply to his complaints, triumphantly vindicates the

administration of Mr. Polk against all these extraordinary charges.

Let any man carefully and dispassionately read that letter, and say,

if he can, that General Scott, in self-control, temper and

disposition, is fit to become the successor to General Washington, in

the Presidential chair.

The world knows, everybody who has approached him knows, that General

Scott is vainglorious to an excessive degree. Indeed, his vanity would

be strikingly ridiculous, had he not performed so many distinguished

military services as almost to justify boasting. This, however, is an

amiable weakness; and whilst it does not disqualify him from

performing the duties of a President, this itself renders it morally

impossible that he should ever reach that station. Modesty combined

with eminent merit always secures popular applause; but the man who

becomes the trumpeter of his own exploits, no matter how high his

deserts may be, can never become an object of popular enthusiasm and

affection. General Scott’s character, in this respect, is perfectly

understood by the instinctive good sense of the American people. “Fuss

and Feathers!” a volume could not more accurately portray the vanity

of his character than this soubriquet by which he is universally

known. His friends affect to glory in this title, but with all their

efforts they can never render it popular. Napoleon was endeared to his

army by his designation of “the little Corporal;” General Jackson, by

that of “Old Hickory;” and General Taylor was “Rough and Ready;” but

what shall we say to “Fuss and Feathers?” Was such a soubriquet ever

bestowed upon a General who enjoyed the warm affections of his army?

It raises no shout,—it awakens no sympathy,—it excites no

enthusiasm,—it falls dead upon the heart of an intelligent people.

In order further to illustrate the want of civil qualifications of

General Scott for the Presidency, I propose next to discuss his famous

political letters. In these he has written his own political history.

“Oh! that mine enemy would write a book!” was an exclamation of old.

General Scott’s epistles have accomplished this work, though I deny

that he has any enemies among the American people.

In 1848, when speaking of these letters, Thurlow Weed, who at the

present moment is one of General Scott’s most able, distinguished, and

efficient supporters, employs the following language: “In the

character of General Scott there is much, very much to commend and

admire. But the mischief is, there is weakness in all he says or does

about the Presidency. Immediately after the close of the campaign of

1840, he wrote a gratuitous letter, making himself a candidate, in

which all sorts of unwise things were said ‘to return and plague his

friends, if he should be a candidate.’ And since that time, with a

fatuity that seizes upon men who get bewildered in gazing at the White

House, he has been suffering his pen to dim the glories achieved by

his sword.”

The letter to which special allusion is made must be his famous letter

of October 25, 1841. Though not an “old Fogy,” I retain a vivid

recollection of the circumstances under which this letter was written.

It made its appearance the month after the termination of the famous

extra session of Congress, which had been convened by the proclamation

of General Harrison. This session commenced on the 31st May, and

terminated on the 13th September, 1841.

And here, permit me to say, that I do not believe the history of

legislative bodies, in this or any other country, ever presented more

argumentative, eloquent, and powerful debating than was exhibited

throughout this session. Nearly all the important political questions

which had divided the two great parties of the country from the

beginning were most ably discussed. Never did any public body of the

same number present a stronger array of matured talent than the Senate

of that day. There were Clay, Berrien, Clayton, Mangum, Archer,

Preston, and Southard on the Whig side; and Benton, Calhoun, Wright,

Woodbury, Walker, Pierce, and Linn on the side of the Democrats, and

these men were in the meridian of their glory. I would advise every

young Democrat within the sound of my voice to procure and carefully

study the debates of this session.

Mr. Clay was, as he deserved to be, the lord of the ascendant in the

Whig ranks. The Whig majority of both houses was controlled by his

spirit. He was their acknowledged leader, and went to work in dashing

style. Within a brief period, he carried all the great Whig measures

triumphantly through Congress. The Independent Treasury was repealed;

the proceeds of the public lands were distributed among the States;

the Bankrupt Law was passed; and an old-fashioned Bank of the United

States would have been established, had it not been for the veto of

John Tyler, a man who has never been as highly estimated as he

deserves, either by the Democratic party or the country.

Mr. Clay left the Senate, at the close of the session, the

acknowledged leader and the favorite Presidential candidate of the

great Whig party. Under these circumstances, it became necessary for

General Scott to do something to head his great rival and prevent him

from remaining master of the field. He must prove himself to be as

good a Whig as Henry Clay, and in addition a much better Anti-Mason.

It was the common remark of the day, when his letter of October, 1841,

appeared, that he had out-whigged even Henry Clay. This is the

“gratuitous letter, making himself a candidate, in which all sorts of

unwise things were said to ‘return and plague his friends, if he

should be a candidate.’”

This letter is not addressed to any individual, but is an epistle

general to the faithful; and I must do him the justice to say that in

it he has concealed nothing from the public eye. After some

introductory remarks, it is divided into seven heads, which, with

their subdivisions, embrace all the articles of Whig faith as

understood at that day; and in addition, the author presents his views

on “secret or oath-bound societies.”

I shall briefly review some of these articles of General Scott’s

political faith:

1. “The Judiciary.” General Scott expresses his convictions that the

decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, on all

constitutional questions, should be considered final and conclusive by

the people, and especially by their functionaries, “except, indeed, in

the case of a judicial decision enlarging power and against liberty.”

And how is such a decision to be corrected? Why, forsooth, “any

dangerous error of this sort, he says, can always be easily corrected

by an amendment of the Constitution, in one of the modes prescribed by

that instrument itself.” Easily corrected! It might be so if a

military order could accomplish the object; but an amendment of the

Constitution of the United States, whether fortunately or

unfortunately for the country, is almost a political impossibility. In

order to accomplish it, in by far the least impracticable of the two

modes prescribed, the affirmative action of two-thirds of both Houses

of Congress and of the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several

States is required. With these obstacles in the way, when will an

amendment of the Constitution ever be made?

But why did such a reverence for the decisions of the Supreme Court

become an article of General Scott’s faith? Simply because General

Jackson had vetoed the Bank of the United States, believing in his

conscience, such an institution to be unconstitutional. He had sworn

before his God and his country to support the Constitution; and he

could not, without committing moral perjury, approve a bill, which in

his soul he believed to be a violation of this great charter of our

liberties. He could not yield his honest convictions, simply because

the Supreme Court had expressed the opinion that Congress possesses

the power to charter such a bank.

But, according to the logic of General Scott, General Jackson and Mr.

Tyler, when bills to charter a Bank of the United States were

presented to them, had no right to form or express any opinion on the

subject of their constitutionality. The Supreme Court had done this

for them in advance. This court is to be the constitutional

conscience-keeper of the President. “Practically, therefore (says

General Scott), for the people and especially their functionaries (of

whom the President is the highest) to deny, to disturb, or impugn,

principles thus constitutionally established, strike me as of evil

example, if not of a direct revolutionary tendency.” A Bank of the

United States must be held constitutional, by the people and their

functionaries, as an article of faith, until two-thirds of both Houses

of Congress and three-fourths of the State legislatures shall reverse

the decision of the Supreme Court by an amendment of the Constitution.

The President must then wait before he can exercise the right of

judging for himself until doomsday. On the same principle, we must all

now hold, as an article of faith, that the odious and infamous

sedition law of the reign of terror is constitutional, because the

judiciary have so affirmed, and this decision never has been, and

never will be, reversed by a constitutional amendment. This is

double-distilled Whiggery of the most sublimated character. Truly,

“there is weakness in all that General Scott says or does about the

Presidency.”

Let us never forget that a Bank of the United States is a fixed idea

with the Whig party, which nothing can ever remove. On this subject,

like the old Bourbons, they forget nothing and learn nothing. They are

inseparably joined to this idol. They believe that a concentration of

the money power of the country, in the form of such a bank, is

necessary to secure the ascendency of the Whig party in the

Government; and there is nothing more certain in futurity than that

they will establish such a bank, should they ever obtain the power.

Experience has taught us a lesson on this subject which we ought never

to forget. Throughout the political campaign of 1840, which resulted

in the election of General Harrison, it was nowhere avowed by the

Whigs, that they intended to charter a Bank of the United States. This

was carefully concealed from the public eye. On the contrary, many of

their distinguished leaders declared themselves hostile to such an

institution, and one of them, Mr. Badger, afterwards a member of the

cabinet, indignantly pronounced the assertion that General Harrison

was in favor of such a bank to be a falsehood. But mark the sequel. No

sooner was Harrison elected and a majority secured in both Houses of

Congress, than the Whigs immediately proceeded in hot haste, at the

extra session, to pass a bill establishing a Bank of the United

States, which would have become a law, but for the veto of John Tyler.

What we have witnessed in 1841, we shall again witness in 1853, _the

veto_ only excepted, should General Scott be elected President and be

sustained by a Whig majority in both Houses of Congress.

2. “The Executive Veto.” To abolish this veto power is another article

of General Scott’s political faith, as announced in his letter of

October, 1841. To be more precise, the General would have the

Constitution amended for the second time, in the same epistle, so as

to overcome the Executive veto “by a bare majority in each House of

Congress of all the members elected to it—say for the benefit of

reflection, at the end of ten days from the return of the bill.” What

a farce! An Executive veto to be overcome and nullified by a bare

majority of the very Congress which had but ten days before sent the

same bill to the President for his approval! Better, far better, adopt

the manly course of abolishing the veto altogether, than to resort to

this subterfuge.

But why has the abolishment of the Executive veto become an article of

Whig faith? Simply because General Jackson and Mr. Tyler each vetoed

bills to establish a Bank of the United States! “Still harping on my

daughter.” The Whigs have determined to destroy the veto power, which

has twice prevented them from creating an institution which they love

above all other political objects. The veto power has saved the

country from the corrupt and corrupting influence of a bank; and it is

this alone which has rendered it so odious to the Whig party.

This power is the least dangerous of all the great powers conferred by

the Constitution upon the President; because nothing but a strong

sense of public duty and a deep conviction that he will be sustained

by the people can ever induce him to array himself against a majority

of both Houses of Congress. It has been exercised but in comparatively

few instances since the origin of the Federal Government; and I am not

aware that it has ever been exercised in any case, which has not

called forth the approving voice of a large majority of the American

people. Confident I am, it is highly popular in Pennsylvania.

“Rotation in office” is the next head of General Scott’s letter.

Throughout the Presidential contest, which resulted in the election of

General Harrison, it was the fashion of the Whigs to proscribe

proscription; and to denounce Democratic Presidents for removing their

political enemies and appointing their political friends to office.

General Scott, in his letter, comes up to the Whig standard in this,

as in all other respects. In his profession of faith, he could not

even avoid a fling against the hero and the sage then in retirement at

the Hermitage. He says: “I speak on this head from what I witnessed in

1829-30 (the commencement of General Jackson’s administration), of the

cruel experiments on a large scale, then made upon the sensibilities

of the country, and the mischiefs to the public interests which early

ensued.”

But what was the Whig practice upon the subject after they had

obtained power? General Jackson was magnanimous, kind-hearted and

merciful, and to my own knowledge he retained a very large proportion

of Whig clerks in the public offices at Washington. I ask how many

Democrats now remain in those offices? Nay, the present administration

has even proscribed old widows whose husbands had been Democrats. In

the city of Lancaster, they removed from the post-office an old lady

of this character, who had performed her duties to the entire

satisfaction of the public of all parties, to make way for a political

(I admit a respectable political) friend. To the credit of General

Taylor’s memory be it spoken, he refused to make war upon this old

lady.

But in this respect, a change has come over the spirit of General

Scott’s dream. Of this the Whigs are satisfied. If they were not,

small would be his chance—much smaller even than it now is, of

reaching the Presidential chair. In his letter, accepting the

nomination, he says:—“In regard to the general policy of the

administration, if elected, I should, of course, look among those who

may approve that policy, for the agents to carry it into execution;

and I would seek to cultivate harmony and fraternal sentiment

throughout the Whig party, without attempting to reduce its members by

proscription to exact conformity to my own views!”

“Harmony and fraternal sentiment throughout the Whig party!” His

charity, though large for Whigs, does not extend to Democrats. He

knows, however, that his own party are divided into supporters of

himself for his own sake, whilst spitting upon the platform on which

he stands—and those who love the platform so well that for its sake

they have even consented, though reluctantly, to acquiesce in his

nomination—into those Free Soil Whigs who denounce the Fugitive Slave

Law, and those Whigs who are devoted heart and soul to its

maintenance. In this dilemma, he will not attempt to reduce the

discordant brethren by proscription to exact conformity to his own

views. Southern Whigs and Northern Free Soilers are therefore both

embraced within the broad sweep of his charity. He seeks to cultivate

harmony and fraternal sentiment among the Seward Whigs and the

National Whigs by seating them all together at the same table to enjoy

the loaves and the fishes. But woe to the vanquished—woe to the

Democrats! They shall not even receive a single crumb which may fall

from the table of the Presidential banquet.

“One Presidential Term,” is the subject which he next discusses. Here

he boggles at one Presidential term. He seems reluctant to surrender

the most elevated and the most lucrative office, next to that of

President, and this, too, an office for life, for the sake of only

four years in the White House. He again, therefore, for the third

time, in the same letter, proposes to amend the Constitution, just as

if this were as easy as to wheel a division of his army on a parade

day, so as to extend the Presidential term to six years. Four years

are too short a term for General Scott. It must be prolonged. The

people must be deprived of the power of choosing their President at

the end of so brief a period as four years. But such an amendment of

the Constitution, he ought to have known, was all moonshine. The

General, then, declines to pledge himself to serve but for one term,

and this for the most extraordinary reason. I shall quote his own

words; he says:—“But I do not consider it respectful to the people,

nor otherwise proper, in a candidate to solicit favor on a pledge

that, if elected, he will not accept a second nomination. It looks too

much like a bargain tendered to other aspirants—yield to me now; I

shall soon be out of your way; too much like the interest that

sometimes governs the cardinals in the choice of a Pope, many voting

for themselves first, and, if without success, finally for the most

superannuated, in order that the election may sooner come round

again.”

He was, then, you may be sure, still a Native American.

To say the very least, this imputation of selfishness and corruption

against the cardinals in the election of a Pope, is in bad taste in a

political letter written by a candidate for the Presidency. It was in

exceedingly bad taste, in such an epistle, thus to stigmatize the

highest dignitaries of the ancient Catholic church, in the performance

of their most solemn and responsible public duty to God, on this side

of eternity. From my soul, I abhor the practice of mingling up

religion with politics. The doctrine of all our Constitutions, both

Federal and State, is, that every man has an indefeasible right to

worship his God, according to the dictates of his own conscience. He

is both a bigot and a tyrant who would interfere with that sacred

right. When a candidate is before the people for office, the inquiry

ought never even to be made, what form of religious faith he

professes; but only, in the language of Mr. Jefferson, “Is he honest;

is he capable?” Far be it from me to charge or even insinuate that

General Scott would desire to introduce religion into party politics;

and yet I consider it exceedingly improper for him, in a political

letter, when a candidate for the Presidency, to have made this charge

against the venerable cardinals of the Catholic church. Such a charge,

emanating from so high a source, could not fail to wound the feelings

of a large and highly respectable Christian community. This has

necessarily, to some extent, brought religious discussions into the

Presidential contest.

“Leading measures of the late extra session of Congress.” This is the

next head of General Scott’s epistle, to which I advert. He swallows

all those leading measures at a single gulp. “If,” says he, “I had had

the honor of a vote on the occasion, it would have been given in favor

of the Land Distribution Bill, the Bankrupt Bill, and the second bill

for creating a Fiscal Corporation, having long been under a conviction

that in peace, as in war, something efficient in the nature of a Bank

of the United States, is not only ‘necessary and proper,’ but

indispensable to the successful operations of the Treasury!”

The Land Distribution Bill. This is emphatically a high toned Whig

measure, which had been once crushed by General Jackson’s message of

December, 1833. Mr. Clay, its illustrious author, was the very

essence, the life and soul of Whiggery. It proposes to distribute the

proceeds of the public lands among the several States. It proposes to

surrender to the several States that immense and bountiful fund

provided by our ancestors, which is always our surest resource, in

times of war and danger, when our revenue from imports fails. In the

days of Jackson, Van Buren and Polk, the Democratic doctrine was,—I

fear it is not so at present,—to preserve this fund in the common

Treasury, as a sacred trust, to enable Congress to execute the

enumerated powers conferred upon them by the Constitution, for the

equal benefit of all the States and the people. Should Congress give

away the public lands to the States, they will deprive themselves of

the power of bestowing land bounties upon the soldiers and the sailors

who fight the battles of your country, and of granting liberal terms

of purchase to those hardy pioneers who make the wilderness to bloom

and to blossom as the rose. What will become of this policy if you

distribute the proceeds of these lands among the States? Then every

State will have a direct interest in preventing any donations of the

public lands, either to old soldiers or actual settlers; because every

acre thus given will so much lessen the dividend to each of the States

interested. Should this Distribution Bill ever prevail, it will make

the States mere dependencies upon the central Government for a large

portion of their revenue, and thus reduce these proud Democratic

sovereignties to the degrading position of looking to the Treasury of

the United States for their means of support. In the language of

General Jackson, “a more direct road to consolidation cannot be

devised.” Such a state of dependence, though exactly in accordance

with the centralizing Whig policy, has ever been abhorred by the

Democrats. But the Distribution Bill is one of the principles, one of

the “convictions,” of General Scott; and so let it pass.

We come now to the Bankrupt Bill, a purely Whig measure, to which

General Scott gives his adhesion.—And such a bill! In no legitimate

sense of the word, was this a bankrupt law. It was merely a new mode

of paying old debts; and the easiest mode which was ever devised for

this purpose in any civilized country. The expansions and contractions

of the Bank of the United States,—the inundations of bank paper and of

shinplasters which spread over the country, had given birth to a wild

and reckless spirit of speculation, that ruined a great number of

people. The speculators wanted to pay their debts in the easiest

manner, and the Whigs wanted their votes. This was the origin of the

bankrupt law. It ruined a great many honest creditors; it paid off a

great many honest debts with moonshine. If my memory serves me, debts

to the amount of $400,000,000 were discharged in this manner. The law,

however, from its practical operation, soon became so odious to the

people, that they demanded its repeal. It was stricken from the

statute book, amidst the execrations of the people, by the very same

Congress which had enacted it, in one year and one month from the day

on which it went into effect. And this is the bill for which General

Scott declares he would have voted, had he been a member of Congress.

Next in order, we come to the Bank of the United States. If General

Scott “had had the honor of a vote, it would have been given for the

second bill creating a Fiscal Corporation.”

Surely the General could never have carefully read this bill. In

derision, it was termed at the time, the “Kite Flying Fiscality.” It

was a mere speculators’ bank, and no person believed it could ever

become a law. In truth, it was got up merely for the purpose of

heading John Tyler, and when reported to the House, it was received,

according to the _National Intelligencer_, with shouts of laughter.

It originated in this manner. A bill had at first passed Congress to

create a regular old-fashioned Bank of the United States. This bill

was vetoed by John Tyler. Afterwards the second bill, or Kite Flying

Fiscality, was prepared by the Whigs to meet some portions of Mr.

Tyler’s veto message, and if possible render it ridiculous. The bill

was passed and was vetoed by President Tyler, as everybody foresaw it

would be. But how General Scott got his head so befogged as to prefer

this thing to the first bill, is a matter of wonder. I venture to say

he was the only Whig in the United States who held the same opinion.

This closes General Scott’s confession of Whig faith; and surely it is

sufficiently ample and specific to gratify the most rabid Whig in the

land. But the General had another string to his bow. It was necessary

not only that he should be as good a Whig as Henry Clay, but that he

should be something besides, something over and above a mere Whig, in

order to render himself more available than his great rival. Hence the

concluding head of his famous epistle, which, like the postscript of a

lady’s letter, contains much of the pith and marrow of the whole. It

is entitled “Secret or Oath-bound Societies.” In it he declares,

although a Mason, that he had “not been a member of a Masonic lodge

for thirty odd years, nor a visitor of any lodge since, except

one,—now more than sixteen years ago.” And such is his abhorrence for

secret societies, that for twenty-eight years he had not even visited

one of those literary societies in our colleges, whose practice it is

to adopt a few secret signs by which their members in after life can

recognize each other.

In order, then, to render himself a more available candidate than

Henry Clay, it was necessary that his net should have a broader sweep

than that of the great Kentuckian. It was necessary that he should be

as good a Whig and a far better Anti-Mason. The Anti-Masonic party was

then powerful in Pennsylvania as well as in other Northern States.

This party numbered in its ranks many old Democrats, and to these Mr.

Clay was not very acceptable. The Anti-Masons were more active and

more energetic than the Whigs. A distinguished Anti-Mason of our State

is reported once to have said, that they were the locomotive, and the

Whigs the burden train. How were they to be enlisted in the ranks of

Scott? The great Kentuckian, with that independent spirit which

characterized him, never yielded to the advances of the Anti-Masons.

He was a Mason himself as well as General Scott; but the General lent

a far more kindly ear to this new party. Hence his remarks on secret

or oath-bound societies. This confession of his faith proved to be

entirely satisfactory; and the Anti-Masons have ever since proved to

be his devoted friends. He thus captured a large division of the

forces which were unfriendly to Mr. Clay. But for the purpose of

embracing the new recruits, it became necessary to coin a more

comprehensive name than simply that of Whigs.

He doubtless thought that a rose by any other name would smell as

sweet. Hence, in his famous letter, he announced himself to be a

Democratic Whig. A white blackbird—a Christian unbeliever. This name

was sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all men of all parties. He

became all things to all men, that he might gain proselytes. I say

what I know, when I declare that this letter, and attempt to supplant

the veteran statesman of Kentucky, was a subject of severe criticism

at the time in Washington city, among men of all parties. Surely, in

the language of Thurlow Weed, “there is weakness in all he says or

does about the Presidency.”

But a good general is always fertile in expedients. His coup-d’œil

embraces the whole field of battle, and he is ever ready to take

advantage of any occurrence which may enable him to seize the victory.

A new political party styling itself the Native American party, began

to loom up in an imposing manner and to present a formidable aspect.

This party must be conciliated. The Native Americans must be prevailed

upon to unite their forces with the Whigs and Anti-Masons, and thus to

form a grand combined army. It therefore became necessary for General

Scott to write a second epistle, which he seems to have done with all

the ardor and enthusiasm of heartfelt sincerity. This is dated from

Washington city, on the 10th of November, 1844, and is in answer to a

letter addressed to him, “in behalf of several hundred Native American

Republicans,” by Geo. W. Reed, Esq., of Philadelphia. This second

epistle proved to be as successful in enlisting the Native Americans

under his banner, as the first epistle had been in enlisting the

Anti-Masons. And why should it not? The General pledged himself, in

the strongest terms, to every dogma which this new party had most at

heart.

He dates his Native Americanism back more than eight years, to “the

stormy election in the spring of 1836,” and his views “were confirmed

in the week [Nov. 1840] when Harrison electors were chosen in New

York.” It was on this occasion in 1840, that, “fired with

indignation,” he sat down with two friends in the Astor House, “to

draw up an address, designed to rally an American party.” What has

become of this address? How precious would it be? I fear it is forever

lost to the world! It would be one of the greatest curiosities of

modern literature. How withering must have been its attack upon the

poor foreigners! We can judge somewhat of its spirit by his epistle to

Mr. Reed. Other Native Americans were satisfied to restore the

naturalization law of “the reign of terror,” and to prohibit

foreigners from becoming citizens until after a residence of fourteen

years. Not so with General Scott. He went a bow-shot beyond. His mind

inclined to “a total repeal of all Acts of Congress on the

subject,”—to a total denial forever of all political rights to every

human being, young, middle-aged, and old, who had happened to be born

in a foreign country.

Having thus placed himself rectus in curia, as the lawyers would say,

with the Native American party, he then proceeds, as their god-father,

to give them a proper name. In this I do not think his choice was

fortunate. It was a difficult task. It must embrace within its ample

outline both Whigs and Anti-Masons, and yet have so much of the odor

of Native Americanism as to make its savor sweet in the nostrils of

the new party. He says, “I should prefer assuming the designation of

American Republicans, as in New York, or Democratic Americans, as I

would respectfully suggest. Democratic Americans would include all

good native American citizens devoted to our country and its

institutions; and would not drive from us naturalized citizens, who,

by long residence, have become identified with us in feelings and

interest.”

“Democratic Americans!” What a name for a Native American party! When

all the records of our past history prove that American Democrats have

ever opened wide their arms to receive foreigners flying from

oppression in their native land, and have always bestowed upon them

the rights of American citizens, after a brief period of residence in

this country. The Democratic party have always gloried in this policy,

and its fruits have been to increase our population and our power with

unexampled rapidity, and to furnish our country with vast numbers of

industrious, patriotic and useful citizens. Surely the name of

‘Democratic Americans’ was an unfortunate designation for the Native

American party!

But General Scott was not content to be considered merely as a

proselyte to Native Americanism. He claimed the glory of being the

founder of the party. He asserts his claim to this distinguished

honor, which no individual will now dispute with him, in the

postscript to his letter of November, 1844, which was read on the 4th

of February, 1847, before the National Convention of Native American

Delegates, at Pittsburg. In this he says, “writing, however, a few

days ago, to my friend Mayor Harper of New York, I half jocosely said,

that I should claim over him and others the foundership of the new

party, but that I had discovered this glory, like every other American

excellence, belonged to the Father of his Country.”

The Native American party an ‘American excellence,’ and the glory of

its foundership, belongs to George Washington! No, fellow-citizens,

the American people will rise up with one accord to vindicate the

memory of that illustrious man from such an imputation. As long as the

recent memory of our revolutionary struggle remained vividly impressed

on the hearts of our countrymen, no such party could have ever

existed. The recollection of Montgomery, Lafayette, De Kalb,

Kosciusko, and a long list of foreigners, both officers and soldiers,

who freely shed their blood to secure our liberties, would have

rendered such ingratitude impossible. Our revolutionary army was

filled with the brave and patriotic natives of other lands, and George

Washington was their commander-in-chief. Would he have ever closed the

door against the admission of foreigners to the rights of American

citizens? Let his acts speak for themselves. So early as the 26th of

March, 1790, General Washington, as President of the United States

approved the first law which ever passed Congress on the subject of

naturalization; and this only required a residence of two years,

previous to the adoption of a foreigner as an American citizen. On the

29th January, 1795, the term of residence was extended by Congress to

five years, and thus it remained throughout General Washington’s

administration, and until after the accession of John Adams to the

Presidency. In his administration, which will ever be known in history

as the reign of terror, as the era of alien and sedition laws, an act

was passed on the 18th of June, 1798, which prohibited any foreigner

from becoming a citizen until after a residence of fourteen years, and

this is the law, or else perpetual exclusion, which General Scott

preferred, and which the Native American party now desire to restore.

The Presidential election of 1800 secured the ascendency of the

Democratic party, and under the administration of Thomas Jefferson,

its great apostle, on the 14th of April, 1802, the term of residence

previous to naturalization was restored to five years, what it had

been under General Washington, and where it has ever since remained.

No, fellow-citizens, the Father of his Country was never a ‘Native

American.’ This ‘American excellence’ never belonged to him.

General Scott appears to have been literally infatuated with the

beauties of Native Americanism. On the 12th November, 1848, he

addressed a letter in answer to one from a certain “Mr. Hector Orr,

printer,” who appears to have been the editor of a Native American

journal in Philadelphia. This letter is a perfect rhapsody from

beginning to end. Among other things equally extravagant, the General

says: “A letter from him (Benjamin Franklin) were he alive, could not

have refreshed me more than that before my eyes. It gives a new value

to any little good I have done or attempted, and will stimulate me to

do all that may fall in the scope of my power in the remainder of my

life.” What a letter must this have been of Mr. Hector Orr, printer!

What a pity it has been lost to the world! The General concluded by

requesting Mr. Orr to send him “the history of the Native party by the

Sunday School Boy,” and also to consider him a subscriber to his

journal.

But soon there came a frost—a chilling frost. Presto, pass, and

General Scott’s Native Americanism is gone like the baseless fabric of

a vision. Would that it left no trace behind! The celebrated William

E. Robinson, of New York, is the enchanter who removes the spell.

The Whig National Convention of 7th June, 1848, was about to assemble.

General Scott was for the third time about to be a candidate before it

for nomination as President. This was an important—a critical moment.

Native Americanism had not performed its early promise. It was not

esteemed “an American excellence,” even by the Whig party. General

Scott was in a dilemma, and how to extricate himself from it was the

question. The ready friendship of Mr. Robinson hit upon the lucky

expedient. On the 8th May, 1848, he addressed a letter to General

Scott, assuming that the General entertained “kind and liberal views

towards our naturalized citizens.” The General answered this letter on

the 29th May, 1848, just ten days before the meeting of the Whig

Philadelphia Convention; and what an answer! After declaring in the

strongest terms that Mr. Robinson had done him no more than justice in

attributing to him “kind and liberal views toward our naturalized

citizens,” he proceeds: “It is true that in a case of unusual

excitement some years ago, when both parties complained of fraudulent

practices in the naturalization of foreigners, and when there seemed

to be danger that native and adopted citizens would be permanently

arrayed against each other in hostile faction, _I was inclined to

concur in the opinion then avowed by leading statesmen, that some

modification of the naturalization laws might be necessary_, in order

to prevent abuses, allay strife and restore harmony between the

different classes of our people. But later experience and reflection

have entirely removed this impression, and dissipated my

apprehensions.”

The man who had warmly embraced Native Americanism so early as 1836,

and had given it his enthusiastic support for twelve years

thereafter—who next to Washington had claimed to be the founder of

this “American excellence;” who, “fired with indignation,” had in

conjunction with two friends in 1840, prepared an address in his

parlor at the Astor House in New York, designed to rally an American

party; who had, in 1844, hesitated between extending the period of

residence before naturalization to fourteen years, and a total and

absolute exclusion of all foreigners from the rights of citizenship

forever, his mind inclining to the latter; who had in the same year

elevated Hector Orr, the Native American printer, to the same level

with our great revolutionary statesman and patriot, Benjamin

Franklin—this same individual, in 1848, declares to Mr. Robinson, that

he had formerly been merely “_inclined to concur in the opinion then

avowed by leading statesmen_, that some modification of the

naturalization laws might be necessary.”

“Oh! what a fall was there, my countrymen!”

And what caused this sudden, this almost miraculous change of opinion?

Why, forsooth, in his recent campaign in Mexico, the Irish and the

Germans had fought bravely in maintaining our flag in the face of

every danger. But had they not fought with equal bravery throughout

our revolutionary struggle, and throughout our last war with Great

Britain? General Scott could not possibly have been ignorant of this

fact. Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane both attest their gallant daring in

defence of the stars and stripes of our country.

The General now seems determined, if possible, to efface from the

memory of man that he had ever been a Native American. His present

devotion to our fellow-citizens of foreign birth knows no bounds. He

is determined to enlist them under his banner, as he formerly enlisted

the Anti-Masons and Native Americans.

Official business, it seems, required him to visit the Blue Licks of

Kentucky; but yet, it is passing strange, that he chose to proceed

from Washington to that place by the circuitous route of the great

Northern Lakes. This deviation from a direct military line between the

point of his departure and that of his destination has enabled him to

meet and address his fellow-citizens on the way, at Harrisburg,

Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and other points both in

Pennsylvania and Ohio. Should the published programme of his route be

carried into effect, he will, on his return to Washington from the

Blue Licks, pass through Buffalo, and throughout the entire length of

the Empire State. Nobody, however, can for a single moment

suspect—this would be uncharitable—that his visit to the small and

insignificant States of Pennsylvania, Ohio and New York, when merely

on his way from Washington city to Kentucky could at this particular

period have had any view to the Presidential election! Far be it from

me to indulge such a suspicion; and yet it is strange that General

Scott, throughout his whole route, speaks and acts just as General

Scott would have done had he been on an electioneering tour. He has

everywhere bestowed especial favor upon our adopted fellow-citizens;

but at Cleveland he surpassed himself, and broke out into a rhapsody

nearly as violent as that in which he had indulged in favor of Hector

Orr, the Native American printer. At Cleveland, an honest Irishman in

the crowd shouted a welcome to General Scott. Always ready to seize

the propitious moment, the General instantly exclaimed: “I hear that

rich brogue; I love to hear it. It makes me remember noble deeds of

Irishmen, many of whom I have led to battle and to victory.” The

General has yet to learn that my father’s countrymen, (I have ever

felt proud of my descent from an Irishman,) though they sometimes do

blarney others, are yet hard to be blarneyed themselves, especially

out of their Democracy. The General, unless I am greatly mistaken,

will discover that Irish Democrats, however much, in common with us

all, they may admire his military exploits, will never abandon their

political principles, and desert their party, for the sake of

elevating him or any other Whig candidate to the Presidency.

One other remark:—Were it within the limits of possibility to imagine,

which it is not, that our Washingtons, our Jeffersons, or our

Jacksons, could have set out on an electioneering tour for themselves,

when candidates for the Presidency,—I ask, would they have met and

addressed their fellow-citizens on such topics, and in such a style,

as General Scott has selected? No! friends and fellow-citizens,

gravity, solemnity, and the discussion of great questions of public

policy, affecting the vital interests of the country, would have

illustrated and marked their progress.

General Scott, in his political opinions, is prone to extremes. Not

content with having renounced Native Americanism, not satisfied to

occupy the broad, just and liberal platform in favor of

naturalization, on which the Democratic party have stood, ever since

the origin of the Government, he leaves this far behind. In his

letter, accepting the nomination of the Whig Convention, he declares

himself in favor of such an alteration in our naturalization laws, as

would admit foreigners to the rights of citizenship, who, in time of

war, had served a single year in the army or navy. This manifests a

strange, an unaccountable ignorance of the Federal Constitution. Did

he not know that the power of Congress was confined to the

establishment of “an uniform rule of naturalization?” “Uniform” is the

word. Congress have no power to make exceptions in favor of any class

of foreigners; no power to enact that one man shall be naturalized

after a residence of a single year, and that another shall reside five

years before he can attain this privilege. What uniformity would there

be in requiring five years residence from the honest and industrious

foreigner, who remains usefully employed at home, and in dispensing

with this requisition in favor of the foreigner who has enlisted and

served for one year in the army or navy? General Scott, in order to

accomplish his object, must resort to a fourth amendment of the

Constitution. He would make this sacred instrument a mere nose of wax,

to be twisted, and turned, and bent in any direction which the opinion

or caprice of the moment might dictate.

After this review, I ask you, fellow-citizens, what confidence can be

reposed in the political opinions of General Scott? Is there anything

in them of that firm, stable, consistent and enlightened character

which ought to distinguish the man into whose hands you are willing to

entrust the civil destinies of our great, glorious and progressive

country? What security have our adopted citizens that he may not

to-morrow relapse into Native Americanism? For twelve long years, and

this, too, at a period of life when the judgment ought to be mature,

he remained faithful and true to the Native American party; giving it

all the encouragement and support which his high character and

influence could command; and he only deserted it in 1848, at the

approach of the Whig National Convention. And what opinion must the

Native Americans hold of the man, who, after having been so long one

of their most ardent and enthusiastic leaders, abandoned them at the

time of their utmost need? Above all, does Winfield Scott possess that

calm and unerring judgment, that far-seeing sagacity, and that

prudence, never to be thrown off its guard, which we ought to require

in a President of the United States?

That General Scott is a great military man, the people of this country

will ever gratefully and cheerfully acknowledge. History teaches us,

however, that but few men, whose profession has been arms and arms

alone from early youth, have possessed the civil qualifications

necessary wisely to govern a free people. Of this we have had some

experience in the case of General Taylor, who was both an honest man

and a pure patriot; but like General Scott, had always been a soldier

and nothing but a soldier. It is true that a few favored mortals,

emancipating themselves from the military fetters by which they had

been bound, have displayed high talents as statesmen. Napoleon

Bonaparte is the most remarkable example of this class; but his

statesmanship was unfortunately displayed in the skill with which he

forged fetters for his country.

As an American citizen, proud of the military exploits of General

Scott, I wish from my soul he had never become a candidate for the

Presidency. The defects in his character as a statesman, which it has

now become an imperative duty to present to the people of the country,

would then have been forgotten and forever buried in oblivion. But for

this, he would have gone down to posterity without a cloud upon his

glory. And, even now, it is fortunate for his future fame, as well as

for the best interests of his country, that he can never be elected

President of the United States.

A few words on the subject of General Scott’s connection with the Free

Soilers, and I shall have done. And in the first place, let me say

that I do not believe, and therefore shall not assert, that he is

himself a Free Soiler. On the contrary, I freely admit we have

satisfactory proof, that whilst the Compromise Measures were pending

before Congress and afterwards, he expressed his approbation of them,

but this only in private conversations among his friends. But was this

all the country had a right to expect from General Scott?

The dark and portentous cloud raised by the Abolitionists and

fanatics, which had for many years been growing blacker and still

blacker, at length seemed ready to burst upon our devoted heads,

threatening to sweep away both the Constitution and the Union. The

patriots of the land, both Whigs and Democrats, cordially united their

efforts to avert the impending storm. At this crisis, it became the

duty of every friend of the Union to proclaim his opinions boldly.

This was not a moment for any patriot to envelop himself in mystery.

Under such appalling circumstances, did it comport with the frankness

of a soldier, for General Scott to remain silent; or merely to whisper

his opinions to private friends from the South? A man of his elevated

station and commanding influence ought to have thrown himself into the

breach. But the Presidency was in view; and he was anxious to secure

the votes of the Free Soil Whigs of the Seward school, in the National

Convention. Mr. Fillmore, his competitor, had spoken out like a man in

favor of the Compromise, and had thus done his duty to his country. He

was, for this very reason, rejected by the Whig National Convention,

and General Scott was nominated by the votes and influence of the

Northern Free Soil Whigs.

But the Northern Free Soilers had not quite sufficient strength to

secure his nomination. To render this certain, it was necessary to

enlist a small detachment of Southern Whig delegates. This task was

easily accomplished. To attain his object, General Scott had merely to

write a brief note to Mr. Archer.

This was evidently not intended for the public eye, certainly not for

the Free Soilers. It was, therefore, most reluctantly extracted from

the breeches pocket of John M. Botts, and was read to the Convention,

as we are informed, amid uproarious laughter. In this note, General

Scott, with characteristic inconsistency, whilst declaring his

determination to write nothing to the Convention, or any of its

individual members, at this very moment, in the same note, does

actually write to Mr. Archer, a member of the Convention, that should

the honor of a nomination fall to his lot, he would give his views on

the Compromise Measures in terms at least as strong in their favor, as

those which he had read to Mr. Archer himself but two days before.

This pledge which, on its face, was intended exclusively for Governor

Jones, Mr. Botts, and Mr. Lee, etc., all of them Southern Whigs,

proved sufficient to detach a small division of this wing of the party

from Mr. Fillmore, and these, uniting with the whole body of the

Northern Free Soilers, succeeded in nominating General Scott. After

the nomination had been thus made, the General immediately proceeded

to accept it, “with the resolutions annexed;” and one of these

resolutions is in favor of the faithful execution of all the measures

of the Compromise, including the Fugitive Slave Law.

Now, fellow-citizens, I view the finality of the Compromise as

necessary to the peace and preservation of the Union. I say finality;

a word aptly coined for the occasion. The Fugitive Slave Law is all

the South have obtained in this Compromise. It is a law founded both

upon the letter and the spirit of the Constitution; and a similar law

has existed on our statute book ever since the administration of

George Washington. History teaches us that but for the provision in

favor of the restoration of fugitive slaves, our present Constitution

never would have existed. Think ye that the South will ever tamely

surrender the Fugitive Slave Law to Northern fanatics and

Abolitionists?

After all, then, the great political question to be decided by the

people of the country is, will the election of Scott, or the election

of Pierce, contribute most to maintain the finality of the Compromise

and the peace and harmony of the Union?

Scott’s Northern supporters spit upon and execrate the platform

erected by the Whig National Convention. They support General Scott,

not because of their adherence to this platform, but in spite of it.

They have loudly expressed their determination to agitate the repeal

of the Fugitive Slave Law, and thus bring back upon the country the

dangerous excitement which preceded its passage. They will not suffer

the country to enjoy peace and repose, nor permit the Southern States

to manage their own domestic affairs, in their own way, without

foreign interference.

Who can doubt that these dangerous men will participate largely in the

counsels of General Scott, and influence the measures of his

administration? To them he owes his election, should he be elected. He

is bound to them by the ties of gratitude. He is placed in a position

where he would be more or less than a man, if he could withdraw

himself from their influence. Indeed, he has informed us in advance,

in the very act of accepting the nomination, that he would seek to

cultivate harmony and fraternal sentiment throughout the Whig party,

without attempting to reduce its numbers by proscription to exact

conformity to his own views. What does this mean, if not to declare

that the Free Soil Whigs of the North, and the Compromise Whigs of the

South, shall share equally in the honors and offices of the

Administration? In the North, where by far the greatest danger of

agitation exists, the offices will be bestowed upon those Whigs who

detest the Compromise, and who will exert all the influence which

office confers, to abolish the Fugitive Slave Law. To this sad dilemma

has General Scott been reduced.

On the other hand, what will be our condition should General Pierce be

elected? He will owe his election to the great Democratic party of the

country,—a party truly national, which knows no North, no South, no

East, and no West. They are everywhere devoted to the Constitution and

the Union. They everywhere speak the same language. The finality of

the Compromise, in all its parts, is everywhere an article of their

political faith. Their candidate, General Pierce, has always openly

avowed his sentiments on this subject.

He could proudly declare, in accepting the nomination, that there has

been no word nor act of his life in conflict with the platform adopted

by the Democratic National Convention. Should he be elected, all the

power and influence of his administration will be exerted to allay the

dangerous spirit of fanaticism, and to render the Union and the

Constitution immortal. Judge ye, then, between the two candidates, and

decide for yourselves.

And now, fellow-citizens, what a glorious party the Democratic party

has ever been! Man is but the being of a summer’s day, whilst

principles are eternal. The generations of mortals, one after the

other, rise and sink and are forgotten; but the principles of

Democracy, which we have inherited from our revolutionary fathers,

will endure to bless mankind throughout all generations. Is there any

Democrat within the sound of my voice—is there any Democrat throughout

the broad limits of good and great old Democratic Pennsylvania, who

will abandon these sacred principles for the sake of following in the

train of a military conqueror, and shouting for the hero of Lundy’s

Lane, Cerro Gordo, and Chapultepec?

“Remember, O my friends! the laws, the rights,

The gen’rous plan of power deliver’d down,

From age to age, by your renown’d forefathers,

So dearly bought, the price of so much blood;

O! Let it never perish in your hands,

But piously transmit it to your children.”