Chapter II (1)

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.