Chapter II (2)

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.”