Indiana Palladium, Volume 4, Number 4, Lawrenceburg, Dearborn County, 2 February 1828 — Page 1

2S .

32 EQUALITY OF RIGHTS IS NATURE'S PLAN AND FOLLOWING NATURE IS THE MARCH OF MAN Barlow. Volume IV. LAWRENCEBURGH, INDIANA; SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1828. Number 4.

jx

- J

IOR. CLAY'S ADDRESS. CONTINUED, In the published circular which, in March 1825, I addressed to my Constituents, I remarked "at that early period" (early in November 1824) "I stated to Dr. Drake, one of the professors in the medical school of Transylvania Univer sity, and to John J. Crittenden, Esq. of Frankfort, my determination to support Mr. Adams in preference to Gen. Jack son." I did not, at that time, recollect, nor do I probably now, all the occasions on which I expressed, in conversation, my opinion of the unfitness of General Jackson for the Presidency, and my pre ference of either of the other candidates. I remembered distinctly the conversa tion 1 had held with Dr. Drake and John J. Crittenden, Esq. and therefore refer red to them. In several instances, simi lar conversations have been since bro't to my recolle tion by gentlemen with whom, or in whose presence they occurred; and it is, from a voluntary and friendly communication of the purport of them, that 1 am now enabled to lay be fore the public a considerable portion of the mass of testimony, (including that of Vr. Jjrake; on that particular topic whh h is now presented. (See Appendix B.) This testimony establishes that, on various occasions and times, beginning in Kentucky as early as about the 1st October 1824, and continued in the City of Washington, down to the period when my determination to vote for Mr. Adams was generally known in this city, I uniformly expressed my onviction of Gen. Jackson's want of qualification, and my fixed resolution not to vote for him, if I were called upon to give a vote. These sentiments, long cherished, were delib erately expressed, to gentlemen of the highest respectability, most of them mv personal and particular friends, in all of whose estimation J must have stood dis honored, if I had voted for General Jackson contrary to my declared purpose. This purpose was avowed immediately preceding my departure from Kentucky to attend Congress, and immediately on my arrival here after the termination of the journey. David Trimble, Esq. states that, about the first October 1824, he held a conversation with me at Frankfort, in Kentucky, on the subject and prospects of the pending election, which he details minute! v, and that in the course of it I said "that I could not con sistently with my principles vote for Gen eral Jackson, under any possible cir&im stances" I urged to him all the objec tions which weighed on my mind, and which have been so often stated, and es pecially that which is founded upon Gen, Jackson's possession of military pretension only. And, in refcren- e to an objection which Mr. Trimble understood me as entertaining against Mr. Ad-; ams, growing our. oi me negotiations at: Ghent, Mr. Trimble states that I remarked, that it had been "greatly magnified by the frtends of his competitors" for electioneering purposes;" "that it ought; to have no influence in the vote which; he might be called upon to give : that, if. he was weak enough to allow his personal feelings to influence his public condu t

there would be no change in his mind ocongress in 1824, and after I Imu seen that account, because he was then on! Mr. Crawford. I stated to Mr. Johnston much worse terms with Gen. Jackson1 that notwithstanding all I had heard, 1 about the Seminole war, than he could, had no idea of his actual condition and ever be with Mr. Adams about the trea-jthat it was out of the question to think of ty of Ghent; that in the selection of a making him president. We converged chief magistrate for the union he would fully on the respective pretensions of Mr. endeavor to disregard all private feelings! Adams and Gmi. Jackson, and, after

and took entirely to the interests of the. country and the safety of its institutions." It appears from the letter of Mr. Robert Trimble, (one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the United States), which accompanies that of Mr. D. Trimble, that the latter had avowed to the former, as early as February or - March 1824, his preference of Mr. Adams to either of the three candidates who were actually returned to the house of representatives. Col. Davidson, (the treasurer of the state of Kentucky, and a man of unblemished honor and unquestionable veracity), states that during a visit which I made to Frankfort in the fall of 1824, and he thinks only a few days prior to my departure from Kentucky, to attend congress, (it must therefore' have been early in November, as I left home before or about the tenth of that month), he had a conversation with me about the then pending presidential election, in the course of which he remarked, trmt I would have some difficulty to encounter in making a selection amongst the can didates if I should be excluded from the no-use. To which I replied: "I suppose

not much; in that event I will endeavor J J..i. iV M 11 IT. II J-

io ao ii;y amy iaiiniuuy. lie auas that I stated in the our?e of the conversation: ! cannot conceive oi any event that can possibly happen whi h ould induce me to support the election of Gen. Jackson to the presidency. For it I had no other objection, his want of the necessary qualifh ation would be sufficient." These remarks made a strong and lasting impression on Col. David son's mind, and when the resolutions were before the legislature, requesting the delegation to vote for Gen. Jackson Col. Davidson informed several of his friends of the conversation with me, and that he was convinced I would not support Gen. Jackson. He communicated the substance of this conversation to George Robison esq. the speaker of the house of representatives of Kentucky. who con urred with him, that I could not consistently, under any circumstan ces vote for Gen. Jackson. When the same resolutions were before the senate, (of which Col. Davidson was then a mem ber), he rose in his place and opposed them, and among the views which he presented to that body, he stated that all the resolutions which thev could pass durin the whole session zcould not induce me to abandon zchat J conceived to be my duly, find that he knew I could not concur with the majority of the legislature cm that subjccU John J. Crittenden, esq. (who i re ferred to in the circular to mv constitu ents, but whose statement has never be fore been exhibited to the public) testi fies: that, "some time in the fall of 1 824 conversing upon the subject of the then pending presidential ele tion, and speaking in reference to your exclusion from the contest, and to your being called up on to decide and vote between the other candidates who might be returned to the house of representatives, you declared that you could not, or that it was imposible for you to vote for Gen. Jackson in any event." My impression is that this conversation took place at Capt. U eisiger s tavern in this town h rank fort, Ky.J not very long before you went on to congress in the fall preceding the last pre sidential election; and that the decla ration made by you as above stated, was elicited by some intimation that fell from me of my preference for Gen. J a kson over all the other candidates except yourself." So unalterably fixed was my resolution prior to my departure from Kentucky, I have no doubt that in my promiscuous and unreserved intercourse among my acquaintances, in that state, others not recollected by me could bear testimony to the undeviating and settled determin ation of my mind. It will be now seen that after and immediately on my arrival at the city of Washington, I adhered to this purpose, and persevered in it until it was exe uted by the actual deposite of my vote in tne Dauot box. In a day or two after I reached the city and on several other occasions I had long and unreserved conversations with Mr Johnston, senator from Louisiana, to an account of which, as given in his let ter in the appendix, I invite particular at tention. The first was on the Saturday or Sunday before the commencement of drawing a parallel between them, I coneluded by expressing a preference for Mr. Adams, which "turned principally on his talents and experience in civil affairs." After the return of the votes of Louisiana, and after the resolutions of' the general assembly of Kentucky were received, Mr. Johnston states my adherence to that preference. He concludes by observing "that no fact ever came to my knowledge that could in the slight est degree justify the charge which has been exhibited. On the contrary, know that your opinion did not under go any change from the time I first saw you on your return to Washington,' that i, prior to the meeting of congress. During the present summer, two gentlemen in the state of Mississippi, voluntarily told Mr. Johnston that they heard me express a decided preference of Mr. Adam, at Lexington, before I left home for Washington. Although not immediately connected with tle main object of this address, I think it proper to refer to a part of Mr. Johnston'? letter assustaining two several statements made by me on former occasions. I stated,'in my address to my cousti-

tuents that, if I had received thevote of

Louisiana and been one ot the three candidates returned, I had resolved, at a time when there was every probability of my receiving it, that I would not allow my name in consequence of the small number of votes by which it would be c arried into the house, if I were returned to constitute an obstacle to an election. Mr. Johnston says: "You replied that vou w uld not permit the country to be disturbs d a dav on ) oui account, that vou would not allow your name to interfere with the prompt derision nf the oueMioi.," J sialeu al iN-uii ? ln near L xii gton, last suinm i, that I had requested a senator when my nominatioi as secretary of siaie was acted upon to move a committee of u quit , it it should am.ear to nim necessaiv. M. Jriiiston m as: Alt r v ur cumulation was con firmed, ou iMt rmed me ttiat you had . . "i . . it . - leuucsieu nee. rj.arieou io move lr a committee in I he senate, if anv thing occurred to make it necessarv. I replied that I did not think any thing had occurred to require a committee on your part." Mr. Beuligr.y, the other senator from Louisiana, between whom and myself u friendly intimacy has existed throughout our acquaintance, makes a statement, which is worthy of peculiar notice. He bore to me the first authentic information which I received of the vote of Louisiana and consequently of my exclusion from the house. And yet, in our first inter view, in answer to an inquiry which he made, I told him, without hesitation, "that I should vote for Mr. Adams in preference to Gen. Jackson." Writh the present secretary of war I had a conversation in the early part of the session of 1G24-5, on returning from dinner, at the Columbia college, at which we both were, in company with Gen. Lafayette and others. Thedavof the dinner was the 15th of December, vhich may be verified by a resort to the National Intelligencer. In the Course of that conversation, Mr. Brbour states that he expressed himself, in the event of (he contest h'ing'narrowed down to Mi. Adams and Gn. Jackson, in favor of M'. Adam-, and Mr. Clay expressed a coincidence of opinion." It will be recollected thai Gen. Lafayette was in Washington during the greater pari of the sessioc of the presidential election. He mentioned the suhj' Ct to me with his charac- . ft ft V T 1 K . lerisuc delicacy. Without seeking to influence my vote, or manifeslii g the least disposition to interfere in the elec tion, he mad1 a simple inquiry of me, which I am quite sure was prompted by the deep interest which he felt in every thing that concerns the welfare of this country. I am happy to be able now to submit the statement of the general of what passed between us on that occasion. He says: "Blessed as I have lately been with the welcome and conscious as it is my happy lot to be of the affection and confidence of all parties and all men in every party within the United States, feelings which I most cordially reeipro cate, I ever have thought myself bound to avoid taking any part in local or per sonal divisions. Indeed, if I thought that in these matters my influence could be of any avail, it should be solely exerted to deprecate, not by far, the free, republican, and full discussion of principles and c andidates, but those invidious slanders which although they are happily repelled by the good sense, the candor, and in domestic instances, by the delicacy of the American people, tend to give abroad incorrect and disparaging impressions. Yet, that line of conduct from which I must not deviate except in imminent cases, now out of the question, does not imply a forgerfulncss of facts nor a refusal to state them occasional!. Mv remembrance conc urs with vour own on this point, that in the latter end of De cembcr, either before or after my isit to Annapolis, vou being out of the presidential candidature, and after havii g expres-ed m abovementioned motives of forbearance, 1 h way of a confidential fexception, allowed rmself to put a sim ple unqualified question, respecting v our electioneering goes-, and your intended vote. Your answer was that in your opinion, the actu tl state of health of Mr. Crawford had limited the contest to a choice between Mr. Adam and Generat Jackson; that a claim founded on military achievements did no' meet your preference, and that you had concluded to vote for Mr. Adams. Such. has been, if not the literal wording, at least the precise sense of a conversation which it would have been inconsistent for me to carry further and not to keep a secret, while a recollection of it, to assist your memory 1 should not now deny, not only

to you as my friend, but to any man in aj

similar situation." Gen. Lafayette was not able to state, with absolute precision, the date of the conversation between us,nor can I under take to specify the day, although I re tain a perfect recollection ot the con versation. It was, he says, "in the latter end of December, either before or after my visit to Annapolis, you being out of the presidential candidature." He left Washington on the 16th for An napolis, and returned on the 21st. See National Intelligencer. If the conver sation took place before that excursion, it must have been on or prior to the 16th of D cember. But he says that I was ut of the presidential candidature." Whether I should be returned to the bouse or not, was not ascertained until the vote of Louisiana was known. Ru mars had reached this city of the ist of ii, previous to the 20th of the month; un the first certain intelligence of it wa? brought here by Mr. senator Bouhgny on the 20 h, according to his recollection, () Gen. Lafayette's return from A'inapolU, the probability is that the subject of the presidential election was a common topic of conversation, as information had then just reached this city from Louisiana. I called to see him immediately after his return, and, as it had been very confidently expected thai I would receive the vote of Louisiana, ii is quite likely that it was on that occasion that he held the conversation with me. This would fix the day to have been prior to Christmas. But whatever was the actual day, there can be no doubt that it was before the memorable interview between Gen. Jackson and Mr. Buchanan. Here, then, is an unbroken chain of testimony, commencing early in October 1824, and extending to nearly the end of the year, establishing, beyond all con troversy, my fixed and unwavering decision not to vote for Gen. Jackson. This purpose is deliberately manifested at different periods in different places, and to distinguished individuals who would have been the last in society that I should have thought of deceiving. This testimony stands unopposed, and with truth, cannot be opposed by a solitary individual. There does not eiist a human being, and if the dead could be reailed, one could not be summoned from he grave, who could truly testify that I ever expressed or ever intimated the remotest intention to vote for Gen. Jackson, in any contingency whatever. As to him, my mind was never for a moment io douht or difficulty. And whatever personal predehction I might have entertained for Mr. Crawford, of whose state of health there were such opposite representations in the public prints, when I saw him myself, there was no alternative in my judgment but that which I embraced. I have reason to believe that Gen. Jackson and his friends cherished no expectation that I would vute for him. Gen. Call, the then delegate from Florida, was his ardent & intimate friend, and had been his aid. They travelled together on their journey to Washington city in the fall of 1824. In a let ter from Gen. Jackson to Mr. Eaton,

which is contained in the 66th page ofjalluded to." Bth of those gentlemen the 23th vol. ofNiles' Register: heslatesjl have been informed are rFRnrrtnhl

that Gen. Call was with him on that journey, and he refers to him as ccrroberating nis own memory relative to a I 1 M transaction at Washington, (Pennsylva nia.) It is presumable that the election with its prospects and hopes must have frequently formed a subject of conversa tion on the journey. It can scarcely be doubted that Gen. Call waa well ac quainted with Gen. Jackson's views and expectations. At a tavern at Rockville, in Maryland, about fifteen miles from this cit), during that same journey, Gen. Call and several other gentlemen enga ged in conversation about the presiden tial election. John Braddoctf, esq. (a gentleman not known to me, but who I understand, is a merchant of great respectability), was present; and he states that "when the vote which Mr. Clay would probabl) give was spoken of, Gen. Call declared that the friends of Gen. Jackson did not expect Mr. Clay to vote for him,and if he did so, it would be an act of duplicity on his part." See appendix C In Gen. Jackson's address to the public of the 18th of July last, touching his previous statements to xiir. Beverly, and communicating the name of Mr Buchanan, as the gentleman who bop the imaginary overture, he says, "the origin the beginning of this matter was at my own house and fireside; when surely a freeman may be permitted to speak on public topics, without havingj

ascribed to him improper designs.'

From this statement, the fair inference is that Gen. Jackson intends to aver that he had never before spoken of his charge against me. The "origiuthe beginning" of this matter was, he says, at his own fireside,' that is, it was in March, 1827, when according to Mr. Beverly, before a crowd of company, of which there were no less than seven Virginians he proclaimed his accusation. The obligation to observe the principles of honor, and to epeak with scrupulous veraci ty of all men, and especially of our com petitors, is unaffected by time or place. The domestic fireside has no privilege which exempts a man of honor from the force of that obligation. On the contrary there, more than in any other place, in the midst of one's family, should examples be exhibited of truth, of chaiity, ana oi kindness towards our fellow men. All the surroui dii:g circumstances tend to soothe the vindictive passions, and to incubate moderation. Whether the privileges of the don.t-stic circle hav been abused by Gen. Jackson, or not, in my instai.ct , let ti e impartial or!d de ride. The i ttitude in wl ich he stood before the American pecple, and the subsisting relations between him and me, one might have supposed would prompt him to the observance of the greatest delicacy. Ha: he practised it? If indeed, in an unguarded moment of hilarity, amidst his convivial friends, in his own domic il, he had incautiously touched a subject, respecting uhich he might have been expected to prescribe to himself the most profound tilence, he might possibly find, not any justification, but some excuse for hi? indiscretion, in the public liberality. But what must be the general surprise when the fact turns cut to ba mot uiii-me ucgiuniPg' OI inii matter with Gen. Jackson, was not, as he alleges, in March, 1827, but at least two years before; not, as he alleges, at his own fireside, but in public places, on the highway, at taverns, and on board a steam boat ! I have expected to receive testimony to establish the fact of his promulgating his charge on all those various occasions, during his journey on his return from Congress, in March, 1 825. At present, I have only obuined it in part, See Appendix D. Mr. Daniel Large testifies "that on my way down the Ohio fiom Wheeling to Cincinnati, in the month of March, 1825, on board the steam-boat General Neville, among many other passengers were Gen. Jackson and a number of gentlemen from Pennsylvania, some of whom remarked to the General that they reretted that he had nor been elected President instead of Mr. Adams. Gen, Jackson replied, that if he would have made the same promises and effers to M'. Clay, that Mr. Adams had done, he (Gen. Jackson) would then, in that case, have been in the Presidential chair, but he would make no promises to any; that if he went to the presidential chair, he would go with clean hands and uncontrolled by any one." To this statement, Mr. William Crosdell, who was present, ubj. ins a certificate that "it is a faithful account olT,Pn. Jackson' conversation on the occasion iormed are resoectahl citizens of Philadelphia. I have understood, that to the Reverend Andrew Wylie, Major Davis, a. d others in Washington, in Pennsylvania, on one occasion; at a tavern in West Alexandria the same county on another; at Brownsville; at Cincinnati; at Louisville; and at Bowling Green, in a tavern, in Kentucky, Gen. Jackson made similar assertions. Should the additional proof expected arrive, it shall be preseated to the public. Whether such was the design or not, General Jackson appears to have proclaimed his accusation, at such convenient and separated point?, as would insure its general circulation. We have the testimony of Gen. Duff Green, (which is at least admissible on such an occasion) that he per sonnlly knew of General Jackson speaking to the same effect as early as March. 1C25. Thus it appears that, in March, 1S25 at various places,in thepresence of many persons, Gen. Jackson took upon him self to represent that Mr. Adams had made offers to me, and that if he had made similar proposals, he, and not Mr. Adams, would have heen elected Presi dent. With what truth then can he ass ert, as he has done, that the "orimV of his charge was two years afterwards at his own fireside? Or that-he "has notv. gone into the highways and market Dia-r ces" to proclaim his opinions?

mUt be has made no protest against