A document for all thinking men : The political letters and writings of General Scott, reviewed, discussed, and compared. His native Americanism proved by his own words! His support of the bankrupt law proved by his own words! His support of the United States bank proved by his own words! His ignorance of the Constitution proved by his own words! His hostility to Catholics proved by his own words! And, finally, his incompetence, his aristocracy, and his persevering efforts against the naturalization laws, proved by his own words! A DOCUMENT FOR ALL THINKING MEN! THE POLITICAL LETTERS AND WRI- TINGS OF GENERAL SCOTT, REVIEWED, DISCUSSED, AID COMPARED. His Native Americanism proved by his own words! His support of the Bankrupt Law proved by his own words ! His support of the United States Bank proved by his own words ! His ignorance of the Constitution proved by his own words ! His hostility to Catholics proved by his own words ! And , finally, his incompetency, his aristocracy, and his per- severing efforts against the naturalization laws, proved by his own words! GENERAL SCOTT’S POLITICAL LETTERS AND PRODUCTIONS. The following are all the political letters and productions of General Scott, written and printed before his nomination by the last Whig Na- tional Convention, and since he has been an aspirant for presidential honors. They will be useful as matters of reference during the present campaign. Constituting, as they do, the chart of his political faith, they deserve to be read and reviewed with care; and coming, as they do> from the whig candidate for President, they should be carefully preserved. By whomsoever perused, however, these productions will create no senti- ment of admiration for the writer. Lacking in good sense, in good taste, and even in literary accuracy, they alternately exhibit him as vain, domi- neering, and shallow. HIS ARDENT NATIVE AMERICANISM. General Scott’s devotion to the principles of Native-Americanism—hi'^ hostility to foreigners—appears to be about the only fixed principle of his mind. Surrounded by contradictions and denials it may be, but it oftea 2 reappears above (lie chaos of his thoughts with more than its original earnestness. It is true that, in his letter of October 25, 1841, which is the first in the list below published, he announces that, “ I (he) felt the liveliest joy, when the alien and sedition laws expired, in the triumph of Mr. Jefferson and it is also true that at the close of the same letter he says that he would accept a nomination for the presidency, “ provided that I (he) be not required to renounce any principle professed above” — that is, in the same letter; and he then adds, with great fervor and force, u my principles are convictions.” But itavill presently appear that of all his expedients to reform the naturalization laws, those which looked to their practical abrogation are clearly the only real sentiments of his heart. As an evidence, equally of his sympathy with the very alien law over whose repeal he rejoices in 1841, reference may be made to his letter of 10th November, 1S41, in the same year , (or No. 2 of those printed below,) in which he shows that, on three distinct occasions, he was ready and anx- ious to take part against the adopted citizens, and in favor of the Native- Americans. He was an early idolater ofthat most pestilential creed. “These views,” he says, in the letter just alluded to, “had their origin in the stormy elections of the spring of 1S35, and were confirmed in the week that the Harrison electors were chosen in New York”—which was in November of 1840. He goes on: u On both occasions I was in that city, and heard in the streets, ‘Down with the natives.’ It was heard in almost every group of foreigners as the signal for rallying and outrage. Fired with indignation, two friends sat down with me in my parlor at the Astor House, (November, 1840,) to draw up an address to rally an American "party.” Of the manner in which these views continued to control him, observe how, in the same letter, for the third time, he repeats and ampli- fies them: “ 1 now hesitate between extending the period of residence before naturalization and the total repeal of all acts of Congress on the subject. My mind inclines to the latter.” In his letter of October 25, 1841, he rejoices over the repeal of the alien law, enacted under John Adams, in 1793, which provided that all foreigners should remain four- teen years in this country before they could be entitled to a vote. (See page 540, Story and Sharswood’s United States Statutes at Large ) Even when he wrote this letter, he had, six years before, imbibed hostile views to the foreigners—views which were “confirmed,” one year before, in the Harrison campaign; views which, one year after, he imbodied in the sweeping declaration that he was in favor of the repeal of all our naturalization laws—thus deliberately proclaiming sentiments in regard to the alien law which his own action before, and directly after, rebuked — at the same time that he entertained and finally avowed a change on the subjection of naturalization, which contemplated a more radical change than even that alien law at whose overthrow he had rejoiced ! In com- menting upon General Scott’s letter of acceptance, which concludes the list, we shall contrast his new views with his old views, and prove that extremes are often reconciled by effecting the same results. When Gen- eral Scott wrote his letter in 1841—dating his Nativism in 1836, six years before—tile bloody and fatal riots in Philadelphia had not yet taken place. But it is notorious that that letter was fuel added to the fire, and was held up as the invocation to. those frightful excesses and crimes of May and June, 1844. 3 • SCOTT ADVOCATES THE UNITED STATES BANK AND THE BANKRUPT LAW IN 1841. General Scott, in his first letter, (October. 25, 1841.,) takes ground in distinct' terms in favor of the Bankrupt law and a Bank of the United States. These were the measures of the extra session of 1841—a session so fatal to the interests of the whig party, and which, but for Mr. Tyler’s vetoes, woyild have proved fatal to many of the great interests of the coun- try. The bankrupt bill became a law in that session. When General Scott approved and applauded it, it was inflicting the most direful conse- quences upon the country. Though it existed but a short time, it was wielded with tremendous power to obliterate honest debts, and to plunder honest industry and useful enterprise. It is estimated that four hundred millions of debts were sponged out by this sweeping process. General Scott would have voted for this law, as well as for a Bank of the United States, and this in the face of the fact that the nation was suffering deeply from the one—so deeply, indeed, that the same Congress which enacted it was compelled to repeal it; and that every institution like a Bank of the United States had inflicted indescribable misery upon the country; had robbed the laboring masses; had defrauded its innocent stockholders; had imposed crushing burdens upon the people, and discouraged industry and enterprise in all quarters of the land. We need not multiply the proofs of the amount of injury inflicted upon the people by the bank, but it may not be out of place to recall some of the consequences of the bankrupt law of 1841, for which General Scott says he would have voted had he been in Congress during the celebrated extra session. It will be recollected that that law was enacted during the extra session of 1841 by a party vote, and that it remained in operation until March, 1843, when the same Congress which created it, alarmed at the universal outburst of alarm and indignation which greeted its operation, repealed it entirely. Mr. Benton said, in the Senate, on the 11th of January, 1843, that the bankrupt law (approved by General Scott) “ annihilated involun- tary bankruptcy; made all persons, traders or not, volunteers who chose to be so; released all debts at the will of the debtor, without the consent of a single creditor, and committed the most daring outrage upon the laws of property which the world ever beheld /” Hon. Garret Davis, of Kentucky, (whig,) in announcing himself for the repeal of the law, said that a his course was taken in consequence of the well-settled and well-ascertained wishes of his constituents, nine in ten of whom were opposed to the law. He admitted that he was not bound to obey all the admonitions of popular feeling, but in the present instance their judgment was the result of time and of deliberation.” Hon. Thomas F. Marshall (whig) u made a legal and constitu- tional argument in explanation of his objections to the bankrupt law; and then said, that beyond these objections he had the imperative voice of his constituents at home to urge him to seek its repeal.” Senator Allen (democrat) “ considered the law condemned by the undivided voice of the country. The House of Representatives, in con- formity to the will of the people, had passed a bill for the repeal of the act. # # Therefore, he would vote against the amendments of the committee, if for no other reason, because any amendment of the 4 \ bill of the House would have an effect to continue this odious law on the statute-book.’ ’ The legislature of New Hampshire, in instructing their senators to vote for the repeal of the bankrupt law, advocated by General Scott, said that “ it disregards the sanctity of all existing contracts and the vested rights of creditors, and at one sweep both strips the States of authority always heretofore exercised in insolvent cases, even under the old bank- rupt law of 1801, and robs the whole class of creditors, female as well as male, orphans and minors as well as adults, of rights and privileges deemed till now inviolate, and secured by all the sacredness of private contracts and the strongest force of State legislation !” This was the law which General Scott would have voted for had he been in Congress in 1841. General Scott tells us that his “ principles are convictions,” in his letter of October, 1S41, and in his subsequent letters he affects a recanta- tion of some of the views he then expressed ; but the reader will observe that he recants no one of his opinions so warmly avowed in favor of the bankrupt law, the Bank of the United States, and the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of the public lands. On the contrary, in his letter of acceptance in June last, he distinctly refers “ to the well-known inci- dents of his long public life”—these three being a portion of those inci- dents—as the best guarantee or pledge he can give to the country for his future course. His nutions in favor of a modified veto were proclaimed in 1841, and repeated in 1852 • and this in the teeth of the fact that Mr. Tyler’s vetoes in 1 84 L had saved the country from incalculable disas- ter, and that the system of the Independent Treasury, built upon the ruins of the vetoed Bank of the United States, had diffused confidence and security among our monetary circles, from the day of its re-establish- ment, without interruption, down to the present hour. SCOTT AND PICRCE CONTRASTED. We pass over General Scott’s letter upon slavery. Any candidate in the hands of Mr. Seward may safely proclaim any opinions hb pleases. He must to the last be controlled by that arch agitator, as he has hereto- fore been, and as he is now controlled by him. Gen. Scott may be ad- vocated by the southern whigs, as he is, as standing upon the whig plat- form erected at Baltimore, in June ; and he may be presented to the North by Mr. Greeley and his coadjutors, as he is, as a candidate forced to accept that platform or to forego his nomination ; but, however pledged and however committed, Mr. Seward will prove to be the soul of his ad- ministration, should he be elected, and will impregnate the whole policy of the government with his views. It is asserted that it is this argument that must finally concentrate upon Scott the abolition and free-soil votes of the North ; and that such is the object of Mr. Seward cannot be de- nied. Indeed, that he uses every southern objection to Scott as a north- ern argument in his favor, is extremely notorious. But there is no voter who professes to love the truth—whether he be free-soiler, abolitionist, or southerner—who would not prefer the direct, unequivocal, and straight- forward policy of Pierce, on all questions, slavery inclusive, to the half- hearted, double-faced , many- sided creed of General Scott, as illus- trated by his owTn opiir and the acts of his friends on all subjects. 5 GENERAL SCOTT AND ANNEXATION. General Scott takes ground, in his letter No. 4, for the peaceable an- nexation of Canada ; but he is evidently against any more southern ac- quisitions. How soon or near the day may be when Canada shall be- come a portion of the United States is abundantly apocryphal 5 but the broad historical fact stands out for reflection and for reference, that the party to which General Scott is now allied has always been hostile to the extension of our institutions, to the enlargement of our territories, and to that safe and steady progress which is the offspring of a people gov- erned by impulses and by laws like ours. At first as at the last, in the beginning as at the present day, the cry has been maintained, u no more territory and whether it was heard against Jefferson when he pur- chased Louisiana, or against Polk when he annexed Texas or acquired. California, it came from the same men and from the same party. In just and harmonious concordance with this watchword was the crusade against the emigration, or, what is the same, the naturalization of for- eigners, headed by Scott and the Native-American whig party. How" full of significance is General Scott’s appeal to Canada, when contrasted with his silence upon the blessings and benefits that have flowed from our acquisitions in other quarters ! How eloquent his subsequent refusal to notice the results of the nuptials between California and the American Union ! And yet how constantly and chillingly all this is contrasted with his former wilful blindness to acknowledge the incalculable local and national advantages that have vindicated the purchase of Louisiana and the annexation of Texas ! Is the cheap proffer of Canada intended as a rebuke to that which the whole world applauds and admires in the ex- ample presented by our southwestern acquisitions, or as a promise to conciliate prejudices that continue to assail the territorial policy of the democratic party? GENERAL SCOTT’S INSULT TO THE ADOPTED CITIZENS WHO FOUGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY IN THE REVOLUTIONARY AND LATE WARS. The next letters (numbers 5 and 6) are those upon which his recanta- tion of Native-American doctrines is based. They are addressed, respect- ively, to W. E. Robinson, esq., one of the editors of Greeley’s New York Tribune, and Robert Tyler, esq., of Philadelphia. The letter to Mr. Robinson contains an error in point offact. In that letter General Scott tries to create the impression that he wrote his Native-American letter (of November 10, 1841) in a state of excitement. The excitement he refers to took place in 1840, when Harrison was elected, and did not exist when he wrote his Native letter, one year after. This Native-Ameri- can letter was a cool, deliberate, and well-digested performance, and, as we shall presently show, is entirely consistent with the avowals made since he recanted that letter. The main reason for this haif-recantation of General Scott is, because the adopted citizens behaved bravely in Mexico. The excuse is as gross an insult as the original outrage it is intended to palliate and gloss over. Pray, General Scott, did the adopted citizens not behave well in the last war with England ? Did they not behave well in the revolutionary war? If they did—and you dare not controvert history and say they did not—why did not the recol- lection of their valor in both of our wars for independence (in one of 6 which you served) save them from your bitter, proscriptive, and most in- tolerant scheme of disfranchisement, indulged and advocated from 1835 down to 1841 and 1844? It is simply to expose either your scant logic or your large insincerity, to allege that you waited to be convinced of their bravery in Mexico, where you punished almost the only adopted citizens that ever forgot the American flag, or entitled themselves to the execration and scorn of patriotic Irishmen, Germans, and Frenchmen. Ineffable and consummate argument ! How long he waited for the truth ! He was not convinced by Lafayette and his legions ; by Montgomery ; by Kosciusko ; by Pulaski ; by De Kalb, and by the masses of for- eigners who poured out their blood in the seven years’ war of the Revo- lution, and afterwards sacrificed their lives on land and sea in our final conflict with England. While the country erected monuments to the illustrious dead, while history recorded their gallant deeds, and while the doors of the Union were thrown wide open to the widest wave of emigration^ as a tribute to the sentiment that never forgets a national favor, General Scott refused to be convinced, and went on preparing his schemes of proscription of the adopted citizens. Penitence like this, even if unsustained by subsequent attempts at reform on the same subjects, all looking to the practical exclusion of the foreigner from the advantages of emigration, amounts to less than nothing. We now give the letters, in regular order: No. 1. On Parly Politics—The Judiciary— The Executive Veto—Rotation in Office—One Presidential Term— Agency of the President in Legislation—Secret Y LEADING STATESMEN, that some modification of the naturalization laws might be necessary, in order to prevent abuses, allay strife, und restore harmony between the different classes of our people. But later experi- ence and reflection have entirely removed this impression and dissipated my apprehensions. In my recent campaign in Mexico a very large portion of the men under my command were your countrymen—Irish, Germans, &c. I witnessed with admiration their zeul, fidelity, and valor in maintaining our fl \g in the face of every danger, vieing with each other and our native- born soldiers in the same ranks in patriotism, constancy, and heroic daring. I v,;.:. happy to call them brothers in the field, as I shall always be happy to salute them as countrymen at home. 1 remain, sir, with great esteem, yours, truly, WINFIELD O'JOTT. Wm. E. Robinson, esq. Then, in order of time, comes the Elizabethtown speech, delivered in the winter of 1848. It contains the. following passage : “ You have been pleased, sir, to allude to our adopted citizens. I can say that the Irish, the Germans, the Swiss, the French, the Britons, tnd other adopted citizens, fought in the same ranks, under the same colors, side by side wk ; . native-born Americans, exhibiting like courage and efficiency, and uniting at every victory in the same enthusiastic shouts in honor of yur flag and country. From Vera Cruz to the city of Mexico, tii£re was one gen‘ rcus rivulry in heroic daring and r.RiLLiANT achievements. Let those who witnessed that career of valor and patriotism say, if 'hey can, what race, according to numbers, contributed most to the gene- ra! success and glory of the campaign, in the many hard-fought battles there was no room for invidiotr- i lstinction. All proved themselves the faithful sons of our beloved country, and no spectator could fail to dismiss any imaginary prejudice he might have entertained as to the comparative merits of Americans by birth and Americans by adoption.” The sixth letter is as follows: No. 6. * Washington, March, 11, 1852. Gentlemen: I have received your note, inviting me to join you at Philadelphia in the ceU- bration of the approaching St. Patrick’s day—an honor which I regret the pressure of business obliges me to decline. Yv.u do me but justice in supposing me to feel a lively interest in Ireland and her sons. Perhaps no man, certainly no American, owes so much to the valor and blood of Irishmen as myself. Many of them marched and fought under my command in the war of 3 812—’15, and many more — thousands—in the recent war with Mexico, not one of whom was ever known to turn his back upon the enemy or a friend. ' * I salute you, gentleman, with my cordial respects, WINFIELD SCOTT. R. Tyler, C. McCauIlay, W. Dickson, P. W. Conroy, and J. McCann, esqs., committee, &c., &c. We now come to the letters' of General Scott immediately before and directly after his nomination by the Whig National Convention. Like those which had preceded them, they are either ridiculous in themselves or else in contradiction of some previ usly expressed principle, even if it had been a “ conviction.” The following epistle was coaxed out of the breeches-pocket of John M. Botts by Mr. Choate, of Boston, in the Whig National Convention, and was read in the midst of uproarious laughter: Letter to Mr. Archer. My Dear Sir : I keve decided lo write nothing to the convention, or to any individual member, before nomination ; but should that honor Jail to my lot, I shall, m my acceptance, give my views on the Compromise measures in terms at least as strorg in their favor as those 1 read to you two days since. U3" Please say as much to my mends Governor Jones, Mr. Botls, Mr. Lee, &c. in haste, truly yours, WINFIELD SCOTT. To Hon W. S. Archer. t is As all this took place before the nomination; of course it was set down as another of the blunders of General Scott; who always wields the pen with the most ludicrous air in the world. Immediately that he was nominated by the convention; and before he had had any official notification of the fact; he telegraphed his acceptance . The hot haste—the anxiety ; lest somebody else might step in and carry off the doubtful honor, and the eagerness to assume the candidacy—ren- dered this, probably, the most ridiculous and undignified of the whole- series of farces which he has been enacting before the country. We give this despatch, as follows: “ Washington, June 21, 1852. “ Having the honor of being the nominee for President by the Whig National Convention, I shall accept the same, with the platform of principles which the convention has laid down. Please show this to G. B. Duncan. “With respects to friends, “ WINFIELD SCOTT.” The famous letter of acceptance of General Scott addressed to General Chapman, president of the whig convention, is that which follows : Washington, June 24, 1852. Sir. : I have bad the honor to receive from your hands the official notice of my “ unanimous nomination as the whig candidate for the office of President of the United States,” together with a “ copy of the resolutions passed by the convention, expressing their opinions upon some of the most prominent questions of national policy.” This great distinction, conferred by a numerous, intelligent, and patriotic body, representing millions of my countrymen, sinks deep into my heart; and, remembering the very eminent names which were before the convention in amicable competition with my own, I am made to feel, oppressively, the weight of responsibility belonging to my new position. Not having written a word to procure this distinction* I lost not a moment, after it had been conferred, in addressing a letter to one of your members to signify what would be, at the proper time, the substance of my reply to the convention ; and 1 now have the honor to repeat, in a more formal manner, as the occasion justly demands, that I accept the nomination, with the res- olutions annexedy The political- principles and measures laid down in those resolutions are so broad that but little is left for me to add. I therefore barely suggest, in this place, that should I, by the par- tiality of my countrymen, be elevated to the Chief Magistracy of the Union, I shall be ready, in my connexion with Congress, to recommend or to approve of measures in regard to the man- agement of the public domain so as to secure an early settlement of the same favorable to actual settlers, but consistent, nevertheless, v/ith a due regard to the equal rights of the whole Ameri- can people in that vast national inheritance ; and also to recommend or approve of a single alter- ation in our naturalization laws, suggested by my military experience, viz : Giving to all foreign- ers the right of citizenship who shall faithfully serve, in time of war, one year on board of our public ships, or in our land forces, regular or volunteer, on their receiving an honorable discharge from the service. ® In legard. 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 should seek to cultivate harmony and fraternal sentiments throughout the whig party, without attempting to reduce its members by proscription to exact conformity to my own views. But I should, at the same time, be rigorous in regard to qualifications for office—retaining and appointing no one either deficient in capacity or integrity, or in devotion to liberty, to the constitution, and the Union. Convinced that harmony or good-will between the different quarters of our broad country is essential to tbepresent and future interests of the republic, and with a devotion to those interests that can know no South nor no North, I should neither countenance nor tolerate any sedition djsorder, faction, or resistance to the law or the Union, on any pretext, in any part of the land: and 1 should cany into the civil administration this one principle of mi litary conduct—obedience to the legislative and judicial departments of government, each in its constitutional sphere—sav- ing only, in respect to the Legislature, the possible resort to the veto power—always to be most cautiously exercised, and under the strictest restraints and necessities. Finally, for my strict adherence to the principles of the whig party, as expressed in the reso- lutions of the convention, and herein suggested, with a sincere and earnest purpose to advance the greatness and happiness of the republic, and thus to cherish and encourage the cause of con- stitutional liberty throughout the world, avoiding every act and thought that might involve our country in an unjust or unnecessary war, or impair the faith of treaties, and discountenancing 14 all political agitation injurious to the interests of society ami dangerous to the Union, I can offer no other pledge or guarantee than the known incidents of a long pablic life, now undergoing the severest examination. Feeling myself highly fortunate in my associate on the ticket, and with a lively sense of my obligations to the convention, and to your personal courtesies, 1 have the honor to remain, sir, with great esteem, your most obedient servant, WINFIELD SCOTT. To the lion. J. G. Chapman, President of the Whig National Convention. HIS LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE CONSIDERED, AND I1IS NEW NATIVE AMER- ICANISM EXAMINED. General Scott having had before him the map of his past life, with all the blunders he had committed and confessed, when he signed and addressed his letter of acceptance, the style and the suggestions of the document just printed are all the more deliberate and well-digested. Both eloquently and startlingly show that the author of such a letter can never be President of the United States with safety to the true interests of the country. If siich a man had been the victor of a hundred battle- fields, it would only have induced him to believe in the infallibility of his views on matters of state, and to pres£ these views upon the country at every hazard, and with all the vehemence and force of his domineer- ing nature. Ridiculed by thousands of whigs for his vanity and his blunders—his infirmities alike of disposition and of intellect—and ad- monished by the criticisms of the press of all parties, pointing out his defects of character, he embarks as a candidate for the presidency, upon the avowal of doctrines which excite either the contempt or the indigna- tion of the people. General Scott's great idea of politics is , dread of the vote and influence of the adopted citizens. This is the first article in his creed; and to this he has adhered with the most tenacious grasp, from the first to the last. True to this sentiment, he goes on to pay homage to it, even after he has unequivocally regretted and withdrawn it. In the midst of his compelled tributes to the bravery of the foreigners in defence of our flag, he cannot refrain from troubling his brain with plans for resisting their naturaliza- tion according to the constitution. Take what we know of General Scott’s political history, as disclosed in the papers he has written, and in the words he has spoken, and his Alpha and Omega of government resolves itself into a deep, absorbing, and ever-present alarm that our liberties are in danger of being overborne and overwhelmed by “ foreign influence” upon these shores. And show us such a man, fellow-citizens, in any class or community of men, and we will point you to a man of envious spirit, narrow and malignant feelings, and intolerant and proscriptive nature. Next to a bigot in religion, a bigot in politics is perhaps the bit- terest and the worst; but when, as in the present instance, political bigotry is nearly allied to religious bigotry, there is difficulty in discrimi- nating between the two. The reform of General Scott in our naturalization laws, contained in his letter of acceptance, lacks every element to render it practicable or reasonable. It is based neither upon constitutional law nor common sense. It is either intended as an insult to the constitution or to the for- eigner; for if it can be carried out, it must be against the mandate of the first; and if it cannot be, it holds out a false light to the second. Fairly considered, it is a more sweeping proposition against the naturalization laws than that proposed by his celebrated letter to the Native American 15 leader in 1841 ; for while it affects sympathy for the adopted citizen, it proposes that which, even if it ever could be rendered operative, would be a partial, aristocratic, and degrading innovation. But it mocks the sentiment it pretends to conciliate. It proclaims a promise which never can be fulfilled. It offers a reward for valor on the one hand, while it excludes the equally worthy on the other. General Scott’s plan of con- ferring the right of citizenship upon all foreigners who have served one year in the army or the navy of the United States in time of war, clearly conflicts with that provision of the constitution which provides for ee a uni- form rule of naturalization.” [See section 8, article 1, constitution United States.] Any other man making such a suggestion would, be called ignorant of this notorious provision of the constitution of the United States. But General .Scott’s friends claim for him a large amount of civil qualifications; and as his letter of acceptance was printed under the auspices of the leaders of the whig party and the advisers of General Scott, it may be said to be eminently well-advised. General Scott tells us in this letter that he is for “avoiding every act and thought that might involve our country in an unjust or an unnecessary war.” Now, as his whole present scheme against the naturalization laws—indeed, as his only great idea of political reform is based upon the contingency of a war, without which the entire project becomes worse than contemptible, the value of his pledge against a wait may be estimated at a glance. General Scott must, then, invent a war as soon as possible, in order to give effect to his scheme. Whether it is to be a war to annex Canada to the United States, according to the suggestions of General Scott, or a war of sections between the North and the South, growing out of the phrenzied movements of fanaticism, we cannot now divine. But let us suppose the war fairly inaugurated, and General Scott’s plan fairly tried. The emi- gration of foreigners to the United States amounts to about three hundred thousand souls annually; and there are, therefore, constantly thousands who await the expiration of the period of probation fixed by the national law. We had a foretaste of the anxious and enthusiastic patriotism of the foreigners during the war with Mexico. They rushed in masses to the standard of the republic, emulating the native-born citizens in their eagerness to march to those fields which, subsequently, they aided to illuminate with victory. But they could not all be accommodated. There were so many more contending to go than the government, or than Gene- ral Taylor, or General Scott could take or could use, that the vast ma- jority got no chance to fight. It would be the same in any future war, except that as our population increases, and our institutions become more precious in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world, the interest to strike for our flag would be greater, and the numbers volunteering their services to strike would be larger. Under General Scott’s plan, it would then not be the brave but the lucky foreigner that would be rewarded with the right of suffrage. He who remained behind because he could get no chance to show his love for his country, became practically dis- franchised. The foreigner who could get no opportunity to bare his bosom in battle, and who staid back to till the glebe, to build the city, to dig the canal, to open into the far west the railroad, and to break the way for the sun of intelligence and of freedom to shine into and redeem the wilderness, would be compelled to wait five years for his vote, while his more fortunate, and, possibly, less patriotic and deserving brother, who 16 had been a year in war, got the right in one ! It will be observed that the only qualification of the voter recognised by General Scott is, that he should be taught in the school of war ! No other seems to be entertained even for a moment. The arts of peace, the knowledge of our institutions, the blessed and blessing influences of popular intelligence, have no place in his plan. At least, if his invention be inconsistent with all things else; if it defy the constitution and trample upon the law. and erect a new standard for the emulation of our people; if it be all of these, it is, at all events, consistent with General Scott himself , who, without his military name , icould be a sorry sight indeed. But not only would this, his pana- cea for all our public evils, operate, as we have shown, upon those who might go to war, and upon those who would stay at home. If General Scott means anything, lie means that one year’s service in time of war would be enough for any man. This would answer for the volunteer, who so rarely offers for more than one year. But how with the poor Irish and German regulars who enlisted under our laws for a series of years, and who, after securing the right to vote, must serve out their full time before getting a chance^to do so? How in the navy, where the cruise or term of service rarely extends for less than three years? We leave the friends of Scott to reconcile the difficulty as they best can. It must not be forgotten that this letter of acceptance of General Scott is his last demonstration on the naturalization laws. We think we have shown that it is more certain to produce fatal consequences even than his letter of 1841, when he proposed abolishing the whole system of naturalization. He is fond of going to extremes ; but he seems to know that extremes may sometimes be reconciled. His idea 'in 1841 against the naturalization of all foreigners was not less drastic than his scheme of 1852, to give the right to vote to all who had served one year in the army or navy in time of war. Either will produce nearly the same results; for, if the one sought to destroy the rights of the adopted c.tizens at one fell swoop, the other, by breaking down the barriers of the constitution, by arousing animosities between different classes of foreigners on these shores, and between the foreigners and the native-born citizens, and by making mere prowess in war the first of all civic qualifications and honors, would leave us a nation without laws to obey or citizens to de- fend them, and, finally, would consolidate all power in the hands of a monster military despotism. GENERAL SCOTT’S “ AMERICUS” LETTER, OR HIS NATIVE AMERICANISM IN A NEW GARB ! In conclusion. We expected that the letter of acceptance would be the fitting finale of these extraordinary displays of weakness, inconsistency, and ignorance, made manifest by a fair examination of General Scott’s letters ; but, lo ! another proof of his fatuity and bigotry rises to our view. The following is the argument of General Scott, published on the 17th of December, 1844, in the National Intelligencer, Washington, D. C., and though not signed by himself, bearing all the evidences of his style, and so well known to be his work that no attempt has yet been made, be- cause none can successfully be made, to deny it. This remarkably foolish and proscriptive paper was written, or at least printed, and '' ributed personally by the General among his friends iii this city, to n he avowed its authorship, about three years after the 17 date of his famous Astor House letter to George W. Reed, in which he gave an account of his sitting down in a very indignant state with his friends, at the Astor House, to rally a Native American party. In that letter he said : “ Should any considerable number of my fellow-countrymen assign me, or desire to give me, a prominent position before the public, l shall take time to methodize my views on the great questions you have proposed.” In the course of the three following years he probably methodized his views, and here we have them: What is the gist of this proposal of General Scott in 1844? , 1. To reduce the term of naturalization from five years to three years. 2. To EXCLUDE ALL ALIENS FOREVER FROM THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN ANY PUBLIC ELECTIONS WHATEVER, EXCEPT 3. Such aliens as shall have served two years in the army or navy in time of war, who shall thereby be entitled to the rights of citizenship, including the right of suffrage. 4. Aliens shall be exempted from involuntary service in the militia, the army, or navy, (just as free negroes and Indians are.) 5. The law to go into operation six months after its passage. We desire the reader to mark the date of this communication, which is so far authentic that the National Intelligencer has never yet intimated ‘a doubt that Scott was its author, as there is abundant evidence to show. It is dated December IT, 1844—the same year when the bloody riots in Philadelphia, growing out of the war upon foreigners by the Native American party there, shocked the whole country, and excited alarm among the friends of liberty over the world. These shameful excesses, enacted in a whirlwind of popular phrenzy, were calculated to admonish the demagogues who led the insane crusade against foreigners; but they did not induce General Scott to alter or abandon his conscientious u principles which were convictions.” Doubtless he regarded these riots as the legitimate consequences of his views; for it will be seen that he writes as if they were preparing the way for the success of his great plan against naturalization. How absurd it is to suppose that such a man ever surrender^ doctrines so dear to his heart—so interwoven with his whole political being—so long deliberated upon, and so carefully and laboriously elaborated! Let the adopted citizen read “ Americus” for himself, let him compare its suggestions and its style with all the letters of General Scott here published, and then let him decide for himself how sincere that recantation of hostility to the foreigners is, which announces that the cause of the recantation was only because they had behaved well in Mexico in fighting for the American flag, and forgets that they fought equally well in the revolutionary and the last war. GENERAL SCOTT’S COMMUNICATION TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER. The following communication, written by General Scott, is copied from the Washington Intelligencer , and is published as it appeared in that paper : [From the National Intelligencer, December 17, 1844.] Communication. — Notes on the admission oj aliens to citizenship. “The Congress shall have power” “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”—(Consti- tution U. S., article 1, section 8, clause 4.) 18 On this power, or on all citizens who may be adopted under any establishe&rule mode pur- suant to the power, the constitution itself in other parts imposes four limitationsrnr restrictions: 1. “ No person shall be a representative who shall not have [&c.] been seven years a citizen of the United States.”—(Article 1, section 2, clause 2.) 2. “No person shall be a senator who shall not have [&c.] been nine years a citizen of the United Stutes.”—(Article J, section 3, clause 3 ) 3. “No person, except a natural-born citizen, or citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”—(Article 11, section 1, clause 5.) And 4. “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.”—(Amendments, article 12, clause or section 3.) Under the power and the restrictions here severally quoted, Congress may legislate on this subject, in the shape of a uniform rule—that is, a rule the same, for the time being, throughout the whole Union and its Territories. It is seen, then, that the constitution itself, in respect to foreigners, contemplates or establishes many distinct degrees of citizenship besides age, sex, and residence. 1st. Congress, under the delegated power, might, by a uniform rule, confer on all aliens, immediately on arrival—instead of at the eqd of Jive years, as at present—the right of holding and transmitting property of every description; the right of voting for President, Vice President, and members of Congress; the right of voting and being voted for in respect to all State offices and trusts; and the right of hold- ing all federal offices with the exceptions which follow. Yet as at present, 2d. No such adopted citizen would be eligible to a seat in the House of Representatives, nor until seven years after taking the oath ; nor, 3d, to a seat in the Senale until two years more, making nine; nor, 4th, ever to the Presidency or Vice Presidency; whilst, 5th, there are yet among us some foreigners by birth who, having been here prior to the adoption of the constitution, are eligible to the Presi- dency and Vice Presidency, and enjoying every other right of natural-born citizens. Behold, then, at this moment, within the bosom of our country, foreigners holding, by naturai.zaiion, five several grades of citizenship ; besides, 6th, a host of other foreigners, all personally under the protection of our laws, with the right to acquire, to hold, and to transmit property, including (in several States) lands and houses, and all (males) again in different stages of advancement to- wards the acquisition of the poli'ical rights under the first foyr heads above. It is therefore shown that the constitution, by “a uniform rule of naturalization,” did not mean a rule under which all rights whatsoever of native-born citizens should be conferred on aliens (svbseqvently arriving in the country) at once, in a lump. One right (the second above) the constitution with- holds for seven years after naturalization; another (the third) for nine years, and the fou>th for- ever. If we follow strictly etymological meaning, it would be a bull to say that Congress can, by a rule of naturalization , make a foreigner a natural-born citizen. “ Naturalization’ 5 i3 a tech- nical term, borrowed by our constitution from English law—just as levying1 war, overt act of treason , &c., were borrowed by the same instiument from the same source. To find the legal meaning of either term, we have always been obliged to look to that fountain rather than to dictionaries. Nothing is more natural or common than such technical reference. In the English practice of “ naturalization,” it is exceedingly rare to find that aliens have been admitted to all the rights of a born subject. In England they have been almost universally, by the terms of adoption, disqualified from holding office, &c. With us, Congress may “ establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” or repeal the present rule and have none, just as we have twice had, and have twice repealed, “ uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies,” a subject over which Congress has unlimited power (by-the-way) by the same clause of the constitution. As, then, Congress might originally have legislated or not on naturalization, and may now repeal the existing established rule, and substitute no other, so may Congress, at its good pleas- ure, in view of national policy and expediency, alter or modify the existing rule. The motives for change are many and powerful. They cannot fail to occur to every thinking mind. Suffice it here to repeat what was once declared of a single sovereign’s power—the evils of the existing rule of naturalization are great, are increasing, and ought to be diminished. One of some experience, and who has meditated the subject long, presumes to suggest as follows : 1. Not to repeal the existing rule and leave none, as the non user on the part of Congress of the delegated power, would give at least a colorable authority to State-adoptions of citizens, just as the noq existence of a uniform system of bankruptcy has led to State insolvent laws ; and it is evident that twenty-six State rules, without, perhaps, uniformity between any two, would increase the evils to be diminished, independent of extreme embarrassment, in courts and ai the polls, under the provision, “ the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and im- munities of citizens in the several States.”—(Constitution, art. 4, sec. 2, clause 1.) 2. Not to extend the period of residence before admission to citizenship, as this would be im- politic nationally, and unjust to aliens, in respect to the acquisition and transmission of real estate in any parts of the Union, as also in respect to other civil rights. Besides, extension of previous residence would not diminish the alleged perjuries and frauds at the polls ; but, •n. 3. Leave the basis of the naturalization system as it is, and superinduce the following modifi- cations: * 19 An act supplementary to the acts now in force on the subject of a uniform rule of naturalization. Sec. 1. Be it enacted, fyc., That any alien, being a free white person, and who shall come into the United States six months or later after the passage of this act, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof after a residence therein of at least three (1) years, and one year (2) at least after declaring his bona fide intention of becoming a citizen, in the manner and form, and upon the other conditions not herein altered, as prescribed by the act entitled “ An act to establish a uni- form rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject,” which waa approved April 14, 1802: Provided, That no alien arriving in the United States after six months from the passage of this act shall ever acquire the right to vote, except in the manner hereinafter prescribed, for any elector of President or Vice President of the United States ; for any member of the House of Representatives of the same ; for any governor, lieutenant governor, member of the legislature, judge of any eourt of record, or sheriff, in any State or Territory of the United States ; or for any mayor, intendant, president, alderman, assistant alderman, or common coun- cilman of any city, borough, or incorporated town or village, in any of the said States or their Territories, or within the District of Columbia ; but all aliens admitted to naturalisation under tne foregoing provisions and limitations shall enjoy every other right and privilege of native-born citizens which is not expressly United or withheld by the constitution of the United States. Sec. 2. And be it further enacted , That every naturalized citizen, as aforesaid, shall be wholly exempted or excused from involuntary service in the militia, army, and navy of the United States. Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That every free white alien, being an able-bodied male of at least seventeen years of age, who shall, in time of war, engage to serve the United States against their enemies, for at least two years, or during the war, in any company or vessel of war, in the army or navy of the said States, shall, on obtainingthe certificate or certificates of faithful service, signed by the commanding officer or officers of such company or companies, vessel or vessels of war, and countersigned by the next higher officer in the army or navy under whom, if any, such alien has served, s^ali be admitted, on presenting such evidence to any court designated in the act hereinbefore recited, to all the rights and privileges of citizenship at any time conferred by the act, on simply taking the oath of allegiance to the United States, and making the renuncia- tion enjoined in the said act. Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect on and after six months from its passage, when all provisions of former acts, inconsistent with this act, shall be taken and held to be repealed, in respect only to all aliens arriving in the United States after that date. Should some bill like this become a law, it would not in the slightest degree affect any alien already in the United States, or who might arrive within six months after its date. Of course, the rights of naturalized citizens would be as little touched by the act as those of native-born citizens. What foreigners abroad would be affected by the law? Probably but few ; possibly not one who, at the time of its passage, would have a mind made up to migrate to the United States. As to all female foreigners arriving after the passage of the act and the additional six months, they would be the sooner, by two years, admitted to all the civil rights of citizenship, and no others have ever been conferred on females. Sooner, also, by two years, would their male relatives and friends fee admitted to that large class of rights, besides eligibility to all but four offices, State and federal. As to other foreigners abroad and in existence, or who may hereafter be born abroad, what right would they have now or in future to complain of such a law? We already in the United States, whether natives, naturalized citizens, or aliens, have a great question of national policy to settle for ourselves and our own posterity, and we may settle it for the benefit of both, with- out looking to speculative philanthropy or liberty beyond such posterity. We think we are liberal enough when, in providing for America, we leave the door of admission open to the chil- dren of foreigners, now abroad, who may hereafter be born here, without allowing their fathers to come and help tc govern us. We, who alone have any right to think on the subject, claim that we cari*be$t govern ourselves ; and the better such government in the mean time, so much the better for the foreigners who may hereafter come among us, and for their American-born children. It will be observed that the bill proposes to leave future naturalized citizens as eligible to all offices and trusts as those who have heretofore been naturalized. Many of them, no doubt, will be appointed and elected to high places, as heretofore, and be found as worthy of confidence as a Montgomery, or a Morris, a Gallatin, a Findlay, or a Smiley. We, now in America, mean only that, after a given time, electors born on the soil shall alone select natives or adopted citi- : zens to make laws for America, orSto Administer those laws. But, without a syllable on the subject of electors (voters) for electors of President and Vice President, because, perhaps, it was intended they should be chosen by the State legislatures, as at present in South Carolina, the constitution has declared: ‘‘The House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requi- site for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.”—(Article 1, section 2, clause l.) Not another word is said in any other part of the instrument on the qualifications of voters. 20 In view of that clause, it may be asked, and to the confusion of some minds, has Congress the power to limit the political franchise of future adopted ciiizens, as in the first section of the bill proposed? The answer is, certainly not, if that were the only clause bearing on the question. But here are two others: “ Congress shall have power” “ to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States. — (Article 1, section 8, clause And — “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”—(Article 4, section 2, clause 1.) The three clauses must be construed together, and if they can be harmonized or rendered not incompatible with each other, each must have its full weight and effect. Nothing more easy than to solve the supposed difficulty, or to find the desired harmony. It is evident, that if each of the original thirteen—now twenty-six—States could make its own different rule, Delaware, against the will of Virginia, might make adopted citizens for both, and Michigan for New York, greatly to the annoyance of the latter; but Virginia is not represented in the Delaware legislature, nor New York in that of Michigan. A citizen of one State being a citizen of every other, we should have had by this time “confusion worse confounded” every- where; but that it was precisely to avoid this opposition and interference of many capricious rules that the constitution in express terms, in respect to the adoption of foreigners, declares that Congress (in which all the States are equitably represented) shall have the power to establish a uni- form rule of naturalization throughout the United Stales. The object is as plain as the lodgment of the power was indispensable. No act of a single State can be put in concurrence with such power. If not left derelict and seized upon by others from sheer necessity, it must be exclusively in the hands where primarily lodged. There is a wide field left for the exercise, on the part of the several States, of the power to determine what shall be “ the qualifications” (alienage and naturalization aside) “ requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legis- lature.” There is the land and other property qualifications in some States ; age, militia service, &c., in others—all, however, within the range of citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization, which Congress may determine for all. It can say what qualifications, for the good of all as a Union, shall be imposed upon adopted citizens in respect to the political franchise of voting throughout the United States—As the constitution itself imposed the qualifications we have seen above, on other political franchises—eligibility to federal offices and trusts. Both federal and State eligibility to office the proposed bill leaves where they were found. The constitution was a compromise and a compact between all the people, (nearly,') whether citizens, aliens (or foreigners) of one State, and similar people of the other States, or between the people generally throughout the whole Union ; which, it is unimportant to the present ques- tion to determine. There had been previously no intimate union between the parties — no uni- form rule Qf naturalization. Each State had loosely adopted, in its own way, nearly all aliens, not alien enemies, who had come within their limits. Natives who were tories, were as generally expelled. Political and military services were the great inducements to adoption—in most cases without certificate as without record. All—very nearly all—had earned general citizenship. An army of patriot heroes had been recently dis- banded far from their native homes, and many were still unsettled in any new residence. Hence the language of the constitution, “The citizens of each State shall be (&c.) ciiizens of the sev- eral States.” That clause was a sweeping adoption or recognition. It called a nation of Amer- icans into existence, and fixed their united being. Their descendants, and those since adopted, with their children, are the present Ameiicans—the people of the United States. It may, perhaps, be objected to any bill like that proposed—What would be its binding force should it become a law ? Particular States might still, at their pleasure, (it may be said,) per- mit aliens to vote for all functionaries—State and federal—immediately on coming, for the first time, within the threshold of the State. The only answer is—oaths registered in heaven, as on earth. If these cannot bind, then there is an end to all human society or government. The constitution of the United Sta'es, in the name of the whole people, commands, “ Tlws constitu- tion, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, (&c.,) shall be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Also, “ the member of the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution.”—(Art. 6, sections 2 and 3.) But I have not time for declamation or polish, and 1 have had but little to cite principles or press arguments. I have only written notes. Much support might be derived from the equally judicious distribution of power over the militia between federal : >nd State authorities. The anal- ^ ysis and application are left to abler hands. They will find that what required uniformity was given to one side ; all that allowed disconformity left to the other. The reasons were the same as in the case of citizenship. It is not probable that the proposed bill will have the good fortune to conci’iate the general favor of either Native-Americans or whigs. The leading democrats will no doubt reject it as an attempt upon their “spoils.” Yet it is not seen why the liberal of the three parties may not sup- port the measure. More cannot be attained, if more were desirable, without an alteration of the constitution ; and even something less would not be accepted by those who are already more than 21 satisfied with undue advantages. But the whigs are yet surely under unmerited defeat, and the Natives flushed with the first fruits of their young endeavors. The green tree waves its branches and the foliage to the breeze, and looks with the confidence of inexperience to the returning sea- son. No nipping frost has ever seared its hopes. Yet this party stands on the “unsteadfast footing of a spear,” or, at least, a narrow isthmus, which the first wave of success, coming from either side-, may forever wash from under its feet. Triumph would, indeed, be more fatal to its existence than defeat. As yet it has no concerted system of principles or measures—or has pro- claimed none—for canying forward the business and the development of this concrete and mighty republic. My humble advice to all around us is, to revive your spirits, to moderate the intoxication of victory, to look to thj constitution, to serve your country in soberness and faith, and to scorn to be the slave of party or the tool of demagogues. AMERICUS. GENERAL SCOTT AND THE CATHOLICS. The democratic party disdains appeals to prejudices of all kinds. It has always preferred to fall with the right than to triumph by refusing to denounce the wrong. It has compelled the admiration even of its foes by the manner in which it has scorned the devices of demagogues. It could have made terms with the Natives in Pennsylvania, but refused, and went into minority for its independence. It could have made terms ‘ with anti-masonry, but refused, and went into minority; and so from the beginning of its career to the end. It is because the whigs are just the reverse that the democracy get the support of all who suffer from persecu- tion for opinion’s or for religion’s sake. Hence it is that the friends of Scott are now trying to seduce the Catholic voters of this country, here- tofore mostly with -the democrats, because the democrats never, like Scott and the whigs, courted the Native American bigots of the country. Greeley is laboring constantly to brin^ about this result—with what success the future must show. How far General Scott deserves the support of this class of our countrymen, the following extract from his letter dated October 25, 1841, published in this pamphlet, as will be seen by reference to it, will show: “ But I do not consider it respectful to the people, nor otherwise proper in a candidate, to so- licit favor on a pledge that, if elected, he will not accept a second nomination. It looks too much like a bargain 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 ordei that the election may the sooner come round again.” There is no attempt to conceal the sneer. It is the insult to a class of one who has been reading certain horrible stories about the Catholics, and who is often ready—and “fired with indignation,” no doubt—to resort to bold measures against them. No more striking, positive, and marked demonstration of General Scott’s feelings on this subject could be desired. As this affront to Catholics and adopted citizens, generally, has never been recalled or recanted, it is undoubtedly one of those prin- ciples of his which, he says, are “ convictions,” and of course, therefore, one of the well-known incidents of his past life, referred to in his letter of acceptance as the best pledge he can make for the future. The New York “ Truth Teller,” the oldest and one of the most influ- ential of the Irish-American papers, deals in the following scathing irony upon Scott’s nomination: “ Scott’s nomination.—We congratulate our whig friends on the nomination of General Scott for the presidency. His native le ter which we published a few weeks ago will assuredly secure him the entire vote of our adopted citizens. His devotion to their cause cannot be doubted, for 22 he has declared, in that letter, that he is in favor of twenty-one years’ residence before they should be naturalized ; and, not satisfied with that, he even would prefer that they should not be naturalized on any terms at all ! ! tie is a friend to Irishmen with a vengeance.” Another widely-circulated and prominent Catholic paper, the ct In- structor,” of Philadelphia, thus refers to the hypocritical attempt of the whigs to curry favor with the Catholics : “An attempt has been* made to excite the hosiility of our Catholic fellow-citizens against General Tierce, the democratic candidate for the presidency.—‘ Oh !’ cried they, ‘ how can a Catholic vote for a New Hampshire man ? New Hampshire, the only State in the Union which refuses to Catholics the lights of citizenship! Fi$! fie! dear Catholics, don’t vote fora New Hampshire man.’ Such was the hypocritical cry. It is true, New Hampshire, to hershame, does retain her intolerant laws—but, mark you, General Pierce, in his place in the New Hamp- shire legislature, repeatedly spoke and voted for the repeal of those laws! That they disgrace the statute-book, is no fault of his ; that he endeavored to remove them gives him an additional claim on all friends of civil and religious liberty.” THE ORIGINAL NATIVE AMERICAN LETTER OF GENERAL SCOTT PROCLAIMED A FORGERY BY THE WHIG LEADERS. The whig papers in many parts of the country deny the genuineness of the letter of Gen. Scott to Geo. W. Reed, esq., of Philadelphia, in which he takes ground in favor of the most extreme and malignant Native American views. This is a desperate expedient to get rid of an unpleasant remi- niscence, but it will serve only the more to direct attention to the subject, and to set on foot a spirit of inquiry into the facts of the case. It has already done this, and the investigation has been conducted with the greatest frankness and ability, and this, too, by a leading whig editor, who has been, and now is, one of the most prominent and efficient advo- cates of whig principles in this country. We allude to General James Watson Webb, editor of the New York Courier and Enquirer . It is true, he is not enamoured of the nomination of General Scott; but his testimony cannot be excluded on that account, inasmuch as he is one of an immensely large class, and bases his objections to Scott on grounds that cannot be successfully controverted, at the same time that he adheres earnestly and ardently to the whig party. General Webb knows all about the Native American letter of General Scott, and his explanation is alike full, authentic, and clear. The pretext upon which the western and other whig papers base their opinion that the Native American letter of Scott to Reed is a forgery, is, that there is a confusion of d^tes—the letter, in some places, being dated in 1841, and in others in 1844. But General Webb shows that the letter is genuine , and adduces proof of it. We give his testimony from a late number of the New York Courier and Enquirer. The letter was written in 1844 instead of 1841, but this circumstance strengthens instead of weakens the argument we have made against it. It will be seen that General Scott himself testifies to the accuracy of his letter to Reed. [From the New York Courier and Enquirer.] The Whig National Convention was called to assemble at Philadelphia on Monday, June 7, 1848, and we were on the ground as early as the 3d. On Monday we were shown the latter half of a letter signed Winfield Sport, and inquiry was made of us whether the handwriting was his. We answered that it was, and inquired for the first part of the letter and its date. In reply we were informed that the first part was lost, but that the. letter was written from Mexico, and bore date November 11, 1846. This proved to be false; and. subsequent developments demon- strated that the letter was written fr >m Washington, and bore date November 10, 1844, and that the first half of it was suppressed in order that the falsehood in regard to its date might the better be concealed. We obtained a copy of the portion of the letter shown to us, which was in 23 general circulation, and transmitted it to this city for publication, and which, being the only part of the original letter we ever saw, we now put in italics. The whole letter read as follows, and, as will be perceived, differs both in date and phraseology from that which is now going the rounds of the newspapers : “ Washington, November 10, 1844. “ Dear Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 9rh instant, written, as you are pleased to add, in behalf of several hundred Native American republicans of Philadelphia. “ Not confidentially, but not for publication, 1 have already replied, to a friendly letter from David M. Stone, esq., of your city, on the same subject. 1 will write to you in like manner and in haste. This is the month when the pressure of business is the heaviest with me, leaving scarcely time for necessary sleep and exercise. I must not, however, wholly neglect your communication. “ Should any considerable number of my countrymen assign me or desire to give me a promi- nent position before the public, I shall take'time to methodize my views on the great questions you have proposed. Those views had their origin in the stormy election in the spring of 1836, and were confirmed in the week that Harrison electors were chosen in New York. On both occasions I was in that city, and heard in the streets the cry, Down with the Natives! It was heard in almost every group of foreigners, as the signal for rallying and outrage. Fired with indignation, two friends sat down with me in my parlor at the Astor House, (November, 1840,) to draw up an address, designed to rally an American party. The day after the election 1 set out for the South, and have never precisely known why our appeal was not published. Proba- bly the election of General Harrison rendered its .publication at that time unnecessary in the opinion of my two friends.” [The remainder of the letter is the portion printed by the Courier in italics.] “ I now hesirate between extending the period of residence before naturalization and a total repeal of all acts of Congress on the subject: my mind inclines to the latter. “ Concurring fully in the principles oi'*the party in Philadelphia, &c., &c., I should prefer as- suming the designation of American republicans, as in New York, or democratic Americans, as I would respectfully suggest. Brought up in the principles of the Revolution—of "Jefferson, Madison, &c., under whom, in youth, I commenced life—I have always been called, l have ever professed myself, simply a i-epublican, or whig, which, with me, was the same thing. Democratic Americans would include all good native citizens devoted to our country and its in- stitutions; would not drive from us naturalized citizens, who, by long residence, have become identified with us in feeling and interest. “ I am happy to see by the Philadelphia North American that religion is to be excluded as a party element. Staunch Protestant as 1 am, both by birth and conviction, I shall never consent to any party or State religion. Religion is too sacred to be mingled up with either. It should also be kept entirely between each individual and his God, except in the way of reason and gen- tle persuasion, as in families, churches, and other occasions of voluntary attendance (after years of discretion) or reciprocal consent. “ Wishing success to the great work which you and other patriots have happily set on foot, “ I remain, with high respect, your fellow-citizen, “ WINFIELD SCOTT. “ To George Washington Reed, Esq., and others, Philadelphia.” Extracts from this letter, bearing date November 11, 1846, being widely circulated, the Hon. Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, as well as ourself, was deceived by the false date ; and while we transmitted a copy to this city for publication, he, we believe, promptly forwarded a copy of the extract to General Scott, who replied that he had never written a line from Mexico upon the subject of nativism. Mr. Clingman thereupon pronounced the whole a forgery. As we had vouched for the genuineness of the original when called upon simply to say whether it was or was notin the handwriting of General Scott, this declaration touched rather closely; and, in consequence, we invited the divine in whose possession we had seen the original to exhibit it to Mr. Clingman and some other members of the convention assembled for the purpose. They also pronounced the original to be in General Scott’s handwriting; but the first part of the letter was not produced, and consequently no opportunity was at that time afforded to prove that the assumed date was a fraud, and the first part of the letter suppressed to prevent the fraud being detected. The excitement growing out of this matter was very great, and resulted in compelling the publication of the whole letter as above, together with its date. But accompanying such publi- cation, the following was also circulated : “ Postscript to a letter from Winfield Scott, dated Washington, November 10, 1844, and read at a national conveniion of Native-American delegates, at Pittsburg, February 4, 1847 : “ ‘ I am in the hands of my friends, and must, at least for a while, look on calmly. Writing, however, a few days3.4 8 210 24 dark winter spent at Veliev Forge, (1778,) General Washington celled for an addition to hieNative Guards ami directed that none but men of established ‘fidelity,’ ‘ American-born ’ should be sent to headquarters ! The order was reprinted in the National Intelligencer of the 14th inst but the comments on it were not written by me. *' “ To Hector Orr, Printer.’ ” [Copy.] “Washington, November 11, 1844. “ My Dear Sir, (as I beg leave to address you :) 1 have received many letters in mv life and complimentary ones, too, from persons— in the opinion of the world-in position much higher than yours. But I know not that I have ever opened one that so strongly impressed me as thathaving the signature of Hector Orr, printer.’ In that simple addition the great Franklin de- bited more tlum in being called ambassador. Paneouke, the distinguished printer and pub- lisher of Pans gave a splendid edition of Franklin’s autobiography in folio, dedicated to hismemory, which commenced— ° r 3 ’ *“A Benjamin Franklin, “ ‘ Imprimeur.’ “ A letter from him, were he alive, could not have refreshed me more than that before mv S yeS |'i .! ? VCt ‘Vif^ ue 10 ®n £ hlUe Sood 1 have done or attempted, and will stimulate me todo^ad that may fall in the scope of my power in the remainder of my life. “ It .is not the nomination to the presidency which has produced the effect upon my feelings to which I refer I have often been named for that office in the last nine years by different Victuals. Without llf'incr mnrh 1: . nni. _ m J . cause or u e enecc. At some early date 1 shall look more closely into both. In the mean time, please send me the history of the Native party by the Sunday-school boy ; and also consider me a subscriber to your journal. J “Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter I have just written (November 10, 1844) to G. W. i °thers ’ whlch , wl11 exPIain tbe hurry under which 1 write. I have not the time to readwhat 1 write. Very truly, yours, “WINFIELD SCOTT.” T iT P‘ S,.~In< ?, uirie3 , have ™me t0 me also from the party in New York, but not from Baltimore. I have returned similar replies. “ Hector Orr, Printer. W S ”