^ :Jpfe> ***** •^w ^ -Jillr *** ; #l 
 
 °o 
 
 
 
 
 v-o x 
 
 
 
• % ** *is 
 
 "*b j> . * ' • * "^ o* o • " • « **b .y ,i'i, \^ * 
 
A REVIEW 
 
 OF THE 
 
 DEFENCE OF GENERAL CASS'S COURSE 
 
 ON 
 
 THE WILMOT PROVISO. 
 
 The Washington " Union' of Saturday, September 23d, contained an 
 elaborate argument, if a bundle of misstatements may be thus dignified the 
 object of which was to prove that General Cass has been always consis- 
 tent in his course on the Wilmot Proviso, and, as a consequence of this 
 always opposed to that measure. Ii may not be proper, perhaps, 10 charge 
 General Cass with its authorship, but the editor of the Union has dis- 
 closed enough to justify us in characterizing it as General, Cass's own 
 defence. He tells us, in plain language, that, "to prevent any further 
 misrepresentation on the subject, he stales what he knows, and in dofhg so 
 he wishes it to be distinctly understood that he makes the statement, not onlv 
 on his own responsibility and understanding of the facts as they occurred 
 at the time, but on the authority of General Cass hi/nse/f.'" It is, then 
 General C ass who speaks on this occasion, and not the " or<mn" of the 
 Administration ; and we, shall, therefore, as we are in duly bound, unless 
 we would be considered uncourteous, pay our respects to him. Indeed, 
 were it not for the authoritative tone of this impotent effort to rescue Gene- 
 ral Cass from the odium of his deceitful and time-serving conduct — con- 
 duct which honest men, much more great men, have always despised, and 
 to which none but demagogues, in their wildest gambling for popularity, have 
 ever descended — it might well be passed without notice. As it is, however, 
 and especially as the character of a gentle nan who stands deservedly high in 
 the estimation of all who know him, we allude to Senator Miller, of 
 New Jersey, has been wantonly assailed, we shall undertake 10 expose more 
 fully than has yet been done, the desperate shifts to which Gen. Cass and 
 his friends are put, in their wily exertions to circumvent and delude the 
 People of the South. 
 
 Those who are familiar with (he proceedings of the late session of Con- 
 gress, will recollect that the first resolution on that subject which passed in 
 the House of Representatives, fixed the 17th of July as the day o! adjourn- 
 ment. That resolution gave rise, under the leadership of Mr. FoorE, who 
 particularly distinguished himself in setting up a" Platform" for General 
 Cass, and in pulling down one for General Taylor, to a general partisan 
 debate in the Senate. With others, Mr. Miller replied to Mr Foo'e, and 
 in the course of his speech made the following statement : 
 
 " But the Senator (said Mr. Miller) insists upon trying the issue here. At first, I was at h 
 loss to know the precise issue intended' 1 The Senator, however, has with his usual frankness 
 told us what the issue is. It is the Wilmot proviso. * 
 
 Is he ready to make a true issue upon that point? I know that the last expressed opinions of 
 General Cass are against the proviso, but I also know that, within two years past, he was the 
 open and strenuous advocate of that measure; that he was so during the last two sessions of 
 Congress is known to many Senators here. * * * . * 
 
 " At the first session of the twenty-ninth Congress, the three million hill, as it was called, 
 came to the Senate from the House, with the Wilmot proviso in it. On the last day of the ses- 
 sion, (10th of August, 1846,) and about half an hour before the time fixed for the adjournment 
 of Congress, the bill came up for consideration, when the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Lkwis) 
 moved to strike out the proviso. The .Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Da-vis) took the floor 
 against the amendment and in favor of the pro-' ioke until a few minutes before the 
 
 adjournment. No vote was taken upon the question, and the bill was lost for want of 
 act upon it. 
 
 "As soon as Mr. Davis had taken his seat, General < ever t« this tide of the s 
 
 and with much earnestness said, in the pretence of tin- Senators, THAT HE REGRETTED 
 MUCH THAT Mil. DAVIS HAD BY Ills' SPEECH PREVENTED T1I1J VO I E 
 
2 G* S 
 
 FROM BEING TAKEN ; THAT HE (GEN. CASS) AND EVERY DEMOCRATIC 
 SENATOR FROM THE FREE STATES, WOULD HAVE VOTED TO SUSTAIN , 
 THE PROVISO; that Mr. Allen would have led off, and all the re4 would have followed ,■ ' 
 that he was very sorry that thy had been deprived of the opportunity of voting upon it,- 
 thai it zuould have settled the question, and Goo- Davis ivas responsible for defeating that 
 - ,;,." . * * * \ r * \ J , a » 
 
 " At the next session of Congress, (March 1, 1817,) the three million bill came before the 
 Sj ate, but without the Wilmot Proviso in it The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Upham) moved 
 to amend the bill by inserting the proviso, when Mr. Cass rose, and, in a speech of some length, 
 opposed the amendment. This speech is reported, and I refer Senators to it. Recollecting what 
 had taken place, at the previous session, I rose at once and expressed my astonishment at the 
 course of the Senator from Michigan, so directly at variance with his sentiments declared at the 
 last session, when the same measure was before the Senate. I also stated what had taken 
 place on that occasion, and repeated what I understood General Cass to have said in the Senate, 
 as I have before Slatted, and then called upon him to give to the Senate and to the country his 
 reasons for this sudden change in his opinions upon a subject of so much importance. 
 
 "Gen. Cass, in reply to me, commenced by saying that he was surprised at the extraordinary 
 course of the Senator from New Jersey in calling him to an account for his opinions, but said 
 he was prepared for it, and then took from the drawer of his desk a manuscript speech, memo- 
 randa, which he read to the Senate. He did not deny the statement made by me; but said, in 
 substance, that he had not changed his opinions expressed the session before upon the subject of 
 the proviso, but that that was not the occasion nor the bill in which to apply the proviso. That 
 the object of the bill then before the Senate was to enable the President to conclude a treaty of 
 peace with Mexico. That he did not wish to do anything which might delay peace. That it 
 would be of no use to attach the proviso to this bill, but that the question should be reserved 
 until we acqurred the territory. It was a question of time with him. That this was not the 
 time nor the occasion. He also spoke of the resolutions of instructions from Michigan, which he 
 had presented during the session, and to which I had referred him, and said that he had examined 
 them, together with resolutions from other non-slaveholdmg States, and that .all these resolutions 
 looked to some permanent provision or fundamental law; he did not think they were intended to 
 apply to the bill then under consideration. This was the position of General Cass in March, 
 1847. At that time he was still in favor of the-Wilmot proviso, but doubting as to the time 
 when and the nature and character of the law by which it should be enforced. He continued to 
 maintain this position, as far as the public were informed, until December last, when it became 
 necessary for certain candidates for the Presidency to declare their views on the subject of the 
 Wilrnot proviso " 
 
 This occurred on the 22d of June last, and o the debate of that day, in- 
 cluding the speech of Mr. Miller, was reported at length in the 95th No. 
 of the "official debates" in the Senate, published by Houston. It was, also, 
 reported in the " Congressional Globe," and is to be found at page 866 of 
 that publication. A brief notice of it was taken, also, in the ' ; National 
 Intelligences" of the succeeding day, while the speech of Mr. Miller is 
 published entire in the paper of Monday, the 27th of June. And yet the 
 article in the Union gravely quotes it, or rather a portion of it, (for the four 
 first paragraphs, which we have supplied, were wholly suppressed,) from 
 the t; Charleston News," and at the same time pretends, that the speech was 
 never published elsewhere than ' : in Southern Whig papers." That there 
 may be no mistake about it, we give the precise language of the article 
 itself. It says : 
 
 ". The following extract from a speech of Senator Miller, purporting to have been delivered in 
 the Senate — Heaven knows when, but certainly in the absence of General Cass — has been pub- 
 lished in the Southern Whig papers, to protc that his views of the constitutional rights of the 
 South are of recent origin, and not the result of fixed principles. That our readers may un- 
 understand the full extent of this fraud and misrepresentation, wc copy the extract from the 
 Charleston News. ***#».*• 
 
 "As to the remarks of Mr. Miller, wc do not know when they were made, or whether ever 
 made, in the Senate. Certain it is, they were never made in the presence of General Cass." 
 
 Let us turn now to the columns of the Union, and see if we cannot dis- 
 cover, at a respectable distance this side of " Heaven," and without recourse 
 to the u Charleston News" even, some traces, feint though they be, of this 
 speech which has so suddenly caught the eye and provoked the wrath of 
 the distinguished " hero of Hull's surrender." In the Union of Friday, 
 June 23d. we find, under the editorial head' the usual " Congressional sum- 
 
raary," in which (he debate is noticed, and the following remark made : 
 " After a reply from Mr. Maoguni, and a rejoinder from Mr. Foote, the de- 
 bate was continued by Mr. MILLER, (!) Mr. Foote, and Mr. Maijo-nm." 
 It seems, therefore, that the individual, who, " to prevent any further mis- 
 representation," makes a statement not only on his own responsibility. and 
 understanding of the facts f as they occurred at (he time,'' but on theau- 
 ihority of Gen. Cass, did know, if, indeed, he did not hear it, when the 
 speech of Mr. Miller was delivered. We have been thus particular in ibis 
 matter, because it was evidently thereby iniended to create the impression, 
 that no such speech was ever made in the Senate, and that the whole was 
 an afterthought of Mr. Miller, put forth since the adjournment ctf Congress 
 to injure General Cass in the South. That it was not delivered in his pre- 
 sence is most, true, because General Cass deemed it expedient to resign his 
 seat in the Senate a (ew days after his nomination at Baltimore, in order to 
 escape the cross-examination on this and other questions to which he would 
 have been exposed ; and was then, most probably, at. his residence in 
 Michigan, it was delivered, however, in the presence of his chosen friends, 
 in the presence of Allen and Bright, and Hannegan and Breese. and vet 
 they never undertook to question the truth of its disclosures. It was de- 
 livered in the presence of one Senator at least from General Cass's own 
 State, Governor Felch, and yet he sat as mute as an oyster. And even 
 Mr. Foote, will) all his fondness for contradiction and dispute, did not dare 
 to say, " I deny what you state, Mr. Miller ; you wrong General Cass, sir; 
 he has never been guilty of such vacillation and vveakness." 
 
 But let us proceed to examine the metits of the defence itself, which, 
 after this statement of Mr. Miller has been three months before the country, 
 and everywhere circulated, is finally set up " on the authority of General 
 Cass" and the ' : understanding" of Mr. Ritchie. To our view it is an ex- 
 ceedingly weak production, weaker, indeed, than we ever presumed Mr. 
 Ritchie weak enough to publish on his own responsibility, much less on 
 the authority of his patron. It. resolves itself wholly into somewhat expli- 
 cit denials of portions of Mr. Miller's statement, and those, for the most 
 part, the least material. Let us, therefore, group them together, and test 
 them, not by " our understanding," but by "the facts as they occurred at the 
 time." Here, then, is the first allegation of the defence : 
 
 "Mr. Miller says 'he (G'en. Cass) said, in substance, he had not changed his opinions ex- 
 pressed the session before upon the subject of the proviso.' He did not say this, or anything 
 like it. No such language is to be found in his speech.. It is an out and out assumption." 
 
 This may be as Gen. Cass says, and as the Union wishes us to believe, 
 for aught we know, but unfortunately the record is against them. The 
 Union of March 2d, 1847, published the speech to which Mr. Miller alludes, 
 and at the close of it, in the same column, the conversation which ensued 
 between him and Gen. Cass is thus reported: 
 
 "Mr. Mri.iER expressed his great surprise at the change in the sentiments of the Senator from 
 Michigan, who had been regarded as the great champion of freedom in the Northwest, of which 
 hr was a distinguished ornament. Last u ator was understood to be DECIDEDLY 
 
 IN FAVOR OF the Wilmot Proviso; and, is unreason had been stated for the change, ho 
 (Mr. M.) could not refrain from the expression of his surprise. 
 
 "Mr. Cass said the course of the Senator from New Jersey was most extraordinary. Last 
 year he ('Mr. CJ SHOULD HAVE VOTED' for the proposition, had it come up. But cir- 
 cumstances had altogether changed. The honorable Senator then read several passages from the 
 remarks as given above, (his speech en the bill,) which he had committed to writing, in order 
 torefutesuch a chargeas that of the Senator from New Jersey-" 
 
 Now what does this mean ? Why it reads, so far as we can understand 
 it, that Gen. Cass was charged by Mr. Miller with having changed his 
 views on the Wilmot Proviso, between the adjournment of one session of 
 Congress and the meeting of another, and that he read from the manuscript 
 
of the speech he had just concluded " to refute the charge." He had not, 
 therefore, changed his opinions then, but circumstances had changed, and 
 they must control his action. " Last year he should have voted for the pro- 
 position had it come up," and, surely then, as no statesman ever votes for 
 so grave a proposition as this, when he is opposed to it, it must be, that the 
 whole object of Gen. Cass was to vindicate his consistency of opinion, and 
 to justify a seeming inconsistency of conduct by the force of surrounding 
 circumstances. 
 
 The second and last material allegation of the defence is as follows: 
 
 "Again he [Mr. Miller] says Gen Cass, said ' it was a question of time with him.' Not one 
 word of it true. He says ' at the time he was in favor of the Wilmot proviso.' There is not one 
 word in the speech to justify such an assertion. They are all sheer fabrications." 
 
 Then Gen. Cass did not say, if this by-authority defence may be cred- 
 ited, in his speech of March 1st, 1847, that " it was a question of time 
 with him" when the Wilmot Proviso should be extended over our Mexican 
 acquisitions. Well, if he did not, he certainly possesses, in an eminent 
 degree, the faculty of saying one thing and meaning another. Here are 
 the points, and we quote from the Union of March 2, 1847, on which he 
 based his opposition at that time to the Proviso: 
 
 " I shall (said Mr. C.) vote against the proviso, because, 
 
 V 1. The present IS NO PROPER TIME FOR THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE 
 COUNTRY, and into Congress, of an exciting topic, tending to divide us, when our united ex- 
 ertions are necessary to prosecute the existing war. 
 
 " 2. It will be QUITE IN SEASON to provide for the government of territory, not yet acquir- 
 ed from foreign countries AFTER WE SHALL HAVE OBTAINED IT. 
 
 *' 3. The proviso can only apply to British and Mexican territories, as there are no others co- 
 terminous to us. Its phraseology would reach either, though its application is pointed to 
 Mexico. It seems to me, that to express so much confidence in the successful result of this war, 
 as to legislate at this time, if not over this anticipated acquisition, at least, for it, and to lay down 
 a partial basis for its government, would do us no good in the eyes of the world, and would irri- 
 tate, still more, the Mexican people. 
 
 "4. LEGISLATION NOW WOULD BE WHOLLY INOPERATIVE, because no 
 territory hereafter to be acquired can be governed without an act of Congress providing for its 
 government. And such an act, on its passage, "would open the whole subject, and would leave 
 the Congress called upon to pass it, free to exercise its own discretion, entirely uncontrolled by 
 any declaration found on the statute book. 
 
 " 5. There is great reason to think, that the adoption of this proviso would, in all probability, 
 BRING THE WAR TO AN UNTIMELY ISSUE, by the effect it would have on future ope- 
 j-itions. 
 
 "6. ITS PASSAGE WOULD CERTAINLY PREVENT THE ACQUISITION OF 
 ONE FOOT OF TERRITORY; thus defeating a measure called for by a vast majority of the 
 American people, and defeating it, too, by the very act purporting to establish a partial basis for 
 its government. 
 
 "7. The progress of public opinion upon the question of the adoption of this proviso, as the 
 circumstances of the country have become more and more difficult, seems to me to indicate very 
 clearly that since its introduction at the past session of Congress, the conviction has been gaining 
 ground, that THE PRESENT IS NO TIME for the agitation of this subject, and as the for- 
 eign war becomes more embarrassing, in a greater degree than many anticipated, it is best to 
 avoid a domestic dispute, which would raise bitter questions at home, and add confidence to the 
 motives for resistance abroad. Ajid certainly the fact now ascertained, that the war would be 
 put to hazard, and the acquisition of territory defeated, by the adoption of this proviso, renders 
 it impossible for me to vote for it, connected, as I deem both of these objects, with the dearest 
 lights and honor of the country." 
 
 What other conclusion could any man draw from these seven propositions 
 than that the application of the Wilmot Proviso was with Gen Cass a mere 
 " question of time." ,He spoke of nothing else but "time ;" the word danced 
 through his mind as rapidly as through the note book of an usurer. He 
 said " the present is no time for lis introduction," " legislation now would 
 be wholly inoperative," " it will be quite in season to provide for the gov- 
 ernment of territory, not yet acquired from foreign countries, after we shall 
 liave obtained it," and yet, human credulity, how much are you expected 
 
to swallow ! " there is not a word in the speech lo justify Mr. Miller's asser- 
 tion." And it is " a sheer fabrication," also, to say that Gen. Cass was at 
 that time in favor of the Wilmot Proviso ! Whether he was in favor of it 
 or not, the principle we mean, there is nothing in this speech to show that 
 he was against it. He did not pretend to oppose it on constitutional grounds ; 
 nor did he anywhere declare it to be mischievous or wrongful in princi- 
 ple. He merely declared, that he could not vote for it then, because its 
 passage would " in all probability bring the war to an untimely issue," and 
 " prevent the acquisition of one foot of territory." That was the ground 
 he occupied, and there is every reason to believe he would have occupied 
 it still, had not opportunity to betray the North and barter away the opin- 
 ions of a lifetime, presented itself. He was then simply for acquiring terri- 
 tory first, and for applying the Proviso afterwards. At least we do not see 
 how his speech will bear a different construction. He was in fact, against the 
 Proviso in 1847, for precisely the same reason he assigned in his letter of 
 February 19, 1848, to his friend R. S. Wilson, Esq., of Michigan, for being 
 against it then. He was against it because u Tt would be death to the War — 
 DEATH TO ALL HOPES OF GETTING AN ACRE OF TERRITO- 
 RY — Death tn the Administration, and Death to the Democratic Party.''' 
 The defence admits, however, that the statement of Mr. Miller is true 
 so far as it is not contradicted. It follows, then, that ,! the side-bar speech" 
 on the Whig side of the Senate Chamber, in which Gen. Cass so bitterly 
 complained of the conduct of Mr. Davis, of Massachusetts, in depriving 
 him of an opportunity to record his vote in favor of the Proviso, is true. This 
 is a very good admission, although we doubt if it were intended to be made, 
 and it suggests a question which is particularlypertinent to the defence o( 
 Gen. Cass from the 'misrepresentations" of Senator Miller. It is," Why nei- 
 ther Mr. Rathbun nor Mr. BrinkerhofT have been brought to trial." 
 They have made statements implicating to a much greater extent than Mr. 
 Miller's the honor of Gen. Cass, and yet we have never seen any contra- 
 diction given to them. Mr. Rathbun, in a speech at the " Ulica Conven- 
 tion" of the New York Barnburners, fully corroborated every word which 
 Mr. Miller has uttered on the subject. He stated further, that when he 
 called on Gen. Cass, in company with Mr. BrinkerhofT, in the winter of 
 1847, some three weeks before the vote was take.) on the Proviso, (it was 
 then Gen. Cass made the speech we have discussed,) in speaking of the 
 necessity of pushing: the question to a vote at that session of Congress, 
 Gen. Cass said, " OH, IF IT COMES TO THE VOTE, I AM WITH 
 YOU, YOU KNOW." And Mr. BrinkerhofT held similar language at the 
 Buffalo Convention : 
 
 "If the Wilmot Proviso (said Mr. BrinkerhofT ) is not democracy, then Gen. Cass's democra- 
 cy is entirely new. It is very green. For, not longer ago than one year, he was loud in his 
 complaints against John Davis for talking against time, and thus preventing him from having an 
 opportunity for voting in its favor. Lewis Gass was then no Democrat, according to the logic of 
 his advocates, or else he has flopped over. * * 
 
 " I heard Gen. Gass speak in the Senate of the United States. He then professed to he in fa- 
 vor of the principle, but said it was not the time to act upon it. But a short time before, he 
 thought it was both the time for action and expedient to act. Now, I cannot turn with him. I 
 defy Gen. Cass to contradict this statement. If he attempt it, I can bring the testimony of nine 
 men — everyone of them as good as myself — to substantiate what i have smd. He 
 knows it is true, and hence the expression in his letter, "he thinks there has been a change go- 
 ing on in the public mind, and in his own." I would respect Gen. Cass's opinions, if I thought 
 they were sincere. I respect the sincere opinions of any man, though they lead to a change, 
 for I have experienced such myself. But I believe that General Cass thinks as I do, that the Pro- 
 viso 19 BOTH EXPEDIENT AND CONSTITUTIONAL.'' 
 
 Here then are Democratic witnesses, Mr. Rathbun, of New York, and 
 Mr. Brmkerhoff, of Ohio, both of them members of the 29th Congress, 
 
and both of them althe time intimate friends of Gen. Cass, who give un- 
 equivocal testimony as to his advocacy of the Wilmot Proviso, and yet it is 
 proclaimed on his authority, (hat he never was in favor of the measure. 
 If it be true, that he never favored it, how is it that he says, in his celebrated 
 Nicholson letter: "7 am strongly impressed with the opinion that a great 
 change has been, going on in the public mind upon this subject [the Wil- 
 mot Proviso] IN MY OWN as ivell as others." Certainly, it is rather 
 unnatural for a man lo change an opinion, which he never held. Again; 
 if he has not changed his opinion, why did a gentleman from his own 
 State, a Democratic member of the House of Representatives, Mr.. Charles 
 E. Stuart, declare that " Gen. Cass had written it in Mack and white, and 
 spread before (he world [in the Nicholson letter] that he had changed his 
 mind on the subject of the Wilmot Proviso"? 
 
 This is not all ; we charge the editor of the Union, who thus plumes him- 
 self on making statements not only on his own responsibility, but on the au- 
 thority of Gen. Cass himself, with being ignorant, superlatively ignorant of 
 Gen. Cass's ieal opinions on the Wilmot Proviso. Of this there can be 
 no doubt, unless we adopt the more uncharitable belief that he is delibe- 
 rately playing the part of hypocrite and deceiver. Now for the proof. In 
 the Union of August 1st, 1848, we read the following: 
 
 "At all events, we are happy to understand by private letters that General Cass firmly stands 
 the ground which he has taken. Being applied to formally by a man of the Wilmot stamp, he 
 declared, unhesitatingly, that he adhered to his Nicholson letter, and to the Baltimore platform; 
 and that, if elected President, he would yETo/Ae Wilmot Proviso. Dare Geneial Taylor make 
 such a declaration?" 
 
 And in the paper of the 5th of August, only four days later, the an- 
 nexed article appeared : 
 
 "The 'New York Heraki' of Thursday, in its summary of telegraphic news, states that 'A 
 letter from Gen. Cass, avowing his intention to veto the VY ilmot Proviso, in case of his election 
 to the Presidency, is said to be in the possession of the editors of the V\ ashington Union.' A 
 letter-writer from Washington to the same paper says: 'It is ascertained, beyond doubt, that 
 Mr. Ritchie has a letter from Gen. Cass, in which he states that, if elected to the Presidency, 
 he would veto the Wilmot Proviso, or any equivalent of it, shnuld it pass Congress.' 
 
 "It is due to the public to state, that we have.received no such letter ; nor has any such letter 
 been exhibited to us. We have received no letter, despatch, or message from Gen. Cass, since 
 he left Washington; nor have we addressed a single one to him. We have seen no letter that 
 he has written to any other person; nor have we heard of any such letter. We understand, in- 
 deed, that Gen. Cass has not written a political letter since his acceptance of the Baltimore nomi- 
 nation. We hear from private sources, that, when interrogated upon the Wilmot proviso, he 
 gives one uniform answer — that he adheres to the sentiments of his letter to Mr. Nicholson, and 
 the resolutions of the Baltimore Convention. It seems to us, that no one who has read his letter 
 can doubt bis position- Unlike Gen Taylor, it were not necessary for him to write to us, or to 
 any one else, explaining his views upon a question which he has clearly defined. He has never 
 skulked or dodged this or any other measure; but wt protest against any inferences we may draw 
 from private letters, or the statement* in such Idlers themselves, la ing taken as any new declara- 
 tions of the General himself, especially as he has said in his letter of acceptance, that 'it closes 
 his profession of political faith.' " 
 
 Than this a handsomer specimen of political juggling is seldom wit- 
 nessed — it is " craw fishing" immensely distanced. On the 1st of August 
 it is heralded with an air of triumph, that "Gen. Cass firmly stands his 
 ground." and that " he would veto the Wilmot Proviso ;" but on the 5th, 
 owing, it is presumed, to the flash of a northern light in his pathway, the 
 editor assures the country that he' has received neither letter, despatch, nor 
 message from Gen. Cass since he left Washington, and vehemently pro- 
 tests against any inferences which " he may draw from private letters, or 
 the statements in such letters being taken as new declarations'' of Gen. 
 Cass's opinions. This needs no further comment ; it is plain enough al- 
 most for the blind to see through? As further evidence that the editor of 
 the Union either misunderstands Gen. Cass's opinions, or wilfully perverts 
 
them, we subjoin extracts from a Democratic paper, the Cleveland Plain- 
 Dealer, a near neighbor, of Gen. Cass, and his principal "organ" in the 
 Northwest.: 
 
 From the Cleveland ( Ohio ) Plaint-Dealer of July, 1848. 
 *f Rich — Rich. — Every day brings us new subscribers from the South. Our circulation is 
 no longer limited by Mason and Dixon's line. It has been a mystery to us how simultaneously 
 subscribers from Florida, Mississippi, and Texas, should see such virtues in our paper. Yester- 
 day we got a clue to the mystery. A gentleman in Mississippi wrote to a friend here to send 
 him the Plain Dealer. From that friend we learned the character of these Southern subscribers. 
 They are Taylor Whigs, who want to show to their Democratic neighbors the free soil articles 
 in this paper, by way of convincing them that Gen. Cass is a "Free SoiT man. Well, now, 
 gentlemen subscribers of the South, you who will read this very article, let us say to you in all 
 candor and frankness, (£j- if you want to support a slavery propagandist, vole for Gen. Tay- 
 lor — Gen. Cass is not your man ! Were he so', the. Tluin Dealer would not support hini."J^X) 
 
 Hear another of Gen. Cass's Northwestern " Organs:" 
 
 From, the Guernsey, ("Ohio, J Jeffersonian, July, 1848. 
 
 "Gen. Cass against the extension or Slavery. — The Whigs having nominated a 
 slave extensionist for the Presidency, are wont to make it appear that the Democrats are similarly 
 siiuated, by charging that General Cass is an avowed slave extensionist. This charge is un- 
 cualifiedlu fulse. (Xj' General Cass stands pledged to oppose the extension of slavery. In his 
 .Nicholson letter he expresses his views of the constitutional power of Congress over the institu- 
 tion of slavery. He gi< es it as his deliberate opinion, rTj- that Congress has no power to insti- 
 tute slavery where it docs not exist. J^S) Suppose then, that General Cass is elected to the 
 Presidency, and that Congress should pass an act to institute slavery in free territory, (Xj* what 
 docs General Cass, in effect, stand pledged to do' Why, to veto it ; J~$ because he has told 
 the American people that such an act would be unconstitutional. It is, then, clear as the 
 no«nday sun, that General Cass stands before the country fXj* as the avowed opponent of sla- 
 very extension, and pledged to veto any act of Congress having for its object the institution of 
 slavery in free territory. .i^O 
 
 " We ask the honest and candid men of all parties — all who are opposed to the extension of 
 slavery, no matter to what party they may belong, to ponder well this matter. Remember that 
 either Lewis Cass or Zachary Taylor will preside o»er the destinies of this Republic for the next 
 Presidential term— and that, therefore, our CC/' only hope for the prevention of slavery extension 
 exists in the election of the former to the Presidency. "^TD 
 
 We dismiss the newspapers — similar extracts from which we could, had 
 we space, multiply ad infinitum — to make room for the resolution of the 
 Legislature of Michigan, which General Cass presented to the Senate of 
 the United States, without, a word of dissent to the principle therein avowed. 
 The resolution, which is submitted with no other comment than that the 
 same Legislature nominated General Cass as a candidate for the Presidency, 
 is as follows : 
 
 Revoked, That hostility to thk extension of human slavery is now and ever has been 
 one of the PRINCIPLES OF THE DEMOCRATIC CREED, and that to abandon it at the 
 present crisis would be a crime against the free, principles upon which our institutions are based. 
 
 We commend these newspaper extracts, and the resolution of the Legis- 
 lature of Michigan, to the author of the defence, in the firm conviction that 
 be may profit by the information they afford, should he be again required to 
 prepare a paper for the public " on the authority of Gen. Cass himself." 
 And as Gen. Cass " has never skulked or dodged this or any other mea- 
 suie," we have the satisfaction, also, to lay before him a correspondence be- 
 tween two distinguished characters, whom he will readily recognise, which 
 may be usefully dovetailed into the next edition of Gen. Cass's life for 
 Southern readers. Here it is: 
 
 Correspondence between Mr. Moses, of Florida, and Gen. Lewis Cass. 
 
 Coleman's Hotel, Washington, May, 19, 1848. 
 Gen. Lewis Cass: Dear Sir.- As your name, will, in all probability, be. prominent before 
 the Baltimore Convention, to beholden on Monday next, for the purpose of nominating a candi- 
 nate for President of the United States, and as I shall have to cast the vote of the State of Florida, 
 in conjunction with my colleagues, should they arrive, (or alone in any other contingency,) it is 
 desirable that the Delegation should be informed of your views upon the right of slateholders to 
 
migrate to new territory with their slaves, that we may know how far they accord with , the in- 
 structions under which wo are directed to act. I will therefore respectfully inquire — 
 
 1st. Whether you still adhere to the positions taken in your letter to A. O. P. Nicholson, Esq., 
 of December last. 
 
 2d. If so, ami correct in construing it to mean that you consider that the inhabitants of a ter- 
 ritory, before they form a State Government, have a right to establish or prohibit slavery, as they 
 may deem most consistent with their local policy ? 
 
 3d. And that the policy so expressed is the paramount law during the territorial probation, 
 changeable only by the people of the territory upon the formation of a State Government, or 
 under such Legislative sanction as they may direct ? 
 
 There is another matter, but slightly alluded to in your Nicholson letter, to which I will also 
 direct your attention. 
 
 Do you consider that the slaveholders would have the undeniable right to migrate, with their 
 slaves, to any Mexican territory that may lie annexed to the United States — or would you regard 
 it a doubtful matter, in consequence of the institution of slavery not having been recognised in 
 said territory by the Mexican authorities immediately preceding the acquisition of such territory, 
 (supposing it should be acquired.) 
 
 Your reply will enable the delegation to determine whether, under certain circumstances, they 
 can consistently with their instructions, cast the vote of Florida in your behalf as a candidate for 
 the Presidency. Yours, respectfully, R. J. MOSES, 
 
 Delegate from the Slate at large. 
 
 [General Cass's reply.] 
 
 Unite™ States Hotel, May 21, 1848. 
 Dear Sir : I did not receive your esteemed favor until yesterday, and I have been so much 
 occupied that I could not answer it before. 
 
 I had supposed that my sentiments upon the subject to which you refer were fully understood 
 by my Southern friends ; but as you seem to desire information, I enclose you my Nicholson let- 
 ter, which contains all that I have to say upon the subject. 
 
 Respectfully yours, 
 To R. J. Moses, Esq. LEWIS CASS. 
 
 Gen. Cass never skulks or dodges a question — his opinions are always 
 freely spoken — but when a friend applies to him to learn whether he has 
 placed the proper construction on his Nicholson letter, instead of manfully 
 answering negatively or affirmatively, as the case might be, he quietly en- 
 closes him a copy of the letter itself! And yet this man, who boasied in 
 his Prolest against the Quintuple treaty that he " was no slaveholder," that 
 he " never had been and never should be ;" that " he deprecated its exist- 
 ence, and prayed for its abolition everywhere ;" this " Northern man with 
 Southern principles," who has deserted the North with a view to cheat the 
 South, now appeals to Southern slaveholders, to assist in hiselevation 10 the 
 Presidency, on the faith of a paltering letter, which he dare not explain, 
 by declaring what he means when he assumes to plant himself on the 
 Southern "Platform !" The "noise and confusion" which confounded 
 him at Cleveland a few months since may satisfy, pethaps, sycophants and 
 tricksters who cling to his fortunes, as the surest means of advancing theirs ;. 
 but a jealous, reflecting People will never be duped into surrendering South- 
 ern rights to the keeping of a man whose greatest claim to their confidence 
 is the proclamation of his own infamy in (he base, because insincere, aban- 
 donment of Northern opinions and Northern interests. 
 
 Washington, September, 1847. 
 
 Towers, printer, Washington. 
 
 146 
 

 V : -->" V'^>* V™y* \ 
 
 •a 
 
 4 o 
 
 A**.... *. 
 
 
 * tit » 
 
 c° ,c^ °v 
 
 
 ** V % 
 
 •*• " A^ <• -VVT* .0* "o, -.-.7*" A <■ *-Tn«' 0' 
 
 \ > „ 1 • n **• 
 
 : • »- "> 
 
 
 < o • ,