/ 
 LETTERS 
 
 AJJDIIESSED TO 
 
 JOHN SERGEANT, MANUEL EYRE, LAWRENCE LEWIS, CLEMENT 
 C. BIDDLE, AND JOSEPH P. NORRIS, ESQS. 
 
 AUTHORS OF 
 
 aw Awmwm^ 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE OP PENNSYLNANIA, 
 
 Adopted at a Meeting of the Friends to the Election of John Quincy Adams, 
 held in Philadelphia, July 7, 1828 : 
 
 CONTAINING* 
 
 Strictures on iheir Address. 
 
 BI 
 
 THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE, 
 
 IV OF PHILADELPHIA, 
 
 Appointed by a Republican Convention, held at Harrisburg-, 
 January 8, 1828. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM STAVELY 
 
 1828. 
 
 A 
 

 TO THE PEOPLE, 
 
 VELLOW CITIZENS: 
 
 If the friends of the administration, had, in this district, confined them- 
 selves, to an exposition of the character and claims of their own candidate; it 
 is not probable, that we should have written the letters, now submitted to you. 
 Instead of pursuing that course, however, they avoided all explanation of that 
 kind, and assailed in gross terms the motives and actions of Gen. Jackson and 
 his friends. 
 
 It became our duty, therefore, in execution of the trust, confided to us, by 
 our republican fellow citizens of Pennsylvania, to defend our candidate and his 
 friends from unprovoked aggression; and then to scrutinize the character and 
 cause of Mr. Adams. 
 
 In executing this duty, if we have Vrred in fact, argument, or inference, we 
 are unconscious of it: the following letters have appeared in several newspapers, 
 and no effort has been made to controvert any part: In presenting them in a 
 new shape, we have only to ask a dispassionate consideration of their content?. 
 
 Respectfully, Yours, &c. 
 
 JOSEPH WORRELL, 
 WILLIAM DUNCAN, 
 WILLIAM BOYD, 
 HENRY TOLAND, 
 JOHN WURTS, 
 WILLIAM J. DUANE, 
 WILLIAM J. LEIPER, 
 CHARLES S. COXE, 
 THOMAS M. PETTIT, 
 
 * !■ 
 
 3 55 
 
 V 
 
LETTER 1. 
 
 To John Sergeant, Manuel Eyre, Lawrence Leiois, C. C. Bid/He, and 
 Joseph P. Norris, Esquires — Authors of an Address adopted at the 
 administration town meeting of the Jth July. 
 
 Gentlemen : — In the address, submitted by you, to the public, early 
 in July last, you very truly say, that the day, on which the approach- 
 ing election for president will be held, will be marked in the history 
 of the country. A crisis has, indeed, arisen, upon the result ot 
 which, we are persuaded, it will depend, whether the people shall 
 be henceforth ruled by factious combinations, or shall retain the sove- 
 reignty in ti.eirown hands. We,aIso, entirely concur with you, in your 
 exhortation to the people — to consider the exercise of the right of 
 suffrage a sacred duty — to lay aside passion and prejudice — and to 
 take counsel only of an enlarged patriotism. 
 
 If you, gentlemen, had regarded the judicious advice, which you 
 thus gave to others, we should have been relieved from the obliga- 
 tion to notice your address: If you had avoided passion and preju- 
 dice, and, taking counsel from an enlarged patriotism, had substituted 
 persuasion for proscription, and facts for assertions, the public, 
 would have been instructed, and we should have rejoiced at such 
 demonstrations of coolness and candour, in these rude and intem- 
 perate times. 
 
 But, we are constrained, by our respect for truth, as well as by 
 our regard for the cause, which we honestly espouse, to say, that we 
 do not sec, in the general matter of your address, any indication 
 whatever, that it was written under the influences which it professes 
 an anxiety to extend: On the contrary, we think that many of its as- 
 sertions are gratuitous, that its inferences are drawn through the 
 medium of "passion and prejudice," and that its anticipations are 
 the creatures of an imagination that is diseased, or an ambition that 
 is dissatisfied. 
 
 Do not suppose, that, in thus freely declaring the impression, which 
 your address has made upon our understandings, we meditate indig- 
 nity or injury to you: if not otherwise restrained, we have had a 
 lesson from your own intemperance: you have blended all, who disa- 
 gree with you in opinion, under the common denunciation of a fac- 
 tion, and haveassigned motives for their actions, and objects for their 
 efforts, no less atrocious than those, which merit public execration; 
 but, be assured, that we, and those who act with us, feel no injury, 
 much less resentment — on the contrary, we hail this proscription as 
 such a one was hailed by the republican party, thirty years ago, as 
 an omen of the fate of him, whose cause demands such an advocacy. 
 
 Nor, in thus addressing you, must any one suppose, that we aim, or , 
 expect toalter your course: it is to the understandings of those who are ' m 
 not excited, that we would respectfully address ourselves; and we' 
 merely adopt the form of letters, to you, because a fair occasion is 
 thus presented, under the names of persons, known to the public, to 
 lay before them such facts and arguments, as, owing to the degrada* 
 
tion of the press, they might be disposed to doubt of disregard, li 
 stated anonymously. We intend, then, to enquire into the truth 
 and fairness of your assertions and anticipations. 
 
 But, before we proceed to execute this task, we will, in the present 
 letter, notice your appeal to those, who are in the enjoyment of 
 wealth : your appeal is, in effect, an allegation, that there is one por- 
 tion of the community, which has " the largest stake and the deepest 
 interest, in the welfare of society, and the purity of our institutions:" 
 against the aristocratic character and tendency of this doctrine, we 
 protest, and we call puhlic notice to it, not only because it is un- 
 sound in itself, but because our fellow citizens will be enabled to 
 decide, what confidence ought to be placed in a party, which seeks 
 to establish such distinctions in this free country. 
 
 We ask, then, explicitly, whether there is any particular portion of 
 the community, which truly has a deeper interest, or a linger stake, 
 in the public welfare and institutions, than any other? Such a doc- 
 trine, we believe, has been always privately held by the aristocratic 
 party, to which you belong: it is in full operation in England, as may 
 be seen in the manner, in which our last presidential election was no- 
 ticed there:* and it was deliberately advocated by a former president 
 Adams, in his work, singularly called a Defence of the American Con- 
 stitutions^ but itisadoctrine, which, in this happy country, is unten- 
 able in argument, and odious in application. 
 
 Wealth! What is it? It is that, which gives to its possessor the su- 
 
 * In the British Annual Register for 1825, it is said, in reference to the elec- 
 tion of Mr. Adams, by the house of representatives. — "As Jackson counted 
 amongst his partisans, the whole rabbk of the country, their rage at his defeat 
 was extreme, and it was the more violent, as he unquestionably had a majority 
 of the people on his side." 
 
 j- The principles of Mr. J. Adams, and in which his son Mr. J. Q. Adams was, 
 no doubt, educated, are deliberately explained in this work. In Mr. John 
 Adams' reply to the young men of Philadelphia, 1799, he averred, that Ameri- 
 can independence was declared, "not as an object of predilection and choice, 
 but of indispensable necessity." In the work on the American constitutions, 
 vol. 1, page 360, Mr. Adams says — "The distinctions of poor and rich, are as 
 necessary in a state of considerable extent, as labour and good government. 
 The poor are destined to labour; and the rich, by the advantages of education, 
 leisure and independence, are qualified for superior stations." Again, at page 
 458, vol. 3, he says — " The people in all nations are naturally divided into 
 two sorts, the gentlemen and the simple-men, a word which is here chosen to 
 signify the common people." "By the common people, we mean labourers, 
 husbandmen, MECHANICS, and MERCHANTS in general, who pursue their occu- 
 pations and industry without any knowledge in liberal arts or sciences, or in 
 any thing but their own trades or pursuits." Again, at page 460, same vol. 
 " It is the true policy of the common people to place the whole executive power 
 in one man." Page 468- " By kings and kingly power, is meant the execu- 
 tive power in a single person." Page 365. " There is not, in the whole Ro- 
 man history, so happy a period as this under their kings." Vol. 1, page 70, 
 "I only contend that the English constitution (king, lords and commons) is, 
 in the theory, the most stupendous fabric of human invention." Page 116. 
 "It, (the aristocracy) is a body of men which contains the greatest collection 
 of virtue and abilities in a free government; is the brightest ornament and the 
 glory of the nation, and may always be made the greatest blessing of society, if 
 it be judiciously managed in the Constitution." Page 283, vol. 3, " First 
 Magistrates and Senators had better be made hereditary at once, than that the 
 people should be universally debauched and bribed, go to loggerheads and fly to 
 arms every year." 
 
perfluitiesoflife.whctherheisthe subject of a despot, or the citizen of a 
 republic — it is often acquired by the mere accident of birth, and some- 
 times accumulated by successful fraud — it contributes no new ener- 
 gy to the mind, and often stifles the finest impulses of the soul: it 
 cannot give health to an unsound body, or peace to a troubled con- 
 science — and it usually makes man look upon his brethren, as you 
 seem to do, as beings of an inferior order — And yet, why shall all 
 this be so ? Is wealth permanent in its nature, or hereditary in its 
 qualities? Look around you, gentlemen, and observe the wrecks in 
 our own vicinity! Look back upon the many persons, who, thirty 
 3 r ears ago, taunted the republicans of this district, as you unkindly 
 upbraid their descendants now, with having a small stake and a shal- 
 low interest in our institutions — where are those haughty persons ? 
 and where especially are their children? Have they now a deeper 
 interest or a larger stake than the humble, but honest and indepen- 
 dent mechanic? Or, are they not monuments of the folly of their 
 fathers, and of the grosser absurdity of your imitation ? What surety 
 have you, gentlemen, that you or your children will at all times have 
 the deep stake, so far as fortune can be so called, which you may now 
 possess? Are not the mutability of fortune, and the absence of he- 
 reditary privilege, amongst the happy characteristics of this country 
 — checking the arrogance of some men, and arousing the energies of 
 others? Should not that mutability have warned you to be tender to 
 humble men. seeing that your own offspring may have to earn sub- 
 sistence by labour, and would deem it harsh on that account to be 
 denied an equal interest in the institutions of their country, with 
 those who may then be the possessors of mere riches. 
 
 No ! gentlemen — the men, the women, and the children, who really 
 have a large stake and a deep interest, in the welfare of society, and 
 the purity of our institutions, are those, who, when society is de- 
 pressed, truly suffer, and who, if our institutions should cease to 
 exist, would become the vassals of the worst of all governments, an 
 upstart nobility ! It is the humble man, who should clinu; to a repub- 
 lic as the only refuge from social and political degradation; to the 
 rich and the haughty, a change, far from bringing affliction, would 
 open new scenes for the indulgence of appetite, and create those 
 distinctions, which, the father of your candidate said, exist between 
 4i the gentleman and the simplcman." 
 
 Think not, that, in thus expressing our sentiments, we propose to 
 make converts of those, whose prejudices have been nurtured from 
 infancy; much less do we expect to bring back into the republican 
 fold, some of those amongst you, who, as they have acquired a ' ; deep 
 stake" in houses or stock, seem to be ashamed to remain in the ranks 
 of their old companions in political and personal adversity. No ! the 
 hereditary arrogance of the one, and the new-born pride of the other, 
 resist alike all efforts of argument or persuasion. 
 
 Nor must you suppose, because we may admit, that the mass of 
 wealth in this city is on your side, we are insensible of its insignifi- 
 cance, when contrasted with the estates of the great bulk of the peo- 
 ple of Pennsylvania, wdio are against you. 
 
 It is to the unsoundness of the doctrine itself, that we enter out 
 protest. 
 
6 
 
 LETTER II. 
 
 Gentlemen: The question before the people, is, you say, whether 
 faction shall be permittetl now to begin its reign: we, on the con- 
 trary, assert, that the question is, whether faction shall be permitted 
 to continue its reign: and, thus, we have at once reached a point 
 admitting a precise decision. To arrive at this decision, let us en- 
 quire into, and understand, the true meaning of the word faction: 
 you will not, we presume, contend that a majority of the people 
 constitute a faction; you will on the contrary, admit, that a faction 
 is a minority, guided by selfish and ambitious passions. 
 
 This being allowed, let us apply to this poiut, facts, about which 
 we must all agree: you know, gentlemen, as well as we do, that 
 Gen. Jackson was not proposed by any caucus, or cabal — that he 
 had retired to his farm, there to spend the remnant of his life — that 
 he did not mingle in the crowds of intriguers and sycophants, who 
 pollute the atmosphere of the seat of the national government: you 
 know, as well as we do, that Gen Jackson had no official stations, 
 patronage, or influence, at his command — that he had not the purse 
 which, Mr. Clay said, can purchase any thing — that he had no writer 
 as Mr. Clay had to blast the fame of any rival — that he contributed 
 no money, as Mr. Clay did, to render odious the very person, whom 
 he afterwards made president: you know, that Gen. Jackson was 
 first proposed for the presidency, by some of the yeomanry of wes- 
 tern Pennsylvania — that his nomination was resisted, by the parti- 
 zans of four other candidates, three of them in the cabinet, and the 
 fourth in the chair of the speaker of the house of representatives: 
 well, then, gentlemen, do you see, in these facts, indications of fac- 
 tion? Do not those facts prove, that all factions were opposed to 
 Andrew Jackson, and that the people, the yeomanry of the country, 
 were the faction, if such you can call them, who upheld him in de- 
 fiance of all the factions, which had been for years preparing for 
 the contest? 
 
 Let us proceed — You know, gentlemen, as well as we do, that 
 the whole number of electoral votes was 261 — that of these, Gen. 
 Jackson received 99, Mr. Adams but 84, Mr. Crawford 41, Mr. 
 Clay but 37 — You know, that in the eight toestern states the elec- 
 tors favourable to Gen. Jackson received 46,512 votes more than 
 Mr. Adams; yet, in congress, Mr. Adams received Jive western 
 states, and Gen. Jackson but four — You know, that Mr. Adams re- 
 ceived but three of the eleven electoral votes of Maryland, yet in 
 congress he got the vote of Maryland — that he did not get one of 
 the sixteen electoral votes in Ohio, yet in congress he got the vote 
 of Ohio — that he got but one of the three electoral votes of Illinois, 
 yet in congress he got the vote of Illinois — that he got but one of 
 the three electoral votes of Louisiana, yet in congress he got the 
 vote of Louisiana — that he did not get one of the electoral votes of 
 Missouri, yet in congress he got the vote of Missouri — -You know, 
 that Mr. Adams received but four votes out of New England, from 
 electors chosen by the people — that of the 84 electoral votes which 
 he received, but 47 were given by electors chosen by the people — 
 
whilst of the 98 electoral votes received by Gen. Jackson, 84 were 
 given by electors chosen by the people. 
 
 From these facts, gentlemen, what is the fair inference ? Do you 
 see in these facts the evidence, that the friends of Gen. Jackson were 
 a faction — or that they were a majority of the people ? Can you at- 
 tribute the elevation of Mr. Adams, in opposition to the spirit of 
 our institutions, and the well known wishes of the people, to any 
 thing but faction ? Can you as men of truth say, that if the vote 
 had been taken by the people, such would have been the result? — 
 and, if such would not have been the case, to what are we to at- 
 tribute it, but the pernicious influence, and corrupt practices of 
 faction ? 
 
 But, you will at least admit, that, if any doubt about the popular 
 will existed, in 1824, all sort of doubt was soon after put at rest: 
 On the 10th of February, 1825, when it was announced to Mr. 
 Adams, that he had been elected by the house of representatives, he 
 replied, that he would refuse to occupy the presidential chair, it, by 
 doing so, the people could at once express their will, and decide 
 whether they desired him to be their president or not: Mr. Adams 
 did not resign, he assumed the reins; but the people soon decided, 
 in the only way, which time and the constitution allowed — they dis- 
 missed the faithless representatives, who had given their votes for 
 Mr. Adams; they stript Mr. Adams and his party of every attri- 
 bute, which they had it in their power to take away; they placed 
 the powers of legislation in the hands of friends to Gen Jackson; 
 and. for the first time, perhaps, in any country, made the executive 
 and his party the opposition! , 
 
 Yes, gentlemen, those, whom you kindly denounce as a faction, 
 are the yeomanry of the country, represented by majorities in both 
 houses of Congress: the sword and the purse have been, and are 
 now, in the hands of Gen. Jackson's friends; .have they abused 
 either ? have they not relieved the veterans of the revolution, and 
 made unexampled advances for internal improvement? they have 
 not, indeed, the handling of the money, or the control over the con- 
 tingent and secret service funds ; these are, still, at the disposal of 
 the executive, but they have begun to scrutinize the purposes, to 
 which tho^e funds have been applied, and have already discovered 
 abuses, which would disgrace the oligarchy of England, or even the 
 agents of the holy alliance. 
 
 What appellation, then, belongs, to a minority, which got the ex- 
 ecutive power into their hands, by a fraud upon the. people? What 
 shall we call the minority, at the head of which is a president, who, 
 when elected, declared, in his letter accepting the office, thai he 
 owed it to "the favour of the house," and did not pretend to hold 
 it, or to return thanks for it, as a gift from the people? What, we 
 say, are we to call you, gentlemen, and your associates in the same 
 cause? if we shall not use the word faction, and apply to all, a term, 
 which, we are satisfied, appropriately belongs to " the leading men," 
 at least you must admit, that your party stands before the world as 
 a minority, stript of every power and influence, which time and 
 the constitution have as yet permitted the people to take away. Is 
 it not so? we ask you, seriously, is it not so? and if it is so, then 
 
8 
 
 we ask you, by your respect for truth, and by your regard for the 
 opinion of even humble men, whether your denunciation was nut as 
 ungracious as it was unfounded? 
 
 The question is not, therefore, as you say it is, whether a faction 
 shall begin to reign; but it is, whether a president, who avowed, 
 that he owed his election " to the favour of the house," and not to 
 the wishes of the people, as he would have said, if he thought so, 
 shall continue in officer it is, whether he and his party shall retain 
 power in defiance of the will of a people, who have done all that they 
 could constitutionally do, to mark their indignation at the success 
 of intrigue ? it is, whether a faction, which holds the executive 
 reins alone, shall be able so to employ their official influence and 
 the public money, as to intimidate, delude, proscribe, and buy up, 
 such a portion of the people, as may, when added to the faction, con- 
 stitute a majority, and perpetuate the dynasty of succession r 
 
 This, gentlemen, is the question, and a momentous question it is, 
 that is before the people: it is safe in their hands — "the generation 
 now on the stage," said Jefferson " will, I am sure, govern as wisely 
 as their predecessors." ♦* 
 
 LETTER TIL 
 
 After asking, whether faction shall begin tc reign: you inquire — 
 " shall the presidency of the United States be won, like a tavern 
 brawl, by combinations, force, and lawless violence; and henceforth 
 be kept up, not as an office to be filled by tried and approved 
 statesmen, for the good of the people, but a prize for personal 
 prowess, and a reward for military achievement — shall the sword 
 alone be sufficient to open the road to the highest civil office in the 
 republic?" 
 
 When you asked those questions, you did not seek information, 
 but you sought, in the shape of an enquiry, to insinuate, what you 
 would not venture to assert: was this ingenuous? If you have a 
 knowledge of facts, state them; but to impute, by inuendo, base 
 intentions to a mass of men, as patriotic as yourselves, is not the 
 way to attract the esteem of others, or to preserve your own. Who 
 have sought to gain a political end by ''combinations?" With whom 
 have the friends of Andrew Jackson combined? What alliance have 
 they formed ? Has Andrew Jackson taken to his bosom the very 
 man who was his most bitter enemy ? Has he combined with men, 
 whom he had denounced as ujeditators of treason ? — Have any per- 
 sons whom he so denounced, had the meanness to become his abject 
 flatterers? — Did he give a written pledge of official favours to the 
 very men, whom he had denounced as meditators of treason? 
 
 " Combinations," gentlemen — w hen and where and by whom were 
 they entered into? if any such were formed, between Andrew Jack- 
 son and others, we challenge you to make them known to the peo- 
 ple, and you u>ili do so, if you can But. if you should fail to sus- 
 tain your charge, what must the public think of your discretion, and 
 of the long preamble of professions, with which your address begins ? 
 
 We do not say, upon ihe faith of direct proof, that Mr. Adams 
 owes his present station to two several " combinations;" but we do 
 
9 
 
 say, that wc believe such is the fact, as firmly as it is possible to b.^ 
 lieve any fact, insusceptible of such proof: How can we doubt it? 
 Has an}' one ever ventured rationally to explain, why, men, who 
 but lately before, publicly denounced each other as unworthy of 
 public trust or private confidence, suddenly became mutual benefac- 
 tors — Mr. Clay giving the presidency to his late enemy Mr. Adams, 
 anil Mr. Adams making his late enemy Mr. Clay, secretary of state? 
 Nor do we say, because we have not seen the letter, that Mr. Adams 
 gave or sanctioned a written pledge, to Mr. Webster or to some 
 other person, that he would give public stations to men of Mr. Web- 
 ster's party: But, we do say, that we believe that he did so, as firmly 
 as we believe any matter, dependent upon circumstantial proof: 
 How can we doubt it ? The charge has been publicly made, and has 
 been evaded, but not denied: It will not be believed, that, if it was 
 unfounded, so profound a silence would be observed by those, who 
 in minor affairs, are so ready to embody contradiction in all the 
 shapes of pamphlet, bill, and newspaper. 
 
 What becomes, then, of the charge of "combination?" Let us 
 see. gentlemen, if you are not equally unfortunate in other respects. 
 Who has resorted to force and lawless violence ? You meant, that 
 the readers of your address should believe, but you had not the har- 
 dihood to say, that Andrew Jackson or his friends sought or seek to 
 attain political ends, by force or lawless violence: Was this not so? 
 and if it was, was it fair, was it honourable, was it true ? Yes, gen- 
 tlemen, we ask you in the face of the community, is it true, that to 
 attain political ends, force or lawless violence have been resorted to 
 at any time, or in any place, by Andrew Jackson, or his friends? If 
 it is true, we call on you to give your proofs, and you will do so, if 
 you can — if you fail, you will stand before the public convicted of 
 an offence, which will carry with its exposure, the most severe of 
 all punishments to generous souls, a sense of self-reproach. 
 
 " Force and lawless violence" — Such is the imputation cast upon 
 Gen Jackson and his friends! Hearken, gentlemen, to the voice of 
 him, whom you have thus traduced. On the 10th of February, 
 1825 — the day after a "combination" had placed Mr. Adams in 
 the presidential chair, or after he was placed in it, as he in his ac- 
 ceptance stated, by " the favour of the house," Gen Jackson was 
 invited to a public festival, by his friends at Washington. Instead 
 of manifesting the warmth, the passions, the resentments, said to 
 be his characteristics, at a moment too when the most phlegmatic 
 man might be supposed to be aroused, Gen Jackson shunned a puulic 
 entertainmentj and thus expressed the sentiments of a patriot and 
 sage. 
 
 kk I cannot," said he,' in hi£ reply to the invitation, " refrain from 
 suggesting to you and my friends, the propriety, perhaps necessity, 
 of forbearing to confer upon me, at this moment, any such prominent 
 marks of your regard. You cannot, I am persuaded, mistake my 
 meaning — a decision of a matter, about which much public feeling 
 and concern have been manifested, has very lately taken place — any 
 evidence of kindness and regard, such as you propose, might, by 
 many, be viewed as carrying with it, exception, murmuring and feel- 
 ings of complaint, which I sincerely hope belong not to any of my 
 ffiends. I would, therefore, beg leave to suggest to yon. that* ou re 
 
 r. 
 
10 
 
 flection, yon may deem it proper to forbear any comae, to which; 
 possibly, exception might be taken." 
 
 Such is the language of the man, of whom you say, with a degree 
 of modesty that is truly marvellous, that you have no hope, from his 
 conduct in public or private life, that he would be governed by any 
 respect for the constitution, the laws, or the rights of his fellow citi- 
 zens! Such is the language of him who could have had " the favour 
 of the house," as he already possesseil the hearts of the people, if he 
 had simply said, that he would not appoint Mr. Adams to the first 
 civil office in the government! 
 
 But, gentlemen, if it is utterly incorrect, as we say it is, that force 
 aftd lawless violence have at any time been resorted to by the friends 
 of General Jackson to promote his election, what is the fact as to the 
 friends of Mr. Adams? Have you no knowledge of any force and 
 lawless violence on their part? Have you no recollection of attempts 
 to silence debate, and stop the press with the pistol ? No murmur is 
 heard against such acts, and yet you write sentimentally about the 
 evils of force and violence. 
 
 What think ye, now, of the salutary counsel which you give to 
 others, to lay aside passion and prejudice? What but passion and 
 prejudice could have induced you to sanction, with your names, as- 
 sertions, which, upon reflection, you must confess are unfounded r 
 What but passion and prejudice could make you insensible of the 
 indelicacy, if not indecency, of representing him, whom every one of 
 our presidents has honoured, as a person, who, if elected, would dis- 
 regard the constitution, the laws, and the rights of his fellow citizens ! 
 Such, to use your own language, " is the power of faction, such the 
 shapes it can assume, and the zeal it can enlist, to serve its unhal- 
 lowed purposes — its chief instruments are passion and prejudice 
 wrought upon by flattery and falsehood; its chief end is to excite 
 and agitate — to silence the calm voice of reason and truth, by stir- 
 ring up tumultuous and boisterous feeJings, and thus to subdue the 
 judgment to its own views." 
 
 That such are the influences governing yourselves, gentlemen, you 
 may not be sensible, and it is therefore with pleasure, that we have 
 endeavoured, and shall strive to " take counsel only of an enlarged 
 patriotism," and to avoid those angry denunciations against you, 
 which you have so intemperately directed against others. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Although, gentlemen, you profess to deprecate every thing cal- 
 ulated to "excite and agitate — to silence the calm voice of reason 
 and truth, by stirring up tumultuous feelings," and suspicions, we 
 have never read an address, bearing such internal evidence a9 yours 
 does, that you rely upon excitement, agitation and suspicion, as your 
 ablest agents. \Vc are, indeed, constrained to say, that there is not 
 novelty in the matter, or in the manner of your address — it barely 
 echoes the surmises and the insinuations a thousand times uttered 
 before, by those alarmists, who, being destitute of arguments to con- 
 vince men, resort to such terrors, as mischievous nurses invent to 
 silence children. 
 
11 
 
 You Insinuate, that the friends of Gen. Jackson contend, that the 
 only road through which the presidency should be readied is the 
 field of battle; but you have not had the goodness to name a single 
 person, who has ever had the audacity to advocate, or the folly to 
 suggest such a doctrine. You labour to instil into the public mind, 
 that the friends of Gen. Jackson consider the sword alone sufficient 
 to open the door to the highest civil office in the republic; but you 
 cannot point out one man, so destitute of patriotism and of common 
 sense, as to entertain such a sentiment. What do you consider such 
 conduct as this ? Is it manly — liberal — just ? Is it not exactly such 
 a course of excitement, alarm, and intimidation, as you pretend to 
 censure, as the genuine characteristics of faction? 
 
 But, although you will not venture to meet our appeal to you, to 
 name a single person who advocates any of the doctrines which you 
 insinuate, all the friends of Gen. Jackson profess; perhaps you will 
 say, that our support of Gen. Jackson shows that such are our 
 opinions. If such shall be said, the question will arise, whether 
 Gen. Jackson has or has not qualifications besides those of a military 
 character! You assert that he has nut, and we aver that he has. 
 
 How is this point to be decided ? Surely, not by your assertions, 
 nor by ours, but by facts; yet, we in vain look for facts in your ad- 
 dress; you favour the public with assertions and inferences only. 
 Thus, you assert, that Gen. Jackson retired soon, and without dis- 
 tinction, from every civil employment, which he filled; but the force 
 of this remark depends not merely upon the meaning of the words 
 Jl soon" and " distinction:" but on the motives of his conduct which 
 you cannot know. Gen. Jackson was district attorney of the United 
 States, for about six years, and then resigned — was that " soon ? : '" 
 Gen. Jackson executed with skill and integrity, the duties of every 
 station which he filled — no complaint was ever made against him — 
 was not this serving with " distinction?" or does your estimate of 
 distinction embrace the characteristics of " swelling orators" only ? 
 Your assertion, at least, admits, that Gen. Jackson held many civil 
 offices, and of course he was deemed qualified by those who appointed 
 him; it is of no consequence, therefore, how long he held appoint- 
 ments, his tenure of office depended on his own pleasure- Far from 
 impairing our confidence in Gen. Jackson, what you assert on this 
 point increases it; you bring forcibly to our recollection, that Gen. 
 Jackson has not sought offices, but that he has been always solicited 
 to hold them — that, like Washington, he has usually served his coun- 
 try when called on, but has resigned and retired to his farm, when 
 the necessity for his service ceased! Such conduct as this is most re- 
 markably different from that of your favourite, we confess; it is for 
 the people to say, which course of conduct they prefer. Mr. Adams 
 has been in office about forty years— has he ever resigned or declined 
 an office ? Far from it, he has gathered the emoluments of office with 
 a most greedy hand. Nor has Mr. Clay been more modest— yes, 
 he did on one occasion resign the speaker's chair to promote his pri- 
 vate interests as a member of the bar. Gen. Jackson, however, never 
 deserted a post, from mercenary views — nor has he ever drawn 
 money from the pockets of the people as Mr. Adams has done, for 
 services never performed ! 
 
 Such, t'l^n. gentlemen, i? yo>r evidence, of Gen. Jackson's want 
 
m 
 
 of civil qualifications: do you think it conclusive? or do you imagine* 
 that the American people are incapable of seeing the fallacy of such 
 proofs? 
 
 Conscious of your weakness, on this point,, however, you introduce 
 a doctrine, to the nature and tendency of which we anxiously call 
 the public attention: In order to show, that Gen. Jackson has no 
 qualifications, but those of a military kind, you describe the qualifi- 
 cations, which, you say, every one should possess, who is proposed 
 for the presidency: The most essential of those qualifications, in 
 your opinion, i9, " an experience, or knowledge of public affairs, 
 foreign and domestic;" and you say, that the only assurance, that an 
 individual has such qualifications, is, " the reputation obtained by 
 long and faithful services of a similar kind !'' 
 
 Such is your doctrine — it does not surprise us, as it accords with 
 the aristocratic characteristics of your address, in other respects. 
 "What is this doctrine? it is what Mr. Clay once most bitterly de- 
 nounced, it is what he now -most sturdily upholds — cabinet succes- 
 sion! No man, you say, ought to l-e president, who is not " a tried 
 and approved statesman," — who has not. an extensive knowledge of 
 public affairs, foreign and domestic: And, no man, you say, can 
 have that knowledge, who has not had long and faithful service of a 
 similar kind: can any thing be plainer ? no man shall be president, 
 who has not been in the ministry at home or abroad! 
 
 This, gentlemen, is the principle, which you desire to see establish- 
 ed: it is, no doubt, very convenient to those, who make a busi- 
 ness of ambition, but it is utterly at variance with the genius of our 
 institutions, and — we wish we could say — with the practice under 
 them; but unhappily, the people have in this case great cause for self- 
 reproach; they sanctioned a most pernicious example; they aban- 
 doned principle for expediency; they tolerated an abuse yesterday, 
 to-day it is a precedent, and to-morrow it will be law, unless the 
 people protest against the fraud. 
 
 Did you intend, gentlemen, to go so far? Did you suppose, you 
 were, not merely advocating the election of Mr. Adams, but, that of 
 Mr. Clay, as his successor — and not even the succession of Mr. Clay, 
 but that of Mr. Clay's Secretary ? Your party was accustomed to 
 taunt us l-cpublicans, as Napoleon passed from first consul to consul 
 for life — and from consul for life to Emperor; ridiculing, as yout- 
 party did, the notion of the durability of a republic! the doctrines, 
 which you now openly avow, are in accordance with old sentiments; 
 and yet, gentlemen, you talk of danger to our institutions from a 
 "military chieftain." 
 
 It is most fortunate that selfishness and ambition usually betray 
 themselves; the people have now one more incentive to action, and 
 are indebted to you, gentlemen, for its developement. 
 
 LETTER Y, 
 
 Gentlemen: — The question, that we are considering," is, whether 
 'Gen. Jackson has, or has not, qualifications, besides those of a military 
 kind — yon say he lias not, and we aver that he has-. To prove his unfit- 
 
13 - 
 
 'R&S9 lor the presidency, you insist, that long and useful serviceof a9itnr 
 lar kind is indispensable, and that Gen. Jackson has had no such service 
 —on the contrary, you say, he has not held civil offices long, or with 
 distinction— this is the substance of your assertions. We have al- 
 ready shown the pernicious tendency of your succession argument; 
 we shall now expose its fallacy, and show the stations Gen. Jackson 
 has filled, and what has been the character that he has established. 
 
 At what period, since the era of independence, were high qualifica- 
 tions most necessary ? Was it not, when the heaving of the political 
 waves still told, that the storm of the revolution was scarcely over ? 
 Was it not, when the light of the constitution scarcely began to dis- 
 pel the gloom of the confederacy ? Was it not, when the national bark 
 for the first time floated upon the sea of experiment ? If such was the 
 crisis, most pregnant with events, and most productive of anxiety, 
 whom did the people take as their pilot ? Where were then those 
 cabinet-bred ministers, who, alone, you say, have the requisite quali- 
 fications ? Where were the men who had been ambassadors to kings. 
 and who had found their way through the labyrinths of diplomacy ? 
 Franklin existed — he was one of the glories of the age in which he 
 lived — he was as profoundly versed in pulic affairs, as he was distin- 
 guished in the walks of science and literature — he was remarkable 
 for an intimate knowledge of human nature, and a capacity to apply 
 his various acquirements to the affairs of states, as well as those of 
 individuals — he had rendered the most signal services, in the highest 
 civil departments — yet, in preference to this patriot, statesman, phi- 
 losopher, and sage, the American people selected " a mere soldier" 
 as their president! You tell the people, that they should imitate the 
 example of the heroes and sages of the revolution, and you say that 
 they were competent to decide upon the qualifications of a candidate 
 — what, then, was their decision ? They were almost all living in 
 1789, all were active in that trying period, and of all men they pre- 
 ferred Washington, whose prominent merit was his success as a mili- 
 tary commander — he had not had the advantages of a classical edu- 
 cation — he had not filled any civil station whatever — he had barely 
 acquired a knowledge of surveying, of farming, and of " the trade of 
 a soldier" — he had never trodden upon a foreign soil — yet to him the 
 eyes and the hearts of the people turned as their favourite. Will 
 you, gentlemen, pretend, that, if Washington had not been "a mili- 
 tary chieftain," such would have been the result? Can you aver, that 
 Washington had any of the civil qualifications which you now say 
 are essential, and not to be acquired without long service of a similar 
 kind? 
 
 Fortunately, Washington himself declared the truth: on the 30th 
 April, 1789, on taking the oath of office as president, after expressing 
 his reluctance at being called from his farm, the asylum of his de- 
 clining years, he said: " on the other hand, the magnitude and diffi- 
 culty of this trust, to which the voice of my country called me, being 
 sufficient to awaken, in the wisest and most experienced of her citi- 
 zens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualifications, could not but over- 
 whelm will) despondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments 
 from nature, and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, 
 ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficiences. In this con- 
 flict of emotions, all I dare aver is, that it has been my faithful study 
 
14 
 
 to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance t 
 by which it might be affected." 
 
 Such was the avowal of the individual, chosen the first president 
 of this republic, a person unpractised in the duties of civil adminis- 
 tration — a fact well known at the time to the people, as the reply of 
 their representatives in congress declared: 
 
 " You have long/' said they, " held the first place in the people's 
 esteem: you have often received tokens of their affection: you now 
 possess the only proof, that remained of their gratitude for your past 
 serviccs. ,, 
 
 What past services ? not those of a cabinet minister — not those of 
 an ambassador — not those of "a tried ami approved statesman" — not 
 services of a civil kind, but those of " a soldier." 
 
 • ••Was the republic disappointed ? Was Washington found in- 
 competent? If he was competent at such a crisis, why should not 
 General Jackson be competent now ? our institutions and our credit 
 are now established — our character is high in the estimation of the 
 world — our citizens have not made greater advances in numbers than 
 in intelligence — a president has several millions of men, from whom 
 to select able counsellors — the people hold the purse and the sword 
 in their own hands: why, then, should they distrust Gen. Jackson ? 
 has he ever deceived them ? in what instance did a selfish spirit guide 
 him ? where has he ever acted, but for his country ? What proofs of 
 fitness did Washington give prior to 1789 ? he answers himself, none 
 of a civil kind: what proofs has Jackson given? his history proves, 
 that, besides that given by Washington, he has given many that 
 Washington never gave. Washington was a "successful military 
 chief"— Jackson never failed to triumph over his country's enemies : 
 Washington, before his elevation to the presidency, never executed 
 a civil trust — 'Jackson has executed nearly all the civil trusts, in the 
 power of the people or the government to confer. 
 
 You perceive then, gentlemen, that experience proves the fallacy 
 of your doctrine of succession, that no one should be president, who 
 had not been in the political ministry : and we now proceed to show 
 that Gen. Jackson has other qualifications, besides those of a military 
 kind. 
 
 1. Gen. Jackson received a classical education : was this no ad- 
 vantage? some of your associates think it an indispensable requisite, 
 for public trust or private station. 
 
 2. He had, like Franklin, to establish his name, without the patron- 
 age of a single relative or friend; if he had not talents and virtues, 
 would he not have remained in obscurity ? could he have arrived at 
 his present telebiity without them? how many in half a century have 
 risen over all impediments as he has done ? how many of his assail- 
 ants could imitate his example ? 
 
 3. In his 20th year, he was admitted to the bar, and leaving his 
 native state, South Carolina, went to Nashville, to establish a charac- 
 ter, and earn an independence amongst strangers. Did this not 
 evince strength of mind and talents. 
 
 4. Such was the reputation, which he established, that, upon the 
 organization of the territory of the United States south of the Ohio, 
 (now called Tennessee) in May, 1790, Washington appointed him 
 
15 
 
 district attorney,* a station which Andrew Jackson held until elected 
 to serve in 1796, in the convention for forming a constitution for 
 Tennessee : Was this no proof of fitness for civil trusts ? 
 
 5. In his 50th year he was chosen a member of the convention for 
 forming a constitution for Tennessee : what stronger token could a 
 people give ©f their sense of his integrity and abilities? 
 
 6. At the same age he was elected a member of Congress of the 
 United States; was not this an evidence of good character and quali- 
 fications for civil stations ? 
 
 7. In his 3 1st year, he was elected to represent Tennessee in the 
 Senate of the United States, the most distinguished body of this, or 
 perhaps any country : what could more clearly show a fitness for high 
 trusts ? 
 
 8. The next station which he filled was that of Judge of the Su- 
 preme Court of Tennessee: he held it for several years: did this 
 evince no civil qualifications ? 
 
 9. Having acquired a moderate estate, he retired from public life, 
 and became a Tennessee farmer: what a contrast with his rival ! 
 
 10. When Congress authorised the employment of volunteers to 
 defend theif country, in the last war, Andrew Jackson left his farm 
 and appealed to his neighbours and countrymen; 2500 of them placed 
 themselves at his disposal: what stronger proof of his' patriotism — ■ 
 what higher evidence of the attachment of his countrymen — need be 
 given ? 
 
 11. After he had vanquished the confederated Indians, and their 
 more savage allies, he concluded several important treaties with the 
 
 * "To have been rewarded, for these public services and others, by a commis_ 
 sion signed by Washington, who never patronized the undeserving, is a sub 
 stantial recommendation." 
 
 Such was the language of Mr. C. J. Ingersoll at a meeting of the bar of Phi 
 ladelphia, August 23, 1828, called to pay a last tribute of respect to the 
 memory of the late Judge Peters: " Washington never patronized the unde- 
 serving." 
 
 The following is the form of the commission, given by Washington, to Ar 
 drew Jackson: We are not sure that the date is correct, but we believe it is so. 
 and equally correct in all other particulars: The district south of the Ohio was 
 organized under act of Congress, of May 25, 1790: Andrew Jackson was ap 
 pointed under it — 
 
 41 George Washington, President of the United States of America. 
 *' To all who shall see these presents, greeting — 
 
 "Know ye, that reposing special trust and confidence, in the integrity, 
 ability, and learning of Andrew Jackson, of Nashville, in the territory of lh 
 United States, south of the Ohio, I have nominated, and by and with the advice 
 and conaent of the senate, do appoint him attorney of the said United States. 
 for the district of the said United States south of the River Ohio: and do au- 
 thorise and empower him to execvite and fulfil the duties of that office accord 
 ing to law; and to have aud hold the same, together with all the power, privi 
 leges and emoluments thereto of right appertaining, unto him the said Andrew- 
 Jackson, during the pleasure of the President of the United States for thetinr 
 being: In testimony whereof 1 have caused these letters to be made patent, 
 and the seal of the United States to be hereto affixed. 
 
 " Given under my hand at the city of New York, the twelfth day of August,. 
 in the year of our lord., one thousand, "seven hundred and ninety. 
 
 [s, a.] (Sign< G. WASHINGTON 
 
lb' 
 
 former, under the direction of government, not only to its satisfaction, 
 but in a manner that commanded the gratitude of the conquered 
 tribes: — are these no tokens of merit ? 
 
 12. He was appointed governor of Florida, a station requiring the 
 exercise of civil as well as military qualifications: was not this a 
 proof that he possessed them ? 
 
 13. He was offered, by Mr. Monroe, a seat in the Cabinet, as Se- 
 cretary at War; but he declined it: was this no evidence of his 
 talents — no proof of his being free from selfish or ambitious views ? 
 
 14. Mr. Monroe asked him to proceed to Mexico, as Ambassador 
 of the United States: — was this no proof of his having the qualifica- 
 tions of a statesman ? he refused to accept the station, because he 
 thought this republic ought not to sanction the military usurpation of 
 Iturbide, by sending a minister to his court — was this such conduct 
 as would distinguish a man, disposed to become himself an usurper ? 
 
 • •••Such, gentlemen, are fourteen facts, not assertions: have they 
 no influence upon the question before us? do they not contradict 
 you, when you say that Andrew Jackson has military merits only ? 
 do they not support us, when we say, that he has qualifications from 
 nature, education, and experience, competent to the execution of the 
 duties of President ? Are not your partisans constantly boasting, 
 that your candidate had the confidence of Washington and other pre- 
 sidents ? if their confidence is a proof of Mr. Adams' merits, why 
 shall not the confidence and applause of Washington, Adams, Jeffer- 
 son, Madison, Monroe, and J. Q. Adams himself, be proofs of Gen. 
 Jackson's merits ? 
 
 1. President Washington appointed Andrew Jackson to a high civil 
 trust, which he held for nearly six years. 
 
 2. President John Adams, in 1820, declared, that he had been at- 
 tentive to the character and actions of Gen. Jackson — that he consi- 
 dered him one of the greatest military characters that North Ame- 
 rica had produced — that he was a cheat man, to whom we were all 
 deeply indebted, and whose* bust he would preserve as a precious 
 monument, for the contemplation of his, Mr. Adams' posterity. 
 
 3. President Jkfiehson declared, that Andrew Jackson was an 
 undeviating patriot, whom he ranked with Washington, Franklin, 
 &.c. — that he was a clear-headed, strong-minded man, with more of 
 the Roman in him than any man living. 
 
 4. President Madison refused to interfere in the pending election, 
 " from a- recollection of the relation in which he stood to Gen. Jack- 
 son, whilst President, and of the proofe given him of the estimation 
 in which he was held." 
 
 5. President Monroe said, " my friendship for Gen. Jackson, and 
 the strong proofs of confidence and regard 1 have given him, whilst 
 president, forbid my taking any part against him at the ensuing elec- 
 tion." 
 
 6. President J. Q. Adams said, General Jackson "justly enjoys, 
 in an eminent degree, the public favour: of his worth, talents. 
 and services, no one entertains a higher, or more respectful 
 opinion than myself" — "his whole career has been signalized by 
 
 THE FUREST INTENTIONS, and the. MOST ELEVATED PURPOSES, and. 
 
 his services to this nation entitle him to its highest rewards." 
 ••••Here, gentlemen, are six more facts, not assertions — have these 
 
17 
 
 no influence upon the question before us? Is all that the six presidents 
 have said and done false and erroneous? Do you admit the competency 
 of your own candidate, to decide, whether a man is or is not worthy 
 of the presidency ? If you admit his competency, what becomes of 
 all the slanders upon General Jackson — and your own objections ? 
 John Q. Adams declares that Andrew Jackson deserves the highest 
 rewards that his country can bestow, — what is the highest reward ? 
 Surely the very station to which you modestly declare he has no 
 claim. 
 
 Read over again, we entreat you, the address which you have sign- 
 ed: read especially this sentence: " We are constrained to say, that 
 if his conduct in office should correspond with any known part of his 
 conduct in life, public or private, there is no ground to hope that he 
 would be governed by any respect for the constitution, the laws, or 
 the rights of his fellow-citizens." 
 
 This, gentlemen, is your solemn assertion in the face of the world; 
 would not a stranger suppose that you alluded to some highway rob- 
 ber ? Would any one suppose, that the man, whom you thus most in- 
 decently abuse, is the same person whose character is written, not 
 only by the hands of all our presidents, but in the hearts of a grateful 
 people ? Shame — shame, upon the vile passions that could dictate 
 such a libel ! 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 [Gentlemen — In the letters which we have addressed to you, we 
 have, we believe, said, that we were not aware of error, and our readi- 
 ness to correct it, if discovered.' 
 
 Our attention has been called to our tenth letter, in which we refer- 
 red to the civil offices conferred on Gen. Jackson. 
 
 In that letter, we stated, that Washington had appointed Andrew 
 Jackson attorney of the district, now Tennessee, under the act of 
 congress organizing that territory, of May 26, 1790; and then, in a 
 note, we presented the form of a commission to Gen. Jackson as dis- 
 trict attorney. 
 
 It has been represented — 
 
 1. That the statement made by us, as to the appointment, is un- 
 founded. 
 
 2. That the form of a commission, annexed in a note to our tenth 
 letter, was presented by us for purposes of deception. 
 
 1. As to the first assertion, we say: we regarded the fact, of the ap- 
 pointment of Andrew Jackson, by Washington, historical and un- 
 doubted : it had never, to our knowledge, been contradicted, although 
 long before the public: In the life of Andrew Jackson, written by 
 John H. Eaton, Esq. it is stated — that General Jackson had settled 
 in Tennessee in 1788 — that he had established himself there as a 
 lawyer — and 
 
 " Shortly afterwards, he was appointed, by Washington, Attorney 
 General for the district, in which capacity he continued for several 
 years." 
 
 As General Eaton had not fixed the time of appointment, we 
 referred to the laws of the United States, and from the date of the ' 
 organization of the district, and the statement of General Eaton as 
 to the time when General Jackson established himself, concluded that 
 General Jackson was the first attorney. 
 
18 
 
 2. As to the second assertion, we say, that it is contradicted by the 
 very note objected to: We had no sort of doubt of the correctness of 
 the grave declaration of General Eaton; we implicitly believed, and 
 we still believe, that General Jackson was appointed by Washington: 
 To show, in as prominent a way as we could, what it was that Wash- 
 ington had done for General Jackson, we gave, in a note, appended 
 to our tenth letter, the form of a commission, (copied from an original 
 commission of 1789, from Washington to a district attorney) giving 
 the name, place, and date as we believed they must be in the origi- 
 nal, which we had no doubt had been given to General Jackson. In 
 our note, we did not give the paper as the commissioh given to Gene- 
 ral Jackson: we did not give it as the copy even: we gave a form, just 
 as we believed the original to be: and designated its character, not 
 only by the name given to it, but by our statement, that we could not 
 be certain as to the date. In short, we intended to present, if we may 
 so say, the picture of the appointment which we believed had been 
 given. 
 
 General Eaton, who is the authority for our statement as to the ap- 
 pointment, will be able to remove doubt, if doubt exists: For our- 
 selves, we have given the facts as they were and are — not conscious, 
 and, as we know ourselves to be, not capable of unfairness.] 
 
 [Note. — Sept. 12, 1828. In corroboration of the statement of John H. 
 Eaton, esq. we refer to the letter of Judge Overton, to the Jackson committee 
 of Nashville, dated May 8, 1827, in which it is asserted, that Andrew Jackson 
 attended court at Nashville, in May, 1791, as solicitor general for government. 
 
 The denial, that general Jackson was appointed, rests upon two positions, 
 that are fallacious — it is said, that the law organizing the district now Tennes- 
 see, for judicial purposes, did not authorize the appointment of an attorney 
 U. S. The answers to this are, first, that a distsict court without a district at- 
 torney, would be an anomaly; there must have been an attorney, from the na- 
 ture of the court and business to be done in it: secondly, it was not necessary 
 that the law of May, 1790, organizing the district, should authorize the ap- 
 pointment of an attorney, because the general judiciary law of Sept. 24, 1789, 
 section 36, directs, that, "there shall be appointed in each district, a meet 
 person, learned in the law, to act as attorney for the United States," &.c. — Laws 
 U. S. vol- 2, page 71. General Washington, therefore, was bound to appoint 
 an attorney U. States for each district, as organized: no one can suppose that 
 Washington neglected his duty ; and it has never been pretended that any 
 one but Andrew Jackson was appointed.] 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Gentlemen — At the meeting, which adopted your address, many 
 correct observations were made by Mr. Hopkinson: "To think 
 freely, to act freely, and to discuss freely," said he, "are essential 
 rights of republicanism — but they must be exercised with a kind, 
 liberal, and accommodating spirit:" Yet this judicious counsel was 
 scarcely given, when you presented your address, containing this 
 assertion: — 
 
 " We are constrained to say, and we say it with reluctance, that, 
 if his (Gen. Jackson's) conduct in office should correspond with 
 any known part of his conduct in life, public or private, there is no 
 ground to hope, that he would be governed by any respect for the 
 constitution, the laws, or the rights of his fellow citizens." 
 
19 
 
 Is this, in a kind, liberal, or accommodating spirit ? could malignity 
 itself clothe abuse in any terms so well calculated, as these are, to 
 engender hatred and suspicion? — You say, you reluctantly utter this 
 proscription, and seem to think that your reluctance qualifies or 
 excuses its indecency; but the very reverse is the case; much that 
 is said, during the excitement of a popular assembly, should be for- 
 gotten and forgiven at its dissolution; but reluctance shows that you 
 deliberated, and therefore no palliation exists. 
 
 That you ought to have been reluctant, who can doubt ? for you 
 aver, that Gen. Jackson had, in his private life and public career, 
 violated the constitution, the law, and the rights of his fellow citizens, 
 so often, that even hope of reformation is extinct! — to make such a 
 charge as this, every man ought indeed to be reluctant, because he 
 may be required to prove it; and because such a charge cannot but 
 be regarded as an insult to a whole people — for, of whom is this 
 picture given? a person old enough to be the father of any of his 
 traducers — a man honoured with the confidence of all our presi- 
 dents — a man, whom no public body, court, or jury, has ever cen- 
 sured — a man who was never fined but once, and then, like Aristides, 
 for being true to his country — a man, who encountered " war, pesti- 
 lence and famine" to guard our naked frontiers, whilst the mass of 
 his slanderers were resting on beds of down — a man, who, without 
 patronage or family, has raised himself from obscurity to the highest 
 place in the hearts of his countrymen! 
 
 Such is the individual, whom you denounce with a bitterness, that 
 no criminal judge would indulge in when sentencing the most hard- 
 ened offender! What must the world think of a people, who have 
 not only permitted an uniform violator of all that is sacred, to go 
 unpunished, but have conferred upon him the highest trusts, for nearly 
 forty years? — or, what must they think of you, if they prefer the 
 testimony of the country to your imputations? 
 
 Upon that contrast alone, we might rest the question — whether 
 your representation is true or not: but, we prefer an open exposi- 
 tion; we desire that no doubt may exist of our ability, or inclination, 
 to prove, that the estimate of Gen. Jackson's character, formed by 
 his country, is correct, and that your description of it is baseless — 
 that his country has been just and generous, but that you are cruel 
 and ungrateful. 
 
 Here, at the threshold, however, we are stopped by your own de- 
 fault: you have made one of the most serious charges ever preferred, 
 and yet you have not stated a single instance, in the private life of 
 Gen. Jackson, of any want of integrity, or of any outrage on consti- 
 tution, law, or the rights of his fellow citizens. You content }'our- 
 selves with a series of assertions, culled from a catalogue of purchas- 
 ed calumnies, and, in your zeal to preserve the grossness of the 
 original, forget what was due to your country and yourselves. 
 
 In the absence of all specification, as to his private life, what are 
 your charges against his public conduct ? Has he ever neglected or 
 betrayed his country's interests ? has he ever given a vote at variance 
 with republican principles ? has he ever defamed the country, from 
 which he was at the time deriving honour and emolument ? has he 
 ever been an apostate for office — a common informer for promotion ? 
 Let us see.... what are his offences? nobody will doubt your zeal in 
 
20 
 
 exposing them: what, then, are they? You refer to three periods 
 only in his political career: 1 — in 1796, as a member of congress: 2" 
 — in 1815, at New Orleans: 3 — and subsequently in the Seminole 
 war. 
 
 1. As to the first. " Americans," you say, " glory in the name 
 of Washington. Gen. Jackson has recorded his hostility to that 
 venerated name."* 
 
 The design of this assertion is palpable — nothing is more natural 
 than that Americans should venerate the man who fought their bat- 
 tles, and materially contributed to the happiness of their country — 
 nothing is more natural, than that they should consider his enemy, 
 as in some measure their own: To operate upon the feelings of the 
 people, therefore, you have made the above assertion, and the en- 
 quiry, that first presents itself, is — whether this assertion is true? 
 We cannot hesitate, one moment, in asserting, that it is not — it is 
 not only unfounded in itself, but there is a suppression of truths, 
 which, if presented to the public, would have shown its imposture. 
 
 If, for instance, you had charged Gen. Washington with shedding 
 American blood in several instances, and had said no more, you 
 would have treated him exactly as you have treated Gen. Jackson — 
 it would have been true, that Gen. Washington had caused Ameri- 
 can blood to be shed, but the further truth should have been told, 
 that the blood shed was that of traitors, mutineers and deserters, 
 and thus all odium would have been prevented. So that, even the 
 fame of Washington might thus be blasted, by the suppression of the 
 facts material to an honest exposition. 
 
 Is such a course as this " kind" or " liberal ?" Is it consistent with 
 the habits of our community? Is it honourable to yourselves or to the 
 cause which you espouse ? 
 
 Americans glory in the names of John Hancock, Samuel Adams, 
 and Edmond Pendleton — the two first were proscribed by the British 
 ministry, at the dawn of the revolution, and the latter was one of 
 the most distinguished whigs of Virginia. What would you have 
 said, if, on the death of such eminent men, Andrew Jackson had 
 voted against paying to their memories " the cheap tribute of crape" 
 for thirty days ? Might you not, then, have some apology for assert- 
 ing, that he recorded his hostility to their venerated names ? If such 
 a vote ought to degrade him in the eyes of his countrymen, what do 
 you think of your own candidate? It was not Andrew Jackson, of 
 Tennessee, but J. Q. Adams, of Massachusetts, who thus recorded 
 his hostility to Samuel Adams and Edmond Pendleton! 
 
 Had the vote of Andrew Jackson, to which you allude, the least 
 similitude to such a rancorous vote as this ? Had that vote the small- 
 est reference to Washington personally or politically? Far from it. ... 
 it would, indeed, have been publicly base and personally ungrateful, 
 if Andrew Jackson had entertained hostility to Washington, who was' 
 not merely his country's shield, but his own earliest benefactor! 
 
 * There are not, in Pennsylvania, two more violent opposers of Gen. Jack- 
 son than Messrs. Abner Lacoxk and Jonathan Roberts — the journal^ of the 
 United States Senate, of January, 1819, records their hostility to the venerat- 
 ed name of Washing-ton in these terms — on a motion to carry into effect a re- 
 solution of congress, of August 7, 1783, for erecting- a statue to Washington, 
 the yeas were 30, the nays 6, including in the lank minority Messrs. Lacock 
 and Roberts. 
 
21 
 
 What, then, is the foundation of your charge ? 
 
 Gen. Washington having delivered an address to Congress, a reply 
 on the part of the house of representatives was prepared by Mr. Fisher 
 Ames — this reply, instead of being liberal and patriotic, was factious 
 and insulting to many of the members of the house — upon the question 
 whether such a reply should be adopted, Andrew Jackson recorded 
 his opposition. Was this hostility to Washington ? If it was, then 
 the whigs of Pennsylvania were hostile to him, and they included 
 men, respect for whose memory ought to have protected their friend 
 General Jackson, at least from your censure ! Yes, it is true, that so 
 early as 1796, Andrew Jackson was in the same ranks with Jeffer- 
 son, Clinton, Langdon, Macon, Giles, Monroe, Smilic, Vcnable, Du- 
 val, Butler, Mason, Whitehill, and other distinguished republicans — 
 and it is true, that then and by them was commenced the opposition 
 (not to Washington, but to an aristocratic faction) which ended in 
 the banishment of Mr. John Adams to Braintree ! Is this a crime, in 
 the eyes of republicans ? No doubt it is in yours, gentlemen, for your 
 principles are aristocratic; but it cannot be in theirs; on the contra- 
 ry, you have placed in a new light this early claim which Andrew 
 Jackson had upon the gratitude of his countrymen. 
 
 Governor Giles, one of the minority, with whom General Jackson 
 voted, in a letter, dated May 5, 1828, gives a faithful history of the 
 vote, to which you object: "Mr. Ames," says he, "might without 
 difficulty have obtained an unanimous and hearty vote, in favour of his 
 answer (to General Washington's address) if his sole object had been 
 the plaudits of General Washington, however highly wrought or ex- 
 travagant — but this would not content him or his party: the humilia- 
 tion of their political antagonists seemed to be the most acceptable 
 portion of his unhallowed incense: Mr. Ames made the most artful 
 and cutting thrusts at them, which the occasion invited." 
 
 Thus we see that the republicans, including General Jackson, 
 would have heartily and unanimously recorded praise and gratitude 
 to Washington, but that would not suit Mr. Ames and his party: and 
 who was Mr. Ames, and what were the principles of his party ? 
 
 " It is in the nature of white birch stakes," said Mr. Ames, "to 
 fail in two years : and A republic wears out its morals almost as soon 
 as the sap of a white birch rots the wood." — Works of Fisher Ames — 
 p. 514. 
 
 " Our country is too big for union — too sordid for patriotism — too 
 democratic for liberty." — Same, p. 483. 
 
 " Our disease is democracy: it is not the skin that festers, our very 
 bones are carious, and their marrow blackens with gangrene." — Same. 
 
 Such were the sentiments of Mr. Ames, the pretended friend of 
 Washington : but what were the principles of Washington? 
 
 ''Accustom yourselves," said he, " to think and speak of your union 
 as the palladium of your political safety and prosperity." "Is there 
 a doubt whether a common government can embrace so huge a 
 sphere? — let experience solve it: to listen to speculation in such a 
 case were criminal ! 
 
 " Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your 
 hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm 
 the attachment." 
 
 Which, gentlemen, do you profess, the doctrines of Mi. Ames, or 
 
22 
 
 those of General Washington? If the latter, can you be surprised 
 that the republican party, including General Jackson, refused to 
 sanction an address penned by Mr. Ames — an address, not approba- 
 tory of Washington, but masking the hostility of Mr. Ames to the 
 true friends of the union? With what truth then do you assert that 
 General Jackson was hostile to General Washington? Is it not 
 manifest, that it was Mr. Ames who was in principle hostile to him? 
 Have not the party* to which you belong, systematically acted in 
 direct hostility to General Washington's farewell address? 
 
 — The conduct of General Jackson at New Orleans, which, col- 
 lectively, will form an imperishable monument, not only to his own 
 fame, but to the glory of his country, has been, nevertheless, the 
 fruitful topic for defamation. The people and their representatives 
 have passed upon it, and by both the gratitude due to patriotic devo- 
 tion has been added to the honours conferred on military skill. 
 
 Is not this true? and, as you know it is, is it not an ample reply to 
 your reproaches? or have you the vanity to suppose that a garbled 
 statement, made under factious excitement, is to outweigh the de- 
 tails which already constitute grave history? 
 
 You assert that General Jackson turned the legislature out of 
 doors, but you err in saying even that: it is a mistake, he simply 
 caused a suspension of deliberations! — and why did he adopt that 
 course? because the legislature proposed to surrender to the enemy 
 a city which it was the duty of General Jackson to defend: would you, 
 gentlemen, have surrendered the city? if not, then you must approve 
 of the only course by which that calamity could have been averted. 
 
 You assert, that after peace teas known to have been made, General 
 Jackson, fettered the press, imprisoned a judge, arrested a patriotic 
 member of the legislature, &c. but you surely do not mean to say, 
 that this, or any part of this, was done after the existence of peace 
 was known at New Orleans! your language is ambiguous, it seems to 
 have been designed to convey an impression that all this was done 
 by General Jackson, after he knew that peace existed — but we are 
 unwilling to attribute to you a design that would disgrace the vilest 
 of the many vile slanderers of General Jackson: you cannot mean to 
 say, that General Jackson knew that peace existed, because such an 
 assertion would be inconsistent with truth. What then are the facts? 
 General Jackson was responsible for the fate of New Orleans, and 
 had declared martial law — if he had not done so, New Orleans would 
 have been betrayed by spies and traitors, and the consequences need 
 not be described: if martial law was an indispensable measure, then 
 it became the duty of the General to see that it was not a dead let- 
 ter, to see that even judges and legislators should not betray their 
 country! the defence is, therefore, brief, as it has hitherto been 
 triumphant. 
 
 But, gentlemen, if General Jackson really did, and you say he did, 
 commit such outrages upon constitution, law, and personal rights, is 
 it not marvellous that the congress of the union, whilst the events 
 were fresh in memory, in the session of 1815, passed resolutions of 
 thanks, and voted gold medals to him.t — Nay, gentlemen, we will 
 
 * The New England faction. 
 
 f The following resolutions will be found among the laws of the United 
 States, adopted in February, 1815. 
 Resolved, By the Sena.te and House of Representatives of the United States 
 
23 
 
 bring the matter still closer to yourselves: you know that every 
 member of congress swears to support the constitution; you know 
 that a member who has a knowledge that a public officer violated the 
 constitution and the law, and yet omits to call him to account, is 
 himself guilty of a breach of trust: let us then apply these facts to 
 one of yourselves, Mr. John Sergeant — he was in congress, perhaps 
 earlier than, but certainly in 1818; all the acts done at New Orleans 
 in 1815 were then as well known as they are now; what are we to 
 think of a representative who then overlooked the outrages which 
 his pen now describes in such appalling colours? did Mr. Sergeant 
 neglect his country then, or is his present alarm factitious? is it true, 
 that with a knowledge of the existence of peace, General Jackson 
 did trample on constitution, law, and personal liberty — and if it is,- 
 why did not Mr. Sergeant call for enquiry and for punishment? and if 
 Mr. Sergeant did not call for enquiry, as he was bound by the most 
 sacred obligations to do, is it not conclusive that in 1818 he did not 
 believe that any such outrages had been committed? and if he did 
 not then believe so, how has the conviction to the contrary been 
 since produced? No, gentlemen, allow us to say, without meaning 
 disrespect, that you act under excitement — you write under excite- 
 ment — and it is not in your power to convince an intelligent people 
 of the fairness of representations, in which, in moments of reflection, 
 you cannot yourself confide. 
 
 The third branch of your censure shall be noticed in our next 
 letter. 
 
 LETTER VII. 
 
 Gentlemen — In the speech of Mr. Hopkinson,to which, in our last 
 letter, we took the freedom to refer, that gentleman very correctly 
 
 of America, in Congress assembled, That the thanks of Congress be, and 
 they are hereby given to MAJOR GENERAL JACKSON, and through him, 
 to the officers and soldiers of the regular army, of the militia, and of the vo- 
 lunteers under his command, the greater proportion of which troops consisted of 
 militia and volunteers, suddenly collected together, for their unifoiimgai,lantiit 
 and GOOD CONDUCT, conspicuously displayed against the enemy, FROM THE 
 TIME OF HIS LANDING BEFORE NEW ORLEANS, UNTIL HIS FINAL 
 EXPULSION THEREFROM; and particularly for their valour, skill and good 
 conduct on the eighth of January last, in repulsing, with great slaughter, a 
 numerous British army of chosen veteran troops, when attempting, by a bold 
 and daring- attack to carry by storm, the works hastily thrown up for the pro- 
 tection of New Orleans; and thereby obtaining a most signal victory over the 
 enemy with a disparity of loss, on his part, UNEXAMPLED IN MILITARY 
 ANNALS. 
 
 "Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause 
 to be struck, a Gold Medal, with devices emblematical of this splendid achieve- 
 ment, and presented to Maj. Gen. Jackson as a testimony of the high sense enter- 
 tained by Congress of his JUDICIOUS and distinguished conduct on that memora- 
 ble »ccasion. 
 
 "Resolved, That the President of the United States be requested to cause 
 ths foregoing resolutions to be communicated to MAJOR GENERAL 
 JACKSON, in such terms as he may deem best calculated to give effect to the 
 objects thereof." 
 
said, that the sense of a people is not to be ascertained from " the in- 
 temperate addresses of self-called meetings, or the mere intem- 
 perate harangues of inflamed and swelling orators." It would, in- 
 deed, be a blot upon the reputation of Philadelphia, if any portion of 
 our community had deliberately sanctioned your address; and it 
 is due to that community to say, that it bears no more resemblance to 
 the acts of our citizens calmly executed, than the harangues to which 
 Mr. Hopkinson referred, do to the exalted feeling of the people of 
 the South. 
 
 What part did your meeting, what part did even you, gentlemen, 
 take in the formation of your address ? You were appointed upon the 
 spot to report an address; your chairman, Mr. Sergeant, produced 
 one already written, but which none of you, as a committee at least, 
 even considered; in the haste and bustle, incident to the meeting, the 
 address was read by you, or perhaps not read at all; with the excep- 
 tion of your chairman, you had no sort of opportunity to consider the 
 nature of the charges made in it; but, relying on him, you agreed to 
 report the instrument as your deliberate act ! the self-called meet- 
 ing*, then adopted, en masse, the harangue of its "inflamed" author ! 
 and thus gave the world one of the most gross productions, that the 
 intemperance of any faction has ever sanctioned. 
 
 Is such a course consistent with the character of Philadelphia? is 
 it such, as in private life, any of you would venture to pursue? is 
 there one of you, even the chairman himself, who would charge any 
 fellow-citizen with wanton and deliberate murder? if any of you be- 
 lieved, that any murders had been committed, would you not consi- 
 der it a solemn duty to pursue the offender ? 
 
 Upon what principle, then, is it that you justify your doing as poli- 
 ticians, what you would not dare, or what you would blush to do, as 
 private men ? Would you not feel yourselves in an awkward predica- 
 ment, if called upon to substantiate before a jury, the foul crimes you 
 impute to General Jackson before the public ? But, gentlemen, you 
 fancy that you are safe, because conscious innocence is a shield suffi- 
 ciently ample to protect General Jacksonfrom all aspersions, because 
 his country has already refused to censure him, and you really were 
 not aware of the extent of your own denunciation — is it not so ? 
 
 For our own part, we entirely acquit all of you, except your chair- 
 man, of responsibility for your address; we do not believe, that, your 
 chairman excepted, any of you understood its real character, and we 
 shall be able to show that your chairman himself, either did not be- 
 lieve what he has now, when inflamed, written, or that if he did be- 
 lieve it, he has most grossly abused the confidence placed in him by 
 this district. 
 
 The third branch of your address embraces occurrences subsequent 
 to the peace of 1815, in the Indian and Spanish settlements: you 
 are not, indeed, as precise as men, writing on a solemn subject, and 
 appearing before the public, ought to be; you do not mention dates, 
 places, or persons; but in sweeping terms, you assert, that General 
 Jackson has looked upon blood and carnage with composure, if not 
 enjoyment; and that he has eagerly caught at every opportunity to 
 shed American blood, without any authority but arbitrary power ! 
 This picture, you must confess, could not have had a higher colour- 
 ing — history docs not present a ruffian, whose propensities were more 
 
25 
 
 atrocious than those attributed to General Jackson! Such of you, 
 gentlemen, as really desire to be esteemed and beloved, as good and 
 intelligent men, cannot but feel some "compunctious visitings," as 
 you look upon the hideous object, which an inflamed temperament 
 has thus seduced you to present to the public eye ! at least you 
 ought to have enquired — and compared — and given facts and evi- 
 dence; but you disdain the performance of such duties, and offer bare 
 assertions! 
 
 Now, you must be aware, that it is utterly impossible for us to 
 meet a sweeping allegation, except by a positive dental of its truth: 
 if you had given dates, names, and places, we would have entered 
 upon the enquiry; but there is not a man in the penitentiary, who 
 would not justly consider himself injured and abused, if you had ap- 
 plied to him the terms which you recklessly employ against a patriot 
 who stands highest in the hearts of his countrymen. We fling back, 
 then, all such imputations as foul and slanderous. 
 
 . . . .When General Jackson had defeated, on the plain of Orleans, 
 the best appointed army ever embodied in America — when his own 
 army, uninjured, saw the remnant of their enemies in disorder and 
 flight, and sought to pursue them, what was the conduct of General 
 Jackson? Did he, who, you say, enjoys the sight of blood, then as- 
 sent to the wishes of his troops? Did he desire, in pursuit of military 
 renown, to slaughter the fugitives of a panic-stricken enemy? What 
 commander, all circumstances considered, would have checked his 
 own and his army's thirst for still greater results? Far from indulg- 
 ing any such vain-glorious and cruel inclinations, he forbad all pur- 
 suit — and by doing so, he incurred the resentment and displeasure 
 of some of his own ardent troops. 
 
 We next see him entering upon a campaign against the ruthless 
 Indians, who give no quarter — and their more cruel allies, who 
 aroused all their ferocious passions. Instead of suffering his troops 
 to obey the law of retaliation, he thus, in his orders to them, incul- 
 cates the soundest principles of humanity and discipline: — 
 
 " How shall a war," said General Jackson, " so long forborne, and 
 so loudly called for by retributive justice, be waged? Shall we imi- 
 tate the example of our enemies, in the disorder of their move- 
 ments, and savageness of their dispositions? Is it worthy of the 
 character of American soldiers, who take arms to redress the wrongs 
 of an injured country, to assume no better model than that furnish- 
 ed them by barbarians? No! fellow soldiers — great as are the griev- 
 ances that have called us from our homes, we must not permit disor- 
 derly passions to tarnish the reputation we shall carry along with 
 us; we must and will be victorious — but, we must conquer as men, 
 who owe nothing to chance; and who, in the midst of victory, can 
 still be mindful of what is due to humanity." 
 
 Let us not, however, appeal to the public addresses of General 
 Jackson to his troops, emphatic as they are. Let us enquire what 
 his country thought of his acts, when they were fresh in memory, 
 and closely scrutinized. Let us see what your own candidate, Mr. 
 J. Q. Adams said; what was the solemn conviction of Thomas Jeffer- 
 son, whom you gentlemen, joined in eulogizing — and what were the 
 conduct and opinion of your own chairman, Mr. John Sergeant. 
 
 There seems to be some excuse for the Spanish Ministers and the 
 
 r> 
 
26 
 
 Sritish journalists, who censured the conduct of General Jackson ift 
 the war in the Indian and Florida settlements — but it is difficult to 
 make any sort of apology for those Americans, who have exceeded all 
 foreign agents and journalists in the abuse of their own officers and 
 government. Fortunately for the reputation of the country, General 
 Jackson's conduct has been subjected to every ordeal calculated to 
 expose criminality or proclaim innocence — with the reputation of his 
 country, General Jackson's has escaped unhurt, and to no champion 
 is he more indebted than to your own candidate, Mr. J. Q Adams — 
 that gentleman in an official letter to our minister at the court of 
 Spain, said: — 
 
 " In passing unnoticed this and other invectives against an officer, 
 (General Jackson,) whose services to this nation entitle him to their 
 highest rewards, and whose whole career has been signalized by the 
 purest intentions, and the most elevated purposes^ I wish to be under- 
 stood as abstaining from observations, which, however justified by 
 the occasion, could but add to the unpleasantness of the discussion." 
 
 Again — Mr- Adams said, '*but the president will neither inflict 
 punishment, nor pass censure upon General Jackson, for that con- 
 duct, the motives of which were founded in the purest patriotism; of 
 the necessity for which he had the most immediate and effectual 
 means of forming a judgment; and the vindication of which is written 
 in every page of the laws of nations, as well as in the first law of 
 nature, self-defence."* 
 
 * It is remarkable, that whilst the partizans of Mr. Adams now condemn the 
 acts of retributive justice, performed by General Jackson, upon the domestic 
 and foreign savages, who desolated our frontiers, they keep entirely out of 
 sight the memorable fact, that Mr. Adams coolly in his closet defended every 
 one of them: in one of his letters to our minister in Spain, Mr. Adams enume- 
 rated some of the atrocities now wholly concealed by his friends, and quaintly 
 asked, whether such facts were not sufficient to cool the sympathies excited 
 in behalf of such monsters as he describes: 
 
 "The Spanish Government is not, at this day to be informed, that cruel a9 
 war in its mildest forms must be, it is, and necessarily must be, doubly cruel 
 when waged with savages; that savages make no prisoners but to torture them? 
 that they g'ive no quarters? that they put to death, without discrimination of 
 age or sex. That these ordinary characteristics of Indian warfare, have been 
 applicable, in their most heart-sickening horrors, to that war left us by 
 Nicholls, as his legacy, reinstigated by Woodbine, Arbuthnot, and Ambrister, 
 and stimulated by the approbation, encouragement, and aid of the Spanish 
 commandant at St. Marks, is proof required' Entreat the Spanish Minister of 
 State, for a moment, to overcome the feelings, which details like these must 
 excite, and to reflect if possible, with composure upon the facts stated in the 
 following extracts, from the documents enclosed." 
 
 Letter from sailing-master Jairus Loornis to Commodore Daniel T. Patter- 
 son, 13th August, 1816, reporting the destruction of the negro fort: 
 
 " On examining the prisoners, they stated that Edward Daniels, O. S. who 
 was made prisoner in the boat, on the 17th July, was tarred and burnt alive." 
 
 Letter from Archibald Clarke to General Gaines, 26th February, 18ir. 
 (Message, P. U. S. to Congress, 25th March, 1818, p. 9.) 
 
 "On the 24th inst. the house of Mr. Garret, residing in the upper part of 
 this county, near the boundary of Wayne county, (Georgia,) was attacked dur- 
 ing his absence, near the middle of the day, by this party, [of Indians,] con- 
 sisting of about fifteen, who shot Mrs. Garret in't wo places, and then despatch- 
 ed her by stabbing and scalping. Her two children, one about three jeass, 
 
27 
 
 To the testimony of Mr. Adams we add that of Mr. Jefferson: 
 
 ** Thomas Jefferson returns his thanks to General Jackson for 
 the copy he has been so good as to send him, of the vindication of 
 the proceedings in the Seminole war. If doubts of those proceed- 
 ings have existed in caudid minds, this able vindication can scarcely 
 fail to remove them. In addition to what had been laid before the 
 public, it brings forward some new views, and new facts of great 
 weight. On the whole, he cannot doubt but that the gratitude of his 
 country, for former achievements, will be fortified by those new 
 proofs of the salutary energies of their great benefactor. He salutes 
 the General with assurances of his constant and affectionate attach- 
 ment, and high respect." 
 
 " Nov. 1820." 
 
 It is not, however, upon the testimony of Mr. Jefferson, given in 
 his retirement, or on that of Mr. Adams, as secretary of state, that 
 we need rely: we have the solemn decision of the house of represen- 
 tatives of the United States, of which one of you, gentlemen, (Mr. 
 John Sergeant,) was at the time a member. In January and Fe- 
 bruary, 1819, all the great questions upon which you seek t*> agitate 
 the public mind, were fully discussed — at that time all the informa- 
 tion, now had, was fullj r possessed — let us then see what the grand, 
 council of the nation determined. 
 
 After a debate, that continued for a month, January, 1819, the fol = 
 lowing resolutions were thus decided upon in committee of the whole 
 house: 
 
 1. "Resolved, That the house of representatives of the United 
 States disapproves the proceedings in the trial and execution of 
 Alexander Arbuthnot and Robert C. Ambrister: 
 
 For this resolution 54 
 
 Against it - - - - - 90 
 
 2. "Resolved, That the committee on military affairs be instruct* 
 ed to prepare and report a bill to this house, prohibiting in time of 
 peace, or in time of war, with any Indian tribe or tribes only, the 
 execution of any captive, taken by the army of the United State*, 
 without the approbation of such execution by the president: 
 
 For this resolution ----- 57 
 
 Against it ------ 98 
 
 3. "Resolved, That the late seizure of the Spanish forts of Pensa~ 
 cola and St. Carlos de Barancas, in West Florida, by the army of 
 the United States was contrary to the constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 For this resolution •• * 65 
 
 Against it - - - - - - 91 
 
 the other two months, were also murdered, and the eldest scalped; and tl« 
 house was then plundered of every article of value, and set on fire." 
 
 Letter from Peter B. Cook, (Arbuthnot's clerk,) to Eliza A. Carney, at Nas- 
 sau, dated Suwahnee, 19th January, 1818, {riving an account of their opera- 
 tions with the Indians, against the Americans, and the massacre of JLt. Scott 
 and his party, 
 
 " There was a boat that was taken by the Indians that had in it thirty men f 
 •even women, four small children. There were six of the men got clear, and 
 one woman saved, and all the rest got killed. The children were taken by 
 the legs, and their brain* dashed out against the boa' "' 
 
28 
 
 And when the subject was finally disposed of, on the 8th of Fe- 
 bruary, 1819, the several questions were thus determined: 
 
 For disapproving of the trial and execution of Alexander Ar- 
 buthnot: 
 
 Ayes. ... 62 
 
 Noes. . . . 108, including Mr. John Sergeant. 
 
 For disapproving of the trial and execution of R. C. Ambrister: 
 
 Ayes. ... 63 
 
 Noes 107, including Mr. John Sergeant. 
 
 Mr Cobb then offered this resolution: 
 
 ii Hcsofved f That this house disapprove of the capture and occu- 
 pation of Pensacola and the fortress of Barrancas by the army of 
 the United States, and the establishment of a civil government there- 
 in, without the authority of congress: 
 
 For this resolution - - 70 
 
 Against it - - 100 including Mr. J. Sergeant. 
 
 Thus, after an ardent debate, in which all the passions and feel- 
 ings of the members were appealed to, in order to censure General 
 Jackson: and in the course of which all the acts of General Jackson, 
 in his campaigns, were referred to: he was triumphantly released from 
 all censure, with the full concurrence of Mr. John Sergeant himself, 
 acting under the most solemn obligations ! 
 
 To show that the charges now made, were then made, it is barely 
 necessary to refer to the debates themselves. Mr. Holmes, for in- 
 stance, said — " It will require pretty strong proof to produce convic- 
 tion, that General Jackson has intentionally done wrong: at his age, 
 crowned with the honours, and loaded with the gratitude of his coun- 
 try, what adequate motive could induce him to tarnish his glory by 
 acts of cruelty and revenge?" 
 
 No proof was given: no conviction of error, much less crime, was 
 produced, and General Jackson came forth, released from censure by 
 an overwhelming majority! 
 
 .... Which then are we to believe — 
 
 1. Thomas Jefferson. 
 
 2. John Q. Adams. 
 
 3. James Monroe, who, after this decision conferred appointments 
 on General Jackson. 
 
 4. The United States Senate, which confirmed those appoint- 
 ments. 
 
 5. The house of representatives, including Mr. John Sergeant- 
 Or— 
 
 1. Mr. John Sergeant. 
 
 2. Mr. Manuel Eyre. 
 
 3. Mr. L. Lewis. 
 
 4. Mr. C. C.Biddle. 
 
 5. Mr. J. P. N orris, jr. 
 
 Is it to be believed, that Mr. Sergeant was ignorant in 1819? Is 
 it to be credited, that he was then destitute of patriotism and huma- 
 nity also? Was not every fact then known, that is known now? Was 
 there a single act of General Jackson's career which was not eagerly 
 dragged into a protracted and ardent debate? How happened it 
 then that Mr. Sergeant invariably voted in favour of Gen. Jackson? 
 
29 
 
 If General Jackson had, in the course of his operations, eagerly 
 caught at every opportunity to shed American blood, upon his own 
 arbitrary will, why did Mr Sergeant support him? If General 
 Jackson had shown a composure at blood and carnage, why did Mr. 
 Seigeant invariably act with Ids friends in his behdlf ? 
 
 If it was true that General Jackson had been so prodigal of blood, 
 American blood, as to shed it with eagerness, and illegally, why 
 did not Mr. Sergeant proclaim the fact to congress? Why did he 
 not protest against an honourable acquittal? Why did he solemnly 
 record his own votes in opposition to Mr. Clay and his faction, in 
 favour of that acquittal? 
 
 To these questions we make no specific reply — that task we leave 
 to a dispassionate public, abstaining, as we do, even from those com- 
 ments which seem to be demanded by respect for the principles of 
 retributive justice. 
 
 LETTER VIIT. 
 
 Gentlemen — You have incorporated with your address, the speech 
 delivered at your meeting, by Mr. Hopkinson, and made it, like 
 your address, a fair subject for comment. We propose to notice 
 one part of it, in connection with your own sentiments on the same 
 topic. 
 
 You attribute the opposition that is made to Mr. Adams, to a 
 variety of personal considerations — but Mr. Hopkinson asserts, that 
 the question does not turn on the merits or qualifications of candi- 
 dates; it is, says he, " a struggle between a southern and northern 
 policy — between a man of the north, and one of the south." 
 
 It must be confessed, that the position thus taken, is a very im- 
 portant one — it is an assertion, that Mr. Adams is the representative 
 of what is called a northern policy; that his friends alone are the 
 friends of that policy; that Gen. Jackson is the representative of a 
 southern policy, and the friends of that policy are his only supporters 
 — this, we take it, is the substance of the position there assumed. 
 
 "One of the expedients of party,"' said General Washington, in 
 his farewell address, "to acquire influence within particular dis- 
 tricts, is to misrepresent the opinions and views of other districts." 
 
 We do not attribute to Mr. Hopkinson the design here referred 
 to — he, no doubt, entertains the opinion that he expresses, erroneous 
 as it is; and it is because such men do express such opinions, that 
 it becomes necessary to show their error. Although such is the case, 
 in relation to Mr. Hopkinson, we can make no such allowance for 
 many others — we have no doubt that the aims of the people of the 
 south are grossly misrepresented in Pennsylvania, for the purpose of 
 acquiring influence there — producing those jealousies and heart-burn- 
 ings which Washington so pathetically deprecates. Patriots and 
 men of sense would have seen, as Mr. Hopkinson did, in the late 
 ebullitions in the south, nothing but a momentary feeling; but you, 
 gentlemen, under excitement, attribute them to nothing less than 
 treason! 
 
 It appears to us to be a fallacy, to say, that Mr. Adams is the re- 
 
30 
 
 presentativc of a policy, which he has never had the manliness to 
 recommend} or that Gen. Jackson is opposed to a policy which he 
 has upheld by his vote and written declaration — so that, in truth, if 
 the question before the people is, as Mr. Hopkinson says, a mere 
 question of policy, the American system, it is the north that ought 
 to support Gen. Jackson, for his sentiments are avowed. 
 
 The constitution of the United States, 2d article, 3d section, de- 
 clares that the president of the United States " shall, from time to 
 time, recommend to the consideration of congress, such measures as 
 he shall judge necessary and expedient" — and in his oath of office, 
 Mr. Adams swore, that he would faithfully execute what the con- 
 stitution enjoined. Is the American system necessary or expedient? 
 If it is, why has Mr. Adams refused to recommend it ? He must have 
 violated his duty, if he believed it necessary or expedient, and did 
 not recommend — or, if he refused to recommend it, because he deem- 
 ed it unnecessary, then he is not the friend of the northern policy. — 
 We shall be glad, gentlemen, if you will enable us to decide, on 
 which horn of this dilemma your candidate is to be fixed. 
 
 No such dilemma exists in the case of Gen. Jackson. — When he 
 came to act upon his oath, he did not shun the question as Mr. 
 Adams did. The father of the tariff of 1824, Sir. Henry Baldwin, 
 thus speaks on this subject: 
 
 " We support as our candidate the man, who, in every emergency, 
 risked his life for his country, and who, disregarding all considera- 
 tions of local popularity, took his stand in the south, in favour of the 
 American system, and with the same firmness with which he had 
 often foiled our enemies, boldly announced his devotion to its prin- 
 ciples. In him there was no mystery, no diplomacy, every one can 
 understand his meaning — these are the words of Gen. Jackson... 
 
 " Heaven smiled upon, and gave us liberty and independence . The 
 same Providence has blessed us with the means of national indepen- 
 dence and national defence. If we omit, or refuse to use the gifts 
 which he has extended to us, we deserve not the continuation of His 
 blessings. He has filled our mountains and our plains with minerals — 
 with lead, iron and copper, and given us climate and soil for the 
 growing of hemp and wool. These being the grand materials for our 
 national defence, they ought to have extended to them adequate and 
 fair protection, that our own manufacturers and labourers may be 
 placed on a fair competition with those of Europe, and that we may 
 have, within our country, a supply of those leading and important 
 articles, so essential in war." 
 
 ....Who has written more than Mr. Adams? who is fonder of ap- 
 pearing in print than he is? he has even taken the pains to proclaim, 
 that he never will be a free-mason ! and, yet, no man has ever seen 
 an avowal from his pen on the subject of a tariff! is it not illusory, 
 then, to pretend that he is identified with it, or with any fixed prin- 
 ciple on the subject? 
 
 ....Let us return to the position of Mr. Hopkinson, and consider 
 it in reference to the South} in effect, it is this — that the S»uth is 
 impelled by influences of a sectional character, and not by patriotism, 
 in its support of Gen. Jackson: that, instead of supporting Gen. 
 Jackson, or opposing Mr. Adams, from an honest preference of the 
 one, or objection to the other, they are struggling for a southern, or 
 
31 
 
 against a northern policy. All, who know the capacity of the g?n« 
 tleman, who urges this doctrine, must be convinced, that, if any facts 
 or arguments to support this position existed, he could have produced 
 them; and all, who know his zeal, must admit, that he would have 
 produced them: but we in vain seek such authority in his address — 
 instead of it, he asks a series of questions, leaving his hearers to 
 make such replies, as their several degrees of intelligence, candour, 
 or prejudice, might enable or prompt them to give. 
 
 If, says Mr. H. it is not a struggle, between the northern and 
 southern policy, why does Virginia now support Gen. Jackson, 
 after opposing him four years ago? why do presses, that then cen- 
 sured, now applaud him ? 
 
 A simple answer to these enquiries, might be made, by asking, 
 why Virginia and certain presses, which four years ago opposed Mr. 
 Adams, should now support him ? If Virginia and certain presses 
 had then supported Mr. Adams, it might well be asked, what had 
 produced the change; but, as they have been consistent in opposition 
 to Mr. Adams, we are at a loss to conceive why they should be re- 
 buked. 
 
 Or, is it pretended, that, because men change, their motives must 
 therefore be unworthy ? if this is insisted upon, what are we to think 
 of Mr. Clay? who, with or without character, in the south, ever 
 assailed Gen. Jackson, as bitterly as Mr. Clay assailed Mr. Adam* 
 in the west ? who flung at Gen. Jackson, such a mass of coarse in- 
 vective as was cast upon Mr. Adams, by Mr. Lacock, in Penn- 
 sylvania? yet Mr Clay and Mr. Lacock are now the sturdy advo- 
 cates of the former object of their obloquy! Do you, gentlemen, know 
 no presses, which, four years ago, covered Mr. Adams with vulgar 
 opprobrium, that now eulogize him ? 
 
 The question, in each case of change, is, what were the motives of 
 the parties ? and, according to this rule, the southern support of Gen, 
 Jackson is as honourable and manly, as the support of Mr. Adams, by 
 his former revilers, is mean and mercenary. 
 
 In his speech, Mr. Hopkinson treated the people of the south with 
 a liberality, very much in contrast, gentlemen, with your harshness: 
 he anticipated from the south, as all unexcited minds must, all that is 
 honourable and safe, from the force of facts and reflection: but still, 
 we think he erred in ascribing to sectional feeling or interest, their 
 devotion to a cause, which, they honestly think, involves, not mere 
 ly a question of taxation, but national existence itself. 
 
 Can no motives of a national, honourable, and personal kind, be as- 
 signed for the support of General Jackson, in the south ? 
 
 • •••Men of the south have been invariably of the republican party 
 their Jeffersons, Macons, and Monroes, had, at a memorable epoch, 
 an ardent friend in General Jackson: is it not natural, therefore, that 
 they should prefer him to Mr. Adams, whose political principles have 
 at all times been at variance with their own ? 
 
 • •••Men of the 6outh are distinguished for a patriotism, that nevei 
 calculates, and for a spirit, that is somewhat chivalrous: What then 
 is more natural, than that they should prefer a gallant defender ot 
 his country, to a person whose aim has been office for the sake of its 
 emoluments? — They saw Jackson pledging his estate to raise money 
 to defend hit> country, at the very moment when Mr. Adams was 
 
32 
 
 exacting from that country, the uttermost cent, to invest in Russian 
 stocks! They saw Mr. Adams coolly calculating, in Europe, the 
 downfal of his country: and, they beheld General Jackson averting 
 the danger, and defeating his country's enemy! They saw Mr. 
 Adams, in Europe, sarcastically scoffing at the militia as cowards 
 and runaways, — and General Jackson gallantly leading the militia to 
 triumph over the army, which Mr. Adams predicted would crush us 
 at a blow! 
 
 ••••Men of the south have too much virtue and pride to enter the 
 political market, to traffic away the rights of their countrymen: Of 
 all the American people, they are the least expert at making bar- 
 gains, from a natural repugnance to what is deceptious: From the 
 dawn of the revolution to the present day, no Judas has been found 
 in their ranks: When the presidency was set up to the highest bidder, 
 no envoy *' with tears in his eyes," was despatched by them to chaf- 
 fer for offices — no pledge was asked or held by them, as if the agents 
 of the people had become swindlers: Is it wonderful, then, that the 
 men of the south should support Jackson, who preferred that the earth 
 should swallow him rather than owe his elevation to corrupt means — 
 and oppose Mr. Adams, who succeeded by a double contract of a cor- 
 rupt character ? 
 
 • •••Men of the south are distinguished for sincerity and manly 
 frankness: They know, that Mr. Adams has never ventured public- 
 ly to advocate a tariff, and that he has been equally cautious not to 
 oppose it — they cannot reconcile silence on such a topic with public 
 duty, or personal honour: They know that General Jackson voted 
 for the tariff of 1824, and that he disdains to conceal his anxiety for 
 all national ad vantages: — They know, that he will not, if president, 
 seek to sacrifice the interests of one quarter of the union to promote 
 those of another, as, Mr. Clay has said, Mr. Adams did at Ghent: 
 "What then, can be more patriotic or prudent, than the preference of 
 a national statesman? 
 
 • •••Besides, is it not very natural, that men of the south should 
 honour the west, which has always treated them with kindness, rather 
 than the east, which has always treated them with ingratitude and ob- 
 loquy. 
 
 " For eighteen years," says Mr. Mathew Carey, in his Olive 
 Branch, "the most unceasing endeavours have been used, to poison 
 the minds of the people of New England towards, and to alienate 
 them from, their fellow-citizens of the southern states: The people 
 of the latter section have been pourtrayed as demons incarnate, and 
 destitute of all the qualities that dignify or adorn human nature! No- 
 thing can exceed (he violence of those caricatures, some of which 
 would have suited the ferocious inhabitants of New Zealand, rather 
 than a civilized or polished nation." p. 253. 
 
 "The unholy and demoniac spirit, that inspired the writer of the 
 above vile libel, (essays signed Pe.lham, 1800,) has been from that 
 hour to the present, incessantly employed to excite hostility between 
 the different sections of the union. To such horrible lengths has this 
 spirit been carried, that many paragraphs have occasionally appeared 
 in the Boston papers, intended and calculated to excite the negroes 
 of the southern states to rise and massacre their masters ! — This 
 will undoubtedly appear incredible to the readerj it is never- 
 
33 
 
 theless sacredly true: It is a species of turpitude and baseness, of 
 which the world has produced few examples!" p. 254. 
 
 Mr. Carey then proceeds to refer to official documents to prove the 
 relative commercial standing of the eastern states, in contrast with 
 the southern states; and says — 
 
 " 1 am tired of this exposure — I sicken for the honour of the human 
 species : what idea must the world form of the arrogance of the pre- 
 tensions of one side, (eastern states) and on the other, of the folly and 
 weakness of the rest of the union, to have so long suffered them to 
 pass without exposure or detection." 
 
 " The naked fact is, that the demagogues in the eastern states, not 
 satisfied with deriving all the benefits from the southern states, 
 which they would from so many wealthy colonies — with making 
 princely fortunes by the carriage and transportation of their bulky 
 and valuable productions, and supplying them with their own manu- 
 factures, and the manufactures and productions of Europe and the 
 East and West Indies, to an enormous amount, and at an immense, 
 profit — have uniformly treated them with outrage, insult, and injury." 
 page 269- 
 
 "I repeat it, and hope the solemn truth will be borne in constant 
 remembrance, that the southern states are virtually colonies to those 
 states, whose demagogues have never ceased slandering and perse- 
 cuting them." — p. 280. 
 
 . . . .Such is the picture of the eastern section of the union, drawn 
 by the pencil of Mr. Carey, one of your own present partizans: is it 
 calculated to attract southern admiration? is it surprizing that the 
 south refuses to honour those who have treated them so long with 
 injury and insult? Let it not be said, that either times or men have, 
 within a few years, changed — the very demagogues who thus reviled 
 the south, who sought to poison the minds of their countrymen, who, 
 according to Mr. Carey, p. 252, sought to dissolve the union so long 
 ago as 1796, are now unanimous for Mr.- Adams; whilst the republi- 
 can minority of New England, always faithful to their country, are 
 opposed to him ! to which does Pennsylvania lean? — to the eastern 
 demagogues or to the union? to the middle, south, and west, or to a 
 faction, that are tyrants in power, and disposed to be traitors rather 
 than not rule the union? 
 
 . . . .The people of Pennsylvania cannot mistake the question be- 
 fore them: if the question is connected with the tariff", then they have 
 the vote and the written declaration of General Jackson on one side, 
 and the utter silence of Mr. Adams on the other. But it is not the 
 question of a tariff, that is now to be decided; matters of higher mo- 
 ment are to be settled. We are not enquiring whether this or that 
 particular policy is to be pursued — but, whether the constitution and 
 the union are to exist: for it is idle to pretend, that the Constitution 
 or the union can exist, if the people shall sanction the sale of the 
 presidency in the capitol: Who will not despair of a republic, if the 
 people shall calmly look on, whilst their dearest rights are staked 
 upon a political gaming table, to become the prize of the most des- 
 perate dealer in corruption? This is the question, and not local or 
 sectional policy, which is now to be determined: and if it is true, as 
 Mr. Jefferson asserts, that to preserve the constitution itself, the law 
 may on an emergency be over-leaped, who is not prepared to make 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 local or personal sacrifices, to preserve the constitution? it would be 
 a poor consolation to have a tariff without a constitution, or to main- 
 tain a local policy without a bond of national union: buttoith the con- 
 stitution and union, we shall preserve all that is dear to man. 
 
 LETTER IX. 
 
 Gentlemen — If it is true, as is constantly asserted, that the peo 
 pie, of this country, are not only free but enlightened, it must be 
 the interest of those, whose cause is good, to rely upon facts and fair 
 argument: so that, when bare assertion, insinuation, and intemperate 
 proscription, are resorted to, we may justly doubt the soundness of 
 the cause they are produced to support. 
 
 In such a community as ours, what could have been so decent as 
 a fair exposition of the merits of your own candidate? Yet, it is re- 
 markable, that all that you say about him, is embraced in a single 
 line! — whilst columns are tilled with invective against his rival! 
 
 We have shown, that your statements, in relation to the qualifica- 
 tions of Gen. Jackson, are peremptorily contradicted, by a series of 
 civil services, performed by him, in the course of forty years: and we 
 have shown, that your assertions in relation to his conductive errone- 
 ous, according to the testimony of all the functionaries, by whom it 
 has been canvassed. 
 
 ....It is now time to enquire into the merits of your own candidate, 
 as you have studiously shunned that subject yourselves: it is time 
 to ask, whether the political education, principles, conduct and mea- 
 sures of your own candidate, entitle him to the confidence of a free 
 and virtuous people. All enquiries of this kind you carefully sup- 
 ply by a single assertion — that he is an " illustrious patriot!" Now 
 it is remarkable, that, if Mr. Adams merits this illustrious title, you 
 did not lay some evidence of his deserts before the public! Such a 
 title is not easily earned — a long train of circumstances must pre- 
 cede the acquirement of the greatest honour, that, in a republic, can 
 be had: but no such foundation is laid by you, and for the simple 
 reason, no doubt, that it could not be done. 
 
 *' An illustrious patriot!" what do we mean by such an appella- 
 tion? is it not a man, who, at peril and sacrifice, has laboured to 
 serve his country? if it is — what claim has Mr. Adams to the title? 
 what peril has he ever encountered, what sacrifice has he ever made, 
 for his country? is not an illustrious patriot, a man, who has been 
 invariably devoted to the principles of civil liberty, and to the pro- 
 motion of the happiness of his countrymen? if such is an illustrious 
 patriot, what are the claims of Mr Adams ? 
 
 Yes! we call upon you, gentlemen, to point out to the public, 
 what services Mr. Adams has ever performed, what principles he has 
 ever acted upon, which give him the character or a patriot, or any 
 claim upon the gratitude of his country. 
 
 It is, indeed, with amazement, that we regard the position, now 
 held by Mr. Adams, when we dispassionately ask ourselves — what 
 have been his principles? what has he done? Nay, it will be with 
 
3J 
 
 amazement that even you, gentlemen, will regard those questions ! 
 answer them, you cannot ! 
 
 When any one says " the patriot Washington," the mind never 
 pauses to consider the truth of the appellation: the generous devo- 
 tion and the disinterested services of that venerated man are always 
 present to our contemplation: but when you say u the illustrious 
 patriot John Q. Adams," the heart and the head at once resist and 
 detect the imposture: In every page of our history, we find the proof 
 of the patriotism of such men as Washington, Franklin, Hancock — 
 and in the history of his distinguished services and great sacrifices, 
 we recognize the patriotism of Jackson: but in what page is written, 
 or ever will be written, the evidence of the patriotism of Mr. Adams? 
 
 No, gentlemen, it is a mistake; your candidate is not, and never 
 will be, regarded as a patriot: his education and his principles have 
 been anti- patriotic, and self-aggrandizement has been the regulating 
 passion of his life. Facts will prove it. 
 
 — 1. The circumstance, that a father entertained anti-republican 
 principles, ought not to be mentioned, when we canvass the principles 
 of a son, unless the conduct of the son can be shown, to be in ac- 
 cordance with the father's doctrines: but, when that can be shown, 
 it is fair to refer to the doctrines of the father, as the foundation of 
 the principles of the son. What, then, were the sentiments of the 
 father, in relation to the two great events, which distinguish the age 
 in which we live, the American and French revolutions?* what are 
 the doctrines deliberately advocated in his work on the American 
 constitutions? 
 
 It is very true, that Mr. Adams signed the declaration o*f inde- 
 pendence; but it is equally true, that he afterwards contradicted 
 what that instrument asserted — the declaration pronounced all men 
 equal, but Mr. Adams, in the work referred to, asserts that men are 
 naturally divided into two classes, the gentlemen who are destined 
 to govern, and the simplemen who are destined to labour! The de- 
 claration of independence asserts, the long discontent of the colonies, 
 at the oppressions of the British government — its language is "in 
 every stage of our oppressions, we have petitioned for redress in the 
 most humble terms — our repeated petitions have been answered only 
 by repeated injury — a prince, whose character is thus marked by 
 every act, which can define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free 
 people." 
 
 Mr. Adams, however, in his answer to the address of the young 
 men of Philadelphia, 1798, says.... 
 
 " For a long course of years, before the birth of the eldest of you, 
 I was called to act with your fathers, in concerting measures the 
 most disagreeable and dangerous; not from a desire of innovation — ■ 
 not from discontent at the government under which we were bred 
 and born; but to preserve the honour of our country, and vindicate 
 the immemorial liberty of our ancestors. In pursuit of those mea- 
 sures, it became, not an object of predilection or choice, but of indis- 
 pensable necessity to assert our independence." 
 
 * The French revolution, says Dr. Priestly, arose from the same generafl 
 principles as that of \roerica, and in a great measure sprung from it. 
 
 Jjfilter iu Edmund Burke. 1791 
 
36 
 
 What avowal can be more explicit than this ? The measures, con- 
 certed in 1776, were, no doubt, attended with danger, but what 
 patriot could consider them disagreeable, when they were essential 
 to the liberty of his country ? Who, that truly desired to escape from, 
 oppression, "would say, that necessity, and not choice, dictated mea- 
 sures for relief? Who, that spoke truth, could say, that the revolu- 
 tion, to throw off the yoke of oppression, did not originate in dis- 
 content at the oppressors ? If it shall be said, that, it is absurd to 
 suppose, Mr. Adams meant to say, that discontent at the conduct of 
 England did not exist; then, there is but one other way in which his 
 words can be interpreted, and that certainly is in accordance with 
 his political principles; he declares, that measures for independence 
 were not concerted from discontent at the government, meaning the 
 form of government, king, lords and commons — be his meaning, 
 however, what it may, the avowal is not that of a patriot — it clearly 
 appears, that Mr. Adams lamented the necessity which produced the 
 cutting of the knot. 
 
 As soon as independence was established, the political doctrines 
 and views of Mr. Adams were unfolded, in a manner subversive of 
 all doubt. The convention to form a constitution for the United 
 States, met in Philadelphia, in 1787 — and on that memorable occa- 
 sion first appeared, the first volume of Mr. Adams' work, strangely 
 styled a Defence of the American Constitutions. The time, the 
 place, and the circumstances of publication, clearly show, that Mr. 
 Adams designed to control public opinion, then in favour of a repre- 
 sentative democracy; and to prevail upon the convention to ingraft 
 in the constitution, the principles of royalty, nobility and vassalage. 
 
 He lays down these principles — that men are divided by nature 
 into two orders; 1. nobility or gentlemen, who are well-born and 
 possess wealth; and 2. simple-men, destined to labour — that between 
 these two orders, a contention must be constantly arising; that, to 
 prevent such a contention, three branches of government* ought to 
 exist, one representing the gentlemen, another the commonalty, and 
 a third, a single person to control the others, with a power to nega- 
 tive all laws proposed by them. Whether those three branches, says 
 he, are called king, lords and commons — or president, senate and 
 house of representatives, is " but the whistling of a name!" To pro- 
 tect the aristocracy, says he, from the madness of the people, give 
 them " a regal power to appeal to" — and to protect the people from 
 the illegal designs of one man, the regal power, let them have " an 
 independent ally in the aristocratical assembly," the lords. 
 
 To illustrate his principles, Mr. Adams refers to, and eulogizes 
 the British government, as a model; and laments that Americans 
 are not disposed to give the executive the power to negative acts of 
 the legislature: "In future ages," says he, i: if the present states 
 become great nations, their own feelings and good sense will dictate 
 to them what to do — they may make transitions to a nearer resemblance 
 to the British constitution, without the smallest interruption to li- 
 berty." "An hereditary chief magistrate, at once, would perhaps 
 be preferable to elections by legislative representatives." Again — ■ 
 
 * The doctrine of three branches, one regal, is as old as Tacitus — but ever. 
 Tacitus admits, that such a system could not long- exist. 
 
37 
 
 " The distirictions of poor and rich are as necessary in states of con 
 siderable extent, as labour and good government: the poor are des- 
 tinedto labour; and the rich, by the advantages of education, inde- 
 pendence and leisure, arc qualified for superior stations." " The 
 higher ranks will never exceed their inferiors, but be in a certain pro- 
 portion — but the distinction they are absolutely obliged to keep, or 
 fall into contempt and ridicule." 
 
 The framers of the constitution rejected all such regal and aristo- 
 cratic projects, and experience has sanctioned their course: But the 
 sentiments of Mr. Adams remained unchanged: — Even, after he was 
 elected president, he declared, that ''he hoped and expected to see 
 the day, when Mr. Taylor and Mr. Giles, (distinguished republicans 
 of Virginia) would be convinced that the people of America would 
 not be happy, without an hereditary chief magistrate, or at least for 
 life." 
 
 Such, gentlemen, were the principles of Mr. J. Adams, during, 
 and subsequent to, the American revolution, the first political con- 
 vulsion, which distinguished this age: Thus you see him instead of 
 seeking to raise mankind to a state of independence, labouring to 
 maintain the doctrines of feudality! You see him contradicting 
 the "truth self-evident" of the declaration of independence! You 
 see him resisting even the purposes of the Creator, and impiously 
 contending that the largest portion of his countrymen were "des- 
 tined" to labour, in order to keep the few, in riches and leisure, to 
 rule over them ! 
 
 Lest it should be supposed that our representation of the doctrines 
 of Mr. Adams is in the smallest degree exaggerated, besides refer- 
 ring to his book in all our libraries, we ask public attention to what 
 was said of it in England, immediately after its publication. In the 
 British monthly Review for 1788, the work of Mr. Adams is parti- 
 cularly noticed — to the following parts of the review we especially 
 refer: 
 
 " The great point, that Mr. Adams wishes to establish, is, that a 
 democracy, if such a government could exist, is the very worst form of 
 government; that those devices, which have been often recommended 
 as of such essential consequence for preserving liberty — such as fre- 
 quency of elections into the general council — a general right of voting 
 among the people: rotation among persons in office, &c. are of very 
 little consequence to mankind : and that freedom can only be preserv- 
 ed by establishing proper checks on the different branches of admi- 
 nistration, or as he calls it, balances — and by dividing the legislative 
 from the executive power, and rendering the judicial independent of 
 either: — -in short, by making it in every respect as much as possible the 
 same with the actual constitution of Great Britain. 
 
 Again — the review says — 
 
 '* Though the judicious reader will perceive that these observations 
 (of Mr. Adams) are the dictates of sound sense, grounded on expe- 
 rience, yet, if we judge of the sentiments of the people of America 
 by the writings that are popular amongst them, we fear that such re- 
 marks will not, at the present moment, be received with all the cor- 
 diality which he may wish: the author seems himself to think so: 
 and if we mistake not, he has employed his utmost address, to ex- 
 press them so as not to give disgust. Probably, many of those passages 
 
3S 
 
 which we consider defects, may be ascribed to this cause. TJte regal 
 authority, it is well known, is exceedingly disliked by many of the 
 Americans; and an hereditary nobility is looked on a9 little less de- 
 structive to the community: yet it is plain from innumerable parts of 
 this work, that Mr. Adams considers those two classes of men (king 
 and nobles) as being, under certain circumstances, not only harm- 
 less, but most useful, as bulwarks of freedom. Openly to avow those 
 ■principles, must have frustrated his view, and to suppress his notions 
 on that head would have been mean and disengenuous — he has chosen 
 to steer a middle course." 
 
 Again — 
 
 "•From these extracts the reader will be able to form an idea of 
 the general tendency of this work, and the mode of reasoning adopt- 
 ed by the author. It is not, indeed, as its title says, a defence of the 
 American Constitutions , but it is a warm defence of the constitution of 
 Great Britain. It is the best anti-democratic treatise that ive. have 
 seen, for Mr. Adams seems to dread that that is the extreme to which 
 his countrymen will natural lean, and he has exerted his best efforts 
 to obviate that evil. " 
 
 Such are the opinions of Englishmen in relation to the work and 
 doctrines of Mr. Adams: what the real doctrines of Mr. Adams 
 were, if disclosed, may be conceived from what he has ventured to 
 avow. 
 
 Consider all those doctrines of Mr. Adams, if you please, matters 
 of opinion: He had an undoubted right to assert and support them by 
 argument or persuasion: we censure no man for differing from us in 
 sentiment upon any topic: but, when a man, who maintains anti-re- 
 publican doctrines, seeks to be the magistrate of republicans, it be- 
 comes a solemn duty to resist him — and this was the case in 1797. 
 At that time, however, when Mr. John Adams was elected, as his son 
 has subsequently been, somewhat by chance, and much to the sur- 
 prize of the nation; what was his conduct in the presidency? did he 
 abandon his doctrines? far from it, his whole administration was the 
 natural result of his principles or prejudices: an alien law, a sedition 
 law, a standing army, persecution of the republicans, abuse of the 
 French revolution, attachment to England, hostility to France. Such 
 were the characteristics of" the reign of terror!" 
 
 Can you be astonished when you reflect upon such facts, that the 
 American people, in 1800, dismissed Mr. Adams? Is it not marvel- 
 lous that he ever reached the presidency? And, what is our condi- 
 tion now? Have the principles and the conduct of the son differed 
 from those of the father? We shall show you, that, of the two, the 
 father was the most sincere, and of course the least dangerous: We 
 shall show you, that what the father would have held by open acti- 
 vity, the son has gained, and seeks to hold, by hypocrisy and cor- 
 ruption. We do not assert this merely, we will give good reasons 
 for our convictions, without the slightest unkind feeling towards 
 Mr. Adams personally, but under a serious sense of our duty to the 
 public 
 
41 
 
 LETTER X. 
 
 To John Sergeant, Manuel Eyre, Lawrence Lewis, C. C. Biddle, and 
 Joseph P. Norris, Esquires — Authors of an Address adopted at the 
 administration town meeting of the 7th July. 
 
 Gentlemen — In the absence of all explanation on your part, we 
 are enquiring into the political principles, services, and measures of 
 your candidate. We referred in our last letter to the political prin- 
 ciples and actions of the father, as the models of the son; and we 
 shall now enquire, whether the example was not faithfully followed. 
 
 We know no way in which the political principles of a candidate 
 can be so well tested, as by ascertaining his sentiments in relation 
 to the American and French revolutions. Upon the question involv- 
 ed in those great events, there could have been no neutrals, every 
 man must have been either a friend to reform, or in favour of a per- 
 petuity of existing establishments. As to the American revolution, 
 the doctrines of Mr. John Adams alone can be referred to; and, we 
 have shown that those doctrines were hostile to the declaration of 
 independence. It was at the dawn of the French revolution that 
 Mr. John Q. Adams arrived at manhood; and we shall show that he 
 adhered to the doctrines of his father. 
 
 . . . .Even amongst the enlightened people of the United States at 
 the present day, an astonishing prejudice prevails respecting the 
 causes and character of the French revolution. The pensioned wri- 
 ters of Europe, and their servile copyists in America, have so grossly 
 misrepresented its origin, progress, and end, that it is often spoken 
 of as a sort of irruption of barbarians, rather than as the effort of a gal- 
 lant people to assert their independence; we seem to forget that our 
 own revolution was the spark which kindled the flame of freedom in 
 Europe — that, if we had failed in our object, we should have been 
 treated as rebels — and that the failure of the French is attributable, 
 not to the unsoundness of their cause, but to the combined influence 
 of the money, pens, and bayonets of Europe. 
 
 The cause of the French was, in fact, the cause of mankind: the 
 struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors — it involves the 
 same questions which had been but lately before settled in America: 
 the same questions which have since agitated Spain, which now con- 
 vulse Portugal, and which must continue to be discussed, so long as 
 any part of mankind shall prefer the safety and honor of freedom to 
 the danger and dishonor of vassalage. 
 
 If we, of the present day, desire to know what were the feelings 
 of America at the dawn of the French revolution, we have only to 
 consider our own sentiments when the Riegos and Quirogas, of Spain, 
 shook off the yokes of Ferdinand and the inquisition — and if we de- 
 sire to know what was thought of the French revolution, seven years 
 after its commencement, let us consult the testimony left to us by 
 Washington: When France, in January, 1706, presented her stand- 
 ard to the United States, Washington made this eloquent reply to 
 the minister of that country: 
 
 A £ 
 
42 
 
 . . . ." Born, Sir, in a land of liberty; having early learned its 
 value; having engaged in a perilous conflict to defend it; having, in a 
 word, devoted the best years of my life to secure its permanent es- 
 tablishment in my own country; my anxious recollections, my sym- 
 pathetic feelings, and my best wishes are irresistibly excited, when- 
 ever, in any country, I see an oppressed nation unfurl the banner of 
 freedom: but, above all, the events of the French revolution have 
 produced the deepest solicitude as well as the highest admiration. 
 To call your nation brave, were to pronounce but common praise: 
 Wonderful people! ages to come will read with astonishment the his- 
 tory of your brilliant exploits! 
 
 "I rejoice, that the period of your toils, and of your immense sacri- 
 fices, is approaching: I rejoice that the interesting revolutionary 
 movements of so many years have issued in the formation of a con- 
 stitution, designed to give permanency to the great object for which 
 you have contended. I rejoice that liberty which you have so 
 long embraced with enthusiasm, and of which you have been the in- 
 vincible defenders, now finds an asylum in the bosom of a regular 
 organized government — a government, which being formed to secure 
 the happiness of the French people, corresponds with the ardent 
 wishes of my heart, whilst it gratifies the pride of every citizen of 
 the United States, by its resemblance to our own: on these glorious 
 events, accept, Sir, my sincere congratulations. 
 
 " In delivering to you these sentiments, I express not my own 
 feelings only, but those of my fellow citizens, in relation to the com- 
 mencement, the progress, and the issue of the French revolution, and 
 they will cordially join with me in purest wishes to the Supreme 
 Being, that the citizens of our sister republic, our magnanimous 
 allies, may soon enjoy in peace, that liberty which they have pur- 
 chased at so great a price, and all the happiness that liberty can 
 bestow. 
 
 " I receive, Sir, with lively sensibility, the symbol of the triumphs, 
 and of the enfranchisement of your nation — the colours of France, 
 which you have now presented to the United States: The transac- 
 tion will be announced to congress; and the colours will be deposited 
 with those archives of the United States, which are at once the 
 evidences and the memorials of their freedom and independence: 
 May these be perpetual, and may the friendship of the two republics 
 be commensurate with their existence." 
 
 Such were the sentiments of Washington — such were the feeic 
 
 ings of the American people. What were the sentiments and the 
 feelings of Messrs. Adams, father and son ? Did they concur with 
 Washington and their country, in favour of France and freedom — 
 or enrol themselves in the ranks of the enemies of both? Let us, al- 
 though out of the order of time, ascertain the sentiments of the 
 father in the first place, and then consider the conduct of the son. 
 
 In little more than one year, after Washington delivered the 
 foregoing address, Mr. John Adams became president, and, before 
 the end of two years, he involved the "sister republics" in hostili- 
 ties! To sustain his popularity, a series of addresses were got up 
 from various parts of the United States, and in his replies to them, 
 Mr. Adams indulged in the mos-t offensive invectives against our 
 
43 
 
 ** magnanimous allies." If he had confined himself to censures upon 
 the public agents of France, the friends of freedom would not have 
 had so much occasion to complain; but he assailed not only the 
 French revolution, but all who approved of it. In his reply, in 1798, 
 to an address of certain citizens of Vermont, he said — 
 
 " I have seen in the conduct of the French nation, for the last 
 twelve years, a repetition of their character, displayed under Louis 
 XIV. and little more — except the extravagancies, which have been 
 intermingled with it, of the wildest philosophy, which was ever pro- 
 fessed in this world since the building of Babel." 
 
 Thus Mr. John Adams wrote, in less than two years after Wash- 
 ington had exulted at the origin, progress, and end of the revolution 
 in France: Washington saw in that revolution, an oppressed people 
 unfurling the banner of freedom — Mr. Adams saw in it an extrava- 
 gant philosophy like the building of Babel: Washington saw in the 
 resistance of France against the armies of the allies, the brilliant ex- 
 ploits of a brave people fighting for liberty — Mr. Adams considered 
 the triumphs of the French a9 no more than the ambitious projects 
 of a despotic King! 
 
 Can any one doubt the political principles of Washington, who 
 reads his address? Can any one doubt the nature of Mr. Adams' prin- 
 ciples, who contrasts his replies with the address of Washington? 
 Let us now enquire into the conduct of Mr. J. Q. Adams. 
 
 ....The natural consequence of the reform of abuses in France, 
 was to call the attention of the people of England, in particular, to 
 the corruptions, that had crept into their own country, and to pro- 
 duce a diffusion of intelligence and spirit amongst them. The cele- 
 brated Dr. Price, the steady friend of America, and the enlightened 
 correspondent of Franklin, was amongst the first to proclaim to his 
 countrymen, the importance of reform in Britain: On the 4th No- 
 vember, 1789, he delivered his " discourse, on the love of country, " 
 in which he maintained the doctrines, asserted in the declaration of 
 American Independence — that the end of government is the happi- 
 ness of the people — that all civil governors are but the servants of 
 the people — that the people have a right to cashier their agents, and 
 choose others — and that they have a right to frame a government for 
 themselves. 
 
 In 1790, Mr. Edmund Burke published his !' Reflections on the 
 French Revolution" — a work, in which, almost every principle, 
 avowed in the American Declaration of Independence and constitu- 
 tions, is scoffed at and denied: It is immaterial to our purpose to 
 refer to the opprobrious manner in which Mr. Burke spoke of the 
 French people: what we have to do is to show the unsoundness of 
 his doctrines, and to do so, it is barely sufficient to enumerate them: 
 He contended, that the people of England had no right to alter the 
 form of their government — that the Kings of England did not derive 
 their right to the crown from the choice of the people, and were not 
 responsible to them — that at the revolution of 1688, the people had 
 abdicated for themselves and posterity all right to elect their Kings — 
 that the principle of hereditary succession was sacred — that " the 
 very idea of the fabrication of a new government was enough to fill 
 one with disgust and horror" — that an established church was an 
 essential part of government. 
 
44 
 
 To this work of Mr. Burke, replies were published by Dr. Priest- 
 ley, Mr. Thomas Paine, Mr. Capel Lofft, and others, in 1790 and 
 1791: 
 
 " It is with very sensible regret," says Dr. Priestley, "that I find 
 Mr. Burke and myself on the opposite sides of any important ques- 
 tion, and especially that I must now no longer class him among the 
 friends of what I deem to be the cause of liberty, civil and religious, 
 after having, in a pleasing occasional intercourse of many years, con- 
 sidered him in this respectable light. That an avowed friend of the 
 American revolution, should be an enemy to that of the French, 
 which arose from the same general principles, and in a great measure 
 sprung from it, is to me unaccountable." 
 
 Mr. Thomas Paine, in his "Rights of man," re-asserted the prin- 
 ciples, avowed by Dr. Price, and which had been controverted by 
 Mr. Burke: in a comparison between the French and English sys- 
 tems, he gave a preference to the French constitution, because, it 
 guaranteed civil and religious liberty to all men, and the freedom of 
 speech and of the press: it took from the crown the power to make 
 war, without the consent of the legislature: it abolished game-laws, 
 monopolies and seigniories; it declared the people to be the source of 
 all authority: it secured the trial by jury : it prohibited ministers of 
 the crown, placemen and pensioners from holding seats in the legis- 
 lature: it abolished imprisonment, except by due course of law: it 
 established the principle, no taxation without representation. 
 
 ....Such, gentlemen, is a very brief exposition of the controversy 
 produced in England, by the French revolution : The whigs of En- 
 gland, headed by Earl Stanhope, Mr. Fox and others, cordially con- 
 gratulated the French upon their political reformation, and advocat- 
 ed a correction of abuses at home: The tories, headed by Mr. Jen- 
 kinson, afterwards Lord Liverpool, Mr. Dundas, and others, to 
 arrest reform, plunged the nation into war against France. In short, 
 there were then, as there are now, but two parties, the liberals and 
 the absolutes. 
 
 ....What part did Mr. J. Q. Adams take at that crisis? On this 
 question he has shown sensibility — he feels it is a tender point — he 
 appeared in the public newspapers, upon this topic, in 1822 — he ad- 
 mitted that he did take a part, as writer of eleven letters signed 
 Publicola, but denied any design to oppose the rights of man: if he 
 had pleaded youth or inexperience, no one could with propriety push 
 the matter further; but he made no excuse, and asserts now, what 
 he asserted in 1791. 
 
 To answer the question, what part he took, it is simply enough to 
 assert, what no one can contradict, that there were Burke, Pitt and 
 Jenkinson on one side — and Price, Priestley and Paine on the other: 
 if the principles, advocated by the latter, had been supported by Mr. 
 Adams, he would have said so, and every body would have given 
 him applause; but he could not say so, for he had actually taken part 
 with the former. Dr. Priestley ceased to regard Mr. Burke as a 
 friend to liberty, as soon as Mr. Burke's book appeared; Mr. Adams 
 did not enter the lists against Burke, but against his antagonist 
 Paine — and from that moment was obnoxious to Dr. Priestley's ob- 
 jection. 
 
 No one can with truth controvert what we here sav — the evidence 
 
45 
 
 is in all our own respectable libraries: but it is only by consulting 
 the evidence throughout that the truth will fully appear: for it is 
 certainly a fact, that the arguments and statements of Mr. Adams 
 are so disguised, that all the parts must be scrutinized and contrast- 
 ed with sound principles, fully to comprehend the drift of the whole. 
 The main question as we have stated, was, whether the people of 
 England had a right to reform their government — on tins, Mr. 
 Adams throws his whole weight into the scale of Mr. Burke, and 
 almost in his words supports his anti-revolution doGtrine: in his third 
 letter, he asserts, that, in 1688, the people had renounced, for them- 
 selves and posterity, all right to decide, in their original character, 
 who should be their agents — that they had surrendered to the king, 
 lords and commons, not only all such right, but the power to alter 
 the constitution itself. If it shall be said, that this was mere matter 
 of opinion, we answer, that it was an opinion against the whigs, and 
 in favour of the tories, of England — that it was an opinion against 
 the principles of civil liberty: If Dr. Priestly was right, in refusing 
 to consider Mr. Burke a friend to liberty, after he had advocated 
 such doctrines, surely we are justified in coming to the same con- 
 clusion as to Mr. Adams. 
 
 The whigs of England, and Mr. Paine their advocate, alleged that 
 the constitution of France was better than the system of England — 
 Because — it secured religious toleration: Mr. Adams does not advert 
 
 to this superiority. 
 Because — it placed the power of war and peace in the legislature and 
 not in the crown: Mr. Adams defends the English system, giv- 
 ing the power to make war or peace to the king. 
 Because — it prohibited ministers, placemen and pensioners from sit- 
 ting in the legislature: Mr. Adams advocates the English sys- 
 tem, under which ministers and pensioners rule the parlia- 
 ment. 
 Because — it prohibited the legislature from creating monopolies, or 
 passing game-laws: Mr. Adams defends the English system, 
 and insists that it is right to reserve the power to make game- 
 laws. 
 In the 7th letter of Publicola, Mr. Adams advocates the absolute 
 transfer by the people of all their power, to the King, lords and com- 
 mons; and in support of this gross doctrine, advances the most pow- 
 erful argument, that could be urged against it: upon an alarm, says 
 he, the parliament changed their duration from three to seven years — 
 if they had not had the entire power in their hands, and had not done 
 this, mischief might have followed! So that, he advocates a power, 
 which would enable a corrupt parliament, upon their own assertion 
 of danger, to deprive the people of their right to elect representatives, 
 just as long as the parliament may choose, seventy years as well as 
 seven! 
 
 What further proof is needful, to show the real principles of Mr. 
 Adams? is it wonderful that his essays, as he admits, drew down 
 upon him, torrents of censure? why did his countrymen in 1791 so bit- 
 terly complain of the letters of Publicola, if they were not hostile to 
 civil liberty ? in those letters, he declared that the British constitu- 
 tion had long been the admiration of the world! that he hoped such 
 an excellent system would not be abolished, merely because it was 
 
46 
 
 not, like a deed, in a written form ! Speaking of the American revo- 
 lution, he said it was the result of " an unaccountable necessity!" 
 and speaking of the French revolution, he said, that people in Ame- 
 rica could not decide, whether the condition of the French was such 
 as to warrant it ! 
 
 Surely comment is not necessary ! can any one doubt what were 
 the principles of Mr. Adams in 1791 — re-asserted in 1822 ? — All the 
 world knows the causes of the American revolution — but Mr. Adams 
 ascribes it to an unaccountable necessity! All the world knows, as 
 Washington said, that the French were an oppressed people, groan- 
 ing under an intolerable despotism — but Mr. Adams said it was doubt- 
 ful whether their revolution was justifiable! 
 
 ....In an enquiry, like the present, conciseness is not to be ex- 
 pected: we aim to prove the anti-republican doctrines and tendencies 
 of Mr. J. Q.Adams — that he is not "an illustrious patriot" — and 
 that he ought not to receive the suffrages of a free people. 
 
 LETTER XL 
 
 Gentlemen: — Our enquiry into the political principles of Mr« 
 Adams, extended in our last letter, to the year 1791: As he was 
 soon after invested with a public employment, our attention will now 
 be directed to his services as well as principles. 
 
 In 1794, Mr. Adams was appointed minister to Holland, and sub- 
 sequently to Prussia, from whence he returned in 1801. The ten 
 years succeeding 1791, embraced one of the most important periods 
 in the annals of the world: A fairer occasion had never been before 
 presented for the exercise of patriotism and talent, as a negociator 
 or a writer; yet we know of no act or incident, which shows that 
 Mr. Adams had the smallest sympathy with the friends of freedom. 
 
 The only product of his pen, in the course of ten years, consisted 
 of letters written in Prussia, and addressed to his brother in the 
 United States, descriptive of a journey into Silesia: Those letters 
 are remarkably sterile of comment or allusion in relation to the great 
 drama then performing on the political theatre of Europe; in the 
 most prominent instance, in which reference is made to the bellige- 
 rents, Mr. Adams leans against republican France. Describing Si- 
 lesia, he represents many of the people of the country as serfs, la- 
 bourers sold with the land, and transferred from master to master — 
 compelled to perform the labour of ten days in six — and habitually 
 asking from travellers even the smallest pittance; and yet, at the 
 close of his letters he pronounces a pompous encomium upon the des- 
 pot who had held the Silesians in this deplorable condition! The 
 Edinburg Review, vol. 5, p. 182, very justly says, in reference to the 
 letters on Silesia, " Mr. Adams has many recollections of his native 
 country, but his feelings about it more resemble the loyal acquies- 
 cence of a subject, than the personal interest and ardour of a repub- 
 lican." 
 
 You have, gentlemen, called Mr. Adams "an illustrious patriot," 
 and he is often styled " an able statesman:" it is not difficult to ap- 
 ply such titles, but the appellation does not establish the fact. If, 
 
47 
 
 indeed, success in obtaining appointments, principally from his 
 father, when president, constitutes a title to statesmanship, Mr, 
 Adams is a statesman — he had appointments to Portugal, Holland 
 Sweden, and Prussia: But men of sense look beyond the mere tenure 
 of office for results: We ask you, then, what advantage did his coun- 
 try derive from the diplomacy of Mr. Adams, up to 1801? Whilst 
 receiving his salary, as resident minister at Berlin, he drew outfits 
 and salaries for other stations, an appointment to Stockholm, for in- 
 stance, conferred in March, 1798, by his father: for all the emolu- 
 ments, thus accumulated, what actual service did he render? What 
 had he done, to merit this monopoly of diplomatic fortune? What 
 advantage, in reputation or trade, did the country derive from his 
 statesmanship? In vain do we look for proofs of benefit — a treaty 
 was renewed, but not discussed: no new principles were established: 
 on the contrary, some that were essential to the reputation and the 
 rights of neutral America, were abandoned! In 1785, Dr. Franklin 
 had negociated a treaty with Prussia, in which these principles were 
 recognized — 1. That if either should be at war with a third power, 
 the trade of the neutral should not be interrupted with the bellige- 
 rent: 2. That the neutral flag should protect the goods of the betli- 
 gerent on board the neutral vessel: 3. That the neutral flag should 
 protect all persons, except soldiers in service: This treaty, by limi- 
 tation, was to expire in 1795; and, when then renewed by Mr. 
 Adams, he gave up all those salutary principles, and, as it is stated 
 in the treaty, for the very reason that ought to have prevented their 
 abandonment — namely, that the belligerents had not respected them 
 (See laws U. S. vol. 1. p. 234.) 
 
 We have no evidence, therefore, that up to the year 1801, Mr. 
 Adams rendered such services as give him a claim to the distinctions 
 of patriot and statesman, or to his country's gratitude. 
 
 On the election of Mr. Jefferson to the presidency, in that year, 
 the embassy to Berlin, was included in the number of abuses correct- 
 ed, and Mr. Adams returned to the United States — with all the re- 
 sentment, produced by the removal of his father from power, and the 
 stoppage of his own diplomatic career. Instead of observing the 
 moderation which a sense of personal delicacy demanded from an 
 individual just recalled, and the son of a president just rejected, Mr. 
 Adams, on his return to Boston, became the prominent leader of the 
 New England faction, which according to the authority of Mr. Ma- 
 thew Carey, had been labouring since 1796 to produce a dissolution 
 of the union! Soon after his return he was placed in the Senate of 
 Massachusetts; and, in 1803, a vacancy having taken place in the 
 representation of that state, in the senate of the union, he was pro- 
 posed as a candidate, in competition with Mr. Timothy Pickering, of 
 his own party, and with General Skinner, the candidate of the re- 
 publican party. 
 
 As Mr. Adams has claimed to be of the republican party, and as 
 in Pennsylvania especially, his friends desire to take advantage of 
 this imposture, it is necessary to expose it. The Boston Sentinel, 
 (the same paper in which Mr. Adams published his Publicola, in 
 1791, which in 1S14 was the organ of the Hartford Convention, and 
 which upholds Mr. Adams now) published this statement on the 5th 
 of February, 1803: " The federalists of Massachusetts selected two 
 
48 
 
 persons, both of whom have been the objects of democratic persecu- 
 tion, the Hon. Timothy Pickering, late Secretary of State, and the 
 Hon. J. Q. Adams, late Minister at Berlin," to fill the vacancy in 
 the Senate of the United States: " When circumstances place two 
 such men as candidates for the same office, it is not an easy task to 
 give a preference." 
 
 The task was, indeed, difficult — four trials by ballot were made 
 before a choice was effected, the republican members of the Massa- 
 chusetts legislature, in each instance voting for General Skinner, 
 and the federal members dividing, some for Mr. Adams and some 
 for Mr. Pickering, until the fourth ballot, when Mr. Adams was 
 chosen. This result speaks a language that cannot be misunderstood 
 — ardent an opponent of the republican party as Mr. Pickering had 
 been, Mr. Adams was by federalists preferred to him — a fact, which 
 shows the extent of his zeal for them, or of their zeal in his behalf, of 
 his subsequent treachery, or of the subsequent meanness of many of 
 them. 
 
 ••••Here then, gentlemen, we find Mr. Adams for the first time in 
 congress — in the senate too, as the representative of federal Massa- 
 chusetts — a field sufficiently ample for the display of all the qualities 
 of the most illustrious patriot or able statesman. Was his conduct 
 there that of a patriot or factious leader? Can you refer to any bill, 
 motion, resolution, or vote, which denoted patriotism? Why do you, 
 the friends of Mr. Adams, oblige us, his opponents, to search volume 
 after volume, to test the accuracy of your encomiums upon him? 
 Surely, in the senate of the/ United States Mr. Adams could not 
 have been an idle member. — What then were his actions denoting 
 the patriot and statesman? Is it not evident, that, if any measure 
 had been proposed, or any vote had been given by him, calculated 
 to confer honour upon him, you would have been glad to make it 
 known ? Can your utter silence upon such vital questions be attri- 
 buted to any thing else than your inability to sustain the character 
 of patriot, which you assign to him? 
 
 But, gentlemen, if yon will not execute the duty, we must enquire; 
 and therefore we proceed to examine some of the actions of Mr. 
 Adams in 1803 — 4 — 5 and 6. 
 
 1. W T hatever, gentlemen, may have been your prejudices in rela- 
 tion to Mr. Jefferson, you are now, we presume, disposed to do 
 justice to his merits: you will confess, we think, that he evinced 
 "illustrious patriotism" and statesmanship in the acquisition of 
 Louisiana: to use the language of the writer of able letters, publish- 
 ed in the Albany Argus, in reply to an address of Gen. P. B. Porter 
 of New York, and to which we are under obligations — "the import- 
 ance of the acquisition is now unquestioned: to the western states 
 its value is so great, that it cannot be brought within the limits of 
 an estimate. Without it their access to the ocean would have been 
 obstructed, they would have been destitute of a market; and the 
 continued occlusion of New Orleans, by depriving them of the stimu- 
 lus of industry, would have produced a most pernicious effect on the 
 moral character of the people: they would either have been compel- 
 led to surmount the mountainous barrier which separated them from 
 the Atlantic, and return to their original homes, or to take the city 
 by force, and by waging war separately, to have produced a virtual 
 
49 
 
 dissolution of the confederacy. — Deprived of a commercial inter- 
 course with the Atlantic states, the Union would have offered but 
 few advantages to them, and the most trifling accident would have 
 broken the connexion between them and the states of the Atlantic. 
 The acquisition of Louisiana identified the interests of the eust and 
 the west: A commercial connexion mutually advantageous, destroy- 
 ed the germs of jealousy, and feelings of a kindly character were 
 soon cultivated between the people inhabiting either extremitv of 
 our common empire: It" removed all fears of a foreign invasion from 
 the west, gave us an influence over the savages, commanding and ab- 
 solute, bounded us on the Gulf of Mexico, and opened the tn.de of 
 the world to the remotest inhabitants of the interior: It gave us both 
 banks of the most magnificent river on the earth, from its sources to 
 the ocean: It gave us a territory boundless in extent, and with it, 
 capacities of increasing greatness beyond the most sanguine antici- 
 pations of the boldest imagination." 
 
 ••••Is there the least excess of colouring in this picture? If it is a 
 fair representation, as you must admit it is, what can you offer as an 
 apology for the opposition of Mr. Adams, in a minority of three, 
 (Adams, Plumer, and Wells,) to the acquisition of those immense 
 advantages? you cannot urge his own apology at the time, for he has 
 himself since abandoned it: Where then was his patriotism and his 
 statesmanship in 1804? 
 
 2. On the same occasion, when the details of the bills in relation 
 to Louisiana, were considered, Mr. Adams voted that no person 
 should be eligible as a representative, who did not hold in his own 
 right one hundred acres of land in fee simple, or a house and lot in 
 New Orleans; and that no person should vote for a representative, 
 who did not hold a freehold of fifty acres of land! Was this a token 
 of his republicanism? 
 
 3. When the imperfection of the constitution, and the intrigues of 
 Mr. Burr in 1801, had spread alarm throughout the Union, every 
 patriot, and indeed every considerate person, desired to see the 
 constitution so amended, that the electors might designate the can- 
 didate they preferred for the presidency, and the candidate they 
 preferred for the vice-presidency — on this great question, Mr. Adams 
 voted against the popular will: upon what pretext, gentlemen, can 
 you justify this act? was it patriotic, or the effect of prejudice against 
 Mr. Jefferson? As we shall hereafter show you, the New England 
 members, in 1801, preferred a convulsion to the election of Mr. 
 Jefferson ! 
 
 ... .In short, in the session of 1803-4, Mr. Adams voted invaria- 
 bly against the measures recommended by the Jefferson administra- 
 tion, without proposing any measures himself, indicative of high 
 capacity or exalted views. In the succeeding session, he continued 
 his hostility. 
 
 4. A bill was introduced to prevent the waging private war, with- 
 out national authority, against the people and commerce of other 
 states: upon what pretext could a measure, to prevent such outrages, 
 be opposed? what could be more humane, just or politic, than an ef- 
 fort thus to prevent aggression by our own citizens, and to avert the 
 resentment of other states? yet Mr. Adams voted against it! 
 
 5. A bill of a similar pacific tendency, was proposed, at the in- 
 
 b2 
 
50 
 
 stance of Mr. Jefferson, to prevent the violation of the laws, and out- 
 rages upon the rights of strangers, by vessels of the United States, 
 within our own jurisdiction: against this also Mr. Adams voted, in a 
 minority of three! 
 
 6. At the same session, 1804-5, Mr. Jefferson called the atten- 
 tion of congress to the conduct of belligerent vessels, hovering on 
 our coasts and harbours, seeking, contrary to the laws of nations, to 
 assail enemies there: Mr. Adams voted in the minority of three 
 (Adams, Pickering. Plumer,) against even the reference of the sub- 
 ject to the consideration of a committee! 
 
 • •••The first instance in which Mr. Adams voted with the republi- 
 cans, in the Senate, was on the 15th April, 1806, on a resolution to 
 suspend the non- importation act, until November in the same year 
 — a vote, attributed, as we think justly, to the change in the politics 
 of Massachusetts, and to the desire to conciliate the ascending re- 
 publicans: Nevertheless, in the session of 1806-7, he voted in the 
 senate, very generally with his old friends; and finding the politi- 
 cal current running strongly in their favour on his return to Boston, 
 in March, 1807, he presided at the federal caucus which nominated 
 Mr. Caleb Strong for Governor — the same Caleb Strong who assem- 
 bled the legislature of Massachusetts, in 1814, when the British 
 burnt Washington, not for the purpose of aiding the Union at that 
 crisis, but to elect delegates to the Hartford Convention! 
 
 • •••We have thus shown, gentlemen — 1. That from 1794 to 1801 ; 
 Mr. Adams held various diplomatic appointments, yielding great 
 emoluments, several at one and the same tune, no public advantages 
 from which have ever been shown to have been derived; and that in 
 one instance, Mr. Adams abandoned principles important to Ame- 
 rica. 2. That from 1801 to 1807, he was the leader of the New 
 England faction, which, according to Mr. M. Carey, had been con- 
 spiring ever since 1796 to dissolve the union. 3. That, as a sena- 
 tor, he had opposed all the measures, right or wrong, of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son's administration, without proposing a single measure, indicative 
 of patriotism or statesmanship — if we err in this inference — if Mr. 
 Adams did perform any action indicative of patriotism or statesman- 
 ship, we ask you to point it out — 
 
 ....In 1807 a crisis had arrived: a republican administration was 
 chosen in Massachusetts: then, and not until then, did Mr. Adams 
 evince indecision! then, and not till then, did he determine to go 
 with the current: IF hat produced this change? 
 
 We ask you, gentlemen, what produced the decision of Mr. 
 Adams, in 1807, to abandon the federal party, and attach himself to 
 the republican? That he belonged to the federal party; that he had 
 uniformly written, spoken, and voted against republican principles, 
 measures and men, from 1791 to 1807, no man of truth will deny; 
 that he had headed the federal party after his return to Boston in 
 March, 1807, no one has ever ventured to contradict: why, then, did 
 Mr. Adams suddenly abandon his old friends, and go over to those 
 whom he had uniformly reviled? W^e shall consider these questions 
 In our next letter. 
 
51 
 
 LETTER XII. 
 
 Gentlemen — The question, to which, in the present letter, we 
 beg leave to call yuur own, and the public, attention, is this.. .JFhy 
 did Mr. Adams desert the Federal tarty ? To suppose, that you, the 
 ardent advocates of Mr. Adams, and one of you his confidential 
 friend, can be ignorant, upon the most extraordinary event in his 
 political life, is to do violence to all parties: he would not think of 
 soliciting, or of profiting by, your zeal, without confidence on his 
 part: and, surely, you would not support him, whilst loaded with 
 suspicion: We pray you, then, to remove a veil, that has hitherto 
 concealed transactions, involving not merely the reputation of Mr. 
 Adams, but the political integrity and personal honour of a con- 
 siderable portion of the people of the United States. 
 
 ....In our last letter we reached the spring of 1807, the fortieth 
 year, we think, of Mr. Adams' life: At that time, we saw him, like 
 a determined and skilful general, marshalling the federalists of Mas- 
 sachusetts, in preparation for the important state election, then a»t 
 hand: The election took place, and, for the first time, in Massa- 
 chusetts, the entire federal force was routed; and the positions of 
 governor, legislature, and all others dependent upon them, fell into 
 republican hands. The joy, that beamed upau the countenances of 
 one party, was signally contrasted with the gloom that overcast those 
 of the other: The mass of the federalists, every where, regarded 
 Massachusetts as their citadel, and when that fell, many among 
 them relinquished all hopes of future political ascendancy. 
 
 Nor were these prognostics confined to the state of things, in 
 Massachusetts: No indication was given any where, that an attempt, 
 even to nominate, a federal candidate for the presidency, would be 
 made — public opinion had settled down upon Mr. Madison, as the 
 successor of Mr. Jefferson, and although there were some vagrant 
 wishes for George Clinton of New York, his republican integrity 
 guaranteed a pursuance of the Jefferson policy, in public affairs, 
 foreign and domestic. 
 
 Such, then, was the condition of the two parties in 1807— the re- 
 publicans, every where triumphant, with a certainty, that power 
 would rest in their hands until 1816, at least: The federalists, every 
 where in the minority; and, although, with their aggregate mino- 
 rities, still respectable in numbers as well as energy, destitute of the 
 power, which alone attaches mercenary men, to pay in offices for in- 
 tegrity to their cause. 
 
 It must be confessed, that, at such a time as this, no man of good 
 and generous feelings, to say nothing of political honesty, would sit 
 down and deliberately weigh the chances of personal benefit, from 
 an adherence to old friends, or a desertion to hereditary enemies: 
 The wreck of a once powerful, and in talent at least respectable, 
 party, now scattered upon the political breakers, would have aroused 
 the sympathies, even of opponents, to protect the scattered crew, 
 from injury and insult, rather than to pluck from them the only trea- 
 sure that they had been able to preserve. 
 
 And if such should have been the conduct of republicans, in rela- 
 tion to their now powerless opponents; if it would have been patriotic, 
 
52 
 
 and kind in them, to conciliate men long estranged — to prove that, 
 difference in political sentiment did not render the heart callous, 
 what ought to have been the conduct of Mr. J. Q. Adams? If he pos- 
 sessed any power, influence, or wealth, to whom was he indebted 
 for it ? Was is not to the very party, which he now saw in the deep- 
 est adversity? If that party had sunk, into public odium, had not the 
 passions of his own father greatly contributed to their fall? Had they 
 not. but lately before, given him a most striking proof of confidence 
 and favour, by sending him to the Senate of the United States, in 
 preference even to their veteran, Mr. Pickering? 
 
 Yet, unmindful of all this, it was in this hour of deep despondency, 
 that Mr. Adams fled from the colours of his political house, and en- 
 tered the ranks of its uniform opponents ! 
 
 Let it not be supposed, gentlemen, that we censure the abandon- 
 ment of measures or of men, found to be mischievous: let no one 
 say, that we object to the conversion of those, who differ from us in 
 political sentiment: on the contrary, we hail honest conversion as 
 beneficial to the political institutions, and to the social happiness of 
 our country: we know many, very many, who, having become con- 
 vinced of error, as to the views and feelings of the republican party, 
 are now attached to it. But we are not able to see, in the life, prin- 
 ciples, or acts, of Mr. Adams, those indications, which precede, ac- 
 company, and Jolloto conversion: we have not seen in him a convert, 
 but an informer against one party, in order to be received into and 
 destroy another — a deserter, not disgusted with his old principles, 
 but alarmed at the political nakedness of his old friends — an ally, 
 not attracted by republican simplicity, but by the capacity to gratify 
 his insatiable lust of ambition and avarice. 
 
 ....We have already shown, that, from his youth to his fortieth 
 year, Mr. Adams wrote, spoke, and acted against republican princi- 
 ples, measures, and men : He had never, we believe, from weakness 
 of nerves, or mildness of disposition, halted between two opinions : 
 he had never been known to change a sentiment, as men of modera- 
 tion do, gradually, or as men of ardent temperament do, suddenly: 
 so far as we can judge, he had been, from nature and education, what 
 is termed obstinate, dogmatic: and in politics especially, he had been 
 •what is well understood by the term an idtra: so keen were his re- 
 sentments, that, it has been alleged, he even indulged in the most 
 offensive invective against Mr. Jefferson, under the poet's mask. 
 
 It is a matter of public concern, and not of mere curiosity, then, 
 to ascertain, what produced one of the most extraordinary political 
 metamorphoses, which the annals of party describe. If Mr. Adams 
 had gradually retired, and relinquished former principles and asso- 
 ciations, all men would have acknowledged the sincerity of conver- 
 sion: if he hail sought to assuage the violence of his former partisans, 
 or merely to expose the pernicious tendency of their course, he would 
 have merited the gratitude of his country: if, when he saw them, on 
 the verge of mischief, and punishment, he had sought to arrest the 
 one, and prevent the other, the goodness of" his heart would have 
 been manifest. But, in vain do we seek such traits as these: Mr, 
 Adams' change was sudden and unlimited: and, to all appearance, 
 his antipathies and his attachments were at once given up, with as 
 much composure and tact, as a veteran comedian exhibits, in the 
 
53 
 
 preparation for various parts of the plays, in which he acts: He did 
 not change from an extreme federalist to a moderate federalist, or 
 even to a moderate republican — but to an absolute zealot in the 
 ranks of the party, by which his father and himself had been de- 
 prived of all power, and against which his father and himself had 
 written with pens dipped in gall. 
 
 Can you explain to us, gentlemen, how this most singular result 
 was brought about? Were the motives of Mr. Adams pure and 
 patriotic ? If they were, what can so well promote his cause now, as 
 to make them known to the people ? You must be aware, that, many 
 good men, of both the parties in our country, object to Mr. Adams, 
 especially for his conduct in 1807-8 — what can be so necessary, then, 
 to his own fame, and indeed to your own political reputation, as his 
 supporters, as a manly explanation of the causes of his change of 
 political party? But, if all such explanation shall be refused, we 
 must of necessity form our own conclusions: and, in that case, 
 what think you, gentlemen, of this sentiment of Mr. John Adams: — 
 " If a family, which has been high in office, and splendid in 
 wealth, falls into decay, from profligacy, folly, vice, or mis- 
 fortune, they generally turn democrats, and court the lowest of 
 the people, with an ardour, an art, a skill, and consequently 
 with a success, which no vulgar democrat can attain." 
 
 Cunningham Letters: VI. 
 ....Do you recognize no features in this picture, that bring Mr. 
 Adams to your contemplation? his family had sunk into decay, from 
 causes which need no explanation; his political family, too, had lost 
 all influence, in the disposition of power: that he turned democrat, 
 is his own boast; and that he has since done, what has brought blushes 
 into many democratic cheeks, the history of the times establishes. 
 For instance.... 
 
 1. In March, 1807, Mr. Adams presided at the great federal con- 
 vention in Massachusetts: in the next month the federal party was 
 routed in the state: in the next October, Mr. Adams resumed his 
 seat in the Senate U. S.: on the 13th December, Mr. Jefterson sent 
 his message to Congress recommending an embargo: in the senate, 
 Mr. Jefferson had a large majority of political, and many personal, 
 friends: some of them asked to put off" a decision of so momentous a 
 subject, even for one day: if it was right to proceed, as Mr. Jefterson 
 desired, at once, he had friends able and disposed to say so, and did 
 not stand in need of the support of Mr. Adams — but Mr. Adams had 
 fallen into decay, and now saw the moment, at which to turn de- 
 mocrat: he arose, and said, not merely that he was for proceeding 
 at once, but...." I would not deliberate — I would act: doubtless the 
 president possesses such further information, as will justify the mea- 
 sure:" no dependent upon the will of a despot could descend lower 
 than this: — even from a republican confidant of Mr. Jefterson, such 
 a sentiment would have been impolitic, unsound, and unmanly; but 
 from Mr. Adams, it must have been listened to with amazement as 
 well as disgust: But thus he "courted the people." Soon after, al- 
 though Mr. Jefterson had the pens of hundreds of able men to de- 
 fend his acts, Mr. Adams volunteered in his cause, and wrote a la- 
 bored defence of the embargo! 
 
 2. But these acts, bold as they were, did not limit the zeal of Mr. 
 
54 
 
 Adams: " He most unexpectedly, but avowedly, 55 says Governor 
 Giles, "made a complete political somerset from the tederal to the 
 republican party." ''How was this done! it was first done by a 
 most solemn communication to myself, and afterwards to Mr. Jeffer- 
 son, as 1 am well informed." 4i At the time Mr. Adams made the 
 disclosure to me, he imposed no injunction of secresy whatever: he 
 spoke of the occasion, however, as one of awful magnitude — nothing 
 lesr than hazarding the severance of the union." — After quoting a 
 letter from Mr. Jeft'erson to him, on this subject, Mr. Giles proceeds: 
 " Hence the following facts evidently appear : that Mr. Adams made 
 the disclosure to me of his intending to desert the federal party, in 
 the winter of 1 807-8 — to the best of my recollection a short time 
 previous to the first embargo: that it was made under the most solemn 
 assurances of his patriotism and disinterestedness, and of an entire 
 exemption of all views of personal promotion by the party, to which 
 he had proselyted. Mr. Jefferson states the grounds of this change, 
 as communicated by Mr. Adams himself to be, the treasonable views 
 of the federal party, and those treasonable views extended to dis- 
 union.'" 
 
 In short, gentlemen , as you know, Mr. Adams accused the federal 
 party of being engaged in a conspiracy, to dismember the union: and 
 made this the pretext for his conversion ! 
 
 3. Although Mr. Adams professed disinterestedness, in all this, 
 who can believe him? A man, who deserts any cause, must, if he 
 has any feeling at all, prefer retirement to exposure, if for no other 
 reason, to avert suspicion as to his motives: no such sentiment seems 
 to have ruled Mr. Adams; he did, indeed, when the federalists in 
 Massachusetts, in 1808, unexpectedly regained power, resign his 
 seat in the Senate of the U. S. but in doing so, he sought to persuade 
 the republicans, that he was a sort of political martyr, and he cer- 
 tainly produced the desired effect! 
 
 4. Mr. Jefferson, to whom Mr. Adams made his disclosure of the 
 treasonable designs of the federal party, profited by the disclosure, 
 we presume, so far as to watch the movements in Massachusetts, 
 especially — but he gave no reward to the informer! 
 
 5 No sooner, however, was Mr. Madison elected, than, on the 
 very day of his inauguration, March 4, 1809, he nominated Mr. 
 Adams minister to Russia: the senate did not confirm the nomina- 
 tion; and it was not, until the extraordinary session, in the same 
 year, that Mr. Adams ascended the first step to republican promo- 
 tion. 
 
 6. In 1814, he was minister at Ghent: subsequently at London, 
 and at last in 1820, entered the cabinet: having thus with "ardour, 
 art and skill," successfully reached a point, to which many dis- 
 tinguished republicans, even Mr. Clay himself, aspired in vain. 
 
 7. Whilst secretary of state, he delivered an oration on the anni- 
 versary of independence, which brought blushes into the cheeks of 
 every republican, who respected his country or himself — much as the 
 republicans had always dreaded the contaminating influence of En- 
 gland, and greatly as they dislike the English form of government, 
 they were shocked and disgusted at the strain of invective in Mr. 
 Adams' oration, against a nation, with which we were at peace — an 
 oration, in which the insanity of the king of England was referred 
 
do 
 
 to with a levity, if not profaneness, unworthy of a generous nation? 
 that it was intended to " court the lowest of the people," may be 
 true, but we know no people in this country, so debased as to be gra- 
 tified with such arts. 
 
 8. After his elevation to the presidency of the Union, we witness- 
 ed another such resemblance to the picture, drawn by Mr J. Adams: 
 we all remember the toast, so offensive, not to the memory of Gene- 
 ral Ross, not to the British nation, merely, but to every generous 
 spirit! with a coldness-and rancor, unworthy of the " lowest of the 
 people," we heard the president of this great country, speak of 
 speeding a bullet into the breast of a brave foe! — for what was all 
 this but to " court the lowest of the people!" 
 
 9. The spirit which actuated Ferdinand and the inquisition ojf 
 Spain, to persecute a body of men, called free-masons, having, unac- 
 countably reached this country, where it has been basely prostituted 
 to electioneering purposes; a person in the interior of New York 
 wrote to Mr. Adams recently, to know whether he was a free-mason, 
 and telling him if he was not, it would help his election to make it 
 kmtwn — Instead of throwing such a note under the table, Mr. Adams, 
 with the zeal of Ferdinand himself, sat down and wrote a reply, 
 saying not merely that he was not a mason, but that he never would 
 be one! 
 
 10. It would be below the character of letters like the present, to 
 describe other instances of popular courtship: we saw Mr. Adams 
 stripping; off his coat, before a multitude, merely to perform the cere- 
 mony of lifting a sod: we saw him ride... we forbear. 
 
 ....But, gentlemen, let us not further digress: Mr. Adams fell into 
 decay — he turned democrat — he courted " the lowest of the people," 
 as well as their agents, "with an ardour, an art, a skill, and con- 
 sequently with a success, which no vulgar democrat can attain." 
 
 Is this the portrait which we must look upon as faithful? If the 
 likeness is true, is the original worthy of our suffrages? If the re- 
 semblance is not faithful, why do you not point out the dissimilarity? 
 
 If it was not the intoxicating influence of ambition and avarice 
 
 which induced Mr Adams to make so sudden and so surprising a 
 change, what else was it? If Mr. Adams did not desert one party 
 and fly to another for mere mercenary views, why did he. desert? Is 
 it true that the federal party was conspiring to sever the union? Mr. 
 Adams says they were, and Mr. Adams is your candidate! It is 
 not the republicans who charge the federalists with being conspira- 
 tors; the charge of conspiracy to sever the union is made by Mr. 
 Adams himself! Is it true that the federal party did conspire? If 
 they did, then we call on the people of the union to look and behold 
 the mass of the same federal party, now the main prop of Mr. 
 Adams' falling house! If they did not conspire, then we call upon 
 the people of the union to look and behold the mass of the same 
 federal party, which Mr. Adams thus denounced, cheering him as 
 their candidate! 
 
 The spectacle is positively appaling! there is nothing like it in 
 the history of this, or perhaps in that of any country: with the excep- 
 tion of a very few federalists, few when compared with the mass — the 
 party which Mr. Adams abandoned, which he denounced as conspi- 
 rators against their countrymen, is now arrayed in his support! Mr. 
 
56 
 
 Otis, Mr. Quincy, Mr. Webster, Mr. Lowell, Mr. Dwight, besides 
 many members of the Hartford convention, are united to elevate the 
 man who stamped "conspirator to dissolve the union" upon their 
 foreheads! 
 
 — Can you, gentlemen, explain all this? Did Mr. Adams con- 
 spire with federalists, to go over to us republicans, in order to betray 
 us? Is the union now existing between Mr. Adams and the feder- 
 alists of New England the consummation of such a conspiracy? Or. 
 did Mr. Adams turn democrat to promote his own ends? Or, did he 
 truly accuse the federal party? Or, did he falsely impute to them 
 treasonable designs? These are questions to which we crave your 
 attention. 
 
 The point to which we call public attention is this: a cordial union 
 now exists between Mr. Adams and the mass of the party, which, Mr. 
 Adams declared, conspired to dissolve the union: Is it safe or ho- 
 nourable to elect a person who, according to his own account, must 
 have had a full knowledge of a conspiracy, who did not betray it 
 until the republicans had got the power into their own hands, and 
 who has now again thrown himself into the arms of the same conspi- 
 rators? 
 
 As to the federal party of New England, for we consider the 
 
 mass of the federalists of the rest of the union to be the disciples of 
 Washington, rather than the slaves of an eastern aristocracy, who 
 can doubt that they deserved the character given to them by Mr. 
 Adams? Would any man of spirit, or of common honesty, support 
 the person who had falsely accused him? 
 
 You, gentlemen, can set aside all doubt and suspicion: Why did 
 Mr. Adams desert the federal party? 
 
 LETTER XIII. 
 
 Gentlemen — The remarks which we propose to make in the pre- 
 sent letter, although deserving, as we trust, the attention of men ol 
 all parties, are particularly designed for that portion of our fellow 
 citizens who declare themselves federalists of the Washington 
 school. Difference of opinion will exist, and difference of opinion 
 will produce a variety of designation; but it is the extreme of tyran- 
 ny to frown upon a fellow citizen, for his exercising the right, which it 
 is the boast of us all to possess. The soundness of a man's political 
 sentiments is to be tested by his actions — no one would dare to doubt 
 the purity of the intentions of those who, in an hour of peril, would 
 risk life and fortune for their country; but the patriotism of those 
 may well be doubted, who, in the moment of danger would convulse 
 their country and cover it with blood, rather than not gratify their 
 selfish views. 
 
 That there have been, and are, two descriptions of federalists in 
 this country, no man of discernment can doubt — the first consists of 
 those whom Mr. John Adams calls the "high oligarchy" — men 
 swollen with wealth, and goaded by the desire to exhibit its posses- 
 sion by all the pomp and circumstance of aristocratic state; men 
 who consider themselves born to guide the destinies of a nation; 
 
57 
 
 men who think a republic a sort of visionary scheme, that has never 
 lasted, and that never can last long; men who would convulse their 
 country to dispel this political mist, as they consider it, which ob- 
 scures the brightness of their own fancied superiority.' 
 
 The other party consists of sound and discreet men, who really 
 love liberty, but still, from the impressions made upon them by the 
 first class, conceive that there is a tendency in the republican party 
 to run into the abuses of a government purely popular — they, how- 
 ever, cherish the union of the states, and upon all occasions of dan- 
 ger offer their purses and persons in their country's cause. 
 
 It is to the sober minds, and the pure hearts, of this last description 
 of our fellow citizens, that we now address ourselves. They are 
 mistaken in supposing that there is any tendency in the republican 
 party to run into abuses, which in fact cannot exist in our represen- 
 tative system — they are mistaken in supposing that the republicans 
 willingly exclude them, as the Catholics of Ireland are excluded 
 from places of trust, profit, or honour — they are mistaken if they sup- 
 pose that the republicans have any other wish or interest but to pro- 
 mote the political union of the states, the permanency of the consti- 
 tution, and the substantial welfare of all the people. 
 
 But, if it is asked why the republicans have appeared to be intole- 
 rant, we point at once to the cause — the republicans have rarely seen 
 the moderate or liberal federalists separate themselves from the ul- 
 tra federalists. When Mr. Jefferson came into power, although he 
 said the people were " all federalists — all republicans," he was 
 restrained from conferring political stations upon both, by public 
 opinion, which pointed to the extreme doctrines and actions under 
 Mr. Adams as denoting anti-republican tendencies. If the sound 
 men who consult the counsel of Washington, had always had that 
 counsel before their eyes, they would not have thrown their influ- 
 ence into the scale of a New England aristocracy, that has long 
 meditated a separation of the union — an evil, of all others, which 
 Washington deprecated. Let us hear his voice first, and then see 
 how it was attended to: 
 
 "The unity of government," said Washington, in his farewell 
 address, " which constitutes you one people, is also dear to you. It 
 is justly so,* for it is the main pillar in the edifice of your indepen- 
 dence, the support of your tranquillity at home, your peace abroad; of 
 your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so 
 highly prize. But as it is easy to foresee, that, from different causes, 
 and from different quarters, much pains will be take?i, many artifices 
 employed to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as 
 this is the point in your political fortress, against which the batteries 
 of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively 
 (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of infinite mo- 
 ment, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your 
 national union, to your collective and individual happiness; that you 
 should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; 
 accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as the Palladium of 
 your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation 
 with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a 
 suspicion that it can in any event be abandoned; and indignantly 
 frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any 
 
 c 2 
 
58 
 
 portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties 
 which now link together the various parts." 
 
 Such is the advice of him, whom all aver a veneration for: who have 
 followed this counsel? who have rejected it? 
 
 Have the republicans of the east, middle, south, or west, ever in 
 the slightest degree, sought to enfeeble the sacred ties uniting the 
 States? ' 
 
 Have the federalists of the east, or of any other quarter of the 
 union, conspired to destroy the Palladium of our political safety and 
 prosperity? 
 
 We put these questions to all good men: We say, in answer to the 
 first, that the republicans are guiltless of this sin. In answer to the 
 second, we say, on various authorities, to which we shall refer, that 
 the federalists of the east have disregarded the counsel of Washing- 
 ton, and conspired to sever the Union. 
 
 1. In the preface to Mr. M. Carey's Olive Branch, second edition, 
 page six, it is thus written: 
 
 "It cannot be any longer doubted that there exists a conspiracy 
 in New England, among a few of the most influential and wealthy 
 citizens, to effect a dissolution of the union at every hazard, and to 
 form a separate confederacy. This has been asserted by some of our 
 citizens for years, and strenuously denied by others, deceived by 
 the mask the conspirators wore, and their hollow professions. But 
 it requires more than Boeotian stupidity and dulness to hesitate on the 
 subject, after the late extraordinary movements, which cannot possi- 
 bly have any other object. It is eighteen years since this dangerous 
 project was promulgated. (In a series of essays published under the 
 signature of Pelham, in the Connecticut Courant, 1796.) From that 
 period to the present it has not been one hour out of view. And un- 
 holy and pernicious as was the end, the means employed were at 
 least as unholy and pernicious: falsehood, deception, and calumny, 
 in turn, have been called in to aid the design," &c. 
 
 The pages of Mr. Carey's work are adorned with the political por- 
 traits of Mr. Webster, Mr. Lowell, Mr. Otis, Mr. Quincy, and 
 others now actively promoting, with the members of the Hartford 
 convention, the re-election of Mr. Adams — the same Mr. Adams 
 who promulgated to Mr. Giles and Mr. Jefferson, the existence of a 
 conspiracy in New England to dissolve the union. 
 
 2. In the Cunningham Letters, Boston edition, page 66 to 70, will 
 be found a letter, from Mr. John Adams to Mr. Cunningham, dated 
 " December 13, 1808," containing these words: 
 
 " I may mention to you in confidence, that considerable pains have 
 " been taken to persuade your friend John Q. Adams to consent 
 "to be run [for governor of Massachusetts] by the republicans. 
 " But he is utterly averse to it, and so am I for many reasons, 
 "among which are (for 6 of them see book) — 7. It would pro- 
 " duce an eternal separation between him and the federalists, 
 " at least that part of them who now constitute the absolute oli- 
 " garchy. This I own, however, I should not much regret, for 
 " this nation has more to fear from them than any other source" 
 
 Thus, we see, that although Mr. J. Q. Adams denounced this very 
 oligarchy, to Mr. Jefferson, in the winter of 1807--8, he still clung 
 
59 
 
 to them in December, 1808, and would not act with the republicans. 
 We see him balancing, as the political thermometer varied: And 
 above all, we see, on the authority of Mr. John Adams, that from the 
 New England faction, now at the head of Mr. J. Q. Adams' support- 
 ers, " this nation has more to fear than from any other source." 
 
 3. We next refer to the message of the president of the U. S. to 
 Congress, communicating the disclosures, made by John Henry, the 
 agent employed by the governor general of Canada, &c. to proceed 
 on a political mission to the United States. 
 
 Extract from J. Henry's memorial to Lord Liverpool, of the 13tk June, 1811. 
 
 " Soon after the affair of the Chesapeake frigate, when his Majesty's Gover- 
 nor General of British America had reason to believe that the two countries 
 would be involved in a war, and had submitted to his Majesty's Ministers the 
 arrangements of the English party in the United States for an efficient resis- 
 tance to the general government, which would probably terminate in a sepa- 
 ration of the Northern states from the general confederacy, he applied to the 
 undersigned, to undertake a mission to Boston, where the whole concerns of the 
 opposition were managed. The object of the mission was to promote and en- 
 courage the federal party to resist the measures of the general government; to offer 
 assurances of aid and support from his Majesty's government of Canada,- and to 
 open a communication between the leading men engaged in that opposition, 
 and the Governor General, upon such a footing as circumstances might sug- 
 gest; and finally, to render the plans then in contemplation subservient to the 
 views of his Majesty's government." 
 
 Extract of a letter from John Henry to Sir James Craig, governor general of British 
 America, dated Boston, March 7, 1809. 
 
 " Sih, I have already given a decided opinion that a declaration of war is not 
 to be expected; but, contrary to all reasonable calculation, should the Congress 
 possess spirit and independence enough to place their popularity in jeopardy 
 by so strong a measure, the Legislature of Massachusetts will give the tone to 
 the neighbouring states; will declare itself permanent until a new election of 
 members; invite a Congress, to be composed of Delegates from the Federal 
 States, and erect a separate Government for their common defence and com- 
 mon interest." 
 
 Extract from the same to the same, dated Boston, March 20, 1809. 
 
 " Since the plan of an organized opposition to the projects of Mr. Jefferson 
 was put into operation, the whole of the New England States have tranferred 
 their political power to his political enemies; and the reason that he has still 
 so many adherents, is, that those who consider the only true policy of Ameri- 
 ca to consist in the cultivation of peace, have still great confidence that no- 
 thing can force him (or his successor, who acts up to his system; or rather is 
 governed by it) to consent to war. 
 
 "A war attempted without the concurrence of both parties, and the general 
 consent of the Northern States, which constitute the bone and muscle of the 
 country, must commence without hopes, and end in disgrace. It shoulc), there- 
 fore, be the peculiar care of Great Britain, to foster division between the North 
 and South; and by succeeding in this, she may carry into effect her own pro- 
 jects in Europe, with a total disregard of the resentments of the democracts 
 of this country." 
 
 4. We all remember the gloomy period, August and September, 
 1814, when Washington city w;is burnt, when a British army 14000 
 strong, under Sir John Prevost, was marching to Plattsburg, and 
 when the army under Gen. Ross, fo divert attention from the North, 
 
60 
 
 was approaching Baltimore : at that period, therd was published in 
 the Boston Sentinel (to which Mr. J. Q. Adams has given the public 
 printing, before held by a republican paper) a series of essays, the 
 object of which may be judged from these extracts: 
 
 " She (New-England) will now meet every danger, and go through every 
 difficulty, until her rights are restored to the full, and settled too strongly to 
 be shaken. She will put aside all half-way measures; she will look with an eye 
 of doubt on those who propose them; in the cause of New England indepen- 
 dence, they must do it in the spirit of New England men." 
 
 " Those who startle at the danger of a separation, tell us, that the soil of 
 New England is hard and sterile: that deprived of the productions of the 
 South, we should soon become a wretched race of cowherds and fishermen; 
 that our narrowed territory, and diminished population would make us an easy 
 prey to foreign powers." 
 
 **. Do these men forget what national energy can do for a people ? Have they 
 not read of Holland? Do they not remember that it grew in wealth and pow- 
 er amidst contest and alarm. That it threw off the yoke of Spain, (our Vir- 
 ginia,) and its chapels became churches, and its poor men's cottages, princes' 
 palaces?" 
 
 "Do our men of moderation think that opposition in all its horrors will not 
 then break out in New England?" 
 
 " Could it be supposed, that the members of the New England Convention 
 would return each to his home, without proposing some measures going to 
 our full relief and security? Who does not foresee, much as they are respect- 
 ed, that the suffering of those who look up to them for blessings, will embitter 
 their coming days, and darken their latest hour?" 
 
 " Citizens of New England — With numerous consequences conjured up be- 
 fore your eyes, there are still a few who have started at the sound of an Eastern 
 neutrality, and a treaty of commerce with England. They trembled too at the 
 name of a convention. " 
 
 "It is said, that to make a treaty of commerce with the enemy, is to violate the 
 Constitution and sever the Union. Are they not both already virtually de- 
 stroyed?" 
 
 "Throwing off all connexion with this wasteful war — making peace with our 
 enemy, and opening once more our commerce with the world, would be a wise 
 and manly course. The occasion demands it of us, and the people at large are 
 ready to meet it." 
 
 5. In proof, that the advice of the agent of England was acted 
 upon, and every effort made to irritate the north against the south, 
 we again refer to Mr. Carey's book, chapter 32: Mr. Carey asserts, 
 that the demagogues of the eastern states had "uniformly treated 
 the southern states, with outrage, insult, and injury" — page £69: 
 and that the Boston papers contained articles "intended and calcu- 
 lated to excite the negroes of the southern states to rise and massa- 
 cre their masters." — page 254. 
 
 6. In 1801, the constitution U. S. did not authorise electors of 
 President and Vice-President, as it now does, to designate the per- 
 son they preferred as president, and the person they preferred as 
 vice-president: the electors gave in that year an equal number of 
 votes to Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Burr; but it was well understood that 
 Mr. Jefferson was intended as president and Mr. Burr as vice-pre- 
 sident: the election, however, devolving on the house of representa- 
 tives, the New England faction undertook to obstruct the popular 
 will: although Mr. Burr was a republican as well as Mr. Jefferson, 
 they pushed their support of the former, almost to a civil war, and 
 if the federalists of the middle states had to the end adhered to them, 
 that would have been the result. The states then voting were six- 
 teen. 
 
61 
 
 The public understand the character of the late Mr. James A. 
 Bayard, who then represented and gave the vote of Delaware: we 
 have now before us two original letters, written by him, at the me- 
 morable crisis referred to: the ballotings were carried on by night 
 as well as- day, for many days and nights, producing alarm and 
 gloom throughout the union: the first letter is dated one o'clock at 
 night, February 12, Chamber of Representatives, and states that 
 the house was then in session, balloting — that nineteen times the 
 ballots had been given in, and produced the same result, eight votes 
 for Jefferson, six for Burr, and two divided: "how or when the affair 
 will end," says Mr. Bayard, "we know not:" the balloting continu- 
 ed until the 17th of February; on that day Mr. Bayard wrote the 
 second letter before us, announcing that Mr. Jefferson was elected: 
 and this letter contains these memorable words: 
 " The New England gentlemen came out, and declared, they meant 
 " to go without a constitution, and take the risk of a civil 
 " war." 
 
 Such a declaration was well calculated to open the eyes of men 
 who really respected the counsel of Washington; and Mr. Jefferson, 
 the candidate intended by the people, was placed in the presidency. 
 
 We have thus given our proofs of the disposition of the New 
 
 England faction to disregard the advice of Washington: and we now 
 appeal to all discreet men to say, whether the distrust of federalists 
 entertained by republicans is to be wondered at? "The ambitious 
 demagogues of Boston," says Mr. M. Carey, page 306, " have been 
 the guide of federalists throughout the union: they have led them a 
 devious course, from the paths prescribed by Washington: they have 
 allured them to the brink of insurrection, civil war, and horrible de- 
 vastation, which are all synonymous with a dissolution of the union." 
 
 Is it surprising then, M'e ask, if republicans have hesitated to put 
 offices and power into the hands of persons, who permit themselves 
 to be thus led away? Let candid men reverse the scene, and for the in- 
 stant, suppose that demagogues of the west had acted like those of the 
 east had done, and that the republicans of Pennsylvania had sustain- 
 ed the western misconduct; would not complaint be made with jus- 
 tice? If the union is dear to us, if peace is so desirable, why cling 
 to a faction that has threatened both? 
 
 To the discreet men, to the real disciples of Washington, we, 
 therefore, say, come out from amongst them: show that you truly 
 love your country, and not a section of it merely; that you are, in 
 truth, the admirers of him, whose services and wishes embraced the 
 whole American family. The people of New England at large are 
 virtuous, intelligent, and faithful, but it has unaccountably happen- 
 ed, that they have not had the resolution to resist a pressure upon 
 them, from an interested aristocracy: let the federalists of other 
 states give them an example, and they will cease to be guided as 
 heretofore. 
 
 Between Andrew Jackson and J. Q. Adams there is a striking 
 
 contrast inviting the support of the former, on the part of men of 
 principle — the one has always acted for his country — the other for 
 himself. The one has always been of the republican party, and yet 
 he has openly avowed his desire to honour and confide in men of all 
 parties, who are true to their country in hours of danger. Mr. 
 
62 
 
 Adams, on the contrary, has been of every party and faction, and 
 broken faith with them all. He is now undoubtedly the candidate 
 of the very faction from which his father said the country has more 
 to fear than from any other source. We ask, if, without the New 
 England aristocracy Mr. Adams would have twenty votes? We ask 
 discreet federalists to say, whether they are prepared to be again 
 " guided ; ' to the verge of mischief, or will act for their country? 
 
 If such counsel as we have given shall be disregarded, at least we 
 shall have done our duty. 
 
 LETTER XIV. 
 
 Gentlemen — In our sixteenth letter we were enquiring into the 
 services and measures of Mr. Adams, in order to ascertain the cor- 
 rectness of your representation, that he is an illustrious patriot and 
 statesman: and we had intended to pursue the enquiry, minutely, 
 in succeeding letters: the desire, however, to publish in a pamphlet 
 form what we have already written, interrupts our progress, and we 
 shall at present notice those topics in a very brief manner. 
 
 It cannot escape public observation, that there is, throughout the 
 addresses in favour of the administration, a dearth of information 
 respecting services and measures: So remarkable an uniformity could 
 not have been accidental. We are justified in supposing, therefore, 
 that it really' was the result of a want of adequate materials. Up to 
 1809, we have already accompanied Mr. Adams in his diplomatic 
 career, without finding any result, honourable to the fame, or useful 
 to the interests, of his country: Let us see whether he was more dis- 
 tinguished subsequently. 
 
 From 1809 to 1814 Mr. Adams was in Russia: we have no know- 
 ledge, we never have heard, that his services extended beyond a re- 
 sidence at St. Petersburgh. He was greedy in the accumulation of 
 the large sums paid by his " penurious" country; but we have yet 
 to learn that any return of national benefit was made. 
 
 In 1814 we find Mr. Adams at Ghent: In the execution of this 
 trust, if we are to believe Mr. Clay, there was not displayed, by Mr. 
 Adams, either patriotism or statesmanship: on the contrary, he was 
 anxious to give up national interests to purchase a sectional ad- 
 vantage for the east. Let the friends of those gentlemen, however, 
 settle this matter, if they can: a day will arise when the veil which 
 hides the " secret night" transactions at Ghent, will be rent, and sa- 
 lutary truths made known to an abused people. 
 
 Mr. Adams subsequently proceeded to London, and remained 
 there until 1816. There were many matters dependent upon the 
 treaty of Ghent, which demanded efficient attention, but we have 
 no knowledge that any of them were at this period adjusted. 
 
 Here ends the career of Mr. Adams as a foreign minister: it is 
 incredible, that, if, in the course of twenty years, he really had ef- 
 fected any object of moment for his country, an utter silence respect- 
 ing it would be observed: on the contrary, when so much is said 
 pompously and gratuitously, we may well conclude, that the subject 
 
63 
 
 will not bear examination. We have no doubt that Mr. Adams was 
 a constant and voluminous correspondent, but we have no knowledge 
 of results of his diplomacy, denoting patriotism and statesmanship. 
 
 Let us then, hastily, pass with him through the cabinet, from 
 1816 to 1825. The field here opened was sufficiently extensive for 
 the display of every talent, natural or acquired: and if the duties 
 comprehended merely a train of elaborate, and often elegant compo- 
 sitions, we should not hesitate to confer high praise: But, if sound 
 advice, and salutary actions are the tests of a minister, we must re- 
 fuse to place Mr. Adams in the rank which is claimed for him. 
 
 What, in the whole course of his ministry, did he effect with 
 France? If the government of the United States had released France 
 from responsibility for spoliations prior to the purchase of Louisiana, 
 at least indemnity was due for the losses of American citizens, by 
 the outrages of France subsequent to that period. Those losses, in 
 all probability, exceeded twenty millions of dollars, yet it does not 
 appear that any efficient effort has been made to obtain remuneration. 
 
 The United States had been the first to acknowledge the indepen- 
 dence of South America and Mexico ; they were sister republics in 
 the same hemisphere ; we had claims of gratitude and sympathy to 
 prefer; yet we have seen the diplomacy of England stripping us of 
 advantages, politically and commercially important. The incapacity 
 and failure of Mr. Adams, in this respect, were exposed by Mr. 
 Clay himself, in the debates in 1820, upon the Spanish treaty. 
 
 In the negociations with Spain, Mr. Adams evinced a want of ca- 
 pacity, or zeal, which afforded Mr. Clay an opportunity to rebuke 
 him before the nation. It has never been explained why, in nego- 
 ciating with Spain, the territory of Texas was given up — a territo- 
 ry which, according to Mr. Clay, Spain herself had agreed to consi- 
 der within the bounds of Louisiana — a territory comprehending six 
 degrees of latitude, from the 26th to the 32d N. and about nine de- 
 grees of longitude, from the Rio del Norde to the Sabine. To arrest 
 such a transfer, and to rebuke Mr. Adams, Mr. Clay laid these re- 
 solutions on the table of the House of Representatives, on the 20th 
 March, 1820. 
 
 "Resolved, That the Constitution vests in Congress the power to 
 dispose of the territory belonging to the United States, and that no 
 treaty, proposing to alienate any portion thereof, is valid without the 
 concurrence of Congress : — 
 
 "Resolved, That the equivalent proposed to be given by Spain to 
 the United States, in the treaty concluded between them, on the 
 22d day of February, 1809, for that part of Louisiana lying west of 
 the Sabine, was inadequate, and that it would be inexpedient to 
 make a transfer thereof to any foreign power, or to renew the afore- 
 said treaty." 
 
 These resolutions spoke a language not to be misunderstood: they 
 show the conviction of Mr. Clay in 1820, that Mr. Adams was 
 either incompetent or unfaithful : the debates on the subject set all 
 doubts at rest: Mr. Clay charged Mr. Adams with subserviency to 
 foreign policy, in regard to Spain and her late colonies, and said 
 that a single expression of Lord Castlereagh had guided the course 
 of the United States: I am quite refreshed, said Mr. Clay, at reading 
 a paper from the pen of Count Nesselrode, "after perusing those 
 
64 
 
 (he was sorry to say it; he wished there was a veil thick and broad 
 enough to conceal them for ever) which this (the Spanish treaty ne- 
 gociated by Mr. Adams) had produced on the part of government." 
 The valuable territory, however, was given up — whether owing to 
 Mr. Adams' infidelity or incompetency, we leave the friends of Mr. 
 Adams and Mr. Clay to decide: that the territory was lost by one 
 or the other is indisputable. 
 
 On the purchase of Florida from Spain, an illustrious patriot or 
 statesman never would have pursued the course taken by Mr. Adams: 
 it was wholly immaterial to Spain how the purchase money should 
 be applied — that question rested with the United States alone; a 
 faithful minister, in fixing the amount to be applied to the payment 
 of losses by his countrymen, would have taken such limits as would 
 embrace every fair claim: Mr. Adams, however, limited the indem- 
 nity for losses to five millions, whereas the actual claims amounted 
 to twenty millions: the injurious effects of this arrangement were se- 
 verely felt, upon the decision of the commissioners. According to 
 the principles of justice and sound policy, there ought to have been 
 no limit, but the extent of the fund, and thus all honest claimants 
 would have been indemnified. 
 
 Pursuing our enquiry beyond the period of Mr. Adams' election, 
 we see the same incompetency or indifference as to our relations with 
 England. The colonial trade had been the topic of discussion for 
 many years — if it had not been considered important to the United 
 States, this would not have been the case. The British ministry 
 departing from their usual policy, offered to relax their colonial sys- 
 tem in favour ©f the United States, not doubting but that the propo- 
 sal would be met in a spirit of liberality, leading to greater results 
 — the offer was, however, so grossly neglected, and the excuses for 
 the neglect were so contradictory, that the British ministry withdrew 
 the overture, and Mr. Canning explained the act in a rebuke highly 
 inculpating the government of the United States. It is extremely 
 probable, that attention to electioneering, produced neglect of public 
 duty in this case — from July 1824 to June 1826, there was a neglect 
 either to renew negociations at Washington, or to send the necessa- 
 ry instructions to England. 
 
 ....With regard to the measures of the administration. What new 
 principle, or measure, has Mr. Adams ever proposed, to promote the 
 interests of agriculture, trade or manufactures ? What has he done 
 to develope the resources of the country from its soil, mines, woods 
 or fisheries? Has he suggested any new source of revenue, or any 
 improvement in any that exists ? In the entire organization of the 
 existing system, are not things exactly as they were planned and 
 left by his predecessors? What an absurdity, then, to claim a merit 
 for the administration from an) r existing prosperity — the boast of the 
 fly on the chariot wheel, that its agency produced the motion, is not 
 more ridiculous. 
 
 No person of candour can have regarded passing events with any 
 sort of care, without being entirely satisfied, that the great interests 
 of the nation have been merged in the anxiety of the men in power 
 to keep it, if at all practicable — the committee of retrenchment made 
 developements, which, in any individual case, would have stripped 
 any man of the confidence of his employers — the three cases of Mi. 
 
(65 
 
 John A. King, Mr. J. H. Pleasants, and Mr. Cook, member of Con 
 gress from Illinois, are sufficient to explain this fully: 
 
 1. Mr. John A. King. The act of congress of May 1, 1810, (sec- 
 tion 2, page 309, of vol. 4, laws U. S.) expressly declares, that no 
 compensation shall be allowed to any charge des affaires, who shall 
 not have been appointed by the President of the U. States,by and with 
 the advice and consent of the senate, or by the president durin°- a 
 recess, and afterwards approved by senate. No one has ever pre- 
 tended that Mr John A. King was embraced in either of those cases, 
 yet Mr. Adams directed 85258 15 to be paid to him for 62 days pre- 
 tended services, and it was paid to him, in open violation of law. 
 
 2. Mr. John H. Pleasants, an administration editor, received $1 940 
 dollars as the bearer of despatches from the United States to Buenos 
 Ayres, although he has himself confessed that he never went to 
 Buenos Ayres; that he gave the despatches to the captain of a vessel 
 bound there; and that, instead of executing the duty for which he 
 was paid, he made a pleasant tour in England ! 
 
 3. Mr. Cook gave the vote of Illinois to Mr. Adams, contrary to 
 the will of his constituents; his constituents dismissed him; the ad- 
 ministration then gave him a secret agency to Cuba, at a compensa- 
 tion of 5500 dollars, of which he received 1500 — he was in bad 
 health, did not understand the Spanish language — was but a few 
 weeks at the Havana — from whence he returned, without effecting 
 any object whatever! In this case, for the first time since the for- 
 mation of the government, the executive refused to disclose to con- 
 gress the object of a mission — the constitution imperatively directs 
 the president to give information to congress; a committee of con- 
 gress asked it; it was refused, without any pretence, that the public 
 interest demanded concealment ! 
 
 When such abuses as these are considered, it is not surprising, 
 that the .contingent expenses of the executive department, in 1825 — 
 6 — 7 under Mr. Adams, exceeded the like expenses under Mr. Mon- 
 roe, in 1822—3—4, in the sum of 8306,506 dollars! 
 
 ....We have not ventured to present our naked opinions, in re- 
 lation to services and measures, but to refer to the absence of proof: 
 It is well known, that Mr. Jefferson set a very different estimate 
 upon the qualifications of Mr. Adams, from that fixed by his friends: 
 Mr. Jefferson considered Mr. Adams merely a fine belles lettres 
 scholar, but that, if he was called on for the exercise of his judg- 
 ment, it was a cross and pile chance whether he was right or wrong: 
 This opinion accords so remarkably with those of Gov. Giles, a 
 gentleman long conversant with public affairs and men, that we 
 close our letter with an extract from his address of the 28th of 
 February last: 
 
 " I believe (says Gov. Giles) that Mr. Adams does not possess the 
 necessary useful practical talents, for administering any govern 
 ment whatever, and that Gen. Jackson's talents for that object are 
 incomparably greater than Mr. Adams': whilst I am willing to ad- 
 mit, that Mr. Adams may be, more than Gen. Jackson, the poet 
 born, and more the scholar made. I believe Mr. Adams not to be a 
 wise man; that he possesses very few of the attributes of wisdom. I 
 must stick to my definition of terms. I believe Mr. Adams is not 
 wise in conduct — not wise in actions. I believe he is not blessed 
 
 d2 
 
66 
 
 with the happy talent of choosing the best measures; nor the best 
 means of carrying Ins chosen measures into effect. To be in the 
 fashion, particularly with " the anti-Jackson convention," I must 
 coin a word to convey my ideas of Mr. Adams in this respect: I be- 
 lieve Mr. Adams to be an anti-wise man. The whole history of his 
 life will prove the correctness of these convictions, but I will specify 
 a few cases only in demonstration. His letter to the committee 
 before quoted, grounded, I think, upon fallacious misrepresentations, 
 extending even to a point of incredibility: His various efforts in 
 various papers, but particularly in his first message to congress, to 
 derive powers to the general government from sources paramount to 
 the constitution, or from his own peculiarly eccentric interpretation 
 of the constitution. His conduct in the whole of his interceuse with 
 Great Britain, by which we have not only lost the West India trade, 
 but diminished the rest of our British trade, and hazarded the 
 -whole — a trade, amounting to more than one half of our foreign trade, 
 and thus introducing a state of impoverishment in the United States 
 unknown here before. I think Mr. Adams has been particularly 
 anti-wise in all his most important diplomatic negociations, parti- 
 cularly so in his treaties of limits, both with Spain and Great Britain, 
 in the one, he lost the Texas; in the other he has reduced us to the 
 disgraceful arbitrament of a foreign power, for a territory on our' 
 north-eastern boundary, equal to, perhaps greater in extent than, the 
 whole state of New-Hampshire. I conceive Mr. Adams particularly 
 anti-wise, in his claims to executive powers, especially in relation to 
 his competency to originate foreign missions without the consent of 
 the senate; particularly, as that question was settled in his own per- 
 son against such right, about the close of Mr. Jefferson's administra- 
 tion. Without impugning at this time, the policy of his Panama 
 mission, I think one of the reasons he assigned for it the most anti- 
 wise that could have entered into the imagination of man — to liberal- 
 ize the South American Catholics, on the score of religion : This 
 most eccentric notion has perhaps, tended more than any thing else, 
 to deprive us of the valuable favour of the South American republics. 
 This catalogue of anti-wise measures must suffice, although it is but 
 just begun." 
 
 In this letter, we close our observations upon all general topics : 
 in the succeeding five letters, we shall enquire into the manner in 
 which Mr. Adams gained the presidential chair, in opposition to the 
 known will of the people. 
 
 Let it be borne in mind, in reading the succeeding five letters, 
 that, Mr. Adams declared, in the message to the house of represen- 
 tatives, when elected, that he would decline to act, if the declining 
 could enable the people to decide between him and Gen. Jackson, 
 We ask, on the view of the facts, if this i^ credible? 
 
67 
 
 LETTER XV, 
 
 Gentlemen — You deem it needless, you say, to notice u the now 
 exploded calumny of a corrupt bargain," between Mr. Adams and 
 Mr. Clay: it is possible, that you think the charge, which you call 
 a calumny, exploded ; but, we believe, that, if you could have esta- 
 blished any fact, indicative of innocence, you would not have passed 
 the question over, with so much apparent indifference: No, the charge 
 is not exploded, and the best proof that it is not, is the fact, that the 
 subject now occupies a majority of the columns of the principal news- 
 papers in the union. 
 
 In reference to this charge, you speak of " the ruthless war," that 
 has been prosecuted, as you assert, against the reputation of public 
 men; but you forgot, that you were, at the same instant, waging a 
 ruthless war upon the reputation of Gen. Jackson: What ! shall you 
 pry into the recesses of his heart, in search of motives, which he ab- 
 hors? Shall you denounce him as a person, who, if chosen president, 
 would violate the constitution, the law, and the rights of his coun- 
 trymen, although sworn to sustain them all? — shall you say and do 
 all this, and yet call it calumny to investigate the conduct of your 
 own favourites? 
 
 You mistake, gentlemen, altogether, the nature of free discussion: 
 you forget for what end it was, that the founders of th,e republic 
 guaranteed the freedom of speech and of the press. We deprecate, 
 as anxiously as you do, the gross abuse of the press: but, if, as we 
 often assert, a republic w> a better inheritance than the gifts of ,ran- 
 sitory fortune, it is not only our right, but our duty, to investigate 
 and expose those causes, which, if not removed, must produce the 
 loss of that inheritance. 
 
 We have no hesitation in avowing our deliberate conviction, that 
 the influence of Mr. Clay procured the election of Mr. Adams — that 
 Mr. Clay gave his influence to Mr. Adams, with an understanding, 
 that he would be made Secretary of State— and, that Mr. Adams did 
 make him Secretary of State in consideration of the influence used 
 by Mr. Clay to produce his election. 
 
 As to the question, whether those exchanges were in their origin, 
 nature, or tendency, corrupt, it was settled by Mr. Clay himself: in 
 his letter to Judge "Brooke, Jan. 28, 1825, he declared, that he had 
 consulted his conscience, and concluded to vote for Mr. Adams; that 
 he would be assailed fordoing so, but would listen to all accusations 
 without, emotion: yet, three days after, when accused of meditating 
 a coalition, he pronounced the charge infamous, and threatened to 
 hold every man accountable to the "laws of honour" who should ut- 
 ter it. 
 
 Indeed, the anxious and elaborate pains taken, for upwards of. 
 three yeaiSj by Mr. Clay and all his friends, in table orations, pam 
 phlets, and newspapers, to prove him guiltless, show their own be- 
 lief that the people considered the transactions corrupt, and that a 
 necessity existed for removing that impression. 
 
 We will not imitate your example, gentlemen, and assert, that a 
 serious charge is well founded, without giving our reasons for our 
 
68 
 
 convictions: nor, if you shall not come to the same conclusion with 
 lis, shall we censure you — for belief is not a matter of choice: but we 
 will state the grounds of our belief, call upon you to reply, and leave 
 the decision to the people: Any thing more than this would be un- 
 kind to you, any thing less would be unworthy of ourselves. 
 
 In discussing the question, whether Mr. Clay's gift of influence, 
 and Mr Adams' gift of office, were reciprocal acts of a corrupt cha- 
 racter, thefriends of those gentlemen usually begin by asking, whe- 
 ther it is likely, that two such men would act corruptly ? Upright 
 men, undoubtedly, feel a reluctance to believe, that a factious coali- 
 tion was formed. When we first hear the accusation, we naturally 
 ask ourselves, is it likely, that men, already so high in public favour, 
 would risk its loss? Would they voluntarily act in such a way, as if 
 detected, would lead to the forfeiture of public confidence ? And yet, 
 it is the investigation of this question, that prepares the mind to re- 
 ceive evidence, and to pronounce upon the accusation. 
 
 Is there any thing unusual in the existence of factious coalitions? 
 Were there no such combinations between leaders in the republics 
 of Greece? Were there no such treaties of alliance between heads 
 of factions in Rome? Do the histories of France and England pre- 
 sent no instances, in which angry opponents suddenly became ardent 
 friends, to crush some rival, who threatened to stop the ambitious 
 march of both? What history does not record proofs, that men, 
 originally pure, have been converted into apostates, and violators of 
 their obligations to their country, by the intoxicating influence of 
 avarice and ambition? 
 
 What, indeed, is a republic, but a system, devised to guard the 
 people against the proneness of public agents to violate their trusts? 
 Why, especially in relation to the election of a president, did the 
 iramers of the constitution so anxiously erect the barriers, which we 
 see in it? Did they not foresee such scenes as the brief history of 
 the republic already records? What are constitutions and laws, but 
 checks upon the inordinate lust of wealth and power? Why are men 
 elected for their merits and honesty, still obliged to swear before the 
 Almighty, that they will not betray their trusts — if the temptation 
 to betray them is not almost irresistible? 
 
 Have we had no men in our own country, who sacrificed them- 
 selves upon the altar of ambition? Have not men of the highest 
 attainments in other countries put a period to their own lives, when 
 disappointed in political pursuits? — In the country from which, 
 in particular, we derive our origin, and many of tfur laws, principles 
 and customs, have we not seen some remarkable changes within our 
 own time? Did not Edmund Burke, a man of the most transcendant 
 abilities, in order to gratify his passion of avarice or ambition, and 
 to resent the tardiness of the whigs in satisfying it, abandon his first 
 principles and die the pensioner of men, whose practices he had 
 scorned, and whose profligacy he had lashed? Did not William 
 Pitt and Lord Castlereagh begin their career as whigs, then put 
 on the garb of apostacy, and at last perish under a load of self- 
 reproach and disappointment? If experience teaches all this, should 
 we startle at the supposition, that the same causes must produce the 
 same effects in the new world as in the old? As has been well sug- 
 gested, has the constitution necessarily made our citizens patriots* 
 
69 
 
 W hy, theu, should we be astonished, that individuals here should 
 desperately risk the uncertain loss of public favour, rather than 
 incur the certain loss of objects sought for in the utmost anxiety dur- 
 ing a long life? 
 
 ....The Presidency of the United States is the highest source of 
 honour, influence, and emolument, in the republic: It is a station to 
 which the greatest men, that ever lived, might consider it honoura- 
 ble to aspire, and still more honourable to attain: Within the last 
 forty years, but six persons have held the office: in the next fortv. 
 even six may not acquire the distinction: it has been in many in 
 stances reached with the utmost difficulty: the execution of great 
 services, or the developement of peculiar characteristics, in a long 
 life, seem to be the only avenues by which it can be reached. 
 
 To gain such a summit, intense, then, must be the avidity of him, 
 who. after toiling through life to reach it, has already ascended all 
 the steps but one! And equally intense must be his dismay, when he 
 sees a rival with one foot upon the last step, and ready to lift the 
 other ! In such an extremity, he looks around on friend and foe 
 "with tears in his eyes." imploring aid: the remembrance of past toils, 
 the shame of defeat, the glory of triumph, the intoxicating influence 
 of ambition and avarice, all combine to make him prefer the cer 
 tainty of present gratification, even at the risk of popular censure, 
 to the certainty of defeat without public commiseration! 
 
 Can you doubt the fidelity of this picture? you, who have been at 
 school, do you forget your dread of inferiority, or your desire for the 
 first rank in juvenile competition ? have you lost the remembrance 
 of your anxiety prior to scholastic examination? If you recollect 
 such incidents, cast your eyes upon Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, and 
 say whether their coalition was inconsistent with human weakness, 
 or worldly experience ? 
 
 Have you ever been competitors for popular favour? — if you have, 
 think of the sleepless nights and restless days which you have passed, 
 amidst the hopes of success, and fears of defeat; and then say, if you 
 had nearly reached such an eminence, whether you would not have 
 become giddy yourselves? How many amongst you would have 
 had the fortitude which General Jackson displayed, and defied temp- 
 tation ? 
 
 Is there any thing extraordinary then, in the conclusion, that 
 
 Mr. Adams, governed by such intense passions, held out lures, 
 through his friends, to Mr. Clay? Is it marvellous, that Mr. Clay, 
 impelled by passions equally strong, listened to friends of Mr. 
 Adams, and in his extrermtv caught at the bait ? 
 
 The condition of Mr. Clay was nearly as critical as that of Mr 
 Adams, or perhaps more critical: he had seen the presidency filled, 
 for sixteen years, by those who had been secretaries of state in suc- 
 cession: the presidency had been for twenty years the object of all 
 his desires and efforts: he knew that the south and the east had been 
 honoured, but that no president from the tcest had yet been elected: 
 he perceived that if the east should be now again honoured, especially 
 by his aid, the west would be more likely to be the next honoured, and 
 he would be more likely to be the successful candidate, at the next 
 change — than if the vest was now honoured, and Gen. Jackson elect- 
 ed: he would have risked his chance as a western candidate, if any 
 hopes of office under General Jackson had been held out; but that 
 
70 
 
 was not done : and therefore, upon the doctrine of chances, and ac 
 cording to political or partizan calculation, the success of Mr. Adams 
 Was more likely to open the door in 1833, than the election of Gen. 
 Jackson. 
 
 Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay well understood all this, without any 
 sort of intercourse: and so understanding it, can any, reasonable man 
 doubt their readiness to meet each other's views ? was any thing 
 more easy than to come to an understanding sufficiently plain, by 
 the aid of friends, without the formality and danger of an agreement 
 express or even implied, to which they had committed themselves ? 
 
 In what other way can we account for the coalition ? 
 
 In our next letter, we shall proceed to answer this question: in the 
 present, we think, we have presented views, founded on human na- 
 ture, experience and common sense, fully descriptive of the matter 
 before us: we are, we believe, fully authorised to say, that there is 
 every likelihood, that two such men as Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, 
 would, in their situation, form the coalition which produced an elec- 
 tion of the one and the appointment of the other. 
 
 LETTER XVI. 
 
 Gentlemen — We answered, in our last letter, the defensive enquiry, 
 often made by the friends of Messrs. Adams and Clay — whether it is 
 likely that two men, so high in public favour, would form a factious coa- 
 lition? We showed that it was likely, from our knowledge of human 
 nature, from experience, and from common sense, applied to the past, the 
 present, and the probable future positions of the parties. 
 
 Two facts admit of no dispute, that, Mr. Clay's agency made Mr. 
 
 Adams president, and that immediately after Mr. Adams made Mr. Clay 
 secretary of state: The main question, then, is, why did Mr. Clay make 
 Mr. Adams president, and why did Mr. Adams make Mr. Clay secretary? 
 
 That there was any direct agreement between Mr. Adams and Mr. 
 Clay, we do not believe; but from the arguments and facts before us, we 
 are of opinion, that an understanding of some kind, competent to the re- 
 sults, and calculated to produce them, did exist — an understanding that 
 might effect every purpose, without either party committing himself. 
 
 The motives of Mr. Adams, for desiring, and for having an understandr 
 ing with Mr. Clay, we have already shown, were the strongest that could 
 impel a man, influenced by ambition or avarice — power, influence, 
 wealth, pride, and dread of shame, presented themselves in array against 
 patriotism and political probity: without Mr. Clay, Mr. Adams would be 
 nothing: with him, he would get every thing, intensely coveted through 
 life! 
 
 The motives of Mr. Clay are as obvious: He saw that he would be, 
 with Mr. Adams, in the road of succession, but that he had no overture 
 from Gen. Jackson: He saw, that, if the West should be now honoured 
 with Jackson as a candidate, the east, middle, or south, might object to a 
 succession of western presidents ; but, that, if the west was postponed to 
 1833, to favour the east, the west would then be more likely to be ho- 
 noured, and receive eastern aid to that end. 
 
71 
 
 Before we resort to evidence from other sources, we will apply the test 
 of common sense to the relations in which the parties stood towards each 
 other. If there had been, between Messrs. Adams and Clay, an accor- 
 dance in political principles and views — if there had existed between 
 them an intimate friendship — some men would at once attribute to those 
 relations, the combination of 1825; nay they would be induced to palliate 
 its political profligacy, by appeals to some of the best feelings of the heart; 
 they would consider it a task above humanity, for two such dear friends 
 to abandon the certainty of mutual gratification, from a mere love of coun- 
 try ; they would have laughed at the devotion of Greeks and Romans as a 
 fable; and might even have gone so far as to consider Messrs. Adams 
 and Clay a second Damon and Pythias ! 
 
 But, unhappily for your cause, gentlemen, the case was diametrically 
 opposite — Mr. Clay had done all that a man could covertly do, to blast 
 Mr. Adams' fame, and Mr. Adams had publicly torn the mask of duplicity 
 from Mr. Clay's face : no two men in the Union, up to 1824, were so in- 
 veterately hostile to each other as politicians, and we might perhaps say 
 as men too, as Messrs. Adams and Clay. So that, instead of the amiable 
 attitude of Damon and Pythias, they presented a more striking resem- 
 blance to Octavius and Antony. 
 
 1. In the winter of 1814-15, Messrs. Adams, Bayard, Clay, Gallatin 
 and Russell, were negotiating the treaty of Ghent — in the course of the 
 conferences, Messrs. Adams, Bayard, and Gallatin were willing to recog- 
 nise a right in the British to navigate the Mississippi, in consideration that 
 the British should recognise aright in Americans to fish within the British 
 jurisdiction ; Messrs. Clay and Russell were opposed to such an exchange, 
 and, finally Mr. Bayard joining them, they defeated the object. 
 
 2. In 1816, Mr. Monroe was chosen president, and Mr. Adams was ap- 
 pointed secretary of state, to the deep mortification of Mr. Clay : in 1820, 
 Mr. Monroe was re-elected, and Mr. Adams re-appointed, in the line of 
 succession. The sceptre was now about to pass from Virginia; who should 
 succeed Mr. Monroe, was a question, Which set in operation all the vile 
 passions, much more violently than those of an honourable kind. Mr. 
 Clay saw, at a glance, the danger in which he was placed as a competitor, 
 by the influence and the position of Mr. Adams, and against him he began 
 to direct all his masked batteries. 
 
 3. In 1822, Mr. Adams, finding himself assailed, and as he had no 
 reason to doubt, covertly by Mr. Clay; finding that pains were taken to 
 render him odious in the eyes of the western people, on account of the 
 proposed exchange of Mississippi navigation for British fisheries; pre- 
 pared and published a book, which may be called a defence of himself, 
 and a bold attack upon Mr. Clay, his rival: the work is entitled " Du- 
 plicate Letters, the Fisheries, and the Mississippi ;" Washington, Sep- 
 tember 21, 1822. 
 
 It is not possible in this letter, or in several letters, to exhibit the full 
 length portrait of Mr. Clay, which this work presents to the American 
 people — it is a portrait, which, if faithful, and Mr. Adams says it is, would 
 suit a group of the De Retzs, Metternichs, and Talleyrands of Europe. 
 In the introduction, Mr. Adams states, amongst his reasons for publishing 
 this work, that rumours had been industriously circulated in the western 
 country, prejudicial to his reputation and even integrity — that, hetero- 
 geneous and incongruous materials had been mixed up, to excite the in- 
 
72 
 
 (Donation of the western and southwestern sections of the union against 
 him. — The duplicate (of Mr. Russell's letter, says, Mr. Adams, page 
 7) was the first of those papers seen by me; and, from " the moment of 
 my perusing it, I could be no longer at a loss for the origin of the storm, 
 which a friendly voice assured mp, was to burst upon nib from the west." 
 44 It was difficult to suppose, that the Ghent documents, and this (Mr. 
 Russell's letter) had been called forth from the slumbers of seven years, 
 for any other purpose." (page 9.) " The perusal of Mr. Russell's let- 
 ter disclosed the mystery of ruin, which had been brewing against me, 
 from the very day after the treaty of Ghent was signed. It was by re- 
 presentations like those of that letter, that the minds of my fellow citizens 
 in the west, had, for a succession of years, been abused and ulcerated 
 against me. The letter, indeed, inculpated the whole majority of the 
 mission to Ghent; but subsidiary slander had performed its part, of 
 pointing all the guilt, and fastening all the responsibility on me." (page 254.) 
 ....We need not quote further from this serious accusation made by 
 Mr. Adams against Mr. Clay. The book itself should be read. Mr. 
 Clay is accused of having from 1815, meditated to strip Mr. Adams of 
 public confidence — -of having impeached his integrity — of having mixed 
 up heterogeneous materials to excite the resentment of the west and south 
 against him — of having prepared a storm to burst upon him from the 
 west — of having ulcerated the minds of the western people against him— 
 nay, he hints, that it was at Mr. Clay's instance, that Mr. Russell sent a 
 secret letter to Mr. Monroe, charging Messrs. Adams, Bayard and Gal- 
 latin, with being ready to open the unoffending citizens of the largest 
 portion of the union, to British smugglers, emissaries, and all the horrors 
 of Indian warfare ; and he says, that, subsidiary slander sought to fix 
 the whole guilt on him, Mr. Adams. The book defends with ability and 
 places the conduct of Mr. Clay in the most odious light. 
 
 4. Mr. Adams does not boldly say, « You Mr. Clay, are a slanderer," 
 &c. but he assails him in such a way as to unmask him to the people, 
 and make him come forth and defend himself. Accordingly Mr. Clay 
 put on the cap, the hit was too palpable to be parried by silence— and on 
 the l6th November following, he published an address to the editors of 
 the National Intelligencer — in which, as if unconscious of the storm of 
 ruin which he had gathered in the west against Mr. Adams, he expresses 
 sentimental regret, at seeing his two colleagues at variance ! that he hopes 
 he may not be drawn into the controversy ! thinks Mr. Adams in error, 
 (unintentional of course; how could Mr. Clay think otherwise of Mr. 
 Adams r) and promises at a more propitious moment to correct Mr. 
 Adams' errors. 
 
 5. Perfectly understanding the hollowness of these professions, and 
 aware that the object of Mr. Clay was to put off discussion, and further 
 ulcerate the public mind, Mr. Adams, on the next day, published a most 
 pungent reply: in it, he says, he joined Mr. Clay in regretting contro- 
 versy — that he had not sought it— that whatever he had said or done, had 
 been in the face of day, and under his name— that he is ready to meet Mr. 
 Clay now — that the whole contents of his book are true ! 
 
 ....Mr. Clay did not notice this challenge — he was mute before the 
 public, but he was the more active in private. A series of letters, addressed 
 to Mr. Adams, were prepared in Kentucky, under Mr. Clay's direction; 
 they were sent through his hands to be published in Ohio: to avert suspi- 
 cion of his agency, they were published under the signature of " Wayne," 
 and a part of the cost of printing them in pamphlet form was paid by Mr. 
 
Clay. In those letters, every weapon dial ability r»r ingenuity could 
 wield, was employed to prostrate Mr. Adams, and to exalt Mr. Clay 
 every thing was said, that could otceratetbe minds of the western people 
 
 against Mr. Adams — every thing was done to attach them to his rival. 
 Mr. Adams was accused of pursuing a policy, (bat u would crimson om' 
 fields with the blood of border brethren, and light the midnight forest With 
 the flames of their duellings" — of weighing dollars against blood, &c; 
 
 In the first letter, the writer says: 
 
 "Against Mr. Clay, you (Mr. Adams) have made charges, which, if 
 true, must degrade him, in the estimation of his countrymen; and if not 
 true, ought to disgrace you. In addition to numerous insinuations, scat- 
 tered through your book, (the work above referred to) you have, in the 
 introduction, charged him directly, with having, at Ghent 'insisted in 
 principle, upon the sacrifice of the eastern for the benefit of the western 
 interest,' — at the same time asserting, that the national interest, which 
 Mr. Clay thus insisted on sacrificing, was compared with that, for which 
 the sacrifice was intended, as ' a million against a cent.' This is a serious 
 charge; if it be true, Mr. Clay has compromitted the interests of his coun- 
 try, and does not deserve its confidence: if it be not true, you have 
 ' borne false witness against your neighbour,' and deserve universal re- 
 probation: that it is not true, we are bold to assert, a;:d will prove out 
 assertion by your own declarations." 
 
 Again — letter 9: " We shall endeavour to show, as well by this as by 
 other transactions, that you feel a direct hostility or total indifference to 
 this (the western) section o( the Union, and of course you are not fit to 
 preside over its destinies." 
 
 "Again — " To the presence of an able western man (at Ghent) wc 
 may attribute the defeat and abandonment of the atrocious proposal (Mr 
 Adams' exchange of Mississippi for fisheries) but for tin- exertions of 
 Henry Clay, the seeds of war might now have been sowing along our 
 northern and western borders, Which, at no distant day, would have pro 
 duced an abundant harvest of tears and blood/' 
 
 Again — " On a re-perusal and strict comparison of your Mr. Adams') 
 arguments and assertion-!, tiie delusion Will vanish; ami instead of a stern 
 vindicator of violated truth, and insulted virtue, von will appear only an 
 able rhetorician, an artful sopliisi, a clumsy negotiator, and a vindictive 
 man." 
 
 .... Such was the way, in which Mr. Clay was ulcerating, with c: sub- 
 sidiary slander," as Mr. Adams calls it. the minds of the western people 
 against his rival — whilst at Washington; under his own name, he was 
 deploring, as if he was a friend to both, the controversy between Mr 
 Adams rind Mr. Russell! 
 
 Thus, in the fall of 1822, stood the rivals, accusing each other of faith 
 lessness to the republic — of treachery — want of integrity — duplicity — 
 falsehood ! 
 
 Now, if the strongest friendship could not have excused an arrange 
 ment, in opposition to the public will, in what way can any honest man 
 upon any honest or pure grounds, account for or justify a coalition be- 
 tween two persons, one of whom thus sought to blast the private and the 
 public reputation of the other, and the other of whom denounced th 
 ;ts as malicious, slanderous and falser 
 
74 
 
 LETTER XVII. 
 
 You have seen, gentlemen, that, in the letters signed " Wayne," writ- 
 ten in the fall of 1 822, under the direction of Mr. Clay, and printed partly 
 at his expense, Mr. Adams was denounced, as a faithless agent, a bung- 
 ling negociator, an artful sophist, a vindictive man, of narrow views, sec- 
 tional feelings, ready to sacrifice the blood of the west to secure the fish 
 of the east. 
 
 To prevent the election of such a man, the people's hopes, fears, and 
 principles, were all appealed to — it was represented that the elevation of 
 an eastern candidate would be followed by the most mischievous conse- 
 quences, whilst the election of a western candidate would have the most 
 salutary effects. 
 
 Nor did Mr. Clay confine himself to assaults upon Mr. Adams, and 
 appeals to the people against an eastern, and for a western president— 
 in 1822, he took the solid ground of principle, as to the practice of cabi- 
 net successions — he and his friends so late as July, 1824, pronounced 
 the elevation of presidents, from the cabinet, like popes from the 
 cardinals, as unsound in policy, mischievous in tendency, and violent- 
 ly hostile to republican principles ! — his friends besought the people, by 
 every public and private consideration, not to sanction so odious and dan- 
 gerous a precedent, by electing Mr. Adams ! In Ohio, especially, it was 
 proclaimed to be the main object of Mr. Clay's friends to break up the 
 cabinet succession ! 
 
 Thus, the parties stood, in relation to each other, until Mr. Clay reached 
 Washington, after the election in November, 1824. 
 
 And, now we recur to the question — Why, on the 9th February, 1825, 
 did Mr. Clay give the presidency— 
 
 To John Q. Adams, whom he had denounced, as a faithless minister, 
 — a vindictive man — an enemy of the west — a bungling ambassador 
 — an artful sophist, &c. 
 
 To John Q. Adams, the eastern candidate — against whom he had so 
 loudly protested— 
 
 To John Q. Adams, whose succession from the cabinet was so hostile 
 to republican principles, and so pernicious as a precedent. 
 
 We ask you, gentlemen, why Mr. Clay elected him, whom he had for 
 so many years sought to prostrate, for the good of his country, as he 
 always professed, and to preserve republican principles as he always 
 asserted? 
 
 Can you, can any honest man, upon honourable and fair principles, tell 
 why he did so — That they were politically foes, and personally estranged, 
 up to the winter of 1824, being admitted — then we ask, what it was, that 
 converted angry repulsion into sympathetic adhesion ? The change must 
 have been produced by something — to effect so marvellous and sudden a 
 revolution, something must have been said, and something must have 
 been done — now, what was that something — and when, where, and by whom t 
 was it said, and done ? Men, who, with all their energies, labour to de- 
 grade each other on one day, do not spontaneously confer upon each 
 other the most signal advantages on the next. 
 
 This enigma has not been solved by any of the parties. Mr. Adams 
 has throughout maintained a sepulchral silence, strongly contrasted with 
 
75 
 
 his avidity to defend himself in 1S22 — lie then leaped into print with ail 
 the arms of rhetoric, and all the arts of diplomacy. If it shall be said, that 
 his calmness is the token of conscious innocence, will it be allowed that 
 Mr. Clay's fury is the indication of conscious guilt ? Does the constitu- 
 tion, do the principles of honour, draw a line, between the obligations of a 
 president, and those of a secretary of state, to be silent or to meet accu- 
 sation ? 
 
 Mr. Clay alone enters the arena ! Let us hear him — what does he say ? 
 Does he tell us, that he elected Mr. Adams for his virtues? Does he tell 
 us, that he elevated him as a friend to the west ? Does he tell us, that he 
 elected him because he was of the last cabinet ? Does he tell us, that all 
 he had published against him was false ? Does he apologize for ulcerating 
 the minds of the western people against him ? Does he say any thing 
 about the suspended discussion about the Mississippi ? 
 
 No! Not one word like this does Mr. Clay utter: what, then, does he 
 say ? he alleges — 
 
 1. Thrtt he had long intended to vote for Mr. Adams. 
 
 2. That, after censuring General Jackson, in the debate on the Semi- 
 nole war, it would be inconsistent to vote for him. 
 
 3. That he would not, by voting for a military man, give an assurance 
 that this republic would march in the road that had led ail other re- 
 publics to ruin. 
 
 These are the only apologies, that Mr. Clay has ever offered to the 
 people, for voting/or a candidate whom he had denounced — an eastern 
 candidate, which he had deprecated — a cabinet candidate, obnoxious to 
 sound republican principles: and for voting against a western candidate 
 —the highest in the people's wishes — and recommended by the almost 
 unanimous instruction of Kentucky! 
 
 Now let us briefly enquire, whether the excuses, for this double out- 
 rage, are true and sound? 
 
 1. As to the first — We need not quote the able address of the Jackson 
 Central Committee of Washington City, or the volume of testimony an- 
 nexed to it: a few facts will suffice: I>arly in January, 1825, Mr. Clay 
 told General Floyd, of congress, that he never was so much puzzled how 
 to vote, as when he compared the pretensions of General Jackson, with 
 those of Mr. Adams: on the 8th of the same month, he wrote to Mr. 
 Blair, in Kentucky, that he must " now begin to consider for whom he 
 would wtef on the 28th of the same month, he first, by a letter to Judge 
 Brooke, announced his decision: he intimates hesitation until then, but 
 states that, on consulting his conscience, he had concluded to vote for Mr. 
 Adams ! What, after this, shall we say of the long determination ? 
 What shall we say of Mr. Clay's declaration at Noble's Inn, July 12, 
 1827, that before he had left Kentucky in the fall of 1824, he had made 
 known h\s fixed determination, not to vote for Gen. Jackson ? 
 
 2. As to the second — Mr. Clay pretends, that he was apprehensive 
 of censure, if he had voted for general Jackson, after the part he had 
 taken in the debate on the Seminole war! that is, Mr. Clay says, he 
 wished to be consistent: let us see, then, whether there was so much 
 cause for this apprehension: in his speech on the Seminole war, Februa- 
 ry, 1819, Mr. Clay said— 
 
 " Towards that distinguished Captain, (Gen. Jackson) who has shed so 
 much glory on our country, and whose renown constitutes so Jarg-e % portion 
 
76 
 
 of its moral property, I never had, I never can have, any other reeling's than 
 hose of the most profound respect and of the utmost kindness: with him my 
 acquaintance is very limited, hut as far as it has extended, it has been of the 
 most amiable kind." 
 
 Instead of Mr. Clay being inconsistent in voting for a man thus spoken 
 of, one would suppose lhat the inconsistency would be in voting against 
 him. Bui the fallacy of this apology is shown in still stronger lights — 
 Mr. Clay pretends, that he could not consistently vote for General Jack- 
 son, after censuring his conduct in the Seminole war; yet he voted for 
 JVlr. Adams, who had in his closet coolly considered and triumphantly de- 
 fended eveiy act of General Jackson, which Mr. Clay had censured. 
 The grossness of such an excuse appears, besides, from the facts, which 
 we have detailed as to Mr. Adams; Mr. Clay says, it would have been 
 inconsistent, if he had voted for Gen. Jackson, after censuring him; yet 
 he voted for Mr. Adams, after having assailed him in every way calcu- 
 lated to degrade him before the public ! he voted for Mr. Adams, for 
 whom he had not had respect or kindness, and against Gen. Jackson, for 
 whom he had entertained, and ever would entertain both! 
 
 3. As to the third excuse — Mr. Clay says, he feared, the election of 
 Gen. Jackson would be giving an assurance, that this republic would 
 march in the same fatal road that had led all other republics to ruin. This 
 apology has often been shown to be baseless — it has been denied in and 
 out of Congress, that history gives colour to such an assertion as is con- 
 veyed in this excuse — no one has ever ventured to sustain Mr. Clay, by 
 reference to authority: will any of you, gentlemen, undertake to do it? 
 we invite yon ,to the enquiry: it is not a fact that any republic has been 
 ruined by devotion to n military chief. Nor is it a fact, even if the first 
 assertion were true, that Gen. Jackson is the military chief imagined by 
 Mr. Clay: .When his country was in peril, and her armies were surrender- 
 ed or repulsed in other quarters, Gen Jackson offered his services as a 
 volunteer ; he left his farm, beat the enemy, and then returned to his 
 home! Is this a military chieftain ? 
 
 The truth seems to be, either that Mr. Clay has never profited by his- 
 tory, or that he adapts its pages to suit his purposes, and according to 
 the exigency: Thus, when he was labouring in Congress to prostrate the 
 old bank U. S. it was necessary to alarm the weak and timid : on that 
 occasion, he said — 
 
 " Republics, above all oilier nations, ought most scrupulously to guard 
 {{gainst foreigii .influence/ 311. history proves, lhat the internal dissensions, ex- 
 cited by. foreign intrigue, have produced the downfal of almost every free go- 
 vernment, lint has hitherto existed."* 
 
 But, when Mr. Clay was pressed for an excuse for voting for Mr. 
 
 * In. the session of 1818 19, the famous resolutions, relative to the Seminole 
 war, &.c. were introduced in the House of Representatives U. S. we have no 
 doubt, under the direction of Mr. Clay, who was speaker at the time, and ap- 
 pointed the committee, that, introduced them: The objects of Mr. Clay, we 
 believe, were three-fold, first- to censure Mr. Monroe, who had appointed Mr. 
 •Idams secretary of state, contrary to Mr. Clay's wishes, he desiring' the ap- 
 pointment himself — second, to censure Mr. Adams, who had aid)- defended Gen. 
 Jackson, against all the charges connected with the Seminole war — thirdly, to 
 put Gem Jackson out of the way, as another rival: his schemes were frustrated, 
 and the resolutions of censure negatived by a vote of three to one: Upon the 
 debate, Mr. Clay marie two elaborate and vehement speeches, in the course 
 of which, he spoke of the danger to be apprehended from military chiefs, re- 
 ferring- to Ctesar, Cromwell, and Napoleon. 
 
77 
 
 Adams, lie forgot this testimony of all history and informed the world, 
 that every other republic, but our own, had been overthrown by devotion 
 to military chiefs! 
 
 History, however, contradicts both the assertions of Air. Clay: it shows, 
 that he has mistaken the effect for the cause : to the success of civil de- 
 magogues in deluding and betraying the people, must be attributed the 
 facility with which foreign influence, or domestic despotism, has pre- 
 vailed : No people ever lost their liberty, until after a succession of abuses, 
 coalitions and corruptions, on the part of those chosen to be their protec- 
 tors: If Mr. Adams, for instance, should be re-elected, and if Mr. Clay 
 should succeed him, many men would despair of the republic, and be- 
 come indifferent ; their descendants would become more so ; and at last, 
 foreign influence, or a domestic usurper, would meet with little resistance — 
 this is the fatal road, and no ether can be traced in history ! It will be 
 the road that will lead to American servitude, unless the people bear in 
 mind, that 
 
 those who would be free 
 
 Themselves must strike the blow! 
 
 Gen. Floyd, of Virginia, replied to Mr. Clay — his speech is referred to by 
 Mr. J. Q_. Adams, in his book on the fisheries, page 250; indeed Mr. Adams 
 seems anxious to be considered as adopting' the sentiments of Gen. Floyd — 
 those sentiments, bold, true, and prophetic, were as follows: the likeness can- 
 not be mistaken — let it be remembered, it was taken in 1819. 
 
 "The Hon. Speaker (Mr. Clay) tells us, that Rome had her Caesar, Britain 
 her Cromwell, Trance her Napoleon, and wc may profit by their example: I 
 saw, or thought 1 saw, the impression those .'angers of militaiy men seemed 
 to make upon the house; and I believe 1 am about to hazard an opinion, new 
 in a degree, and very opposite to that of the Hon. Speaker, which is, that m> 
 government has ever been destroyed by a successful military chieftain — I appeal to 
 history to support me, if my construction be right — if I recollect the words of 
 the historian. " Cxsar, having less reputation, like a wise champion, retired 
 to a distance, for exercise, whilst the two great factions preyed upon the 
 liberties of Rome; when every contest for places or power was decided in the 
 forum, with the sword, and stained the capitol with blood" — then, not till then. 
 did Cxsar return to Rome, which, ever since the wars of Marius and Sylla, 
 had known no liberty. Nor is the overthrow of 4:he British government at 
 tribulable to Cromwell — the speeches of parliament and the treachery of mem- 
 bers produced the revolution: When all was in commotion, Cromwell, by 
 canting and preaching, secured the stronger party, and became the protector. 
 Nor can the French revolution be attributed to any thing but the insincerity of 
 the orutors in the states general, and to none in a higher degree than to the 
 greatest of orators, and worst of men, Mirabeau: if, in after times, as in all 
 other revolutions, Napoleon secured the stronger party and swayed the govern 
 ment, he cannot be said to have overturned it: — Did not every distinguished 
 man in France rule as long as he was popular with the stronger party — and 
 did he not cease to rule as soon as he lost his popularity'' Tiiis was no re- 
 proach to professed politicians, but if a military man acquires power by the same 
 means, he is accused of using his military characteror power to overthrow the 
 government of his country; and by none is he more denounced, than by dis- 
 appointed orators, who had contributed to the downfal of many successive admin is 
 trations, with the hope of one day possessing power themselves/.... ~So\ Mr. Chair 
 man, our liberties are not to be endangered by a successful chieftain, return- 
 ing to us with his gaudy costume, even after a hundred victories of New 
 Orleans.— IT IS HERE, IN THE CAPITOL, ON THIS FLOOK, that our 
 liberty is to be sacrificed, and that by the hollow, treacherous eloquence, of some 
 ambitious, proud, aspiring DEMAGOGUE: And if, in times to come, we should 
 hear a favourite officer, (who has exhausted his constitution in defence of his 
 country, throwing' wreaths of victory at her feet) charged with violation of her 
 liberty, Id us enquire, whether the sternness of his virtues is not his greatest 
 blemish?" 
 
78 
 
 LETTER XVIII. 
 
 \ou know, gentlemen, that, in the defensive speech, delivered by Mr, 
 Clay, on the 12th July, 1827, at Noble's Inn, near Lexington, he said: 
 
 " No one has contended, that the proofs should be exclusively those of eye- 
 witnesses, testifying from the senses, positively and directly to the fact: — poli- 
 tical, like all other offences, may be established by circumstantial, as well as 
 positive evidence: — but, I do contend, that some evidence, be it what it may, 
 ought to be exhibited." 
 
 Undoubtedly the doctrine and the sentiment, thus expressed, are correct: 
 and, unless evidence of some kind exists, Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay have 
 been treated as cruelly as Gen. Jackson has been. Whether the evi- 
 dence, that does exist, is sufficient to produce conviction, is a question 
 which every just man will determine for himself: it is enough for us, 
 sentinels appointed by our fellow-citizens, that the evidence is sufficient 
 for our own conviction, and justifies our calling upon them, as we do, to 
 arouse and right themselves. 
 
 We have endeavoured to make others think as we do, by the circum- 
 stantial evidence, which Mr. Clay says is sufficient : and, we proceed 
 with furthpr proof, part of it of a character which may be called specific:— 
 
 To this fact, we ask particular attention ; that, often as Mr. Clay has 
 spoken, and much as he has written, to exculpate himself, he has never 
 pretended that he supported Mr. Adams, on account of any confidence 
 in his principles or respect for his merits : if he had any such apology to 
 offer, he would certainly have presented it : on the contrary, he seems to 
 have studiously avoided every thing of that kind; and to have desired 
 the world to suppose, that he had chosen the least of two evils : Thus, 
 when, at Noble's Inn, he could not evade this delicate point, he said — 
 
 " That I had some objections to Mr. Adams, I am ready freely to admit: but 
 these did not weigh a feather, in comparison with the greater and insurmount- 
 able objections long and deliberately entertained against his competitor." 
 
 This admits all we ask' for our argument, that, Mr. Clay did not vote 
 for Mr. Adams on account of any merits on his part, but as the least ob- 
 noxious of two obnoxious persons. 
 
 But, before we draw conclusions from this position, let us see, whether 
 what Mr. Clay thus said, in July, 1827, was true. 
 
 Gen. Floyd, long a distinguished member of Congress from Virginia, 
 and in 1S24 a friend to Mr. Crawford as President, whilst at Washington, 
 on the 4th of April last, addressed a letter to Gen. Van Ness, of 
 that city, which was soon after published by the latter: it con- 
 tained this statement — that in the month of January, 1825, or late in 
 December, 1824, whilst the election of president was before the house 
 of representatives, he called on Mr. Clay to ascertain his determination 
 as to Mr. Crawford — that Mr. Clay said it would not do to eelct Mr. 
 Crawford, as his health was bad. 
 
 "He," Mr. Clay, (says Gen. Floyd) "then went on to state, in the course 
 of that conversation, and I think in these words — when 1 (Mr. Clay) take up 
 the pretensions of Mr Adams, and weigh them, and lay them down — then 
 take up the pretensions of Gen. Jackson, weiglx them, and lay them down by 
 the side of those of Mr. Adams, I never was so much puzzled in all my life, as 
 I am to decide between them." 
 
79 
 
 That Mr. Clay made this declaration about one short month before the 
 election took place, was thus publicly avowed by Gen Floyd, in April, 
 1828, at Washington city: Mr. Clay was on the spot and has never ven- 
 tured either to deny or explain : then it is true, that, Mr. Clay, one 
 month before the election, absolutely, and with the precision of a vendor 
 of diamonds, weighed the pretensions of Mr. Adams and Gen. Jackson, 
 and found them so exactly balanced, that he could not say which was the 
 heaviest — Yet, in July, 1827, he said at Noble's Inn, that the scale of 
 Mr. Adams did not contain a feather, in comparison with the enormous 
 weight in Gen. Jackson's ! he said in January, 1825, that he was never 
 before so puzzled, as he was then, between Mr. Adams and Gen. Jack- 
 son — yet in July, 1827, he said, that his objections to Gen. Jackson had 
 long prior to the election been deliberately entertained! 
 
 You know, gentlemen, that the contradictory stories even of an igno- 
 rant and friendless prisoner are often accepted by juries, as emphatic in- 
 dications of guilt : we pray you, therefore, to reconcile, if you can, the 
 contradictory statements of an acute lawyer and influential man, Mr. 
 Clay. 
 
 Our position, observe, is, that Mr. Clay has never pretended, that he voted 
 for Mr. Adams, on any other account, than that he was the least obnoxious 
 of two obnoxious persons. In this view of the matter, what position would a 
 man, with pure intentions, have taken? It was said at the time of the elec- 
 tion, at Washington , and we think truly, that the vote of New York had been 
 long doubtful — that Gen. Van Rensselaer's was the casting vote of that 
 state — that he had to choose, as Mr. Clay had, between two obnoxious per- 
 sons — that he voted under the exercise of powerful influences, concentrated 
 to that end— -that he merely voted, and even then wept ! How was it with 
 Mr. Clay — did he stand proudly aloof? did he drop into the ballot box a 
 ticket wet with his tears? did he throw himself upon the dignity of his 
 station of speaker, and calmly await the result ? did he resolve to retain 
 his post of honour, and falsify the predictions, which in his " card" he 
 pronounced "infamous-?" did he refuse office under a man, in whose 
 favour he could not utter one word — against whom he had ulcerated the 
 public mind? far from it — he became the partisan of Mr. Adams, and by 
 secret management secured the vote of Mr. D. White, of Kentucky, if not 
 that of other members. 
 
 Now, if Mr. Clay, standing, as he pretended he did, between two per- 
 sons equally objectionable, had, like Gen. Van Rensselaer, voted for Mr. 
 Adams, and done no more, he would have been censured, because he 
 voted against the spirit of our institutions, and the declared wishes espe- 
 cially of Kentucky: but there are many worthy persons, who would have 
 defended him, and claimed some latitude for what Mr. Clay called his 
 conscientious scruples: But, when, he rushed into the first office in the 
 state, as soon as his own influence had given to Mr. Adams the power to 
 confer it, what honest and rational man could doubt the sinister nature of 
 the motives of the parties? 
 
 .... But, gentlemen, let us again suppose, that Mr. Clay really had no 
 alternative between two obnoxious persons — that he was compelled to vote 
 for one of them — and that, as the least obnoxious, he supported Mr. 
 
 Adams; we particularly beg you to answer this question was Mr. 
 
 Adams in such a dilemma? Why did he appoint Mr. Clay? Had he a 
 choice of evils ? Had he not millions of men, from whom to choose the 
 person he preferred to all the re?t? Had he no old associates or new 
 
80 
 
 friends, no persons with claims upon him for former services ? Could 
 find but one man in the union fit for secretary? Had he not given a 
 pledge to Mr. Webster to confer offices upon the heads of the two parties 
 numerically ? Had he not taken for the treasury, army, and navy, per- 
 sons claiming to be republicans? — Was there no merit in Mr, Hbpkinson, 
 Mr. Everet, Mr. Webster, Mr. Jchnson, Mr. Stockton, Mr. Sergeant, 
 &c.&c. of the other party? Why, then, we, ask, did Mr. Adams give 
 the highest office in his gilt to the person, who, of ail men, had done the 
 most to blast his political prospects ? Why, above ull his friends, did he 
 select Mr. Clay, after having drawn the portrait of him, which is contained 
 in the book on the fisheres? If it is true, as *• Wayne" says it is, and Mr. 
 Adams' conduct to Com. Porter seems to prove, that Mr. Adams is vin- 
 dictive, how did it happen, that he not only quickly pardoned Mr. Clay's 
 manifold offences, but conferred upon him the most signal advantages? 
 
 In short, gentlemen, we ask your own frank opinion, whether, if Mr. 
 Adams had been elected, by the electors, he would have conferred on Mr. 
 Clay the first place in his cabinet ? And, if he would not have done so, 
 then we ask you, why he did appoint him, when elected by the House 
 of Representatives ?* 
 
 * The conduct of Mr. Clay, prior to the election, indicated his sense of error, 
 or intended error. Mr. Kremer's letter first publicly complained, but that did 
 not appear until January 31 — yet, Mr. Clay, in his letter to Judge Brooke, Ja- 
 2iuary 28, said, he expected to be assailed by malice, but would "view its 
 effusions without emotion:" how did he know that he would be assailed 5 
 Again — Mr. Kremer said, "it is now, (January 26) ascertained to a certainty 
 that Henry Clay has transferred his interest to J. Q. Adams;" on seeing- this, 
 Mr. Clay, three days after he said he would hear accusation without emotion, 
 denounced Mr. Kremer's letter a forgery, and its author accountable to him, 
 according to "the laws of honour." As to the parade of enquiry that followed, 
 what did it mean ? Mr. Clay required Mr. Kremer to prove in January two 
 occurrences, that could not take place until February 9th. 
 
 It is remarkable, that, much, as Mr. Kremer's letter was noticed, nothing was 
 said of letters written by Mr. Adams' friend: a letter, of which the annexed 
 extract formed a part, was written at Washington on the very day on which 
 Mr. Kremer's letter was written, (Jan. 26,) and was published at New York on 
 the day Mr. Kremer's was published in Philadelphia, (Jan. 31,) — it was pub- 
 lished in an administration paper, the Commercial Advertiser: It presents a 
 vivid picture of scenes in the capitol of a republic: as was well said at the 
 dmc, men of the river Raisin and of the Hartford convention, arm in arm, pre- 
 sented an appalling spectacle; it brings forcibly to mind, the prophetic words 
 of Gen. Floyd — "No, Mr. Chairman, our liberties are not to be endangered 
 "by a successful military chieftain — it is here, in this capitol, on this floor, that 
 " our liberty is to be sacrificed, and that by the hollow, treacherous eloquence 
 " of some ambitious, proud, aspiring demagogue." 
 
 Extract of a letter, dated Washington, January 26, 1825. 
 "What I wrote you last, as a rumour, has been converted into certainty: 
 Mr. Clay and all his friends have formally gone over to the .Mams standard. The 
 knowledge of this event has produced a strong sensation throughout all the 
 political circles, and given intensity to the contest. The hall of representa- 
 tives resembled a bee-hive, when the bees are preparing to swarm, the next 
 morning after the Clay movement was known: The hum of voices conversing 
 in an under tone, was like the sound of the ocean before a gathering storm. 
 All the avenues and sofas were filled with groups, telling- or inquiring the 
 news; and calculai:in<r the consequences; some say'all doubt is now over; others 
 still predict a long struggle. It is curious to observe the new grouping of 
 faces; Men who were. seldom -sera together, ore. vow arm in arm-, or busily whisj - 
 ing over letters or newspaper articles. Mr. Clay appears cheerful, talks much, 
 and has the air of a man relieved front a bui$en. n ' 
 
81 
 
 LETTER XIX. 
 
 Gentlemen — We now refer to evidence of a specific character. 
 
 We have already shown that about a month before the election, 
 Mr. Clay told Gen. Floyd that he was puzzled, which to vote for, 
 General Jackson or Mr. Adams. On the 8th of January, one month 
 before the election, Mr. Clay wrote to his confidential friend in Ken- 
 tucky, Mr.F.P. Blair, giving him a description of the political scenery 
 at Washington at that time: he tells Mr. Blair, that he (Mr. Clay) 
 must now seriously think for whom he would vote, thus confirming 
 what General Floyd says, and contradicting what Mr. Clay said July 
 12, 1827 — he tells Mr. Blair that the friends of the several candi- 
 dates regarded him as umpire, and addressed him as such: — Thus, 
 then, toe have Mr. Clatfs own account of what the friends of each can- 
 didate said. If any friend of General Jackson had made any cor- 
 rupt overture, Mr. Clay would have carefully stated it; but no ilag 
 of alliance came from that quarter. What the friends of General 
 Jackson said might be spoken with pride and honour before the whole 
 people — not so the declaration of Mr. Adams' friends. 
 
 "A friend of Gen. Jackson," says Mr. Clay, "says tome — my hopes are 
 upon you — do not disappoint us — our partiality was for you, next to tlie hero — 
 you know the anxiety, we all have for a western president." 
 
 What could have been more manly than this ? It is an appeal to 
 the public spirit of Mr. Clay — it reminds him of all* that he had him- 
 self said about a western president — it warns him " do not disappoint 
 us," as if treachery was feared. But it gave no earnest, as Mr. Crit-" 
 tenden wished Mr. White to get from General Jackson, that he 
 would favour Mr. Clay's views of office — and Mr. Clay did disap- 
 point the west. 
 
 Very different was the appeal of Mr. Adams' friend : he touched 
 the chord which, in our opinion, led Mr. Clay captive : 
 
 "A friend of Mr. Adams (says Mr. Clay) comes to me "with tears in his 
 eyes," and says — " Sir, Mr. Adams has always had the greatest respect for you, 
 and the highest admiration of your talents; there is no station, to which you 
 are not equal: you were undoubtedly the second choice of New England, and 
 I pray you to consider, whether the public good and your own future interests 
 do not distinctly point out the course which you ought to pursue." 
 
 This is Mr. Clay^s own account, of the overtures made to him one 
 month before the election; what further might have been said is mat- 
 ter for conjecture; what is here admitted to have been said is suffi- 
 ciently gross: did Mr. Clay tell the weeping envoy, that he consider- 
 ed such intimations an insult ? — did he ask him, upon what authority 
 he knew and told hina Mr. Adams' opinions of his talents and compe- 
 tency? did he tell him, that personal views could not influence his 
 vote ? Mr. Clay may have ascertained, for aught that appears, that 
 the envoy spoke from the book — but he does not pretend that he was 
 in the least offended; on the contrary, patriotism and personal honour 
 
 f2 
 
82 
 
 seem to have been utterly overlooked! instead of publicly denouncing 
 this corrupt overture, Mr. Clay consulted his friends!! And he thus 
 tells Mr. Blair the result of the conference: — 
 
 " My friends entertain the belief, that their kind wishes towards me will, 
 in the end, be more likely to be accomplished by so bestowing their votes." 
 
 He does not say, that, by voting for Adams, the honour of the 
 country, the welfare of the west, or the purity of the republic would 
 be accomplished — he does not say that, by so bestowing their votes, 
 danger from a military chieftain would be averted; but, he says, that 
 by voting for Mr. Adams, the kind wishes of his friends towards him- 
 self, would, in the end, be more likely to be accomplished, than by 
 voting for any body else. 
 
 What were the kind ivishes entertained by his friends ? were they 
 to- see him still in the speaker's chair, or soon after in the cabinet, and 
 in the end in the presidency? Does not the indignant heart of every 
 honest reader answer the question? Does not the voice of an intelli- 
 gent people reply in scorn? 
 
 But we are not left to conjecture : the " friends" of Mr. Clay tell 
 us explicitly what their " kind wishes" were. 
 
 It seems, that Mr. D. White, a member of Congress, from Kentuc- 
 ky, was only inclined, but not decided, " to bestow his vote:" his vote 
 was all important: Mr. Clay, therefore, goes on to tell Mr.BIair, in his 
 letter of January 8, 1825 — 
 
 ** Your representative (Mr. White) is inclined to concur with us in these 
 sentiments, and, as I know his respect for your opinion, 1 request, if you con- 
 cur in our views, that you will write to him, by return of mail, to strengthen 
 him in his inclinations. Show this to Crittenden alone." 
 
 Thus we see "the plot thickens" — the honest Mr. D. White 
 
 never fancied, that, he was about to receive instructions from Mr. 
 Clay, sent all the way to Kentucky, to be sent back by return of mail! 
 Mr. Blair showed this secret letter to Mr. Crittenden; and on the 
 19th o v f January, Mr. Blair and Mr. Crittenden wrote long letters to 
 Mr. White, as if from themselves spontaneously, and as his friends 
 and dear constituents!! 
 
 Mr. Blair tells him, that he Mr. Blair, believed Kentucky to be for 
 Jackson, and that the resolution of the legislature, requesting the 
 members from Kentucky to vote for him, accorded with the public 
 sentiment: but, that members of Congress, at Washington, must 
 know which was the best course, as they were not to elect a p?-esident, 
 but an administration/ Mr. Blair then hints, that Gen. Jackson 
 might desire to favour Mr. Adams rather than Mr. Clay, and there- 
 fore un less Gen. Jackson would give earnest now, that he would throw 
 his vote into the western (Mr. Clay's) scale, it would be better to 
 vote for Mr. Adams! He also tells Mr. White, that the legislature 
 of Kentucky would not have asked the members from that state in 
 congress, to vote for Gen. Jackson, if they had supposed that Mr. 
 Adams would make Mr. Clay Secretary of State! 
 
 When it is considered that this letter was written by desire of Mr. 
 Clay, and that it suggests an application to Gen. Jackson to give 
 earnest of what he would do — who can forget the scenes between Mr. 
 
83 
 
 Markley and Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. Buchanan and Gen. Jackson 
 — and Gen. Jackson's reply? 
 
 Mr. Crittenden 's letter is equally to the purpose — he, too, prefers 
 Gen. Jackson to Mr. Adams, provided Mr. Clay be made Secretary; 
 but if Gen. Jackson will not make Mr. Clay secretary, then he pre- 
 fers Mr. Adams, with Mr. Clay secretary, to Gen. Jackson without 
 Mr. Clay — he also assures Mr. White, that the resolutions of the 
 legislature of Kentucky are not'instructions, but a mere request! 
 
 In short, Mr. White, pressed at Washington by Mr. Clay and his 
 " friends," and, as he honestly supposed by his constituents sponta- 
 neously writing to him, gave up his scruples and decided the vote of 
 Kentucky. He thus, (June, 1828,) describes his situation, in Februa- 
 ry, 1825— 
 
 " When I gave my vote for Mr. Adams, I did it under the firm persuasion, 
 from information I had received through many intelligent gentlemen in my 
 district, that I was voting in strict conformity with the will of my constituents." 
 " As 1 have often heretofore frankly avowed, I now state, that I voted for Mr. 
 Adams, witli a view to Mi*. Clay's future prospects to the presidency." 
 
 What can be clearer than this? 
 
 The nature of the ' f kind wishes" of Mr. Clay's friends, is further 
 fully made known by those friends themselves. Mr. Trimble, one of 
 the representatives from Kentucky, has said, that he " voted for Mr. 
 Adams, because it was distinctly ascertained that he would make 
 Mr. Clay Secretary of State." — Mr. F. Johnson, another friend and 
 member, said he " voted for Mr. Adams to get Mr. Clay made Secre- 
 tary of State." Gen. Metcalfe, another friend and member, whose 
 election as governor we believe Mr. Clay is now in Kentucky to pro- 
 mote, said, they "could not possibly get Mr. Clay made Secretary 
 without voting for Mr. Adams." 
 
 We are, gentlemen, utterly at a loss to conceive what further 
 
 proofs than these, any honest and intelligent persons can require. 
 Mr. Clay admits that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to esta- 
 blish what his object was, what his means to effect it were, and whether 
 he effected it or not? — Have we not given more than circumstantial 
 proof? May we not contend, that the evidence given is of "wit- 
 nesses testifying from the senses?" Has not Mr. Clay himself con- 
 fessed — 1. That personal advantages were held out to him. — 2. That 
 he consulted his friends — 3. That his friends concurred with him as 
 to the propriety of so voting as to attain those advantages — 4. That 
 he wrote secretly to get the constituents of a hesitating member to 
 concur in their views? — is it not clear, 5. That letters to the waver- 
 ing member were written — 6. That the vote of Kentucky was thus 
 carried — 7. That Mr. Clay was made Secretary, and put in the road 
 of succession? 
 
 Now, gentlemen, if we have erred in fact or argument, as we 
 
 are entirely insensible of it, we ask you to point out any mis-take, 
 that we have made — no doubt, you will consider it your duly to do 
 so; but, if you cannot point out any error, then we submit to the pub- 
 lic, whether you were or were not correct, in stating, that the. charge 
 against Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay, is c ' an exploded calumny." 
 
84 
 
 TO THE PEOPLE. 
 
 We have thus, fellow citizens, by arguments, by facts, and by 
 the testimony of Mr. Clay himself, and his friends, endeavoured to 
 prove, to the satisfaction even of our opponents, that the election of 
 Mr. Adams, and the appointment of Mr. Clay, were the results of 
 a corrupt understanding between the parties. If we have not satis- 
 fied our opponents, can you, who are dispassionate, entertain a doubt? 
 Many facts and arguments remain unnoticed, which we did not 
 deem essential to the developement of truth: the inclination and the 
 ability of Mr. Clay to intrigue, are proved by his own letters now 
 before the public eye. — In his letter to Mr. A. Kendall, of April 6, 
 1820, he avows his agency at that early day — describes an abortive 
 caucus, and says if it had recommended a candidate, he would have 
 had a majority! this, he says, is on the authority of well informed 
 friends: in another letter to the same person, dated March 18, 1824, 
 he says, that his friends believe, if he enters the house, no matter 
 with what associates, he will be elected ! and then he says, " my 
 friends have every motive for a vigorous, animated, and persevering 
 exertion;" — who can doubt the intense avidity for power of the man 
 who thus descends to intrigues and excitements, that would disgust 
 you if witnessed on the part even of a constable, seeking re-election? 
 Who can doubt that Mr. Clay calculated, if he entered the house, 
 to defeat the wishes of the people by successful corruption ? in what 
 other way could he have defeated all his associates ? 
 
 Behold, what a contrast those intrigues of Mr. Clay present to 
 the conduct of General Jackson ! No one ever heard of his intriguing 
 — no one ever saw him entering the lists, like a gambler at a horse- 
 race, calculating his chances, with fair play or foul! Is it possible 
 that the American people can close their eyes against such light as 
 this — are they enamoured or charmed to approach what must inevi- 
 tably destroy them ? 
 
 Let us apply what, Mr. Clay says, could be effected if he got into 
 the house, to what was done there, after his exclusion, and there can 
 exist no doubt as to the means taken to effect the elevation of Mr. 
 Adams: Mr. Cook alone held the vote of Illinois; Mr. Scott held the 
 vote of Missouri; Mr. White's vote decided Kentucky; Mr. WarfiekVs 
 vote decided the vote of Maryland; and Gen. Van Rensselaer's that of 
 New York. You have seen how Mr. White was secured: We have 
 no doubt that Maryland and New Yurie were gained by a written 
 pledge, from Mr. Adams, to give offices to federalists numerically 
 with republicans: Mr. Cook and Mr. Scott had a power equal to the 
 sixty votes of New York and Pennsylvania! Mr. Cook had been in 
 favour of Mr. Clay as president — his state, Illinois, voted for 
 General Jackson, yet in congress Mr. Cook voted for Mr. Adams! 
 His constituents dismissed him for doing so, and then the adminis- 
 tration engaged to give him 5,500 dollars, for a service, the nature of 
 which has never been disclosed, and in the performance of which, if 
 ever performed, Mr. Cook was not engaged above one month! Mr. 
 Scott represented Missouri — he pledged himself, before he was elect- 
 ed to Congress, to vote for General Jackson; if he had not done so, 
 he could not have been elected; yet, in congress, he gave the vote of 
 
85 
 
 Missouri to Mr. Adams! His constituents dismissed him, and then 
 the administration gave him an office, of inspector of land offices! 
 
 If these facts do not establish the existence of corruption, we con- 
 fess we are utterly at a loss to know, to what else than corruption 
 such acts can be attributed: we see two needy individuals wielding 
 in Congress an influence equal to that of the great states of New 
 York and Pennsylvania — we see them giving that influence in direct 
 opposition to the will of the states -they represent — we see them 
 dismissed with scorn for doing so — and we see them then receive the 
 wages of their service, from the men they elevated! 
 
 When you reflect upon such scenes as these — when you naturally 
 desire to see the constitution so amended, as to shut up the avenue 
 to corruption, which you see wide open — the fact is all important, 
 that the administration has hitherto resisted every attempt at amend- 
 ment! 
 
 It is therefore, not merely Mr. Adams's re-election, that you are 
 now called on to resist, but the election of Mr. Clay as his successor 
 — nay, it is the establishment of a system, subversive of your rights 
 and degrading to your honour: and when such is the stake, bear in 
 mind that you hold not only your own happiness, but the destiny of 
 posterity in your hands, so far as you can affect them — nor is this all 
 — you are accountable to mankind for institutions, given to your 
 care, as models for the world. 
 
 LETTER XX. 
 
 Gentlemen — The field of discussion which we had intended t© 
 traverse in every part, has been circumscribed: the detail, in relation 
 to the services and measures of Mr. Adams, into which we had de- 
 signed to enter, has been confined to a very few points: and we now 
 proceed to close the letters, which it became our duty to write. 
 
 Duty, we say, called upon us to write them; for, according to the 
 spirit of our institutions, we conceive, that no man can, with proprie- 
 ty, shrink from the execution of a trust conferred upon him by any 
 considerable portion of his fellow-citizens. 
 
 A convention of republican delegates, from the various counties of 
 Pennsylvania, which assembled at Harrisburg, on the 8th of January 
 last, to nominate an electoral ticket favourable to General Andrew 
 Jackson, and Mr. J. C. Calhoun, appointed us a committee of cor- 
 respondence for this city. Custom had long rendered it the duty of 
 such committees, to sustain the cause proposed to be promoted; yet. 
 it is certainly true, that we did not anticipate a necessity for any 
 other attention, on our part, than that which would be required 
 in maintaining a correspondence with our own political friends. The 
 presses, we thought, were sufficiently numerous, and their conduc- 
 tors sufficiently zealous, to enable the people at large to obtain all 
 the information necessary to the exposition of truth. 
 
 But you, gentlemen, thought, as you had an undoubted right to 
 think, differently: You deemed the cause of the administration so 
 weak, or its editorial supporters so unworthy, as to demand the ex- 
 ercise of your own personal talents and influence. 
 
 To this no one could, with the least propriety, have objected; on 
 the contrary, if you had explained the principles, services, and niea 
 
86 
 
 sures of Mr. Adams, even in the language of high panegyric, we do 
 not believe that we should have considered ourselves bound to at- 
 tempt to strip him of a single ornament. 
 
 Very different, however, was the course pursued: upon the anni- 
 versary of the nation's birth, the best feelings were perverted from 
 its solemnization, to the developement of party passions ; and ere 
 the excitement then produced, had ceased to operate, it was deemed 
 politic to convene a general assemblage of your partizans. 
 
 Those who have been observers of men and things, saw in this 
 popular assembly a departure from the former principles and prac- 
 tices of many of those who now attended: It had long been their 
 opinion, that more evil than advantage resulted from town-meetings; 
 and so far as the meeting of the 7th July is to be the criterion, the 
 sentiment is undoubtedly sanctioned. 
 
 Harangues were pronounced, on that occasion, well calculated to 
 reconcile incongruous materials to each other, and to arouse them to 
 unity in action against the rest of their fellow-citizens: Yet, if the 
 proceedings had ended there, we should not have had a desire to in- 
 terrupt your course: the sober reflection of many, who were pre- 
 sent, would, we were sure, succeed an unnatural excitement, and 
 produce even regret at such an example of popular excess. We saw 
 the youth of your party tread in the footsteps of their fathers, and 
 rival them in zeal to tear all the honours, conferred by his country, 
 from the hoary head of a public benefactor; and we believed, that 
 fathers would not, upon reflection, deem such rudeness the indica- 
 tion of future usefulness, any more than of present modesty. 
 
 But the ebullition did not end with the meeting; an address, 
 avowedly from gentlemen in all respects entitled to regard, was 
 ushered to the world, not only accusing the candidate of our choice 
 of the most atrocious crimes known in savage or civilized life, but 
 denouncing his friends without distinction as a faction, influenced 
 by the worst passions, and seeking to gratify them by the basest 
 means ! 
 
 We felt ourselves bound, therefore, by respect for public opinion 
 and for ourselves, to defend our candidate, our principles, and our- 
 selves. We took up the pen just as the republican committee of 
 1799 did, upon a similar occasion, when the late Governor M'Kean 
 was assailed, and addressed ourselves directly to those, who, by their 
 names, as the authors of the address, pledged themselves to the pub- 
 lic for its correctness. 
 
 To notice an address, such as, in moments of calmness, you 
 must confess yours to be, was not an easy task — with the utmost de- 
 sire to avoid excitement on our part, it was almost necessarily pro- 
 duced by a sort of contact with your own; and with all possible de- 
 sire to respect your motives and feelings, it was difficult to refrain 
 from severe censure upon your acts. If, in any instance, we passed 
 the true line of sound discretion, it must have been because you had 
 broken down the distinctive boundaries, and laid all waste before 
 you; but, we have no remembrance of excess on our part, and if 
 there was any, we lament it sincerely. 
 
 In short, gentlemen, as we have said throughout, we forbear to as- 
 sign invidious motives; we attribute your conduct to" an excitement 
 altogether factitious. What else could excuse such extreme intern- 
 perance ? Thirty years ago, intemperance equally great was direct- 
 
87 
 
 ed against the late governor M'Kean and the late president Jeffer- 
 son; yet we saw the memories of those patriots honoured by many 
 of the very persons who had been amongst their revilers. In the na- 
 tural course of things, you, gentlemen, will long survive General 
 Jackson, and we shall not be at all surprised to see you, anxious to 
 atone in death for the great injustice done to him in life ! 
 
 No doubt it was your right, nay your duty, to scrutinize his con- 
 duct and character ; but in doing so, it became you to enquire dis- 
 passionately — to consider whether it was likely, that nearly all the 
 distinguished men in the south and west, to say nothing of the mass 
 of the people there and in your own state, were all deceived ? Or 
 whether it was not more likely that you were yourselves mistaken? 
 At least, some degree of calmness would have been thus produced. 
 
 But, instead of that, you ran with the raging current of detrac- 
 tion; and now, in truth, it may well be asked, whether one of the 
 causes of General Jackson's election, (for elected he certainly will 
 be,) will not have been — the cruel and relentless manner in which 
 he has been assailed ? For it cannot be the interest, or the wish of 
 any man who loves his country, that it should present the spectacle 
 which you have aided to uphold. On the contrary, it seems to be the 
 serious duty of good men to resist the torrent which seeks to over- 
 whelm all the considerations that produce respect abroad or charity 
 at home. 
 
 If this is not so, what must be the results? Virtuous men will 
 refuse to be candidates. Those who look to the gratitude and honors 
 to be conferred by the country for faithful service, will cease to have 
 such incentives: — reputation and capacity will no longer be valuable, 
 if public stations are to be gained by disgusting hieroglyphics, and 
 not by sound arguments, by appeals to the vilest passions rather than 
 to the sober discretion of the people. 
 
 Are the citizens of the United States anxious for such a race as 
 this ? If such races are to be run, must they not at last terminate 
 in favour of the most profligate? What distinguishes the scenes 
 now before us from the mobs of Legendre, but the absence of a dense 
 population? In spirit, the mode of opposition adopted against Ge- 
 neral Jackson is the same which covered Paris with blood — age and 
 sex are no protection, and the grave itself is called to give up its 
 dead, not for the fair scrutiny of public character, but in search of 
 the feculent materials of personal slander. 
 
 In reverting to what duty has called upon us to lay before the 
 
 public eye, we rejoice to find, that temptation to retaliate did not 
 induce us to pass the boundary of fair discussion: We are not con- 
 scious, that we approached the confines of private reputation; or that 
 we improperly sought in unworthy motives to find the sources of 
 public actions. We have indeed desired, by argument and expla- 
 nation, to show that ambitious and selfish passions have been thef 
 governing impulses of Mr. Adams and Mr. Clay: — whether oar argu- 
 ments have been adequate to the proposed end, our fellow citizens 
 will decide. 
 
 We have defended Gen. Jackson, by exposing the unfairness, and 
 the fallacy of the charges against him; by showing the confidence re- 
 posed in him by all our presidents; by exhibiting his uniform disin- 
 terestedness, and generous devotion; by proving the uniformity oi 
 his principles, and their liberality withal; by showing that he is not 
 
88 
 
 
 in favour of treating any of his countrymen, as the Catholics ot Ire- 
 land are treated, without confidence or honour, but that he deems it 
 patriotic, just, and politic, to "judge of the tree by its fruits," and 
 to regard all men as equal in claims to public trusts, who are true 
 to their country. We have shown, that he never was, and is not, at 
 the head of any faction; that he never has sought power, but has 
 often refused high stations yielding great emoluments; that he has, 
 from principle, shunned intercourse or acts calculated to give the 
 opportunity to create influence-- He has made no contracts; he has 
 no successor designated: he will be the president of a nation, and not 
 of a section of it; the father of a whole people, not the patron o a 
 favoured class. 
 
 We have also en-quired into the principles, services, and measures 
 of Mr. Adams, and have failed to find the evidences of the patriotism 
 and statesmanship, which his friends assign to him: His whole ca- 
 reer has been marked by a regard to his personal interest*: we know 
 no instance in which he made a single sacrifice for his country: 
 Whilst Jefferson, Clinton, and other patriots have sunk into the 
 tomb, leaving no inheritance to their children but a glorious reputa- 
 tion, Mr. Adams will leave the public service, after having amassed 
 an immense fortune. And for all this what will he have left, that 
 will survive him? — There will be volumes of composition, remarka- 
 ble for goodness of style, rather than soundness of instruction, for 
 brilliancy of language rather than solidity of judgment; volumes, that 
 will give but an imperfect light upon the future path in diplomacy: 
 What acts, what results, will appear upon the page of history? 
 
 Personal considerations or merits, however, are of minor im- 
 port : The question, now to be settled, is vital: " Never," said Judge 
 Rowan, of Kentucky, in his most able letter, " never will the people 
 by an unbiased vote elect another president — if Mr. Adams shall be re- 
 elected: The struggle, on the part of the administration, is to sustain 
 itself in the violation of the public will, and to perpetuate its ill-got- 
 ten power, by a mis-exercise of the patronage belonging to it : The 
 effort on the part of the people, is to assert the power of their will, and 
 to vindicate its predominant authority: If Mr. Adams shall be re-elect- 
 ed, it will be an evidence that the power of the patronage of the go- 
 vernment is too strong for the power of public sentiment : The con- 
 test will never be renewed, on the part of the people, under happier 
 auspices ; they never can again expect to select an individual from 
 among themselves of more deserving than Gen. Jackson — one to- 
 wards whom the public esteem, gratitude, and affection so obviously 
 and intensely converge: If the power of the government, with its 
 stratagems and intrigues, shall, in this instance, prove too strong for 
 the violated and insulted will of the people, it will, at every subsequent 
 occasion, be found still stronger" 
 
 And, if it will increase in force, what will. follow ? This is a 
 
 question, which we put to all good men: What will be the conse- 
 quence, if corrupt factions shall triumph ? Can the republic subsist ? 
 Will it not become a prey to an oligarchy ? What will be left to the 
 people, but the odious liberty left to the Poles, — of registering their 
 own debasement. 
 
 Against such a calamity, we ask all good men to protect their coun- 
 try — and, from the shame of producing such a bondage, we ask all 
 good men to release themselves. 
 
 e '10