E1»:

ORATION
DELIVERED JULY 4'rE, 1836,

AT PALMER, IN HAMPDEN COUNTY,

IV.[ASSACI~IUSETT‘S,

1312' WWW 01» A commmm; or
DEMOCRATIC CITIZENS
OF SIXTIEIEN TOWNS, IN ’1‘I~IE COUNTIES OF

HAMPDEN, HAMPSHIRE AND WORCESTER,

IN THE EIG-IITH ‘CONGl~RES8IONA'.IZa DISTRICT.

BY ZEENJAMIN FRANKLIN HALLETT.

BOSTON:
PRINTED BY EE.A.Ls E: GREENE.

1836.

PALMER, Jury '7, 1836.

Sin——'I‘he citizens from sixteen towns,in the Counties of Harnpden, Hampshire
and Worcester, in the eighth? Congressional District, who united inthe Democratic
celebration of the 4th of July, at Palmer, appointed us a Committee to present their
thanks for your truly Democratic Oration, and to request a copy for publication;
believing that the cause of Democracy in this Commonwealth will be efiieiently pro»
mated, by circulating among the people, the sound doctrines and important facts
which were so ably enforced on that occasion.

Your fellow citizens,
OLNEY GOFF, Jn.
ALONZO V. BLANCHARD.
JOHN WARD.

To B. F. HALLETT, Esct.

BOSTON, JULY, 10, 1836.
GENTLEMEN--I cannot express to you the personal gratification, the pride of
citizenship, which I have felt from participating with my fellow-citizens of western
Massachusetts, in the celebration of the 4th of July. Knowing the difiiculty of col-
lecting a large assemblage, on any occasion, in the country, I had not anticipated
meeting more than two or-three hundred of my friends ; it was, therefore, with great
surprise and pleasure, I found in your quiet little village a multitude of some two
thousand, who were not deterred, even by the unpleasant weather, from coming from
the neighboring towns to join in a Democratic Celebration of the bin h-day of Demo-
cratic Liberty. Nor was that assemblage more numerous than it was united in the
common cause that brought it together. To have been a sharer in the enjoyments
of that day, in the midst of the sound and healthful Democracy, the substantial yea-
manry of the country, (to which we must look for the lead in bringing out the moral
energy that will restore this Commonwealth to the glory she once had with her sister
states,) renders it my grateful duty to comply with any request which you, in their
behalf, may make for the disposition of the Address on that occasion.
Your fellow citizen,
BENJAMIN F. I-IALLET'I‘,‘.
To Messrs. OLNEY Geri‘, J12.
ALONZO V. BLANCHARD.
Joan WARD. ..

ORATION.

-u--.¢.—-.-—-nun:-.-u

FsLLoW~C1rtzsNs—--FRIENDS,

You have invited me here, among the sunny hills and verdant
vales and busy water-fiills of HAMPDEN, a name dear to Liberty-—-—-~
in the midst of the yeoinanry and the citizen soldiers of the coun-
try, a.l.ways the best and bravest defenders of Liberty———-in the bosom
of’ the strorxgest, the dearest, and the briglitest materials of the
domestic happiness of New England-—-—--the young men and the

yottting women; the vigor, beauty, and free industry of our la.nd,~

the glory of our beloved New Eiiglatid firesides--—--you have invited
me there to-day, and I tliunlc you for it, “ to deliver :1 Democratic
Oration.” I intend to make it such decidedly ; not, I trust,
tnerely in the spirit of a partisan, but in the liberal spirit of those
popular institutions and principles by whose successful defence this
day heceme ever mexnorable in our annals, ever dear to the hearts
of Americans ; a. day not only dear to us, but “:1 new era in the
history of the civilized world,” the dawn of a new light upon the
nations of the earth, “the signal of arousing men to burstthe

cheins under whicli rnonkish ignorance and superstition had per-«t

suaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and
security of self-government.” ‘

What day can he more appropriate than this for inquiring into
the principles of DEMOCRACY, to which we owe it that we have
such a day to celebrate; and the means and the measures bywhicli
we, citizens of Massachusetts, citizens of the United States, can
best sustain and advance those principles, and insure to ourselves
and our children a full participation in their enjoyment?

'When the illustrious and modest Jeflerson, soon after his
inauguration as President in 1801,, was waited on by the Mayor

4

and Corporation of the City of Washington, with the request that
he would communicate the anniversary of his birth, as they were
desirous of commemorating an event which had conferred such
distinguished glory upon their country, his answer Was, “the only
birth-day which I recognise is that of my country’s liberties.” To
a similar application, in behalf of the Republicans of Boston, made
in 1803, he replied, “ disapproving I myself of transferring the
honors and veneration for the birth-day of our Republic to any
individual, or of dividing them with individuals, I have declined
letting my own birth-daybe known, and have engaged my family

i not to communicate it.”

In this patriotic and self—-forgetting determination he remained
until the hour of his death, twenty—three years after, when he
expired, on the only day upon which such a man should have died,
the 4th of July, 1826,rwith. these last words upon his lips: “I
have done for my country and for all mankind all that I could do,
and Ilnovv resign my soul without fear to my God.”

What then can be more appropriate for Americans, Freemen,
Democrats, on this very day, so hallowed by the father of the
Declaration of Independence, the apostle of Liberty and Demo-
cracy, to recur to the first principles which made that day dear to
him, and which he spent his whole life in illustrating as the only
sure basis on which could stand the great experiment of the capa-
city of nations for self-government? I 7 »

The Battles of Liberty may be achieved in a day, but the Insti-
tutions of Freedom can only be built up by regenerating and
moulding a whole people. We see this painfully exemplified in
one half of our own hemisphere. It was easy for the South
American states to achieve their independence of Spain, by a few
decisive battles; but they have only ceased to be slaves to Spain,

‘to become slaves to themselves. They have raised up brave

generals to conquer a foreign foe, only to have them employ their

skill in conquering each other. Such would have been our fate,

but for the fact, that North America had statesmen like Jefferson,
and Adams, who could model. the forms of Constitutional Freedom
in’ the closet, as Well as generals like Washington and Greene,
who had fought the battles of Liberty in the field. I y

~ _ There has rarely been much differencelof opinion amongrnen,
as to the way in which one nationwas to relieve itself from the

despotism of another, or the people to throw off the yoke of a if

5

Tyrant. The sword is the instrument, blood. the sacrifice. In
truth, ’tis a singular and impressive fact, almost without exception
through the whole range of history, that no great revolution, no
great achievement, no great change for the benefit of a nation in its
form of government, or the assertion or purification of fundamental
principles of Liberty, was ever brought about, without the sacrifice
of human blood; sometimes of a single individual, sometimes of
whole armies of martyrs. Physical conflict has hitherto been the
inseparable companion of political improvement. ‘ t Happily, in these
latter days we have some noble examples of the spirit of ‘ Reform,
achieving by the labor and perseverance of mind, what once was
only achieved by valor and the sword. This is the result of a
wider diffusion among the people of the knowledge of self—govern-
ment; a discovery of the simple, plain, republican principle, that
government was made for the people, and not the people made for
the government; that the favored few should be the servants of the
Many, and not the many the slaves of the Few. A principle which
was but imperfectly understood even by our fathers, when they
sought on the bleak shores of the New World “freedom to wor-
ship G‘rod,” rather than freedom to govern themselves. Even then,
that principle was found best established with those who were most
persecuted. The banished, proscribed, and hunted Roman VVtL-
r.1A.1us, the Apostle of Religious Freedom, was not less the advocate
of Civil Liberty. The noble sentiment he uttered two hundred
years ago, then universally denied, is now universally struggled
for by the people of all nations of the earth. Speaking of govern-
rnent, he said--——- i l  a

“ The sovereign and original foundation lies in the people, whom they must
needs mean dist~inct from the gotvernmentse_t up. And if so, then a people
may erect and establish what form of government seems to them most meet
for their civil condition. ‘ It is evident thattsuch governments as are by them
enacted and esta-blished, have no more powemand for no longer time than the
civil power, or people consenting and agreeing, shall betrust them With. This
is clear, not only in reason, but in experience of all Cornmonwealths, where
the people are not deprived of their natural "freedom by tyrants.” p

A French traveller of most profound philosophic and liberal
views‘, M. De Tocqueville, notices with admiration the beautiful
definition of Liberty, given by Governor Winthrop, of our own
Massachusetts, in 1650, nearly two centuries ago. “ Civil, moral
and federal Liberty, consists in every man enjoying his property,
and having the equal benefit of the laws of h1s country, which IS
very consistent with his duty to the civil magistrate.”

6

In these definitions of free government, We ham the M1013
length and breadth of the fundamental creed of Democracy, which
the people have been struggling to establish, from that day to this.
The principle was denied then, has been denied ever since, and
is denied now. alt has never been fully established, even in our
free Republic, where it has formed the theory rather than the
practice of government.‘ Within a few years the great struggle
between the party of the people, and the party of power, has been
better understood, and more efficiently carried on, than at any
period in civil history. The people in all ages have never had
but one object in view in regard to government, and that was to
insure a government that should best insure their happiness. The
only reason why the people have not always governed themselves,
is because they have been persuaded by the few that they could not
be trusted with self-government. The theory of a King is in fact
as much founded on the supposed assent of the people in letting‘ a
single man be King, as is the theory of an elective Chief lV.lagis-
trate, upon the actual assent of the people. How does Royalty
retain its power for a day, in a Monarchical form of Government 2*?
It is but one man against millions. The millions submit to let one
man be King, and he is a King just so long as they continue to
obey" him. Take away the homage of the subjects, let each man
resolve for himself that he will no longer be ruled by a King, and
the King without the people becomes literally, like the word
Majesty stripped of its externals---~a jest. Now it is onlyby per-
suading the people that they cannot govern themselves, that Kings,
or Aristocracies, or Tyrants of any sort, have ever been permitted
to govern them, ‘whether in Empires, Kingdoms, or Republics.
There has been but one simple process of overthrowing every form.
of populargovernment--to persuade the people that they cannot
trust themselves. When enough are persuaded to act on this
principle to make a stand, they are used to reduce the rest by

physical force; but in every scheme of ambition or tyranny to-

wrest or to withhold from the people their inherent right of elective

, vself-‘government, amajority in physical and moral force must first

be made willing tobecorne slaves, before they can be employed to
cmake others such. In other words, they must be convinced that
it nisimore for their interest nrsafety to, trust the power to an
ir'reHSp011sible master, than to trust to themselves. Hence, if you
were to seek for the simplest element of a Republican. form of

7

government, and the surest guarantee of its permanency, it would
seem to me that you should not look so much to its Constitutions
and Bills of Rights, as to the fact w/zetlzer ct majority of the peopZe
have full confidence in their capacity for self-government. i

It may be replied that this is only saying in another form, that
the character of the government depends upon the intelligence of
the people. True, there cannot be a good and wise or permanent
government of the people, Without a wide diffusion of intelligence,
but the character of the government mainly depends upon the
direction given to that intelligence.

A profound and philosophic writer on Democracy has noticed
the strong fact, that in the commencement of the 17th century
when absolute royalty every where triumphed, and when letters
and arts were highly cultivated, “in the bosom of this brilliant
and accomplished Europe, the idea of the rights of the people
was more misconceived, than perhaps, even at any other period.
Never did the people possess less of the political lifemnever had
notions of true Liberty less engaged the minds of men.”

Our puritan fathers, for instance, did not bring from England
any thing like the amount of intelligence which they left behind;
but their intelligence was more equally diffusocl, and was directed
in the channel of free institutions, while the intelligence and
knowledge of the mother country was directed toward convincing
and satisfying the people, that the happiest and best form of go-
vernment was not to govern themselves. The intelligence on the

side of Monarchy, aided by the physical force employed and

directed by that intelligence, succeeded in persuading the i people
of America, for the space of one hundred and fifty years, that the
mass were not capable of governing themselves. Themornent a
majority of the people became convinced that they could govern
themselves at home better than the King and Parliament could
abroad, and each man learnt that his neighbor felt as he did, and
that one determined spirit animated i the masses, revolution
followed. , i A i

The intelligence so long directed in the channel of free institu-
tions burst the barrier and gushed forth a mighty, resistless torrent,
in that ever memorable Declaration, proclaimed just sixtyiyears
ago, on this auspicious and gloriousday.

Sixty years ago, and not one of the hold hands that signed that
immortal instrument now moves at the impulse of the patriotic,

8

fearless spirit that then guided it! Fellow citizens, let us pause a
moment, with reverence, to contemplate that assembly of patriots,
sixty years ago, when about to sanction with their names, and
devoting themselves to seal with their blood, that Declaration, not
merely of the Independence of their country, but of the Rights of
Man. In that august body of fifty-six illustrious men, the wisdom
and the strength of the land were arrayed. Massachusetts stood
foremost. There was our venerable Frankliri, the father of that
Congress, the eldest man in it, then seventy years of age; and
there was our youthful Gerry, in the vigor of thirty-two. Edward
Rutledge of South Carolina was the youngest member, with but
twenty-«seven summers over his head. But nine of those patriots
were over fifty years of age,while seventeen were under forty.
The immortal author of the . Declaration was thirty-three, the
‘youngest of the band but four. Our noble Hancock, the Presid.ent,
was thirty-nine, in all the vigor of his elegant ptrnanl1ood——~Jefferson
presents to the Congress the deed of our Liberties, drawn in beau-
tiful simplicity of language, in sublime conception of" thought, by
his own hand.

The mild and unassuming Secretary reads that solemn Declara-
tion, and lays it on the table-----a pause of nearly an hour’s duration
follows, before the boldest approaches to affix his signature—-—not a
pauseof fear or of hesitation-—---oh! no,-———but a pause full of the
deep, abiding responsibilities of that act——a pause full of the pro-
phetic history of the toils, and endurance, and devotion and tri-
umphs through which that Declaration of Indepenclence, not for
America only, but in the course of time for the nations of the
earth, was to be carried to its final glorious consummation.

W'l1po that had ever held aught on earth dearer than LIBERTY,

. would not have paused long and fearfully ere he signed that

solemn instrument which was to call down upon his devoted head
the vengeance of the most formidable monarch of the earth, whose
soldiers at that moment filled the land and almost surrounded the
hall of their deliberations with bayonets pointed at their breasts?
Who that ever knew fear or selfishness would not have trembled
and shrunk in the execution of that fearful deed?

You have all seen the fac similes of the signatures to the Decla-

ration, and is there one that bears the mark of fear? Our own"

John Hancock, the noble, the proscribed patriot, was worthy to be
the first toplace his name there in bold characters. The rest

9

iol.lowed with steady hand and strong heart. True, the venerable
Hopkins of Rhode Island, traced his name with a palsied hand,
but it was guided by a soul, the energies of which tyrants could
never palsy. There is a character in the hand writing of those
signatures which partakes of the daring, free and firm‘ spirit that
animated the bosoms of their authors---and seems to give us an
insight into the motives and feelings of every individual, whose
name there engraved has become an imperishable part of the
records of time. i

Your painters have embodied that illustrious group, and your
posts, orators and historians have impressed it in living characters
on their pages, but who can paint or portray the moral grandeur
of that scene ?

In the achievement of our Independence, all the noble and
generous and self»-sacrificing patriots of the times that tried men’s
souls, were firmly united. But when the struggles and the tri-
umphs in the field were exchanged for deliberations in Council, as
to the best means to insure the happiness of the people, differences
of opinion, and honest differences arose. I cannot so Well illustrate
this remark, as in the language of the immortal Jeii"erson.

“ I know too well (said he) the weakness and uncertainty of human reason
to wonder at its diii’erent results. Both oi‘ our political parties, at least the
honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object, the public
good; but they diiiier essentially in what they deem the means of promoting
that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the govern-
ing powers ; and the other by a difl‘ercnt one. One fears most the ignorance
of the people——tl1c other the sellishness of rulers independent of them. Which
is right, time and experience will prove. We think that one side of this ex-
periment has been long enough tried, and proved not to promote the good of
the many; and that the other has not been fairly and sufliciently tried. Our
opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body of the nation
concurs, that must prevail,” . i i

Now, fellow citizens, this is the only true and real distinction
of parties that has ever existed, or is likely to exist in this country.
It is the two opposite principles of governing. This distinction is
not to he found in our Declarations of Independence, in our Bills
of Rights or in our Constitutions---but in our acts of Legislation,
in our public press, and in the tone given to public sentiment. It
is a simple but most important distinction; whether the people
shall govern through their rulers, or be governed by their rulers---~
whether the security of a government and the perfect freedom of
its people, can subsist and be maintained together. On this ones-

0

W

10

tion, honest and sincere patriots may differ, in the honest and
sincere pursuit of the same object, the public good. That they did
so differ from the very origin of our Republic, is shown from what
has been quoted from Mr. Jefiierson, himself the great personifica-

tion of the popular principle in government, and who, himself,

admits the ‘honesty of his opponents’ motives while he condemns
their measmws.

The causes and grounds of this distinction, are thus philosophi-»
cally explained by that profound statesman.

“The fact is that at the formation of our government, many had formed
their political opinions on European wrmngs and practices, believing the ex—
perience of old countries, and especially of England, abusive as 1t was, to be

a safer guide than mere theory. The doctrines of Europe were, that men in
numerous associations cannot be restrainerd witliin the limits of order and
ju:"~'tlc:e,l‘n:1t. by forces physical and moral, wielded over them by authorities
independent of their will. Hence their organization of 1i’.'.ings, he1'editary
l\lob‘les, and Priests. Still farther to constrain the brute force o:t‘- the people,
they deem it necessary to keep them down by kcml labor, poverty and i,_<.;x:1o—
mace, and to take from them, as frornbees, so much of their earnings, as
tlrat unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufiicient surplus barely
to sustain a scanty and miserable life. And these earnings they apply to
uiaintain their privileged ordersin splendor and idleness, to fascinate the eyes
of the people, and excite in them a humble adoration and submission, as to a
superior order of beings.”

It was on. these different views of the practical uses of govern»
inent so faras the people were concerned, that grew up the two
great parties that divided the country from the period of the second
Presidency, but more particularly from the election of Mr. J efferson
in 1801, down to the election of the younger Adams in 1894, a
space of twenty-four years. During that period, the experiment
tyent on, as Mr. Jefierson said it would, between that party who
feared most to trust the people, and that party who feared most to
trust rulers irresponsible to the people. “ Witlr whichever opinion
thebody of the nation concurs, that must prevail,” said Mr. Jefferwi
son. Tliiswas the great issue. One side were alarmed at theory
and..e:;perirnent,_ and they. clung to old abuses, thinking it safer to
adapt iMo_narchy and A;ristocrac.y to . Republicanism, than to build
up Republicanisini on a new model. The other side preferred
present experience. and wants to old precedents, however venerable,
and: insisted that it was better to forth and apply new principles
 popul-art goyernrnent, than to attempt to modify and amend old
ones. it Thep‘.,Dernocratic party of that day, ‘was the party of im-
proveinent, and Liberty--—tl1e Federal party was the party of safe

1:1

precedents, vested rights, established. institutions and law. As it
was then, so has it been, with occasional modifications, ever since.

Which party embodied the spirit and tendency of the age? ,We
do not mean as to any particular rneasure, because both parties
were undoubtedly often wrong, and both often right, on particular
measures-—--but which party has best carried forward the grand
principle, that the security of a government and the entire freedom
of its people can subsist and be maintained together?

This inquiry, it seems to me, is peculiarly fitting for an occasion
like this, especially for the young men of Massachusetts. He who
narrows down this inquiry to a mere party test, greatly tnistalres its
character and importance. It is not a question of party, but a
question of government; and if ever history was ‘“ philosophy
teaching by example,” we have that philosophy teaching us in the
history of the great parties that have divided the country in our
popular elections. Shall we profit by that history, or shall we,
from inistalren reverence for those who have been shown by that
ltistory to have mistaken the popular tendency and spirit of the
age, persist i.n maintaining principles and measures, which thougli
apparently in a majority here, are, past all further doubt or denial,
in an irretrievable minority in the nation? Earnestly do Iwish
that the mind and judgment of every young man in Massachusetts,
could he brought to a dispassionate consideration of this vital. ques-
tion, on the broad basis of popular Liberty. Amajority of the
vol;.in,g; citizens of this Commonwealth, are those who have become
such since the prevalence of the party excitements which grew. out
of the origin and character of the old parties formed just preceding
the administration of Mr. J eflersons. 'With them rests the future
political character of this State- Why then canthey not calmly
and sensibly review the whole ground, and draw wholesome expe-
rience from the past, to govern and direct the action of the future?

What son of Massachusetts does not feel an honest pride in
contemplating the high and palmy days of this ancient Common-
wealth, when she stood at the head of the Provinces, at the head.
of the Confederation, at the head of the Republic; foremost in the
field, and foremost in the Councils of the nation? Wllflt placed
her there? "Was it the policy of union, co-operation, and confi-
dence with her sister states, or was it the policy of “ t?5C)LI'l.‘A}tY
enAN.I:)I~:.UIt,” which is now recommended by her dominant politi-
cians? Yes, we are now gravelyi told that the only way to show

12

let patriotism yvorthy our Sires, is to sever Massachusetts from the
rest of the Union. Let the young men of Massachusetts reflect on
this. iWith what different feelings should We hail the anniversary
of this day, if to some other state than our own, belonged the
classic ground of Provincetovvn, Plymouth and Bunker I-Iill-——con'-
secreted by the first landing, thefirst settlement, and the first fight
of the Sons of Liberty! Who among us wishes that Massas
chusetts instead of Maryland,‘ stood on the page of history, in the‘
“solitary grandeur” of the last of the Provinces to raise the stan-
dard of Freedom against Great Britain? W

Fellow citizens, we owe it to the Inagnanimous spirit of our
fathers; to’ their forgetfulness of themselves in their love of coun-
try, that we this day enjoy the rich inheritance of the fame of our
beloved Commonwealth, achieved by the pure and elevated devo-
tion of the Patriots of ’76,' to the mzited grandeur of a whole, free
p‘eop'le—-—-and not the “sbZitary grandeur” of a single, obstinate
State.

Let us examine this new doctrine 3 for it comes to us from the
lips of one of the foremost and most sagacious, (and I doubt not
well meaning) leaders of the dominant party of Massachusetts-——~
‘one of your immediate fellow citizens here in the West. And it
comes not from him alone, but was sanctioned by a formal Con;
vention of the delegated Wisdom of that portion of our fellow citi-
zens, Who‘, with brief intervals, have controlled the politics of this
State for forty years, and who now ask the people to continue to
be guided by their councils. The ground they take before the
people is this---A Chief Magistrate of the “nation is to be chosen
by the votes of the people‘ of the nation. In making that choice
the voice of Massachusetts stands as one to tvizenty. What is
her position before the country?

In January, 1835, the dominant party in Massachusetts proposed
a candidate for the Presidency, in the person of one of her most
distinguished citizens. More than a year elapsed, and every other
state in the Union had acted upon the question of a nomination.
Not one adopted the Massachusetts nomination. The dominant
party in the Union: through a National Convention, from the
people, unanimously nominated at favorite son of New York. T he‘

M’ party opposed to that nornination, in every State but Massachusetts,
have decided against the candidate of this State- The candidate
himself became aware that his t position was neither honorable for

13

himself not useful for his party or his country. His motto had
been, “ our country, our whole country, and nothing but our coun-
try”——--and how, in the face of this patriotic and noble sentiment,
could he consent to stand before the nation, without an electoral
ticket in another state in the Union»-«narrowed down to the selfish
little circle of “Massachusetts, only Masscckztsetts, AND NOTHING
BUT MASSACHUSETTS!” You have his answer to this question, in
his letter to the leading politicians who had put him in nomination,
but failed to secure a. response to that nomination, even from 3.
single minority party in any other State.

“In the state of things at present existing in the country, (said he,) my
personal Wishes are to withdraw my name from the place it occupies before
the public in connection with the approaching election. Not only would it give
me no pain to be no longer consiclered e. canclidote, but such ‘£1. change in my
relzttions to the country, would be altogether agreeable to my feelings.”

I honor that distinguished citizen for this proof of a. magneni-
rnous end just deference to the manifest will of the people. Let
us not take niiglit from the true merits of our public men. We
but dishonor ourselves, hy attempting .~.njustly to dishonor the
cnoginent men of the lend, whether they are for or against our
pn;1't.y. Wherever we find them in opposition to the will of the
people, ntid erterting their pot-verspnrid influence adverse to the true
§;;cnius nnd spirit and tendency of Republican institutions, we owe
it to ourselves end to our country to oppose them. But let us not
full into the too common error of cilterging corrupt motives upon
every man who differs from us in opinion. Give to every man
his just merits, but concede nothing to him at the expense of our
country’s good. i V r M V   l

I repent then, that with entire admiration of the splendid intel«-
lent, the majestic eloqticnce, the profound learning of that distin-
guisltetl citicen, I honor his attempt to with.dmW himself from the
exclusive, unnvttiling and obstinate position in which his friends
had forced him’ to stand hefore the country. I regret that

he should have left any tiling to the selfish discretion of those

friends. I regret still more‘, that in the great and fundamental
division of principles in this Republic, to which all subdivisions of
party have been and always must he merelyincidentand accessory,
he should have ranked himself with that side, described by Mr.
Jefferson, which most fears the ignorance of the people--the side
which holds that it is the.pa.rt of wisdom to found government on
property, rather than on people, on the representatives of things,

14

rather than of men,---the side which at the formation of our gov-‘

ernment, and ever since, has founded its political opinions on

European writings and practices, on the doctrines that “men in

numerous associations cannot be restrained within the limits of
order and justice, but by forces physical and moral, wielded over
them by authorities independent of their will.” The side, which
in the great struggle now go.ing on in the old and new world,
between the few and the many, between monopoly and anti~
monopoly, “deem it necessary, in order to constrain the brute
force of the people, to keep them down by hard labor, poverty and
ignorance, and to talre from them, as from bees, so much of their
earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a
suflicient surplus, barely to sustain a scanty and miserable life.”

What was the decision of that “discretion,” to which the ex-
clusive and hopeless candidateof Massachusetts entrusted his
personal wishes to withdraw from the contest? You have it in the
act of the Convention of the delegated wisdom of that party.
March 24, 1836,——-“Ragweed, that the name of Daniel "Webster,
is new again presented to the Country as the ‘lV.[ASSA.CI~tUSI£'Fft‘.€~‘
CANDIDATE,’ for the Presidency of the United States.”

You have it in the declaration of one of the leaders or" tflmt
Convention, “that although their candidate wished to \vit.lfn;l1‘aw,
he yielded himself to their ‘decision, and they would hind him a,
ttrilling; sacrifice on the altar of his country-——-that del'e::1.t wn..~‘~,-z
honor, defeat was victory-———victory over the doctrine or" tnan—wo1'--
ship, victory over the recreant doctrine of personal t1\'t1ll:ti”),llll:§;r,
victory over the dangerous heresy, that military acliieverrient is no-
cessary to civil service.”’3’~“

You have it still more emphatically and absurdly, in the open
avowal of this new doctrine of “SOLITARY eaannttutt,” then br'oar:.h-
ed for the first time in our history, by a prorninent citizen of this
district, to whom I have before alluded.'l‘ He was not only for
binding the victim to party obstinacy on the altar, but for lighting
his funeral pile with the conflagration of the whole Union. He
berated the other states soundly for not following. the dictation of
Massachusetts. l ‘

“ In violation of every sacred principle, (he e_xc1aimed,) in forgetfnlness of

his services, the candidate of Massachusetts has been abandoned by all the

r Speech of Hon; Myron Lawrence, in the Whig Convention, of March, 1836. p v
t 1* Speech of Hon. Isaac 0. Rates, in the same Convention. ,

15

other States in the Union. ! No, it is you who have been :3.bcn:1cloned——-the
Cmnmonwealth has been abnndonecl. She has, been let"? to tread her way
‘alone, and I like the sonxmnv Grnnmnnnnof it. I had rather be cleléated with
our cnnclldate, than succeed with either of the others. lV.[a.ssach'L1setts, it may
be send, as the only Sptate in the Union tlaat has any chnrnc:t<ar1eft.. The other
States are small change in the hands of tradirng politicians to bu y Offices with.
Massachusetts has got an chs.mc:ter to save, am}. it can only he saved by her
ssnsmining her csmdidnte. Who would not rather see her pursuing the solitary
gnrznclezzr ofher way, alone, than plunging with others into this Noxrweglan

lM:x-lstrom of Van Buren politics! Who would like to see her tlmmwn in  a,

mnlce-weight, by trading‘ politicians, like snrmll shot in the scale of an apothe-~
nary! Who would like to see her a, waxen ball in the hancls of the llllagicianl
Jifcztlmr Zen‘ 11.529“ be blotted [mm the map folrwee-, nzlzélaep she is free and 257:. leer
‘»g'Za;2‘y.” . .

Tltxiss, fellow citizenn, is x.v,l’:m;.’i; they offer to us for “ solitary gran-
deur.” Miglm it not he bettel‘ hnptizecl s'zaZ1l:yl g7'a7zde2m' ! Is it tlfze
lnngsjnage of se»lf’—dnv<3l;ix"1g pzxtriotisnn, or of dis3npp0lr1te:cl nva.ric.n of
pnxver? Is it love cvl‘::otz1'xt‘r‘y, or love of self‘? In it ’l'onncle,cl on a
just c*.nm‘“.lc:lnx'n:e: in the il‘1tcalligc:rt1c.n nml horxenty 0l‘11‘i11e1;een-tWnn~
tint;nl1.~::<)l:‘ t.l“m. p::&<:>pl€: nf :.hl.~‘:-: \vl3«;:;>l.n ”Uni(m---~0r in an ove1'\‘Vneni1fzg
<.~«.,:'>ln:‘:r3it, tlx:-11; XVQ9, t:.’l":<‘=: :f5in.$,;'lc>~ tw<:«mt.ix*3tl1 part of (ma: grczzxt whnlez, nrc
tllmm <::1iz.p:":.l:>‘l«:: of <flc:c.r.i<’lir'l1;;;' f‘<:>r i;lizc:;z 1*<a.~::t, wlm ssllall. be l’rc;2n‘iClc31:'z1;, zmtl
‘wlmt, the 1’nn2v1sx..‘:'1'ns zzmcl pnlniny of the g<3V'erx1x1mr1t musst be, to pm-
vml; t,h<:: l\.zll‘ll:n:::‘1‘1.l; nl"1.li1<;: fnznry ye:mrs;’ :Sl'.‘£t.1”1dllf1§_},' }.:rnpl‘1eny of l\’.l.”:*zn;~::.~r_<:;x.-
rs lm .~l~'(;I11;.*‘; pnli1;.l.c:.inm:, l.lm‘t. Z/an C.7(;'2lzst?:z"2o£:'£c2'22. zcmcl the Com-.L2:'7*y 'e£.=c*?:i'£:
.g.r)2Z42z.‘.psg' in 9*’:/M. !

’;l;‘.hi:»‘; in the :i:a;::=n<:». nf nnr npp:'<3z1c:l'1ingg‘ }f)n'}j1n.1l::Lr celnc.:t.inne:, ~s;>vl'x,ic:.l1 in
now pm 1; to Lh<:~.> yc:>1.11f1g rncsen of lVlns::s::nn'l1m~:;ntts, by L119 (Ll.C)1Tll.ll2I1X1ll
St:2.1;n pztmy, with nn €H'1'l."X*1C.,’.%”~;l. npp<2nl tn t.l.;1nr°n clc2lnihc;=r:1tnly, ::mc‘l. pent-
,l:m.ps i1'rnt;:*:invnl:3ly, tn innflntzn lVln.:';;:e;n<.:ll‘z t1:‘er.‘~:tl.S frmfxm the wholn Uti'1lC.)n.
“‘vVl1e2‘1‘n.in. (‘llC)€*3.‘“:§’l;lfTlil$ <:lc)c;:’c'1*~inn hf Mn.nn:1.c:l*xtxln<nzttn “:.~:snli.tnry gix.*nr1r;lnx.1r”
cliililhr l7::*<:>r1“z the s~:c>'litn,'ry g;;;r;:mrxclcmr of l Llm N x1l.lifi«::n,t;ior1 clnntrhfxe of
Sxantlu. Cmnlllizzx, with nl1n'1.' calnnven calentornl v<:>t;en fo:rG-novernc>1*Floyd,
nncil lmr C;}~cm;":rr1or l".lku.x"r1i,lt0t‘z going m the clenth fox.‘ the ‘sugar!
Sfhall. Mnsnzmnhunntts }l>ln::u:n lmrself‘ l‘J@‘S.ld.£33 Soutlzl vCa1'oIina.,;inx'1 the
prncticnlnhcl fn.ntim1s‘nvnwal of the c1*eecl,‘thn.t all the 1‘E3Sl3. of the
Union is rotten and cnrrupt,nnd shr-2. alone sound and honest? For
nearly forty yenr'n,I the policy of State ngairxst Nation has govexwxecl
I\/lassnchuaetts,h nnclwe see what has some of it. But heretofore,
that policy, had as it Was, want no fnrtlmr than to sever the Corn-
monwenlth from the majority party ofnthnlllntion. Syrnpntllins,
nlliance's, an common pln1'pose, and commrm ncandidates were kept up
between the rnajority here and~mnjnr:ities -in Several other1ntz1l.n:sr,
and respectable minorities in all. But how is it now? Failing»; to

16

prevail on the minorities in other States of the same party to adopt
the “Massachusetts candidate,” his friends turn upon those minor»
ities, and charge them with the violation of every sacred principle,
with coining themselves into “ small change in the hands of trading
politicians to buy offices with.”

What is to be the effect of this policy, if carried out? It makes
the minorities as well as majorities of every other State in the
Union the enemies of Massachusetts. It virtually, as to us, dis-
solves the Union! It will sink this ancient Commonwealth, once
the highest, to the lowest point in national influence. Hence the
importance of this question, in which the mere election of this or
that man, or the success of this or that party, is insignificant com-
pared to the long line of coihsequences involved in the result.
Hence the propriety of addressing ourselves to the good sense and
sound patriotism of our fellow citizens on this day t; a day, the
value of which to us, hereafter, in a national point of view, depends
mainly upon the decision which the people of Massachusetts shall
make on this doctrine of “solitary grandeur.”

I ask every young man of Massachusetts if he esteems it nothing
to feel, and to have it reciprocated when abroad, that he belongs to
the Nation, as well as to Massachusetts? Will he like to travel.
about this broad, free country, with his “ solitary grandeur,” like
a snail’s covering on his back, into which, when trodden upon, he
can draw himself with sulky selfishness? Looking back and re-
viewing the almost incessant war of the State against the Nation;
recalling the loud promises of the leaders at every ‘fresh trial, that
2‘./22's z‘z'mc the State would surely put down the administration;
promises never in a single instance fulfilled, and now so utterly
hopeless as no longer even to be made, as an incentive to the last
struggles of despair. Seeing all this—-—-and witnessing the fullness
of the measure of the honor and peace of the country abroad--—-her
prosperity, even to very repletion at home,——honor, peace and prose-
perity brought about under this administration, and in the midst
of the eternal Massachusetts cry of ‘,‘ RUIN! RUIN! RUIN I?’ croalced
through this blessed landas discordantly as the clamor for pay for
an ox, eaten by the famished soldiers of the revolution---.-sounded
through the American camp, after victory, in the hoarse voice of
Johnny Hoolce, roaring “BEEF, seer, BEEF!” Seeing all this, will
the young men of Massachusetts consent to make themselves aliens
in their ownland, merely to carry out a point of honor, (as idle as

17'

any in the code of the duellist) that Massachusetts men must stick
to the Massachusetts candidate, and-oppose the administration, the
government and all the rest of the nation forever, unless she can
say who shall be President?

With the heresy of Nullification quieted without collision or

V bloodshed---with the panic prophecies of ruin changed to complaints

of too much prosperity--—with the unheard of spectacle of a great
nation without a cent of debt, puzzled to know what to do with her
surplus revenue,-—-with the French war, instead of exhausting our
treasury to fit out fleets, transmuted into afresh coinage of gold
from our mint---with the products of our farms and our workshops
commanding war prices amidst universal peace--——-with the tremen-
dous monopoly of the United States Bank, that defied the govern-
ment, and issued over half a million of handbills at an expense of
$25,000 in a single year. to put down the administration--——itself
quietly put down, and the country, despite the clamor of paper cor-
porations, gradually and surely advancing toward a sound, health-V
ful and solid circulation-~g-with the wise disposition of the surplus;
revenue among the States in deposit, instead of leaving it to build
up little monied aristocracies in the bosom of democracywhen
accumulated in the pet banks,----thus, in the language of the Pr.e_S—:
ident, when he signed the bill’ his enemies vainly hoped he would
veto--“ disarming faction, and rendering it more difficult for the
money power to reorganize itself ‘under the chartertof a new Na-;
tional Bank.p”-——,—.-W;i.th all this large amount of good for the country,
(not for the few, but for the whole people,) yaccomplishiedt under an
administration which our sages here told us was going right off to
bury the Constitution, and leave not asingle roosting place for the
Eagle of Liberty, save in the “solitary grandeur” of Massachusetts
~_.---will our young men, who, in a few years, are to be the principal
actors in the affairs of the Commonwealth, consent to go on in the
old track of the same hopeless, useless, causeless opposition to the
next administration, and the next, and the next! For if there is
just cause for Massachutsetts to oppose the next administration,
there will be cause for her to keep up this policy of State against
Nation while the Republic lasts. Witli all these facts before them,
it rests with the young men who are looking on more coolly, and
have less of the asperity or the pride of party than their elders, to
now say, whether they will enlist for another eight years, sixteen
years, forty years war, against their own governmentl The young

18

men of Massachusetts are her main hope for restoring her to the
confidence and good will of her sister States, from which obstinate
politicians are striving to sever her forever. In the language of
the “Massachusetts candidate” himself, Igappeal to their love of
countryi to their love for themselves, “;‘Youth is generous; its
pat1'i’otism is free from selfishness, it is full of just and ardent ism-
impulses, and these are feelings that become it. Early manhood
is sincere and genuine. Men at this stage of existence have along
life before them, with their hopes and prospects all depending on
the circumstances and influences by which they are to be _,sur-».
1'*‘o‘un‘ded,and they nattl1,rally,‘and rigliitfullyffeel a deep interest in
the course of ‘coming etrents, which are to influence their Whole
future 1ives.”~f M  ‘ D M W W M M " .

V D Surely, then, the young men of Massachusetts will require some
good rleason heforethey'will‘¢ further conirnit themselves to the
policy oflendisss oppositionllto the government’, ‘Surely they will
pause,‘a'nc:l reflect 5 l  when urgedto reckless opposition, merely
for the sake of opposition, will they not turn gupofn the leaders of’
this policy of State against Nation, and demand of those who have

so long“ governed our State Councils, Why they have severed Mas-

sachusetts gfrorn the great Democracy of the .country—-——wliy they
haveidralwn her away from the people of every other Stategwwhy
they havealrnost “sunderedherfrom the Union-~—-andwhy, in the
obstinate spirit of this bravado‘ of “soZc'ta?*y g7fa92dem',” they now
persist in expellinjg her from New England itself, in the approach»
ing Presidential election? t M M
' I call upon the exclusive “ Massachusetts candidate” himself, to
answer tohitnself in this matter. When the heresy of Nullifica-»
tion was threatening‘ disunion, that citizen, at the head of his party
in Boston, Went to Faneuil Hall, to express their gratitude to the
President for that noble proclamation, which was as effectual in pre-
serving the Union from disruption at that time, as was the Decla-
ration ol‘ Independence in laying the foundation for that Union.
Did the “Massachusetts canclidatel’ and his friends then hold
to their present doctrine iofll"‘solita1.'ygrandeur ?” “ Sir, (said
D..««_:nm, Wsnsrn~a on that occasion,) I am for the Union one and
entireél axnfor the Constitution as it is. lshall not be satisfied
Withl a Constitution c‘orn‘prising less than these whole twenty-four
Stat‘e',s'*; “Constitu“tion which has raised: these twenty-four States
to‘ a pottter and prosperity unparalleledin‘ the history of the world,

19

I see nothing better for us to hope for or to wish, than this Constia
tution. My clioice is made. I go for the country, for the Union;
and vvhenl see the standard of the Union raised, vthatistandard
Washington planted on _.the ramparts of the Constitution,‘ God
forbid that I should inquire whom the people have appointed‘ to
bear it up. I believe that I ciannot better satisfy my fellottr citiaens,
by any thing I could say on this occasion, than toii'ai?hW,' that
resting on the principles of this proclamation, I forohe. shall give
to the President my hearty, entire,'and zealous rsiupporit, in carrying
those principles into effect, in the vvay he has proposed:.’’ a

On that same occasion, Hanarsort GRAY‘ One said: _

“ I do not stand here as the panegyrist of the Presitdent-l-—3‘~I give
no pledges for the future, but standing on this document and the
principles it maintains, I am willing to say it is above allfpraisei
I am even willing to say that if Washington hirnsellf had arisen
from his tomb, he could not indite,nor we expect, a better exposi-
tion of the principles of the government, in more forcible and
jperspicuous language.” I I

.TA1vtns T. Austin, the Attorney General, said,---l--“That Chief
Magistrate of the nation. has proclaimed peace, union, and the
prcse1'vation of the Constitution on its true principles. The people
will sustain him in that proclamation. Here, in this very hall, the
people assembled a shorttirne ago, to do all in their power, as they
bad a right to do,.to elevatie another citizen tothe Presidency;
They failed to doso. But do we now repine? I30 we retain
party rancor? t No. We are willing to support the President in
his support of the ConstitiJ.tion;._ ,We,paro willing to support him,
as the chileren oi‘ Israolupheld tptheijhands of Moses, that their
power might prevail.” ' y p r ~ ,   ,

What did that meeting, the largest which the present supporters
of the “Massachusetts candidate” evecraissernbled-5-what did they
deliberately resolve, touching this doctine of “solitary grandeur.”
I-Iear them. » I or N

.Resalv,ed,,, That “ we hold these .political truths which we conceive to be ex-
pressed in the Proclamation, undeniable-'-3-that_, the governrnent of theU_nited
States was ordained and establishedblyl the ppeopile of it/ac :‘Uni‘fc_cZ Stazes ; that its
leading object was to for-in avitong them amore, perfect, union, and to create for
the common good of the rvfzole, at more etficientfgovpvpernment‘ than had [existed
under the coinfedcration-I-that the government of V the; United States e_:«rtends
over the people of all me ‘States, and thatto theyfull extent. of these powers, the
people of the United States is a Govnanmanr, and ‘not, a Lea;gue—-and thatno
State has power to withdraw the allegiance of the people from ithat govern‘-1*»
mom, or to sanction disobedience to its laws.” I I "

so

Resolved; “ That we will cordially support the President of the United Stories
in every constitutional measure, necessary for the execution of the laws, and
for maintaining the integrity of the Union”-'--“ that we will go for the country
and WI’i‘I~?l the country, againstdiéunion; disorganization and nullification,-—and
that whoever is commissioned by the people to bear up the standard of the
Union,_ we shall be ready to rally in the cause of the C_on_stitut:ion, under that
banner which led our fathers through years of sufiering and blood, to indepeni
dence and glory,‘ and which has commanded for us,‘ their posterity, the respect
‘of the world.” .

Fellow citizens, Faneuil Hall rung with the shouts of applause
with which these doctrines were hailed in 1832, by the supporters
of the “Massachusetts candidate. That candidate himself reitera-
ated them nearly a year afterward, on his return from the first visit
in his life to the “moral and natural grandeur” of the country
west of the Allegheny mountains,’ ‘

In his speech before the ‘assembled citizens‘ of Pittsburg, Penn-
sylv?ania,.in .’Tu1y,i1833, he did not tell them that Massachusetts‘
must set up for herself, and denounce all the other States as with»-
out character, as small change in the hands of trading politicians,
unless they would support him for the presidency. No, in the
name of Massachusetts, he told them,—-*'-- i l

_ “ We are fellow countrymen, fellow citizens, bou nd together by a tlionsand
ties of interest, of sympathy, of duty. , Wears bound together for good or For
evil, in our great political interests. I know, (said he,) that I am addressing
Arnericahs, every one of whom has a true‘ American heart in his bosom; and
I feel that I also have an American heart, in my bosom. I address you with
the same fervent good wishes for your happiness, the same brotherly affection,
and the sairie tokens of regard and esteem,*as if, instead of i being upon the
borders of the Ohio, I stood by the Connecticut or the Merrimack.”

In that same speech, the “Massachusetts candidate” described
the threatened crisis to our Union, from nullificatioh, and eulogiaed
thetPrésident in his own fairdrite langhage, for “ coming to the res;
cue ofthe Constitution.” d

“In a_ day of unquestioned prosperity, ,2.’ said he,) after half a century’s
happy experiment; when we’ were the wonder of all the liberal men in the
world, and the envy of all the z‘lZ1Iber_czZ--when we had shown ourselves to be
fast advancing to national renown, what was threatened? Disunion ! There
were those among us who wished to break up the government, and scatter the
four and twenty States into four andtwenty sections and fragments. It was
at this moment that the President of the United States, (Andrew .Tackson,)
trans T0 syniir Durst, tcomprjehendin and fully understanding the case, came
i‘orth,by his proclamation of the lot of December, in language which inspired
new hopes in me of the durationiof the Re ublic. It was patriotic and worthy
to be carried through at eiiery hazard. speak without teserire u on this
subject; Lhaire differed with the President, as all know who know any thing‘
of so humble an indiiiidual as myself, upon many important subjects-'-t-in re-
lation to internal improvement;-«re-chartlering the United States Bank, perhaps
in atdegree, of domestic protection,_and the disposition of our public lands.
But when the crisis arrived in. which our Constitution was in danger, and

21

when he cameforth like (_z patriotic Chief Magistrate, I for one, taking no coun-
sel but of patriotism, feeling no impulse but the impulse of duty—-felt myself
bound to yteld, not a lame and hesitating, but a cordial and efficient support
to his measures. I know that those who have seen fit to intrust to me, in
part,_the1r1nte-restsin Congress, approve of the measures recommended by the
President. We see that he has taken occasion during the recess of Congress,
to visit that part of the country,‘ and we know how he has been received. No
where have hands been extended with more sincerity of friendshzp ; and for me,
gentlemen, I take occasion to say, that having heard of his return to the seat
of government with health rather debilitated, it is among my most earnest
prayers,’ that Providence may spare his life, and that he may go through with
his administration, and come out with as much success and glory as any of
his predecessors.”

This, fellow citizens, in 1833, was the emphatic ‘language of the
“Massachusetts candidate,” in the face of the nation. What was
the language of the most efficient friend and supporter of that can-
didate, who was foremost to urge his nomination by the Legislature
oi this Commonwealth, and who insists that though he is left stand-
ing all alone by every other State, and wishes to withdraw, he shall
still be held up as the “Massachusetts candidate?” I mean the
present Executive of this Commonwealth, who, "after accepting the
nomination and receiving the votes of a party which supports Mr.
Van Buten iior the Presidency, now declares that no man shall. be
/tie political iiriend who will not support Ms exclusive and hopeless
candidate for the Presidency. M In the same spiiit of prophetic
etilotry, that distinguished citizen said on. the floor of Congress, in

1835, when we were threatened with a French war, that---—

“ If Amlreni Joclrsniz will so temper his policy as to carry this country hon»
orably tlircitigli the controversy without him‘; he Wlll draw down. upon l11S head
the blessings of men whose voices have never mingled with theincense oflns

tlztttterers ; and his _name, in the eyes of all tnanltind, will appear fmfrar and M

brighter than ovftert its name am of the biasing lines of New Orleans, mall the fresh-
vttss afhis victory and its honors. Let the President pursue this policy in this
temper, and he will carry the people along with him, whatever may betide-—I

engage for New I.i3N'eLAnt5.”

Humble as I am, and feeble aspis my language, i cannot attempt
to vie with these two_ prominent citizens of Massachusetts in eulogy
of the President, He has achieved in his eminently successful.
administration, all, and much more than all, the accomplishment of
which they affirmed would fill the measure of his glory!

It was from them that many of us first learned that we had been
as unwise as unjust, in the strong political prejudices which we
had imbibed from a false and reckless party press, against the
leading measures of the administration. They taught us that the

- Speech of the Hon. Edward Everett, March 2, 1835, on our relations with France.

Q9-

itnitn their followers had so long denounced as a despot, was after
all a “patriotic Chief Magistrate," “true to every duty,” deserving
our “blessing,” and not our cursing; who knew how to preserve

_ the integrity of the UNION without shedding a drop oi"Ayme7~z'ccm1

Zzlood; and the PEACE of the country without sacrificing a particle
of national 7107207‘, ,

We have gone right on, studying the honest lesson they then;
gave us. It may be our misfortune, but surely it is not our fault,
if after looking at the universal prosperity of this country, under
this administration, and seeing the falsehood of all the prophecies
and morbid fears of its opponents, we have not been apt scholars
enough to follow their second advice and read their lesson basalt-«
wants, i just because a few millions have been taken from the
vaults of one great monster, and put into the vaults of several little
rnfiojnsters-—f0r, strange as such things are, for that cause alone, these
distinguished eulogists of Andrew Jackson, and tliei1' supporters,
now hold as enemies to their country all who support for the next
Presidency the man whose unpardonable sin is declared to be his
avowal that---“ If honored with the choice of the American people,
I shall endeavor to tread generally in the footsteps of President
Jackson—-happyyif I shall be able to perfect the worlr which he
has so gloriously begi1n,.”*

What work, fellow, citizens ?---not the worl<.: of removing the de-
posits and putting down the bank, for that work. islnot left to be

perfected. i That was the ‘‘ sole work.” which in the estimation of

the Massachusetts ‘candidate and his friends so suddenly trans-
formed a “ patriotic chief rnagistrate” into a terrible despot.

I pray them to tell us plain common sense people, who like a
reason for What we do’, how it comes about that in 1833, the Pres-
ident was “TRUE TO EVERY DUTY,” and now false to all? How it
comes about that it was patriotism then “‘ to yield not a lame and
hesitating, but acordial and efficient support to his 972eas'wres,-~—-—and
now it is treasonto our country and dishonor to our State to yield
a manly support to the candidate of the democracy, who is "pledged
generally to carry out and perfect those measures? it

Can a man idf them put his linger on one leading measure of the

Administrationthat had not marked the policy of, the President,
when the“’Massachusetts candidate” pledged himself to his sup-«W

* Mr.. Van BUI‘e11’S letter accepting the Iialtimore nomination.-l r

23

port? save this one act of the removal of the deposits? an act
even then anticipated from the President’s known opposition to the
Bank ?-—-an act too, Which, if the presses of our opponents are
now to be believed, has resulted in giving them a glorious triumph

‘ by the President’s approval of the Bill for depositing the surplus

revenue with the States? If this is really for them a glorious
and triuniphantsettlement of the panic question with which they
shook the Union to its centre, why are they net content? We are
content. Why still hold up the solitary l\/lassachutsetts candidate?
Wliy still oppose, when bytheir own showing, the last ground of
opposition has been taken from un’cler“their feet? ,Why not leave
their “solitary grandeur” which is outlawing the State from the
sympathies of the rest of the Union, and try a little of the social
grandeur of Massachusetts acting in pconcert and pharrnony and
confiding faith with the rest of the States, andiresurninig in the
nation the true grandeur of theposition she oncetoccupied side by
side with her sisters of New Errgland, Virginia and New Yo‘1'l;——-
nay even at the head of them all? i _p A j W ’ t

Yiras it only to get the votes of other States, and the countenance
of the Presitleritlfor the succession in favor of her exclusive candi-
date, that the Massachusetts leaders fawned and flattered and
t‘,R.:;'r;av.?-ml” in l'*‘aneuil Hall that they would go for the country
and wrrn the country? Was it for this that they so tenderly
talked to the people of other States of the thousand ties of interest,
of sympathy, of duty, that boundpus together forgood or for evil
in our great political interests? And do theyinowmwrap the Com-
monwealth up in “solitaryYgrandeur,” and rail against all her
sisters as political prostitutes, because they insist on cheosing for
themselves, and repudiate the husband she has picked out for
them, in her little, eicclusive family arrangements? S W ‘S

It looks so———ve_rily it looks so; and if it he so, it is high time
that the matter was understood. The people, the ‘young men, are
{called upon to make a most extraordinary sacrifice in adhering to
this unfortunate policy of State against Nation, until it shall cut
fislolif from every relation of sympathy with our sister States-—--and
for such a sacrifice there ought to be shown the most urgent rea-up
sons;-«reasons of much higher" rnornent than the mere selfish,
narrow minded ‘pride of having, nobody President but one of our
own citizens. W Even South, Carolina, when in her spite of Nullifi-4

cation against all the other States, she threw away her eleven.

24

votes for President, did not take the Massachusetts ground, that
she would have one of her own citizens for President, or nobody.
She gave her votes to a citizen of Virginia for President, and to a

citizen of Massachusetts for Vice President. There was some

little liberality in that sort of “solitary grandeur” of which the
Mssachusetts policy cannot boast.

I have quoted directly from the public proceedings and speeches
of the Massachusetts party and their candidate, in order to show
that this notion of shutting up the state in her own shell, was not
thought ofi so long as it appeared probable that any of the other
States could be induced to adopt the Massachusetts candidate.
The resolves that nominated him in January, 1835, were eminently
amiable toward the minorities in the other States. At the great

meeting in Faneuil Hall, in May following, to confirm that nomi-

nation--+—a similar feeling of conciliation was infused into the pro-
ceedings, though the other States were pretty plainly told that
nobody was fit to be President, and nobody could save the Consti-
tution but the “Massachusetts candidate.” There was then a
great show of magnanimity in calling on other States, to discard
sectional feelings. They were told in the resolves at Faneuil

“ That the selection of candidates by the citizens of any part of the United
States, on purely sectional grounds, andthe IGJBCLIQTI of the most eminent qua~
lifications for high ofiices, because they are found in some other parts of the
country, is inconsistent with the spirit and principles of the Union of these
States; and that our fellow citizens of the Southern States, who out of twelve
presidential terms have ten times elected their own citizens, may reasonably

be expected at the approaching election to give proof to the country that they
do not claim a monopoly of the Government.”

Certainly it was very reasonable, that the South should not
claim a monopoly of all the Presidents---but it seems after all, that
Massachusetts must insist upon a monopoly of the man for her-
self. It wouldn’t help the “ monopoly” at all for the South to vote
for a Northern man, in the person of the favorite son of New York,
although that empire State, first in the Union, has never given a
President to the Republic, while Massachusetts has had two! Oh
no! These anti-monopoly Northern politicians, of Faneuil Hall,
who appealed so kindly to the South to support a Northern man,
are now beseechingi the South to go for a Soutizem. man, asthe
only possible way to prevent a citizen of the yNorth, being elected
by the people! VVhat a singttlar proof of the sincerity and con_—

K

25

sistency of those who insist upon the Massachusetts candidate
against the world !

It seems too, that the Constitution Was to be buried, (as has been
the case any time these forty years, unless Massachusetts had the
President and -chief officers)-—=-but the only possible way to save
the "Constitution,, was to take the “Massachusetts candidate.” No
other man, North, West or South, Whig or Tory, would do at all,
and therefore these Anti-Southern-=vPresidentia1-Monopoly leaders
of the “ solitary” party, declared it was-~

“Resolved, finally, by the citizens of Boston and the vicinity, in Faneuil

Hall assembled, that we will axlhere to our candidate, let who will follow, or
who will fly--«that we will march with cheerful. confidence and hope beneath

the banner of the Constitution, with the name of its great champion in the .

centre of the field, well assured‘ that if our beloved country is to conquer in
the approaching struggle, it must be beneath this sign»---and we call upon our
friends, the friends of liberty throughout the Union, to rise as one man and
go with us.”

But when it turned out» they would not rise at all, to go with
Massachusetts, and that every other State and every other party in
every other State, was going for some other candidate---did the
leaders give up their exclusiveness and go too “ with the country,”
as they had promised? Not at all. They met again i.n solemn
Convention of the Legislature,_ October, 1835, and there in lan-
guage of peculiar politeness and compliment io their sister States,

“Resolved, That while one and another of our sister States have fallen
victims to the proffered patronage and corrupting influence.,of an electioneering
Administration, we have the fullest confidence that a majority of the electors
of Massachusetts, who have heretofore well sustained the honor of their
nation State, will again rally in defence 0 freedom and tl1eiConstitution, and
achieve another glorious victory over it c rnerc'enar1.es of a Military and
political Chieftain.” ‘ 0 , l r ‘

Here were all the big professions about the,“ whole country,"
narrowed down to bigoted and obstinate little Massachusetts;
Here again was illustrated the beauty of consistency; for this
“Military and political Chieftain,” (whom we were now exhorted
«to fight just as our fathers did old King George; and .the young
men called upon in the leading Whig paper in Boston‘,- to raise an
army of 40,000 men, march to Washington, surround the palace
and compel the Tyrant to restore the deposits)——-this “ Military
and political Chieftain” was the same man whom the Massachu-
setts “vpolitical Chieftain” two years before, had eulogized as “a
patriotic Chief Magistrate,” “true to every duty”---upon whose

4 V

,;J

C one hundred  i’ort’y-fotur votes necessary for an elecrtion! S

26

head ‘our ‘Governor, the nominator of Mr. Webster, had ‘called

down “ blessings,” and of whom another of their leaders had "said,

that if Washington had risen from the tomb, lhecould do no ‘better!

The beauty of consistency wasltal-so exemplified ‘in the cornmea-
tary this resolve of ‘October made upon the sincerity of the -res‘o*lve
by the same men of  ‘pre‘vious—-—-“ that if there were a ‘man in
the Wide range of all the l’States———in. regard to whom general con»
"fidence spreads Wider or sinks deeper-—--‘he would receive from us
our hearty support, in whatever section or State of the Union he
Wasto be found.”

Ask the several hundred Conventionstwho (with less of “soli-
tary grandeur,” but with scarcely more hope of success,) have
presented the Ohio ‘Candidate as the Whig candidate, and who
have proposed e’lec'toral tickets for‘ him in nine States, While the
Massachusetts candidate cannot even get a ticket named to be
beaten in but one State—---ask them if there is not a man in the
Whigy party “in regard to whom general confidence spreads wider,”
than the Massachusetts man S“?-~—»-and then ask them what they think.
of Massachusetts pledges to i“ go with the country and for the
co11nitry,’i’---S-and hovv rnuchtheir brotherly love for this Cornrn_on-
Wealth has been increased by that declaration of the Hon. Agent
for the Massachusetts Militia claims, made in the Convention of
March, 1'83'6,«which resolved to run the “Massachusetts candidate”
against the field, via, “ who can turn from Mr. Webstor, to the
mere shadow of Mr. Webster, (Gen. I:l'cm‘iso’7z.”)’* t

It was in that obstinate Convention, that the doctrine of “solitary
giran‘deur,” which the policy of the leaders had been gradually
developing, was openly avowed. All the coaxing and courtesies
to other States were laid aside, and, without even the pretence
of holding up a ca'nd’idate for whom a single vote was expected or
hoped for out of this State, the extraordinary spectacle was ex-
hibited of well informed ‘‘men, in other respects, insisting upon
holding up for a National office requiring the votes of a m'ajor‘ity
of the twenty-four States in the Union, a man who was set aside
by allyother "parties in all other States, and whose only possible
chance ‘(and even that doubtful) was that he might, by great effortts
enithe part‘of' his ‘friends, succeed in getting foz1.1'tee'7_z out of the

3.

’=l= ‘Speech or lion.  ‘lease.

27

I have stated these facts thus minutely, fellow--citizens, because
it is important that our young ‘men, should understandthe precise
issue, and its inevitable results if they listen tothe appeals of , those
who now call upon them not to vote for a“ National candidate for
President of the nation-—-A-but to stick to the candidate of a single
State for Presidentof these twenty-six United States! A

Were it a mereaquestion oirmen or of party, Ivvould not have

made it a theme for this day,,though it is the true theme for
Democracy, and therefore for Liberty! But it is to us a question

of Union, of National compact—-9-of sympathy, as wide and expan-
sive as this broad land of twenty-si,x United States--—~It isjust such
a question, in its effects on State character, as th_eUnionists of

South Carolina hadto meet against the Nullgifiers-;-—a question

whether in our relations with other States, we shall’ in‘ truth be
“ fellow-countrymen, fel1ow—citizens, bound together for good or
for evil in our great political interests”—--whether We shall hereafter
carry in our bosoms American hearts, or only Mass_ac'hfnsetts izearrts
-—-—whether the Massachusetts candidate himself, Shall be made by
his friends practically to brand with falsehood his Own memorable
d.eclaration amid the shouts of A his party in Fa11e11iliH‘c’t11---“I am
for the Union, one and entire-—-I am for the Constitution as it is--—
I shall not be satisfied with a Constitution comprising less than
these whole twenty-four States.” a

Again I call upon the "Massachusetts candidate” himself to
answer to himself in this matter. a I call upon him in the name of

the rising young men of this Comrnonvveal,th~,t whom the exclusive y a

policy of his supporters is about to sever from thetUnion-A--I ask,

the meaning of that impressive language at the Proclamation a

meeting in Fanerlil 'Ha,ll-A--—-i-‘i‘i When I .lO0lC a1'O11nCl upon the vast
assemblage that throng this Hall and crovvd these galleries, I
thank Almighty God that I have I the privilege of addressing them
as CITIZENS on 'rrrir;,iT.T1~t1?n:e’ STAT-as-—-buit‘ Almighty God only

knows if vvhenl meet them again, they will have any other title 

than crrrzmvs 014* lV[iASSACHtISETTSt..”’X“ ‘ A
A And vvhat ivvas it that called forth this solemn invocation, and
threatened us with the loss at the title of ‘citizens of ‘the United

States? i It vvas the South Catolirta doctrine that she wasthe only A

State whoqhadgot “any” character ‘ or'1ov“e for the Constitution, ‘with

ac Speech of Hon. Daniel Webster.

28

her eleven obstinate votes for the South Carolina candidate. And
who made this invocation? The man whose friends now ask us
to stick to “solitary grandeur”and give the fourteen obstinate votes"
of Massachusetts to the “Massachusetts candidate !”--——the man
-who in 1833, exclaimed in the face of the nation--“ when I say
our counzryl mean from Penobscot to New Orleans,”--—-bn't who
shows he now means, that when a Massachusetts man hereafter
talks of his country he shall mean only from Nantucket to Wil-
Jliamstovvn I W I
In the name of the Constitution, in the name of this whole
-”Union, I charge upon the “Massachusetts candidate” and his sup-
«porters, by their policy of running a single State candidate for
President against the Nation, the design virtually to take from us
the title of citizens ofwthe United States, and leave us only the
title of citizens of Massa,cl1usetts.p p I
I charge it upon him for suffering his supporters to make him
alter the original purpose of his letter of February 27, 1836, in
which he intended honorably and irrevocably to have “ withdrawn
-this name from the place it occupied before the public in Connection
with the approaching election.” I charge him with assuming a
:.g1'.0und Wholly untenable, in his decdaration tohis political friends
tinthat letter of intended declination-~_--“I shall not separate from
you nor from -those principles which We have hitherto m.a:intained,_
-and which .I-trust ,W7:%.$l1all continue to maintain, Whether in ma-
jorities or minorities, ,or in prosperous or adverse circumstances.
Ifi-in your topinion, our;,.comg,~zo7z principles and com’/“n.07t cause, not-
-withstandingwhat.has,occurred, do still require of me that I remain
tirbmy PTESBHI -.,PL0S.iti9.r1., I $hall,qth,9erfully abide by your determina-~
etion.”

What ‘Eco-namon “principle,-t’ ,_a,m_d'_ what “common cause,” had
/the “ Massa.=chu-setts-candidate” and .his suPP°Tte"$‘ hlthert° maim‘
stained‘? If .it were a common cause with a single other State in.
rthe Uniien, °th.e.n -is the “common cause” abandoned, for Massaw
tchusetts insists upon maintaining the ¢.macm'nm0n cause of support»-
fling 51 candidnte‘fo;r»gth‘e lPresi.dency allalone .by herself, disregarding
:alike the “cdj¥1<fj3}1‘0n t;é§fig§"’ «of “ minorities and majorities,” in every

totharfiteite in :»,‘he Uniaan. The only ~¢‘,com~mon cause? our oppo-v
_ twlltfittaflk of her 3 nae; is, that of running Massachusetts against.
th 9 :.Wor1~d~.....the L; ‘_€,omm,g;t cause” -which her leaders, Wlth the 935"“

cam‘ »¢en,nf_y§Le_v£,. n 3, I ‘ears @1133 @f ?Fl1irty+s_ever1, {have fiorever maintained

‘s2>,,,_m H

29

and forever been defeated in, that of opposing State to. Nation"!
always sufficiently exclusive and bigoted, but never before, in the
worst of times, narrowed down as it now is, to the little circle. of ,a
single solitary State.

“ Principles hitherto maintained! 1” What principles? Who
told us in 1832 and ’33, that “ Nullification was rebellion, it was
disunion by force, it was secession by force, it was civil war, it was
despotism.” Who in July, 1833, told the people of Pennsylvania
that our “ Patriotic Chief Magistrate,” “ true to every duty,” had

“by the signal expression of public opinion,” through his procla-‘

mation, “put down the despotism of Z\/'zrZZg'ficatz'o9z.” " And who in
December, 1833, five months afterward, concerted with those Nul-
lifiers to aid them in their revenge of putting down the President
for having put down Nullification?

Who in 1833, proclaimed to the world, that “taking no counsel
but of patriotism, he felt himself bound to yield not a lame and
lresitatixig but a cordial and efficient support to the measures of
the patriotic Chief lVlagistrate,”rwho had rescued the Union from
Nullification? And who, five months afterward, stood side by
side, with the chief of the Nullifiers, in the Senate, in support of
that unconstitutional resolve, giving the sentence without the . trial
of impeachment:-w

“Resolved, That the President in the late executive proceedings in relation
to the revenue, has assumed upon himself authority and power not conferred
by the COI'J.Sl1lll1llOD. and laws, but in derogation of both.”

How came the “defender of the Constitution” and of the Pro-
clamation, and the defender of clisunion and Nullification, with
their mutual friends, to find “common principles and a common
cause,” against the administration? Assuredlythe time will come
when they will wish that this proof of the “common cause” between
the “defenders of the Constitution” and the defenders of Nullifi-
cation, were “ expunged” forever from the record.

Did it become a great and magnanirnous statesman, and a party
claiming all the virtue, and all the devotion to the constitution, to
avail themselves of the revenge of disappointed Disunionists,
smarting under the Proclamation and the Force Bill, and combine
with Nullifiers to put down the President for having put them
down—-to place upon the records of the Senate an unconstitutional

1 sentence of condemnation against the author of that Proclamation,

30

and to refuse a place on those records to the answer of the
President against a judgment of impeachrnent Without the trial?

If there Were any just pretence for making a “common cause,”
among the opponents of Mr. Van Buren, Why have they not united
on a com.-222092. candidate? Were they truly seeking to, advance
“common, principles,” and not merely to elevate particular men
of particular sections of the opposition, in a sheer personal struggle
for power and ofice, would they quarrel among themselves about
the individual who was to be selected to sustain those “common
principles,” by his election to the Presidency? Did the defenders
of Liberty, (like the present pretended “defenders of the Consti-
tution,”) thus quarrel, and contend and sever, in I'Bg'211'(l. to the man
who was to be selected to head the armies, or preside over the
Congress of the Republic? Where is the love of country, if the
salvation of the country depends upon the election of a candidate
of the opposition against the candidate of the Democracy? How
comes it that three sectional factions of these pretended exclusive
patriots of the opposition, are each so tenacious for their particular
man, that neither will support the other?

Do they find any such examples of patriotism in history ?’7i°
When the Liberty of Greece depended on the defeat of Xerxes,
Themistocles, as the head of the Republic of Athens, one of the
united States, was entitled to the command of the combined fleet

r

=l< The supporters of the Massachusetts candidate have one precedent for their <loct1'im.- of
divide and conquer, in an authority much higher with them than Tlioniistocles, 1\’ia.jor Li';‘.on_i:i-_
min Russell. In 1816, when the Federalists (who have since been foiemost in exiltjigririe of the
good (lead M-unroe) were foremost in opposing the good lioiazg Munroe, and found tllollt‘15:(:lW.'.:‘:i
reduced to the same desperate, hopeless opposition the Wliigs now are :ig:=iirist. Mr. Van ]3ux'cn,
Major Russell, their oracle, put forth the following doctrine directly in point :i--

rFrom the Boston Centinel of February 28, anti May 1, 1816.],

y“ The Federalists are mere lookers on. As yet they cannot see much ciit‘t‘e1'cnc.c ill 1°ottcn
apples, and they have no hopes of sound ones being‘ ofl'erod them. Whether the country is to
have a weak Monroe, a moderate Crawford, or a vain Tompkins, she, poor soul, must still, like

Issachar, be home down with heavy burdens of Democracy. ,

“If the Federalists will do their duty manfully--take magnanimous ground, malts no nomi‘~
nation, but choose good and great men for Electors, and leave them to their unbiassed choice,
they can contribute largely to the salrqatiozn. of the country, by dashing in pieces the accurseal
Virginia succession.” ‘ M

The moral of this is instructive. The same men, the then Whigs, who declared’ that the

salvation of the country depended on defeating Mr. Monroe, and the “ accursed Virginia sue-,

cs-ssion,” (just as they now tell: of saving the country by defeating the “ accursed succession”

of Martin Van Buren,) four years after shouted for President Monroe, just. as they will shout for

President Van Buren four years hence. In 1820,’ the men who had most opposed Mr. i1VIo'nr0,e,
urged it as an argumentagainst the election of Eustis for Governor, and in favor of Otis, that
“ the relations of llldassachusetts, to the National Government, are of the most confidential and
acceptable character,” thus ‘boasting that they were in the confidence of thel‘—‘.rottsn apple}?

“ the weak Monroe,” whose election, four years before, they declarcdtwottld ruin the country !,

31

’of the Peloponnesians, which was directed to destroy the maritime
armament of Xerxes. Contentions arose among the friends of the
generals of each of the combined States, as to which should be
selected to command the Grecian fleet. The obstinacy of the
generals in this sectional division would have proved fatal to the
“ common cause” had not Themistocles freely relinquished his
pretensions, and magnanimously nominated his rival Eurybiades,
master of the expedition. Who would not rather have the fame
of Themistocles for that act, than to have it recorded o~f__him that
he stuck to “solitary grandeur” and got (or lost‘) the fourteen votes
of a single State for President of a Republic of twenty-six States,
having 294 votes ?

And to get these fourteen votes, is the only hope, the grand
result, the “being, end and aim” of those who pretend to support
“clommon principles and a common cause,” by sticking to the
“ Massachusetts candidate.” To What has V this unwise policy
brought our once honored Commonwealth? It has united her to
Disunionists, and severed her from the Democracy of the Country
—-—It has obstinateiy persisted in opposing the Government “ whe-
ther in majorities or minorities” at home, until at last it has quar-
relled with every minority as well as majority, in every other State
of the Union.

It has disfranchised in the Nation those of her citizens, who but
for this bigoted policy, might have been foremost in state and
Nation---because it has rendered Massachusetts politics sovodious
to the country, that the more able, talented and distinguished a
man of Massachusetts politics is, the more he is suspected and
shunned by the people.

This has been the practical operation of the Massachusetts policy
of state against nation after a thorough trial of thirty out of thirty-
seven years. Almost for the last time the question is now put to
us, to the young men of Massach.usetts-----sltall we carry out this
‘policy in stall/try "‘ grandeur,” and become indeed nothing buticitizens
of Massachusetts, arrogantly, conceitedly claiming to belong to the
only State that has got any character left, or any citizen fit to be
President?

Was this the doctrine, the practice or the predicament of Massa-
chusetts, vvhen foremost in the tight, and foremost in the Council,
she stood acknowledged by all, at the head of the struggling Re-
public in the Times that tried men’s souls?

32

Ask these venerable men, the fathers of this day, and of our
Libertiesfi“ the blessed relics of the great struggle for the Rights
of Man, some few of whom we are permitted yet to meet, and
mingle our devotions with theirs on the altar of Freedom»--Ask
them if “ Solitary grandeur” was the doctrine of Massachusetts in
the days of the Revolution? Did Massachusetts ever desert or
denounce her sister States, or abandon the field or the council,
because she could not carry her own measures or her own men?
Did she insist that she possessed all the wisdom, all the wealth,
all the valor, all the virtue, all the purity, all the patriotism, and
that the country would and 372-ould go to ruin, if it did not follow
her advice and give the highest seats of power to her citizens?

Far from it.—--These venerable men will tell you, and_ history
will tell you, that though Massachusetts was first to resist the
stamp act, Virginia was first, and after her all the Provinces, to
declare unitedly against the Right of Parliament to lay taxes in
A.merica—--They will tell you that it Was the rmited agreement of
the Colonies, in a solemn covenant, to resist the Taxes by neither
importing nor using British Manufactures, that gave spirit to the
Boston Boys when they seized the odious Stamp Act on its first
arrival in the country---—hawked it about the streets with a Death’s
Head affixed to it over the motto “ folly of England and Ruin of
Arnerica”----and then burnt it in the public square ! .

They will tell you that the first movement of resistance here
was followed by circular letters, sent from Massachusetts Colony to
all the rest, setting forth the injustice and Tyranny of the British
Legislature, and calling on them to join——‘‘ WILL YOU JOIN Us,”
was the memorable appeal of Massachusetts to her sister New
York, Whose Assembly, for their undaunted behavior in uniting
with Massachusetts to resist the quartering of British troops, had
been deprived of Legislative powers—-——“ WILL YOU‘ Jom Us,” was
the call of Massachusetts; and what was the answer of New York?
Was it “solitary grandeur?” Was it YES, p7'om'ded our George
Clinton, and not your John Hancock is to be President of Congress?
No—-It was the emphatic, laconic, generous reply of devoted paw
triotism, “ WE WILL JOIN I” ,

They will tell you that the Boston Port Bill, which closed only
the port of Boston and left those of the other Colonies .free~p--«was

* There were present sixteen veterans of the Revolution, who participated in the observances
of the day.

33

not regarded as an affair of solitary suffering or “solitary gran-A
deur,” but as a public calarnity,——-a “ common cause,” that the
cause of Boston forthwith became the cause o-f all the Colonies,
and that in generous Virginia (an example followed by New York
and most of the Provinces,) the first of June, the day on which the
port of Boston was to be shut—Was set apart as a day of public
humiliation; and a public prayer in favor of America was en-
joined “ that God would give the people one heart and one mind,
firmly to oppose every invasion of the American Rights.” They
will tell you that though Virginia was first to recommend a general
Congress of all the Colonies, Massachusetts did not refuse to join
an that account, nor didher Delegates withdraw from the Congress
in “solitary grandeur,” "because Pnrron RANDOLPH of Virginia
was chosen President, instead of ‘Jot-IN Hauoocic of Massachusetts.

They will tell you, that when the first Congress assembled in
Philadelphia, September 1774, its first act -was an approval of the
conduct of Massachusetts Bay, and an exhortation to continue in
the same spirit in which theyihad begun-rt-That so far from the

other Colonies leaving tMassachusetts in ~‘-‘ solitary grandeur” to V ,

sustain alone the ca-useof freedom (as it is now pretended her
sister States leave herto sustain alorne, the Constitution) it was
solemnly declared by the Congress, that in case of attempts to
enforce the obnoxious acts by arms, all America should join to
assist the town of Boston !----and in the Address of the Congress
to General Gage, they told him, point blanlr, that it was the ‘fixed
determination of all the other Provinces to support their Brethren
in Massachusetts. , t V i ,

They will tell you too, .of that :noble»act of magnanimity, on the

‘ part of Massachusetts, in the Congresseitot W5 ; when the delicate
question came up on the: appointment of a,Commander in Chief,

and when her iDelegate, that sturdy friend and elder «brother of
American Liberty, SAMUEL ADAMS, poor in purse but peerless in
purpose; after consultatio.-n with his illustrious namesake Jornxr
ADAMS, promptly and cheerfully yielding the prior claims of Mas-
sachusetts in the person of her Commander in Chief, General
Ward, and her Hero of Bunker Hill, the gallant Prescott----himself
seconded the nomination by his colleague, of Gnonen WASHINGTON
of Virginia, a young man of 43, who had not then unsheathed his
sword or struck a blow against the British, and who for twenty
years had been living in the retirement of a country gentleman
5

34

with little other military fame, than the remembrance of his
gallantry in the defeat of Braddock,—-and on that nomination
prophetic of Freedom, the future Father of his Country was
unanimously placed at the head of the United Armies of the
Confederation. ;

Let those, Who, if the present‘ State policy is longer pursued
here, will soon have to see the defeat of Massachusetts with her
“solitary” candidate, and be made painfully sensible of the odium
and contempt with which her obstinate and ill natured political
course will be regarded, by both ‘minorities and majorities in the
other States--——let them anticipate a little how they will then fee _.
by reflecting with What sentiment we and the world would read
that part of our history which relates this noble act in the choice
of Geo.rge Washington, if it had been set down on that glorious
page,-i.-—-that Samuel and John Adams, Delegates from Massachu-
setts, nominated General Artemas Ward as the “Massachusetts
candidateg” declaring in the language of the Resolves of the
supporters of the exclusive candidate for the‘ Presidency, that
Massachusetts would only march, “beneath the banner, with the
name of her champion General Ward, in the centre of the field,
well assured that if our beloved country is to conquer in the
struggle, it must be beneath this sign,”---that on the other Colonies
dissenting and proposing George Washington, and refusing to
take up the Massachusetts man-t----the two Adamses, with Hancock,
Gorham and Gerry, in high dudgeon, told the Delegates of the
other States that they were false to themselves, false to Massa-
chusetts, and false to General Ward 3--that Massachusetts was the
only State that had got any character left, and that “let who
would follow or who would fly,” they and their colleagues would
clear out, go home, wrap themselves up inttheir own exclusiveness,
vote for General Ward and nobody else,and ‘stick to “solitary
gmndeur.” ' t t V

I say then, in the name of the young men of Massachusetts,-—
to those political leaders who, because neither the majorities nor
the minorities of other States will talre their man for President,
‘exhort us to wrap ourselves up, in angry, disappointed exclusive-
-ness, and withdraw from all sympathies with the other States in
the election of Chief Magistratempoint out to us that chapter or
verse in the whole Revolutionary history of Massachusetts, where
you find a text for this modern doctrine of “ solitary, grandeur.-”

35

Now, Fellow-citizens, is it not time to change this policy of
State against Nation? In the language of Mr. Jefferson, has not
“ one side of this experiment been long enough tried, and proved
not to promote the good” of the rnany',-M-and the other not been
fairly and sufficiently tried ?” ' t

For thirty-seven yearsgtever since parties were formed in the
Republic, the ;M‘as‘sachusett‘s policy has been in opposition. tothe

general governrnent,-—'-with barely the exception of the sulky sub- M

mission to the second term of Mr. Monroe (just as will be reluc-
tantly conceded to the second term of Mr. Van Buren; if the State
goes against him the first) and the four years of the younger
Adams, wholcould not be elected the second time, ‘solely because
he had been ostensibly, though '“ treacherousl»y” and with smothered
hate, supported by the ultra F’ecl’eralist's ofB'o'ston; Such is the
odiurn of the policy of those political leaders’ (the former ultra
Federalists, the present “solitary” Whigs; “the base- compound
of Hartford Convention Federalism and Royal“'Arch Masonry”) in
the eyes of the nation, that they have lost all power out " of the
State except to repel. ,.Whoever is known to be in their confidence
and under their dictation, be” his talents never so eminent, the
nation will not trust. Andtfor the plain reason that the creed of
those men is that the people are not to be trusted ;—'--«-for the plain
reason that their whole political course has been a systematic de-
monstration of the truth of the declaration of the first statesman in
New England, (Joan QUINCY ADAMS) that “treachery is their
nature and their lvocatiorn—--—theyll1‘ave no honest principle to keep
them together, and their only cement is a sympathy .of hatred to
everyrnan of purer principles than themselves.”  ”

It was alone the belief t that the author of this emphatic truth
was himself in the confidence of these men in 1828, and the em-
barrassmentswhich the ultra‘ Federal leaders in Boston, by their
treacherous support, threw in the way of Mr. Adams, that rendered
his upright and truly Republican Administration fatally unpopular
withtthe country. It was this same odium of Massachusetts poli-
tics which stuck like the poisoned shirt of Nessus, to the once
strong man of the West, the political Hercules of Kentucky, and

‘ rendered him powerless in the nation. a t m

Now what have those who have governed the majorities of
Massachusetts for nearly thirty-seven years done for the State?
Where have they placed her in the National scale? They had

36

her with a rich and glorious inheritance of fame with her sister
States. During the whole war of the Revolution her preeminence
was never questioned. Her relative patriotism in the number of
her troops stood paramount to all. The first year of the war,
Massachusetts raised sixteen thousand Continental Troops, and
the other twelve States but eleven thousand; the second year, she
raised thirteen out of forty-six thousand ; the third, eight thousand
out of thirty-four thousand; in 1778, «seven thousand out of thirty-
two thousand; in 1779, six: thousand out of tvventyeseven thou--

sand; in 1780, four thousand five hundred out of twenty-one

thousand ; in 1781, three thousand seven hundred out of thirteen
thousand eight hundred; and in 1783, four thousand three hun-
dred out of thirteen thousand; makingta total‘ of siXty—“eight thou»-
sand soldiers in the Continental Army raised by ,l\/lassachusetts
alone, out of two hundred and thirty-‘-one thousand nine hundred

1 seventy-one, the whole nurnher raised in the thirteen States;-l-—thus

giving almiost one-third of the regular troops of the Whole thirteen
States to Massachusetts. 1 1 t l S

It was reproachfully asked by La Whig Oratorfx‘ at the celebra-ll
tion of the Landing of the Fathers, in 1835, in relation to Massa-
chusetts, “First in the fight, what place has she found at the
feast?” 1 I answer, that grurnbler as she has been with her cry
of rain for forty years, she has nevertheless had Benjarnin’s mess
at the feast. Her sister States always ge-nerously confided in her
so long as she showed the least disp'osi*ti‘on to confide in them.
She has received all the "national honors for her citize-ns, in compa-
rison with other States, which she had any fair «right to expect.
It is a fact that notwithstanding all the terrors of prescription so
vehemently declairned and wept over for the last seven years, ‘by
those who have invariably proscribed the minority in the State;
more of her citizens have held high places since the Revolution
and since the adoption of the Constitution, than thoseof any other
State in the Union, not excep'ting Virginia. Massachusetts has
had three Presidents of the Continental Congress, and two Presi-
dents under the Constitution. She has had two Vice Presidents,
eighteen Heads of Departrnents-,--six rnernbers of the ,Supreme
Judiciary, and fourteen Ministers to Foretign Courts ; in all, forty»
four citizens to fill the highest places of power.

I-Ion. Peleg Sprague.

37

Virginia, with double the population of Massachusetts, in the
same time has held but zltirtyfive National toffices in the Admin-
istration; viz. five Presidents, no Vice President, nine Heads of
Departments, five members of the J udicidry, and sixteen Ministers
to fo'rei.gn Courts. t

Peamsyloamat has had but nineteen of her citizens in the Admi-
nistration, viz. nine Heads of Departments, three Judges and one
Attorney, General, and six foreign Ministers—--—whi1e New Yonir,
first in the Confederacy, first in commerce, population and wealth,
and second to none in intelligence and enterprise,‘ has never had
but T’WENTY-ONE of her citizens in the General Government, viz. :
no President, four Vice Presidents, five Heads of Departments,
three Judges and one Attorney General, and eight foreign Minis-

- ters. Thus has Massachusetts received far the largest share of

hone-rs*o’f any State, and a greater amount than the two great
States of Pennsylvania and New York together.

And yet-Massachusetts is now presented in the churlish attitude
of quarrelling with all her sister States, because they will not let
her have another President!

In vain New York presents her favorite rand most distinguished
son ; a man Without a shadow of just reproach from the. bitgprest
of enemies, in the purity of private life, and personal honor. And
who is he? A citizen of humble origin, without the aide of Wealth
or powerful friends, and against unscrupulous and powerful oppo-
sition, rising step by step to the second office in the gift of the
people---wliose greatest offence in the eyes of the Aristocracy is
that he has always adhered to the Democracy, and never owned
a dollar of Bank Stock or any monied corporation since 1812. A
man from the people and of t the people; whose whole public life
has been opposed to all secret or open Combinations and Mono-
polies of men or money, designed to secure -exclusive advantages
to the few at the expense of the many-—--the man who patriotically

. yielded the State pride of supporting a citizen of New York for

the Presidency, in 1813, the moment it became apparent that the
support of Mr. Clintoninirolved opposition to the country in sus-
taining the war. The efficient, energetic and eloquent advocate
of the measures that brought to an honorable termination the
second war for National Independence :—--at the age of thirty-one,
foremost in sustaining the Democratic Senate of New York
against a federal majoritv in the House of Assembly; vindicating

38

with all the fervor of youthful. patriotism, the honor of the country,
and rousing the people of the Empire State to come to her rescue,
in the hour of her utmost ne'ed~—-—the man to whom, it may almost
be said, that the nation owes it,’ that in the nearly equal struggle
between the contending parties in 1813 and ’14, New York was
found on the side of Madison and the country, instead of being
seated with her Delegates in the secret conclave of the Hartford
Convention. The man whose enemies charge him with intrigue,
and when pushed for proof, get off by saying he is too cunning to
be found out! A charge which he has met, notwithstanding its
vagueness, with a fearless openness that has silenced his accusers,
and evinced a perfect consciousness of unswerving rectitude and

p prudence in all his political intercourse with friend or foe. Listen

to his answer to the National Convention which nominated him
for the Presidency,land then say in common candor, whether a

ntan of practised political intrigue could dare thus to open his .

“ private” correspondence and most confidential relations with
former political friends who are new political foes. .

“I have neither solicited the aid nor sought the support of my mom. in
reference to the high office for which I have been nominated. For the trutlz.
of this declacation, I can safely appeal to the hundreds of honorable men who
composed the recent Convention.-—--to the numerous editors and politiciarzs
throughout the Union, who have distinguished me by their preference, and to
my private correspondents and intimate friends, not excepting the considerable
number of persons once my friends and associates, whom the fluctuations of po-
litical life have converted into opponents. In none of these classes, or in any
other of our community, is there at man who can truly say, THAT I HAVE sort»
CITED ms POLITICAL surronr, on run: I mvs nnrsnnn on SOUGI-IT TO ENTER
wire HIM nvro ANY ARRANGEMENT, cro BRING ABOUT THE Nortrmrron wrncu I
Have NOW RECEIVED, on T0 SECURE MY ELEVATION ro TI-IE Cr-mar IVIAG-IS'1‘I{ACY or
THE COUNTRY.” M. VAN BUREN.

Can language embrace a broader, more open and more fearless
challenge to the world for a particle _of proof of dishonorable means
to secure ambitious ends? They say it is “non-commitz‘aZ,” and
so it is—-non-committal to wrong. But when before, was it held
a crime in a Presidential candidate, that he had been so moderate,
so circumspect, so just, so prudent, so wise, so uniform so saga»
cious, that in a long course of active public life he had never com-»

mitted himself ‘ to a wrong policy, or a disgraceful act---and never

confided to a friend who has become a foe, a single selfish, weak or
wicked design? ‘ l l l .
Whicli of the candidates, whose partisans so vehemently de-

nounce “Mr. Van'~Buren as the ‘Magician of intrigue, dares to take

39

this ordeal of his honesty? What man of common candor and
commonrhonesty, who has seen this bold challenge stand for more
than a year unanswered, can doubt that those of us, who by listen-
ing to the false assertions of false presses, and not having the
leasure or the means to get at the truth while we were connected
with other parties, once thought or said that Martin Van Buren
was the “, High Priest of political intrigue,” have done him great
injustice? And if so, is it more honorable to aim at obstinate con-
sistency by persisting in injustice because we were once deceived,
or to retract error of opinion founded on false facts invented by
enemies, when convinced by the force of truth?

My answer to those who charge me with the folly which I freely
admit, of once having been so credulous as to mistake some of their
falsehoods for truth, in this matter, is-p--~“ where is your proof, which
you have been so long challenged to produce? What I had only
/zeard from you, that Mr. Van Buren was suspected of having done
to secure a nomination and an election for the Presidency, I know
that some, whose partisans so loudly charge him with intrigue
have t/temselvestdone. Let either of your Whig candidates dare
the trial that he has invited, and if no one answers, I will admit
that they are immaculate.” I

Where is there an impartial and disinterested man, who has
borne specific testimony against the candidate, of the Democracy?
Were it proper in a public Address, I could name two of the most
learned and pious divines in two New England States, whose

political sympathies are with the party opposed to Mr. Van Buren ;

men eminent for the high places they adorn, and for many years
intimately acquainted with him, who will tell you (as all who best

know him will tell you,) that his character is abovereproach, his
disposition mild, moderate, and extremely forbearing--his respect

forreligion exemplary, his habits temperate, pure and self-denying,
his talents of the highest order and his integrity unimpeachable.
These and many more facts, and my personal knowledge of the
means resorted to, to elevate the rivals of Mr. Van Buren, have
satisfied me that his character and conduct in point of political
honesty, will compare highly honorable to him, with-either of
them,‘ or any of their vehement supporters.

Why then, when our sister New York presents through a Na-
tional Convention this her favorite son, with all her accumulated
claims upon us to unite with her in a common interest and a

40

common cause, should we persist in severing Massachusetts from
the rest of the Union ?‘ Why with our mouths full of protestations
against the danger of sectional parties, should we refuse to support
the only candidate who is not sectional, and who is supported in
all parts of the Union, North, South, East and West?

In vain New York, to whom we are bound by every tie of com-
mon interest and common enterprise, extends to Massachusetts all
the benefits of her magnificent internal improvements, and seeks
to unite the two states in the iron bands of union from the Atlantic
to the Hudson from the Hudson to the Ohio and the extreme
Lakes. Our political managers tell us we must vote millions to
make a New York Rail Road, but we must rail down every at-
tempt to give a single vote to make a New York President.

In vain New York points to the fraternal relations between us
from the foundation of the Republic, and appeals to the relative
official power the two states have held in the government :-«Mas-
sachusetts with her four Presidents, New York with none, Massa-
chusetts with her two Secretaries of State, New York with one--'—
Massachusetts with her nine Secretaries of the Treasury, the War
and the Navy, and her two Postmasters General, and five Comp»
trollers--——and New York with her three Secretaries of all those
departments. Massachusetts with her six: Supreme Judges and
Attorney Generals, and New York with *four—--Massachusetts with
her fourteen Foreign Ministers, and New York but eight—--—ln vain
she reminds Massachusetts of the answer of New York to her call
in the Revolution--—-“ will you join?” The answer to all this (if
the party now in power in Massachusetts is to give it,) is “ No”--—
“Rather than we should join New York, let Massachusetts be

blotted frornit/ze map forever ! ‘ Solitary grandeur’ is our motto,

we WILL NOT JOIN.”

Can the descendants of the Yeomanrytof Massachusetts, who
fought the first battles of Liberty at Concord, Lexington and Bun-
ker Hill-—-the sons of the Mechanics of Massachusetts, who in
1’78;7,twhen her assent was wanting as the ninth State to adopt,
and thus carry into elfect our glorious Constitution; and who,
when such potriots as even Samuel Adams and Patrick Henry had

i their doubts on that measure, assembled at the Green Dragon in

Boston and filled the streets in such a mass as could not be num-
bered, and there resolved that the Union of the States was indis-
pensable and Massachusetts must join her sister States-—--Can we,

41

the sons of such sires, consent to blot Massachusetts from the
map forever, rather than have her once more restored to her high
place in the Nation, and resume her station as a social and not a
“solitary” member of this great Confederation of free States?
Why, what cause of quarrel has Massachusetts with all her
sister States? I appeal to the mothers and daughters of the
Commonwealth by whom I am surrounded; if this is the lesson
they teach in the family union around our firesides? Must the
eldest born always rule the house, or turn shrew if she cannot, and
make it too hot to hold the rest? We have seen, notwithstanding
her ill-humored and unconfiding course, how long the other States
generously bore with their eldest sister--—how long in grateful
remembrance of her pre-eminent services in the Revolution, they
continued even while she persisted in settled opposition to the
settled policy of the country and the determined will of the people
----to concede to her through her distinguished citizens, a higher
favor than was accorded to any other State--«until the final catas-
trophe of her illiberal and narrow policy, placed her out of the pale
of the Union in 1828---a policy ever since growing more and more

i bigotted, until now her only watch word is indiscriminate opposi-

tion,»----her only hope to defeat the will of the people Fl‘?

To whom do we owe it that this is so? Who have squandered '

the rich inheritance of honor and preeminence in the nation, which
our fathers left us? Let the history of the men to Whom Massa-
chusetts has confided her political destinies answer, Up to 180],
she stood at the head of the Republic, tThe:reherfT leaders resolved
she should stand, and resist the march of social progress. p i l ,
VIRGINIA. came in with her liberal doctrines headed by Jefferson,
andenforced by Madison, and as she deserved to do, took the lead
in the nation. From that time to this, the systems of i the two
opposite schools of Virginia and Massrachusetss, have been fairly
and fully tested before the whole people. If the voice of the people
be indeed the voice of God, who can doubt, form the results of this
experiment, that a recent liberal writer from abroad, who has pro-
foundlyexamined our political institutions, is right when he says
-----“ to attemptto arrest democracy is a struggle against Heaven
itself.” a

* “Give liberal support to the measures of: Ggvernment when right, that you may _be credited
when you show they are wrong. Inuiscnmtnate opposition rs see no return non against
péeip, but it demonstrates that the minority are in fault.” SAMUEL DE ER, ebruary 14,

6

42

How has Massachusetts gone on in this long struggle of the
party of power with the party of the people ; the party of money
with the party of the many; the party of established abuses with
the party of social progress; the party of Aristocracy with the
party of Democracy? Let the votes of the people answer.

In the Presidential election of 1800, the party of which Massa-
chusetts stood at the head, was in a minority of 65 electoral votes
-———the party of Virginia had '73 votes. '

In 1804, such was the progress of the liberal doctrines of Vir-
ginia, that the leaders in Massachusetts, though they retained the
state power, had already exhausted opposition to Jefferson, who,
(to the everlasting honor of our Commonwealth be it spoken)
received the 162 electoral votes of this State and every State in the
Union except Connecticut, Delaware and two votes of Maryland,
in all fourteen votes, which were given to the federal candidate,
Charles C. Pinckney.

That is one bright spot in the history of Mas.sach,usett,s. The
leaders, in seeking to make sure of all, by changing the mode of
election from districts to a general ticket, lost all, by the yeomanry
rising in their iinight, and declaring they would not go against the
author of the Declaration of Independence. Is there not another
bright spot to illuminate the page of our future history, by the
sons of that same yeornanry, rising in their might next fall, and
placing Massachusetts beside New York? When I put this ques-
tion to the young men of Massachusetts, I know they will answer
me in the spirit General Miller did when asked if he could
carry the enemy’s redoubt in the battle of Niagara, “we WILL
rev.” , t t

iThe leaders, however, thwarted the people who had voted for
Jefferson, and kept Massachusetts in the ranks of opposition. In
1808, Nlassachusetts with all New England except Vermont, and
with Delaware, twovotes in Maryland and three in North Caro-
lina, was in a minority of 47 forPickney. '

Democratic Vermont, and the other States, gave to*Madison,
the friend and disciple of" Jefferson, 122 votes;

In 1812, Massachusetts, with all New England except the Green
IV.-[ountain State, and with New York, New Jersey,,Delaware, and
rfivevoteys in ‘Maryland, went for DeAWitt Clinton, who had 89
vot‘es.j1jiL‘~Mad_ison had 128, and _was.chosen.l   it ‘ V i T t it

In 1816, Massachusetts was left nearly solus,ancl with only

43

Connecticut and Delaware gave Rufus King 34 votes, to 183 for ’

Monroe. I A

Again in 1820, the people, wearied with useless opposition,
broke from their leaders, and all New England and all the Union
went for Monroe. I I

In 1824, all parties, republican and federal, were broken up by
the multiplicity of Candidates. New England went united for
Adams, and he was chosen by the House of Representatives, but
Massachusetts still was in the minority with the people.

In 1828, New England again Went for Adams, but the people
of the other States, from sheer distrust of Massachusetts policy,
elected Jackson. In the elections of 1824 and 1828, Massacliusetts,
by adopting a republican candidate, found hernself in a strong and
commanding minority of 84 votes, with all New England, New
Jersey, Delaware, and a part of New York, Maryland, Louisiana
and Illinois. [Jackson had 99 votes in 1824, and 178 in 1828.]

This arose from the fact that a large portion of the genuine
Democracy, here, as well as throughout the Union, were always
with J OHN QUINCY ADAMS; the man whom of all “others the leaders
of the Massachusetts school have most feared for his moral courage,
and mental superiority, and hated most for his political integrity,
and uniform preference of country to party. .

In 1832, Massachusetts came back to the old minority point she
had started from TWENTY-FOUR YEARS before, and was beaten, for
Clay, with Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, Kentucky and
Maryland in part, giving 49 votes to 219 for Jackson. ,

, For the rest, the pen of history is just about to record, eitherthat
in 1836, Massachusetts was restored to the family of the States by
giving her vote for the candidate of the Democracy, or that, after
driving from her every State in the Union, she was left alone in
“solitary grandeur,” with fourteen votes for the Massachusetts
candidate, or with unpledged Electors to make a shifting balance

I to be used,  defeating a Northern candidate and aid the “ mono-

poly” of Southern Presidents, which her leaders have pretended so
vehemently to deprecateill‘ I

* [From the Boston Centinel of January, 1824.] “We are upon every fair principle, entitled
to have a Northern Presidemyand unlesstwe succeed now, the chance of future success will
be entirely desperate."

This was the argument when the Boston leaders reluctantly consented to support Mr. Adams.
The same men now use the opposite argurnentt in support of a Southern candidate, to defeat
Mr. Van Buren. I V  - I I ‘

44

Now in all this history of uncompromising opposition, who can
show us any good? Wherein was a principle gained, or a policy
successfully opposed, that has turned out for the benefit of the
people? Would the country have been worse off‘, had Massachu~
setts taken the opposite course?

What son of Massachusetts is there, who would not rather have
it to say, that she had supported than opposed Thomas J efferson?
Let the eulogy on his life, pronounced at his death by the “ Lassa-
chusetts candidate” himself, in presence of thousands of those who
had denounced him as a “ visionary 1tADIoAL,”* answer.

Who is there that does not now regret that Massachusetts was
the foe of JAMES MADISON? In the midst of the rejoicings of a
Nation of freemen, we pause, in deep, solemn, sublime grief, to
listen to the messenger who has just brought us the tidings, that
the venerable MADISON, the “defende,1' of the Constitution” indeed,
in those eloquent appeals to the people to which we eminently owe
its adoption,---the last of the illustrious line of Revolutionary Pre-
sidents; has gone in the fulness of time and of fame to join the
glorious company of the just made perfect. The ever watchful
friend of the Liberty of the people, is now in the full fruition of the.
Liberty of the sons of God---Madison the good, the wise, the vir-
tuous, the learned, the patriotic, the democratic Madison, lives
only in the hearts of his countrymen!

Shall we not new behold another spectacle, such as we witnessed
at the death of Jefferson--—-of those who abused him most while
living, most eulogizing him when dead.i VVhy then shall we go
on at the bidding of these inconsistent men, forever to oppose with
them all our most eminent Statesrne.n,_ out of Massachusetts, while
they are living, only to join with them in pronouncing their eulogies
when they are dead!

FELLOW C1r1zsNs,_l thank you for having so long and so pa-
tiently listened to me. In no spirit of asperity, in no feeling of
unkindness to any man who diflers from me, in the exercise of the

* See Boston Centinel, January 21, 1824.

T “It is the constant tune of every weak or wicked Administration.” [Speech of Mr.
Webster, in {$14.1 .

“ Mr. Madison is least entitled to a. compliment for virtue and sincerity of any man in the
nation.” [Boston Gazette, 1814.] V

The prophecy in the text is fulfilled, while this Oration was in press. The fedemliststwho
most, abused, James Madison in the last war,» havetinvitegd. Ex~President Adams, (whom they
have equally abused heretofore) to pronounce his Eulogy. When Andrew Jackson dies, Mr.

Webster or Governor Everett will be his Eulogist.
x

1-Lela L "

45

glorious rightof FREE DISCUSSION, which should never be surren-
dered on any subject but with our lives; have I uttered these things.
I have sought, I hope not altogether in vain, to lift myself out of
the narrow sphere of Massachusetts politics, and to talge enlarged
views of policy, embracing the Union as a whole. I thank Almighty
God that I am a native citizen of Massachusetts, but I am not
content to be less than a citizen of the United States. From the
moment, fresh in memory, when as the son of a soldier of the
Revolution and a Democrat of the last war, with the shouts of a boy
of fifteen, I joined in the acclamations of the friends of their country
at the victory of the Constitution over the Guerriere, I have ardently
longed to join in shouts of joy at the triumph of Democracy in
Massachusetts. Oucel have heard those shouts, and I feel that

I shall hear them again. Massachusetts has had her Republican I

Eustis, why may she not have her democratic .MoItroN? The
fulness of the time has come. The, Republican family has been
divided ever since the amalgamations, the subdivisions and the new
organizations of parties from 1824. Friends to the same principles
have stood in false positions to each other, contending against each
other in the ranks of their old foes! But now, not only the original
supporters of Democracy, are withdrawing from unnatural alliances
and together coming up to the help of the people against the mighty;
but the the sensible, the moderate, the candid, the patriotic of those
whom the Massachusetts policy once arrayed against us, are now
with us in the full communion of the blessed spirit of the univer-
sality of equal rights and the alhpervading “ supremacy of law.”  

Let the door be thrown wide open to all. We shall ~knoW_hoW *

to trust the honest, and we have nothing to fear from’ even traitors
andspies inspecting all our defences. Let no Democrat reflect on
another, nor claim to have been a better or an elder soldier in the
cause, from having enlisted under any oneof the leaders, since
1824, all of Whom claimed, and were then believed‘ to be of the
Republican family. Let us not remember that one was for .CraW-
ford, one for Calhoun, another for Adams, a fourth for Clay, a fifth
for Jackson, and a sixth for the pupil and friend of Jefferson, the
lamented Wirt. It is the course of events, the tendency and con.-
solidation of principles, rather than the preference for this or that
man, that at last, after much confusion and much uncongenial
association, have clearly defined the lines between the party of
power and the party of the people, the party of Monopoly and the

46

party of ‘Democracy; and for the first time, opened the way, with
honor‘ to themselves and with justice to their cause and their
country, for every friend of Democratic and anti-monopoly prinw
ciples, to rally on common candidates, to sustain a commcm. cause.

Fellow citizens, I come here a democrat. I make no apology,
no recantation, for I find no inconsistency in’ the course I and my
friends have pursued. I glory in being with them an Antimason.
I became an Antimason because Iwas a Republican. I am a
Democrat because I am an Antimason. Antimasonry has been
one of the most efficient pioneers of Democracy in New England.
On the pure principle of opposition to exclusive privileges, and
Anti-Republican titles and distinctions, and in the steady support
of the supremacy of equal laws----it drew from the ranks of the
party of the Aristocracy, the party of consolidated power in this
State; thousands of its best and firmest men; men of conscien-
tious purpose, of moral courage, of inflexible perseverance in the
cause of equal rights. It placed them in a position, Where the
abuse, injustice, prescription and treachery of former political asso-
ciates, from whom otherwise, they never might have severed,
thoroughly disciplined them, from necessity, for independent action,
and constrained them, by the force of the principle they had
espoused, the moment the triumph of that principle was achieved
by public opinion, to ‘act with the Democracy of the Country, the
party of anti-monopoly opposed to exclusive privileges. The prin»
ciple of Antimasonry is opposition to a secret monopoly for the
benefit of the few at the expense of the many. Democracy, puri-
fied and devoted judiciously to the great purposes of beneficent
reform in social progress, is a much broader and deeper principle,
embracing our principle-——-a principle emphatically laid ‘down in
the Resolve of the Worcester Young Men’s Democratic Conven-
tion of September, 1835, “that ALL COMBINATIONS open or sscnnr
(all consolidations of wealth or influence by special. laws, designed to
accumulate power or wealth in large masses, for individual benefit)
are subversive of the just equality of the people, and by necessary
consequence disturb the equality and impartiality of the Govern»
ment and the Laws.” p y

This is the Democratic platform and this is Antirnasonry. On
that platform, not in the language of masonry, but of Democratic
equality,allYtrue Democrats maynow meet on the level; for no
man who; is a sincere Democrat, can be prepared to say or to show

4'?

that he loves masonry, Banks, or any other form of monopoly, bet-
ter than he loves Democracy, and the supremacy of the Laws.
And I am Well assured, my friends, that that portion of the Demo-
cratic party, who have fought the good fight of Antimasonry, and
are reaclyyto fight it again should the cause of equal rights require
it, will prove to demonstration, that they love and will sustain
Democracy, as Well as they have shown they love and have sus-
tained Antimasonry. They will bring to its defence, the same
inflexible purpose, untiring perseverance, willing sacrifice, moral
courage and thorough voluntary discipline, through which they
have with comparatively such small numbers and against such
fearful odds, begun, carried forward, and essentially perfected that
part of the work of beneficent reform. The democratic Antimasons
of Rhode Island and Connecticut have endorsed this pledge already.
Those of Massachusetts and Vermont will guara-nty it.

Let us then lay aside every weight and press forward to the
mark: of the supremacy of equal rights and equal laws in our
beloved Commonwealth. Taught wisdom by the distractions and
divisions and bigotryand persecutions and vain boasting of the
opponents of Democracy, let us think only of the common cause,
and forget men. If on the one hand, there are those among us
who do not go so far as we do in carrying out our common prin—-
ciples, as we construe them, yet, let us hear patiently with them as
others have borne with us, till they can come up with us in the
progress of reform, or we fall back, if they‘are right, upon their

position. If, on the other hand, there are those vvho'we think go

too fast, and Who, in their eagerness» to reform abuses, _would pull
down the old building about the ears of society, instead of removing
it stone by stone, let us still trust them without fear, to pioneer in
the cause; assured that they will return if they find one step
farther will take them out of the boundaries of true Democracy.
We have the heads, the hearts, the hands, ready and able to carry
through this cause and make another fourth of July, indeed, a
National Jubilee to Massachusetts. That triumph of liberal prin-

ciple over narrow policy will surely come, if we are all resolved

on /zczrmony----«sucli harmony as governed the Councils of our
Fathers, when in their first Declaration of the causes for declaring
Independendence, put forth by the American Congress of 1775,
they proclaimed to the world : D

“ OUR cause Is JUST, Our. UNION IS PE1_EtFEC'[‘.

48

My friends---the friends of Democracy-——we Imow our cause is
just—-—--it is the cause of the people, the cause of human rights.
Let our union, then, be perfect. Another birth day of our country
shall idawn upon the supremacy of the popular Will, freely, fear-
lessly expressed by the yeomanry of Masseachusettts. The days
of sEustis and Democracy shall oncetmore return to cheer us at
home, and to make us feel that as a State, we are respected abroad
—--and once more, we will proclaim to the world, in the patriotic
language of the Messageof a Republican Governor to a ,Republican
Legislature, in 1823:

“A new era is formed in the history of this Commonwealth-W
the State is restored to the confidence of ‘her sister States, and her
character is redeemed in the estimation of the patriots of our own
country and of every statesman in Europe.”