YALE UNIVERSITY LIBBARY

.i*^?^'^'-''- '^'' ---

;*;«

ria.l]lwf^"'5en,janiin • Frariiclin
An oration delivered ... by req^iest .of a committee
of dernoci'atic citisens.
Boston, 1836.

f' ^-T' /f

Cbl2.4»6W,

"I give rJii/e Books
\Jv. Sfe/ffKwffioy df a. CoUege m. this Colo/iy"

o
AN

ORATION
DELIVERED JULY 4th, 1836,
AT PALMER, IN HAMPDEN COUNTY,
MASSACHUSETTS,
BY REQUEST OF A COMMITTEE OF
DEMOCRATIC CITIZENS
OF SIXTEEN TOWNS, IN THE COUNTIES OF
HAMPDEN, HAMPSHIRE AND WORCESTER,
IN TB£ EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

BY BENJAMIN PBANKI.IN HALIiETT.

BOSTON:
PRINTED BY BEALS & GREENE,
1836.'

Palmee, July 7, ] 836
Sm-The citizens from sixCeen towns, in Ihe Counties of Hampden, Hampshire
and Worcester, in the eighth Congressional District, who united in the Democratic
celebration of Ihe 4th of Jnly, 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 efficiently pro
moted, by circulating among the people, the-sound doctrines and important facts which
were eo ably enforced on that occasion. Your fellow citizens, OLNEY GOFF, Jr.,
ALONZO V. BLANCHAED.
JOHN WARD.
To B. F. H.4LLETT, KSQ.

Boston", Jdly, 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 celebralion of the 4th of July. Knowing the dilBcoIty of collecting
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, withgreat surprise and plea
sure, 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 birth day of Democratic 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 yeomanry 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 Ad
dress on that occasion. Your fellow citizen,
,^ „ „ „ , BENJAMIN F. HALLEXr.
To Messrs Olney Goff, Je.
Alonzo V. Ulanciiaed.
John Ward,

O M A T I O M,

Fellow Citizens — Friends,
You have invited me here, among the sunny hills and verdant
vales and busy water-falls of Hampden, a name dear to Liberty —
in the midst of the yeomanry and the citizen soldiers of the coun
try, always the best and bravest defenders of Liberty — in the bo
som of the strongest, the dearest, and the brightest materials of
the domestic happiness of New England — the young men and the
young women ; the vigor, beauty and free industry of our land,
the glory of our beloved New England firesides — you have invited
me here to-day, and I thank you for it, " to deliver a Democratic
Oration." I intend to make it such decidedly ; not, I trust,
merely in the spirit of a partizan, but in the liberal spirit of those
popular institutions and principles by whose successful defence
this day became ever memorable in our annals, ever dear to
the hearts of Americans — a day not only dear to us, but " a 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
burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition
had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the bles
sings and security of self-government."
What day can be 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 measures by which
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 Jefferson, soon after his inau
guration as President in 1801, was waited on by the Mayor 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 recognize is that of my country's liberties."
To a similar application, in behalf of the Republicans of Boston,
made in 1803, he replied, " disapproving 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 day be known, and have engaged my family
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 ex
pired, on the only day upon which such a man should have died,
the 4th of July, 1826, with these last words upon his lips. " I
have done for my country and for all mankind all that I could do,
and I now 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 Democ
racy, 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 capac
ity of nations for self-government?
The Battles of Liberty may be achieved in a day, but the Insti
tutions of Freedora 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 independance 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 Iho 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.
There has rarely been much difference of opinion among men, as
to.the way in which one nation was to relieve itself from the despot
ism of another, or the people to throw off the yoke of a 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 achieve
ment, no great change for the benefit of a nation in its form of govern
ment, 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 in
separable companion of political improvement. 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-
government ; 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 worship God," rather than freedom to govern them
selves. Even then, that principle was found best established with
those who were most persecuted. The banished, proscribed, and
hunted Roger Williams, 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 government, he said —
" The sovereign and original foundation lies in the people, whom
they must needs mean distinct from the government set up. And if so,
then a people may erect and estaj)lish what form of government seems
to them most meet for their civil condition. It is evident that such
governments as are by them enacted and established, have no more

power and for no longer time than the civil power, or feople consenting
and agreeing, shall betrust them with. This is clear, not only m
reason; but in experience of all Commonwealths, where the people are
not deprived of their natural freedom by tyrants:^
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 his country, which is
very consistent with his duty to the civil Magistrate."
In these definitions of free government, we have the whole
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. It has never been fully established,
even in our own 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 hap
piness. The only reason why the people have not always govern
ed 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 Magistrate, upon the actual assent of the people.
How does Royalty retain its power for a day, in a Monarchical
form of Government ? 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 ho 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 only by persuading the people that they cannot govern
themselves, that Kings, or Aristocracies, or Tyrants of any sort,

7'
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 popular government — to persuade
the people that they cannot trust theraselves. 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 am
bition or tyranny to wrest or to withhold from the people their in
herent right of elective self-government, a majority in physical and
moral force, must first be made willing to becorae slaves, before
they can be employed to make others such. In other words, they
must be convinced that it is raore for their interest or safety to
trust the power to an irresponsible master, than to trust to them
selves. Hence, if you were to seek for the simplest element of a
Republican form of 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
whether a meg ority of the people have full confidence in their capac
ity for self-government.
It may be replied that this is only saying in another form, that
the character ofthe 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 di
rection given to that intelligence.
A profound and philosophic writer on Democracy, has noticed
the strong fact, that in the coramencement 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 life — never 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 raore equally diffused, 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
government 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 people
of America, for the space of , one hundred and fifty years, that
the mass were not capable of governing themselves. The mo
ment 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 the masses, revolution
followed. 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 sixty years
ago, on this auspicious and glorious day.
Sixty years ago, and not one of the bold hands that signed
that iramortal instrument now moves at the impulse of the patri
otic, 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. Massa
chusetts stood foremost. There was our venerable Franklin,
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. Edvvard Rutledge of South Carolina, was the youngest
member, with but twenty-seven suramers 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 Han
cock, the President, was thirty-nine, in all the vigor of his elegant
manhood — Jefferson presents to the Congress the deed of our
Liberties, drawn in beautiful simplicity of language, in sublime
conception of thought, by his own hand.

The mild and unassuming Secretary reads that soleran Decla
ration, and lays it on the table — a pause of nearly an hour's dura
tion follows, before the boldest approaches to affix his signature —
not a pause of fear or of hesitation — oh ! no, — but a pause full of
the deep, abiding responsibilities of that act — a pause full of the
prophetic history of the toils, and endurance, and devotion and
triumphs through which that Declaration of Independence, not
for America only, but in the course of time for the nations of the
earth, was to be carried to its final glorious consumraation.
Who 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 raonarch of the earth,
whose soldiers at. that moment filled the land and almost sur
rounded 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 similies of the signatures to the Dec
laration, and is there one that bears the raark of fear? Our own
John Hancock, the noble, the proscribed patriot, was worthy to
be the first to place his name there in bold characters. The rest
followed 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 an
imated 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.
Your painters have embodied that illustrious group, and your
poets, orators and historians have impressed it, in living charac
ters on their pages, but who can paint or portray the moral grand
eur of that scene ?
In the achievment of our Independence, all the noble and gen
erous and self-sacrificing patriots of the times that tried men's
souls, were firraly united. But when the struggles and the tri-
2

10
umphs in the field were exchanged for deliberations in Council,
as to the best means to insure the happiness of the people, difier-
ences of opinion, and honest differences arose. I cannot so well
illustrate this remark, as in the language ofthe immortal Jefferson.
"I know too well (said he,) the weakness and uncertainty of human
reason to wonder at its different results. Both of our political parties,
at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same
obiect, the public good ; but they differ essentially in what they deem
the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by
one composition of the governing powers ; and the other hy a diflerent
one. One fears most the ignorance of the people— the other the
selfishness of ralers independent of them. Which is right, time and
experience will prove. We think that one side of this experiment has
been long enough tried, and proved not to promote the good of the
manv ; and that the other has not been fairly and sufEciently tried.
Our opponents think the reverse. With whichever opinion the body
of the nation concurs, that must prevail."
Now, fellow citizens, this is the only true and real distinction
of parties that has ever existed, or is likely to exist in this coun
try. It is the two opposite principles of governing. This dis
tinction is not to be 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 hy
their rulers — whether the security of a government and the per
fect freedom of its people, can subsist and be maintained together.
On this question, 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. Jefferson, himself the
great personification of the popular principle in government, and
who, himself, admits the honesty of his opponents' motives while
he condemns their measures.
The causes and grounds of this distinction, are thus philosoph
ically explained by that profound statesman.
"The fact is that atthe formation of our government, many had
formed their political opinions on European writings and practices,
believing the experience of old countries, and especiaUy of England,
abusive afs it was, to be a safer guide than mere theory. The doctrines
of Europe were, that men in numerous associations cannot be re-

11
strained within the limits of order and justice, but by forces physical
and moral, wielded over them by authorities independent of their will.
Hence their organization of Kings, hereditary Nobles and Priests.
Still farther to constrain the brute force of the people, they deem it
necessary to keep them down by 'hard labor, poverty and ignorante,
and to take from them, as from bees, so much of their earnings, as
that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a sufficient surplus
barely to sustain a scanty and miserable life. And these earnings they
apply to maintain their privileged orders in splendor and idleness, to
fascinate the eyes of the people, and excite in them a humble adora
tion and submission, as to a superior order of beings."
It was on these different views of the practical uses of govern
ment so far as 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. Jefferson in 1801, down to the election of the younger Ad
ams in 1824, a space of twenty-four years. During that period,
the experiment went on, as Mr. Jefferson 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. " With
whichever opinion the body of the nation concurs, that must pre
vail," said Mr. Jefferson. This was the great issue. One side
were alarraed at theory and experiment, and they clung to old
abuses, thinking it safer to adapt Monarchy and Aristocracy to
Republicanism, than to build up Republicanism on a new model.
The other side preferred present experience and wants to old prece
dents, however venerable, and insisted that it was better to form
and apply new principles of popular government, than to attempt
to modify and amend old ones. The democratic party of that
day, was the party of iraproveraent, and Liberty — the Federal
party was the party of safe precedents, vested rights, established
institutions and law. As it was then, so has it been, with occa
sional modifications, ever since.
Which party embodied the spirit and tendency of the age?
We do not mean as to any particular measure, 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 ?

12
This inquiry, it seems to me, is peculiarly fitting for an
occasion like this, especially for the young nfen of Massachusetts.
He who narrows down this inquiry to a mere party test, greatly
mistakes 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 thnt
history, or shall we, from mistaken reverence for those who have
been shown by that history to have mistaken the popular tendency
and spirit of the age, persist in maintaining principles and
measures, which, though apparently in a majority here, are, past
all further doubt or denial, in an irretrievable minority in the
nation? Earnestly do 1 wish that the mind and judgment of
every young man in Massachusetts, could be brought to a dis
passionate consideration of this vital question, on the broad basis
of popular Liberty. A majority of the voting 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 ad
ministration of Mr. Jefferson. With them rests the future political
character of this state. Why then can they not calmly and
sensibly review the whole ground, and draw wholesome experience
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 ofthe nation ? What placed her
there? Was it the policy of union, co-operation, and confidence
with her sister States, or was it the policy of " solitary
GRANDEUR," which is HOW lecommendcd by her dominant poli
ticians ? Yes, we are now gravely told that the only way to show
a patriotism, worthy our lives, is to sever Massachusetts from the
rest of the Union. Let the young men of Massachusetts reflect
on this. With what different feelings should we hail the anni-

13
versary of this day, if to some other state than our own, belonged
the classic ground of Provincetown, Plymouth and Bunker Hill —
consecrated by the first landing, the first settlement, and the first
fight of the Sons of Liberty ! Who among us wishes that
Massachusetts instead of ^Maryland, stood on the page of history,
in the " solitary grandeur" of the last of the Provinces to raise
the standard of Freedom against Great Britian ?
Fellow citizens, we owe it to the magnaniraous spirit of our
fathers ; to their forgetfulness of themselves in their love of
country, that we this day enjoy the rich inheritance of the farae
of our beloved Commonwealth, achieved by the pure and elevated
devotion of the Patriots of '76, to the united grandeur of a whole,
free people — and not the '' solitary grandeur" of a single,
obstinate State ?
Let us examine this new doctrine ; 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 iraraedlate fellow citizens here in the West. And it
comes not from him alone, but was sanctioned by a formal Conr
vention of the delegated wisdom of that portion of our fellow
citizens, 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
peoile, 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 twenty. What is her
position before the country?
In January 1 835, the dorainant 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 nomin
ation. Not one adopted the Massachusetts nomination. The
dorainant party in the Union, through a National Convention,
from the people, unanimously nominated a favorite son of New
York. The party opposed to that nomination, in every state but
Massachusetts, have decided against the candidate of this State.

14
The candidate himself became aware that his position was neither
honorable for himself nor useful for his party or his country.
His raotto had been, " our country, our whole country, and nothing
but our country "—and how, in the face of this patriotic and
noble sentiment, he could consent to stand before the nation,
without an electoral ticket in another state in the Union— nar
rowed down to the selfish little circle of " Massachusetts, only
Massachusetts, and NOTniNG but Massachusetts 1 " 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 a 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 occu
pies before the public in connexion with the approaching election. —
Not only would it give me no pain to be no longer considered a can
didate, but such a change in my relations to the country, would be
altogether agreeable to my feelings."
I honor that distinguished citizen for this proof of a magnan
imous and just deference to the manifest will of the people. Let
us not tate aught from the true merits of our public men. We
but dishonor ourselves, by attempting unjustly to dishonor the
eminent men of the land, whether they are for or against our
party. Wherever we find them in opposition to the will of the
people, and exerting their powers and influence adverse to the
true genius and spirit and tendency of Republican institutions,
we owe it to ourselves and to our country to oppose them. But
let us not fall into the too common error of charging corrupt mo
tives upon every man who differs from us in opinion. Give to
every man his just raerits, but concede nothing to him at the ex
pense of our country's good.
I repeat then, that with entire admiration of the splendid in
tellect, the majestic eloquence, the profound learning of that
distinguished citizen, I honor his attempt to withdraw himself
from the exclusive, unavailing and obstinate position in which his
friends had forced him to stand beiore the conntry. I regret that
he should have left any thing to the selfish discretion of those
friends. I regret still raore, that in the great and fundamental

15
division of principles in this Republic, to which all subdivisions of
party have been and always must be merely inciijent and 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 part of wisdom lo found government on
property, rather than on people, on the representatives of things,
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 going 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 take from them, as from bees, so rauch of their
earnings, as that unremitting labor shall be necessary to obtain a
sufBcient surplus, barely to sustain a scanty and miserable life."
What was the decision of that " discretion," to which the ex
clusive and hopeless candidate of Massachusetts, entrusted his
personal wishes to withdraw from the contest ? You have it in tho
act of the Convention of the delegated wisdom of that party,
March 24, 1836,— " JZesoZweJ, that the name of Daniel Webster,
is now again presented to the Country as the ' Massachusetts
Candidate,' for the Presidency of the United States.''
You have it in the declaration of one of the leaders of that
Convention, " that although their candidate wished to withdraw,
he yielded himself to their decision, and they would bind him a
willing sacrifice on the altar of his country — that defeat was
honor, defeat was victory — victory over the doctrine of man-wor
ship, victory over the recreant doctrine of personal availability,
victory over the dangerous heresy, that military achievment is ne
cessary to civil service."*
You have it still more emphatically and absurdly, in the open
'Speech of Hon. Myron Lawrence, in the Whig Convention, of March, 1836.

IG
avowal of this new doctrine of " solitary grandeur," then
broached for the first tirae in our history, by a prominent citizen
of this district, to whom I have before alluded.* 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 Alassachusetts.
" In violation of every sacred principle, (he exclaimed) in forgetful
ness of his services, the candidate of Massachusetts has been aban
doned by all the other States in the Union ! No, it is you who have
been abandoned — the Commonwealth has been abandoned. She has
been left to tread her way alone, and I like the solitary grasdeue
of it. I had rather be defeated with our candidate, than succeed with
either of the others. — Massachusetts it may be said, is the only State
in the Union that has any character left. The ether States are small
change in the hands of trading politicians to buy offices with. Massa
chusetts has got a character to save, and it can only be saved by her
sustaining her candidate. Who would not rather see her pursuing the
solitary grandeur of her way, alone, than plunging with others into
this Norwegian Maelstrom of Van Buren politics .' Who would like
to see her thrown in as a make-weight, by trading politicians, like
sraall shot in the scale of an Apothecary ? Who would like to see
her a waxen ball in the hands of the Magician ? Rather let her be
hlotted from the map forever, while she is free and in her glory."
This fellow citizens, is what they offer to us for " solitary
grandeur." Might it not be better baptized saZAy ^ranrfewr.' Is
it the language of self-devoting patriotism, or of disappointed
avarice of power ? Is it love of country, or love of self ? Is it
founded on a just confidence in the intelligence and honesty of
nincteen-twentieths of the people of this whole Union — or in an
overweening conceit, that we, the single twentieth part of one
great whole, are alone capable of deciding for the rest, who shall
be President, and what the measures and policy of the government
must be to prevent the fulfilraent of the forty years standing pro
phecy of JMassachusetts politicians, that the Constitution and the
Country terre going to ruin !
This is the issue of our approaching popular elections, which is
now put to the young men of Massachusetts, by the dorainant
State party, with an earnest appeal to them deliberately, and
perhaps irretrievably, to ifsolate Massachusetts from the whole

'¦ Spcccli of lloii. Uauc C. li.itta in tlio same Convention.

17
Union. Wherein does this doctrine of Massachusetts " solitary
grandeur" differ from the solitary grandeur of the Nullification
doctrine of South Carolina, with her eleven electoral votes for
Governor Floyd, and her Governor Hamilton going to the death
for the sugar 1 Shall Massachusetts place herself beside South
Carolina, in the practical and factious avowal ofthe creed, that all
the rest of the Union is rotten and corrupt, and she alone sound
and honest ? For nearly forty years, the policy of State against
Nation, has governed Massachusetts, and we see what has corae
of it. But heretofore that policy, bad as it was, went no farther
than to sever the Commonwealth from the majority party of the
Nation. Sympathies, alliances, a comraon purpose, and comraon
candidates, were kept up between the majority here, and majorities
in several other states, and respectable minorities in .all. But how
is it now ? Failing to prevail on the minorities in other States of the
sarae party, to adopt the " Massachusetts candidate," his friends
turn upon those minorities, and charge them with the violation
of every sacred principle, with coining theraselves into " small
change in the hands of trading politicians to buy offices with."
What is to be tho 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,
dissolves the Union I 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
corapared to the long line of consequences involved in the result.
Hence the propriety of addressing ourselves to the good sense and
sound patriotism of our fellow citizens on this day ; a day, the
value of which to us, hereafter, in a national point of view, de
pends mainly upon the decision which the people of Massachusetts
shall raake on this doctrine of " solitary grandeur."
I ask every young man of Massachusetts if he esteems it noth
ing 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

18
a snail's covering on his back, into which, when trod upon, he can
draw himself with sulky selfishness ? Looking back and review
ing the almost incessant war of the State against the Nation; re
calling the loud promises of the leaders at every fresh trial, that
this time tha 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 nnd peace of the country abroad —
her prosperity, even to very repletion at home, — honor, peace
and prosperity brought about under this administration, and in
the raidst ofthe eternal Massachusetts cry of "ruin! ruin I
ruin I " croaked through this blessed land as 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 Ilooke, roaring "beef, beef,
beef!" Seeing all this, will the young men of Massachusetts
consent to make themselves aliens in their own land, merely to
carry out a point of honor, (as idle as any in the code of the du
ellist,) that Massachusetts raen raust 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
bloodshed — with the panic prophecies of ruin, changed to com
plaints 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,— wilh the French War instead of
exhausting our treasury to fit out fleets, transrauted into a fresh
coinage of gold from our mint— with the products of our farms
and our workshops commanding war prices araidst universal peace
—with the treraendous Monopoly of the United States Bank that
defied the government and issued over half a million of handbills
at an expense of $25,000 in a single year to put down the admin
istration—itself quietly put down, and the country, despite the
clamor of paper corporations, gradually and surely advancing

19
toward a sound, healthful and solid circulation — 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 democracy when accumulated in the pet banks — thus,
in the language of the President, when he signed the Bill his ene
mies vainly hoped he would veto — " disarming faction and render
ing it more difficult for the money power to reorganize itself un
der the charter of a new National Bank." — With all this large
amount of good for the country, (not for the few, but for the
whole people,) accomplished under an administration which our
sages here told us was going right off to bury the Constitution, and
leave not a single 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 opposiiion to the next administration,
and the next and the next ! For if there is just cause for Massa
chusetts to oppose the next administration, there will be cause for
her to keep up this policy of State against Nation, while the Re
public lasts. With 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 ciders, to now say, wheth
er they will enlist for another eight years, sixteen years, forty
years war, against their own government I The young raen of
Massachusetts are her main hope for restoring her to the confi
dence and good will of her sister States, from which obstinate pol
iticians are striving to sever her forever. In the language of the
" Massachusetts candidate " himself, I appeal to their love of
country ; to their love for themselves. " Youth is generous ; its pa
triotism is free from selfishness, it is full of just and ardent impul
ses, and these are feelings that become it. Early manhood is
sincere and genuine. Men at this s;age of existence have a long
lifo before them, with their hopes and prospects all depending on
the circumstances and influences by which they are to be surround
ed, and they naturally, and rightfully feel a deep interest in the
course of coming events, which are to influence their whole fu
ture lives."

20
Surely then the young men of Massachusetts will require sorae
good reason before they will further commit theraselves to the
policy of endless opposition to the governraent. Surely they will
pause, and reflect ; and when urged to reckless opposition, merely
for the sake of opposition, will they not turn upon the leaders of
this policy of State against Nation, and demand ofthose who have
so long governed our State Councils, why they have severed Mas
sachusetts from the great Democracy of the country — why they
have drawn her away from the people of every other State — why
they have alraost sundered her from the Union — and why, in the
obstinate spirit of this bravado of " solitary grandeur," they now
persist in expelling her from New England itself, in the approach
ing Presidential election ?
I call upon the exclusive " Massachusetts candidate" himself,
to answer to himself in this matter. When the heresy of Nulli
fication 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 effec
tual, in preserving the Union from disruption at that time, as was
the Declaration of Independence, in laying the foundation for that
Union. Did the " Massachusetts candidate " and his friends then hold
to their present doctrine of " solitary grandeur ? " " Sir, (said
Daniel Webster on that occasion.) I am for the Union one and
entire — 1 ara for the Constitution as it is. I shall not be satisfied
with a Constitution comprising less than these whole twenty-four
States ; that Constitution which has raised these twenty-four States
to a power and prosperity unparalleled in the history of the
world. I see nothing better for us to hope for or to wish, than
this Constitution. My choice is made. I go for the country, for
the Union, and when I see the standard of the Union raised, that
standard Washington planted on the ramparts ofthe Constitution,
God forbid that I should inquire whom the people have appointed
to bear it up. I believe that I cannot better satisfy my fellow
citizens, by any thing I could say on this occasion, than to avow,
that resting on the principles of this Proclamation, I for one, shall

21
give to the President my hearty, entire and zealous support, in
carrying those principles into effect in the way he has proposed."
On that same occasion, Harrison Gray Otis said :
" I do not stand here as the panegyrist of the President — 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 all praise.
I am even willing to say that if Washington hiraself had arisen
from his tomb, he could not indite, nor we expect, a better expo
sition of the principles of the government, in more forcible and
perspicuous language."
James T. Austin, the Attorney General, said, — " The Chief
Magistrate of the nation has proclaimed peace, union, and the
preservation of the Constitution en its true principles. The peo
ple will sustain him in that Proclamation. Here, in this very Hall
the people assembled a short time ago, to do all in their power, as
they had a right to do, to elevate another citizen to the Presiden
cy. They failed to do so. But do we now repine ? Do we retain
party rancor ? No. We are willing to support the President in
his support of the Constitution. We are willing to support him,
as the children of Israel upheld the hands of Moses, that their
power might prevail."
What did that meeting, the largest which the present supporters
Of the " Massachusetts candidate " ever assembled — what did
they deliberately resolve, touching this doctrine of " solitary gran
deur." Hear them.
Resolved, That " we hold these political truths which we conceive to
be expressed in the Proclamation, undeniable — that the government
of the United States was ordained and established by the people of the
United States ; that its leading object was to form among them a more
perfect union, and to create for the common good of the lohole, a more
efficient government, than had existed under the confederation — that
the government of the United States extends over the people of all the
States, and that to the full extent of these powers, the people of the
United States is a Government, and not a League — and that no State
has power to withdraw the allegiance of the people from that govern
ment, or to sanction disobedience to its laws."
Resolved, "That we will cordially support the President of the
United States in every constitutional measure, necessary for the exe
cution of the laws, and for maintaining the integrity of the Union " —
"that we will go for the country and with the country, against dis
union, disorganization and nullification, — and that whoever is commis
sioned by the people to bear up the standard of the Union, we shall be

22
ready to rally in the cause of the Constitution, under that banner
which led onr fathers through years of suffering and blood, to inde
pendence and glory, and which has commanded for us, their posterity,
the respect of the world."
Fellow citizens, Faneuil Hall rung with the shouts of ap
plause with which these doctrines were hailed in 1832, by the
suppoilers of the "Massachusetts Candidate." That candidate
hiraself, reiterated them nearly a year afterward, on his retu-n
frora the first visit in his life to the " moral and natural grandeur''
of the country, west of the Alleghany mountains.
In his speech before the assembled citizens of Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, in July, 1833, he did not tell them that Massachu
setts muKt set up for herself, and denounce all the other States as
without character, as small change in the hands of trading politi
cians, unless they would support him for the Presidency. No, iu
the name of -Massachusetts, he told them, —
" We are fellow countrymen, fellow citizens, bonnd together by a
thousand tics of interest, of sympathy, of duly. We are bound to
gether for good or for evil, in our great political interests. I know,
{said he,) that I am addressing Americans, every one of whom bas a
true American heart in his bosom ; and I fuel that I also have an Amer
ican heart in my bosom. I address you, wilh the same fervent gcod
wishes for your l.appiness — the same brotherly affection, and the same
tokens of regard and esteem, as if, instead of being upon the borders
of the Ohio, J stood by the Connecticut or the Merrimack."
In that same speech, the "Massachusetts candidate " described
the threatened crisis lo our Union, from Kullificalion, and eulo
gized the President in his own favorite language, for "coming to
the rescue of the Constitution."
" In a day of unquestioned prosperity, (said ho) after half a century's
happy experiment ; when we were the wonder of all the (iberal men
in the world, and the envy of all the illiberal — when we had shown our
selves to be fast advancing to national renown, what was threatened ?
Disunion! Theie were those among us, who wished to break up the
goverrment, and scalier the four und Iwenty States into four and
twenty sectiors and fragments. — It was at this niomeni that the Presi
dent of the Uniied States (.Andrew Jackson) i rue to f.vrrv nt'xv.coin-
prohending and fully understanding the case, came forth by his proclam
ation of the 10th of December, in language wliich inspired new hopes
in llie of the duration of tho Republic. It was patriotic and worthy
to be carried through al every hazard. 1 speak wilhout reserve npon
this subject : I have differed with the President, as all know who knuw
any thing of so humble an individual as myself, upon many important
subji>cls — in relation to internal improvement — n^-chartering the United
Stales Bank, perhaps in a degree, of domestic protection, and the
disposition of our public Lands. But when the crisis arrived in which

23
our Constitution was in danger, and when he came forth like a patriotic
Chief Magistrate, I for one, taking no council but of patriotism, feeling
no impulse but the impulse of duty — felt myself bound lo yield, not a
lame and hesitating, but a cordial and efEcieiit support to his measures.
1 know that those who have seen fit to intrust to me, in part, their in
terests in 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 sin
cerity of friendship ; and for me, gentlemen, I lake 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 Provi
dence rnay spare his life, and that he may go through with his administra
tion, 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 ofthe most efficient friend and supporter of that
candidate, who was foreraost to urge his nomination by the Leg
islature of this Commonwealth, and who insists, that though he is
left standing all alone by every other State and wishes to with
draw, 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 voles of a party which
supports Air Van Buren for the Presidency, now declares that no
man shall be his political friend who will not support Ids exclusive
and hopeless candidate for the Presidency. In the same spirit of
prophetic eulogy, that distinguished citizen said on the floor
of Congress, in 1835, when we were threatened with a French
war, that —
"If Andrew JarJtson will so temper his policy as to carry this coun
try honorably through the controversy without war, he will draw down
upon his head the blessings of men whose voices have never mingled
with the incense of his flatterers ; and his name in the eyes of all
mankind, will appear fairer and brighter than when he came oui of the
blazing lines of JVew Orleans, in all the freshness af Ms 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 — 1 engage
for New England."*
Humble as I am, and feeble as is my language, I cannot at
tempt to vie with these two prominent citizens of Massachusetts
jn eulogy of the President. He has achieved in his eminently
* Speech of the Hon. Edward Everett, March 2, 1835, on our relatione \vith Fiance.

24
successful administration,— all, and much more than all, the ac
complishment 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 frora a false and reckless party press, against the
leading measures of the administration. They taught us that the
man their followers had so long denounced as a despot, was after
alia "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 of American
blood: and the Peace of the country without sacrificing a par
ticle of National Honor.
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 tbe prophecies
and morbid fears of its opponents, we have not been apt scholars
enough to follow their second advice and read their lesson hack-
wards, just because a few millions have been taken from the
vaults of one great Monster, and put into the vaults of several
little monsters — for strange as such things are, for that cause alone,
these distinguished eulogists of Andrew Jackson and their sup
porters, 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 choiceof the Amer
ican people, I shall endeavor to tread generaUy in the footsteps of
President Jackson— happy if I shall be able to perfect the work
which he has so gloriously begun."*
What work, fellow citizens?— not the work of removing the de
posits and putting down the Bank, for that work is not left to be
perfected. That was the " sole work " which in the estimation of
the Massachusetts candidate and his friends so suddenly trans
formed a " patriotic chief raagistrate " into a terrible despot.
I pray thera to tell us plain common sense people, who like a
reason for what we do, how it coraes about that in 1833, the Pre-

* Mr Van lluren'a letter accepting the Baltimore iiominaticin.

25
sident was " true to every duty" and now false to all ? How
it coraes about that it was patriotism then " to yield not a larae
and hesitating, but a cordial and efficient support to his measures" —
and now it is treason to 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 ?
Can a raan of thera put his finger on one leading raeasure of the
Administration that had not marked the policy of the President,
when the " Massachusetts candidate" pledged himself to his sup
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 triumphant settlement of the panic question with which they
shook the Union to its centre, why are they not content ? We are
content. Why still hold up the solitary Massachusetts candidate ?
Why still oppose, when by their own showing, the last ground of
opposition has been taken from under 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 concert and harmony and
confiding faith with the rest of the states, and resuming in the
nation the true grandeur of the position she once occupied side
by side with her sisters of New England, Virginia and New
York — nay even at the head of them all ?
Was it only to get the votes of other States, and the counte
nance of the President for the succession in favor of her exclusive
candidate, that the Massachusetts leaders fawned and flattered
and "Resolved" in Faneuil Hall that they would go for the coun
try and with the country? Was it for this that they so tenderly
talked to the people of other states of the thousand ties of inter
est, of syrapathy, of duty, that bound us together for good or for
evil in our great political interests? And do they now wrap the
Commonwealth up in " solitary grandeur," and rail against all her
4

26
sisters as political prostitutes, because they insist on choosing for
themselves, and repudiate the husband she has picked out for
them, in her little, exclusive family arrangeraents?
It looks so— verily it looks so ; and if it bo so, it is high tirae
that the matter was understood. The people, the young men, are
called upon to raake a raost extraordinary sacrifice in adhering to
this unfortunate policy of State against Nation, until it shall cut
us off from every relation of sympathy with our sister states — and
for such a sacrifice there ought to be shown the most urgent reas
ons—reasons of rauch higher moraent than the raere selfish, nar
row minded pride of having nobody President but one of our own
citizens. Even South Carolina, when in her spite of Nullification
against all the other States, she threw away her eleven 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
Massachusetts policy cannot boast.
I have quoted directly frora the public proceedings and speech
es 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 of, so long as it appeared probable that any of
the other States could be induced to adopt the Massachusetts can
didate. The resolves that nominated him in January, 1S35,
were eminently amiable toward the minorities in the other States.
At the great raeeting in Faneuil Hall, in May following, to
confirm that nomination — a similar feeling of conciliation was in
fused into the proceedings, though the other States were pretty
plainly told that nobody was fit to be President, and nobody could
save the Constitution 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 Hall—
" That the selection of candidates by the citizens of any part of the
United States, on purely sectional grounds, and the rejection of the
most eminent qualifications for high offices, because they are found in

27
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 mu.'^t insist upon a monopoly of the man for
herself. It would'nt 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 beseeching the South to go for a Southern
raan, as the only possible way, to prevent a citizen of the North
being elected by the people ! What a singular proof of the sin
cerity and consistency of those who insist upon the Massachu
setts candidate against the world !
It seeras too, that the Constitution was to be buried, (as has
been the case any tirae 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 candi-
didate." No other man. North, West or South, Whig or Tory,
would do at all, and therefore these Anti-Southern-Presidential-
Monopoly leaders of the " solitary" party, declared it was —
Resolved finaUy, by the citizens of Boston and tne vicinity, in
Faneuil Hall assembled, that we will adhere to our candidate, let who
will follow, or who will fly — that we will march with cheerful confi
dence and hope beneath the banner of the Constitution, with the name
of its great champion in tho centre of the field, well assured that if
our beloved country is to conquer in the approsching 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 proraised ? Not at all. They met again in solemn

28
Convention of the Legislature, October, 1835, and there, in lan
guage of peculiar politeness and compliment to their sister States.
" Resolved, That while one and another of our sister States, have fall
en victims to the profered patronage and corrupting influence of an
electioneering Administration, vie have the fullest confidence that a
majority of the electors of Massachusetts, who have heretofore well
sustained the honor of their native Slate, will again rally in defence of
freedom and the Constitution, and achieve another glorious victory
over the mercenaries of a Military and political Chieftain."
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
raen called upon in the leading Whig paper in Boston, to raise an
array of 40,000 raen, march to Washington, surround the palace
and compel the Tyrant fo restore the deposits) — this " Military
and political Chieftain " was the same man whom the Massachu
setts " political Chieftain " two years before, had eulogized as " a
patriotic Chief Magistrate," "true to every duty" — upon whose
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, he could do no better !
The beauty of consistency was also exemplified in the com
mentary this resolve of October made upon the sincerity of
the resolve by the same men of May previous — " that if there
were a raan in the wide range of all the States — in regard to
whom general confidence spreads wider or sinks deeper — he
would receive from us our hearty support, in whatever section or
State of the Union he was to be found."
Ask the several hundred Conventions who (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 electoral tickets for him in nine States, while the
JMassachusetts candidate cannot even get a ticket named to be
beaten in but one State — ask thera if there is not a raan in the
Whig party "in regard to whom general confidence spreads
wider," than the Massachusetts man ?— and then ask them what

f 29
they think of Massachusetts pledges to " go with the country and
for the country," — and how much their brotherly love for this
Commonwealth has been increased by that declaration ofthe
Hon. Agent for the Massachusetts Militia claims, made in the
Convention of March, 1836, which resolved to run the " Massa
chusetts candidate " against the field, viz, " who can turn from Mr
Webster, to the mere shadow of Mr Webster, (Gen. Harison.")*
It was in that obstinate Convention, that the doctrine of " soli
tary grandeur," which the policy of the leaders had been gradu
ally developing, was openly avowed. All the coaxing and cour
tesies to other States, were laid aside, and without even the pre
tence of holding up a candidate for whom a single vote was ex
pected or hoped for out of this State, the extraordinary spectacle
was exhibited of well informed men, in other respects, insisting
upon holding up for a National office requiring the votes of a
majority of the twenty four States in the Union, a man who was
set aside by all other parties in all other States, and whose only
possible chance (and even that doubtful) was that he might, by
great efforts on the part of his friends, succeed in getting four
teen out of the one hundred and forty-four votes necessary for an
election !
I have stated these facts thus minutely, fellow citizens, because
it is important that our young men should understand the precise
issue, and its inevitable results if they listen to the appeals of
those who now call upon them not to vote for a National candi
date for President of the nation — but to stick to the candidate of
a single State for President of these twenty -six United States !
Were it a mere question of men or of party, I would not bave
made it a theme for this day, though it is the true theme for De
mocracy, and therefore for Liberty ! But it is to us a question of
Union, of National compact — of sympathy, as wide and expan
sive as this broad land of twenty-six United States — It is just
such a question, in its effects on State character, as the Unionists
of South Carolina had to raeet against the NuUifiers — a question
whether in our relations with other States, we shall in truth be
" fellow counlryraen, fellow citizens, bound together for good or
* Speech of Hon. I. 0. Bates.

30

for evil in our great political interests "-whether we shall here
after carry in our bosoms American hearts, or only MassacTiusetts
hearts-whether the Massachusetts candidate hiraself, shall be
made by his friends practically to brand with falsehood his own
raeraorable declaration amid the shouts of his party in Faneuil
Hall—" I am for the Union, one and entire— I am for the Con
stitution as itis-I shall not be satisfied with a Constitution com
prising less than these whole twenty-four States."
Again I call upon the "Massachusetts candidate" himself to
answw to himself in this matter. I call upon him in the name of
the rising young men of this Commonwealth, whom the exclusive
policy of his supporters is about to sever from the Union— I ask
the raeaning of that irapressive language at the Proclamation
meeting in Faneuil Hall—" When I look around upon the vast
assemblage that throng this Hall and crowd these galleries, I
thank Almighty God that I have the privilege of addressing
them as citizens of the United States — but Almighty God
only knows if when I meet thera again, they will have any other
title than citizens of Massachusetts."*
And what was it that called forth this solemn invocation, and
threatened us with the loss of the title of citizens of the United
States? It was the South Carolina doctrine that she was the
only State who had got any character or love for the Constitu-
tution, with 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 country I mean frora Penobscot to New
Orleans," — but who shows he now means, that when a Massa
chusetts man hereafter talks of his country he shall mean only
from Nantucket to Williarastown !
In the name of the Constitution, in the name of this whole
Union, I charge upon the "Massachusetts candidate" and his
supporters, by their policy of running a single State candidate for

Ppcich of Hon. Dmiiel t^'cbsler.

31
President against the Nation, the design virtually to take frora us
the title of citizens of the United States, and leave us only the
title of citizens of Massachusetts.
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
his name from the place it occupied before the public in connex
ion with the approaching election." I charge him with assuming
a ground wholly untenable, in his declaration to his political
friends in that letter of intended declination — " I shall not sepa
rate frora you nor from those principles which we have hitherto
maintained, and which I trust we shall continue to maintain,
whether in majorities or minorities, or in prosperous or adverse
circumstances. If, in your opinion, our common principles and
common cause, notwithstanding what has occurred, do still require
of rae that I reraain in my present position, I shall cheerfully
abide by your determination."
What " common principle,'' and what " common cause,'' had
the " Massachusetts candidate " and his supporters hitherto main
tained? If it were a comraon cause with a single other State in
the Union, then is the " common cause " abandoned, for Massa
chusetts insists upon maintaining the Mracomraon cause of sup
porting a candidate for the Presidency all alone by herself, disre
garding alike the " common cause " of " minorities and majori
ties," in every other State in the Union. The only " common
cause" our opponents talk of here now is, that of running Mas
sachusetts against tho world — the " common cause " which her
leaders, with the exception of seven years out of thirty-seven,
have forever maintained and forever been defeated in, that of
opposing State to Nation ! always sufficiently exclusive and big
oted, 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 ! !" 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 Penn-

32
sylvania that our "Patriotic Chief Magistrate," "true to every
duty," had " by the signal expression of public opinion," through
his proclamation, "put down the despotism of Nullification:'
And who in December, 1833, five months afterward, concerted
with those NuUifiers to aid thera in their revenge of putting down
the President for having put down Nullification ?
Who in 1833, proclaimed to the world, that "taking no coun
sel but of patriotism, he felt himself bound to yield not a lame and
hesitating but a cordial and efficient support to the measures of the
patriotic Chief Magistrate," who had rescued the Union from Nulli
fication ? And who, five months afterward, stood side by side,
with the chief of the NuUifiers, in the Senate, in support of that
unconstitutional resolve, giving the sentence without the trial oi
impeachment 
" 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 Constitution and laws, but in deroffation of
both." ^
How carae the " defender of tho Constitution " and of the
Proclamation, and the defender of disunion and Nullification,
with their rautual friends, to find " common principles and a com
mon cause," against the administration ? .\ssuredly the time will
come when they will wish that this proof of the "common cause"
between the " defenders of the Constitution " and the defenders
of Nullification, were " expunged " forever from the record.
Did it becorae a great and magnanimous statesman, and a par
ty claiming all the virtue, and all the devotion to the constitution;
to avail themselves of the revenge of disappointed Disunionists,
sinartingunder the Proclamation and the Force Bill, and combine
with NuUifiers to put down the Fresident for having put them
down — to place upon the records ofthe Senate an unconstitutional
sentence of condemnation against the author of that ProclamaUon,
and to refuse a place on tho^e records to the answer of the Presi
dent against a judgment of impeachment without the trial?
If there were any just pretence for making a " comraon cause,"
among the opponents of Mr. Van Buren, why have they not uni
ted on a common candidate? Were they truly seeking to advance

33
*' common principles/' and not merely to elevate particular men
of particular sections of the opposition, in a sheer personal strug
gle for power and office, would they quarrel among themselves
about the individual who was lo be selected to sustain those *' com
mon principles," by his election to the Presidency ? Did the de
fenders of Liberty, (like the present pretended " defenders of the
Constitution,") thus quarrel, and contend and sever in regard 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 ofthe country depends upon the election of a can
didate ofthe opposition against the candidate of the Democracy?
How comes it that three sectional factious of these pretended ex
clusive 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?* When
the Liberty of Greece depended on the defeat of Xerxes, Themis
tocles, as the head of the Republic of Athens, one of the united
States, was entitled to the command of the combined fleet of the
" The supporters ol' the Massachusetts candidate have one precedent for their doctrine
of divide and conquer, in an authority much higher with Ihem than Themistocles; Major
Benjamin Ruasell. In 1816, when the Federalists (who have since been foremost in eu
logies of the good dead Monroe) were foremost in opposing the good living Munroe,
and found themselves reduced to the same desperate, hopeless opposition the Whigs
now are against Mr Van Buren, Major Russell, their oracle, put forth the following doc
trine directly in point: — [From the Boston Centinel of February 28, and May i. 1816.]
'' The Federalists are mere lookers on. As yet they cannot see much difference in
rotten apples, and they have no hopes of sound ones being offered 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 borne down with heavy Imrdens of Democracy.
If the Federalists will do their duty manfully— take magnanimous ground, make no
nomination, but choose good and great men for Electors, and leave them to their un
biassed choice, they can contribute largely to the salvation of the country, by dashing
in pieces the accursed Virginia succession."
The raoral of this is iuptructive. The same men, the then Whigs, who declared that
the salvation of the country depended on defeating Mr Monroe, and tbe "accursed Virginia
succession,'' (just aa they now talk of saving the country by defeating the " accursed suc
cession " 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 Monroe, urged it as an argument against theeleciionofEustis for Gov
ernor, and in favor of Otis, that " the relationa of Massachusetts, to the National Gov
ernment, are of the most confidential and acceptable character," thus boasting that they
were in the confidence of the "rotten apple," " the weak Monroe," whose election, four
years before, they declared would ruin the country !
5

34
Peloponnessians, which was directed to destroy the maratime ar
mament of Xerxes. Contentions arose among the friends of the
Generals of each of the combined States, as to which should be
selected to comraand the Grecian fleet. The obstinacy of the gen
erals 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 of 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 " common principles and a common cause," by stick
ing to the "Massachusetts candidate." To what has 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 obstinately persisted in op
posing the Government " whether in majorities or minorities " at
home, until at last it has quarreled 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 so odious
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 pol
icy 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 Massachusetts — shall we carry out
this policy in «M% 'grandeur,' and become indeed nothing but
citizens of Massachusetts, arrogantly, conceitedly claiming to be
long to the only State that has got any character left, or any citi
zen fit to be President?

35
Was this the doctrine, the practice or the predicament of Massa
chusetts, when foremost in the fight, 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 ?
Ask these venerable men, the fathers of this day, and of our
Liberties,* the blessed relics of the great struggle for the Rights
of Man, some few of whom we are permitted } et to meet, and min
gle 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 de
nounce her sister States, or abandon the field or the council, be
cause 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 should 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 America
— They will tell you that it was the united agreement of the Colo
nies, 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 America" —
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 Bri
tish Legislature, and calling on them to join — " Will yod join
us," was the memorable appeal of Massachusetts to her sister
New York, whose Assembly, for their undaunted behavior in uni
ting with Massachusetts to resist the quartering of British troops —

* There were present sixteen veterans of the Revolution, who participated in the ob-
Bervauces of the day.

36
had been deprived of Legislative powers — " Will you join us,"
was the call of Massachusetts ; and what was the answer of New
York? Was it " solitary grandeur ?" Was it yes, provided onr
George Clinton, and not your John Hancock is to be President of
Congress? No — It was the emphatic, laconic, generous reply of
devoted patriotism, " We will join ! "
They will tell you that the Boston Port Bill, which closed only
the port of Boston and left those of the other Colonies free — was
not regarded as an affair of solitary suffering or "solitary grandeur,"
but as a public calamity, — a " common cause," that the cause of
Boston forthwith became the cause of 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 humilia
tion ; and a public prayer in favor of America was enjoined " that
God would give the people one heart and one mind, firmly to op
pose 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 on that
account, nor did her Delegates withdraw from the first Congress
in " Solitary grandeur," because Patton Randolph of Virginia
was chosen President, instead of John Hancock of Massachu
setts. They will tell you, that when the first Congress assembled in
Philadelphia, September 1774, its first act was an approval ofthe
conduct of Massachusetts Bay, and an exhortation to continue in
the same spirit in which they had begun — That so far from the
other Colonies leaving Massachusetts in " solitary grandeur " to
sustain alone the cause of freedom (as it is now pretended her sis
ter States leave her to sustain alone, the Constitution) it was sol
emnly 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 ofthe Congress to General
Gage, they told him, point blank, that it was the fixed determina
tion of all the other Provinces to support their Brethren in Massa
chusetts.

37
They will tell you too, of that noble act of magnanimity, on the
part of Massachusetts, in the Congress of '75 ; when the delicate
question came up on the appointment of a Commander in Chief,
and when her Delegate, that sturdy friend and elder brother of
American Liberty, Samuel Adams, poor in purse but peerless in
purpose; after consultation with his illustrious namesake John
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 sec
onded the nomination by his colleague, of George 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,
with little other military fame, than the remembrance of his gal
lantry in the defeat of Braddock, — and on that nomination pro
phetic of Freedom, the future Father of his Country, was unani
mously placed at the head of the United Armies of the Confedera
tion. 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 ofthe 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 feel,
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 George Washington, if it had been set down on that glorious
page, — that Samuel and John Adams, Delegates from Massachu
setts, nominated General Artemas Ward as the " Massachusetts
candidate;" declaring in the language of the Resolves ofthe sup
porters of the exclusive candidate for the Presidency, that Massa
chusetts 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 dissent
ing and proposing George Washington, and refusing to take up

38
the Massachusetts man — the two Adamses, with Hancock, Gorham
and Gerry, in high dudgeon, told the Delegates ofthe other States
that they were false to themselves, false to Massachusetts, and
false to General Ward ! — 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 in their own exclusiveness, vote for
General Ward and nobody else, and stick to " solitary grandeur:'
I 9ay 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 take their man for President, ex
hort us to wrap ourselves up in angry, disappointed exclusiveness,
and withdraw from all sympathies with the other States in the
election Of Chief Magistrate — point 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."
Now, FeUow-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 many, — and the other not been fairly and
sufEciently tried?"
For thirty-seven years, ever since parties were formed in the
Republic, the Massachusetts policy has been in opposition to the
general government, — with barely the exception of the sulky sub
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, who could not be elected the second time, solely because
he had been ostensibly, though " treacherously " and with smother
ed hate, supported by the ultra Federalists of Boston. Such is the
odium 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

39
nation will not trust. And for 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
demonstration of the truth of the declaration of the first statesman
in New England, (John Q,uincy Adams) that " treachery is their
nature and their vocation — they have no honest principle to
keep them together, and their only cement is a sympathy of hatred
to every man of purer principles than themselves."
It was alone the belief that the author of this emphatic truth
was himself in the confidence of these men in 1528, and the em
barrassments which 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
with the country. It was this same odium of Massachusetts po
litics 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.
Now what have those who have governed the majorities of Mas
sachusetts for nearly thirty-seven years done for the State ? Where
have they placed her in the National scale ? They had her with
a rich and glorious inheritance of fame with her sister States.
During the whole war of the Revolution her preeminence was nev
er questioned. Her relative patriotism in the number of her troops
stood paramount to all. The first year of the war, Massachu
setts 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 1 778, seven thousand out of thirty-
two thousand ; in 1779, six thousand out of twenty-seven thous
and ; in 1780, four thousand five hundred out of twenty-one
thousand; in 1781, three thousand seven hundred out of thirteen
thousand eight hundred ; in and 1783, four thousand three hundred
out of thirteen thousand ; making a total of sixty-eight thousand
soldiers in the Continental Army raised by Massachusetts alone,
out of two hundred and thirty-one thousand nine hundred seventy-
one, the whole number raised in the thirteen States — thus giving
almost one third of the regular troops of the whole thirteen States
to Massachusetts.

40
It was reproachfully asked by a Whig Orator,* at the celebra
tion of the Landing of the Fathers, in 1835, in relation to Mas
sachusetts, " First in the fight, what place has she found at the
feast 7" I answer, that grumbler as she has been with her cry of
ruin for forty years, she has nevertheless had Benjamin's mess at
the feast. Her sister States always generously confided in her so
long as she showed the least disposition to confide in them. She
has received all the national honors for her citizens, in comparison
with other States, which she had any fair right to expect. It is
a fact that notwithstanding all the terrors of proscription so vehe
mently declaimed 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 those of any other State in
the Union, not excepting Virginia. Massachusetts has had three
Presidents of the Continental Congress, and two Presidents un
der the Constitution. She has had two Vice Presidents, eighteen
Heads of Departments — six members of the Supreme Judiciary,
and fourteen Ministers to foreign Courts ; in all, forty-four citi
zens to fill the highest places of power.
Virginia, with double the population of Massachusetts, in the
same time has held but thirty-five National ofiices in the Adminis
tration ; viz, five Presidents, no Vice President, nine Heads of
Departments, five members of the Judiciary, and sixteen Minis
ters to foreign Courts.
Pennsylvania has had but nineteen of her citizens in the Ad
ministration, viz, nine Heads of Departments, three Judges and
one Attorney General, and six foreign Ministers — while New
York, first in the Confederacy, first in commerce, population and
wealth, and second to none in intelligence and enterprize, has
never had but twenty-one of her citizens in the General Gov
ernment, viz, no President, four Vice Presidents, five Heads of
Departments, three Judges and one Attorney General, and eight
foreign Ministers. Thus has Massachusetts received far the
largest share of honors of any State, and a greater amount than
the two great States of Pennsylvania and New York together.
* Hon. Peleg Sprague.

41
And yet Massachusetts is now presented in tho churlish atti
tude of quarrelling with all her sister States, because they will
not let her have another President !
In vain New York presents her favorite and most distinguished
son ; a man without a shadow of just reproach from the bitter-
. est of enemies, in the purity of private life, and personal honor.
And who is he ? A citizen of humble origin, without the aids of
wealth or powerful friends, and against unscrupulous and power
ful opposition, rising step by step to the second ofBce in the gift
of the people — whose greatest offence in the eyes of the Aristo
cracy 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 the people ; whose whole
public life has been opposed to all secret or open Combinations
and Monopolies of men or money, designed to secure exclusive
advantages to the few at tho 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 Clinton involved opposition to the
country in sustaining the war. The efficient, energetic and elo
quent advocate of the measures that brought to an honorable ter
mination the second war for National Independence : — at the age
of thirty-one, foremost in sustaining the Democratic Senate of
New York against a federal majority in the House of Assembly ;
vindicating 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 need — 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 eneraies 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 un
swerving rectitude and prudence in all his political intercourse

42
with friend or foe. Listen to his answer to the National Convention,
which nominated him for the Presidency, and then say in cora
mon candor, whether a man of practised political intrigue could
dare thus to open his " private " correspondence and most confi
dential relations with former political friends who are now political
foes. " I have neither solicited the aid nor sought the support of any man
in reference to the high office for which I have been nominated. For
the truth of this declaration, I can safely appeal to the hundreds of
honorable men who composed the recent Convention — to the numerous
Editors 3.ni politicians 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 political life have con
verted into opponents. In none of these classes, or in any other of our
community, is there a man who can Iruly say, that I have solicited
his political support, or that 1 HAVE entered or sought to
ENTER WITH HIM INTO ANY ARRANGEMENT, TO BRING ABOUT THE
NOMINATION WHICH I HAVE NOW RECEIVED, OR TO SECURE IViT EL
EVATION TO THE Chief Magistracy 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-committal,"
and so it is — non-committal to wrong. But when 'oefore, 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 sagacious, that in a long course of active public life he had
never committed 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 ?
Which of the candidates, whose partizans so vehemently de
nounce Mr Van Buren as the Magician of intrigue, dares to take
this ordeal of his honesty? What man of common candor and
comraon honesty, 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 lei
sure 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-

43
sistency by persisting in injustice because we were once deceived,
or to retract error of opinion founded on false facts invented by
eneraies, wheii convinced by the force of truth?
Aly answer to those who charge me with the folly which I free
ly admit, of once having been so credulous as to mistake some of
ttetr falsehoods for truth, in this raatter, is — " where is your proof,
which you have been so long challenged to produce? What I had
only lieard frora you, that Mr Van Buren was suspected of having
done to secure a nomination and an election for the Presidency,
I know thai some, whose partizans so loudly charge him with in
trigue have themselves done. Let either of your Whig candidates
dare the trial that he has invited, and if no one answers, I will
admit that they are iraraaculate."
Where is there an irapartial and disinterested raan, who has
borne specific testiraony against the candidate ofthe Democracy?
Were it nroper in a public Address, I could narae two ofthe most
learned and pious divines in two New England states, whose po
litical sympathies are with the party opposed to Mr Van Buren ;
men erainent for the high places they adorn, and for raany years
intimately acquainted with him, who will tell you (as all who
best know him will fell you,) that his character is above reproach,
his disposition mild, raoderate, and extremely forbearing — his re
spect for religion exemplary, his habits temperate, pure and self deny
ing, his talents of the highest order and his integrity unimpeach
able. These and many more facts, and my personal knowledge
of the means resorted to to elevate the rivh,ls of Mr Van Buren,
have satisfied mo that his character and conduct in point of polit
ical honesty, will compare highly honorably to him, with either of
them, or any of their vehement supporters.
Why then, when our sister New York presents through a National
Convention this her favorite son, with all her accumulated claims
upon us to unite with her in a common interest alid a 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?

44
In vain New York, to whom we are bound by every tie of com
mon interest and common enterprise, extends to JMassachusetts all
the benefits of her magnificent internal improvements, and seeks
to unite the two states in the iron bands of union from the Atlan
tic to the Hudson, from the Hudson to the Ohio and the extreme
Lakes. Our political managers tell us we must vote millions to
rnake a New York Rail Road, but we must rail down every attempt
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, Mas
sachusetts 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
Comptrollers — 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 —
In vain she reminds Massachusetts ofthe answer of New York to
her call in the Revolution — " will you join V 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 from the map forever! "Solitary grandeur" is our motto,
WE WILL not join."
Can the descendants of the Yeomanry of Massachusetts, who
fought the first battles of Liberty at Concord, Lexington and Bun
ker Hill — the sons of the Mechanics of Massachusetts, who in
1787, when her assent was wanting as the ninth State to adopt,
and thus carry into effect our glorious Constitution ; and who,
when such patriots as even Samuel Adams and Patrick Heury had
their doubts on that raeasure, assembled at the Green Dragon in
Boston and filled the streets in such a raass as could not be num
bered, and there resolved that the Union of the States was indis-
pensatfle and M assachusetts must join her sister States — Can we,
the £oi)S of such sires, consent to blot Massachusetts from the

45
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 ofthe Com
monwealth 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 re
membrance of her preeminent 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 peo
ple — to concede to her through her distinguished citizens, a high
er favor than was accorded to any other State — until the final ca
tastrophe of her illiberal and narrow policy, placed her out of the
pale ofthe Union in 1828 — a policy ever since growing more and
more bigotted, until now her only watch word is indiscriminate
opposition, — her only hope to defeat the will ofthe people 1*
To whom do we owe it that this is so? Who have squandered
the rich inheritance of honor and preeminence in the intion,
which our fathers left us ? Let the history of the men to whom
Massachusetts has confided her political destinies answer. Up to
1801, she stood at the head of the Republic. There her leaders
resolved she should stand, and resist the march of social progress.
Virginia came in with her liberal doctrines headed by Jeffer
son, and enforced by Madison, and as she deserved to do, took
the lead in the nation. From that time to this, the systems ofthe
two opposite schools of Virginia and Massachusetts, 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, from the
results of this experiment, that a recent liberal writer from abroad,
*" Give liberal support to the measures of Government when right, that you may
he creditid when you show they are wrong.— Indiscriminate opposition raises no pre
sumption ngajnst them, Irat it demonstrates that the minority are in fault." Samuel
Uexteb, February 14, 1814.

46
who has profoundly examined our political institutions, is right
when he says — " to atterapt to arrest democracy is a struggle
against Heaven itself."
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 parly 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) re
ceived the 162 electoral votes of this State and every State in the
Union e.xcept 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 Massachusetts. 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 yeoman
ry rising in their might, 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 yeomanry, rising in their might next fall,
and placing Massachusetts beside New York? When I put this
question 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
TRY." The leaders, however, thwarted the people who had voted for
Jefferson, and kept Massachusetts in the ranks of opposition.
In 1808, Massachusetts, with all New England except Vermont,
and with Delaware, two votes in Maryland and three in North
Carolina, was in a minority of 47 for Pinckney.

Democratic Vermont, and the other States, gave to Madison,
the friend and disciple of Jefferson, 122 votes.
In 1812, Massachusetts, with ail New England except the Green
Mountain State, and with New York, New Jersey, Delaware and
five votes in JMaryland, went for De Witt Clinton, who had 89
votes. Madison had 128 and was chosen
In 1816, Massachusetts was left nearly solus, and with only
Connecticut and Delaware gave Rufus King 34 votes, to 183 for
Monroe. Again in 1820, the people, wearied with useless opposition,
broke frora their leaders, and all New England and all the Union
went for Monroe.
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
ofthe other States, from sheer distrust of Massachusetts' policy,
elected Jackson. In the elections of 1824 and 1828, Jilassachu-
setts, by adopting a republican candidate, found herself in a strong
and commanding minority of 84 votes, with all New England,
New Jersey, Delaware and a part of New York, Maryland, Lou
isiana and Illinois. [^Jackson had 99 votes in 1624, 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 John duiNcy Adams ; the man whom of all others the lead
ers of the Massachusetts school have most feared for his moral
courage, and mental superiority, and hated most for his political
integrity, and uniforra preference of country to party.
In 1832, Massachusetts carae 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, either
that in 1836 ftl assachusetts was restored to the family of the States

48
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
to be used in defeating a Northern candidate and aid the " monop
oly " of Soutliern Presidents, which her leaders have pretended so
vehemently to deprecate.*
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 JMassachusetts is there, who would not rather have
it to say, that she had supported than opposed Thomas Jefferson ?
Let the eulogy on his life, pronounced at his death, by the " Mas
sachusetts candidate " himself, in presence of thousands of those
who had denounced him as a "visionary radical,"! answer.
Y«'ho is there that does not now regret that JMassachusetts was
the foe of James Madison ? In the midst of the rejoicings of a
JN'ation 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, tho " defender of the Constitution " in
deed, in those eloquent appeals to the people to which we emi-
nemtly owe its adoption, — the last ofthe illustrious line of Revolu
tionary Presidents ; has gone in the fulness of time and of fame
tf> join the glorious company ofthe just made perfect. The ever
watchful friend of the Liberty of the people, is now in the full frui
tion of the Liberty of the sons of God — Madison the good, the
wise, the virtuous, the learned, the patriotic, the democratic Mad
ison, lives only in the hearts of his countrymen !
Shall we not now behold another spectacle, such as we witness
ed at the death of Jefferson — of those who abused him most while
*lFrnm the Boston Centinel of Jan , 1824.J— " We are upon every fair princinle, entit
led lo have a Nartliern Presideat, and unless we succeed now, the chance of l\ilure suc
cess will be entirely desperate."
This was the argument when thf^ Boston lenders reluctantly consented to support Mr
Adams. Tlio samB mm now use the opposite argument In support of a Southern can
didate, to defeat Mr Van Buren.
t See Boston Centinel, Jan. 21, ]82<.

49
living, mot eulogizing him when dead.* Why then shall we go
on, at the bidding of these inconsistent men, forever to oppose
with thera all our raost erainent Statesmen, out of Massachusetts,
while they are living, only to join with them in pronouncing their
eulogies when they are dead !
Fellow Citizens, I 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 diflfers from rae, in the exercise of
the glorious right of free discussion, which should never be sur
rendered on any subject but with our lives ; have I uttered these
things. I have sought, I hope not altogether in vain, to lift rayself out
ofthe narrow sphere of Massachusetts politics, and to take enlarged
views of policy, embracing the Union as a whole. I thank Al
mighty 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 ofthe 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, 1 have
ardently lon^red to join in shouts of joy at the triumph of Democ
racy in JMassachusetts. Once I have heard those shouts, and I
feel that I shall hear them again. Massachusetts has had her
Republican Eustis, why may she not have her deraocratic Morton?
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 frora 1824. Friends to the sarae
principles have stood in false positions to each other, contending
against each other in the ranks of their old foes 1 But now, not
only the original supporters of Democracy, are withdrawing from
unnatural alliances and together coraing up to the help of the peo
ple against the mighty; but the sensible, the moderate, the candid,
the patriotic of those whora the M assachusetts policy once arrayed
against us, are now with us in the full coraraunion of the blessed
* " It is the constant tune of every weak or wicked Administration." [Speech of Mr
Webster in 1814,]
" Mr Madison is least entitled to a compliment for virtue and sincerity of any man in
the nation."— [Boston Ga7.etie,1814 ]
The prophecy in the text is fulfilled, while this Oration was in press. The federalists
who most abused Jamea Madison in tlie last wrar, have invited Ex-President Adams,
(whom they have equally abused heretofore) to pronounce hia Eulogy. When Andrew
Jackson dies, Mr VVebster or Govemor Everett will be his Eulogist.
7

50
spirit ofthe universality of equal rights and the all-pervading "su
premacy 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
and spies 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 one of 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
Crawford, one for Calhoun, another for Adams, a fourth for Clay,
a fifth for Jackson and a sixth for the pupil and friend of Jeffer
son, the lamented Wirt. It is the course of events, the tendency
and consolidation of principles, rather than the preference for this
or that man, that at last, after much confusion and much uncon
genial association, have clearly defined the lines between the par
ty of power and the party of the people, the party of Monopoly and
the party of Democracy ; and for the first time, opened the way,
with honor to theraselves and with justice to their cause and their
country, for every friend of Democratic and anti-monopoly princi
ples, to rally on common candidates, to sustain a common 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 thera an Antiraason.
I becarae an Antimason because I was a Republican. I am a
Democrat because I am an Antimason. AntimaSonry has been
one of the raost efiicient 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 supreraacy 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 infiexible perseverance in the
cause of equal rights. It placed thera in a position, where the
abuse, injustice, proscription and treachery of forraer political
associates, from whom otherwise, they never might have severed,
thoroughly disciplined thera, from necessity, for independent ac
tion, and constrained them, by the force ofthe principle they had

51
espoused, the moment the triuraph of that principle was achieved
by public opinion, to act with the Deraocracy of the Country, the
party of anti-raonopoly opposed to exclusive privileges. The prin
ciple of Antimasonry, is opposition to a secret raonopoly for the
benefit of the few at the expense of the raany. Deraocracy, 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 secret
(all consolidations of wealth or influence by special laws, designed
to accumulate power or wealth in large masses, for individual be
nefit) are subversive of the just equality of the people, and by ne
cessary consequence disturb the equality and impartiality of the
Government and the Laws."
This is the Democratic platform and this is Antimasonry. On
that platform, not in the language of masonry, but of Democratic
equality, all true Democrats may now meet on the level; for no
man who is a sincere Democrat, can be prepared to say or to show
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 De
mocratic party, who have fought the good fight of Antimasonry
and are ready to fight it again should the cause of equal rights re
quire it, will prove to demonstration, that they love and will sus
tain Democracy, as well as they have shown they love and have
sustained 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 ofthe work of beneficent reform. The democratic An-
timasons of Rhode Island and Connecticut have endorsed this
pledge already. Those of Massachusetts and Verraont will guar
anty 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

52
beloved Commonwealth. Taught wisdom by the distractions and
divisions and bigotry and persecutions and vain boasting of the
opponents of Democracy, let us think only of the common cause,
and forget men. If on the onahand, there are those among us
who do not go so far as we do in carrying out our common prin
ciples, as we construe thera, yet, let us bear 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 who we
think go too fast, and who, in their eagerness to reform abuses,
would pull down the old building about the ears of society, in
stead 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
Deraocracy. 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 iuhilee to Massachusetts. That triumph
of liberal principle over narrow policy will surely corae, if we are
all resolved on harmony — such harmony as governed the Councils
of our Fathers, when in their first Declaration of the causes for
declaring Independence, put forth by the Araerican Congress of
1775, they proclairaed to the world,
" Our cause is just, Our Union is perfect.'
My friends — the friends of Democracy — we know our cause is
just — it is the cause of the people, the cause of human rights.
Let our union then, be perfect. Another birthday of our country,
shall dawn upon the supremacy ofthe popular will, freely, fearlessly
expressed by the yeomanry of Massachusetts. The days of Eustis
and Democracy shall once more 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 lan
guage of the Message of a Republican Governor to a Republican
Legislature in 1823,
" A new era is forraed in the history of this Commonwealth —
the state is restored to the confidence of her sister States, and her
character is redeemed in the estimation ofthe patriots of our own
country and of every statesman in Hurope."

^

'^'^fN.
^/'
M6,