difficulties which now environ it? And the reply comes up at once, by invoking the aid of the man who settled similar difficulties before. Common sense would seem to indicate the propriety of such a course. If a physician by skillful treatment had brought you through a severe spell of illness, and you were attacked a second time with the same disease, would you not call him to your relief again? If a pilot had steered you safely through a dangerous storm, and you were again beset by tempests, would you not a second time call him to the helm? Why, then, should not the people of the United States again avail themselves of the services of the statesman whose wisdom and patriotism guided them in 1850 through perils like those that now threaten their safety? MADISON. CHAPTER XXI MADISON LETTER NUMBER TWELVE-THE CLAIM OF THE N the very unique letter with which Mr. Wise favored the public some weeks ago, he stated that there would be three parties to the next Presidential contest, viz.: 1. The white man's party-the Democratic. 2. The black man's party-the Republican. 3. The mongrel or mulatto-the American. Mr. Wise also expresses the opinion that there will be new and important issues involved in that election. I think it probable that Mr. Wise is right in supposing that there will be three parties in the field, unless the Democracy succeed in the effort, said now to be on foot, to buy up the Republicans, by nominating a candidate of "freesoilish" proclivities. He is also right in supposing there will be important issues in the contest. The most momentous of these will be, whether "Americans shall rule America." The old questions connected with slavery, which were so happily adjusted under the administration of Mr. Fillmore, and which the country had hoped were finally and conclusively settled, will doubtless be revived in a new form. It is with reference to these latter questions that Mr. Wise favors us with his views of the divisions and appropriate designation of parties. Inverting the order suggested by Mr. Wise, I propose now, briefly, to inquire why he denominates the American party, or rather the ticket which they have nominated, as a mongrel or mulatto ticket, a cross between the Caucasian and Cuffey, as he is pleased to term it? It certainly cannot be because a gentleman from one of the grand divisions of the country is nominated for President, and a gentleman from the other grand division for Vice-President. I say it cannot be for this reason, for if that circumstance justified him in stigmatizing it as a mongrel or mulatto ticket, then the ticket which was headed by George Washington would be a mongrel ticket, and so would every other ticket be that has been nominated from the foundation of the government. The rule has been uniform at all times and with all parties, when they took a candidate for the highest office from the North, to take the candidate for the second office from the South, and vice versa. Jackson and Van Buren, Van Buren and Johnson, Polk and Dallas, Cass and Butler, and Pierce and King, are illustrations of the usage of the Democratic party. Why, then, is the ticket of Fillmore and Donelson a mongrel? The subject has given me great pain and uneasiness, for, in common with all Americans, I was mortified that the ticket did not meet with the approbation of Mr. Wise. After much reflection on the matter, I have been forced to the conclusion that it is because Mr. Fillmore was a Whig, and Mr. Donelson a Democrat, that this heavy sentence has been pronounced upon them. I hope that the Democracy, being premonished, will not fall into the error into which we have been betrayed, and nominate James Buchanan, an old Federalist, on the same ticket with a Southern Democrat! If they do, they may certainly expect to hear it anathematized by Mr. Wise as a mongrel or mulatto ticket, a cross of the Caucasian and Cuffey! Consistency requires it, and no one will question Mr. Wise's consistency! As we have committed the blunder, unadvisedly and unwisely, of course, it is now too late to repair it, and we are constrained to make the best of it, and to offer such excuse as we can. I presume that, according to Mr. Wise's idea, the can didates, and the party which supports them, ought to be entirely homogeneous; they ought not only to think alike at the time of their nomination and election, but their past opinions should have been identical, and their antecedents should in all respects be the same! What a blundering set the Americans were not to remember this! The Democracy never lose sight of it! It is true Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Donelson think alike now on all the vital issues that divide the country; it is true that they now stand on the same platform and are prepared to co-operate in future on all the great measures of policy which are likely to affect the interests, the honor, the peace, and the safety of the country in the next four years! But then, in times that have passed, they differed from each other on the questions of the Bank, Tariff, Internal Improvements, and Distribution of the Public Lands! The union of such incongruous elements on the same ticket ought surely to expose them to the imputation of being a "mongrel" or "mulatto" ticket! But have the Democracy never sinned in this particular? Have they never violated the unities of political action by nominating, and even electing to office, men whose antecedents have not been purely Democratic? Are the garments, even of the mother of Democracy, the good old Commonwealth of Virginia, free from this stain? Let history answer the question. Who is the present Democratic Governor of Virginia? Henry A. Wise, an old Whig! Who is the Democratic Lieutenant-Governor? Elisha McComas, an old Whig! Who is the Democratic Attorney-General? Willis P. Bocock, an old Whig! Who is the Democratic Speaker of the House of Delegates? Oscar M. Crutchfield, an old Whig! Who is the Democratic Superintendent of the Penitentiary? Charles S. Morgan, an old Whig! Who is the senior Democratic Senator of the United States from Virginia? R. M. T. Hunter, a gentleman and a statesman, and an old Whig; at least, if he was not of the Whigs he was with them. Who is the other Virginia Democratic Senator? James M. Mason, an ornament to his party, never quite a Whig, but for a time a sojourner in Mr. Clay's "half-way house" of conservatism; and once overslaughed by a Democratic convention of his Congressional District by reason thereof! Who is the member of Congress elected by the Democrats from the Accomac district? Thomas H. Baily, an old Whig! Who is the Democratic Representative from the Berkeley district? Charles James Faulkner, an old Whig! Who is the Democratic Representative from the Buckingham district? Thomas S. Bocock, an old Whig! Who is the Democratic Representative in the Petersburg district? Wm. O. Goode, an old Whig! Who is the Democratic Representative from the Richmond district? John S. Caskie, I believe, though I am not certain, an old Whig! Who was Mr. Goode's Democratic predecessor? R. K. Meade, an old Whig! Who was recently the Democratic Representative from the Fredericksburg district? Willoughby Newton, an old Whig! |