heretofore to keep him silent when it was his duty to have spoken, will they not have just as much influence after his election? Will they not threaten to abandon his administration? Will he not, to secure their support, they being the great majority in his party, just as General Taylor did, determine, as a military man, to sacrifice the small body from the South? And when we are pressed again, as we doubtless shall be, what Northern man, either Whig or Democrat, will come to our relief? If we, the minority, sacrifice our friends and put in our enemies, what right have we to look for Northern support again?

But it may be said if we refuse to support General Scott, General Pierce will be elected. If he were a dangerous man, there might be force in the objection. I have closely scrutinized his course since the beginning of the canvass. Upon all questions connected with slavery and the rights of the South, no man that I know of, from any section of the Union, has a better record. While he has been, as far as I know, true to all the great essential interests of his own section, his votes and speeches prove him to have been eminently just and liberal to us. Since his retirement from Congress his course has been consistent and national. He was active in putting down, in the Democratic party of New Hampshire, John P. Hale, the Abolition candidate for the Presidency. More recently he did the same with respect to Atwood. Mr. Atwood, a political and personal friend of General Pierce, was the Democratic nominee for Governor. Shortly before the election, when there was every prospect of the success of Mr. Atwood-as his opponent, the Whig candidate, was like all the other Whigs of New Hampshire, hostile to the Fugitive Slave Law-he likewise wrote a letter expressing his opposition to that measure. General Pierce, being only then a private citizen, was under no particular obligation to interfere. He might, too, have said that both the candidates were merely standing on the same ground. Besides, neither he nor the people of New Hampshire, had any practical interest in the Fugitive Slave Law. was there a mere question of justice to the South; and yet General Pierce took it upon himself to travel some distance to see Mr. Atwood, and on his refusal to take back his letter, he commenced a movement which resulted in degrading Atwood from his position as the Democratic candidate for Governor, and in substituting a sound man in his place. It was thus that General Pierce, a private citizen, under no especial obligation to take so much trouble and odium on himself, acted from a mere determination to do justice to the constitutional rights of the South. How does General Scott's conduct compare with it? In Pennsylvania, General Scott was nominated for the Presidency by the same Convention that nominated Governor Johnson for re-election. But Governor Johnson refused to sign a bill passed by the Democratic Legislature of Pennsylvania to facilitate the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, and was, in fact, avowedly hostile to that measure. Here, then, was a proper case for the interference of General Scott, he being associated in the nomination of the Convention with Johnson. Ought he not, in justice to himself, if he was a friend to the Compromise, to have written at least a letter vindicating his position? But, on the contrary, he was as mute as the grave, and lent

It

the whole weight of his military popularity to the support of Johnson. And he was repaid by the exertions of Governor Johnson, who after his defeat by the Democratic candidate, came to the Convention at Baltimore and carried his delegation for General Scott.

But it is said that we were represented in the Convention, and are therefore bound to support its nominee. Suppose it had nominated Fred Douglas, the free negro-the same argument might have been used. Should it be said that this is not a supposable case, then would we not have been bound to support Mr. Seward, who will doubtless, if the South acquiesces and assists in the election of General Scott, be the next nominee?

If we are not bound to go for any nominee unless he is a proper person, is not this the time for us to make the stand? It is, however, said that allegiance to our party requires.support of its ticket. It was Decatur's motto that one's country must be supported right or wrong; but are we to do the same by a party? The independent freemen of the section from which you and I come, have not thought so. When General Jackson was first elected he did not lose two hundred votes in our congressional district. But in 1840, when his party presented Martin Van Buren as a candidate for re-election, there was a majority of four thousand four hundred votes against him. That was an exhibition of independence worthy of American freemen, who ought always to prefer the interests of their country to mere party success. If the Whig Convention has now, as I think, made, under the circumstances, an unworthy nomination ought we not to repudiate it? I do not at present see any practical issue pending between the parties of sufficient magnitude to require us to sustain the Whig nominee at all hazards. All the Whigs appear to be satisfied with Mr. Fillmore's administration. And yet, since he came into office, there has been no new measure of a party character passed. The sub-Treasury, tariff, and other general laws enacted in Mr. Polk's time, have not been changed. There is but one of them Mr. Fillmore recommended change in, viz: the tariff. With reference to that, however, the last Legislature of our own State, with unanimity both among the Whigs and Democrats, passed strong resolutions against any increase of duties. There seems in fact no reason to suppose that under Mr. Pierce, if he should come in, there would be any material change in these respects.

But it is said that the Van Burens and other Free Soilors are supporting Pierce. It must be remembered, however, that he was not nominated through their influences, but in direct opposition to them. It was the South, with the aid of the conservative Democrats of the North, that effected his nomination. These Free Soilers, therefore, being overpowered, merely for the sake of keeing in with their party, fell into the rear of the movement. But in the case of General Scott the reverse was true. He was nominated by the influence of Seward, Johnston, and other anti-slavery leaders, against the united and determined efforts of the whole South and the Compromise men of the North, and if we support him we must expect to constitute a tail to the army of Abolitionists in front. It may be said that as the Van

Burens, &c., have yielded, we ought to follow their example. But they have in reality surrendered nothing practical, because they had no interest in this question. Their anti-slavery, if not merely taken up to defeat Cass, was at least only a fancy matter, and in giving it up they have only to sacrifice some pride of consistency. We of the South, on the contrary, have a practical interest,--a great stake in the slavery question. Should we abandon it and throw ourselves into the embraces of the Abolitionists, who from the North will be able to extricate us? I pass over, sir, many grave points of objection to General Scott that have been urged by others, especially his contemptuous manner of slurring over the platform by "accepting the nomination with the resolutions annexed." He not only fails to follow the example of General Pierce by declaring that the principles meet his approbation; but inasmuch as there was a great pressure upon him to get him up to the work, his failure is ominous. Fairly construed, his language, under all the circumstances, only seems to imply that he liked the nomination so much that he was willing to take it notwithstanding the objectionable resolutions tied on to it. So is he construed throughout the North; and he must, when he wrote the words, have felt a contempt for our understandings if he thought we could put any other construction on them. I am sorry that his supporters, instead of endeavoring to meet these issues, are merely striving to get up an excitement in relation to his military services by the exhibition of pictures, &c. Brilliant military services, like his, are a great feature in the cap of any man; but our people have not deemed them alone sufficient to qualify one for the Presidential office, in despite of great political objections.

I make no reference to the personal charges against the candidates because they are unnecessarily and most unworthily made. Having known General Scott for a great many years, it gives me pleasure to testify to his high moral worth and honorable qualities as a soldier and a man. Though I have never seen General Pierce, yet all of those who served with him in Mexico, that I have met, concur in saying that no man there was more respected or more popular. The intelligence, courage, and high tone of that army forbid the idea that they would have held General Pierce in the estimation they did, if he had been deficient in any manly or honorable quality. Those politicians, too, who have served with him in either House of Congress, as far as I have heard them speak, have expressed themselves invariably in the most favorable terms with respect to him.

I am well aware, sir, that the expression of these opinions may subject me to denunciation from some. If I had consulted only my per sonal convenience, I might well have fallen into the general current of the party. Not having in any way committed myself against General Scott prior to his nomination, I might have claimed credit as an early supporter, and occupied, doubtless, a position in the front of his party. But had I done so, I would not have acted in accordance with my own sense of right. I have too often encountered opposition in the conscientious discharge of my duty to hesitate now.

If Franklin Pierce was willing to encounter a storm of opposition and obloquy by opposing the strong Abolition current of the North, as he did in putting down Atwood, merely to sustain the rights of a distant section of the Union, ought not you and I, and others, to be willing to make some sacrifices, if necessary, to maintain the great essential interests of our own section? When General Scott received the nomination, was it not the general feeling of our people that he ought not to be supported? That was an honest, patriotic impulse. Under pressing solicitations and the influence of party prejudice many have reluctantly yielded acquiescence. Is it not better, however, to consider the matter calmly and act solely for the interest of the country? If General Scott should be elected, under all existing oircumstances, it not only consigns to their political graves forever, Messrs. Fillmore and Webster, and other Compromise Whigs of the North; but the defeat of General Pierce will tend powerfully to deter any Northern Democrat from again standing up for our rights. This is what Seward and his followers are evidently seeking to accomplish. Ought we to aid them in such a movement, intended as it is solely to effect our political and social destruction? Is it not, under all the circumstances, better that Franklin Pierce should be elected rather than General Scott? By repudiating the nomination of the latter, by making it manifest that he was beaten, not merely because the Democratic party was the strongest, but because also the conservative men of the country generally refused to support him, we may prevent the recurrence of a similar nomination by any future convention, and greatly contribute to ensure the future quiet of the country.

I am, very respectfully, yours, &c.,

T. L. CLINGMAN.

To show more fully the circumstances and argum ents which led to the disasastrous defeat incurred by General Scott, and which in fact terminated the existence as a national organization of the old Whig party, the following address to my constituents is republished. The first part of it is devoted to the summing up of the objections to General Scott, but there is in it a good deal of matter that is local or personal, which is omitted.

WASHINGTON, January 12, 1853.

FELLOW-CITIZENS: In the short interval which elapsed between the close of the last and the commencement of the present session of Congress, I did not, in consequence of my being unwell for some weeks, find time to visit all the counties of our district; I determined, therefore, to avail myself of the first leisure time to address you in explanation of my views, and to defend myself against attacks. This I regarded as alike due to myself, whether I should or should not again be a candidate before you. That is a question which can be decided with more propriety at the close of my present term of service, than it could at an earlier day. Valuing as I do my character as a man, and reputation as a statesman, more than mere political success, I shall leave all considerations only connected with the latter to a future day.

For several years past old party topics have been lost sight of, and overridden entirely by questions connected with the institution of slavery. Though for a great while abolition societies have been active in the Northern States, yet the agitation did not assume a formidable shape until within the last half-dozen years. During the Mexican war, there being a prospect that territory would be acquired, the Wilmot proviso was brought forward. The effect of that movement was to provide that in whatever territory we might acquire, no slaveholder should settle with his property. By this means the territory would be carved into free States, and by its political affinities strengthen the North. This was the main object of Northern politicians. They intended that while no more slave States should be admitted into the Union, a number of free States might come in, so as to give them the entire control, in a few years, of the government. It was their purpose not only to secure thus all the political power of the Union, but in the end to effect the abolition of slavery, or the passage of measures destructive to our interests. On our part we resisted this state of things, not only because of its mischievous tendency, but also on account of its gross injustice. The Southern States besides paying a liberal proportion of the taxes necessary to sustain the war, actually furnished twice as many soldiers as the North. As our population was in fact but little more than half theirs, we thus contributed, proportionally, four times as much as their section. Feeling indignant at the attempt to exclude us entirely, we struggled to effect either such a settlement as might leave the territory open to every citizen of the Republic, so that he could go into it with such property as he could hold at home, or at least to get some equitable division. Most Southern men were willing to take the Missouri line as a compromise, though it would have given us only one third of the territory acquired.

The Congress in which this measure was introduced, passed by without any final action. When the next Congress assembled in December, 1847, the subject was renewed. I found that every single Whig from the free States, and a large portion of the Democrats likewise, steadily supported, on every division, the principle of the Wilmot proviso. When, feeling indignant at such palpable injustice, we remonstrated with Northern Whigs, we were often told not to be alarmed, that they only intended to use this question as a means of stopping the Mexican war, and of splitting into two the Democratic party in New York, who were divided on the question. They declared, from time to time, that they did not intend to push the matter to a practical issue, and that we need feel no alarm whatever. They assured us, most emphatically, that they intended to take no ground in the end that would oblige Southern Whigs to abandon them. On the side of the Democrats there were many against us likewise, and General Cass, the head of the party, occupied in his Nicholson letter, a position unsatisfactory to us, and which, subsequently was repudiated also by the bulk of his party in the South. General Taylor, our candidate, took no position whatever on this subject, but we preferred risking the chances with him, to one whose doctrine was objectionable. The first attempt at settlement which came near succeeding was that known as the Clay