Letter of Hon. James Shields, addressed to a committee of his fellow-citizens, at Galena, Illinois : Washington, August 5, 1852


/

i

PLEASE READ AND CIRCULATE.

LETTER

• OP

HON. JAMES SHIELDS,
ADDRESSED TO

A COMMITTEE OF HIS FELLOW-CITiZENS, AT GALENA, ILLINOIS.

' Washington, 5, 1852.
]

Gentlemen; I have to regret that it has been
impossible for me, owing to the press of business
which falls upon us at thig late period of the ses-
sion, to reply any sooner to your interesting com-
nroinication of the 12th ult. It affords me sincere
pleasure to accept your courteous invitation to
visit Galena as soon as I can make it convenient
after the adjournment. And during my visit to
your city I hope to be able, in compliance with
ys ur request, to address my fellow-citizens, to the
best of my feele abilities, on some of the princi-
pal' questions involved in the approaching presi-
dential election.

Fortunately for me, the principles of the demo-
cratic party stand in but little need of advocacy
among my constituents. They are deeply im-
planted in the hearts of a large majority of our
dtizens. Illinois is essentially and unchangeably
democratic. Fidelity to the free and generous
principles of democracy is one of the proudest
characteristics of our young Prairie State. In the
“ hard-cider” revel of 1840, when coons and log-
cabins, with their appropriate minstrel accompa-
niments, frightened this wise nation from its ac-
customed propriety, Illinois was one of the seven
gallant States that held up the banner of democra-
cy, and waved it proudly before the eyes of the
world. And there that glorious banner still waves,
and there it will wave triumphantly forever!
For the last fifty years the history of the demo-

cratic party is the political history of this country.

There is not a prominent event in our national
history, from the first day of Jefferson’s adminis-
tration to the last day of Polk’s, that does not
illustrate the genius of democracy.
The democratic party has several definite ob-

jects of policy, such as national progress, territo-
rial extensibn, the constitutional independence of
the States, and the political liberty of the indi-
vidual. Some of its fiercest conflicts have been
for the attainment of these objects. The great

struggle against a national bank, a high protective

tariff, a vast national system of internal improve-

ments, and the distiibution of the proceeds of the

public lands among the States, was a struggle
to remove impediments from national progress.

These ingenious contrivances to control the fruits
of national industry for the benefit of a few fa-

vored interests, were frustrated by the vigilance
and energy of the democratic party. In other

countries society is divided into two classes—the
poor, who do all the labor

;

and the rich, who en-
joy all the profits

!

That this country has been
hitherto preserved fiom this ruinous reversal of
the laws of natural justice, is mainly attributable
to the democratic party.

Territorial extension is the work of the same
party. Louisiana gave us the control of the Mis-
sissippi river,

.
Florida and Texas the control of

the Mexican gulf, and Oregon and California the
control of the Pacific ocean

;
and all together have

contributed to make this country, in a geographi-
cal sense, the most compact, defensible, and de-
sirable territorial abode for human development,
civilization, and empire, which has ever existed
on the face of the globe.
The constitutional independence of the States

has been an object of constant solicitude to the
democratic party. Democracy has an instinctive
dread of centralization, for centralization is in-

compatible with Democratic liberty. The demo-
cratic party has always watched, and ^checked

every political movement having the slightest ten-
dency to disturb the constitutional relations of this

beautiful but complex system of government.
But the cardinal principle of that party—the

chei'ished principle of every liberal heart—is its
sacred regard for the natural and political rights

of individuals. The natural rights of man—the
rights with which every human being is endowed
by his Creator—freedom of thought, freedom of
will, freedom of conscience, and freedom of ac-

tion in all cases where the act is not prejudicial to



2
Others—this glorious freedom, which ennobles
human nature, has been secured to America by
the triumph of the democratic principle! May
that sacred principle extend its glorious triumph

to all the oppressed races and the nations of this

world

!

The political rights of the individual are next in
importance. Democracy imposes no restrictions
upon the exercise of these rights but such as are
necessary to preserve them from abuse. Pi'operty
qualifications, and all other qualifications depend-

ing upon the mere accidents of life, are opposed
to the spirit of democracy. A man’s qualifica-
tions for civil liberty can never be determined by
the- amount of his property or the place of his
birth. There seems to be no good reason why a
man who flies from want and oppre.ssion in Eu-
rope, who selects this country in preference to all
others as the future home of himself and family,
and who looks forward to the day when his ashes
shall mingle peacefully with the soil of his adopted
country, and his soul return to the God who gave
it—there seems, I repeat, to be no earthly reason
why such a man should not make as good a citi-
zen, and take as deep an interest in the welfare of
the government, as if he descended in a direct line
from one of the pilgrim fathers. In this age all
civilized nations are open to immigration. The
immigration to a country is generally in propor-

tion to its prosperity, and often one of the chief
causes of that prosperity. The value of strong,
honest immigrant labor, in a struggle between
man and savage nature, on a new continent like
this, where there are such tempting inducements
to trade and adventure, is beyond the calculations
of political economy. The principle that would
exclude this laborious class of men, during the
useful and active portion of their lives, from any
participation in the exercise of political rights and
the enjoyment of political privileges, has always
encountered the steady and united opposition of
the democratic party.

It is my good fortune to be personally acquaint-
ed with both the distinguished citizens whose
names have been presented by their respective
parties as candidates for the highest office in the

gift of the American people. General Winfield
Scott is the candidate of the whig party. For
him I entertain the highest personal regard and
esteem. I admire him as much as I do any man
living for his great military talents, and I consider
him entitled to the gratitude of his country for his
glorious military services. But General Scott is
BO democrat. His political convictions are dif-
ferent from mine. He is true to his convictions

;

Bind for this he has my respect. 1 mean to be
true to mine; and such is my knowledge of his
character that I know this will not lessen me in
his estimation. If the principles of the democratic
party are those that ought to prevail in the con-
duct of this government, then General Scott him-
self would admit, with the frankness of a true
soldier, that he is not the man to represent these
principles as Chief Magistrate of this republic.
Be this as it may, however, I stand where I have
always stood—in the ranks of the democracy. •

Greneral Franklin Pierce is the candidate of
the democratic party. The sterling qualities of
his character make him wmrthy of this distinction.
He is upright and honorable in all the relations of
life, and peculiarly calculated to command the

respect and confidence of his fellow-citizens. Like
Andrew Jackson, he has been a lawyer, states-
man, and soldier; and if it should be the good
fortune of this nation to have him for its next
Chief Magistrate, he will, like Jackson, conduct
the affairs of the government upon the principles
of rigid economy and popular liberty. His course
as a public man, in the councils of his native State,
was always democratic, fearless, and independent.
He showed himself, on all questions and on all
occasions, an able and enlii^htened statesipan.
One of the noblest efforts of his life was in oppo-
sition to that odious feature in the constitution of
New Hampshire—that reproach upon the char-
acter of the Granite State—which stigmatizes and
disqualifies American citizens on account of tieir
religious opinions. In the face of unworthy pre-
judices, Franklin Pierce battled, in a true catholic

spirit, for universal freedom of conscience, and de-
nounced the proscription of that ancient fa th,-
Which is still the faith of three-fourths of he
Christian world. For this act ofjustice and me -al
courage he is entitled to the sincere gratitude of
every American citizen who condemns religitjus
proscription and reveres religious liberty. <

His career in the councils of the nation was jin
perfect harmony with his public course in Ms
native State. Both in the House of Represenia-
lives and Senate of the United States he was t le
model of an enlightened democratic statesman.
The dignified simplicity of his character made hipi
averse to ostentation and display: but his talenjts
and energy made him a powerful advocate of Ml
great measures for the advancement of the pubSc
service and the welfare of the country. Pie en-
tered Congress in 1833, and resigned his seat ^
the Senate in 1842. He declined an appointment
as senator of the United States in 1845. He de-
clined a place in President Polk’s cabinet in 1846,
and the nomination for governor of his State in
1848. ‘ And yet this modest, unambitious citizen,
who declined all these distinguished honors, and
who retired to private life in the very flower of
manhood, shouldered the revolutionary musket of
his father, and entered the military ranks as a pri-
vate soldier on the breaking out of war betw*een
his country and Mexico. There is a moral gran-
deur in this portion of the life of Franklin Pierce

v/hich reminds one of the early and heroic age of
this republic

!

President Polk, who was well acquainted with
his intrinsic worth, having served with him in
Congress, raised him from the ranks by appoint-
ing him first colonel and then brigadier general in
the army of the United S ates. He landed with
his brigade at Vera Cruz in June, 1847 ; marched
from there to Puebla, where he joined the head-
quarters of the army on the 6th of August. On
this march, which was very severe on fresh levies,
his brigade was constantly harassed and attacked
by large parties of guerillas. \It was the universal
opinion among military men in Puebla at that
time that General Pierce conductedthe march with
uncommon ability, and exhibited remarkable skill
and courage in his conflicts with the enemy.
Soon after his arrival, he entered the valley of

Mexico. Tlie battle of Contreras opened the
campaign in that valley, on the 19th of August.
Pierce’s brigade took a very active part in that

engagement. He himself commanded in person
> on that occasion, and behaved with acknowledged

4

t



3

gallantry
;
and though very severely injured by a

fall from his horee—o rather by the fall of liis
horse—he continued in comn-ianii in the midst of
the fire until late in the night, when that action
terminated.

The batde of Churubusco, one of the bloodiest
battles of the war, was fought the next day. On
this occasion I was ordered by General Scott to
take command of Pierce’s brigade and the moun-
tain howitzer battery, in addition to my own two
regiments, and with this force to fall on the

enemy’s rear and cut off his retreat. Pierce and
myself, with eur united commands, proceeded as
rapidly as the nature of the ground would permit,
to carry this order into faithful execution. Pierce

was suffering dreadfully at this time from the in-
jury of the preceding day, and, as General Scott

himself says in his report, was only “just able
to keep the saddle.” As we approached the
enemy’s position, directly under his fire, we en-
countered a deep ditch, or rather a deep, narrow,

Slimy canal, which had been previously used for
the purpose of irrigation. It was no time to
hesitate, so we both plunged in,. The horse 1
happened to ride that day was a light, active
Mexiqan horse. This circumstance operated in
my favor, and enabled me to extricate myself and
horse after considerable difficulty. Pierce, on the

contrary, was mounted on a large, heavy Ameri-
can horse, and man and horse* both sank down
and rolled over in the ditch. There I was com-
pelled to leave him

;
for, being in charge of the

whole command, 1 had not a single moment to
spare

;
and the manner in which a few mtoments

are employed on such an occasion may determine
the fortune of a field and the fate of an army.
After struggling there 1 cannot say how long, he
extricated himself from his horse, and hurried on

foot to join his command, then closely engaged
in a desperate contest with the enemy; and there
he remained till, overcome by suffering and ex-
haustion, he sank on the ground, and was carried
all but lifeless from the field. This is a true state-
ment of facts in relation to General Pierce at
C.hurubusco

;
aud this statement I would have

J

made at San Augustin, four days after the battle,
when I made my official report; but the brigade
having rejoined* its division immediately after the

’action, the officers, instead of reporting to me,
who commanded them in battle, made their ref>ort
to their division commander; and as his report of
an action, which he had no opportunity to witt-
ness, cannot be very circumstantial, I think it due
to military justice to make this statement at this
time, when my silence might be liable to miscon-
struction. Whoever takes the trouble to read my
report of this engagement, dated at San Augustin,
Mexico, August 24, 1847, will find the following
paragraph

:

“ Pierce’s brigade, under my command in this
action, lost a considerable number in killed and
wounded; among the latter was the gallant Col.
Morgan, of the 15th. This command having re-
joined its division, I have yet received no official
report .qf its loss.”

As I never received this report, of course I
could rnake no official statement on the subject.
As my only object in introducing this matter is

to place the military conduct of General Pierce,
while under my command, in its true light before
the public, I do not deem it necessary to follow
him through the rest of the campaign, where that
conduct has never been the subject of injurious
criticism. Permit me to say, in conclusion, that,
in reference to General Pierce’s courage and con-
duct in Mexico, I only do for him what I would
be ready to do for any other gallant officer with
whom 1 had the honor to serve—that is, declare
the truth in vindication of his military reputation.

I regret the unexpected length of this letter, but
the importance of the- subject must constitute my
apology.

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, your obedi-
ent servant,

JAS. SHIELDS.

To Messrs. FT. B. McGnrsns, Matthew Plum-
stead, John J. Crawford, and others, Gulena,
Illinois.

[APPENDIX.
]

r

L

To refute the falsehoods of the whigs relating
to General Pierce’s course in the New Hampshire
convention, his remarks (following those of Judge

Woodbury) with reference to the religious test
and property qualification, are subjoined. It w;ill

be seen that whatever others have done—for whom,
of course. General Pierce is not responsible—he
is entitled to the high credit of having fearlessly

breasted an unworthy popular prejudice in*the

discharge of what he regarded as a solemn duty :

^
Mr. Pierce, of Concord, slIR^flftfftie could

ebneur heartily in all that the gentleman from

Portsmouth had uttered, except his last remark.
It was quite obvious that, so far from having taxed
the patience of the committee, his speeches upon
both the great subjects embraced in the resolutions
under consideration had been listened to v/ith un-
qualified gratification. Not because he threw the
weight of his high cheiracter and the power of his
arguments into the scale on the side of right in a
case where there was hesitancy—where the judg-
ment of members was not definitely formed

—

where there was a shade of doubt as to the result

;

but because it was desirable that the grounds on
which we proceed in matters of such grave import
should be stated, as they had been, with singular
force of reasoning and beauty of illustration. It

i was also a service well rendered, not less in vin-



dication of the past than the present. The mo-
tives of the fathers of the present constitution and

of the people in 1792 had been placed in their

true light. So much was due to them. It was
also due to this convention and the people whom
they represent, and due to the reputation of the

Slate abroad, that it be well understood that both

of the provisions—the religious test and the prop-
erty qualification—had been a dead letter, at least
as long as the chairman [Mr. Sawyer] had parti-
cipated to any extent in the councils of the State.
They had been practically inoperative from Mr.
P.’s earliest recollection. The chairman would
remember that many years ago, at a time of high
party excitement, it was suggested that a member
of the House of Representatives occupied his
seat without the requisite property qualification.

But two objections at once occurred to any action
upon the subject; the first was that investigation
and action, instead of rejecting one member,.might
probably vacate twenty seats

;
the second was,

that no member could probably be found to move
in a matter so utterly repugnant to public senti-

ment.
The religious test in the constitution had unde-

niably been a stigma upon the State, at honae and
abroad. It had been repeatedly named to him,
and once at least in a foreign land, as unworthy of
the intelligent and liberal spirit of our country-
men. Almough he had at times felt keenly the
reproach, he had uniformly referred, as he had no
doubt other gentlemen had done, to other parts of
the constitution as illustrating the true and free
spirit of our fathers, and to these as, at lea^ for
many years, a blank. The great question of re-
ligious toleration was practically settled, and'set-
tled in a manner never to be reversed whili we
retain our present form of government, more fcan
thirty years ago. The provisions now clain|ing
the attention of the committee could hardlji be
said to involve an open question. They had tteen
the subject of discussion in every lyceum, every’
academy, debating club, every town; and tlere
was perhaps no subject upon which public opinion
and pul lie feeling was so uniform and decisve.
The substance—if substance they ever had—hiv-
ing long since passed away, he rejoiced that the
proper occasion had at length arrived to dispe^e
with the form. '

]

GENERAL SCOTT ON THE NATURALIZATION LAWS.
f

[From the New York Courier and Enquirer—Scott paper.]
“Washington, J^ovemher 10, 1844.

“ Dear Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 9th instant, written, as you
are pleased to add, in behalf of several hundred Native American republicans of Philadelphia.

“ Not confidentially, but not for ^publication, I have already replied to a friendly letter from
David M. Stone, esq., of your city, on tjie same subject. 1 will write to you in like manner

-and in haste. This is the month when the pressure of business is the heaviest with me, leaving
I scarcely time for necessary sleep and exercise. I must not, however, wholly neglect your
communication.

“ Should any considerable number of my countrymen assign me or desire to give me a promi-
'nent position before the public, I shall take time to methodize my views on the great questions*
you have proposed. Those views had their origin in the storm.y election in the spring of 1836,
and were confirmed in the week that Harrison electors were chosen in New York. On both
occasions I was in that city, and heard in the streets the cry, Down with the Natives! It was
heard in almost every group of foreigners, as the signal for rallying and outrage.' Fired with
indignation, two friends sat down with me in my parlor at the Astor House, (November, 1840,)
to draw up an address, designed to rally an American party. The day after the election I set
out for the South, and have never precisely known why our appeal was not published. Proba-
bly the election of General Harrison rendered its publication at that time unnecessary in the
opinion of my two friends.”

“ I now hesitate betwjeen extending the period of residence before naturalization and a total
repeal of all acts of Congress on the subject: my mind inclines to the latter.

“ Concurring fully in the principles of the party in Philadelphia, &c., &c., I should prefer as-
suming the designation of American republicans, as in New York, or democratic Americans, as
I would respectfully suggest. Brought up in the principles of the Revolution—of Jelferson,
Mad ison, &c., under whom, in youth, I commenced life—I have always been called, I have
ever professed myself, simply a republican, or whig, which, with me, was the same thing.
Democratic*Americans would include all good native citizens devoted to our country and its in-
stitutions; would not drive from us naturalized citizens, who, by long residence, have become
identified with us in feeling and interest. »

“ I am happy to see by the Philadelphia North American that religion is to be excluded as a
party element. Staunch Protestant as I am, both by birth and conviction, I shall never consent
to any party or State religion. Religion is too sacred to be mingled up with either. It should
also be kept entirely between each individual and his God, except in the way of reason and gen-
tle persuasion, as in families, churches, and other occasions of voluntary attendance (after years

‘

of discretion) or reciprocal consent.
“ Wishing success to the great work which you and othejy^i|te have happily set on foot,

“ I remain, with high respect, your feil^w^^en,
“ WIN^’IELD SCOTT.

“ To George Washington Reed, Esq., and others, Philadelphia.’^