A DOCUMENT FOR ALL THINKING MEN!

THE POLITICAL LETTERS AND WRI-

TINGS OF GENERAL SCOTT,

REVIEWED, DISCUSSED, AID COMPARED.

His Native Americanism proved by his own words!

His support of the Bankrupt Law proved by his own words !

His support of the United States Bank proved by his own

words !

His ignorance of the Constitution proved by his own words !

His hostility to Catholics proved by his own words

!

And
,
finally , his incompetency, his aristocracy, and his per-

severing efforts against the naturalization laws, proved

by his own words!

GENERAL SCOTT’S POLITICAL LETTERS AND PRODUCTIONS.

The following are all the political letters and productions of General

Scott, written and printed before his nomination by the last Whig Na-

tional Convention, and since he has been an aspirant for presidential

honors. They will be useful as matters of reference during the present

campaign. Constituting, as they do, the chart of his political faith, they

deserve to be read and reviewed with care; and coming, as they do>

from the whig candidate for President, they should be carefully preserved.

By whomsoever perused, however, these productions will create no senti-
ment of admiration for the writer. Lacking in good sense, in good taste,

and even in literary accuracy, they alternately exhibit him as vain, domi-

neering, and shallow.

HIS ARDENT NATIVE AMERICANISM.

General Scott’s devotion to the principles of Native-Americanism—hi'^
hostility to foreigners—appears to be about the only fixed principle of his
mind. Surrounded by contradictions and denials it may be, but it oftea



2

reappears above (lie chaos of his thoughts with more than its original

earnestness. It is true that, in his letter of October 25, 1841, which is

the first in the list below published, he announces that, “ I (he) felt the

liveliest joy, when the alien and sedition laws expired, in the triumph of
Mr. Jefferson and it is also true that at the close of the same letter he

says that he would accept a nomination for the presidency, “ provided

that I (he) be not required to renounce any principle professed above”

—

that is, in the same letter; and he then adds, with great fervor and force,
umy principles are convictions.” But itavill presently appear that of all
his expedients to reform the naturalization laws, those which looked to

their practical abrogation are clearly the only real sentiments of his heart.

As an evidence, equally of his sympathy with the very alien law over whose

repeal he rejoices in 1841, reference may be made to his letter of 10th

November, 1S41, in the same year
,
(or No. 2 of those printed below,) in

which he shows that, on three distinct occasions, he was ready and anx-

ious to take part against the adopted citizens, and in favor of the Native-

Americans. He was an early idolater ofthat most pestilential creed. “These

views,” he says, in the letter just alluded to, “had their origin in the

stormy elections of the spring of 1S35, and were confirmed in the week that

the Harrison electors were chosen in New York”—which was in November
of 1840. He goes on: u On both occasions I was in that city, and heard

in the streets, ‘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 to rally an American

"party.” Of the manner in which these views continued to control him,

observe how, in the same letter, for the third time, he repeats and ampli-

fies them: “ 1 now hesitate between extending the period of residence

before naturalization and the total repeal of all acts of Congress on the

subject. My mind inclines to the latter.” In his letter of October 25,
1841, he rejoices over the repeal of the alien law, enacted under John

Adams, in 1793, which provided that all foreigners should remain four-

teen years in this country before they could be entitled to a vote. (See

page 540, Story and Sharswood’s United States Statutes at Large
)
Even

when he wrote this letter, he had, six years before, imbibed hostile views

to the foreigners—views which were “confirmed,” one year before, in
the Harrison campaign; views which, one year after, he imbodied in

the sweeping declaration that he was in favor of the repeal of all our

naturalization laws—thus deliberately proclaiming sentiments in regard
to the alien law which his own action before, and directly after, rebuked

—

at the same time that he entertained and finally avowed a change on the

subjection of naturalization, which contemplated a more radical change

than even that alien law at whose overthrow he had rejoiced ! In com-

menting upon General Scott’s letter of acceptance, which concludes the

list, we shall contrast his new views with his old views, and prove that

extremes are often reconciled by effecting the same results. When Gen-

eral Scott wrote his letter in 1841—dating his Nativism in 1836, six years
before— tile bloody and fatal riots in Philadelphia had not yet taken place.
But it is notorious that that letter was fuel added to the fire, and was

held up as the invocation to. those frightful excesses and crimes of May

and June, 1844.



3
•

SCOTT ADVOCATES THE UNITED STATES BANK AND THE BANKRUPT LAW
IN 1841.

General Scott, in his first letter, (October. 25, 1841.,) takes ground in

distinct' terms in favor of the Bankrupt law and a Bank of the United

States. These were the measures of the extra session of 1841—a session
so fatal to the interests of the whig party, and which, but for Mr. Tyler’s

vetoes, woyild have proved fatal to many of the great interests of the coun-

try. The bankrupt bill became a law in that session. When General

Scott approved and applauded it, it was inflicting the most direful conse-

quences upon the country. Though it existed but a short time, it was

wielded with tremendous power to obliterate honest debts, and to plunder

honest industry and useful enterprise. It is estimated that four hundred

millions of debts were sponged out by this sweeping process. General

Scott would have voted for this law, as well as for a Bank of the United

States, and this in the face of the fact that the nation was suffering deeply

from the one—so deeply, indeed, that the same Congress which enacted
it was compelled to repeal it; and that every institution like a Bank of the

United States had inflicted indescribable misery upon the country; had

robbed the laboring masses; had defrauded its innocent stockholders; had

imposed crushing burdens upon the people, and discouraged industry and

enterprise in all quarters of the land. We need not multiply the proofs
of the amount of injury inflicted upon the people by the bank, but it may

not be out of place to recall some of the consequences of the bankrupt

law of 1841, for which General Scott says he would have voted had he

been in Congress during the celebrated extra session.

It will be recollected that that law was enacted during the extra session

of 1841 by a party vote, and that it remained in operation until March,

1843, when the same Congress which created it, alarmed at the universal

outburst of alarm and indignation which greeted its operation, repealed

it entirely.

Mr. Benton said, in the Senate, on the 11th of January, 1843, that

the bankrupt law (approved by General Scott) “ annihilated involun-

tary bankruptcy; made all persons, traders or not, volunteers who chose
to be so; released all debts at the will of the debtor, without the consent

of a single creditor, and committed the most daring outrage upon the laws

of property which the world ever beheld /”

Hon. Garret Davis, of Kentucky, (whig,) in announcing himself for

the repeal of the law, said that a his course was taken in consequence of

the well-settled and well-ascertained wishes of his constituents, nine in

ten of whom were opposed to the law. He admitted that he was not
bound to obey all the admonitions of popular feeling, but in the present

instance their judgment was the result of time and of deliberation.”

Hon. Thomas F. Marshall (whig) u made a legal and constitu-
tional argument in explanation of his objections to the bankrupt law; and

then said, that beyond these objections he had the imperative voice of

his constituents at home to urge him to seek its repeal.”

Senator Allen (democrat) “ considered the law condemned by the

undivided voice of the country. The House of Representatives, in con-
formity to the will of the people, had passed a bill for the repeal of the

act. # # Therefore, he would vote against the amendments

of the committee, if for no other reason, because any amendment of the



4
\

bill of the House would have an effect to continue this odious law on the

statute-book.’
’

The legislature of New Hampshire, in instructing their senators to vote
for the repeal of the bankrupt law, advocated by General Scott, said

that “ it disregards the sanctity of all existing contracts and the vested

rights of creditors, and at one sweep both strips the States of authority

always heretofore exercised in insolvent cases, even under the old bank-

rupt law of 1801, and robs the whole class of creditors, female as well as

male, orphans and minors as well as adults, of rights and privileges

deemed till now inviolate, and secured by all the sacredness of private

contracts and the strongest force of State legislation !”

This was the law which General Scott would have voted for had he

been in Congress in 1841.

General Scott tells us that his “ principles are convictions,” in his

letter of October, 1S41, and in his subsequent letters he affects a recanta-

tion of some of the views he then expressed
;
but the reader will observe

that he recants no one of his opinions so warmly avowed in favor of the

bankrupt law, the Bank of the United States, and the distribution of the

proceeds of the sales of the public lands. On the contrary, in his letter

of acceptance in June last, he distinctly refers “ to the well-known inci-

dents of his long public life”—these three being a portion of those inci-
dents—as the best guarantee or pledge he can give to the country for his
future course. His nutions in favor of a modified veto were proclaimed

in 1841, and repeated in 1852 • and this in the teeth of the fact that Mr.

Tyler’s vetoes in 1 84 L had saved the country from incalculable disas-

ter, and that the system of the Independent Treasury, built upon the

ruins of the vetoed Bank of the United States, had diffused confidence

and security among our monetary circles, from the day of its re-establish-

ment, without interruption, down to the present hour.

SCOTT AND PICRCE CONTRASTED.

We pass over General Scott’s letter upon slavery. Any candidate in
the hands of Mr. Seward may safely proclaim any opinions hb pleases.

He must to the last be controlled by that arch agitator, as he has hereto-

fore been, and as he is now controlled by him. Gen. Scott may be ad-

vocated by the southern whigs, as he is, as standing upon the whig plat-

form erected at Baltimore, in June
;
and he may be presented to the

North by Mr. Greeley and his coadjutors, as he is, as a candidate forced

to accept that platform or to forego his nomination
;
but, however pledged

and however committed, Mr. Seward will prove to be the soul of his ad-

ministration, should he be elected, and will impregnate the whole policy

of the government with his views. It is asserted that it is this argument

that must finally concentrate upon Scott the abolition and free-soil votes

of the North
;
and that such is the object of Mr. Seward cannot be de-

nied. Indeed, that he uses every southern objection to Scott as a north-

ern argument in his favor, is extremely notorious. But there is no voter

who professes to love the truth—whether he be free-soiler, abolitionist, or
southerner—who would not prefer the direct, unequivocal, and straight-
forward policy of Pierce, on all questions, slavery inclusive, to the half-

hearted, double-faced
,

many- sided creed of General Scott, as illus-

trated by his owTn opiir and the acts of his friends on all subjects.



5

GENERAL SCOTT AND ANNEXATION.

General Scott takes ground, in his letter No. 4, for the peaceable an-

nexation of Canada
;
but he is evidently against any more southern ac-

quisitions. How soon or near the day may be when Canada shall be-
come a portion of the United States is abundantly apocryphal

5
but the

broad historical fact stands out for reflection and for reference, that the

party to which General Scott is now allied has always been hostile to

the extension of our institutions, to the enlargement of our territories, and

to that safe and steady progress which is the offspring of a people gov-

erned by impulses and by laws like ours. At first as at the last, in the

beginning as at the present day, the cry has been maintained, u no more

territory and whether it was heard against Jefferson when he pur-

chased Louisiana, or against Polk when he annexed Texas or acquired.

California, it came from the same men and from the same party. In

just and harmonious concordance with this watchword was the crusade

against the emigration, or, what is the same, the naturalization of for-

eigners, headed by Scott and the Native-American whig party. How"

full of significance is General Scott’s appeal to Canada, when contrasted

with his silence upon the blessings and benefits that have flowed from

our acquisitions in other quarters ! How eloquent his subsequent refusal
to notice the results of the nuptials between California and the American

Union ! And yet how constantly and chillingly all this is contrasted with

his former wilful blindness to acknowledge the incalculable local and

national advantages that have vindicated the purchase of Louisiana and

the annexation of Texas ! Is the cheap proffer of Canada intended as a

rebuke to that which the whole world applauds and admires in the ex-

ample presented by our southwestern acquisitions, or as a promise to

conciliate prejudices that continue to assail the territorial policy of the

democratic party?

GENERAL SCOTT’S INSULT TO THE ADOPTED CITIZENS WHO FOUGHT
FOR OUR COUNTRY IN THE REVOLUTIONARY AND LATE WARS.

The next letters (numbers 5 and 6) are those upon which his recanta-
tion of Native-American doctrines is based. They are addressed, respect-
ively, to W. E. Robinson, esq., one of the editors of Greeley’s New
York Tribune, and Robert Tyler, esq., of Philadelphia. The letter
to Mr. Robinson contains an error in point offact. In that letter General

Scott tries to create the impression that he wrote his Native-American

letter (of November 10, 1841) in a state of excitement. The excitement
he refers to took place in 1840, when Harrison was elected, and did not
exist when he wrote his Native letter, one year after. This Native-Ameri-
can letter was a cool, deliberate, and well-digested performance, and, as

we shall presently show, is entirely consistent with the avowals made
since he recanted that letter. The main reason for this haif-recantation
of General Scott is, because the adopted citizens behaved bravely in

Mexico. The excuse is as gross an insult as the original outrage it is
intended to palliate and gloss over. Pray, General Scott, did the

adopted citizens not behave well in the last war with England ? Did

they not behave well in the revolutionary war? If they did—and you
dare not controvert history and say they did not—why did not the recol-
lection of their valor in both of our wars for independence (in one of



6

which you served) save them from your bitter, proscriptive, and most in-

tolerant scheme of disfranchisement, indulged and advocated from 1835

down to 1841 and 1844? It is simply to expose either your scant logic
or your large insincerity, to allege that you waited to be convinced of

their bravery in Mexico, where you punished almost the only adopted

citizens that ever forgot the American flag, or entitled themselves to the

execration and scorn of patriotic Irishmen, Germans, and Frenchmen.

Ineffable and consummate argument ! How long he waited for the truth !
He was not convinced by Lafayette and his legions

;
by Montgomery

;

by Kosciusko
;
by Pulaski

;
by De Kalb, and by the masses of for-

eigners who poured out their blood in the seven years’ war of the Revo-
lution, and afterwards sacrificed their lives on land and sea in our final

conflict with England. While the country erected monuments to the

illustrious dead, while history recorded their gallant deeds, and while

the doors of the Union were thrown wide open to the widest wave of

emigration^ as a tribute to the sentiment that never forgets a national

favor, General Scott refused to be convinced, and went on preparing his

schemes of proscription of the adopted citizens. Penitence like this, even

if unsustained by subsequent attempts at reform on the same subjects, all

looking to the practical exclusion of the foreigner from the advantages of

emigration, amounts to less than nothing.

We now give the letters, in regular order:

No. 1.

On Parly Politics— The Judiciary— The Executive Veto—Rotation in Office—One Presidential Term—
Agency of the President in Legislation— Secret <f Oath-bound Societies, &fc.

Washington, October 25, 1841.

Gentlemen : I have lately had the honor to receive many letters from as many different

States, each propounding, on the part of the writer and his neighbors, nearly the same political

interrogatories, to which answers are required.

The scope of the inquiries is a flattering proof of the interest that some of my countrymen

take in the opinions that I have formed on certain great principles of abiding importance to the

success of our systems of government; and as I have nothing to conceal, if nothing of value to

communicate, I shall at once, without policy or reserve, and in the form of a circular, comply

with their several requests.

Party politics.—Although, from early manhood, I have, by the profession of arms, in de-
fence of country, been thrown out of the arena of party politics, yet I have never ceased to be

an attentive observer of public events, and thus, I believe, there has scarcely been a discussion

of moment in Congress, within my time, on which I did not form, and modestly, but firmly,
express a passing opinion.

A mere youth, I felt the liveliest joy when the alien and sedition laws expired in the triumph
of Mr. Jefferson. From 1806 1 was old enough, by speech and pen, to call for a prompt and an

energetic redress of our wrongs suffered from Great Britain, under her orders in council, attack

on the Chesapeake frigate, and long-continued impressment of our seamen : and when the war

of 1812 at length came, I was among the first and longest in the presence of the foe. The in-

sults received from the French Directory, their depredations on our commerce, renewed under

Napoleon’s decrees, (Berlin and Mtlan,) which followed the British orders in council, also

largely shared in my indignant reprobation.
The administrations of Mr. Madison and Mr. Monroe, like that of Mr. Jefferson, had, in their

respective periods, my humble but hearty approbation
;
and I have since censured nothing in

either but the sale of a part and the dismantling of the remainder of our navy, the gun-boat sys-

tem of defence that followed, and the indefinite embargo, which, crippling us for war by de-

stroying our commerce and finances and oppressing agriculture, was long continued without

redressing one outrage from abroad.

I give this little sketch of the growth of my party feelings or opinions—unimportant, perhaps,
except to myself and a few partial friends—to show that, if I have never been a federalist in
any party sense of the term, so never have I been a jacobin, an impracticable, or abstractionist, .

in any sense whatever, but always an old-fashioned republican, devoted to the support of law /



7

and order—a democratic whig, just as all my family have been whigs, in the great struggle for
national freedom and independence.

The judiciary-—From an early and long-continued study of elementary law, my mind has
ever been imbued with a deep reverence for the bench, State and federal—an independent de-
partment in our system of government—and which, holding neither the purse to corrupt nor the
sword of power to terrify, addresses itself only with the mild force of persuasive reason to the

intelligence and virtue of the whole community. By the federal constitution every possible safe-
guard is provided to shield its judiciary against fleeting prejudice, political rancor, and party

dependence, to which legislators and the executive are unavoidably directed and constantly ex-

posed. Hence to the “ one Supreme Court ” is wisely extended (by “ appellate jurisdiction ”)

“all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution, the laws of the United States, and

treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.”

Looking to this express provision, I have always held that when a doubtful question—arising
under either the constitution itself, the supreme law of the land, under an act of Congress, or a

treaty—has once been solemnly adjudicated by that court, the principle of that decision ought to
be taken by all as definitively settled, unless, indeed, it be upon a rehearing before the same tri-

bunal. This appears to me too clear for disputation
;
for the court is not only declared to be

supreme, and hence there can be no bench beyond, but to Congress is only given the power to

constitute “ inferior” tribunals. By appeals to the Supreme Court, a settlement was intended to
be reached, and anarchy, through a long distraction of the public mind, on great questions of

legislative and executive power, thus rendered impossible. Practically, therefore, for the people,

and especially their functionaries, to deny, to disturb, or impugn principles thus constitutionally

established, strikes me as of evil example, if not of a direct revolutionary tendency, except, in-
deed, in the case of a judicial decision, enlarging power, and against liberty; and any dangerous

error of this sort can always be easily corrected (and should be only corrected) by an amend-

ment of the constitution in one of the modes prescribed by that instrument itself—the organic
law of the States and the people. Misconstructions of law other than the constitution are yet
more readily corrected by amendatory or declaratory acts of Congress.

The executive veto.—This, by the framers of the constitution, could only have been de-
signed : 1. To enable the President to defend his own rightful powers against usurpations on the
part of Congress. 2. To enable him to forbid other legislative infractions of the constitution

;

and 3. To guard the country against other acts of hasty or violent legislation.
^

/

It is hardly possible to conceive a case, under the first or second of those heads, against which

the judiciary—the balance-wheel of the system—does not afford, of itself, all the security that
the people can require.

But, without the protection of either the bench or the veto, would the executive department

(become so super-judicial of late years) be too weak to fulfil the strictly executive functions for
which it was more particularly created

;
or, rather, would not that department still be the most

powerful for evil in the government?

The President is, under the checks of the constitution and law, rightfully invested with the
power of the sword, and he has again and again had that of the purse also. The houses of
Congress, it is true, lay taxes, fix imposts, and regula'e the sales of the public domain

;
but it

is he, through his agents, who handles the proceeds. From 1833 to 1836 (to say nothing of the
present) he alone nominated and dismissed all the agents who kept, as well as those who col-
lected, distributed, and disbursed the public revenue. The apothegm, make us executors, we
care not who are your legatees, has a frightful application to such agents and the immense-

treasure that anually passes through their hands.

The rapid increase and spread of population, the growth of national wealth, the amount of
revenue collected and disbursed, the new relations (by the extension of commerce) with foreign
countries, the additional appointments at home and abroad, the number and value of contracts—-
all constantly and necessarily on the increase—a general decay in morals, perhaps as great in
Congress as elsewhere

;
the habit that we have seen prevail during several presidential terms, of

filling public offices with but little or no regard to moral standing—have, taken together, already
opened to the head of the government elements of power and corruption which it was impossi-

ble for the framers and adopters of the constitution to foresee or to conceive. Who, at that
distant day, for example, ever dreamed of the spectacles which have recently disgusted every

honest citizen ?—of postmasters, mail contractors, mail agents, and census takers, covering the
land with government pamphlets, handbills, and extra gazettes, sufficient (if read) to sap the

morals, public and private, of an entire generation?—of the custom-house mercenaries in the
large cities, living on the public, neglecting every duty for party meetings and the polls, and

rendering to power the most bribe-worthy services ?—of district attorneys and collectors—ram-
bling missionaries, defending every abuse of office—their own the moat indecent—in order to
maintain power in the hands of their patron? All who have reflected on the foregoing facts

must be ready to affirm that executive patronage “ has increased, is increasing, and ought to be

diminished.”

I hope, then, by an early amendment of the constitution to see a reduction of the President’s

veto. The regulation of patronage would properly follow.

There can be no good reason why the veto should not be overcome by a bare majority in each

house of Congress of all the members elected to it—say, for the benefit of reflection, at the end.



8

of ten days from tlic return of the bill. An amendment to this effect would leave the President
the general representative of every State and district—armed W'ith the votes of all the members
absent at the moment from the respective houses—and there will always be some absent from
both.

Rotation in office.—The inquiry under this head is not definite in any letter before me. It,
how ever, is presumed to refer : 1. To governors and secretaries of Territories, and some of the
judges therein

;
district attorneys, collectors, surveyors, and naval officers of the customs

;
mar-

shals, postmasters whose commissions amount to a thousand dol’ars per annum
;
navy agents,

registers and receivers of land offices, surveyors general of lands, and Indian agents all of

whom are by law appointed for a term of four years, but subject, by express enactment, (except
the judges,) to be removed at pleasure. 2. To a high class of civil officers {next to the chiefs)
in tlic executive departments at Washington

;
other high functionaries—foreign ministers, secre-

taries of legation, and consuls, postmasters whose commissions amount to less than a thousand
dollars per annum; superintendents of Indian affairs, Indian sub-agents, &c.—all appointed
without limitation as to time, yet subject, in practice—not by express law—to be also removed
at pleasure

;
and 3. To the assistants allowed by law to very many of the principals included

above, which assistants are generally called clerks—some of them deputies, appraiseis, w eighers,
gaugers, sub-inspectors, storekeepers, light-house keepers, &c.—all appointed and subject to re-
moval, as under the second head.

1 am asked whether, in my poor opinion, all those functionaries, (amounting to many thou-
sands,) or any of them, ought to be periodically superseded by original appointments? If yes—

•

when ? And if a part only—which ?
We have een that a great number of offices are filled for a term of years, and more without

any limitation as to term. I, however, can draw no line ofjust distinction between the claims of

the two classes upon the favor of country or government.

Premising that regular periodical changes in the subordinate servants of the country, merely

for the sake of change, would necessarily swell executive patronage, already too much swollen,

I am obliged to add, that 1 more than doubt, on other grounds, the policy and justice of such
changes : 1. Because, for the able and prompt execution of public business, much official ex-
perience, in a great number of particular stations, is known to be necessary. 2. Because many
office-holders, appointed' under even reckless administrations—such as wc have seen—will
always, after a time, be found of tried integrity and of equal industry and abilities. 3. Because,

again, some may be found in a state of honorable poverty, the result no less of stern integrity
than of a long and exclusive devotion to the interests of the public

;
and 4. Because to remove

such servants, or not to reappoint them at the end of a term, would not only discourage suc-

cessors in a faithful discharge of duty, but could not fail to outrage the moral sense of entire

communities. I speak on this head from what I witnessed in 1829-’30 of the cruel experiments,

on a large scale, then made upon the sensibilities of the country, and the mischiefs to the public

interests which early ensued.

What 1 would, therefore, humbly advise is this: to turn out, not only on a change of Presi-
dent, but in any and every week of the year, all office-halders known to be deficient in either

honesty, capacity, or industry, and to appoint in their stead men known to possess those quali-

ties. Without an anxious attention to this rule, a government of the people, resting on virtue

and intelligence, cannot long be successfully maintained
;
for a blind or vicious distribution of

enormous patronage would soon, by the force of the highest example, beat down all that is

taught in the church, the school-house, and the college.

One presidential term.—Of the eight Chief Magistrates that preceded General Harrison

—

whom the nation yet mourns—the first, third, fourth, fifth, and seventh presided over this Union,
respectively, two successive terms

;
the other three, but four years each

;
and every one of the

eight, whilst in office, became a candidate for a second term.

I consider the sublime example set by the Father of his Country in declining a third election

—

which has been duly followed by four popular Presidents, and would no doubt have been ob-

served with equal good faith by the other tnree under like circumstances—as establishing a bar-
rier against a third term as impassable as if it were imbodied in the constitution itself. But I do

not consider it respectful to the people nor otherwise proper m,u candidate to solicit favor on a

pledge that, if elected, he will not accept a second nomination,tic looks too much like a bargain

tendered to other aspirants—yield to me now ; I shall soon birout of your way ; too much like
the interest that sometimes governs the cardinals in the choice of a Pope—many voting for them-
selves first, and, if without success,Jinally for the most superannuated, in order that the election

may the sooner come round again.} 1 am, however, in favor of an amendment of the constitu-
tion, in oue of the forms prescribed, declaring that ho citizen should be eligible to a re-election

to the presidency, and also of an extension of the term to that of a senator—a period of six
years.

Agency of the President in legislation.— 1. I am persuaded .hat this fhould be strictly
limited—2. To the veto, qualified as suggested above. 3. To the command of the constitution,
“he shall, from time to time, g

:ve to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and

recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;” and

4. To furnishing, through the appropriate executive departments, such details for bills as any

committee of either house of Congress may specially call for.



9

Leading measures of the late extra session of Congress.—If I had had the honor of a
’vote on the occasion, it would have been given in favor of the land distribution bill, the bankrupt

bill, and the second bill for creating a fiscal corporation—having long been under a conviction
that in peace, as in war, something efficient, in the nature of a Bank of the United States, is not

only “ necessary and proper,” but indispensable to the successful operations of the treasury, as

well as to many of the wants of our commerce and currency.

Secret or oath-bound societies.—I have not been a member of a masonic lodge in thirty-
odd years, nor a visiter of any lodge since, except once—now more than sixteen years ago.
There are at many academies and colleges, as is well known, associations of students, tutors,
and professors, for purely literary purposes, and their meetings generally, for aught that I know,

may be secret» Twenty-eight years ago I was once present with such an association, and never
since; and I have, within five years, received many flattering notices of my having been enrolled
as an honorary member of as many such associations. I am sorry to be reminded that by some
strange neglect I have failed to accept one of those honorable distinctions.

Finally, I am asked, “ If nominated as a candidate for the presidency, would you accept the

nomination?” I beg leave respectfully to reply—Yes, provided that I be not required to renounce

any principle professed above. My principles are convictions.
Hoping that you, who have done me the honor to inviteHhis general reply, may, with the

millions, be enabled in a year or two to fix on some other citizen as your candidate more worthy,

and therefore more likely to conciliate the majority of popular suffrages, I remain, gentlemen,

your friend and follow-citizen,

WINFIELD SCOTT.

No. 2.

On the Naturalization Laws.

Washington, November 10, 1841.

Dear Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 8th instant, written, as you are
.pleased to a-dd, in behalf of several hundred Native American republicans of Philadelphia.

Not confidently, but not faf publication, I have already replied to a letter from David M.
•Stone, esq., of your city, on the same subject. I will write to you in like manner, and in haste.

This is the month when the pressure of official business is heaviest with me, leaving scarcely

time for sleep or exercise. 1 must not, however, wholly neglect your communication.

Should any considerable number of my fellow-countrymen assign me, or desire to give me, a
prominent position before the public, I shall take time to methodize my views on the great
questions you have proposed. /Those views have their origin in the stormy elections of

the spring of 1835, and were confirmed in the week that the Harrison electors were chosen in

New York. On both occasions I was in that city, and heard in the streets “ Down with the
natives.” It was heard in almost every group of foreigners as the signal for rallying and out-

rage.

Fired with indignation, two friends sat down with me in my parlor at the Astor jtiause (No-
vember, 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 known precisely why our
appeal was not published. Probably the election of General Harrison rendered the publication

at that time unnecessary, in the opinion of my two friends.
I now hesitate between 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 Philadelphia movement, I should prefer assuming the

name of American Republican, as in New York, or Democratic Americans, as I should respect-
fully suggest. Brought up in the principles of the Revolution—of Jefferson, Madison, &c.

—

under whom in youth I commenced life, 1 have always been called, I have ever professed myself
a republican, or whig, which with me was the same thing. Democratic Americans would in-
clude all good native citizens devoted to our country and institutions—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 National American, that religion is to be excluded as
a party element. ^Staunch Protestant as I am, both by birth and conviction, I shall never con-

sent to a party or State religion. Religion is too sacred to be mingled with either. It should

always be kept between each individual and his God, except in the way of reason and gentle
persuasion—as in family churches and other occasions of voluntary attendance, (after years of
discretion,) or reciprocal consent.'

Wishing success to tire great-work which you and other patriots have set on foot, [ remain,

with high respect, your fellow-citizen,

WINFIELD SCOTT.
To Gecrge Washington Reed, Esq., and others, Philadelphia.



10

No. 3.

On the Subject of Slavtry.

Washington, February 9, 1843.

Dear Sir: I hnve been waiting for an evening’s leisure to answer your letter before me
;
and

after an unreasonable delay, am at last obliged to reply in the midst of official occupations.
That I ever have been named in connexion with the presidency of the United Sta'.es has not,

I can assure you, the son of an ancient neighbor and friend, been by any contrivance or desire
of mine; and certainly I shall never be in the field for that high office, unless placed there by a
regular nomination. Not, then, being a candidate, and seeing no near prospect of being made
one, I ought perhaps to decline troubling you or others with my humble opinions on great prin-
ciples of State-rights and federal administration

;
but as I cannot plead ignorance of the partiality

of a few friends in several parts of the Union, who may, by possibility, in a certain event, suc-
ceed in bringing me within the field from which a whig candidate is to be selected, I prefer to err
on the side of frankness and candor, rather than by silence to allow any stranger unwittingly to
commit himself to my support.
Your inquiries open the whole question of domestic slavery, which has, in different forms, for

a number of years agitated Congress and the country.

Premising that you are the first person who has interrogated me on the subject, 1 give you the
basis of what would be my reply in greater detail, if time allowed and the contingency alluded to
above were less remote.

In boyhood, at William and Mary College, and in common with most, if not all, my com-
panions, 1 became deeply impressed with the views given by Mr. Jefferson in his “ Notes on

Virginia,” and by Judge Tucker, in the Appendix to his edition of “ Blackstone’s Commenta-

ries,” in favor of a gradual emancipation of slaves. That Appendix I have not seen in thirty-odd

years, and in the same period have read scarcely anything on the subject; but my early impres-
sions are fresh and unchanged. Hence, if I had had the honor of a seat in the Virginia legislature

in the winter of 1831-’2, when a bill was brought forward to carry out those views, I should

certainly have given it my hearty support.
I suppose I scarcely need say, that in my opinion Congress has no color of authority under

the constitution for touching the relation of master and slave within a State.

I hold the opposite opinion in respect to the District of Columbia. Here, with the consent

of the owners, or on the payment of “just compensation,” Confess may legislate at its discre-
tion. But my conviction is equally strong that, unless it be step by step with the legislatures
of Virginia and Maryland, it would be dangerous to both races in those States to touch the refa-

tion between master and slave in this District.

I have from the first been of opinion that Congress was bound by the constitution to receive,

to refer, and to report upon petitions relating to domestic slavery, as in the case of all other

petitions
;
but I have not failed to see and to regret the unavoidable irritation which the former

have produced in the southern States, with the consequent peril to the two colors, whereby the

adoption of any plan of emancipation has everywhere among us been greatly retarded.

I own myself no slaves
;
but never have attached blame to masters for not liberating their

slaves—well knowing that liberation, without the means of sending them in comfoit to some
position favorable to the pursuit of happiness, would, in most cases, be highly injurious to all

around, ns well as to the manumitted families themselves, unless the operation were general and

under the auspices of prudent legislation. But I am persuaded that it is a high moral obliga-
tion of masters and slave-holding States to employ a'l means, not incompatible with the safety

of both colors, to meliorate slavery, even to extermination.

It is gratifying to know that general melioration has been great, and is still progressive, notwith-

standing the disturbing causes alluded to above. The more direct process of emancipation may,

no doubt, be earlier commenced and quickened in some communities than in others. Each, I do

not question, has the right to judge for itself, both a3 to time and means
;
and I consider inter-

ference or aid from without, except on invitation from authority within, to be as hurtful to the

sure progress of melioration, as it may be fatal to the lives of vast multitudes, of all ages, sexes,

and colors. Tne work of liberation cannot be fofreed without such horrid results. Christian

philanthropy is ever mild and considerate. Hencp all violence ought to be deprecated by the

friends of religion and humanity. Their persuasions cannot fail at the right time to free the

master from the slave, and the slave from the master—perhaps before the latter shall have found
out and acknowledged that the relation between the parties had long been mutually prejudicial'

to their worldly interests.

There is no evil without, in the order of Providence, some compensating benefit. The bleed-

ing African was torn from his savage home by his ferocious neighbors, sold into slavery, and

cast upon this continent. Here, in the mild South, the race has wonderfully multiplied, com-

pared with anything ever known in barbarous life. The descendants of a few thousands have

become many millions
;
and all, from the first, made acquainted with the arts of civilization, and,

above all, brought under the light of the Gospel.

From the promise made to Abraham some two thousand years had elapsed before the advent

of our Saviour, and the Israelites, the chosen people of God, were, for wise purposes, suffered to



11

remain in bondage longer than Africans
have been on our shore. This race has already

expe-

rienced the resulting compensations
alluded to; and, as the white missionary

has never been

able to penetrate the dark regions
of Africa, or to establish himself in its

interior, it maybe

within the scheme of Providence that the
great work of spreading the goepeloverthat vast con-

tinent with all the arts and comforts of
civilization, is to be finally accomplished by the black

man restored from American bondage. A foothold there
has already been gained for mm ; and

in such a scheme centuries are but as
seconds to Him who moves worlds as man moves a

I do but suggest the remedies and
consolations of slavery to inspire patience, hope,

and chanty

on all sides. The mighty subject calls for the
exercise of all man’s wisdom and virtue, and these

mav not suffice without aid from a higher source. . , . ... .

It is in the foregoing manner, my dear sir, that I have long
been in the habit, m conversation,

of expressing myself all over our common country
on the question of negro slavery , and I must

say that I have found but very few persons to
differ with me, however opposite their geographi-

M
Such are the views or opinions which you seek. I

cannot suppress or mutilate them, although,

now liable to be more generally know.n.' Do with
them what you pxease. I neither court nor

shun publicity.
. .

'

I remain, very, truly, yours,

WINFjELD SC0TT.

T. P. Atkinson, Esq., Danville, Ya.

No. 4.

On the Annexation of Canada.

West Point, Jme 29, 1849.

My Dear Sir: The news from the Parliament of Great Britain
this morning must, I tnink*

increase the discontent of our neighbors on the
other side of the St. Lawrence and the lakes not

a little; and that those discontents will, m a few years, lead to a separation
of the Canadas, Near

Brunswick, &c., &c., from the mother country, seems
equally probable.

Will thos^ provinces form themselves into an independent
natiqp, or seek a connexion with

our Union ? I 1 think the probability is greatly in favor of
the latter.] In my judgment, the inter-

ests of both sides would be much promoted by the
annexation—the several provinces coming

into the Union on equal terms with our present thirty
States. The free navigation of the St.

Lawrence is already of immense importance, to perhaps a third
of our present population, and

would be of great value to the remainder. After annexation,
two revenue cutters below Gtuebeo

would give us a better security against smuggling than
thirty thousand custom-house employes

struno- alone the line that separates us from the British
possessions on the continent. I am w

acquainted with that line, and know a great deal of the interests
and character of the provmcia.s.

Tkovgh opposed to incorporating with ns any district densely
peopled with the Mexican race , i should, &

most happy to fraternize with our northern and northeastern
neighbors.

What may be the views of the executive government on the subject,
I know absolutely

nothing; but i think I cannot err in saying that two-thirds
of our people would rejoice at the in-

corporation, and the other third soon perceive its benefits.

Of course, I am opposed to any underhand measures on our part in
favor of the measure, or

any other act of bad faith towards Great Britain. Her good will, m my view of
the matter, is

only second to that of the provincials themselves; and that
the former would soon fouow the

latter, considering the present temper and condition of Christendom,
cannot be doubted.

The foregoing views I have long been in the habit of expressing m conversation. I
give them

to you for what they may be worth.
Faithfully yours,

WINFIELD SCOTT.

No. 5.

Washington, May 29, 1848.

Dear Sir : In reply to your kind letter of the 8th instant, I take pleasure
in saying that,

grateful for the too partial estimate you place on my public services, you do me no
more than

justice in assuming that I entertain “ kind and liberal views toward
our naturalized citizens.

Certainly it would be impossible for me to recommend or support
any measure intended

to exclude them from a just and full participation in all civil
and political right*

NOW SECUP.ED TO THEM BY CUR REPUBLICAN LAWS AND INSTITUTIONS.



12 I

It s true that in a case of unusual excitement some years ago, when both parties complained
of fraudulent practices in the naturalization of foreigners, and when there seemed to be danger
that native and adopted citizens vould be permanently arrayed against each other in hostile fac-

tion, I WAS INCLINED TO CONCUR IN THE OPINION THEN AVOIVEO 1>Y LEADING STATESMEN, that
some modification of the naturalization laws might be necessary, in order to prevent abuses,

allay strife, und restore harmony between the different classes of our people. But later experi-
ence and reflection have entirely removed this impression and dissipated my apprehensions.

In my recent campaign in Mexico a very large portion of the men under my command were
your countrymen— Irish, Germans, &c. I witnessed with admiration their zeul, fidelity, and
valor in maintaining our fl \g in the face of every danger, vieing with each other and our native-

born soldiers in the same ranks in patriotism, constancy, and heroic daring. I v,;.:. happy to

call them brothers in the field, as I shall always be happy to salute them as countrymen at home.

1 remain, sir, with great esteem, yours, truly,

WINFIELD O'JOTT.
Wm. E. Robinson, esq.

Then, in order of time, comes the Elizabethtown speech, delivered in

the winter of 1848. It contains the. following passage :

“ You have been pleased, sir, to allude to our adopted citizens. I can say that the Irish, the
Germans, the Swiss, the French, the Britons, tnd other adopted citizens, fought in the same

ranks, under the same colors, side by side wk ; . native-born Americans, exhibiting like courage
and efficiency, and uniting at every victory in the same enthusiastic shouts in honor of yur flag

and country. From Vera Cruz to the city of Mexico, tii£re was one gen‘ rcus rivulry in
heroic daring and r.RiLLiANT achievements. Let those who witnessed that career of valor
and patriotism say, if 'hey can, what race, according to numbers, contributed most to the gene-

ra! success and glory of the campaign, in the many hard-fought battles there was no room for
invidiotr- i lstinction. All proved themselves the faithful sons of our beloved country, and no

spectator could fail to dismiss any imaginary prejudice he might have entertained as to the

comparative merits of Americans by birth and Americans by adoption.”

The sixth letter is as follows:

No. 6.

* Washington, March, 11, 1852.

Gentlemen: I have received your note, inviting me to join you at Philadelphia in the ceU-
bration of the approaching St. Patrick’s day—an honor which I regret the pressure of business
obliges me to decline.

Yv.u do me but justice in supposing me to feel a lively interest in Ireland and her sons. Perhaps
no man, certainly no American, owes so much to the valor and blood of Irishmen as myself. Many
of them marched and fought under my command in the war of 3 812—’15, and many more

—

thousands—in the recent war with Mexico, not one of whom was ever known to turn his back
upon the enemy or a friend. ' *

I salute you, gentleman, with my cordial respects,
WINFIELD SCOTT.

R. Tyler, C. McCauIlay, W. Dickson, P. W. Conroy, and J. McCann, esqs., committee,
&c., &c.

We now come to the letters' of General Scott immediately before and
directly after his nomination by the Whig National Convention. Like

those which had preceded them, they are either ridiculous in themselves

or else in contradiction of some previ usly expressed principle, even if it

had been a “ conviction.” The following epistle was coaxed out of the

breeches-pocket of John M. Botts by Mr. Choate, of Boston, in the

Whig National Convention, and was read in the midst of uproarious

laughter:

Letter to Mr. Archer.

My Dear Sir : I keve decided lo write nothing to the convention, or to any individual member,
before nomination

;
but should that honor Jail to my lot, I shall, m my acceptance, give my views

on the Compromise measures in terms at least as strorg in their favor as those 1 read to you two

days since. U3" Please say as much to my mends Governor Jones, Mr. Botls, Mr. Lee, &c.
in haste, truly yours,

WINFIELD SCOTT.
To Hon W. S. Archer.

t



is

As all this took place before the nomination; of course it was set down
as another of the blunders of General Scott; who always wields the pen
with the most ludicrous air in the world.

Immediately that he was nominated by the convention; and before he
had had any official notification of the fact; he telegraphed his acceptance .
The hot haste—the anxiety

;
lest somebody else might step in and carry

off the doubtful honor, and the eagerness to assume the candidacy—ren-
dered this, probably, the most ridiculous and undignified of the whole-

series of farces which he has been enacting before the country. We give
this despatch, as follows:

“ Washington, June 21, 1852.
“ Having the honor of being the nominee for President by the Whig National Convention, I

shall accept the same, with the platform of principles which the convention has laid down.
Please show this to G. B. Duncan.

“With respects to friends,
“ WINFIELD SCOTT.”

The famous letter of acceptance of General Scott addressed to General
Chapman, president of the whig convention, is that which follows :

Washington, June 24, 1852.

Sir. : I have bad the honor to receive from your hands the official notice of my “ unanimous
nomination as the whig candidate for the office of President of the United States,” together with
a “ copy of the resolutions passed by the convention, expressing their opinions upon some of
the most prominent questions of national policy.”

This great distinction, conferred by a numerous, intelligent, and patriotic body, representing
millions of my countrymen, sinks deep into my heart; and, remembering the very eminent
names which were before the convention in amicable competition with my own, I am made to
feel, oppressively, the weight of responsibility belonging to my new position.
Not having written a word to procure this distinction* I lost not a moment, after it had been

conferred, in addressing a letter to one of your members to signify what would be, at the proper
time, the substance of my reply to the convention

;
and 1 now have the honor to repeat, in a

more formal manner, as the occasion justly demands, that I accept the nomination, with the res-
olutions annexedy

The political- principles and measures laid down in those resolutions are so broad that but
little is left for me to add. I therefore barely suggest, in this place, that should I, by the par-
tiality of my countrymen, be elevated to the Chief Magistracy of the Union, I shall be ready, in
my connexion with Congress, to recommend or to approve of measures in regard to the man-
agement of the public domain so as to secure an early settlement of the same favorable to actual
settlers, but consistent, nevertheless, v/ith a due regard to the equal rights of the whole Ameri-
can people in that vast national inheritance

;
and also to recommend or approve of a single alter-

ation in our naturalization laws, suggested by my military experience, viz : Giving to all foreign-
ers the right of citizenship who shall faithfully serve, in time of war, one year on board of our
public ships, or in our land forces, regular or volunteer, on their receiving an honorable discharge
from the service. ®

In legard. to the general policy of the administration, if elected, I should of course look among
those who may approve that policy for the agents to carry it into execution

;
and I should seek

to cultivate harmony and fraternal sentiments throughout the whig party, without attempting to
reduce its members by proscription to exact conformity to my own views. But I should, at the
same time, be rigorous in regard to qualifications for office—retaining and appointing no one
either deficient in capacity or integrity, or in devotion to liberty, to the constitution, and the
Union.

Convinced that harmony or good-will between the different quarters of our broad country is
essential to tbepresent and future interests of the republic, and with a devotion to those interests
that can know no South nor no North, I should neither countenance nor tolerate any sedition
djsorder, faction, or resistance to the law or the Union, on any pretext, in any part of the land:
and 1 should cany into the civil administration this one principle of mi litary conduct—obedience
to the legislative and judicial departments of government, each in its constitutional sphere—sav-
ing only, in respect to the Legislature, the possible resort to the veto power—always to be most
cautiously exercised, and under the strictest restraints and necessities.

Finally, for my strict adherence to the principles of the whig party, as expressed in the reso-
lutions of the convention, and herein suggested, with a sincere and earnest purpose to advance
the greatness and happiness of the republic, and thus to cherish and encourage the cause of con-
stitutional liberty throughout the world, avoiding every act and thought that might involve our
country in an unjust or unnecessary war, or impair the faith of treaties, and discountenancing



14

all political agitation injurious to the interests of society ami dangerous to the Union, I can offer

no other pledge or guarantee than the known incidents of a long pablic life, now undergoing the
severest examination.

Feeling myself highly fortunate in my associate on the ticket, and with a lively sense of my
obligations to the convention, and to your personal courtesies,

1 have the honor to remain, sir, with great esteem, your most obedient servant,

WINFIELD SCOTT.
To the lion. J. G. Chapman, President of the Whig National Convention.

HIS LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE CONSIDERED, AND I1IS NEW NATIVE AMER-
ICANISM EXAMINED.

General Scott having had before him the map of his past life, with all

the blunders he had committed and confessed, when he signed and

addressed his letter of acceptance, the style and the suggestions of the

document just printed are all the more deliberate and well-digested.

Both eloquently and startlingly show that the author of such a letter can

never be President of the United States with safety to the true interests of

the country. If siich a man had been the victor of a hundred battle-
fields, it would only have induced him to believe in the infallibility of

his views on matters of state, and to pres£ these views upon the country

at every hazard, and with all the vehemence and force of his domineer-

ing nature. Ridiculed by thousands of whigs for his vanity and his

blunders—his infirmities alike of disposition and of intellect—and ad-
monished by the criticisms of the press of all parties, pointing out his

defects of character, he embarks as a candidate for the presidency, upon

the avowal of doctrines which excite either the contempt or the indigna-

tion of the people.

General Scott's great idea of politics is , dread of the vote and influence

of the adopted citizens. This is the first article in his creed; and to this

he has adhered with the most tenacious grasp, from the first to the last.

True to this sentiment, he goes on to pay homage to it, even after he has

unequivocally regretted and withdrawn it. In the midst of his compelled

tributes to the bravery of the foreigners in defence of our flag, he cannot

refrain from troubling his brain with plans for resisting their naturaliza-

tion according to the constitution. Take what we know of General

Scott’s political history, as disclosed in the papers he has written, and in

the words he has spoken, and his Alpha and Omega of government resolves

itself into a deep, absorbing, and ever-present alarm that our liberties are

in danger of being overborne and overwhelmed by “ foreign influence”

upon these shores. And show us such a man, fellow-citizens, in any

class or community of men, and we will point you to a man of envious

spirit, narrow and malignant feelings, and intolerant and proscriptive

nature. Next to a bigot in religion, a bigot in politics is perhaps the bit-

terest and the worst; but when, as in the present instance, political

bigotry is nearly allied to religious bigotry, there is difficulty in discrimi-

nating between the two.

The reform of General Scott in our naturalization laws, contained in

his letter of acceptance, lacks every element to render it practicable or

reasonable. It is based neither upon constitutional law nor common

sense. It is either intended as an insult to the constitution or to the for-

eigner; for if it can be carried out, it must be against the mandate of the

first; and if it cannot be, it holds out a false light to the second. Fairly

considered, it is a more sweeping proposition against the naturalization

laws than that proposed by his celebrated letter to the Native American



15

leader in 1841
;

for while it affects sympathy for the adopted citizen, it

proposes that which, even if it ever could be rendered operative, would

be a partial, aristocratic, and degrading innovation. But it mocks the

sentiment it pretends to conciliate. It proclaims a promise which never

can be fulfilled. It offers a reward for valor on the one hand, while it

excludes the equally worthy on the other. General Scott’s plan of con-

ferring the right of citizenship upon all foreigners who have served one

year in the army or the navy of the United States in time of war, clearly

conflicts with that provision of the constitution which provides for ee a uni-

form rule of naturalization.” [See section 8, article 1, constitution United

States.] Any other man making such a suggestion would, be called

ignorant of this notorious provision of the constitution of the United

States. But General .Scott’s friends claim for him a large amount of

civil qualifications; and as his letter of acceptance was printed under the

auspices of the leaders of the whig party and the advisers of General

Scott, it may be said to be eminently well-advised. General Scott tells

us in this letter that he is for “avoiding every act and thought that might

involve our country in an unjust or an unnecessary war.” Now, as his

whole present scheme against the naturalization laws—indeed, as his
only great idea of political reform is based upon the contingency of a war,

without which the entire project becomes worse than contemptible, the

value of his pledge against a wait may be estimated at a glance. General

Scott must, then, invent a war as soon as possible, in order to give

effect to his scheme. Whether it is to be a war to annex Canada to the

United States, according to the suggestions of General Scott, or a war of

sections between the North and the South, growing out of the phrenzied

movements of fanaticism, we cannot now divine. But let us suppose the
war fairly inaugurated, and General Scott’s plan fairly tried. The emi-
gration of foreigners to the United States amounts to about three hundred

thousand souls annually; and there are, therefore, constantly thousands

who await the expiration of the period of probation fixed by the national
law. We had a foretaste of the anxious and enthusiastic patriotism of
the foreigners during the war with Mexico. They rushed in masses to

the standard of the republic, emulating the native-born citizens in their

eagerness to march to those fields which, subsequently, they aided to

illuminate with victory. But they could not all be accommodated. There

were so many more contending to go than the government, or than Gene-
ral Taylor, or General Scott could take or could use, that the vast ma-

jority got no chance to fight. It would be the same in any future war,

except that as our population increases, and our institutions become more

precious in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world, the interest to
strike for our flag would be greater, and the numbers volunteering their

services to strike would be larger. Under General Scott’s plan, it would

then not be the brave but the lucky foreigner that would be rewarded

with the right of suffrage. He who remained behind because he could
get no chance to show his love for his country, became practically dis-

franchised. The foreigner who could get no opportunity to bare his
bosom in battle, and who staid back to till the glebe, to build the city, to
dig the canal, to open into the far west the railroad, and to break the way
for the sun of intelligence and of freedom to shine into and redeem the

wilderness, would be compelled to wait five years for his vote, while his

more fortunate, and, possibly, less patriotic and deserving brother, who



16

had been a year in war, got the right in one ! It will be observed that

the only qualification of the voter recognised by General Scott is, that he

should be taught in the school of war ! No other seems to be entertained
even for a moment. The arts of peace, the knowledge of our institutions,
the blessed and blessing influences of popular intelligence, have no place

in his plan. At least, if his invention be inconsistent with all things else;

if it defy the constitution and trample upon the law. and erect a new
standard for the emulation of our people; if it be all of these, it is, at all

events, consistent with General Scott himself
,
who, without his military

name
,
icould be a sorry sight indeed. But not only would this, his pana-

cea for all our public evils, operate, as we have shown, upon those who
might go to war, and upon those who would stay at home. If General
Scott means anything, lie means that one year’s service in time of war

would be enough for any man. This would answer for the volunteer,

who so rarely offers for more than one year. But how with the poor
Irish and German regulars who enlisted under our laws for a series of

years, and who, after securing the right to vote, must serve out their full

time before getting a chance^to do so? How in the navy, where the cruise
or term of service rarely extends for less than three years? We leave the
friends of Scott to reconcile the difficulty as they best can.

It must not be forgotten that this letter of acceptance of General

Scott is his last demonstration on the naturalization laws. We think
we have shown that it is more certain to produce fatal consequences even
than his letter of 1841, when he proposed abolishing the whole system of
naturalization. He is fond of going to extremes

;
but he seems to know

that extremes may sometimes be reconciled. His idea 'in 1841 against
the naturalization of all foreigners was not less drastic than his scheme of

1852, to give the right to vote to all who had served one year in the army

or navy in time of war. Either will produce nearly the same results;

for, if the one sought to destroy the rights of the adopted c.tizens at one

fell swoop, the other, by breaking down the barriers of the constitution,

by arousing animosities between different classes of foreigners on these

shores, and between the foreigners and the native-born citizens, and by

making mere prowess in war the first of all civic qualifications and

honors, would leave us a nation without laws to obey or citizens to de-

fend them, and, finally, would consolidate all power in the hands of a

monster military despotism.

GENERAL SCOTT’S “ AMERICUS” LETTER, OR HIS NATIVE AMERICANISM

IN A NEW GARB

!

In conclusion. We expected that the letter of acceptance would be the
fitting finale of these extraordinary displays of weakness, inconsistency,

and ignorance, made manifest by a fair examination of General Scott’s

letters
;
but, lo ! another proof of his fatuity and bigotry rises to our view.

The following is the argument of General Scott, published on the 17th

of December, 1844, in the National Intelligencer
,
Washington, D. C.,

and though not signed by himself, bearing all the evidences of his style,

and so well known to be his work that no attempt has yet been made, be-

cause none can successfully be made, to deny it.

This remarkably foolish and proscriptive paper was written, or at least

printed, and
''

ributed personally by the General among his friends iii

this city, to n he avowed its authorship, about three years after the



17

date of his famous Astor House letter to George W. Reed, in which he

gave an account of his sitting down in a very indignant state with his

friends, at the Astor House, to rally a Native American party. In that

letter he said :

“ Should any considerable number of my fellow-countrymen assign me, or desire to give me,

a prominent position before the public, l shall take time to methodize my views on the great questions

you have proposed.”

In the course of the three following years he probably methodized his

views, and here we have them:

What is the gist of this proposal of General Scott in 1844? ,

1. To reduce the term of naturalization from five years to three years.

2. To EXCLUDE ALL ALIENS FOREVER FROM THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN

ANY PUBLIC ELECTIONS WHATEVER, EXCEPT

3. Such aliens as shall have served two years in the army or navy in

time of war, who shall thereby be entitled to the rights of citizenship,

including the right of suffrage.

4. Aliens shall be exempted from involuntary service in the militia,

the army, or navy, (just as free negroes and Indians are.)

5. The law to go into operation six months after its passage.

We desire the reader to mark the date of this communication, which is
so far authentic that the National Intelligencer has never yet intimated ‘a

doubt that Scott was its author, as there is abundant evidence to show.

It is dated December IT, 1844—the same year when the bloody riots in
Philadelphia, growing out of the war upon foreigners by the Native

American party there, shocked the whole country, and excited alarm

among the friends of liberty over the world. These shameful excesses,

enacted in a whirlwind of popular phrenzy, were calculated to admonish

the demagogues who led the insane crusade against foreigners; but they

did not induce General Scott to alter or abandon his conscientious
u

principles which were convictions.” Doubtless he regarded these riots

as the legitimate consequences of his views; for it will be seen that he

writes as if they were preparing the way for the success of his great plan

against naturalization. How absurd it is to suppose that such a man
ever surrender^ doctrines so dear to his heart—so interwoven with his
whole political being—so long deliberated upon, and so carefully and
laboriously elaborated! Let the adopted citizen read “ Americus” for

himself, let him compare its suggestions and its style with all the letters

of General Scott here published, and then let him decide for himself how
sincere that recantation of hostility to the foreigners is, which announces

that the cause of the recantation was only because they had behaved

well in Mexico in fighting for the American flag, and forgets that they

fought equally well in the revolutionary and the last war.

GENERAL SCOTT’S COMMUNICATION TO THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.

The following communication, written by General Scott, is copied
from the Washington Intelligencer

,
and is published as it appeared in

that paper :

[From the National Intelligencer, December 17, 1844.]

Communication.

—

Notes on the admission oj aliens to citizenship.

“The Congress shall have power” “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”—(Consti-
tution U. S., article 1, section 8, clause 4.)



18

On this power, or on all citizens who may be adopted under any establishe&rule mode pur-
suant to the power, the constitution itself in other parts imposes four limitationsrnr restrictions:

1. “ No person shall be a representative who shall not have [&c.] been seven years a citizen
of the United States.”—(Article 1, section 2, clause 2.)

2. “No person shall be a senator who shall not have [&c.] been nine years a citizen of the
United Stutes.”—(Article J, section 3, clause 3 )

3. “No person, except a natural-born citizen, or citizen of the United States at the time of the
adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.”—(Article 11, section 1,
clause 5.) And

4. “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of
Vice President of the United States.”—(Amendments, article 12, clause or section 3.)
Under the power and the restrictions here severally quoted, Congress may legislate on this

subject, in the shape of a uniform rule—that is, a rule the same, for the time being, throughout
the whole Union and its Territories.

It is seen, then, that the constitution itself, in respect to foreigners, contemplates or establishes

many distinct degrees of citizenship besides age, sex, and residence. 1st. Congress, under the
delegated power, might, by a uniform rule, confer on all aliens, immediately on arrival—instead
of at the eqd of Jive years, as at present—the right of holding and transmitting property of every
description; the right of voting for President, Vice President, and members of Congress; the

right of voting and being voted for in respect to all State offices and trusts; and the right of hold-

ing all federal offices with the exceptions which follow. Yet as at present, 2d. No such adopted
citizen would be eligible to a seat in the House of Representatives, nor until seven years after

taking the oath
;
nor, 3d, to a seat in the Senale until two years more, making nine; nor, 4th,

ever to the Presidency or Vice Presidency; whilst, 5th, there are yet among us some foreigners

by birth who, having been here prior to the adoption of the constitution, are eligible to the Presi-

dency and Vice Presidency, and enjoying every other right of natural-born citizens. Behold,

then, at this moment, within the bosom of our country, foreigners holding, by naturai.zaiion,

five several grades of citizenship

;

besides, 6th, a host of other foreigners, all personally under the

protection of our laws, with the right to acquire, to hold, and to transmit property, including (in

several States) lands and houses, and all (males) again in different stages of advancement to-

wards the acquisition of the poli'ical rights under the first foyr heads above. It is therefore

shown that the constitution, by “a uniform rule of naturalization,” did not mean a rule under

which all rights whatsoever of native-born citizens should be conferred on aliens (svbseqvently

arriving in the country) at once, in a lump. One right (the second above) the constitution with-

holds for seven years after naturalization; another (the third) for nine years, and the fou>th for-

ever. If we follow strictly etymological meaning, it would be a bull to say that Congress can,

by a rule of naturalization
,
make a foreigner a natural-born citizen. “ Naturalization’

5

i3 a tech-

nical term, borrowed by our constitution from English law—just as levying1 war, overt act of
treason

,
&c., were borrowed by the same instiument from the same source. To find the legal

meaning of either term, we have always been obliged to look to that fountain rather than to

dictionaries. Nothing is more natural or common than such technical reference.

In the English practice of “ naturalization,” it is exceedingly rare to find that aliens have been

admitted to all the rights of a born subject. In England they have been almost universally, by

the terms of adoption, disqualified from holding office, &c.

With us, Congress may “ establish a uniform rule of naturalization,” or repeal the present

rule and have none, just as we have twice had, and have twice repealed, “ uniform laws on the

subject of bankruptcies,” a subject over which Congress has unlimited power (by-the-way) by

the same clause of the constitution.

As, then, Congress might originally have legislated or not on naturalization, and may now

repeal the existing established rule, and substitute no other, so may Congress, at its good pleas-

ure, in view of national policy and expediency, alter or modify the existing rule.

The motives for change are many and powerful. They cannot fail to occur to every thinking

mind. Suffice it here to repeat what was once declared of a single sovereign’s power—the evils
of the existing rule of naturalization are great, are increasing, and ought to be diminished.

One of some experience, and who has meditated the subject long, presumes to suggest as

follows

:

1. Not to repeal the existing rule and leave none, as the non user on the part of Congress of

the delegated power, would give at least a colorable authority to State-adoptions of citizens, just

as the noq existence of a uniform system of bankruptcy has led to State insolvent laws ; and

it is evident that twenty-six State rules, without, perhaps, uniformity between any two, would

increase the evils to be diminished, independent of extreme embarrassment, in courts and ai the

polls, under the provision, “ the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and im-

munities of citizens in the several States.”—(Constitution, art. 4, sec. 2, clause 1.)
2. Not to extend the period of residence before admission to citizenship, as this would be im-

politic nationally, and unjust to aliens, in respect to the acquisition and transmission of real

estate in any parts of the Union, as also in respect to other civil rights. Besides, extension of

previous residence would not diminish the alleged perjuries and frauds at the polls ; but,

•n. 3. Leave the basis of the naturalization system as it is, and superinduce the following modifi-

cations: *



19

An act supplementary to the acts now in force on the subject of a uniform rule of naturalization.

Sec. 1. Be it enacted, fyc., That any alien, being a free white person, and who shall come into

the United States six months or later after the passage of this act, may be admitted to become a

citizen thereof after a residence therein of at least three (1) years, and one year (2) at least after

declaring his bona fide intention of becoming a citizen, in the manner and form, and upon the

other conditions not herein altered, as prescribed by the act entitled “ An act to establish a uni-

form rule of naturalization, and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject,” which waa

approved April 14, 1802: Provided, That no alien arriving in the United States after six months

from the passage of this act shall ever acquire the right to vote, except in the manner hereinafter

prescribed, for any elector of President or Vice President of the United States
;
for any member

of the House of Representatives of the same
;
for any governor, lieutenant governor, member of

the legislature, judge of any eourt of record, or sheriff, in any State or Territory of the United

States
;
or for any mayor, intendant, president, alderman, assistant alderman, or common coun-

cilman of any city, borough, or incorporated town or village, in any of the said States or their

Territories, or within the District of Columbia
;
but all aliens admitted to naturalisation under

tne foregoing provisions and limitations shall enjoy every other right and privilege of native-born

citizens which is not expressly United or withheld by the constitution of the United States.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted
,
That every naturalized citizen, as aforesaid, shall be wholly

exempted or excused from involuntary service in the militia, army, and navy of the United

States.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted. That every free white alien, being an able-bodied male of at

least seventeen years of age, who shall, in time of war, engage to serve the United States against

their enemies, for at least two years, or during the war, in any company or vessel of war, in the

army or navy of the said States, shall, on obtainingthe certificate or certificates of faithful service,

signed by the commanding officer or officers of such company or companies, vessel or vessels of

war, and countersigned by the next higher officer in the army or navy under whom, if any, such

alien has served, s^ali be admitted, on presenting such evidence to any court designated in the

act hereinbefore recited, to all the rights and privileges of citizenship at any time conferred by

the act, on simply taking the oath of allegiance to the United States, and making the renuncia-

tion enjoined in the said act.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect on and after six months from

its passage, when all provisions of former acts, inconsistent with this act, shall be taken and

held to be repealed, in respect only to all aliens arriving in the United States after that date.

Should some bill like this become a law, it would not in the slightest degree affect any alien

already in the United States, or who might arrive within six months after its date. Of course,

the rights of naturalized citizens would be as little touched by the act as those of native-born

citizens. What foreigners abroad would be affected by the law? Probably but few
;
possibly

not one who, at the time of its passage, would have a mind made up to migrate to the United

States. As to all female foreigners arriving after the passage of the act and the additional six

months, they would be the sooner, by two years, admitted to all the civil rights of citizenship,

and no others have ever been conferred on females. Sooner, also, by two years, would their

male relatives and friends fee admitted to that large class of rights, besides eligibility to all but

four offices, State and federal.

As to other foreigners abroad and in existence, or who may hereafter be born abroad, what
right would they have now or in future to complain of such a law? We already in the United
States, whether natives, naturalized citizens, or aliens, have a great question of national policy

to settle for ourselves and our own posterity, and we may settle it for the benefit of both, with-

out looking to speculative philanthropy or liberty beyond such posterity. We think we are
liberal enough when, in providing for America, we leave the door of admission open to the chil-

dren of foreigners, now abroad, who may hereafter be born here, without allowing their fathers
to come and help tc govern us. We, who alone have any right to think on the subject, claim

that we cari*be$t govern ourselves
;
and the better such government in the mean time, so much

the better for the foreigners who may hereafter come among us, and for their American-born
children.

It will be observed that the bill proposes to leave future naturalized citizens as eligible to all

offices and trusts as those who have heretofore been naturalized. Many of them, no doubt, will
be appointed and elected to high places, as heretofore, and be found as worthy of confidence as a

Montgomery, or a Morris, a Gallatin, a Findlay, or a Smiley. We, now in America, mean
only that, after a given time, electors born on the soil shall alone select natives or adopted citi-

:
zens to make laws for America, orSto Administer those laws.

But, without a syllable on the subject of electors (voters) for electors of President and Vice

President, because, perhaps, it was intended they should be chosen by the State legislatures, as

at present in South Carolina, the constitution has declared:

‘‘The House of Representatives shall be composed of members elected every second year by

the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requi-

site for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.”—(Article 1, section 2,
clause l.)

Not another word is said in any other part of the instrument on the qualifications of voters.



20

In view of that clause, it may be asked, and to the confusion of some minds, has Congress the
power to limit the political franchise of future adopted ciiizens, as in the first section of the bill
proposed? The answer is, certainly not, if that were the only clause bearing on the question.
But here are two others:

“ Congress shall have power” “ to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform
laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States.

—

(Article 1, section 8, clause

And

—

“The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in
the several States.”—(Article 4, section 2, clause 1.)
The three clauses must be construed together, and if they can be harmonized or rendered not

incompatible with each other, each must have its full weight and effect. Nothing more easy

than to solve the supposed difficulty, or to find the desired harmony.

It is evident, that if each of the original thirteen—now twenty-six—States could make its own
different rule, Delaware, against the will of Virginia, might make adopted citizens for both, and
Michigan for New York, greatly to the annoyance of the latter; but Virginia is not represented
in the Delaware legislature, nor New York in that of Michigan. A citizen of one State being a
citizen of every other, we should have had by this time “confusion worse confounded” every-

where; but that it was precisely to avoid this opposition and interference of many capricious
rules that the constitution in express terms, in respect to the adoption of foreigners, declares that

Congress (in which all the States are equitably represented) shall have the power to establish a uni-

form rule of naturalization throughout the United Stales. The object is as plain as the lodgment of
the power was indispensable. No act of a single State can be put in concurrence with such
power. If not left derelict and seized upon by others from sheer necessity, it must be exclusively

in the hands where primarily lodged. There is a wide field left for the exercise, on the part of

the several States, of the power to determine what shall be “ the qualifications” (alienage and

naturalization aside) “ requisite for the electors of the most numerous branch of the State legis-

lature.” There is the land and other property qualifications in some States
;
age, militia service,

&c., in others—all, however, within the range of citizenship, whether by birth or naturalization,
which Congress may determine for all. It can say what qualifications, for the good of all as a
Union, shall be imposed upon adopted citizens in respect to the political franchise of voting

throughout the United States—As the constitution itself imposed the qualifications we have seen
above, on other political franchises—eligibility to federal offices and trusts. Both federal and
State eligibility to office the proposed bill leaves where they were found.

The constitution was a compromise and a compact between all the people, (nearly,') whether

citizens, aliens (or foreigners) of one State, and similar people of the other States, or between

the people generally throughout the whole Union
;
which, it is unimportant to the present ques-

tion to determine. There had been previously no intimate union between the parties

—

no uni-

form rule Qf naturalization. Each State had loosely adopted, in its own way, nearly all aliens,

not alien enemies, who had come within their limits.

Natives who were tories, were as generally expelled. Political and military services were the

great inducements to adoption—in most cases without certificate as without record. All—very
nearly all—had earned general citizenship. An army of patriot heroes had been recently dis-
banded far from their native homes, and many were still unsettled in any new residence. Hence

the language of the constitution, “The citizens of each State shall be (&c.) ciiizens of the sev-

eral States.” That clause was a sweeping adoption or recognition. It called a nation of Amer-

icans into existence, and fixed their united being. Their descendants, and those since adopted,

with their children, are the present Ameiicans—the people of the United States.
It may, perhaps, be objected to any bill like that proposed—What would be its binding force

should it become a law ? Particular States might still, at their pleasure, (it may be said,) per-

mit aliens to vote for all functionaries—State and federal—immediately on coming, for the first
time, within the threshold of the State. The only answer is—oaths registered in heaven, as on
earth. If these cannot bind, then there is an end to all human society or government. The

constitution of the United Sta'es, in the name of the whole people, commands, “ Tlws constitu-

tion, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, (&c.,) shall be

the supreme law of the land
;
and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in

the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” Also, “ the member of

the several State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, shall be bound by oath or

affirmation to support this constitution.”—(Art. 6, sections 2 and 3.)
But I have not time for declamation or polish, and 1 have had but little to cite principles or

press arguments. I have only written notes. Much support might be derived from the equally

judicious distribution of power over the militia between federal : >nd State authorities. The anal-
^

ysis and application are left to abler hands. They will find that what required uniformity was

given to one side
;

all that allowed disconformity left to the other. The reasons were the same

as in the case of citizenship.

It is not probable that the proposed bill will have the good fortune to conci’iate the general

favor of either Native-Americans or whigs. The leading democrats will no doubt reject it as an

attempt upon their “spoils.” Yet it is not seen why the liberal of the three parties may not sup-

port the measure. More cannot be attained, if more were desirable, without an alteration of the

constitution
;
and even something less would not be accepted by those who are already more than



21

satisfied with undue advantages. But the whigs are yet surely under unmerited defeat, and the

Natives flushed with the first fruits of their young endeavors. The green tree waves its branches

and the foliage to the breeze, and looks with the confidence of inexperience to the returning sea-

son. No nipping frost has ever seared its hopes. Yet this party stands on the “unsteadfast
footing of a spear,” or, at least, a narrow isthmus, which the first wave of success, coming from

either side-, may forever wash from under its feet. Triumph would, indeed, be more fatal to its
existence than defeat. As yet it has no concerted system of principles or measures—or has pro-
claimed none—for canying forward the business and the development of this concrete and
mighty republic. My humble advice to all around us is, to revive your spirits, to moderate the
intoxication of victory, to look to thj constitution, to serve your country in soberness and faith,

and to scorn to be the slave of party or the tool of demagogues.

AMERICUS.

GENERAL SCOTT AND THE CATHOLICS.

The democratic party disdains appeals to prejudices of all kinds. It

has always preferred to fall with the right than to triumph by refusing to

denounce the wrong. It has compelled the admiration even of its foes

by the manner in which it has scorned the devices of demagogues. It

could have made terms with the Natives in Pennsylvania, but refused,

and went into minority for its independence. It could have made terms
‘

with anti-masonry, but refused, and went into minority; and so from the

beginning of its career to the end. It is because the whigs are just the

reverse that the democracy get the support of all who suffer from persecu-
tion for opinion’s or for religion’s sake. Hence it is that the friends of

Scott are now trying to seduce the Catholic voters of this country, here-

tofore mostly with -the democrats, because the democrats never, like

Scott and the whigs, courted the Native American bigots of the country.

Greeley is laboring constantly to brin^ about this result—with what
success the future must show. How far General Scott deserves the
support of this class of our countrymen, the following extract from his

letter dated October 25, 1841, published in this pamphlet, as will be seen

by reference to it, will show:

“ But I do not consider it respectful to the people, nor otherwise proper in a candidate, to so-

licit favor on a pledge that, if elected, he will not accept a second nomination. It looks too

much like a bargain to other aspirants—yield to me now, I shall soon be out of your way

—

too much like the interest that sometimes governs the cardinals in the choice of a pope, many
voting for themselves first, and, if without success, finally for the most superannuated,

in ordei that the election may the sooner come round again.”

There is no attempt to conceal the sneer. It is the insult to a class of

one who has been reading certain horrible stories about the Catholics,

and who is often ready—and “fired with indignation,” no doubt—to
resort to bold measures against them. No more striking, positive, and
marked demonstration of General Scott’s feelings on this subject could

be desired. As this affront to Catholics and adopted citizens, generally,

has never been recalled or recanted, it is undoubtedly one of those prin-

ciples of his which, he says, are “ convictions,” and of course, therefore,

one of the well-known incidents of his past life, referred to in his letter

of acceptance as the best pledge he can make for the future.

The New York “ Truth Teller,” the oldest and one of the most influ-
ential of the Irish-American papers, deals in the following scathing

irony upon Scott’s nomination:

“ Scott’s nomination.—We congratulate our whig friends on the nomination of General Scott
for the presidency. His native le ter which we published a few weeks ago will assuredly secure

him the entire vote of our adopted citizens. His devotion to their cause cannot be doubted, for



22

he has declared, in that letter, that he is in favor of twenty-one years’ residence before they

should be naturalized
;
and, not satisfied with that, he even would prefer that they should not be

naturalized on any terms at all ! ! tie is a friend to Irishmen with a vengeance.”

Another widely-circulated and prominent Catholic paper, the ct In-

structor,” of Philadelphia, thus refers to the hypocritical attempt of the

whigs to curry favor with the Catholics :

“An attempt has been* made to excite the hosiility of our Catholic fellow-citizens against
General Tierce, the democratic candidate for the presidency.—‘ Oh !’ cried they, ‘ how can a
Catholic vote for a New Hampshire man ? New Hampshire, the only State in the Union which
refuses to Catholics the lights of citizenship! Fi$! fie! dear Catholics, don’t vote fora New
Hampshire man.’ Such was the hypocritical cry. It is true, New Hampshire, to hershame,
does retain her intolerant laws—but, mark you, General Pierce, in his place in the New Hamp-
shire legislature, repeatedly spoke and voted for the repeal of those laws! That they disgrace

the statute-book, is no fault of his
;
that he endeavored to remove them gives him an additional

claim on all friends of civil and religious liberty.”

THE ORIGINAL NATIVE AMERICAN LETTER OF GENERAL SCOTT

PROCLAIMED A FORGERY BY THE WHIG LEADERS.

The whig papers in many parts of the country deny the genuineness of
the letter of Gen. Scott to Geo. W. Reed, esq., of Philadelphia, in which he
takes ground in favor of the most extreme and malignant Native American

views. This is a desperate expedient to get rid of an unpleasant remi-

niscence, but it will serve only the more to direct attention to the subject,

and to set on foot a spirit of inquiry into the facts of the case. It has

already done this, and the investigation has been conducted with the

greatest frankness and ability, and this, too, by a leading whig editor,

who has been, and now is, one of the most prominent and efficient advo-

cates of whig principles in this country. We allude to General James
Watson Webb, editor of the New York Courier and Enquirer . It is
true, he is not enamoured of the nomination of General Scott; but his

testimony cannot be excluded on that account, inasmuch as he is one of

an immensely large class, and bases his objections to Scott on grounds

that cannot be successfully controverted, at the same time that he adheres

earnestly and ardently to the whig party. General Webb knows all about

the Native American letter of General Scott, and his explanation is alike

full, authentic, and clear. The pretext upon which the western and other

whig papers base their opinion that the Native American letter of Scott

to Reed is a forgery, is, that there is a confusion of d^tes—the letter, in
some places, being dated in 1841, and in others in 1844. But General

Webb shows that the letter is genuine
,
and adduces proof of it. We give

his testimony from a late number of the New York Courier and Enquirer .
The letter was written in 1844 instead of 1841, but this circumstance

strengthens instead of weakens the argument we have made against it.

It will be seen that General Scott himself testifies to the accuracy of his

letter to Reed.

[From the New York Courier and Enquirer.]

The Whig National Convention was called to assemble at Philadelphia on Monday, June 7,
1848, and we were on the ground as early as the 3d. On Monday we were shown the latter

half of a letter signed Winfield Sport, and inquiry was made of us whether the handwriting was

his. We answered that it was, and inquired for the first part of the letter and its date. In reply
we were informed that the first part was lost, but that the. letter was written from Mexico, and

bore date November 11, 1846. This proved to be false; and. subsequent developments demon-

strated that the letter was written fr >m Washington, and bore date November 10, 1844, and

that the first half of it was suppressed in order that the falsehood in regard to its date might the

better be concealed. We obtained a copy of the portion of the letter shown to us, which was in



23

general circulation, and transmitted it to this city for publication, and which, being the only part

of the original letter we ever saw, we now put in italics. The whole letter read as follows, and,
as will be perceived, differs both in date and phraseology from that which is now going the
rounds of the newspapers

:

“ Washington, November 10, 1844.

“ Dear Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge your letter of the 9rh instant, written, as you

are pleased to add, in behalf of several hundred Native American republicans of Philadelphia.

“ Not confidentially, but not for publication, 1 have already replied, to a friendly letter from

David M. Stone, esq., of your city, on the 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

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 stormy 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 1 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.”
[The remainder of the letter is the portion printed by the Courier in italics.]
“ I now hesirate between 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 oi'*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 "Jefferson,
Madison, &c., under whom, in youth, I commenced life—I have always been called, l have
ever professed myself, simply a i-epublican, 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 1 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 other patriots have happily set on foot,
“ I remain, with high respect, your fellow-citizen,

“ WINFIELD SCOTT.
“ To George Washington Reed, Esq., and others, Philadelphia.”

Extracts from this letter, bearing date November 11, 1846, being widely circulated, the Hon.

Mr. Clingman, of North Carolina, as well as ourself, was deceived by the false date
;
and while

we transmitted a copy to this city for publication, he, we believe, promptly forwarded a copy of
the extract to General Scott, who replied that he had never written a line from Mexico upon the
subject of nativism. Mr. Clingman thereupon pronounced the whole a forgery. As we had

vouched for the genuineness of the original when called upon simply to say whether it was or

was notin the handwriting of General Scott, this declaration touched rather closely; and, in

consequence, we invited the divine in whose possession we had seen the original to exhibit it to
Mr. Clingman and some other members of the convention assembled for the purpose. They
also pronounced the original to be in General Scott’s handwriting; but the first part of the letter

was not produced, and consequently no opportunity was at that time afforded to prove that the

assumed date was a fraud, and the first part of the letter suppressed to prevent the fraud being

detected.

The excitement growing out of this matter was very great, and resulted in compelling the

publication of the whole letter as above, together with its date. But accompanying such publi-

cation, the following was also circulated :

“ Postscript to a letter from Winfield Scott, dated Washington, November 10, 1844, and read

at a national conveniion of Native-American delegates, at Pittsburg, February 4, 1847 :

“
‘ I am in the hands of my friends, and must, at least for a while, look on calmly. Writing,

however, a few days<lgo to my friend, Mayor Harper, of New York, 1 half-jocosely said that
I should claim over him and others the foundership of the new party, but that I had discovered

this glory, like every other American excellence, belonged to the Father of his Country. In the



•>3.4 8 210

24

dark winter spent at Veliev Forge, (1778,) General Washington celled for an addition to hie
Native Guards ami directed that none but men of established ‘fidelity,’ ‘ American-born ’ should
be sent to headquarters ! The order was reprinted in the National Intelligencer of the 14th inst
but the comments on it were not written by me.

*'

“ To Hector Orr, Printer.’ ”

[Copy.]

“Washington, November 11, 1844.
“ My Dear Sir, (as I beg leave to address you :) 1 have received many letters in mv life and

complimentary ones, too, from persons— in the opinion of the world-in position much higher
than yours. But I know not that I have ever opened one that so strongly impressed me as that
having the signature of Hector Orr, printer.’ In that simple addition the great Franklin de-
bited more tlum in being called ambassador. Paneouke, the distinguished printer and pub-
lisher of Pans gave a splendid edition of Franklin’s autobiography in folio, dedicated to his
memory, which commenced—

° r 3 ’

*“A Benjamin Franklin,

“
‘ Imprimeur.’

“ A letter from him, were he alive, could not have refreshed me more than that before mv

S

yeS

|'i .! ?
VCt

‘Vif^
ue 10 ®n

£
hlUe Sood 1 have done or attempted, and will stimulate me to

do^ad that may fall in the scope of my power in the remainder of my life.
“ It

.is not the nomination to the presidency which has produced the effect upon my feelings
to which I refer I have often been named for that office in the last nine years by different

Victuals. Without llf'incr mnrh 1: . nni. _ m J .

cause or u e enecc. At some early date 1 shall look more closely into both. In the mean time,
please send me the history of the Native party by the Sunday-school boy

;
and also consider me

a subscriber to your journal.
J

“Enclosed you will find a copy of a letter I have just written (November 10, 1844) to G. W.
i

°thers
’
whlch

,

wl11 exPIain tbe hurry under which 1 write. I have not the time to read
what 1 write. Very truly, yours,

“WINFIELD SCOTT.”

T iT

P‘ S,.~In<
?,

uirie3

,

have ™me t0 me also from the party in New York, but not from Baltimore.
I have returned similar replies.
“ Hector Orr, Printer. W S ”