M
r. President. (After the full and learned
investigation you have heared of this question tonight, I can hardly hope that
any remarks I shall make will be listened to with patience; or that they can
reflect any additional light on the subject in debate. The gentleman who has
just resumed his seat will pardon me if I should not incline to follow him
through
all the
me intricacies of logic in which he was himself involved; and I
hope moreover he will not consider me illiberal in the opinion that the
conclusion which he has deduced is presented to us, if not "lame and
impotent", at least in "a questionable shape". The peculiar
direction which gentlemen seem disposed to give
to this debate—by indulging in general and imaginary
speculations should ad
mitmonish us of
the necessity, of referring immediately to the real question and from the
arguments we have heard, of determining it's issue. The question then sir is
substantially this—Have civil or military services the greater claim upon
our suffrages for the office of cheif magistrate. The gentleman (
Mr. Avery
) who opened the thought
proper to erect a standard by which he promised to test the qualifications of
the two characters in question—"Is he honest—is he
capable"is he faithful to the constitution & laws" Sir I heartily
assent to his motto; and accept his challenge to a comparison of the commander
and statesman by the test proposed. But how M
r. President
has the gentleman himself examined these characters—how has
he contrasted these two opposite claims? With
perfect deference to his analysis, he reminds me of a favourite character in a
favourite novel I once read.
2 You recollect
sir that when
Esqr. Joseph Brandon promised to
examine the suspected
Mr. Paul Clifford in reference to
rank—title—parentage—estates &c., after a few imimportant
preliminaries, he was insensibly diverted from his purpose by the opportunity
being presented, of entertaining the hero with the details of a fox hunt; and
on being asked the result of the colloquy he replied—"very
satisfactory—
Capt. Clifford is quite a
gentleman—
O quite a gentleman,—of
unexceptionable rectitude of morals Then too the gentleman seems to have been
diverted from his proposed investigation of the statesman's merits by the
overwhelming consideration of enter[t]aining
3 the house with
a formal phillipic against the character it is my part at present to defend.
But sir if
Esqr. Brandon had carried out his purpose he would have
formd in the suiter of his daughter one who (if you recollect) had little
reputation for his "
honesty" of his
"
fidedelity" to the laws of
England—And so sir, I fear if the gentleman had pursued
his investigation
of the statesman
he might have found in the statesman of the
presen[t]day, qualifications little more entitled to the office of President
than those of
Clifford the robber to a union with the unsuspecting
Lucy—.
Page 2
And why, let me
ask, did not the Gentleman give us some proofs of the Statesman's
honesty—capability and constitutional fidelity? I know he has as
crcribed to him some general, indefinite praise—a short
and glowing encomium; but is there nothing revolting beneath this fair surface?
The gentleman's silence on this important branch of the question argues
fear and I avail myself of the assurance it is so
well calculated to excite. But sir his colleague (
Mr. Swann
) has gone some further in behalf of the
statesman with an attempt to prove that his studies and pursuits qualify him in
the highest degree for the office under consideration. "The draught, says
the gentleman which he has taken at the classic fount of his
Alma Mater arouses in him an interest in the works
of literature—fits him for the study of Constitutional
law—political economy—banking—finances &c.&c.".
I admit sir that that these advantages, if properly directed, might be
productive of good effects; but how
are
they does he in fact employ them—At
college for instance, if he go to a college.
You
M
r President have for 4 years, been well acquainted with
this elementary school of statesmen; you have (I will not say joined
in)—but you have frequently witnessed the evening groups of young
politicians,—juniors, Soph, & Fresh, assembled before the passages
and discussing—
"With all that hot and burning zeal
Which old and firey converts feel"
4
—the
comparative merits and prospects of
White
and
Van
Buren
; nay Sir not unfrequently are politics the subjectmatter of debate
even in this Hall. 'Yes Sir, it is
here even before
he leaves these halls that the student, without reflection; without experience,
without premeditation, becomes a resolute and indefatigable partisan—this
is the incipient school of his political devotion. And thus Sir he leaves
college at the age of 18 or 20 ready and anxious to plunge into that troubled
5 Sea of
politics, where for the future he is "to live & move & have his
being".
6 And where do we
find him next sir? Why, the study of law—practice at the bar is
indispensible to the moulding of what is called an eminent statesman. He must
there accustom himself to speak on any and every question—he must study,
aye Sir, and practice too, the art of acquitting guilt at the expense of
justice and condemning innocence in spite of virtue,—utterly insensibly
to any consideration which involves conscience or feeling he must at all times
be indifferently prepared to condemn the right or justify the wrong. Does not
such a one partake of that insensibility to the oppression of others, which
gentlemen over the way have discovered to be so obnoxious in a commander. Sir
of all places in the world, I conceive the Bar to be the last for moral and
virtuous instruction, and much might be said to prose that such a course of
study & practice as must be incidental to the profession oflaw is
inconsistent with a sound mind and a discriminating judgement. But Sir, follow
this character—see him in the more eventful drama of life—in the
conflict of parties—with the people
On the crowded theatre of politics, where every point of
distinction is preocupied,
Page 3
if he would be
successful he must, I say he
must court the favour
of the people—he must electioneer—he must humbly bow at the shrine
where the very faex popobli
7 dispenses
it's favours. And does this bring with it no sacrifice of independence—no
bribes to dissimulation—no encouragement to intrigue? If M
r. Pre[s.] we but open our eyes to the real political condition
of our country, and dispassionately contemplate the agitated elements of party
warfare, we have reason to fea[r] that the arts and management
of politicians are fast underming the Stamina of our
free institutions. They seem to regard no means unlawful in the contest for
self-advancement; corruption has usurped the place of virtue and intrigue
passes for talent; candour has given way to hypocracy and perverseness and
obstinacy are mistaken for independence of character. Ambition Sir! Gentlemen
have expressed great fears of military ambition; I ask them to look here and
resist if they can the temptation held out to it's
aspirings. There are those, it really seems to me (& observation assures us
of the fact) that would stir up the very dregs of corruption and float upon its
surface—Office—promotion—money is the watchword. Promote him
Sir—make him Senator in
Congress;
he may
the there learn to assume a
little more dignity, to speak of
the people as if
he were of a different race—he may probably
learn to Conceal the impulses of ambition. But is his nature after all, changed
by this severe ordeal of promotion? No sir no! he is still 'linked by a hook
and eye' to the interest of the party which effected his elevation. Where I
ask,
where among the vast mul[t]i[t]ude
8 of statesmen,
will you find one not virtually pledged and devoted to the advancement of some
particular party? Look at
Congress,
sir, the grand centre of this crowded, busy political panorama; or as one
gentleman would have it (
Mr. Avery
) —"the support of
our national honor and dignity". What is it in fact sir? It is the theatre
of passion, of sarcasm—vulgar repartee, of Sectional prejudice and
animosity. And do these distinguished statesmen exhibit
s that Constitutional fidelity the gentleman's test would
require in a president? They
may sir, but it is a
well-known fact that the
Constitution of the United States is differently construed by different
Sections & parties. What is Constitutional with this party is
unconstitutional with
that, because what gives
victory to this gives to that defea[t];
9 what is
Constitutional with
the north is
unconstitutional with
the South
because what is policy in
the No.
. is not policy in
the South.
Most admirable unanimity! And yet Sir from this turbid whirlpool of prejudice
and corruption would the gentleman bless us with a president of heavenly
purity! Would not such a president in his irrepressible attachment to the party
which gave him the power (if it were necessary to the support of that party,
"uproar the universal peace & confound all unity on earth" in the
exercise of that right of '
dismissal from office,'
at which my friend over the way (
Mr. Avery
) is so seriously and if he
would permit me I would guess so
Antijacksonically
alarmed? I ask you Sir if such a one be fit to govern? Now, M
r. President whatever be the objections of gentlemen to the
Commander, they have not shown, nor
can they show,
that he is thus, as the character to which I have alluded, the puppet of
prejudice and cunning—No Sir his mind towers above intrigue; he has no
Page 4
such inducements to degrade the high faculties of his
intellect in the low purposes of electioneering. If he be ambitious it is
known; if he be hypocritical and intriguing his station cannot conceal it, for,
the responsibility of his office is too important and imposing not to be
watched but with eagledeyed concern. It is admitted that he has
"independence—decision of character & promtitude of
action", if no more; & sir whether these are "
abstract qualities" or not as one gentleman
(Swann
) was pleased sarcastically to style them, I
incline to think that they
funct
constitute, if not fundamental, at least very
eminent qualifications in a president. Can the gentleman say as much for his
statesman? But sir it has been said that the statesman is first to signalize
himself in dethroneing the tyrant—dethroneing the tyrant! Oh yes M
r. Pres. the statesman may declare he loves liberty—he
may write off & polish long speeches (
that never were
delivered) and send them out in their travelling habilliments to the
pe
ople; the philosopher may reason and
calculate, the pedant & coward boast, and the scholar write learned essays
on Government—the tyrant disdains and defys them; nor does Liberty res[t]
10
her temple on so frail a stamen. It is the
sword sir she looks to for defence; it is the
sword that makes the tyrant tremble on
11 his
power throne; and it is the
sword
only which palsies his power. Mr. President many references have been made here
tonight in support of the strange doctrine, that a commander, after all his
services and sacrifices, must from the very nature of things, become a
despot;—
Caesar,
Bonnaparte
Cromwell &
Santa Anna have been cited as example. My friend to my
left (
Mr. Taylor
) has said that
these people tyrants
the subjects of
these
had virtually lost their liberties, previous to the actual
elevation of these commanders. But then says a gentleman (
Mr. Swann
) the dagger of
Brutus was
"therefore stained in innocent blood"! This is a curious
argument—a strange conclusion indeed Sir!—that because
there
Caesar
asserted and maintained his authority over a
people who had virtually lost their liberties (I dont care how base &
ignomious they were) that ergo
Caesar
is an
'innocent' man. But sir be this as it may the
gentleman is unfortunate in his reference; for, if he recollects
Brutus was
himself a warrior—yes a noble, a patriotic one & he evinced his
patriotism,
not in
speeches, but in the death of
Caesar; and if the gentleman would prefer
Brutus in
consideration of his Services in preference to
Caesar, certainly sir I have no objection. And here I
would simply remark that
Brutus would
have asked
Cicero's assistance in the conspiracy against
Caesar, but that he thought him more elequent than
intrepid, or as an
12 historian
informs us, "
too timid";
13 it will be
recollected that
Cicero was at that time the greatest statesman in the
world. But, sir I am not the advocate of
Caesar's conquests or services—I am not to defend
Bonnapart's ambitious career, nor am I the panegyrist of
Cromwell or
Santa Anna; The fact is denied on the very face of the
question before you which assigns to me the part of proving the preference due
to the commander of a
free people and I submit it to
the candour of the House if the examples to which we have been refered should
have a consideration. But we have been refered to one other example which
demands some notice. One gentleman
(Avery
) has with much skill & grace &
Page 5
with no less confidence, I imagine introduced the
name of
present
chiefmagistrate
; and unless I greatly mistake, this
furnished the gentleman with a darling theme from which he was in the hope that
arguments addressed to
this body, might not be
wholly ineffectual. The specific charges of tyranny & corruption he has
enumerated belong I think to different subject from the one in debate. But sir
casting aside all party predilections and estimating the administration by the
approbation it has invariably obtained &
especially from "distinguished, enlightened &
eminent statesmen" who to borrow the classical figure of the gentleman (
Mr. Avery
) "support upon their
Atlantean shoulders the honor and dignity of our country"—I say sir
judging from the opinions of a vast majority of our fellow citizens the name of
Andrew
Jackson
will ever receive the gratitude of a people whose country he
defended in war by his valour & has governed in peace by his wisdom. But
M
r. President it is "passing strange to me that both
gentlemen on the opposite side, should have overlooked the illustrious example
of that
statesman
whose administration was immediately antecedent
to
Genl. Jackson's
. He sir has drank deep at the 'classic
fount'—he has cultivated the sciences—practiced law—studied
every system of political economy nor "The division of a battle knows more
than a spinster"
14 and he too
has been president of the
U.S. But
his administration needs no comment of mine—it has been execrated by his
country; nor does the individual himself; for
he has
been lashed with the curses of an insulted people.
Where
is he now sir? Reposing on the laurels his public services have won for
him? No sir—
a member in
the house of
Rep.—the discarded, obnoxious object of contempt &
indifference to all parties—
cha
football of mirth—a focus to the rays of every species of sarcasm. And
yet
he has rec
d. the
very education and pursued the very course gentlemen
would recommend as so well calculated to make a good president. The gentleman
last up (
Mr. Swann
) spoke of "military talent' as
opposed to the acquirements of a civilian. What sir does the gentleman mean by
his "
military talent"? If sir he means
some sort of talent that comprehends the exclusive and incidental duties of
the officer, or if he means the science of arms I
beg leave to recriminate him with same charge he prefered against my
colleague—that of
unfairness. Sir this is by
no means a contest between
Mars and
Minerva; for
I maintain that it is a contradiction in terms—a paradox, an
indefensible paradox to say that anyone ever did or
ever can make a distinguished general unless he be possessed of the highest
order of intellect. There is such a variety of
mental
ingredient—so much boldness of conception—quickness &
decision of character necessary to making a good commander that none can attain
it unless supported both by nature and acquirements; and sir history clearly
proves the fact further that few"very few (I should be glad to know any)
distinguished military men have failed to make good statesmen. The peculiar
cast of thought & judgment necessary to constitute the one eminently
qualifies the other. And yet M
r. President my friend over
the way (
Mr. Avery
) calls him
ignorant;—aye sir if
ignorant were all!—but in the fervid tenor of his
denunciation he has applied to him the
epithets—"licentious—vindictive—aspiring—tyrannical"
and in "all his movements the government of the vilest & more brutal
passions of our nature"! And how sir are these alarming facts established?
By exposition of his corruption—through the influence of the
camp says his colleague, who passed far from the
topic with the seeming confidence that the argument
Page 6
was settled on sure demonstration. Now sir I should like to
know—I am exceedingly anxious to learn what practical evidences the
gentleman had in view?—were they the camps of our forefathers in their
struggle for freedom? Were they the camps of
Bunker Hill—
Saratoga
Brandywine or
Yorkton? Or has the gentleman's uncompassionate fancy
discovered these additional corruptions in the more familiar character of the
defender of
Orleans
? Whosever be the camps to which the gentleman alluded & at
what ever time they may have had their existence of one thing, sir I am
sure—that the Genius of Liberty could not coexist with such a state of
morals as the gentleman has described—the ideas are utterly incompatible.
What sir! A free people invest their commander with almost omnipotent sway and
sit still in silence, nay in "admiration" of his vices and
usurpations! If our commanders could thus with despotic impunity, degrade our
national character; if they could thus prostitute the high functions with which
they are trusted and to use the words of the gentleman "exert their
authority merely for the purpose of exhibiting it's extent & its
latitude"; if the Am[er]ican Camp were that filthy repository of
corruption—that school of ambition & sensuality the gentleman has so
pathetically pourtrayed, then indeed sir would prospect of national defence
serve but to cheer and animate the foe; then sir in case of war would our
national wretchedness be miserable, complete, fathomless. But sir we have ever
been successful—our flag has ever waved high—high on the breeze of
freedom and our enemies have ever been taught that Liberty, Economy &
Patriotism are the guardians of our Camps. And sir it is a well known fact, as
my colleague has said, that the military is strictly subordinated to civil
authority—constituted by it and ameneneable to it for every abuse of its
power. And can it be supposed that we would intrust an individual, such as
some
would paint him
"Fierce as Ten furies—terrible as Hell"
15 with the
command of an army on whose efficiency & in the wisdom of whose leader the
hopes of 10 or 15 milions of free people were concentered? I cannot
agree think with the gentleman that this argument is
conf "Confirmation strong as proof
of holy writ". And hence sir arises the argument of the gentleman that it
is unwise and unsafe to trust a military character with any the affairs of
civil govermnent—they fear his disposition to [t]yrannize.
16 Sir the fears
are immaginary—unnatural, ungrateful. The argument seems to resolve
itself into this—In times the most trying and difficult when all is
doubt, danger, fear and confusion—when the enemy is hovering on our
shores—and our constitution, laws and institutions are
endangered—when the lives and fortunes of 14 millions of free people are
in imminant peril,
when & the
reputation of wives and daughters is open to assault—violence and
ruin—when all that it is dear to freedom is at stake,
then will we repose our hopes and confidence in the
wisdom, judgments & patriotism of a commander & sleep secure while he
fights our battles; but when victory is won
&
danger over &—
when peace
& independence restored to an anxious people we consign him to retirement
& confer upon some fireside
-self styled
patriot the highest honors in our gift—yes'!twine the laurels on another
brow'. Sir what sort of miserable logic is this? By compounding the arguments
of both gentlemen it would really seem, that his very identity must undergo a
radical revolution
Page 7
immediately on the close of his
military
career
duties—that now is he a patriot
but and
now a usurper
nay—that the mariner who
conducts the ship safely through the storm cannot direct it in the calm. They
call him a despot! Though for our sakes
he in this battle
"He stood face to face with death
"Smiled at the drawn sword and defied it's
point"
yet he would enslaves us; though he lost an arm in this
engagement, and in that an eye, braved every danger and underwent every
self-denying privation to conquer the foes of our rights, yet he would himself
usurp those rights! Sir I ask gentlemen to reconcile the inconsistency if they
can. And here M
r. Pres. we see the great difference of the
services embraced in the question; Of the patriotism of the one we can judge by
his acts—every body can read action—there can be no
deception—no none at all; of the other we must judge by his words, Sir
they are
bu "Empty brass and
tinkling sounds"
17 and every one
will fain assert his pretensions to the name of patriot—Sir words alone
constitute but a feeble for our gratitude or suffrage. I might say much of the
self complementay speeches that are contantly filling the ear from one end of
the union to the other—the pernicious influence of political dinner
speeches I might condemn; I might speak of the consequent fast decay of the
economy—
patriotism
simplicity and sterling patriotism of our forefathers—nay I
might cite the example of the immortal
Washington, but I forbear—
"Tempore mutaverunt et nos mutavimus cum illis"
18
M
r.
President, in a few—very few years there will not be a Single
in
among
individual
in among the already vast
19 &
increasing population of this republic who can say "I bore a part in the
Revolution which acheived our freedom"—there will be none to
impress the lessons of patiotism with the force of experience none whose wounds
may rebuke the declining virtues of the heroes of 76. And who without the most
sombre misgivings can see these last living links of revolutionary glory by
which our hearts are bound in sympathy to the past, crumble one by one in
e[t]ernal
20 dissolution.
They demand of us at the altar of
that national
prosperity effected by their services the generous gratitude which a free
people ever accord to the defenders of liberty—they demand a practical
evidence of that gratitude. Sir I cannot echo back to the gentlemen on the
opposite side one correspondent fear that our liberties can ever become the
prey of a commander. I can see nothing in that character to excite
alarm—nothing to threaten the sweet enjoyment of freedom. But I think I
see & have seen in the people of this country a disposition to
undervalue military services—indeed the
legislative treatment they have rec
d. at our hands
furnishes too melancholy a proof of the truth.