« AnteriorContinuar »
Europe. Aye, but what was his errand ? To inspect military fortifications ! But he was ordered to Charleston by General Jackson, charged with delicate and important duties. Aye, but he was to take no step except what related to the immediate defence of the port, without the order of the collector or District Attorney ! So on the Maine boundary-80 every where. He has never been employed or acquitted himself in any civil capacity in all his life, without having somebody to overlook and restrain him.
But I am not content to overturn the vain pretences of his advocates. I carry the war into their own camp, and here today undertake to show affirmitively, that he has no qualifications for civil affairs. He has made his own political record. He has made it by his letters and addresses. He belonged to the army, and might have said nothing. But, being vain and ambitious, he sought notoriety by throwing himself through his letters before the public eye in moments of high political excitement. In what one of these did he not commit some great blunder, injurious to his own fame and mortifying to his friends? Take for example his letter on Naturalization in 1841 : He says he was fired with indignation against foreigners, and sat down and prepared an address with the view of rallying an American party against them. That he fully concurred in the Philadelphia move against foreigners, and was inclined to repeal the Naturalization laws altogether, and shut them out forever from the enjoyment of our free institutions. Who wants to vote for him for that letter? Its folly was so great that he has been half denying and apologizing for it ever since! Take now another case. He came out in great flourish in favor of the celebrated bankrupt bill. But before the General could get much attention drawn to his letter, the measure had become odious, and down went the bankrupt bill and General Scott's letter together! Let us have another letter. In 1843, when the great minds of America were discussing the question about slavery under the constitution, he again thursts forward his opinions, and declares in favor of the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia-that
IWOII peu tions! Let us have another one of his letters, At a period when his whole party was clamoring for a curtailment of executive power and patronage, General Scott comes to the grave and profound conclusion, that they are all wrong, that the President was not far enough removed from the people—that he ought to be released from such vulgar liabilities, and therefore should be elected for six years, rather than for four. There is another egregious folly in General Scott's civil career, which I am sure you must have anticipated, I mean his annexation of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Territory large enough for thirty or forty new States, composed of many millions of French and English population, monarchists and abolitionists, to crush and grind us and our property to powder! Horror struck at the idea of annexing Texas, that did not hold one thousand persons in it, except our countrymen and kindred, accustomed to our laws, and attached to our form of government; but yet willing to bring in Canada, crowded with a population that hated all republics, and scorned our free institutions !
Here then, is a full map of Gen. Scott's attempts to connect himself with the civil policy of the country. It is constructed out of his own materials :
1st. His Naturalization letter, in which he lays the foundation for that native American party, from which has emanated all the persecutions against foreigners ever since.
2d. His letter in favor of the now universally condemned bankrupt bill.
3rd. His letter sustaining John Quincy Adams in bringing the subject of abolition into the Congress of the United States.
4th. His letter maintaining that although Congress could not interfere with slavery in the States, she could abolish it in the District of Columbia.
5th. His letter in favor of the annexation of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
6th. His letter making our government more aristocratic, by electing the President for six instead of four years.
This map is complete. It delineates every attempt, six in
tion. Taken one by one, we must disapprove and condemn them: taken altogether, they force us to the conclusion, that he is not qualified for so high an office. The country is full to overflowing of men a thousand times better qualified. Every average county and city in the Union could furnish a candidate with higher civil qualifications.
There is no uncharitableness in this expression of opinion. The chief men of the whig synagogue have gone before me. Horace Greeley, who next to Seward, is his ablest supporter, is reported to have said, "that Gen. Scott is a vain, conceited coxcomb of a man. His brains (all that he has) are in his epaulettes, and if he should be elected President, he would tear the whig party to tatters in less than six months." A distinguished leader in East Tennessee does not hesitate to proclaim, " that he has vanity enough to damn seven successive whig administrations." Gen. Zollicoffer, of the Republican Banner, who was one of the three whig delegates who deserted from Fillmore, and went over to Scott, said, wrote and published of and concerning the aforesaid Winfield Scott, that he had no high opinion of his.“ very sound discretion or common sense.” What! destitute of common sense? If so, no other sort of sense will be of any avail. Without common sense as the great basis of human intellect, all else is useless and even dangerous. The maniac may
your mere man of genius and imagination may be utterly useless for all the practical purposes of human life. No confidence in his common sense !-vanity enough to damn seven successive whig administrations !-all his brains in his epaulettes, and in six months he would tear the whig party to tatters! Well, if these are the opinions of the great high priests of the Scott party, I know you will pardon me for simply maintaining that he is not qualified to fill the exalted office and to perform the complicated and arduous duties of President of the United States.
But I carry this question of qualification far beyond his want of political knowledge and experience in civil affairs. I maintain that his education, temper and disposition, disqualify
ne nas been in
regular army iron as you up. tary life has been with him a trade-a calling—the main, and in fact his only pursuit in life. · The result is that he is proud and dictatorial. Impatient under opposition, he is ready to resolve every thing into a quarrel. Hence it is that his whole life has been made up of quarrels and complaints, with any body and against every body. In early life he quarrelled with Macomb about priority of rank. He quarrelled with the then administration, and could not be quieted but by the severest reprimand. He quarrelled with General Gaines, and never ceased his enmity until the grave closed over the remains of that gallant old soldier. He quarrelled with General Jackson, and refused to say, with the frankness of a soldier, whether he was the author of certain slanders against him. He quarrelled with De Witt Clinton in the same case, and invited him to mortal combat when he knew his oath of office forbade its acceptance. and when he had declined to invite Gen. Jackson to the same wager of battle for a much greater offence. In the Florida war he quarrelled with the people of that territory, and denounced them, according to our recollection, in his order No. 48, as cowards and afraid of an Indian behind every bush. In the Mexican war, his whole career was marked with fuss, quarrels and feathers.
He quarrelled with Polk for not sending him to Mexico, and when he did send him, he quarrelled with him for that. He quarrelled with Marcy for not sustaining him in the Quarter Master's Department, when he had the Quarter Master General with him at New Orleans and Vera Cruz with unlimited authority to do anything and everything he might stand in need of. He quarrelled with the President for recalling him from Mexico when it was done at his own written request. He quarrelled with the Secretary for not allowing him to make promotions of his friends in the army over equally meritorious officers, contrary to the express provisions of the army regulations. He quarrelled with and tried to disgrace Col. Harney, “the bravest of the brave," for no reason under the sun, except that he did not like him. He quarrelled with Generals Worth and Duncan, as gallant and fine officers as ever drew
of all the others, I boldly say that he exhibited an overbearing and tyrannical temper that totally unfits him for high command in civil life.
But he was not content merely to quarrel with them—“to show a hasty spark and then be cold again.” No, he arrested them, stript them of their command--took away their swords, hacked and battered in many a hard battle, that he might wear the crown of laurels on his own brow. He did every thing to disgrace them in the face of the enemy. Take the case of Gen. Worth as a sample of the rest. How often had he headed his division and charged in the midst of carnage and death up to the cannon's mouth to win a battle, whilst General Scott was afar off in perfect safety, looking through his spy glass, and afterwards wearing the laurels of a victory which Worth had won for him at the risk of his life! And yet, after all this, he hears read and permits to be transmitted to the United States for publication, the highest praises of himself and the grossest charges against Gen. Worth, which he himself was afterwards compelled to abandon. The case of Duncan, the brave and accomplished Duncan, is another, which might be adduced for the same illustration of Gen. Scott's overbearing character. Arrested and unsworded, all they could do was to appeal to their own government for justice. They asked a court of inquiry to investigate the whole case, and when this obvious justice was awarded them, Gen. Scott even quarrelled with the government for that. He complained that he, the accuser, should have to go before the same tribunal with the other officers of his command. I pray you hear the reply of Secretary Marcy to this strange, this proud and aristocratic complaint:
“ On what ground of right can you claim to have your case discriminated from theirs ? It is true that you have assumed to be their judge and have pronounced them guilty ; and you complain and repine that the laws of the country do not allow you, their accuser, to institute a tribunal to register your decree. But you are not their rightful judge, although they were your prisoners. Before that court all stand on the same level