網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

The only

should be personally relieved in being withdrawn. answer I recollect W. to have made was, that if the AntiMasonic party was dissolved, there were not Clay men enough among them to touch New York nor Pennsylvania, nor consequently to elect Mr. Clay.-From which it was manifest that he considered it impossible for the Anti-Masonic party to support Mr. Clay, and that nothing less than their dissolution could carry any of their members to him and these only the Clay members.

*

It

Clay's friends, I am told, have a project of dissolving the Masonic Lodges in the spring, and thus putting an end to AntiMasonry, by destroying its antagonist. But the same consequence would follow, that is, the Jackson men, now among the AntiMasons, would relapse upon Jackson, not upon Clay, and thus render the election of the latter hopeless. How can Pleasants suppose, that if I renounce (as he calls it) the Anti-Masonic nomination, the Anti-Masons will all go in a body for Clay? proves how extremely unobservant he has been, and consequently how ignorant he is of the rise and progress of the Anti-Masonic party. He seems to suppose that my nomination holds them together and in opposition to Mr. Clay. They rose upon their principle without any leader, and by their principle alone have attained their present formidable size, without the support or assistance of any individual name. I am persuaded that my name has tended rather to retard than to increase their progress. The party not having been formed upon my name, my withdrawal or death would produce no more effect upon them than the fall of a single leaf in October. They would still exist in all their integrity upon their principle, and that principle, of itself, places them in opposition to Mr. Clay. How foolish, therefore, as well as unjust is it, to suppose that my name keeps them banded together, and banded in opposition to Mr. Clay! It would be quite as sensible and just to accuse me of having originated the party. There is not a party in the United States which is so purely a party of principle, in contradistinction to a party of men, as the Anti-Masonic party. And it is for this reason that I think they might safely withdraw their candidate for the Presidency, and rest the influence and increase of their party on their local elections.

I cannot conceive a rational or patriotic motive they can have for continuing me in the field. They cannot say that withdrawing me would dissolve or even weaken their party, for this would be admitting it to be so far a party for a man, and having no vital and conservative principle in itself;—which is, certainly not the fact. It existed in full vigor when it had no presidential hoop around it, and shewed its power in the local elections. Why can it not do the same again? And if it can, what utility is there in keeping a presidential candidate in the field? What legitimate purpose of patriotism is answered by it?

The only sensible or reasonable purpose of nominating a man for an office is, the hope of his election;-the only sensible or reasonable purpose of agreeing to be nominated is, that the person may be submitted to the consideration of his fellow-citizens for the office. But after this has been fairly done, and the people have given the most conclusive demonstrations that they do not choose the individual proposed, but prefer another, what dignity, what propriety, what decency, even, is there in continuing to press him? The effort becomes ridiculously foolish, and subjects both the candidate and his supporters to the most ludicrous and disagreeable constructions. In my case, I thought I had no right to object to the Anti-Masons proposing me to the consideration of the people for the office of President. Every other chance of uniting the opposition had vanished. This alone remained, and, faint as it was, I considered it my duty to permit the offer to be made. It has been made, and refused. My only motive, therefore, for accepting the nomination is at an end. That motive was an honorable and patriotic one. It justified me in permitting the nomination to be made. But this having been done, the National Republicans having declared against the union, which alone I had in view, I can perceive, as I have said, neither dignity nor decency in continuing the nomination.

It is true, that, when I accepted the nomination, I knew that this state of things might arise. But it is not true that I knew, if it should arise, the Anti-Masons would still persist in the nomination. It never entered into my imagination that they could wish to do so vain and foolish a thing. What end can it answer to themselves? It will only expose their weakness. They cannot carry a single State, except, perhaps, Vermont. They cannot

even organize an electoral ticket to the south of New York, except, perhaps, in Pennsylvania. In such circumstances, what a figure will they and their candidate make in a Presidential contest! It will annihilate them and me too, by the mere force of ridicule. So far, therefore, from advancing their party, by persisting in holding me up as the candidate, my opinion is that they will injure, if not ruin, themselves by it. For what an absurd posture must they exhibit in the result! In the meantime, what a false light am I presented in before the nation? I consented to be nominated for the single purpose of union. This end having failed, my object is at an end, and the only course of consistency is for me to withdraw. If I still remain before the public, I exhibit the appearance of counteracting the very purpose which alone I had in view, and permitting myself to be used as an instrument of disunion. I exhibit the appearance, too, of a sickly vanity and morbid appetite for the office, which is utterly false; for I loathe it, and felt that I was making a personal sacrifice when I consented to be offered for it. And yet I fear the Anti-Masons will not let me

off.

It will be said that I accepted without any condition of withdrawing in the event that has happened. But does not common sense imply such a condition, in every such case? Does any man consent to be run for an office for which he knows, at the time, there is no possible chance for his election, and that even the attempt will become ridiculous. What more is the acceptance of a nomination than a consent to be proposed to the consideration of the people for an office, on the calculation that the party may be approved and his election carried? But when this has been done, and the people have given the most significant demonstration against the nominee, what inconsistency is there in his wishing to be withdrawn? As to their election for 1836, which they think they will be able to carry, my engagement does not extend to that, and as to permitting myself to be nominated now as a mere party instrument, to raise the party without any reference to the success of the election, such an idea never entered my mind. I have a great deal more to say-but no room and I am tired.

Yours ever and ever,

VOL. 2-32

WM. WIRT.

The annual session of the Supreme Court had now commenced, and there Mr. Wirt repaired, as soon as his returning health allowed. Amongst other cases of importance in which he was concerned, were those of the missionaries, Worcester and Butler, against the State of Georgia.

These cases constituted but another chapter in the story of the Cherokees.

In the course of the legislation of the State of Georgia against the tribe, an act was passed in December 1830, in which, amongst many other disabling provisions, was that to which we have adverted in a former chapter, forbidding any white person to reside within the limits of the Cherokee Nation, without a license from the Governor of the State and an oath previously taken to support and defend the Constitution and laws of Georgia. The punishment prescribed for a violation of this enactment, was confinement to hard labor in the penitentiary for a term not exceeding four years.

The religious societies of the United States had supplied these Indian tribes with missionary clergy, who having the license of the Federal Government to settle amongst them, had naturally and very justly obtained, as we have remarked, a commanding influence over these people.

In the controversy which existed between the Cherokees and the State of Georgia, the Missionaries were charged with having encouraged the Indians to resist the policy of emigration. A belief in this charge had begotten an angry and exasperated prejudice against them, as the chief contrivers and counsellors of the opposition. It was believed, and perhaps justly, that, but for the Missionaries, the tribe would have yielded to the wishes of the Government, and have gone peaceably to the new home provided for them. The report of the Secretary of War upon this subject in 1828, indeed, expressly charges some imprudences upon them in this respect. "The annual appropriation" he says,"has had the effect to draw to almost every Indian reservation, in addition to the agents and interpreters, a considerable number of Missionaries and teachers with their families, who having acquired, principally by the aid of this fund, very comfortable establishments, are unwilling to be deprived of them by the removal of the Indians; and thus we have found, that while the agents spe

cially employed by the Government for this purpose are engaged in persuading by profuse distributions of money and presents, the Indians to emigrate, another set of government agents are operating more secretly, to be sure, but not with less zeal and effect to prevent such emigration." He adds

"These remarks are not intended as a personal reflection on the Missionaries and teachers; much less on the pious and respectable patrons of these benevolent institutions who, no doubt, are disposed to lend a ready support to every humane measure which the Government may think proper to adopt in favor of these depressed people; but are rather intended to shew the natural and unavoidable tendency of the system itself to counteract the leading policy of the Government."

This is but another fact to demonstrate the incongruity of the course pursued at Washington, with the obligations which the Government had assumed in reference to the relations of the Cherokees to the State of Georgia. No one, certainly, could censure the Missionaries for the benevolent assiduity with which they devoted themselves to the purpose that had been so strenuously encouraged by the Government through a series of years. That they should take great interest in the success of their labors, form strong attachments to the tribe, regard with complacency the progress of civilization of which they were the agents, and desire to render permanent the beneficent relations of christian pastors to their simple flocks-of teachers and pupils and to protect them in their homes, was a sentiment too natural and too virtuous, not to disarm, one would suppose, the hostility even of those who suffered most from the effects of the system. The temper of Georgia seems, however, at this time, to have been heated beyond the point to which argument is usually available. The legislation of the day indicates stubborn and even fierce resolve to close the whole controversy, by decisive blows, which should strike down the adversary without further parley.

The enactment to which we have referred was directly pointed at the Missionaries.

Amongst these pastors and teachers of the tribe, was Samuel A. Worcester, a citizen of Vermont, who had been sent to reside amongst these Indians by the American Board of Foreign Missions, and was a resident in the Nation at the date of the passage

« 上一頁繼續 »