Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-06-04

,oP pursue. Inc answer is obvious; to explain
h'socn r'e'cs, he would read his oca letter, in
Wh'ca tsieY were carefully and ele5oratelyn
0eyclodcd; and not the letter or letters of a
ir'chd, with whom he did not entirely agree.
| In aid of this last consideration. l will fur
ther suggest, that the habit of MIR. Monroe is
10 read to those IN whom he coniides, his own
letters on important TOPICS and not those of his
trends. do not recollect 4 single instance in
winch Mr.. Monroe has ever read TO me letters of
thiad person. Those who have been inti-
matcly connected with the President can bear
| testimony to the truth of this allegation
.. TO show that no letter from Gen Jackson,
,titing the principle, on which the atrn,nistra-
ton should be formed was ever read to Mr.
Louvre or MIR. Roberts, another consideration
presents ITSELF With me il is conclusive: The
aoctnne advanced 10y Gen. jackson is express
eo III terms too clear to be misunderstood, and
rsnot OF character to be forgotten. Men con-
splcuous ior their virtue and capacity" were TO
De selected, "wlthout regard TO party.n Is it
possible that this doctrine, SO characteristic OF
Hen. Jackson, SO remote from the views of pu-
ny and hrnid politicians, could fail to make a
uecp impression on such men as Roberts and
l.owrie anlrnpression too deep ever to be erased?
Gould doctrine like this have been understood
by them as recommendation to the President
to select for his cabinet two distinguished re-
puoicans and two distinguished federalists!
sion always implies equality, unless expressly
otherwise directed,) TO divide, as Mr.. Roberts
says, llls principal cabinet appointments be-
tween the two great parties; or, as Mr.. Loyric
now says, TO form the administration by the ap
polntmcnt ofdistinguished Individuals from both
The great political parties oftle country /? Sure
~ these gentlemen, if Gen. Jackson's second
letter, which is short, his third, which is not
long, had been read to item, never could have
sf,lnl pIv
as recommendation of measure, by which it
was not only TO be regarded, but recognised and
consulted There is yet another consideration
on this subject worthy OF serious attention.
ltIas been before remarked, that botl, Mr.. |
Roberts & Mr.. Lowric speak of a !attc,. of Gen |
jackson. Ofcourse, supposing the letter read
10 ME- Roberts not to be the letter read to MIR.
Lowric, there were two letters read. All that |
can be asked for is, that TIC 2d and 81 letters |
from Gen. jackson to MIR. Monroe were rcaI |
No 3, the longest letter, TO Mr.. Roberts, and,
OF course, No. to Mr.. Lowrc. Now, if the !
same letter was read TO both or one TO each, is
1T not marvellous, that nothing shoud have been |
attended to, except General JaclIson's recon-
mendaton as 10 the formation of the cabinet; |
and that so little attended TO, as not to be I'M !
dcrstood. Did the strong expressions of the |
second letter, iii relation 10 party, make no i'm
preston; | will not point out all the pas ages
which, if heard, must have been remembered. y
When Mr.. Jefferson sad-'.We are al repub-
licans, all fedcralists," ii made an inn resson
which lasts to this day-al heard, and all have
remembered. When, therefore, Gen jackson
said, '<now is the time TO extcrminatc that mon
ster called party spirit" these words could not
fail to strike the attention of men, like MIR.
Lowre and MIR. Roberts, and to be remember
ed forever.
In the third letter also there arc many stri
king passages: The denunciation of the Hart
ford Convention could not have escaped motto
nor coul' it have been easily forgotten. beg
the reader TO look these two letters of G o.
neral Jackson, if he has not already read them;
and he will be convinced, that no man of orli-
nary capacity could have heard them without
retaining something more, than confused and
mistaken recollection of advice, as to the for
nation of the cabinet. Yet, neither Mr.. Ro-
berts nor Mr.. Lowric ever said one single
word, indicating the slightest knowledge of any
thing in these letters, except on ono point, and
on that they are PROFESSIONALLY mistaken. l
am. very confident, therefore, that they have
formed their opinion Of General Jackson's let
ter not from the letter itself, but from that of
a.: Presidents ely.
A fact has been communicated to me which !
will serve TO illustrate and confirm the proceed
ing remark. An individual, whom it is need
less TO name, has recently stated; that he had |
heard the letter of General Jackson read, |
but that he had never seen or heard of the
Presidents letter to the General. Yet, it
is fact which can be established by the most
satisfactory evidence, that this same individual
must, from his account Of the contents of the
letter read to him, have heard the Presidents
letter TO General jackson, and not the Gene
RAILS letterto Mr.. Monroe. That this mistake |
should have been made in three instances, by |
individuals, all of whom are hostile to General
jackson, and who are the only persons, as far
we know, who pretend to have been auditors
of General Jackson's letter, is indeed singular;
but if there has been mistaie whatever, our
surprise must give way to a sentiment Of diff
ferent character.
6. Gen. .Jackson's letters were written in
1916, II. From Mr.. Lowrie's statement il APP
pears, that the letter read to him was, in 1921
20, lying on the table before the President in
his bundle from which bundle the President
drew it. This is remarkable; letter seldom
lies on the Presidents table three days; letter
from friend not day. Yet, this letter, il
would seem, had been lying three for four years.
1t is incredible-it is almost impossible.
If, instead ofsupposing that one ofGen. Jack |
sons four letters was kept on the Presidents ia
bic for the purpose Of being read, we shonld
suppose that Mr. Monroe occasionally had his |
own letters there, shall he able to account
for the fact that NJ. M,nroo's letter dispDcn-
ed, while all the letters of General Jackson
have been preserved.
1t is manifest, too that the letter of MIR. Mon
roe was Mfcn IF, as evidence Of Gen. Jacks a's
opinions, & not as evidence oftho8e OF Mr.. Mon
roe. The opinions of Mr.. Monroe were always
accessible. He was always ready to co nnu-
nicate them orally, or written in his letters
The object, then, was to have evidence of Cen
eraI Jackson's, and not Of Mr.. Monroe's opini-
ons; and if General Jac<son's letter had been
within reach, it would have disappeared. AS 1t