Virginia advocate. [volume] (Charlottesville, Va.) 1827-1860, 1828-07-12
C7EARAOTTESvHI.HE.
THURSDAY, Jul Y 10.


Mr. Clay is q letter from GEORGE Robertson, Esqr. of
Kentucky, in which that gentleman Declares
In til winter Of l62i5, had frequent and free
versaons with many OF my friend: on the subject OF the
then approaching election OF President by the Housc OF
IA t6esa SSrussuu preference
md my conleat belief only that he would be elected
but ha, majority of the Kentucky delegation would
for him. felt and expressed no doubt that Dir
Clay would prefer him to General Jackson. believed
that he could support the General consistently with
his feelings principles and in frank conversation will,
him in September of 1924 understood distinctly, that
nothing could induce him to aid in approve the
Generals election. In these views, you concurrcd-and
referred to COMPENSATION which you said you had had
with MIR: Clay, in which he communicated yotthis
termination in event. to oppose the election OF Cen
Jackson.
Indeed before the election by tile House of Rcprescn
tativcs, had heard express the opinion that Mr.
Clay would could cooperate with General Jacksons
friends"
To show that reliance is to be placed this statement
we suboin portion of the debate which occurred in
the Legislature of Kentucky tho Resolutions of that
body requesting the members of Congress from that
state, to vote for Gen. Jackson-in which this gentle
took part Amorc palpablc contradiction than is cxb.
tied by his declarations then and now have rarely
Then he believed the instructions unnecessary be-
cause they only required of the Kentucky delegation
Mr. Clay among the rest 20 do that which ,cc"--Mr.
r. inclusive Je,icee they ,cit do" Now, he assures
u.s. that at TINT time, he entertained doubt that Mr.
Clay and majority of the members of Congress from
Kentucky, would vote for Mr. Adams may he goes
far assert that up the time of the election by the
House of representatives, he had head express
the opinion even, that Mr. Clay ''would could"
for Cen Jackson How these statements be recon-
ciled, it passeth comprehension to perceive
The debate may be referred to for important purpos-
than the exposure of Mr. Robertson 1t shows that
early the 3lst of Dcccmbcr 1924 suspicious
teraincd in Frankfort that Mr. Clay would make the best
bargain for himself that he Could in the language
one gentleman, would barter away the vote of Ken
lucky by comforting Mr.. Adams the Secretary
ship of State. How these indirect charges
BY open avowal the part of his friends that lie
could consistently with his principles vote for Gen
Jackson and that he would therefore honestly and con
sccntiously for Mr. Adams Such was the course
which they should have pursued if they had been fully
assured, both he and they would have believe
they were, that" under circumstance would he
for Gen. Jackson. But instead IF this defence Which
both policy and honesty should have induced them
y on, had been true, find them repellng the sus
picion that Mr. Clay would vote for Mr. Adams unjust
and opposing the resolutions implying dstrust of his
integrity. Even Mr.. Robert Wckhe his personal and
political friend and his neighbour who if any one did
may be supposed 10 have known his intentions denied
that he would barter away his voeor in other words
would give it to Mr.. hdams-whon. no one who Joined
in the debate asserted intmacd tho choice of Ken
lucky. Mr. Robertson it is true said something about
Mr. Cays being left free to according to eonsingc
oics and tho indecacy Of throwing him on the political
arena, hanGcm8ed; but he, finding that such arru
mens would not avail changed his ground and opposed
the resolutions only requiring of Mr. Clay TO do what
lie would do without them If these gentlemen really
knew at that time, that Nh Cays determination to vote
against Cen jackson unaltcaty fixed their conduc;
was even ndcicnsibc than his He was ONLY uvs
tcriously sent-they declared what they knew to be
untrue We confess however that we do not place this
construction upon their conduct. They doubtless he
heTcd that Mr. C. would be able make that arrange
Hent with Cen Jackson which he subsequently effected
WIN mr. Adams and under this impression, whilst they
opposed the resolutions calculated to koudcuT him
TO prevent him from making the best bargain with
Con Jacksonthey asserted their confident belief thai
he would vote for Gen jackson
Our readers will be a little surprzed to learn ,bo,
Mcssrs Hardin, Crittcnden and Wicklifc who figured
In this debate, the violent opponents of Mr. Adams
are now the warm supporters Of the administration
" House Of Representatives. IF Ky. Dee. 81, 1924
The resolutions requesting the members oil
the House Of Representatives in Congress, from
this State, to vote for General Andrew Jackson
as President OF the United States, &c were taken
u2.
Mr.. G. ROBERTSON moved to Law the whole
subject on the table, until the first of June noxt
Ills reasons were, that it would be unjust to our
members IN Congress, who know the will OF their
constituents better than we do ; that it would be
'ndehcdte to Mr.. Clay, Sc
MI Is. HARDIN aYowed his preference for Mr..
Crawford, SO long as he had any chance and his
dislike TO Mr. Adams, on account Of his originally
Federal principles, and his evident hostility to the
growth OF the West, as evinced by his votes in
Congress, on the acquisition OF Louisiana, and his
conduct elsewhere upon the navigation of the
Mississippi, and the Missouri question. He still
entertainment the highest respect for MIR. Crawford
but he had no doubt majority of the people OF
Kentucky, were in favour Of Jackson. and he
wished to express that preference decidedly. He
considered the contest between Adams and Jack
son, and he could have hesitation in prcfcrrino
the latter, both because he thought it was best for
the general interest, and the interest of the west
Mr.. CRITTENDEN offered few remarks on the
cxpedlency Of adopting the resolutions, because
the people OF Kentucky preferred Gen. jackson,