Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1831-02-24


each other.
What have the public to do with Gen Juckson's
and MIR Cahouns opinion of each other1 Are they
called upon decide whether Mr. Calhoun was emil
~ OF duphcuy or notf Gen. jackson says he was
lie says he wus not. Whether he was or was not
does not now concern the public. Mr. Cahpun's
Pueheation' therefore. was wholly uncaled for 1t is
hrcorand wantony thrown into the republican par.
~. MIR Calhoun will be held responsible for all the
mschics which may follow.
The character which the Prcsidcn. now uscribcs
" n. Suinou' VIII not aervc any rclicf from this
correspondence and its publication
What was II which Gen. Jackson asked OF Mr.
Calhoun IN ms letter Of 18th May, 1880. Simply TO
state whether he had actua y pursucd tho couyso ne
cribed TO him by Mr Craw ford IN Nj Moproc's c,b:
net He did not call in question his acts or his mo-
tvcs. All he wanted to know, was the trub or
aischood ct single proposition it required not
hve lines to answer the inquiry. 1t was only ,eces-
sary for Mr. Calhoan TO saw g did move and sn.aL
against you in MIR Monroes cabinet" or did not"
This was all The President asked. He asked from,
Dir Calhoun Justification nor excuse all no want:
ed wns isola' ed fact.
How does MIR Calhoun answer this nouirv An
nest pam man would pronounce sentence against
linn from the mere length of his reply. 1t occu
pies nearly SIX columns in the TELEGRAPH and
twelve pages IN u large pamphlet A correspon-
dence which, necessarily embraced only one sbor.
question and shorter answer, is ni,do by Mr. Cal
noun 10 cover nearly three pages of the U. S.
ieiegraph. and III large pamphlet OF fly two
pages! u there not something suspicious in the vo
ty length OF MIR Calhouns reply and the accumuo-
ton of his Documents
But the consd"ratc reader will find this first i'm
preston confirmed by perusal of the pancrs
Instead OF n direct and frank yea or nav TO tho
inquiry. he begins by denying his responsibility ~
the president tor what passed in Mr. Monroe's cabi
net Who said he responsible? Not The Pr
sidcnt, nor any else. FIc does not intend bo
SAYS, to offer apologies excuses tor his conduct
VINO asked hun for apologies or excuses? Nobo.
dy, Tho President only asked what ib,, conJuo,
was? '"EI
lie 'hen affects not to understand the President.
nut supposes he means, that they did not mn the
k"Hc construction upon hls orders in the Seminole
campaign, and that he has been guilty of some III
plcity IN that respect! Tho Presidents le,ter ,uo
direct inquiry OF MIR Calhoun, whether his course
had been hostile to him in Mr. Monroe's cabinet, as
was represented He dad not ask how NJ, CaIhoT
understood his orders, nor whether tbev n6ora,i
them alike. He only desired to know whether be
had been secretly hostile, while proe,seJlv and nrh
!icy his friend But Mr. Calhoun, instead of answer
ing directly, leads off into u long discussion abor, H.
orders and. the manner in which they were unIo
stood points which were not at all involved in tho
inquiry 10 which he was replying, " ~
After wasting several pages in this uonocessa,u
discussion ne comes at length to hts own course in
the CABINET. Here again, instead of a direct an
swer he fills he better part ofa page in softenng m.
aum'ssion' that Mr. Crawtords statcment /. substan-
italy true. He says TO the President II was of the
impression that you had exceeded your orders,i-
III cam" to the meeting [of the cabuet1 under tho
impression That the usual course ought 20 be purpued
~ ms case, winch supported by presenting fully
ana freely all the arguments that occurred to me-
| Here the chr c. far as the President ia con.
cerned' wa admit; ed to BIZ true No room for con-
troVersy was left, cxccpt in relation to Mr. Cal
houn's conduct towards Cen Jackson The Core
ra says TO him in aHyour let ers to me- Won nrofe-
sed TO be my personal friend, and approved entirely
my conduct IN relation TO the Srm.aole campaign"
Ihat the President was deceived, we have his DO
stvc declaration, supported by his conduct from tho
close OF nc Seminole campaign, down to the pres cut
moment In addition to private assurances a letter.
rom V"sh'ngo on %es PEb lshed IN Nashville paper,
soon ensF the cabinet council, stating, that Mr..
Crawford had moved his arrest Ia the cabinet, but
that b" was triumphantly defended by Mr. Calhoun
and Mr. Adams From the tene of Mr. CaIborn,s
own letters, ard the letters Of the President Gen.
Jackson could entertain doubt or this fact So
hrmy was 1t impressed upon his mind that Mr. Cal.
houn had been his foremost advocate, that, on his
way 10 Washington, when his conduct was in qucs-
ton before Congress- at public dinner in V;,1,n,n
he toasted John C.. Calhoun" as ian homes, man
the nob.est work Of Cod. He always supposed Mr.
Crawsn'd to b. his only enemy Mr.. Monroe's cab
met and openly gave vent TO his feelings All this
Mr.. Calhoun permitted in silence.
After hiz confession. lao attempts TO show that Mr.
Crawford has given false account Of some minor in
cIdent5 c,nnGc;cd with this affair. That, MI Craw-
lord and his friends will probably settle with him. but
what II hlr. Crawford is mistaken on those points,
Docs 1t IN The least affect Mr. Calhouns conduct 10.
wards Gen. 1ackson' What if Mr. Crawford was
not acurtcd III disclosing this matter by the motives
he adduces;-docs that prove that Mr. Calhoun did
not mike Gen. Jackson believe he was his friend
when IN fact, he was secretly acting as his nnemy5
|
Or If Gen Jack-on's confidential eitcr to Mr. Mon
roe was not before the cabirc docs that prove Mr.
Calhoun innocent Of the charge the President makes
against him.
Having led the reader an useless journey over these
subjects, he brgns to complain Of the manner in
winch INC truth h's finally reached the President,
cars lie IS very curious 10 know the names of eve
ry body who has heard or said word about il Does
nc want somebody To- atack for the purpose Of lend
ing oft the p"plc mind from an Unbiased view of
ms own conduct Tho knowledge of names, he says,
IS important.
Now docs he pretend that the persons whose
n'rs we're withheld, knew any thing about his con-
duct IN Mr.. Monroe's cabinet or his intercourse with
Gen. Jackson? Not at all But he seems 10 think
7ey had some personal motive in brirgins the truth
TO the knowledge Of the President. If il were so
would II alter tho fact1 Would it ct all extenuate
his own conduct
But he has the names. In Gen. Jackson's letter
10 10 nv. ro'SVth, GATED 9TH June, $50, copy of
which was sent To him. and in Con Jackson,s Ie;,cr
TO himself dated 10Th July, lie s distinctly told that
the statement referred 10 IN Mr.. Crawfords letter