Alabama state intelligencer., 1831-09-10

Cdpihet UHn thls evidence, may NIT CraWford turn round anl pity and taunt MT Calhoun for decay ot hls memor. He has notorlously published to the world gross misrepresentation of this affair, with the evidence of its incorrectness before him. m his otcn doaments. If memory had failed him.
 he might havereied for correct information on the account givenby Mir Monroe, in 1S19, which is cer- talnly more liley to he correct than any statement made by him ioto. He, Mir Monroe, could not have | forgotten the Aets Thus vanishes one of MT Cal houns coudsof dust, which he had raised, to blind the people in relation to his own conduct towards | Gen. Jackson'
 l shall not ,owever, turn upon Mir Calhoun and reproach him with his decay Of memory for if he is to be beeved,he never had any to decay as shall show before ths review is closed No, t IS the want of veraclty which must be reproached in Mir Cal houn, and not tie decay of his memory In support of the argument of the Globe founded on MT Mon roes letters of the 18th of July and 2lst of Decrm- Der, ISIS, shall produce passage from MT Mon roes letter to me of the 9th August, 1S30.-"l lay m bed more than week, during which that letter (the confidential one, was removed, and every thing relating to thatwar having been previously arranged, 1t was forgotten and never read by me until after the
 'eStnS of to administrations and the decision us to the course to be pursued in reference to it's manage nent. My impression IS that read it then, sug- gestton of 1r Calhoun that it required my attention Had read it when received it, I should hace com sdercd h confdenia and nerer hare shenn it to any one, ho'oerer great my confdence m them might be" It is somewhat difficult to ascertain what Mir Mon roe's meaning in the foregoing quotation is. He states that "every thing relating to that war, having been previously arranged, the letter was removed, and forgotten, and never read by me (Mr Monroe) until after the meeting of the administration. and the decision to the to be pursued in refer to its management" It is manifest that the first part of the foregoing sentence relates to the rangement of the letters and papers concerning the
 
 sent the idea, that the letter produced and read on Me suggestion of Mr Calhoun, after the decision ofthe administration in reference to its management The management of what Of the Seminole war That had terminated before the meeting. If MT Monroe intended to state, that the letter was pro- duced and read upon the suggestion of MT Calhoun, that It required his atenton after the decision of the administration upon the course to be pursued towards Spain and towards General Jackson, thenits man- fest that he is mistaken. It is impossible in the Da- ture of things that Mir Calhoun could have believed or suggested, that that letter required the Presidents attention, after the decision of the administration upon the events of the campaign had been formed. It was impossible in the nature of things that the Presidents attention could be necessary to that let ter after the decision had been made on the events of the campaign. I have before me letter from member of Congress from this State in which he urges "that the confidential letter must have been before the Cabinet as 1t was necessary to correct decision of the questions growing out of the Semi noe war, and that the President and Secretary of War ought to have been mpeached if it had been withheld" When MT Calhoun referred to the let ter, my impression and IS n0,o, that he wished it produced. to prove that General Jackson instead of acting in conformity to the orders of the War de- partment had determined to take the Spanish posts before he received orders to take the management of that It is probable, that when he referred to that letter, he was not aware that it had not been answered. It is easy to understand why MT Cal boun should call the Presidents attention to that let ter before the Cabinet had decided upon the course to be pursued towards Span and especially towards General Jackson-but after that decision had been made, it is impossible to conceive motive for bring ing it under consideration. MT Monroe is then evi- dently mistaken in stating that the letter was pro- duced and read upon the suggestion of Mir Calhoun, after the decision of the cabinet upon the events of the Seminole campaign. It is little remarkable, however that the confidential letter, is always pro- duced upon the suggestion of II, Calhoun Mir Mon roc in his letter to General Jackson of the 21st De cember, 1913, and othe 8th of August, 1850, to me- says: it was produced on the suggestion of Mr Cal- h0un, and connects it with the proceedings of the Cabinet, in which say distinctly recollect it was produced and read upon the suggestion of Mr Cal houn. Twill now state more at large the reasons of my distinct recollection of the circumstances. Mr Monroe before he left Washington, had particularly
  gia until General Jackson's despaches should be ceived, and the Cabinet should decide upon the events of the Seminole campaign. During his ab- sence in Loudon, had frequent conversations with Mir Calhoun, who uniformly informed me, that Ge- neral Jackson had no other orders for the govern ment of his conduct than those given to General Gaines. Those orders had seen His rcpresen- tations which at that time had no reason to doubt made a strong impression upon my mind, and ex- tremey unfavorabe to General Jackson. I entered the Cabinet therefore with decided impressions against the General which were removed only by the production and reading of the confidential letter, of which to the best of my recollection and belief it was the first ntimaton l had ever received of that letter. I am confident Mir Monroe is mistaken in his recollection of my coming into his room, after MT Calhoun, and reading the letter. It is worthy of remark too that in his letter of the 21st December, when it is more likely that his recollection was cor rect, than in the spring of 1880, he tells General Jackson that the letter was given to Mir Calhoun, but does not connect me with Mr Calhoun and that letter. and have distinct recollection olhearng him give the account of it several times in none of which did he connect me in the affair of the letter. The Vice-Presdent seems to think he has disposed of MT Crowninsheld's evidence, by the letter he has received from him-hut by comparing the two letters it will be seen that the letter to him does not contradict single syllable of his previous letter to me. Mir Calhoun in note to Mir Crowninshield's letter to him, says-' Nor could he have been pre- sent at any meeting of the Cabinet the subject of the capture of St. Marks or Pensacola, in which I was." George w. Frying, Esq. late minister to Spain and Denmark, writes in the month of Februa- " last That it is ascerained that the official news of the capture of St Marks was received at Washington in the early part of May" He had particularly examined the records of the War de- partment, and found that the despatch giving an ac- count of the capture of St Marks. was recorded in the early part of May and MT Calhoun in the note last referred to, says: that he, MT Crowninsheld and the President left Washington on the 18th ol May-and MT Crownnshield in his letter to MT Calhoun says that he could not know any thing of Cabinet Meeting after the 18th of May*