Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1831-02-25


ty OF duplicty not? Gen. jackson SAYS he was
lie says he was not. Whether he was or was moi
does not now concern the public. Mr. Calhoun
publication, therefore, wholly uncacd for II is
iirebrand wantonly thrown into the republican par
~. MIR Calhoun will be held responsible for ali the
rnlschiefs which may follow.
The character which the President now ascr;bcs
to NJ Calhoun will not, derive anv relief from This
correspondence and its publication
- W nat was II winch Gen. Jackson asked of MIR
Nd'oun III MS letter OF 18th May, 1880? Simply 10
state whether he had lily pursued the course as
crlbed to him by Dir Crawford in Mr. Moproes cab,
net lie did not call in question his acts or his mo-
tives. All be wanted to know, was the truth or
ialsehood OF a single proposition. 1t required not
I'VE mes to answer the inquiry. 1t only hcces-
sary for MIR Calhoun to saw did move and snenl,
against you in Mr. Monroes cabinet or did NOT
This was all the President asked. lie asked from
Mr. Calhoun no justification excuse; all he want
ed was isolated fact.
How does Mr. Calhoun answer this inquiry. An
n nest plain man would pronounce sentence against
MN IRON the mere length of his reply! II occu-
pies nearly SIX columns in the Telegraph and
Twelve pages IN large pamphlet! A correspon-
dence which, necessarily embraced only one short
question and shorter answer, is made nv Mr. Cal
noun, TO cover nearly three pages of the u S.
Telegraph. and fill large pamphlet of fifty two
pages! Is there not something suspicious in the We
ry length of Mr. Calhoum's reply, and the accumula
ton of his documents?
But the consdcrate reader will find this first i'm
preston confirmed by perusal of the papers
Instead OF direct and frank yea or nav to the
inquiry. he begins by denying his responsibility to
the president for what passed in Mr. Monroe's cab
net. Who said he was responsible? Not the Pre-
sldcnt, nor any one else He does not intend he
says,to offer apologies Tor his conduct
Who asked HIM for apologies or excuses Nobo-
dy, The President only asked what that conduct
was9
He then affects not to understand the President:
out supposes he means, that they did not put the
same construction upon his orders in the Seminole
campaign, and that he has been guilty of some du
phcIty IN that respect! The Presidents letter was
direct inquiry of Mr. Calhoun, whether his course
had been hostile to him IN Mr. Monroe's cabinet as
was represented He did not ask how Mr. Calhoun
understood his ORDERS nor whether they understood
them alike. He only desired to know. whether he
had been secretly hostile while professedly and pub
hcly his friend. But Mr. Calhoun, instead of answer
ing directly, leads olflnt long discussion about the
orders and the manner in which they were Under
stood. points which not at all involved in the
inquiry 10 which he was replyinr?
After wasting several pages in this unnecessary
discussion, he comes at length to his own course in
the cabinet Here again, instead of a direct an
swer he fills he better part ola page in sotenng the
admission, that Mr. Crawford's statement F.. subsIan-
taly true! lie says to the President Il was of the
impression that you had exceeded your orters''-
II came TO the meeting tof the cabinet under the
impression that the usual course ought 10 be pursued
m his case, which supported by presenting fully
and freely all the arguments that occurred to me-"
f1ere the charge, so far as the President is con-
cerned, wa admitted to be true. No room for con-
troversy was left, except in relation TO Mr. Cal
houn's conduct towards Gen. Jackson. The Gene
ra sayto him. in all your letters me- you profess
sed to be my personal friend, and approved entirely
my conduct in relation to the Seminole campaign"
That the President was deceived, we have his DO
sltve declaration, supported by his conduct from the
close OF The Seminole campaign, down to the present
moment. In addition to private assurances q letter
from Washington was pub ished in a Nashville paper
soon after the cabinet council, stating, that Mr.
Crawford had moved his arrest in the cabinet bnt
that he was triumphantly defended by Mr.. Calhoun
and Mr.. Adams From the tone Of Mr. CalhouD's
own letters, and the letters of the President Gen
Jackson could entertain doubt of this face. So
firmly was It impressed upon his mind that Mr.. Cal
houn had been his foremost advocate, that, on his
way TO Washington, when his conduct was in cues
ton before Congress, at public dinner in Virginia
he toasted John G.. Calhoun" as can honest man
the noblest work of God He always supposed MI
Crawtold to BE- his only enemy IN Mr.. Monroe's cab
met and openly gave vent to his feelings. All this
Mr. Calhoun permitted in silence.
Alter his confession. lie attempts TO shcw that Mr.
Crawford has given false account Of some minor in
cdentS connected with this affair. That. Mr. Craw-
ford and his friends will probably settle with HIM but
what if 6Ir. Crawford is mistaken those points?
Does it in the least affect Mr. Cahnuns conduct to-
wards Gen Jackson? What if Mr.. Crawford was
not aCtuated in disclosing this matter, by the motives
he adduCcs;--does that prove that Mr. Calhoun did
not make Cen Jackson believe he his friend,
when, III fact, he secretly acting ) his enemy?
Or, if Gen. Jacksons confidential letter to Mr.. Mon
roe before the cabrDe' docs that prove Mr.
Calhoun innocent of The charge the President makes
against him?
Having led the reader useless Journey these
subjects, he begins to complain Of the manner IN
which the truth has finally reached the Presidents
ears! lie very curious to know the names of eve
ry body who has heard or said word about it Does
he want somebody to attack for the purpose Of lead
ing Off the public mind from unbiased view of
his own conduct The knowledge Of names, he says,
is important.
Nov, does he pretend that the persons whose
names withheld, knew any thing about his con-
duct in Mr. Monrocs cabinet, his intercourse with
Gen. Jackson? Not at eli. But he seems to think
they had some personal motive in bringing The truth
to the knowledge of the President. If it were so,
would ii alter the fact? Would it at all cXtenuatc
bis own conduct
But he has the names. In Gen. Jackson's letter
to Mr. Forsyth, dated 18th June, 1880, copy Of
which was sent to him. and in Gen. JaCkson's letter
to himself dated 10Th July, he is Distinctly told that
the statement referred TO in Mr.. Crlwfords letter,
came from Col Hamilton, Of New York. It cannot
be otherwise understood, than that this statement
letter from Mr.. Forsyth to Col Hamilton, which
was referred 10 Mr.. Crawford before it was submit
ted TO the President
In his long letter he then proceeds omention lot-
ter written by Mr. Crawford to MAJ. Barry in 1923,
10 lis Tho