The Whig standard. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1843-1844, 1844-08-17

Mill. At the time of the battle have before
mentioned, he was certainly with the army under
General Rutherford nor did ever hear Of any
act of his which gave dissatisfaction, or doubt
of his principles as Wing of '76, but that of
| taking protection. .a
| was also not only intimately acquainted with
James Knox, the father of the mother Of James
K. Polk, but with his whole family. He was the
commander of a company of Lighthouse. and /
was one of his company for some time (; but do
not recollect now how long. /, however, knew
him to be genuine Wing of '76, and patriot
and soldier. So likewise was considered the
whole of the Knox family.
.,.I .1| DAN. ALEXANDER.
| The Nashville Union, the organ Of Mr.. Polk,
makes the following remarks in connexion with
the certificates of Dam Alexander, which we
copy from the Globe. We are willing that
Ezekiel Polk shall have the benefit of all his
| friends can say for him:
"In reply to the ridiculous and false insinua-
ton, that because Col. E. Polk in 1880, in order
to save his property from destruction, and his fa-
mily, perhaps, from violence and insult, accepted
protection from CORVALLIS, he was dsatfected
towards the American cause, we refer to the
statement Of MIR. John Smith, confirmed by others,
and to the following quotation from communi-
of East Tennessee, now before us. 1t is nsin.
| uated' says this gentleman, that because, when
the Carolinas were temporarily subdued and their
armies disbanded, and most of their patriotic sons
driven into exile, that he (Col Polk) accepted
protection from the British commander, against
the atrocious cruel,es and wanton depredatons
of the tories, aud thereby manifested disafection
to his country. That in doing SO, however, he
manifested the slightest disafection to the Amer.
or ionIa tbo loao hxy ,,,it h
the enemies of his country, is wholly false and
untrue, as is proved by witnesses and by history.
1t is too improbable to need refutaton and those
who assail his character on this account, and ex-
pect to assail his republicanism or his valor, do
not understand what is meant by protection, nor
the circumstances which led 10 taking them
The thing, as charge, contradicts itself. A tory
did not ask protection-he needed none from the
British. They did not doubt tory's loyalty to
the King A tory had not renounced his allie
glance, and was, therefore, secure in his possess
sion and himself, his property and family were
safe. II taking protection from Lord Cornwall
lis, or Tarlton, or Balfour, or Rawdon, implied
detection on the part of wing Of '76, from Amer
lean interests, then we're the chivalrous Hayne,
and hundreds of the best patriots of the CaroInas,
tories also The case of the martyred Hayne is
mentioned, not because it is isolated, but its ira
gical issue has made it familiar to all persons
War in the Southern States The honorable
citizen who writes the foregoing statement, goes
into history of Col. Haynes case, which we will
resume hereafter, showing the parallel between
his case andathat of Col. Ezekiel Polk, with the
single exception that Col. Polk, after he took up
arms, after having been forced to take protec-
ton, escaped being captured by the enemy. The
writer's conclusion, however. we cannot omit
He says:
a. r. Al l.. Al
British, and executed soon after. So it might
have been with Mr. Polk. After compulsory
submission to necessity, which he knew would
be short after hope had again dawned upon the
patriot cause, he, too, drew his sword again for
his country and had it been welded with less
energy at Eutaw, and he had become prisoner
like Hayne, he, too, would have been executed.
AS it was, his submission being involuntary, he
retained the confidence of his countrymen to an
extreme old age, and died universally regretted,
as one who had been faithful friend to his coun-
try in her time of greatest need-as one who was,
in it most perfect sense, aa honest man, the
blest Uork Of God"
The above comparison of the conduct Of COL
Hayne with that of Ezekiel Polk is subject to
certain discrepancies, which it is proper to point
out. In the first place, when Col. Hayne, of
South Carolina, took British protection South
Carolina was conquered, and all resistance aban-
doned But so far from resistance being aban-
doned in Mecklenburg, Ezekiel Polk was among
the very few who gave up. Daniel Alexander
says that Ezekiel Polk and "sereral others" took
protection, which implies that the mass did not.
In the last paragraph of the above extract i, is
asserted that Ezekiel Polk fought at Eutaw after
he had taken British protection in 1880; but
there is not particle of evidence to that effect.
1t is bald assertion, without proof, and agans,
proof, for Thomas Alexander's affidavit says posi-.
lively that Ezekiel Polk never rendered any SER
vice to the country after he took British protec-
ton.