The daily Madisonian. [volume] (Washington City [i.e. Washington, D.C.]) 1841-1845, 1844-12-05

This was zine qua non, and, of course, excluded
Captain Tyler, whose immortal vetoes had not ex-
tended to the Tariff Of 1912 MIR Charles J niger
soils preferences for lbe Presidential candidates were
called for and given He had always been for MIR
Van Buren,, as long ss the Hero OF the Hermitage
had been for him He had written for Mr.. Van Blu
ren-he has spoken for him; but alas Mr.. Van Blu
rem and MIR Gar had ruined their prospects for the
TEN of Protection. This stroke OF policy at the
prospects Of Mr.. Clay, was revelation as asloDish.
ing as those Of Mr. Erwin to President Jackson, and
its address not encountered with ITS seraciy.-
IL was indispensable that MIR. lngersos view of the
Texas question, and the revelation Of MIR. Erwin,
should be revealed while the treaty was before the
Senate and he had hardly time TO change their dress
"The immense importance of the immediate publ
cation Of Mr.. G. J. lngersolls view OF the Texas
question: was that differed from those Of Mr. Clay,
MIR. Van Buren,, and MIR. Benton. +" See how We
brother pippins swim" " They all made the issue
with Mexico and Texas only Mr.. c. J. lngersoll's
humble view makes it question, not between this
country and Mexico alone, but between this country
and Great Britain in which light he feels sure II VIII
pesen itself ito the American people, and before
the world" But MIR. c. J. Ingersol's view UNDER
takes to tell only what and with whom, the ques-
ton is, but what and with whom II is not The
question is not says he whether we shall keep faith
with Mexico--al desire that. Here are two aver
ments, of class peculiar to the style OF Mr. Z.
j. ngersoll, that they deserve to be called by ms
name.
"Another sample of them was in the assertion tina,
Mr. Clay's Presidential prospects had been ru ned
by his opposition to the protective policy. His pseu-
do report of the Committee of Foreign Affairs Is full
OF them. With him, the question is not whether we
shall keep faith with Mexi"o. Now in the views OF
Mr.. Clay, Mr.. Van Buren,, and Mr.. Benton, this
| was the question-emphaticnly the question, peering
above all others Not at all, says Mr.. c. J. lnger-
soll-all desire llat-the difference Is only in toe
mode of nifesting that desire In Mr.. lngersolPs
view, the proper mode for maniesting nations de-
sire to keep faith with neghbor, is 10 wage war up
| on him and plumber him of his provinces DE
question is, says Mr.. Innersoll, whether we shall
afIer atlantic power to foment nominal hos
! tities between Texas and Mexico for an indefinite
time This is, indeed, new view Of the subject
We are TO wage war against Mexico and Great Brl-
tain, because we will not suffer Great Britain to TO-
ment nominal hosttes between Mexico and Texas.
There is something rather indefinite in the charge
against nation of omenting nominal hos'ililes De-
| tween two others. 1t would make slender figure
in declaration of war; to allsge in ustlhcation OF
that last aud terrible resort to the God OF Battles The
deermin alton not suffer the trans atlantic nation
TO foment nominal hostites between two other indie
| pendent Powers. The inquiry would naturally oc-
| cur, what meant by the charge OF fomentlng
nominal hosiilities and if the trans-atantic nation
thus hectored wa. Great Britain, think she would,
without clustering about what she would or would
not suffer- deny the truth Of the charge, and call for
| the evidence upon which it advanced. She
| might not call for the authority which made her
responsible TO the suferance nonsufe ance OF me
United States for the course of her policy 10 her IN
tercourse with other nations; but II she should call
| for that authority the herald of Uncle Sam, who
should bear his declaration of war for such cause
would look sheepsh in the presence of the Christian
| nations of the earth.
"What, then is this fomentng Of nominal hostili-
ties between Mexico and Texas which is to be our
justification for wagng war with both Mexico and
I o. H.. / nd FIR
taking the whole Republic of Texas, including three
or four Mexican provinces, of which Texas never
had shadow Of title possession, to curse e
What is this charge Of fonenting nominal hostitesf
There is TITLE of evidence to support H. and the
man who makes il is sanderer not the less Infamous
that The SANDER is put forth to plunge us into an un-
just war with two great nations to consu inmate the
villainy of despoiling of hem our neighbor Re-
public, of her province
| Ii is certainly a matter of astonishment to
see Mr.. Adams malciously assailing the Multi
fcation imputed to Mr.. Calhoun, while he
is himself striving to nulify the Constitution,
which admits of slave representation nay,
while he is calling on the young men OF Boston
to take up arms against the Government, and
while the States of Massachusetts and Yer
mont. under his advice. and ~ he anidan~e.
|
mediate dissolution Of he Union, provided
Congress shall pass an act acquiring available
and indispensable territory, which was once
ours, but which Mr.. Adams was instrumental
in having relinquished, unsought by her, TO
Spain.
1t is in bad taste, 10 say the least Of it, for
Mr.. Adams TO accuse Mr.. Calhoun of "bargain
and corruption" Mr.. c. is not the man either
TO sell his "pretensions TO the Presidency" or
TO purchase that office from another.
The lame attempt TO travesty the address OF
Mr.. Ingersoll, IS a failure altogether unwor.
thy the literary and diplomatic reputation
Of Mr. Adams and instead of ridculing sue
cessfuly the subject of his criticism, the re-
viewer has only succeeded in rendering himself
ridiculous by losing his temper and INDUCING
in billingsgate epithets. Mr. l. is one Of the
best scholars in the Union, as well as one Of the
most sagacous statesmen, and the production
from his pen was one Of the most powerful pleas
for Annexation that has been published. We
shall re-publsh it at the earliest possible mo
ment