Democratic banner., 1847-07-19

say lie was ''ai0Qf from party" or "unc0n.
nected with party."-l0. J"&r.
The Editor of the Journal here assert:
u~nequivocally that he never said Gen. Tay.
Tor stood aloof from party, or that he wa:
~unconnected with party, or a no-party man
The Journal of the 18th of June in speak.
ing of Gen. Taylor, said: ".Another impor.
tant recommendation suggests itself TO oul
mind, to wit: that he has never been iden-
tilted with the mere party struggles of the
times, and will be prepared to take his seat
in the chair CT Washington not trammeled
by %clilucs or factions;'' and in The next
sentence recognized HIN as a "great wing
Header" &c. We simply copied these sem
~tenccs in our paper without one word of
~icomnent, not even ~intiinating an ~inconsis-
%tency, as the Journal falsely charged US in
the next number.) but left his language to
Itcil its own tale. The editor seeing the
ridiculous light in which his W language
placed him before the people, entered into
a laborc'l argument 10 prove that it was con
%sisient to place Gen. Taylor above party
or its influences, and at the same time call
him a "great wing leader" The Journal
never once denied that lie placed him on
grounds above party, mconnected with
party, aIoof from party, but in his pitiful
chicanery to prove that he was a "whig
LEADER" compared his career with that of
Washington, whom he placed above party,
and insigniicantly said Taylor occupied
The same ground. And in his effort to prove
that he occupied this ground and was at
the same time a ''great wing leader" lie
employs this kind of bungling language in
the Journal Of the Both inst: "Gen. Wash
Iington, like Gen. Taylor, was a great Lea
der in war, and peace; and bcinga 'Whi
as Gen. Taylor is, he was a wing leadcr;'"
as much as 20 say it matters not what a man
leads, whether monkeys or men, soldiers or
partizans, so he is called a Wing, he be-
comes ncccssaria!!y a "whig lcadcr;'' and
that too when the Individual Of whom Lee
speaks, it is believed, has cast but one vote
for thirty years. Shame upon such weak
and fragrant sopiistry.
But mark yc! the Journalnrvcr attempt
ed once 70 rctrAct or deny his position of
the l6th June: that Taylor "was not idcn-
tilted with party" or the "strugglcs of par
!ty,' and his position Of the 23d: that lie like
Washin 5tnn was ''abovc party" until Ec
found he was completely ~cornerci, an.
could never establish the fact that Gen,
Taylor WAS above party and at the same time
a':great wing leader" And here the lltll Of
July comes to a right-about, ~rcnouncing the
ground he has battlcd to maintain since the
10th UfJunc, and with brazen faced ~ciiron-
terry says he 'nevcr said that Gen. Taylor
was 'n0p PARTY man, nor that she was al, +
from party" or ""nconacctcd with party;"&
further down in.thc same article says, we
defined Gen. Taylor'S position as a"whig"
and an ''illustrious wing lcadcr,'' "thc cor
rectneSs of which the Banner does not de-
N.Y. We showed the Journal the absurdi-
ty of its position, and denied that Gen. Fay
lor could be Ghqf from party aud at tire'
same time "an iliustrious wlis ;eadcr."-
We showed the Editor that "whig leader
as applied to the parties of the present day,
had not the Specification that it had in the
days of Washington. And we now dcny that
Gen. Taylor isa"srcat Wig leader" at ALL
The Journal discovering it cannot make
Gen. Taylor out a "whig leader" by placing
him above party, now seeks to make him
out one by placing him upon a level, and
associating him with the party, at least the
"leaders'' Of the party. Now We defy the
Journal to show by one single act of Gen.
Taylor, that he is a ewing leader" or wing
follower, under any circumstances The
only vote that we have heard of his having
CASTOR a number of years, was castf for Gen
Jackson. 1t is generally conceded that he
is opposed to Il National Bank, and the
Journal had no evidence that he was a tar
if man, or was in favor of any other wing
measure previous to his recently published