Columbus Democrat. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 18??-18??, 1849-07-28
OUR CONSTRUCTORS OF THE INAU-
GURAL.--GEN. TAYLOR'S NO-PAR-
TX PLEDGES.

In the Aberdeen Independent Of the 2lst inst, the
Editor labors through more than column and a
hall to prove the charge lie had previously made
that we had misquoicd Gen, Taylol's inaugural and
tlsded its meaning We replied TO this charge IN
our paper OF the 18th inst fully, and we think 10 the
satisfaction OF our readers We candidy admitted
that we we're wrong--thdNgh the wrong was certain
", as we stated, done inadvertently, not despncdy-
IN placing within quotation marks what was merely
our construction Of Gen. Taylor mcaning--tc i'm.
preston left upon our mind by the inaugural taken
IN connection with Cen. Taylors previous and oil
repeated pledges on the subject of removals from, and
appointments TO office. We placed the very Ian
gnage used in the inaugural and our version Of Il in
JuXiapostion, and we showed from Gen. Taylors
letter to Lippard--what indeed we might have shown
and what we will presently show from many of his
Other letters, that our inference was "ccar, logical
and legitimate" that in removals and appointments,
Gen. Taylor would "only' look to the indispensable
requisites or to their absence mentioned in the man,
gural party was to have nothing TO do with the
matter This was the impression made upon our
mind when we first read the inaugural and we then
appaudcd Gen. Taylor for the no-party patriotic
ground he took upon the subject In our paper Of
the itth Of March last, commenting on the inaunu-
rail- whchw published that day, We used HE follow.
ing language;
'What he says OF the conduct Of our foreign
affairs, and the appointing power is all very good,
and i the new President viii strictly conform to
The principles loid down on these two points, he
will doubtless give general satisfaction"
But the Independent denies the correctness Of our
inference and says athc failure Of the inference pro.
eecds entirely from the Justification pointed out
from the omission Of the word .idelity" and the in
seriion Of the word only" His fine spun reason
my then 70 prove that we alsiied Gen, Taylors
meaNng, all narrows itself TO single point, the
omission fone word and the Interpolation otanothcr
let US briefly analyze this point
4 I'VE haveshown conqlusycly, we think that we
were justified IN using the word 'only in our con
sraetion q the language Of the Inaugural by Gen.
Taylor Nov and repeated plelges-pledges, which
I ie nag strictly odfe,od to, he could have made no
! od'efehee between wing, and democrats. AS to his
uee'a''Hs h'hselt to be awlg, that does not alter
'ae case whit for he empstcally promised not 10
be The President Of party but of the people .,un.
trammelled,' Eve quote his own words ! awitb par.
y obligations ciany kind" lie moreover said I'm,
though wing, he was not IAN ultra ono !, which
must nave meant il he meant any thing byit that hc
would not be extreme or uncompromisinc II Ill 70.
commentator Of wing measures, or proscrpaoo If
democratic office holders; yet is notorious hat AZ
(or what is the same thing, his cabinet for hn1 ~,
been more ,wsparing, more "altra, in remo,ing ma
lteal opponents from office for mere op,nions III,
than any other President since the formation 81 onr
government.
As to our omission Of the word "hdeHty" amount.
@ the very Titles taken in connection with an ,, wa
said IN our version Of the inaugural, and with GEN
TaYiors no-party pledges, it does not BY any means
60 to prove that we fasifed his meaning The idea
OF fidelity in an Office holder is pretty fully bnped
IN The words honesty and capacity. If II i No,
what did Gen. Taylor mean By III DID he mean
iai'hianess % the whig party or to himself ncrson.