The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-07-25
NOTES


to a gentleman and TO disobey the obligations oil
truth, belonging to q man. The angry and re.
proachful language, in which he has now INDUCED
himself, releases me from all further obligation
to treat him with personal respect. Yet inteho
not to avail myself of the release. confess that
my habit of looking up to him with political def
erence and regard, had become so inveterate, that
it will require at least another yoley OF his In
suits to break it, Under present relations, now
ever, feel at liberty to use considerable PLAIN
ness Of speech.
For perspicuity, | shall arrange what nave 10
say, under distinct heads
|. Mr.. wERsTERS TRIPLE FALSIFICATIoN OF
PLAIN MATTER OF FACT
At the first onset, Mr.. Webster charges me
with an act which, if true, wounds my character
I~~-i L~-,~-~hIa --~'- h''b 10 s''''-~-' de-
s,roys mn. 49, r.----~---,y :,
his charge, he resorts TO the following threefold
Justification of plain matter of fact In profess
| ing to quote from his 9TH of March speech, he
has suppressed what he did say he has intro
duced what he did not say and he has then sp
piled my criticism, not to his original sentiment
on which it was made, but to the counterfeit one
which he has surreptitously put in its place.
In his 7th of March speech, Mr. Webster said
al would not take pains to re-affirm an ordinance
OF Nature, nor to re-enset the will of Godn This
was the sentiment criticised. II appears in
these words In the National Inelligeacer, in the
Union, in the Repubiic, in the Globe, and in the
pamphlet edition which he dedicated to the people
Of Massachusetts, But in his Kennebec letter, in
order TO take away the ground of my criticism, he
has interpolsted word into the above sentence,
which changes it's whole meaning. Pretending
to quote himself he says, Z" would not take pains
UsELEssLY to re-afhrm an ordinance of Nature or
to resnact the will of Godn By foisting in the
xynr uht, \ hon ,,daronorad he nhanupa tho
entire character of the sentiment advanced. As
now stated nobody can dissent from it !; for who
would announce, in distinct proposition, that he
would useisssly do anything? AS originally stat
ed, nobody can assent TO Il This perversion is
not only false towards Inv, O,.sft ccnAfnsa latent
confession that he knew he was wrong. Else
why did he make the alteration 2 Why did he
shihK the surreptitious changing OF his doctrine
to be less evil than the acknowledgment of it
as originally avowed? Had he quoted his origi-
nal false sentiment truly, the world would have
seen that was right; but in his dilemma, he in
terpolated true sentiment falsely, in order to
prove that my criticism, ON such sentiment, was
wrong He expunges the original sentiment on
which my criticism was made he FORCES an oppo-
site sentiment, to which no one would ever OBJ
ject and then he applies my criticism made on the
expunged sentiment to his counterfeited substi-
tute.
shall not venture to define or describe pro-
ceeding like this, in words of my own. | trust,
as yet, that | obey the apostolic injunction, and
possess my soul in patience; and it will take at
least another discharge from his battery of wrath
to provoke q fitting retort. may be permitted,
however, to use q sentiment uttered by himself
to show how he has condemned himself In the
same connection, MIR. Webster advanced the fol-
lowing idea: 81 know no passion more appropri-
Hi IT, H. H. Co. v~.sa
sentation and libel" Can any mortal specify a
grosser instance of gross misrepresentation and
libel" than when one of the parties to public dis
cussion has uttered an obnoxious sentiment, and
when this sentiment has met with very general
reprobation, and When in the progress Of the dis
cusson, the guilty party processes to restate the
case, that he should then expunge the false SEN
timent he originally advanced, foist trite and
common place one in its stead, and then apply
a criticism made on the suppressed sentiment to
the forged one7 Is it not as palpable case of
alteration, as to change the date of note of hand
in order to take it out of the statute of limita-
tons, to oblierate the description of the prem
Uses in deed, and put q more valuable estate In
It's place. This proceeding is worse, II possible,
than the former misrepresentation and libel
of my argument and myself, contained in the
Newburyport letter. But the subject is painful,
and | leave it.
., MR.. WEBSTER,S RIDICULOUS CLASSICAL
BLUNDER.
1t affords me great relief to turn from this TO
the next topic in MIR. Websters Kennebec epistle
The severity of moral Judgment which must be
passed upon his fabricated quotation and the use
he made of it, is here turned into mirth by one of
the most ridiculous classical blunders, that has
been made since Lord Kenyon called Julian
" the APOSTLE
Mr. Webster says AIN classical times, there
was a set of small but rapscious critics, denom-
mated edpatorss teborum, who snatched and
caught at particular expressions expended their
strength the diSJecta menbra OF language; birds
of rapne which preyed on words and syllables,D
&c, &c
May ] most respectfully ask Mr. Webster on
what authority he says there was, in classical
tmesn any such "set y of " email but rapacious
critics" AS he here speaks of,--or exemplfes
In my ignorance, | have always supposed the
"c0p,atOro of classical times, 10 be a kind Of
"genius" the very opposite of what Mr.. Web
ster describes. Horace, Juvenal, and Livy, rep
resent him as a sefsh, sycophantic gift-seeker,
or fortune-hunter not a twiser, torturer, or in
terpolator even, of words and phrases. lie was
rather man who managed to get his living out
of other folks. His acts and tricks served the
purpose of a prehensile organ, such as the finger
which TO pick other mems pockets. The accom-
panying words, descriptive of his feelings, were
not torpe, ru,gi and 30 forth but eaIlde, blonde or
Jldndczis. Ii captator meant csvilling, cynical
critic, then cGp'dtrir should mean a scod vixen,
or virago; but its true meaning was " a fawning
gossip or "mean flstterero In our days, the
equivalent or fac smis Of the classical captator,
would be the man who coaxes other people TO
accept his bills, or endorse his notes or lend him
minute-money, and then neuer pays; or the man
who gets life-settlemsnts for supporting class in
terests, and 30 brings odium on their unquestion-
able merits. No mistake could be greater than
that the old cdpatores expended their strength
on the diyecta membra of language" or "gorged
themselves with the garbage Of phrases, chopped
dislocated, and torn asunder, by themselves On
the contrary, they were gentle as a sucking
doveO Their "disscta membra u rather resem-
bled outlawed promissory notes, protested drafts
overdrawn bank accounts, unpaid scores TO
shopmen, &c There WAS nothing like the happy
about them, as Mr.. Webster seems to suppose, in
this remarkable description Of his, which is as
rhetorically unsavory az 1t Ia classcally untrue.
What malignant sprite could have been at Mr.
Webster's elbow when he penned this wratbful
paragraph, and suggested TO him a word preg.
nant with such unuttersble assocationsl
So far from there being any :" set of critics,
in classic times, denominated and known as c0faa-
torres uerbornm, doubt whether even the abstract
noun c0ptation occurs half dozen times, in all
the classics in connection with the gentive of his
pretended sppellation. He could hardly have
made greater or more ludicrous mistake. II is
exceedingly to be regretted, after the numerous
instances we have lately had of MIR Webster's