Richmond semi-weekly times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 184?-1853, 1851-10-21
FROM THE REPUBLIC.
MR.. FILLMORE'S ERIE LETTER.


The Union continues to msstae the object with which
the Republic recently reproduced Mr. Flmores letter
OF 1888. garfield copy Of that letter had been pub
lished by the Unon aAd other Democratic journals,
emitting that % WHICH DECLINED ALL PLEDG-
Es OF ANY DESCRIPTION IN REGARD TO THE SLAVERY
QUESTION. The suppression ofthe truth is equivalent
TO the suggestion of alsehood; and to show that
Mr.. Fillmore was entirely untrammeled by pledges or
commttals the subject of slavery we repubish.
ed the letter in question. The letter was written hr
teen years ago Since il was writer Mr. Fillmore ha
os9H called 10 act upon questions which then SUBJ
mhted to him merely as distractions and his action ha
been sustained by the country. In every instance in
which party has placed tselfout and out on the doc
trlnes OF President tlllmoes message it has been sus
tanned.
This Unon alleges that we tried to Justify The doc
trnes OF Mr. Flmore's letter by Getting the example
OF Mr. IeilcTons opinons" This iss perverted state
ment. The Union had alluded to Mr. Jefferson in his
Gonnexion. It appeals daily to the principles of Mr..
Jefferson. We affirm that while President FilImore's
acts, and the decided Language othis message show
that he IS entirely sound aud national this subject
so sound aud national that the Union can find TO plat.
form or the Democratic party 1tin the very terms
OF that messagehe has at no til OF his life held
language in regard to slavery that ill not compare
avorably with that OF Mr.. Jeife son. He reserved
the right, in his Erie letter. to review any opinions thai
he might have formed and TO as in his best ude-
ment circumstances might require. As Chief Magis-
rate, he has acted, as IN our judgment he ought to
have acted with entire freedom from loea or section
al preudces, and his acts we'll as his doc traes are
approved by the American people,
Now, our contemporary OF the Union does Injustice
to the cause he etends to sustain by denouncng Mr.
Fillmore as an Aooionst. 1t is perhaps, however,
no more than we might expect from a member of the
Nashville Convention, otthose who as Mr. Rhett
boasted in Charleston, wheeled Tennes;e INTO LINE
in i've days. What line! The line of secession A nd
dsunlon. Now that lie is expating his nascent trea.
son by hypocrilcal devotion to the Union OF the
States he must not deny Mr. Fillmore the right of
recnnsideIng opinion TO which he gave very hurried
aad qualified assent in 1898 Our contemporary clsms
that he out OF the hotbed OF secession full
blown Unionis on The instant 1t was presto-changc,
and straight he was purged OF all the consequences Of
his secession connexions 1t wo i'd not be much too
considerate TOO tolerant in him to believe, after
such wonder has been instantaneousIy wrought
In his own person, that the experience Of some thr-
teen years on the national theatre ght HAYES caused
more gradual change in the opinion of Mr.. Fillmore.
We know that, if there was in the 3oth Con
gress who took strong ground on the slavery question:
it was John Gayle, OF Alabama. He was the only
Wing that we remember who voted for the famous
Southern Address, which our consistent contemporary
oenounces in his impression OF Wednesday as the
source OF the Nashville Convention" What did John
Gayle say OF this charge OF abolitionsm, which was
recklessly made at the South against Willard Fillmore,
BEFORE he signed the Fugitive Slave BILL and BEFORE
he recommended an ADHERENCE 10 the measures OF Ad-
Jusment! lie said that mo respectable man OF either
patty at the North would endorse" the charge-and
That on the subject OF slavery no is sounder than
Mr.. Fillmore As the Union epeaks somew hat
shshngly OF the sgaers of the Southern Address, it
may repudlate the testimony of Governor Gayle, be-
cause that address was lin the language of the
Union one which EMAArED FROM Mr.. Calhoun AND
OUT OF WHICH MAY BE SAID To- HAVE COME THE NASH
WILLIE CONVENTION
This charge of" abolltionsm" against Mr.. Fillmore
has been passed upon by the American people. 1t
has been dEproved by all his stree he entered the
PRESIDENCY, as by his dlsavowas and positive
during the canvass. 1t was sometime in 1e48 we be-
lieve that Governor Gayle of Alabama, published in
the Mobile Advertiser letter in VIII ich he said that
though this charge made boldly at the South, be
| would venture to affirm that no respectable man of
either party, in the North, would endorse it, Upon this
subject norman is sounder than Mr. Fillmore; and, as
between him and General Cass, an advantageous com.
pafison could be made. If it could be made in l84S,
with how much greater advantage to Mr.. Fillmore
could such comparison be made in 1851?