The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-11-19
General Jackson and President Fillmore.

General jackson and President Fillmore.
Immediately on the failure of the unfortu-
nate expedition Of LOPEZ, the sole organ of the
DEMOCRATIC party in this city assailed the
PRESIDENT with great violence and bitterness,
on the ground that he had employed language
in the proclamation improperly denouncing
such expeditions in the light of the law of ma
tons as adventures of robbery and plumber,
and warning all who might engage in them
that they would have no claim for the interfer-
ence of the Government Of the United States
in their behalf.
We justified the language of the proclama-
ton on the ground that it was the duty of the
PRESIDENT to set forth the whole truth, in
order to present the expedition in its proper
| light to the country, and thereby prevent the
| young and inexperienced from taking part in
| it, under the idea that it was a meritorious or
lawful adventure. 1t is well known that this
prompt and decided appeal of the PRESIDENT
answered, to some extent, the purpose for
which it was designed. 1t broke up other ex-
petitions, and prevented many young men from
joining LOPEZ, who would otherwise have
shared the fate of his unfortunate followers
Numerous letters have been received from the
expeditionists, and from their friends and re.
latives, expressing the deepest regret that the
warnings of the PRESIDENT had been unfor-
tunately counteracted by the efforts of the
fillibusterng press to misrepresent the charac-
ter of the adventure, and to induce the reck.
less youth who embarked in it to believe that
they were only treading in the footsteps of
LAFAYETTE and KoscIUsKo
The journals which had thus encouraged the
expedition, and become thereby responsible for
its disasters, sought very naturally to divert
public Indignation from the real authors of the
calamity, by assailing the Government for its
! proclamation.
| In discussing this question, we first showed
| by the amplest authority, from the most eminent
writers on national law, that the language of the
proclamation was merely adopted from the law
of nations. We cited the best authorities,
most conclusively, to all the points in issue.
! Our DEMOCRATIC contemporaries ridiculed the
idea ofquoting GRoTIus, PUFFENDoRF and Var
TEL on these matters; and we confirmed the
views of these writers by the more modern au-
thority of Chancellor KENT and Mr.. Justice
STORY. This would not answer Our DEMO
CRATIC friends were as violent and vituperative
as ever
Anxious to satisfy them, we showed that
Mr.. FoRsYTH and Mr.. VAN buren, took the
same view Of the law as Mr.. FILLMORE: and
we cited from Mr.. VAN BUREN's proclamation
in regard TO the Canadian insurrection Ian
guage still more emphatic and pointed than any
| expressions employed in the document which
was the immediate subject of controversy.
This took the Opposition somewhat aback.
Here, at least, was good, reliable DEMOCRATIC
authority. But the force of it was evaded by
the fact that Mr.. VAN buren, had fallen into
disgrace with his party, and could no longer be
looked upon as infalible.
Time ran on, and we received the charge Of
Mr.. Justice MCLEAN, which went beyond the
proclamation, and denounced the adventures
| as pirates and outlaws" This language had
been ascribed by the Union to President FILL
MORE, though he had never used it. We point
cd il out to the attention of our contemporary.