The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1852-07-19
THE REPUBLIC.
General Pierce.

The Richmond Enquirer, which is as fran
tic as the Union in regard to the recent publ
cation of Mr.. PIERcE's remarks at New Bos-
ton, observed on Saturday:
"What enhances the outrage in the present at
tack upon General Pierce is the fact that it origi
mates with the Washington Republic. And what
did this same Republic, few days since. say Of
Frank Pierce3 We quote from ii:
"'On the slavery question, Mr.. Pierce is undoubt-
eddy committed TO souirn pistos; and in his support
Mr.. Rantoul and his associate Freesoiers Of Lynn
and the neig hborhood will have an ample opportu-
nifty of manifesting the extent to which they are
willing Tin MIR. Rantouls language) TO 'eat
southern Dirt
"Again says the Republic:
"'A more thorough and comprehensive cave in
than that of the Freesoil leaders and OF Young
America, in regard to the nomination Of Franklin
Pierce and William X. King, we have never wit
messed.
The N. Y. Eeening Post takes the matter as
kindly as the Washington Union. Mr.. Pierce ia
as fully committed to the COMPROMISE MEASURES
AS ANY OTHER MAN IN THE COUNTRY, and EsPEcI'
ALLY to the FuaITIvE SLAVE LAW, without refer
ence to the resolutions Of the convention, which
the Post treats as u humbug and farce. He was
the principal speaker at the great Union meeting
held in New Hampshire in November, 1850, or
whereabouts, to which Mr.. Webster and the late
Judge Woodbury. addressed letters that have not
been forgottens MIR. Pierce spoke his opinions
pretty strongly, touching Abohtonlsts ana free-
soilers, just at that time
Without referring to our files to compare the
above citations, we think it highly probable
that the paragraphs are correctly quoted. We
have certainly thought, and have no doubt said,
that Mr.. PIERCE was committed to the Com
promise measures and the Fugitive Slave law,
and that he was committed to southern views
on the slavery question. So we say now. But
we did not then know that Mr.. PIERCE was
committed on both sides, though that fact would
explain the "gush Of enthusiasm" with which
his nomination was hailed both by Secessionlsts
and Freesolers.
If Mr.. PIERcE's character has not been con-
sistent, it is no fault of ours. If the Enquirer
cannot reconcile his speech at New Boston
with his previous committals to southern views
and the Compromise measures, it cannot ex-
pect assistance from US. A specific allegation
is made with reference to what Mr.. PIERCE
said at New Boston. The New York Post
(Democratic) is pleased with it, and calls on
us for more of the same sort. The Richmond
Enquirer (Democratic) says it is an outrage,
and appeals to the Republic as witness of
high authority to his general good character.
Now our testimony to his general character
is good as far as it goes, but it does not rebut
the testimony of t,oo witnesse, to specific fact
about which zoe knov nothing. If we had
been at New Boston, and denied that General
PIERCE said there what is alleged, that would
have been something substantial for the En-
q,.irer to 90 upon; but the Enquirer must en-
haust other sources of evidence before it can
rely on the general character of the accused for
his acquittal.