Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1852-08-18
Our Challenge.

An article in another column renders reply to
the indicators remarks. founded upon the cha-
lenge at the head of our columns. almost unneces-
sary. As'we have branded these who assert that
Gen. SCOTT is not sound upon the Slavery ques-
ton, "calumniators," 50 We think we have shown
them in this paper, to be hypocritcal in their pro
LESSONS of distrust. While substantially admit
ting his inability 'to produce from the record, one
word that Gen. ScoTT has ever uttered that can
be tortured into an expression of hostility to the
rights OF the South" yet the author of the article
in the pindicator endeavors to show that he can
not be trusted by the South. Now our object will
be to expose the unfarness of this ,criter, having
already developed the duplicity Of his party. We
shall make no further defence of Gen. ScoTT.-
The Unanswered defiance which still stands proud
ly at the head of this paper amply vindcates him,
and ought to, Though we regret to find from the
newspaper before us it does not) stop the mouths
of his traducers.
! The first argument advanced by the pimd'cator
to show that General ScoTT is not sound, is to be
found in the statement that the Southern Wing
party was inclined to FILLMORE and dSinctined
| to SeoTT. According to this mode OF reasoning
Gen. PIERCE is not sound. The Democracy OF
the South and especially of Virginia, were as much
''inclined" to Mr. BUCHANAN, as the Wings OF
the South were to Mr.. FILLMORE. The ptndl-
Gator was inclined to DOUGLASS, and kept his flag
flyinq at the head of its columns 1t will not be
contended that any portion of the Southern De
mocracy was inclined to PIERCE. Upto the ooth
ballot in the Baltimore Convention, Democracy
every where was '.disinclined" to him, with the
exception of few stray abotionists probably, from
the North. We venture to assert that General
PIERCE was not the first choice Of single Demo
crat South of Mason & Dixons line! With what
face then can they charge WINFIELD SCOTT with
hostility to the South, because he was not the first
choice of the whole Southern Wing party The
argument is puerile, and we arc ''inclined'' to
think its sophistry will be readily perceived by
every man of common sense.
1t is asserted further, by the Vindicator, that
the grounds upon which the Democrats pro-
nounced Gen. ScoTr unsound are to be found
''mainly in the speeches Of MeSsrs. CABELL, Gen
TRY, TooMBs," &C., who ''not only say, but
prope that Gen. ScoTT should not be ''trusted by
the South" These men, number of whom LETT
the Wing party long before Gen ScoTT was nom
mated, can prove no more than the Tiadicdior,
which we contend is just nothing. They refused
to support Cen Scorr, because he did not5 in ODE
dience to their demands, make bid for the Pres
idency by writing letter before his nomination.
! This is the chief and cornerstone upon which they
base the charge Of his unsoundness. We have
discussed this point in another article, and dcvel-
oped the dupliciy and hypocrisy Of the Democratic
party and its leaders in their endeavors to sustain
the charge upon such grounds. We may just re-
mark, in conclusion, upon this point, that, Mr.
CADELL, who is quoted as authority by the I'n-
dicetor while toolishly refusing to support Gen
SCOTT unless he wrote, declared'in the House CT
Representatives that he knew hin to be as sound
on the Compromise, as any man IN The Union.
But the most singular position taken by the I'm
dicator may be gathered from the following cues
ton: ''Woud you not rather require that Should
be proven a fiead?" In this interrogaory, the
Vindicator yields the whole question. 1t is adj
mtted, in effect that he cannot be proven hos
tile, and the novel position taken that notwl'i-
standing this he must be ''proven to DC a friend.
Now one would suppose from the qubbling sophis-
try and legal odor of the indicators editorial
that the author knew something about law
We have always heard that even the stern, rigid
exacting Law, presumes man honest until the
contrary is proven. We have always supposed
that the ouS proband rested upon the party bring
inc the charge, and that the criminal was entitled
even to the benefit of doubts. But the pudicato'
establishes new code, and falling TO prove Gen
SCOTT guilty, still asks people to believe that he
is, unless ,ce prove that he is innocent. Well that
would not be very difficult matter, if we were
disposed to relieve the Vmdcator from the burden
of proof.
If there may be any departure from the general
and well established rule of law alluded to above,
it is allowable in comparisono OF the claims OF Zen
Scorr and Gen. PIERCE to the confidence OF the
South. Born and reared in the South, among
Southern shareholders, we naturally infer that
Gen. Scorr is sound Born and reared in the
North, among the vest sort of Abolitonists and
Freesoilers, as the history Of the Democratic party
in New Hampshire, with which he is connected,
shows, we naturally believe that Gen. PIERCE is
not sound, and might with some show of reason
demand proof that he is. We rather think the
New Boston speech would upset all that his party
could bring!
The Vindicator concludes by defying us to show
that General ScoTT has, since the passage of the
Compromise Measures, ''the Fugitive Slave Law
included" uttered to the public one singl word
in approval of those measures being abided by as a
final settlement of the agitation on the subject OF
Slavery. This is almost too ridiculous for serious
notice The man who can deny that Gen. SCOTT,
did not, in his letter of acceptance endorse the
Compromise fully and fairly only furnishes indu-
biable evidence of his own infatuated recklessness.
We cannot better reply to such charge, than by
re-pubshing the following extract from the New
Ork Ece'ety TOSt, the leauihS organ VI tHetN
York Democracy:
eff General Scott and his friends had continued
70 stand where they stood when we wrote, and ii
he had not accepted nomination on finaIity
PLATFORM there is no doubt that any of the proml-
nent candidates before the Democratic Convention
would have been defeated by him. But he is now
presented as the express champion Of 'inality :
Of ,chich there is not acord IN the Democratic Plat-
form"
trhis admission not only ansNcrS the IiRdicn-