Washington telegraph., 1852-10-20

prefer Democratic measures to be carried
out by Democratic President, to Wing
measures to be carried out by Wing nam
ed Scott, when these same measures are ad-
mitted to be altogether excellent, and to be
greatly desired, if carried out by Wing
bearing the name of Fillmore. Now, if
any man prefers the principles of the Dem
ocratic party, then it is his duty to support
the nominees of that party; but how in the
name of reason and patriotism can Wing
support for President. one who will, in the
administration Of the Government, oppose
what the Whig believes right, and support
what he believes wrong, merely because a
different Whig has been chosen by the rep
resentatives of his party from the one he
preferred, to support the right and oppose
the wrong?
Again: The Southern Wings were rep
resented in the convention. A platform of
principles was proposed and adopted which
met their entire approval General Scott
was nominated, and that nomination was
then ratified and confirmed by those South
ern Wing representatives. How then in
honor can we, Southern Wings, refuse to
support this nomination! 1t was known to
all before the convention that Gen Scott s
name would be presented to that body. No
Wing State Convention entered any caUeat,
interposed any objection against his nomina-
ton, or instructed, or intimated to their
delegates that his rejection should be insist
ed on. III that Southern Wings deemed
indispensable was that their candidate should
be true Wing and pledged to support the
Compromise. These conditions fulfilled,
they everywhere pledged the nominee their
support. These conditions are found in the
nominee; and how can we, with good faith,
refuse to sustain him, any more than his
friends could have refused support to Mr.
Fillmore, had he been selected by the con-
vention! Such a refusal on their part we
should have regarded and denounced as an
act of treachery and baseness; and from
this we may learn to estimate the true char
acter of such refusal on our part.
1t has been said that General Scott has
not heartily adoptcd--does not approve the
platform laid down by the convention.-
How is this asccrtaiEcd? Not from any
thing he has written or spoken. In his let
tCl W ilIC lCotuCiIt vi tue cOHNcIltlOu ne
accepts the nomination ard the declaration
OF p:nci Piles annexed What he says of the
nomination he says of the declaration. and
no more. Ifthcrciore, what he SAYS amounts
to an approval of one, why does it not also
of the other!
But, in fact, no man was more decided
in favor of the measures of Compromise
one and all, than Winfield Scott; and when
he pledged himself to that series of rssolu-
tions, one of which asserts the final charac-
ter of the Compromise the Fugitive Slave
law included, he only pledged himself to
what he had always approved and had ex-
erted himself to have passed OF this. the
proof before the public is full and ample
so full and ample that no ground is LETT for
denial or doubt. ~
1t has been made an objection to General
Scott that he wrote nothing on the Compro-
mise before his nomination. If this be an
objection, does it not apply with at least
equal force to General Pierce? He was
specially interrogated by Mr. Scott of Rich
mond, and made no reply or, if he replied,
that reply has been withheld from the pub
lie. But the question for us is not aclten
General Scott wrote but what he wrote; and
the position he now occupies, and which he
has all along occupied, is decided and hearty
support OF the whole Compromise in all its
parts as final settlement What more can
be required!
1t has been objected to Scott that Seward,
Greely, and Weed support him. Wei. do
not both the Van Burens, Preston King,
Hallet, B. T. Butler, David Wilmot, the
father Of the odious proviso, and many 9th
ers of like abolition opinions, support Gen
Pierce? If the support of the latter can
didate by Abolitionists is entirely consist
cnt with his soundness on the slavery ques-
tion, how in fairness, can it be alleged that
the support given to the former, by persons
of like opinions, argues any unsoundness in
him upon that question? Is it supposed
that Seward will influence Scott And
shall Pierce not be Influenced by such men
as the Van Burens and King, and Hallet,
and Butler, and Wilmot?
But, sir, could we have nominated any
candidate to whom our opponents would not
have alleged a like objection? Had Fill
more or Webster been nominated-for the
injustice done to whom the Locofoco press
have expressed such indignant complaints
would he not have been charged by that
press in the South with abolitionism, or, at
any rate, with being unreliable for the
South while at the North he would have
been everywhere arrayed as pro-slavery
man unfit to be trusted by northern free
men? Surely he wonld Why not? Scott
has been charged with cowardice; and sure
ly they who make this charge would not
have been withheld by its mendacity from
charging Webster or Fillmore with aboli-
tiOnism. e a