Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1852-08-05
Concluding Portion of the Speech Of
Governor Jones, at Memphis, Tenn,
on the 18th of July.

Governor Jones, at Memphis, Tenn,
on the 18th of July.
SIRs, every man must know that General
Scott has ever been in favor of the princi-
Piles of the compromise. All men must
know this--or if they do not they show very
great remissness. Let us go back little,
and see how the matter stands. When Mr..
Clay first introduced his resolutions in the
Senate of the United States they found but
few fricnds-I speak now Of the Omnibus
bill. say that there were very few who
advocated this measure--and il had but very
few friends. A large meeting, however,
assembled in New York; they met in Castle
Garden in that city, for the purpose of APP
proving the spirit of the resolutions intro
duced by Mr.. Clay. Gen. Scott attended
that meeting-and then and there made the
first political speech he ever made in his
long public life, in favor of these measures.
Now, my iellow-citizens, show me any 9TH
er men, except Scott and Clay, who made
public speeches and urged this matter upon
the consideration Of the country, at this early
period. Again. shortly after this General
Taylor died! and Gen. Scott being in Wash
ington he was appointed Secretary of War
''pro temporc," which Office he filled for
some weeks. During this time every body
knew that he was the firm, fast, fixed and
immovabe friend of the Compromise. A
heavy gloom had spread itself over the whole
country now, and many Of our best men dis
paired. Scott sat down and wrote letter
TO Mr.. Clay--in this letter, he encouraged
Mr.. Clay, and pledged himself TO stand or
fall with him in his advocacy of the Com
promise. Again, on the It'll of March,
Webster made his speech in behalf of the
Compromise. Gen. Scott sat down and
wrote letter TO Webster, congratulating
him and the whole country upon his nation
al and conservative course, and babe him
God speed in his glorious work.
Again, when one Of the measures of the
Compromise failed by eight votes from
passing the House-General Scott was there
he threw himself into the breach, and by
his arguments and by his persuasions, he
urged reconsideration Of this vote, and il
is much TO his efforts that we are indebted
for the reconsideration of the measure
which had been rejected! And yet we arc
told that Scott is not sound upon these ques-
tons and not TO be trusted.
Sirs, in every interview which General
Scott had, either, with Democrats, with
Wings, with Free Sellers, or any other
character of politicians (and he was acces-
sible to all who desired 10 see him. he in
variabIy dcclard that he was for these
measurcs-had been for them-would stand
by them, and, Unnecessary, die for them!-
But yet we are told that Scott is not 10 be
trusted, because Sclrdrd controls him. and
if elected the government will be in his hands,
Sirs, this objection requires all the philoso-
phy-all tie Christian iorbearance which
possess TO treat it with respect! The ide;
that Scott, an old and victorious soldier
who has been lorty-lour years in the ser.
vice of his country-and most Of that time
in commands TO be controlled by an,
body or by any thing, save his own judg-
mcnt, is not even respectable nonSenSe' Thi,
Seward must be a mighty man indeed! AnC
here will take occasion TO reply to the in.
, terrogatories which my friends of the Ap.
peal have propounded as to what meant by
saying in a speech which delivered in n
York, that this man Seward was the shes
abused man in the couat1y.' mean exact
| ly what said and ] will repeat what
said, and you shall Judge what meant.
say again, that Seward is the best abused
man IN the country! For say that every
Democratic press in the country is abusing
him-half the wing presses are abusing
him, and every popinjay Democratic orator
at every X road in the country, cries out
"Sewardr' "Seward!' Seward" And
now. if this don't make good abusing,
should like to know what does! But w,
are told that Seward is supporting Scot
and consequently Scott must be under hi.
influence Well, suppose Democrats ar,
to be tried by the same rule! What inhu
enee is Gen. Pierce under?
When you tell the people that Seward i
supporting Scott, why don't YOU say at thu
same time, that Van Buren,, King, Cleve
; land, Rantoul, set oDu,e genus, all deepl,
dyed in abolitionism--are supporting Gen
Pierce! But such logic is only fit fol
school boys! When did you ever know
either OF the great parties TO refuse the
} votes OF the free-soil faction? There ha.
been no election since 1886 in which they
have not held a considerable influence. Ii
1874 James Birney supported Mr.. Polk
and yet who will say that Polk was an abo
ltionist on that account. And so it wa,
with Mr.. Clay; the abolitonists supported
him-but none will say that he was therefore
tainted with free-soiism. But sirs, all thi
is miserable nonsense! But there is one
point upon which do wish 10 say one
word, and wish that all the south nigh
hear me. We have been fighting this re-
ligious lanaticism for it is nothing else) for
years-both parties of the country have
passed the compromise, thus settling those
agitating questions, and both have acqu
esced in the necessity of extinguishing thi
lurid flame of abolition which has cast it,
glare over the whole country and kept u
constantly dissatisfied. If then, there is t.
be any further agitation Of this subject, her
in the presence Ola southern audience, de
clare that the south alone is responsible fo
this agitation! Who, ask you, is agta
ting this subject now? Who is complain
ing? Is the north inveighing against Gen
Pierce a northern man because of his &C