Semi-weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1852-1853, 1852-09-04
MR.. GRAHAM's LETTER.

last the letter of the Hon. William A. Graham, to
Thomas Loring, Esq, requesting that gentleman to
discontinue the use of his name for the Vice Pres
idency in connexion with that of Mr.. Webster for
the Presidency; and also certifying, in dignifed
way, to Gen. SCOTS soundness on the "compro-
mise"
| Mr. Graham, in addition to his request of Mr.
Loring, makes two points in his letter. to w.t. that
concerning the fact of his nomination with Gen.
Scott and secondly, Gen. SCOTS position and &C
ton stated by him, in relation to the compro-
mise" We shall notice the first point to-day, re-
| serving comments upon the second until our next
| LIST. Mr.. Graham says Gen. Scott was regular
| ly and unanimousl y nominated" This, as naked
statement of fact, is true but how was this NOM
ination obtained, and what are the circumstances
under which it was made? Soon after the pass
age of the "compromise" measures, the Wing
leaders of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio I'M
der strong feeling of resentment towards Messrs
Fillmore and Webster because they had endorsed
these measures, and knowing that neither of them
could, for this reason, run well in the free States
called Conventions, in which General Scott was
brought forward for the Presidency without any
approval by said Conventions of said "compro-
mise " measures. The prominent actors in these
Conventions were the friends and adherents of Mr.
Seward, in New York-Gov. Johnston of Penn
sylvania, who has been justly held responsible for
the Gorsuch murder, perpetrated in resistance of
the fugitive-slave law-and Mr.. Vinton, of Ohio,
who voted as a member of the House against that
law. Mr.. Fillmore set aside by these three
great States and their Delegates to the Baltimore
Convention were instructed to vote for Gen. Scott
the Convention was held, and Gen. Scott, after
ffty-two ballotings, in which he was sustained by
these States and by the Freesoil influences in the
Wing party, and opposed by the whole body Of
Southern Delegates, with the exception Of a por-
ton of the Virginia Delegation, was nominated By
a bare majority. Are not these things so :?
I'd. Gen. Scott was thus nominated in the face
of the fact that he had refused, after the passage of
the compromise" measures, to give them his APP
proval over his own name and for proof of this
we refer to his letter of March 26, 1851 in which
he considers among other things, that if he
to answer in that case he would have to answer
other queries to /" the disgust of the public"
&C., &c. Does not Mr. Graham know this to be so
Sd. Pending the compromise " measures, and
after their passage, Mr.. Fillmore was brought for
ward by his friends for the Presidency, and Mr..
Graham's was associated with his for the Vice
Presidency, upon the ground as openly and noto-
riously avowed, that they were the preferred can
didates of the advocates in the Wing party of the
fugitive-slave law; and it was urged, in all the
&c compromise" Wing papers from Maine to Cali
ornia indispensable to the quieting of the Slave
ry agitation and the perpetuation of the Union,
that Mr.. Fillmore should be re-nomnated and re-
elected. Does not Mr.. Graham know these things
to be so?
4th Gen. Scott, as we have already intimated
above, was the preferred candidate of those Wings
who voted in Congress against the fugitive-slave
law and who stand ready to vote for its repeal
Does not Mr.. Graham know this fact to be so?
5th. In the Convention which nominated Gen.
Scott, the platform of principles to which Mr.. Ora
ham refers, was opposed to the last by sirty-sir
Delegates out of 293; and two-thirds of these ne
gative votes were cast by the States of New York,
Pennsylvania, and Ohio. There were 1O7 votes
from the free States in favor of the PLATFORM and
100 from the slaveholding States making in all
227; and sc, as we have already stated, from the
free States against it. There were Sc votes for
CnlS plaClorm Dy slaVenOlolnS OLaIeS winch are
undoubtedly Democratic, to wit: Virginia South
Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas,
and Texas; and "a for it by non-slaveholding
States, also undoubtedly Democratic to wit Ill
inois, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, California, New
Hampshire, and Maine. Take these Sc votes from
the 12O, and it will leave "a add these 81 to the
10Y, and it will make III subtract these "a from
III, and it will leave only 1877, thus showing, that
if the endorsement Of the compromise in the
Convention had been left to the pure Wing strength
in that body its exclusive work, 1t p0ou1d haze
failed By ten votes-147 being a majority. What
does this proves 1t proves that if the Whiq party
had been consulted, and not the States as States
without reference to theside upon which they would
throw their votes, the platform of principles so tri
umphantly alluded to by Mr.. Graham, aooasld not
haze been adopted. Mr.. Graham can make the
calculation for himself if he chooses; he will find
the foregoing to be correct.
9Th. A sectional battle was fought over this
nomination of Gen. Scott for four or five days, all
the free State Wings voting for Gen. Scott and all
the slaveholding Wings for Mr.. Fillmore or Mr..
Webster. Is this what Mr.. Graham calls the " re-
gular action of his party? And the Southern
1Jod ell