Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1854-03-09
Boston Politics.

boston Politics
A meeting was recently held IN Faneuil
Hall to oppose the Nebraska bill. and Senator
| Douglas was hung in effigy on one nc tho
trees on Boston Common. Tie latter rasort
was in perfect character with Boston politics
In getting up the Nebraska meeting it appears
that the Committee Of organization J. N.
Wright and T. F. Nutter, issued notices to
several individuals, without regard to party, !
requesting them to act as vice presidents of
the meeting and informing them that the COM
mittee would feel authorized to announce them
as vice presidents unless they returned neg
alive answer. Mr.. Cheever, one Of the per-
sons thus addressed, responded in letter too
good to be lost, giving kind of miniature
history Of Boston politics. The letter was
suppressed at the meeting, but has recently
come to light in the Boston Post. We copy
1t entire 8
Boston, FEB. 22d, 1854
To Mr. T. F. Nutter :-Sir-I have re-
ceived notice from committee on orpaniza-
ton of a meeting to be held in Faneuil Hall,
of citizens of Boston, opposed to the Nebras-
ka Bill in which my CO operation, as one Of
the vice presidents, is desired, and it is stat
ed in the notice that, unless negative an
swer is returned, addressed to IT, (. Nutter,
the committee will feel authorized SO to an
nounce me-
This is somewhat singular mode of pro-
ceedlng, to compel private citizen either to
commit himself publicly by writing a letter Of
refusal, or by his silence to be placed in a
false position. But | shall answer you very
plainly. | am not opposed to the Nebraska
bill, and therefore cannot act in the capacity
you insist upon placing me in, unless public
ly decline it and, as you have obliged me to
adopt this course, you will doubtless see the
prOpriety of allowing my reasons for it, either
to be read to the meeting or to be made as
public as your proceedings IN this matter.
AS a citizen Of this Union, and especially
as citizen Of Boston, can see no good, but
much evil, that will come out Of such meet
ing as you propose. This is proved by every
act of this kind that has been attempted IN
Boston for the last fifty years. Political agi-
tatOrs have been allowed 10 place her, almost
invariably, upon every great political question
against the Union. They violently set Boston
against the purchase of Louisiana in 1903, and
what came Of that! The merchants and me-
chanics Of Boston have derived more benefit
from that measure than any city in the United
States, save, perhaps, New York
These same political agitators set Boston
against the war of 1912, almost to the extent
of treason. And what came Of that, and all
the denunciations Of James Madison and the
south, in Faneuil Hall! Everybody is
ashamed of it now, and all who engaged in it
lost their character in the nation.
In 1920, Boston was set most violently
against the admission of Missouri, and de-
nounced the Missouri compromise then as
some Boston people now do the constitution Of
, the United States, as convenient with death
and league with hell! The Boston repre-
sentative in congress was almost mObbed for
voting for it,-and what came of that Z Why,
in thirty-fOur years after it, the same class Of
politicians, who have always placed Boston on
the losing side in the Inion are going to hold
a meeting to denounce a partial repeal Of that
compromise which those who preceded them
in 1920 denounced as great abomnation.
Again in 1915 these same political agltatOrs
, set Boston against the annexation of Texas
In 1916 they set her against the Mexican war,
and in 1913 against the acquisition of Califor-
MIA. What has come of all this opposition Of
Boston! Texas and California have furnished
the life-bloud of the commerce and manufac-
lures and ship building and industry Of Bos-
ton.
So in 1850 they set Boston against the COM
> promise which settled the slavery agitation
! that began in Massachusetts and was followed
up until il nearly overturned the Union And
what came of that Daniel Webster spoke
for the Union even against Boston and Massa-
chusetts, and then Boston had a Union meet
ing, indeed, in Faneuil Hall, which put down
the political agitators who had lived SO long
upon this stirring up Of strife between Boston
nd NJ no nd fba
Of the laws was maintained. We were all
proud of that. But now many of the same
; men who who followed Mr. Websler's lead
: for the Union are going back to make another
5 coalition with the free-soilers and put forth
more anti-slavery thunder after the whole Eng
lish language has been exhausted in finding
hard words to denounce the south and abuse
the administration.
' Will any more good come out of this than
has come out of all this same sort of expert
ments which have been tried for fifty years 10
; no purpose and always to the injury and di:-
credit of Boston in the eyes Of the nation :-
Why not take a lesson from so much eX-
perience, and let this Nebraska question alone
Mr.. Everett says it can't do much harm, If
any at all and the democrats say that it an
nounces great fundamental principle of self
government.
wen, III Is prelly ulIHcult 10 see why boston
has any more business to NEEDLE with the To-
cal laws that the people Of Nebraska are TO
make for themselves than the Nebraska folks
will have, when they set up government to
compel US to repeal the Maine law. / should
think that the sensible men of Boston had seen
enough of this rushing into opposition against
the administration, and the majority Of the
country about tariffs and banks and wars and
slavery, and always hauing 70 back Om Of IL at
last.
The democrats have just crushed ont their
coalition with free-soilers, and it is pity to
see the wings again preparing to be crushed
into it =
am. respectfully, your ob't servant,
JAMES CHEEvER.
% The Norway Advertiser speaking of
The minority condition of the Maine democra-