Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1854-11-13
orr DEMoORACY

IL Is not q matter Of the slightest importance
to the country, or 10 our readers, whether the
editor Of this paper has been hitherto recog-
Missed az a Wig or as Democrat, in his party
The only question of interest
touching our opinions, is simply this Are The
and principles ee non adeOcate such
as should command the support Qfthe Ameri-
can peoplci The doctrines Of the American
party are either just or unjust, and their JUS
ticc Or injustice cannot be determined by an
inquiry into the political antecedents, or into
the personal motives of those who advocate, or
Of those who oppose them Such, at least, are
our views Of this matter. We are led to these
suggestions by the perusal Of a recent editorial
in the Richmond, Va, Examiner, from which
we extract the following, to wit:
But II is reportcdi in the country that Mr.. v. FL
lis, whose name appears In connexion with the
Know Nothing organ about to be established in
Washington il Democrat. To the friend who
asks US for information ON this point we here com
municate all that we know: Mr.. Ellis while mem
Der Of the Virginia Senate was one OF the strong
est Why's Of that body. He afterwards became
supporter of Mr.. Tyler's administration, and OBJ
OIHCe ulucr IL, oDlCc he was
elected by Mr.. Polk and the next report we had
concerning him was that he had returned TO the
Wing party. OF his recent political whereabouts
we are not advised. He is New Yorker by birth,
and we presume In politics also; belonging, per-
haps to the class 80 apty described by John Ran
dolph in the subjoined passage: In New York,
sir, radical change of sentiment is so easy and
natural, that man goes to bed at night warm
Gintonia,,, and rises in the morning BucktaH Of
the first water
Doubtless there are men Of Mr.. Ellis's instability
of purpose, sometimes Wings sometimes Demo-
Gratis, and all the time camp-loafcrs, who have gone
into the Know Nothing ranks. There arc also,
we suppose, numbers of honest Democrats who
have been drawn into il from curiosity, or from II
as to its tendency and objects.
But all such, we believe, will retire in detestaton,
rather than acknowledge sworn obligation to
war upon the men and principles of their old
party"
We are unwilling to believe that a paper,
conducted in the spirit Of candor and justice,
would acantoaly misreprcscnt our political an
tecedents, however decided it may be in its
opposition to our doctrines
Nevertheless, both in statement and in sup
position, the above extract is, in all important
particulars, erroneous and unjust The Exam
incr says, "Mr. Ellis, while'a member Of the
Virginia Senate, was one Of the strongest Wings
Of that body" What sort Of Whig9 What
Wing measures did we advocate2 Does the Elk
aminer mean that we favored National Bankg
that we supported Henry Clay? Veneer did
either, at any time, IN the Senate, or out of it,
In 1928 and in 1882, we advocated the election
of Andrew jackson to the prcsidency--he re-
ccivcd the first vote we ever gave. In 1886,
we voted for. Hugh Lawson White for Presi-
dent against Martin Van Buren,, on the ground
that Van Buren, was Federalist and an Abo-
litionist. Did this vote make us Whig? In
the spring of 1886, we were elected to the Vir-
gina Senate as a supporter Of Judge White,
and this fact may be found stated in the Norfolk
Va) Herald Of May, 1886. Were we right or
wrong in our opinions of Van Buren,, and in
our support of Hugh L. White? Right or
pr0ng, we stood on the same platform with the
Hon. Henry A. Wise, Hon. Thomas II. Bayly,
Hon. Charles j. Faulkner Hon. r. K. Meade,
and many other noao prominent and leading
Democrats of Virginia 1t is true that, from
1886 to 1912, many distinguished members Of
the present Democratic organizations in Vir-
ginia, were called "imprdcticablc Wigs" for
the reason that while opposed to Van Buren,,
they refused to affiliate with the clay Wings,
We for one, never voted either for Van Buren,,
or for Clay. Nor did we ever advocate Ma
tional Bank, but on the contrary, we introduced
and advocated in the Virginia Senate, a rcsou-
ton opposing the re-charter of the Bank Of the
United States, as may be seen by reference to
the Senate Journals from 1886 to 1888. Were
we then Whigy If opposition to National
Bank and to Henry Clay, and to Martin Van
Buren, also, constituted us Wing, then DO 10
10. In 1910, when residing in Missouri, we
agdh, opposed the election Of Van Buren, to tho
presidency, and we advocated the election Of
Harrison and Tyler, as republicans Of the school
of Jefferson A letter written by us, and pub
lished in the Missouri Republican in the sum
MGR Of 1910, Gn June probably will distinctly
show that we opposed Van Buren, on the ground
that he was both n tefeyalist and an a5oli-
ZIONIST We kpew him to be such, and then
had, and still have conclusive proofs on these
points Now, il the Virginia Democracy had
known Mr.. Van Buren, as zoe then knew him,
and as they and all the world, "and the rest Of
mankind" now know him, would they have
himy If not, can il with propriuty
be alleged, that because VIC opposed him in 1886
and in 1910, on the grounds above stated, that
we were therefore WhigY We think it proves
rather our consistency and our independence
rs Democrat
The Examiner says, and truly, that we sup
ported Mr. Tyler's administration, and obtained
Office under it. Is this any evidence that we
were WhigS Did not Mcssrs. Wise, Cush-
ing, Wilkins, Porter, and ccea John c. Cal
houn, with hundreds Of other Democrats also
hold Office under President TylcrY
The Examiner might have also stated, with
truth, that we defended the bank reto of Prcsi-
dent Tyler; that we wero the first editor west
Of the Allegheny mountains who openly took
ground in .taror Of the annexation Of Teras;
and that VIC sustained Democratic measures