Nashville daily patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1855-1857, 1856-07-15

net. MI. blair ana nlySel1 DOtn mink IL CouDt-
full, however, whether Mr.. Buchanan will accept
upon the terms proposed, Che should not be APP
pointed unless be does) as he is full of the idea,
as stated to you in my previous letters, fbefng
candidate for the succession. If he should not
accept, l suppose the State Department will then
be offered to Mr.. Stevenson. With or tcithoH
Mr.. Buchanan, however, think the Cabinet will
be an able one, and fully entitled to, and doubt
less viii, receive the confidence of the nation.
The truth is, General, have never had any
very great respect for Mr. Buchanan, and of late
have even had less than formerly. He did not
come out upon the subject of that "bargain, in
trigue and corruption" charge upon Messrs. Clay
and Adams in 1925, as he ought to have done,
and as was expected of him. Besides, 1 have
heard HIM say not more than a month ago, that
he did not and neUer had 6eIieUed there wasany
truth in the charge. This occurred at Mr.. IS
dinner table, and the remarks we're addressed to
Judge Mangum, the President of the Senate.
But having taken place at the time and place,
tchel 1t did, have said nothing about it to any
| one"
/ Now, this is the letter General Jackson
was responding to, when he wrote: Your
observations a0ith regard to Mr.. buchanan
are correct" Those observations" were,
that Gen. Jackson's correspondent had
never had any very great respect for Mr..
! Buchanan, and of late even less than form
! erly:" also that he had mot come out as
he ought to have done and as was expect
! ed of him. in the bargain and intrigue
charge Gen. Jackson says that his cor
respondent thought properly of Mr.. Buch-
anan, and that correspondent had written
Gen. jackson that he "never had any
very great respect" for him, and then even
less than formerly. But Mr.. Jackson says
that his fathers letter twas called forth by
irritation produced upon the General by
letter written to him." &c. We have
Just quoted this letter. Now, we can see
very much in this letter to call forth the
irritation of the old hero. 1t revealed to
him for the first time, that Mr.. Buchanan
had embroiled him in a lifelong and bitter
controversy with Mr. Clay, in the founda
ton of which Mr.. Buchanan had openly
avowed that 'he did MT and nsrer had be-
Hered there lcaS any TRUTH" Gen. Jackson
had relied on Mr. Buchanan as his princi-
pal if not his only, witness, and now, after
the lapse of twenty years, that witness has
the shamelessness to aVow, that he never
had believed one word in the charge, of
which he had so long been the chief pros
ecutor Was anything better calculated
to excite the indignation of Gen. jackson,
than at last to be satisfied by the confeS-
sion of Mr. Buchanan of fact, which he
had long suspected, to-wit: that his wit
ness was at once false and treacherous-
false to Mr. Clay-treacherouS to General
Jackson?
But Gen jackson, in his reply, charges
Mr.. Buchanan with direct and positive
faIsehood, The latter had stated to the
Generals correspondent, that che did not
and never had believed there was any
truth in the charge" In reply to this, Gen
Jackson said: 81 am sure about that time
he Buchanan did believe there was per.
feet understanding between Adams and
Clay about the Presidency and the Secre-
tary of State" Can anything be palmer
than this? Gen. jackson gives the lie pos
itively and fatty to the statement of Mr..
Buchanan, that he "did not and never had
believed that there was any truth in the
charge"
And now, will it still be argued that
Gen. jackson had any respect for or conf
dence in man, who had first shown "a
want of moral courage" and then told
positive falSehoOd about a matter, which
concerned the old hero so nearly? Will
any one say that there is anything in the
character of such man to excite the con.
fdence or respect of Gen. Jackson? The
entire revelation was not made in lS45.
Gen jackson was aware of Mr.. Buchan-
ans want Of moral courage" at the time,
in 1925, but he did not hear of his false as
sertion to Judge Mangum till 1S45- Did
not Mr. Buchanan deserve the 'frrita-
ton" and contempt of Gen. Jackson, and
does not his course render him unworthy
even the patient regard of any honest man?
We believe that Gen. Jackson would re-
gard him in the same light in which he is
presented to every honest mind. He never
received such man into his confidence,
and has left it on record that he was far
from doingso in the present instance.
But all this array of stubborn fact is at
tempted to be met by our opponents with
the simple answer, that Gen. Jackson APP
pointed Mr.. Buchanan Minister to Rus
STA. This answer is most lame and INSULT
cient to every one, who is at all acquain-
ted with the principle, on which such APP
pointments are made. They are compli- !
ments to States, and not to the individuals,
who may chance to receive them. Thus,
the State of Pennsylvania had cast tre-
mendous vote upon Gen. jackson, and it
was urged upon him, that she deserved |
some high honor from him. Mr.. Buchan-
an, being a prominent politician in that
State, was suggested and pressed upon the
President as a proper recipient of the hon
or, and as one, whose appointment would |
be most gratifying to the State, Gen