The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1863-08-17
Letter from Gen. Anderson.
PORTLAND, Aug. IA, 1856
To the Editor Of the Press:

To the Editor Of the Press:
In your paper of to day, you quote portion
OF the answer made By me in the late Demo-
cratic State Convention, TO a question put by
ono OF the delegates from Topsham, aud
from that answer, so reported, assume that l
declared Mr.. Bradbury, the nominee of the
Convention, in favor OF the immediate with
drawal OF the Maine troops from the seat OF
war. You say farther, that admitted to you
that the colloquy was fairly aud correctly re-
ported. i did say to You that the CONVERSE
tion between Mr.. Paris and myself was more
correctly reported in the Press than in either
of the other Portland papers. But / said
nothing about my answer to the Delegate from
Topsham upon the question OF Withdrawing
the troops; and while yoar report is not en-
tirely correct, yet taking it As reported 1t will
not sustain the Interpretation you have given
1t.
did not pledge, nor intend TO pledge Mr..
Bradbury to Withdraw the troops. Notwith-
standing il was well known that Gov. Sey-
mour, instead OF Withdrawing the troops OF
New York, had sent more men TO The war
since the late invasion of Gen. Lee than had
the Governor OF any other State, the Conven-
ton had passed aeulogy upon him unanimous
ly, and were therefore preclndcd from denying
the sodndness of his position and from de-
manding that Mr.. Bradbury should go further
than he lGov. 81 did. WHAT you denominate
pledge, was but the holding Of the Conven-
ton to the position they had already taken.
You refer to another expression of mine
which you report as follows
He further says: 1--WE dopo not ask that our troops
"shall fight their way through New York aud other
Estates till they reach their homes in Maine; as
much as to say. IL they could be got home without
having to hglt their WAY H. troud pledge his c1ndi
date to srifhdrdr them srthoaf rafting for the
fioH Of Cor. Seymour. i e proof is beyond doubt.
that vote for fon bradbury. is a vote TO withdraw
our troops
My language cannot be understood to inn
ply what you have stated as the fair inference
OF It. IL so, the words would carry a mean
ing beyond the object of their use, which was
simply TO show the absurdity OF the question
proposed to me, and negative the idea Of the
possibility Of Withdrawing our troops"
SAM. j. ANDERSON.
We cheerfulIy allow Gen. Anderson to
speak for himself in the above, AS we have
not the slightest desire TO misrepresent or do
him the least injustice. We understood his
remarks in relation to the correctness of our
report to be general and not specific, and we
are not a little surprised, as he wanted copy
of our report TO preserve on account Of its
correctness, and in order to show in future, II
misrepresented, ,chat he did say, that he did
not take exceptions TO so material an error as
he now claims TO have been made.
Gen. Anderson was questioned by dele
gate who demanded the withdrawal of our
troops; who claimed that the Governor had a
right to withdraw them, and he gave such an
answer In behalf of his friend, Mr.. Bradbury,
as seemed to satisfy his interlocutor, aud
also to satisfy Mr. Paris who demands the
putting down OF this heish war" We think
the whole Convention understood Mr.. Ander-
son as our reporter understood him; as the
Topsham delegate and Mr.. Paris unqueston-
ably understood him, and we don't see how
man Of his keenness could expect his language
to convey different impression. We should
be very sorry to believe Gen. Anderson inter-
tiondtiy misled his friends in the convention;
purposely mystified and beclouded them; that
he knowingly conveyed an impression foreign
70 his own mind, for INDUSTRIOUS as we may re-
gard the errors OF his head, we should be I'M
willing to vindicate that at the expense of his
heart. As the matter now stands, we don't
see but Gen. Anderson is committed to a vigor-
Gus prosecution of the war, though he has un-
doubleday committed his friend, in the estima-
ton OF the convention and of all observing
spectators, TO withdrawal OF the troops.
But Gen. Anderson's own explanation, I'M
wftxiagly no doubt, places the late Democrat
ic Convention in position of the most I'M
mistakable hostility to the Government. His
own statement shows that the Convention
demanded the ,cithdra1al Of the troops, and
demanded that the candidate for Governor
should be placed emphatically on that ground
and it required all his ingenuity, strategy and
art to satisfy without granting this demand
and then, as the whole thing shows upon it,
face, the Convention was held back from 9
more open development of its treasonabl,
character and purposes only by deceiotns
them by a lawyers artifce-by making then
believe their candidate, il elected, would d.
what, 1t is admitted by Gen. Anderson, is alb
solutely impossible. Who can fail to see, MOI
only that cheat was practiced upon the con
vention, but that the convention itself wa
acting in pursuit of reasonable purpose
and adjourned with the settled conviction
that, 10 the nomination of BIoN BRADBURY
they had inaugurated the measures which
would result in the contamination of that pur
pose?