The daily gazette., 1882-08-12
LETTER FROM MR.. WEED
HIS REPLY TO COL. WHITE
LEY's CRITICISM.
HOW JOHN M. CLAYTON MISSED IT.
MIR. Weed Again Reviews the Work of
the Whig Convention of 1910 and Tells
How n Delaware Statesman Was
Euchered Out OF the Presidency.


How Delaware Statesman Was
Euchered Out OF the Presidency.
NEW YORK, August 9-To THE EDITOR
OF THE GAZETTE May / tax your
courtesy by asking the privilege of brief
reply to the criticisms of W. G.. w. upon
my Websterian Reminiscences. / have not
seen the original report of the interview with
myself which appeared in Detroit
paper, but admit the general accuracy of
that part of it which appears in your paper
| admit also that your correspondent criti-
cises the "reminiscences In a friendly spirit,
and with an evident desire to eliminate
the truth. The discrepancies upon which
W. G. W. relies to discredit my memory re-
fer TO dates. This touches me in a weak
point. cannot trust my memory relating
to long past events so far as years or months
are concerned. Without verifying my
figures / not unfrequently expose myself to
such criticisms. But important historical
facts and events make indelible impressions,
and are long and accurately remembered.
That Mr.. Webster lost two opportunities of
| becoming President by declining on two
| occasions to accept nominations for Vice
| Presisent is absolutely certain. This is
within my own knowledge. If during an
| interval of 40 years the scythe of time had
| not mown down such cherished friends as
| George Ashman of Massachusetts, General
Wilson of New Hampshire, Governor Kent
of Maine, Josiah Randall of Pennsylvania
| Richard NJ. Blatchford, Moses II. Grinnell
| and Simeon Draper of New York. | should
| not stand alone in asserting an important
| historical truth. My impression is that
Charles A. Stetson, then Of the Astor House,
| now of Swampscot, Massachusetts,, an init
| mate personal and political friend of Mr.
Webster, was among those who urged him
| to accept the nomination for Vice President
| under General Harrison. After Mr.. Web
| ster declined the nomination for Vice Presi
l dent in 1S4S the friends whom / have
already mentioned united in favor of the
nomination of Abbott Lawrence of Boston,
who was gratified with the honor intended
him. The supporters of MIR. Clay were
/ greatly exasperated at his defeat and deter
mined to avenge themselves by defeating
the nomination of Mr.. Lawrence They
would not, they said, have "cOtton at both
| ends of the ticket" The nom nation for
/ Vice President was successful coup detdt.
The Hon. John A. Collier, a prominent
delegate from New York, concluded brief
but well-timed appeal for harmony and
union by nominating Millard Fillmore as
| Vice President. Mr.. Fillmore had not been
previously named or thought of as a candi-
date, but he had been Il prominent member
i
troller and generally popular. The
nomination was made by acclamation.
| No one foresaw, nor would any one have
believed, that MIR. Fillmore, like John Tyler,
would have brought ruin not only on
himself but on the Wing party. From
his entrance into public life through his
terms of service as member
of our Legislature and of Congress
he was q more pronounced opponent of
| elaUary than Mr. (1ranorpr (AOvarnOr SaWa ri
and other leading Wings. But when Presi-
dent Taylor died he thought he saw an OPP
/ portunity by the abandonment of his friends
| and principles to win the Presidency as a
compromise candidate. Among the com
promise" measures was a fugitive slave
law, passed by coalition between slavery,
| pro slavery and dough-faced members of
| Congress, and signed by acting President
| Fillmore, SO obnoxious as to raise a senti-
ment which proved utterly destructive to
the political future of Messrs Fillmore
and Webster.
Another political "reminiscence," If not
already knOwn, cannot fail to interest your
readers. In 1910 the nomination for Vice
President as have on a previous occasion
stated, having been declined by Mr.. Web
ster, "went begging" Mr.. Rush of Pennsyl-
| vania would have been nominated If 1t had
not been deemed important that the candi-
4
| Among the names presented were B. Wat
l1ins Leigh and John Tyler of Virginia.
Senator Mangum and Edward Stanly of
North Carolina, T. Butler King of Georgia,
Hugh l.. White and John Bell OF Tennessee
When it became apparent that Captain"
| Tyler, who was delegate, was taking an
active part in favor of his own nomination.
Messrs. Josiah Randall and McKennon OF
| Pennsylvania, General Wilson of New
Hampshire, Mr.. Ashman of Massachusetts,
Edward Kent of Maine, Christopher Morgan,
R. NJ. Blatchford and Simeon Draper OF
N. 7. with myself, made successful move
ment in favor of the nomination of John M.
Clayton of Delaware for Vice President. This
purpose was defeated however by the Hon.
Reverdy johnson, delegate from
Maryland who stated that he was
authorized by Mr., Clayton, should that gen
tleman's name be presented as a candidate,
to withdraw it. That settled the question
in favor of John Tyler, with results and
consequences alike disastrous and discred-
table to the Wing party and the country.
While we were all deploring the recusancy
of "Captain Tyler" met Mr. CLAYTON in a
train ON my way to Washington. In CON
versation with him | remarked, that if he
had accepted the nomination for Vice Presi-
dent, instead of the decentralization at Wash
ington we should have been rejoicing in a
reliable Wing administration. Mr.. Clayton,
with a perplexed look, inquired what
meant. | related to him what occurred at
the National Convention. He then said
that he had in a conversation with Mr.
johnson, requested that gentleman to with
draw his name from the Convention in case
1t should be presented as a candidate for
President against his friend Mr.. Clay, ad-
ding that the question of Vice President was
not spoken of by either of them, remarking
that il the Convention had surprised him
with the nomination for Vice President it
would have been cheerfully accepted
Respectfully Yonrs