The Montgomery advertiser., 1902-02-08
Gen. Jackson and MT. Calhoun.

Gen. Jackson and MT. Calhoun.
 Editor The Advertiser.
 In your issue of Tuesday, the 3rd, MT. Euoose, signing with his initials, Is kind enough to infiict upon me the sallltary censure Nof friend" He makes my ar ticle on Mir. Calhoun the occasion of tEis. l am obliged to a writer so capable as he is for any notice whatsoever, for I have long admired him.
 His exception to my .'cullings" is per- haps we'll taken. 1 must have learned the trick from Montaigne, of whom 1 was quite fond in my youth, and who studs his pages with classic citations as thick as the stars of d cloudless night Montafgne is deemed the original essayist by some. and though he does not have thoughts fresh from his own mind," as Mir. Duhose says of MT. Calhoun, yDu VIII md that even with this fault of Montaigne, the Britannica gives him nearly ten times the space that 1t gives MT. Calhoun. l suspect Lord Bacon to have contracted tfe habit from Mon taigne. St. Paul was also guilty of it, for in his speech to the Athenians he cites poem of Cleanthes. Nay, Jesus Himself, while on the cross, quotes the 22nd Psalm, and when he appears to Paul the Why kickest thou against the bricks is a phrase found in both Aeschy- Jus and Euripides. There is so little that Is new under the sun that one may be pardoned for expressing oneself in wise saws and modern instances At least 1t might be better than that habit of avoidance" which MT. Dubose says MT. Calhoun contracted from a Pres bytertan preacher and in New England schools;" and in which l am sure MT. D. is not just, for my mothers eldest broth CT. who consecrated Qf that is the right word) the first Presbyterian church house at Montgomery, was a pupil of Rev. Mo- ses Waddell. and Rev. Isaac Hadden had as few habits of avoidance on religious subjects as John Knox himself.
 But this is of little consequence. What I write to say is that MT. Dubose con- tradicts my statement of the cause of the breach between General Jackson and MT. Calhoun, saying:
 The intelligent public need not here be reminded that the historic reason for the transfer of the Presidential succession by General Jackson from Calhoun, his orig inal choice, to Van Buren was because of Calhoun's approval of the refusal of Mrs. Calhoun to admit Mrs. Eaton to so- ciety in Washington. Nor only did this event rule out Calhoun, but it dissolved Jackson's Cabinet to the extent that the wives of Cabinet officers followed Mrs. Calhouns example in regard to Mrs. Eaton.
 With great deference to the opinion of MT. Dubose, who is a student of these events, 1 must protest against this re- hinder to the intelligent public, and in- sist on my statement In Benton's View" chapters 53 and 54, Vol. l, will be found the Jackson side of the ques- ton, and the breach is placed on the ground 1 have stated; that is, the alleged attack of MT Calhoun on General Jack son in the year 1SlS for his invasion of Spanish Florida; and the quarrel is averred to have been precipitatvd by March 1881, defending himself, and at tacking the Minister of State, MT. Van Buren. This was just two years after General Eaton came to Washington as a member of Jackson's Cabinet That there had been gossip about Mrs. Eaton. brought to the attention of MT. Calhoun, appears in letter to him from MT. Vir- gil MaXey in April 1S-9. a month after she arrived at Washington. as shown in the new book l have commented on, page 794; but MT. Calhoun, year later, March 30, 1S30 writes that he and his friends have 1t as "an object of ambition to carry the General Jackson through with glory:' "ours is the position of hon est and sincere friendship" etc. Now 1t must appear that if Mrs. Calhoun and Mrs. Eaton had been there at war with one another for an entire year, to the extent of creating a breach between Jackson and Calhoun within the next year. we would get some inklng of 1t from these letters. During the winter of 1S30-31, General Jackson addressed more than one note to MT. Calhoun, asking if the statements made by Judge Crawford were correct; and this correspondence, with other letters, was the pamphlet issued by Calhoun. h Vt in March but February, 1881, which caused dissolu- ton of the Cabinet. MT. Calhoun writes, January l5. 1851, you have of course seen reference in the papers to correspond ence of not a friendly nature between General Jackson and myself; it is true that there has been such a correspond ence and that it has ended in my decln- ing social intercourse with the General, though 1 am informed that he is desir- ous that it shall be renewed; but it can only be by a full retraction on his part; the whole I believe to be base political intrigue. of which the General has been made the dupe; II Is connected with the proceedings of the Cabinet on the Semi nole affair in the year ISIS" This letter surely settles the question as 10 the cause of the breach. But. May l6, 1881. two months later, he writes: 'I am of the impression that the whole of MT Van Buren's motives in the late dissolution (of the Cahincu may be summed up In two, to increase his influence ir tho gov ernment and to diminish his rcsponsi- bllity." and thiSe shows MI C's opinion of tho Cabinet affair for Van Burcr's resignation WAS foll iwed bN that of the others. two of whom, 1nghan and Branch. wcr known adherents of Gal houn. and there could be no harmony