Year: 1871

sachusetts.


Contrary to my first intention, and not without
reluctance, lay aside other business of far greater
importance while take a brief review of your sup.
which caused this change OF mind might require
explanation, but they are too entirely personal to
occupy any space in these pages. Without more
preface give you my thought on your latest eS-
say.


You take violent exceptions to my former letter
as being vituperative and ill-tempered Let us see
how the account stands between us on the score of
mere manners, and then determine whether you
have right to set yoursefup as an arhiter elegan-
tiarum.


You wrote. or caused to be written, and publish
ed in magazine of large circulation. article in
which you attacked the reputation Of certain per-
sons in style so scandalous that yuperation is
name for it, Without reserve or qualification you
pronounced them guilty of the worst crimes known
among men. The specific acts of which you ac-
clsed them, and the aDprobr0us epithets you ap-
piled to them, were as insulting you could make
them. Most of the gentlemen thus assailed were
dead; but that made no difference to YOU; your in
yectye was not checked by any regard for the feel
ings OF friends or relatives. The indecency of this
was greatly aggravated by the fact that you put it
in the form of funeral ,panegyric upon man
whose recent and sudden death should have sober
ed your party rage and solemnized your heart, or
at least operated as temporary sedatiye upon
your appetite for defamation. What was to do:
obey it. But concluded that all the purposes of
fair vndication might be accomplished by sim
pie contradiction of your statements, coupled with
the plain reasons which would show them to be
unworthy of belief. | did this, and did more. I
did it in terms free from unnecessary harshness
that am amazed this moment at my own modera-
ton. But you declare, affirm my denial to be an
act of RECKLESS audacity;' in your eyes my de.
tence was an Offence. really cannot understand
this, unless You suppose that your political oppo-
nents have no rights, even OF reputation. which
you are bound to respect. and that sander,


like other injuries, is consecrated by loyalty when
Democrat is the sufferer.


You make no attempt to impugn the soundness
or truth of the law as gave it to the President
the Goth Of November, 1860. That opinion was
very simple as it stood upon the record; and in
my former letter gave you the elementary prin-
ciples clarified by the most familiar illustrations.
and brought the whole subject down to the level of
the lowest understanding. Besides, you had the
aid of about dozen Senators and members of Con-
gress in getting up your reply With all these
helps you certainly might have specified some er-
Tor in the opinion, if 1t be erroneous. But you
content yourself with merely railing at it, think
may say, with more confidence than ever, that
''you connot be so ignorant of the fundamental law
as not to know that our exposition Of it was per-
fectly sound and correct"


While you do not deny its truth, you think you
annhate it by the assertion that it is extensively
disapproved. Do you really believe that an officer,
dealing with questions of law is bound to be popu
lar rather than right? Will you never learn that
Statesmen" and ''patrotsD of your school have
notions about all the political virtues which q
sound morality holds in utter detestation: To
fater the passions and caole the understanding Of
the people is not the highest object of any honest
mans ambition. Mr.. Jefferson thought he ought
to edo them as much good as possible in spite Of
their teeth" But on your theory, to be "ever
strong upon the stronger side" is not only good
fortune, but high desert; while it is mere mbec
ty to offend the powerful by letting the countenance
of the law shine upon the weak or the oppressed.
who cannot reward you with office or money. If
your theological opinions conform to your ideas Of
political duty you esteem the luck of Barabbas as
more mertorious than the fidelity OF John or the
devotion of all the Marys.


No doubt there was then, as there is now, Il set
OF "small but ferOciOus politicians" who became
| completely infuriated against me because did not
fasify the law, advise the President to violate the
Constitution, and thus bring on an immediate dis
solution of the Union. But you can hardly expect
me to regret that did not escape their censure.
They were men who had been taught that enmity to
the Constitution was the sum of all public and pr-
vate virtue. There certainly is not uncorrupted
man in The country who will say that | was to
blame for giving the law faithfully and truly


You declare that 'cotemporaneous history has
already pronounced against me, and you quote a
few words OF tWadde, apparently from the writ
ings OF some one whose name you are ashamed to
mention. You call this Judgment upon me which
posterity is not likely to reverse. Political power
dishonesty welded always has hacks to defend its
eNcesses by maligning It's opponents. 4 dozen
books of that character have been printed within
the lasl seven years. These productions come
within the awkward description you have given of
your own; they are mot history or biography,
Intended to be-" they are places Of deposit for
wOrn-ont calumnes-mere sewers into which the
flth of the party ia drained 0f. hope am toer-
ably secure from the praises Of thi, vpna tribe !;
and their abuse i prihsn 1acie evidence Of char
acter at least negatively good. 1t is not worth
while for you or ME TO trouble ourselves about pos
terity, for po>lerty will not probably take much
account OF us. No doubt you did all in your pow
er TO subvert the free institutions OF our Revolution
ary fathers, and to uebauch the political morals of
the country; but the utmost eYertiOn of your ab-
ties has not sutficed TO raise you above the com.
N ~
same evil work. On the other hand the cause Of
liberty regulated by law has had crowd of advo-
Gates so infinitely superior to that my feeble et-
forts cannot be expected to attract the notice OF fiji
tllre generations.


You make no attempt 10 justify your abuse of
Mr. Buchanan; you do not repeat your charge
against Mr. Toucey of scattering the ships of the
navy to render that arm powerIess; nor do YOU
now pretend to assert that Nr. Thompson was
guilty of robbng the Indian trust funds. But you
offer no reparation, nor even make an excuse, for
the WantOu and unprovOked injury which you tried
to commit upon the character OF the living and the
memory of the dead You suenly permit indg-
ment to be rendered against you hy MI dicH. |


mention this only to say, that it very seriously at
fects your credibllity upon the other points. Fn1-
s1ts in ul0, tdlsus In omnibus.


You pervert my words and my meaning when
you say that represented Mr.. Thompson as being
above the range of ordinary mortals. l merely de-
cared that his mental ability good sense, and COM


mon honesty placed him very far beyond you who


had assailed him with a false charge of felonious
fODDeIt. on uO not see tIle luSttCe Oh
parison, and you think that if had not been 4
mere lawyer, having little acquaintance or asso-
citation with statesmen" might have entertained
a different notion. Although consider my calling
to be as reputable as any that you ever followed,
| either before or after you took up the trade of a
politician. YOU may make what deductian you
please that account from the value of my iudg-
ment; but you must not interfere with my un-
doubted right to believe Gas l do most devoutly)
that it would take great many Wilson's to make
one Thompson.


| 1t was not to be expected that Governor Floyd


would escape pour maedictiOns. No public man
| ever provoked such 3 storm of popular wrath as
he did. The President, who had trusted him,
withdrew his confidence, drove him from his coun-
sells, and ordered him to be indicted for malversa-


ton in office. His colleagues left him to his fate,
and there was nobody in all this land to take his
part. He had some qualities which commanded
the respect of folks like you long he lived and


moved among you. But absent, unfriended, de-
fenceless dead-fallcn in lost cause and buried in


an obscure graye-he was the very man Of all
others, in OF out of the world, whom your magnad-
| unity would prompt you to attack. But why did
you not charge him with misconduct in the funan-
| cial management of his department? That might
have provoked i comparison between him and
| Cameron, much to the disadvantage of the LATTER


whom you wished to court, fiatter, and white


wash. Therefore you preferred to take up the eX-


ploded charge Of sending guns aud munitions to


the South for the use Of the secessionists in the


war. Your first paper had nothing in it on this


subject except the bald assertion, and was con-
| tent with q naked denial But in your last you


come back with more extended averment, and


produce what you seem to suppose will be taken


rs evidence by ut least some OF your readers. Let


us look at it.


| committee appointed by the House of


Representatives in January, 1861, to ascertain how


the public arms distributed during the year 1850