Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Editorial
May 11, 1835
Lynchburg Virginian
Lynchburg, Virginia
What is this article about?
An editorial critiques the President's hypocritical enforcement of his inaugural pledge against government patronage interfering in elections, alleging he tolerates federal officers supporting his administration but would dismiss those opposing Van Buren. It quotes the Jonesborough Republican on officials advocating the Baltimore caucus.
Clipping
OCR Quality
98%
Excellent
Full Text
FEDERAL PATRONAGE.
The Jonesborough (Tenn.) Republican has the following paragraph:
'We are informed that not a few individuals, enjoying the patronage of the government, some from other States and Territories, have of late been active in Middle Tennessee in advocating the cause of the Baltimore caucus. If this be so, the papers in that section of the country owe it to the President to proclaim the fact, in order that he may have an opportunity, one which he will no doubt eagerly embrace, of redeeming that important pledge given to the nation in his inaugural address, "to prevent the Patronage of the Government from coming in conflict with the freedom of elections."'
The Republican is mistaken in supposing that the President intended to deny the right of any of his officers to interfere with the freedom of elections, provided that interference be properly directed. He is only opposed to such interference, when it happens to be against himself or his favorites. If he can hear of any federal officer electioneering against Van Buren, our word for it that his dismissal will follow the accusation as swiftly as the thunderbolt succeeds the lightning. But, if he electioneers in favor of 'the government,' it is all right enough. And there is some reason in the rule—for, is he not paid by the government?
The Jonesborough (Tenn.) Republican has the following paragraph:
'We are informed that not a few individuals, enjoying the patronage of the government, some from other States and Territories, have of late been active in Middle Tennessee in advocating the cause of the Baltimore caucus. If this be so, the papers in that section of the country owe it to the President to proclaim the fact, in order that he may have an opportunity, one which he will no doubt eagerly embrace, of redeeming that important pledge given to the nation in his inaugural address, "to prevent the Patronage of the Government from coming in conflict with the freedom of elections."'
The Republican is mistaken in supposing that the President intended to deny the right of any of his officers to interfere with the freedom of elections, provided that interference be properly directed. He is only opposed to such interference, when it happens to be against himself or his favorites. If he can hear of any federal officer electioneering against Van Buren, our word for it that his dismissal will follow the accusation as swiftly as the thunderbolt succeeds the lightning. But, if he electioneers in favor of 'the government,' it is all right enough. And there is some reason in the rule—for, is he not paid by the government?
What sub-type of article is it?
Partisan Politics
Constitutional
What keywords are associated?
Federal Patronage
Election Interference
Baltimore Caucus
Van Buren
Inaugural Pledge
Partisan Hypocrisy
What entities or persons were involved?
President
Van Buren
Baltimore Caucus
Jonesborough Republican
Editorial Details
Primary Topic
Hypocrisy In Federal Patronage And Election Interference
Stance / Tone
Satirical Critique
Key Figures
President
Van Buren
Baltimore Caucus
Jonesborough Republican
Key Arguments
President's Pledge Against Patronage Conflicting With Elections Is Selectively Enforced
Federal Officers Advocating Baltimore Caucus Should Be Reported To President
President Opposes Interference Only When Against Himself Or Favorites
Dismissal Swift For Anti Van Buren Electioneering But Not For Pro Government
Officers Paid By Government Justify Supporting It