Daily National Intelligencer

COMMUNICATIONS.

REMARKS ON THE HARTFORD CONVENTION.
No. II.

In our first number, we pledged ourselves to show, that the real object of the Hartford Convention was, either to assume an unconstitutional and most unwarrantable dictation over the general government, or, on the failure of that object to form a separate peace with our enemy, and thus to dissolve the Union. We also premised two remarks: 1. That no personal feeling prompted us to this pledge, but that we were led to it by the conviction, that patriotism demands of every citizen an eternal reprobation of that disorganizing convention. 2. That we disavow all intention of criminating the whole federal party, much less the whole New England population, in relation to that Convention; and that the allegation of "One of the Convention," that an "immense majority" of Massachusetts and other states, and "the heart of the New England population," is responsible for that Convention, is a gross libel on New England.

In support of the last remark, one fact was omitted. After stating that the complete and almost immediate prostration of the federal party, in four of five the New England states, vindicated the people of those states from the charge of participation, and that a similar fate in Massachusetts had been avoided only by the popularity of one man, we ought to have added the following fact: In February, 1816, one year after the Convention, Gov. Strong declined a re-election to the office of Chief Magistrate. A federal caucus, was held, and Mr. Otis, who had been a member of the Convention, was requested to be the candidate It was, however, perfectly understood that this was a mere form, a mere compliment to distinguished services; that Mr. Otis, though styled "the man of the people," "the beloved Otis," could not be elected; and that the reason why he could not was, simply and solely, his connection with that Convention. Mr. Otis, therefore, as was intended, declined.

Now, permit us to ask, where was at that time the "immense majority" of Massachusetts in favor of the Convention? The fact shows a striking contrast between the opinion of Mr. Otis and the assertion of "One of the Convention."

We proceed now to the main subject—the objects of the Convention.

The Member, in his four letters already published, rests his vindication of the Convention on three points: the recorded legislative proceedings of the states engaged in the project, the Journal of the Convention now open to inspection, and the printed Report of the Convention. Because no declared intention of dissolving the Union is found in these records, the Member infers, that no "fair and correct evidence" of such intention exists. Does the Member need to be informed, that this inference is wholly unsound? Does he need to be informed, that neither treason nor misdemeanor delights in open day? Foolish indeed, beyond all example, would have been such a declaration from the implicated legislatures. Far more prudent was it to do what they did do; to lay out the broad field of "public grievances," through which the Convention might range at pleasure, and plant whatever noxious weed should be found most congenial with the soil.

But it seems the report of the Convention does not recommend a dismemberment; and the identical journal itself is now open to every eye. The writer of these remarks has not yet taken the pains to see this precious document, now first exposed; nor does he much care to see it. Who can believe that a body of men, whose objects were so suspicious that the veil of closed doors must be drawn between their doings and the public eye—even the eye of their own political friends—would still be so wanting in sagacity as to commit to writing that portion of their deliberations which they were sure would meet with public reproof? We do not think so meanly of their prudence. Nor does their report prove a tittle more. They met, they talked, they looked on all sides—they found, as their own friends acknowledged, that the people were not yet prepared; they found that, to pass the Rubicon then was to ensure their own destruction; and they therefore wisely, very wisely, preferred discretion to the worst part of valor. They preferred to wait. They therefore recommended, among other measures, that application should be made to the general government for redress of grievances, (in pursuance of which advice certain commissioners came on to Washington, and went back again;) and that, if this step should fail of obtaining what they wished, (of which other circumstances may possibly have been a part,) ANOTHER CONVENTION should be held in BOSTON, the June following, "with such powers and instructions as the exigency of a crisis so momentous may require." And their leading writer, (Lowell—Boston Centinel, January 14, 1815) when apologizing to their "active spirits" for the tameness of the Convention proceedings, explicitly called on the general government to "tremble (if they did not wish to see confusion) at the result of the proposed Convention in June."

Such is the defence of the prisoner at the bar. His three witnesses prove nothing: they merely give the negative testimony that they did not see the criminal act; while every one knows that the act may have been committed, in all its blackness, without the slightest cognizance on their part.

But one of the witnesses does not stop here. The printed report testifies positively against the defendant. It discusses, through several paragraphs, the topics of the defects of our constitution—of their incurableness—of the expediency of a "dissolution" of the "Union"—of "open resistance"—of the proper time for this dissolution—and of "some new form of confederacy" for "those states, which shall intend to maintain a federal relation to each other."

Such is the testimony of the defendant's own witness; and are we now to be insulted by the remark, that this Convention never thought of a dissolution of the Union; that its only object, its kind, benevolent, patriotic object, was, to aid the general government in defending a portion of its country? Away with such an insult.

Having spoken of the negative testimony adduced in defence of the Convention, we shall in our next proceed to the positive testimony against it; and prove, we trust, that public sentiment has done an act of simple justice, by consigning the memory of the Hartford Convention to permanent disgrace.