Ypsilanti Sentinel

end

THE DIFFERENCE.—When Andrew Jackson was a candidate for the Presidency, it was no crime imputable to him that he was a duelist—that he was a rowdy—that he would die with his bowie knife—that he, at a public dinner, assaulted Col. Benton, with a carving knife—that he lived a year in violation of the 7th command—was notorious for the use of the most blasphemous language, and a slaveholder besides, no, he was pure and immaculate he was the paragon of all that was excellent in morals and exalted in human nature. "Hickory poles" were erected all over the country, and whole barrels of whiskey were poured out to consecrate the ground where they were planted.— "Hurrah for Jackson!" was vociferated throughout the land, and the enthusiasm of the people for the "Hero of N. Orleans" was excited by every device at the command of his friends. He was elected at a first and second term by the same party which made Martin Van Buren his successor, according to his dictation, and which now hold him up as a Candidate for a second election.

Mr. Clay is now before the people for the same office, for which "the party" contended that Gen. Jackson was so admirably fitted, whom Van Buren called his "illustrious predecessor"—Mr. Clay is now represented by this party as "a dealer in men, a debauchee, an inebriate, a gambler, a duelist."—Expounder.

This is the desperate resort of an unprincipled party, on its last legs, rendered furious by anticipating certain defeat.— These charges against Mr. Clay are all, except being a slave holder and having fought as a duellist, as false and slanderous as the party which alleges them is corrupt and hypocritical. No man living has a deeper sense of moral obligation, in all the relations of life, than this great man; no one, whose private and public example is less liable to censure. The circumstances of his life, in connection with duelling and slavery, are purely accidental, and belong alike to many of the most eminent men, whom "the democracy" worships as the representatives of its principles. Mr. Van Buren himself is a Northern man with southern principles and would, if he lived on the dark side of Mason and Dixon's line. Undoubtedly be a slave holder. Whether he would be a duellist or not, is doubtful; his propensities being in the direction of intriguing. But seriously, it is supremely ridiculous for that party to impeach the moral character of a man like Henry Clay. Let it look at home. How many of its prominent leaders are guilty of the same immoralities with the Expounder, and other kindred prints, falsely charge the high minded statesman of Kentucky? How many, in their party, at home and abroad, in public and private life, in the halls of legislation and on the bench of justice, violate, shamelessly, the commonest rules of decency? We say again, let the Expounder look at home, where it will discover, in members of its party, enough of debauchery and intemperance and superannuated lapses without seeking for these defects in others to whom they do not belong.— But that paper is laboring in its vocation unscrupulous misrepresentation.—Marshall Statesman.