Richmond Enquirer

RICHMOND, THURSDAY, MARCH 10.

THE CONTROVERSY.

The times are "out of joint." They require some little good-humour on the part of the friends of the Administration. We have seen the Telegraph and the Globe engaged in angry war.—We see the Opposition Editors republishing their invectives, and fanning the flame.—We see them flushed with fresh hopes of victory, and acting upon the old Machiavellian maxim of Divide et impera.—What is our duty in this state of things? Bear and forbear, as long as we can.—We have freely expressed ourselves as to the mischief which is to be apprehended from a publication of the Correspondence, and a further prosecution of the Controversy: We have declared our firm conviction upon the proofs at present exhibited, that Mr. Calhoun is mistaken in the supposition of a plot, and a "base plot" against him.—We regret that any such correspondence should have taken place between him and the President—And that the memory of Mr. Crawford has failed him, as to one or two of the material circumstances of these by-gone transactions.—But we shall not willingly make any further commentaries upon the Controversy. We shall publish the Strictures of the Telegraph, on the last article we have extracted from the Globe.—We shall lay before our readers any other letters, or important facts, which the case may call out—But, so far as it respects ourselves, we shall forbear to mingle in the contest, as far as we can with propriety. We respectfully recommend the same course to others. We observe, the Globe is withdrawing from the contest: At least it declares, that "Should nothing in the conduct of Mr. Calhoun or his friends, make further strictures on their course and objects necessary, we shall resume with the utmost pleasure the discussion of the great principles which guide the President in his political career."—We respectfully hope, that the Telegraph will return to the same system of "armed neutrality."

The one or two slight touches which the U. S. T. has given to ourselves en passant, have not escaped our notice. But we shall neither retort nor reply to them. We seek no quarrel with the Editor of the Telegraph—and under the present circumstances of our party, we frankly confess that we would rather shun one. We would much rather pour oil upon the agitated waves, than attempt to lash them into a higher tempest. The kindly offices of the N. Intelligencer, upon this occasion, are, of course, entitled to our most grateful acknowledgements. Instead of playing the honorable part of a mediator, it is doing every thing in its power to foment the strife between the friends of the Administration. The conduct of its Editors reminds us of the ridiculous Goose in the farm-yard. She is proud of the crumbs that have just been doled out to her. She struts along with a becoming air of self-importance. She gabbles about with all the noisy impertinence of its race—hissing away, and attempting to make as much mischief as it can among the more decent tenants of the yard.

The course of the Republicans of Virginia fortunately admits of no confusion. The landmarks are laid down, as straight as a ray of light from Heaven. They will rally around Andrew Jackson. They will support his re-election—No question about it! The Correspondent of the Boston Courier may infer, if he pleases, from certain signs at Washington, that there are, "at least, two new States, now represented in Congress, in which General Jackson will get no votes"—and he may allude to Virginia as one of them—But he is mistaken. The Boston Palladium may confidently assert that "Mr. Calhoun is to be proposed by his friends in those States (one of them is Virginia) as a Candidate for the Presidency, in opposition to General Jackson." But he is mistaken in his Views, both of Virginia and of Mr. Calhoun. The politician who saw in the breaking down of the Potomac bridge the type of the separation between Virginia and the administration, was one of the false prophets of the day. The piers of the bridge may be swept off by the mountain torrent, but the ties which bind Virginia to A. J. defy much stronger attack. She remains "unterrified" and unseduced. Although she may differ with him in a few views and measures, she is strongly attached to him as an honest patriot, and as the friend of reform—She will go for his re-election—and this is one of the points which cannot be mistaken.

She will also go against Mr. Clay—for reasons, which have been so frequently enumerated, that it is unnecessary to repeat them.—This is another of the established landmarks of our political course. But Virginia will scarcely bind herself at this time to the car of any man who aspires to be the successor of A. Jackson. She goes not for men, but for principles—not for this or that candidate, but for the great interests of the Constitution. Who is the best calculated to defeat the success of the avowed author of the falsely styled "American System"? Who has the strongest attachments to the true principles of our government—and is the most anxious and the most able to "retract" its measures to the fundamental principles of the Federal Constitution? These are the great elements of the problem, which we shall hereafter be called upon to solve. But Virginia is scarcely mad enough at this moment to waste her strength by a premature commitment of her suffrages. We trust, that she will ultimately throw her weight into the scale of the Constitution—and not prematurely sacrifice her great principles to the personal views of any ambitious aspirant. Much is expected from her. It would be affectation to deny that much depends upon the discretion and firmness of her politicians. An honest and an earnest support of all the good measures of the present administration—a frank but a friendly and respectful protest against its errors—a determination to support her principles;—as much harmony as possible among the republican party—a resolution to give no premature committals—the interests of the Constitution, rather than of a Candidate—these are the landmarks which, it is to be hoped, will guide the citizens of Virginia—and, may we not venture to hope, the Republicans of the Union?