The Arkansas Advocate

NO. II.

THE PRESIDENTIAL QUESTION.

To the Editor of the Advocate:-

Sir—Perhaps in my first number I said enough to warn the people against including the Baltimore Convention in their political creed. But I see that in the profession of faith put forth by the Gazette and the brilliant statesmen who figure in its columns, a principal article is, to believe in the Van Buren-Johnson-Rucker Convention—and to consider every other creed arrant and downright heresy. They tell us that as the Convention was the assembly of the great Republican party of the whole United States at Baltimore, that therefore we are all bound, and irrevocably obliged, to go the whole animal with the Convention, or be utterly excommunicated. With such startling denunciations, such extraordinary claims ringing in my ears, I tell this people, that our liberties are in jeopardy. "Castra sunt in Italia contra rempublicam," Camps are pitched against the Republic. The old Federal forces of New England are rallying against the West—and we are called upon to prepare again for the contest that we fought when we first elected Jackson.

I cannot yet believe that the free and intelligent people of this land are ready to surrender up their dearest and best rights to a self appointed and hireling cabal, chosen and appointed for a fixed and determined purpose—the purpose of forcing the people to elect an intriguing and deceitful politician.

No man among us all, sir, was surprised, or even for a moment disappointed, when it was known that Van Buren was nominated. We had known for months, that it was to be a Van Buren Convention—it was got up expressly for his benefit—and that no other man could or would be nominated for the Presidency by that body. In what respect, then, has the Baltimore Convention altered the face of things? On what higher ground has it placed Van Buren? What better and stronger claims has it given him to our votes? The men who went there were selected—every soul of them—pledged and bound down to nominate Van Buren—the legitimate successor. The pantomime has been acted—the show is over—and Punch and Harlequin have each retired to their homes. The mountain labored, and brought forth—a rat—one who has long fed at the public crib.

Sir, treat this subject as I may, detestation and abhorrence are uppermost in my mind. If I had the eloquence of Cicero, I should feel myself warranted in indulging in as fierce a torrent of invective and patriotic anger as inspired him against Catiline, Clodius—and Antony. I do regard it as the most abominable mockery ever practised on a free people—as the most deliberate and foul insult ever offered to the American nation. Are we to permit ourselves to be dragged in herds and immolated at the shrine of power—to be yoked and chained together like beasts at the shambles? I trust not. Most fervently do I hope that there is virtue and honor and pride enough left in this people, to induce them to spurn the unworthy faction who have attempted to ride and control them—to show the world that they are not base enough to sell their birth right, like Esau, for a mess of pottage.

The Gazette is warmly in favor of Van Buren. It was to be expected. The Editor of that paper has long been in the habit of controlling and attempting to buy and sell public opinion. When was he ever found on any side but the side of power? When was he ever willingly on any side but the side of Federalism? Born in its atmosphere, he inhaled its principles with his breath. He brought them to Arkansas with him—and held them until he found them to be unpopular. Then he became a Jackson man—and since that he has dared to accuse others of changing sides. Human impudence never before reached its climax. Will the proud and chivalrous Tennessean follow him, and fight under the Van Buren flag? I trust not.

I have watched the principal men of his party for some time. They are well aware that at present the people of Arkansas are in favor of Hugh L. White, by an overwhelming majority. Still they think, judging from their former success at management and humbug, that if they lay their plans deeply, and commence seasonably as well as warily, they may produce an impression in Arkansas favorable to Van Buren. I can assure the gentlemen that they are entirely mistaken. The Convention which they defend is well understood, and its character clearly known.

But it strikes me that these gentlemen are entirely and diametrically opposed to their former principles. I well remember that before the first election of Jackson, the Republicans, or Democrats, were all opposed to Caucus and Convention, while the Federalists were urging in favor of them the very arguments which these patriots now advance. Then General Jackson was elected by us, in direct opposition to and defiance of Convention. Now these very men would make us believe that a Convention is the legitimate method of nominating a President.

In my next number I shall commence a review of the political course of Martin Van Buren. For myself, it would be sufficient reason for me to reject him, that he has been nominated by the Convention—for I am one who does not relish being dictated to, and who believes the people to be entirely competent to judge for themselves who shall rule over them, and whom they will honor. I shall, however, review his political course. I am anxious to do him justice—though I have no doubt he would exclaim with the Irishman, "That's the very thing I'm afraid of."

UNCAS.