It seems to be taken for granted by many Whigs, that the integrity of the party can be maintained by none but an ultra Whig. Admitting this to be true, it is not at all certain that any one of the gentlemen nominated by the Convention were real ultra Whigs: we do not know that General Scott, or Mr. Clay, would fully agree with the ultra Whigs of Massachusetts, in all their views of Whig doctrine; or that Mr. Webster would in all particulars coincide with Mr. Clay: two independent minds scarcely ever harmonize perfectly. Mr. Clay might be too lenient towards the South, and Mr. Webster towards the North. It would very probably happen that questions of policy would arise on which the opinion of these gentlemen would not harmonize with that of Congress; all we should demand of them, in that event, would be, that they should not oppose the expressed opinion of the majority; unless it was certain that Congress had acted hastily, or under an undue or improper feeling, which time and reconsideration would abate. In regard to war, General Taylor has declared himself opposed to wars of aggression, and we are assured that he is not the man to excite a conquest fever in the minds of the people. Himself a humane and successful soldier, he knows too well the evils of a successful war to hurry us needlessly into a contest; nor is he likely to follow the policy of the present administration, which ruined itself by an enterprise, of which the only good results were to the glory of its political enemies. The second disqualifying objection to our candidate was, that he had insulted the party by declaring himself an independent candidate, and saying that he should run, whether nominated by the Convention or not. The validity of this very serious objection was destroyed by the declaration of the General's friends in the Convention. On the second day of Convention, (Thursday, June 8th,) before proceeding to the first ballot, Judge Saunders of Louisiana obtained permission to read a statement presented by the delegation from Louisiana in reference to the position of General Taylor. He said, knowing General Taylor as he had long done, and knowing that his position had been misunderstood and misconceived, he called the attention of the Convention to the statement which he proposed to read. "This document went to show that Gen. Taylor had taken no part in bringing his name before the American people. His friends throughout the Union had placed him prominently before the country, to occupy the high office that was once held by the Father of his Country. General Taylor considered himself in the hands of his friends; and under the circumstances in which he had been brought forward, he did not think it proper to withdraw himself. "Gen. Taylor wished it to be understood that, IN HIS OPINION, HIS FRIENDS WERE BOUND TO ABIDE BY THE DECISION AND WILL OF THE CONVENTION, he being impressed with the necessity of a change in the Administration, and thus of saving the country from its downward career. But his friends would withdraw his name from the canvass, unless he should be the nominee of the Convention."* Thus by the clearest evidence, this most serious objection to the nominee is completely removed. He is a fair and honorable candidate of the Whigs, and the nominee strictly of the Whigs: it is impossible. under these circumstances either to neglect or to oppose him. When the Whig delegates met in Philadelphia, and organized a Convention for the choice of a candidate, they pledged themselves virtually, by that act, to sustain, or at least not to injure, or oppose to the detriment of the party, the nominee of the Convention. If, after all that has been done and conceded, they withdraw their support from the nominee, it will of course be from reasons that can be explainedreasons of a solid and tangible character; but from no quarter, as yet, have we heard any such reasons. The Convention was agreed upon as a necessary means for the integrity of the party. The delegates were not sent there to elect this or that man; their constituents knew very well, what they had often declared, that the members of the Convention did not go to Philadelphia to elect some one man whom they had in view, but only to elect a candidate: who that candidate might be, was a question which only the event could decide. The members of the Convention went * National Intelligencer, Washington, June 10, 1848. there in good faith and with no sinister sentiments. They went for the party, to ascertain the sentiment of the majority; and by that sentiment it was their intention to abide. The vote which they cast pledged both them and their constituents to the nominee, whoever he might be. Had any informality been suffered; had any fraud been practised in Convention; had the friends of any one of the candidates been threatened, or in any way improperly influenced, there might be a doubt -there might be a question raised, how far they were bound to the nomination. But there was no informality, there was no improper influence; it was an honorable Convention, and its proceedings were judicious and satisfactory. given by twenty different States, New York however giving twenty-nine of the whole, which showed a great concentration of feeling for Mr. Clay in that particular State, analogous to the feeling of Ohio for Gen. Scott, and that of Massachusetts for Mr. Webster, and that of Delaware for Mr. Clayton. These great names are best beloved by those who stand in the best position to appreciate them. The remaining candidate, Gen. Taylor, had 111 votes, scattered through twentytwo States. The vote for General Taylor at the first ballot was 111; seven entire States cast an undivided vote for him, namely, the States of Missouri, Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi and Georgia. From the Eastern delegations he had six votes; from the Middle States 11 votes ; from the Western 15 votes; the remainder, Of being more than two thirds of the whole, Southern votes. Six names were offered to be voted for, namely, those of Messrs. McLean, Clayton, Webster, Scott, Clay, and Taylor. The whole number of votes cast was 279. these Judge McLean had two votes, one from Ohio and one from Iowa. The Hon. J. M. Clayton, of Delaware, had four votes; three from his own State, and one from New York. The Hon. Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, had twenty-two votes; twelve from his own State, six from his native State, and three from Maine. Gen. Scott had forty-three votes, of which twenty were from Ohio, and nine from Indiana. The Convention thus discovered that of the six candidates, four were nominated by single States or sections of country, and not by a diffused and national vote. Had the forty-three votes cast for Gen. Scott been from all parts of the Union, it would have had a more sensible effect upon the Convention in his favor; but as this first ballot was to be a test of the relative popularity and nationality (if we may so speak) of the candidates, it was the most important of the whole, and necessarily threw out four of the names, notwithstanding that it was supposed that many would continue to vote their favorite names to the last. The question of reputation or of the people's choice, now lay between two candidates, namely, between Mr. Clay and Gen. Taylor. The first of these gentlemen received 97 votes out of 279, something less than a third of the whole. These votes were Mr. Clay had 16 Eastern votes; 13 Western; 23 Southern; the remainder from the Middle States. He had the undivided vote of two States, Maryland and Connecticut. A second, third and fourth ballot gave General Taylor a still greater predominance. He now had the undivided vote of thirteen entire delegations, namely: Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Maryland, Rhode Island. Mr. Clay had now the votes of no one entire delegation. Of his original 97, In this 32 continued to vote for him. The Convention then proceeded to the choice of a candidate for the Vice Presidency. Four names were presented, to wit: Abbott Lawrence, of Massachusetts, Millard Fillmore, of New York, Andrew Stewart, of Pennsylvania, and Thos. M. T. McKennan, of the same State. The choice fell upon Mr. Fillmore, who at the second ballot received 173 votes, Mr. Lawrence having 87. Such are the most remarkable particulars of the election. The nomination was received with applause and satisfaction, and the Convention discovered throughout a proper sense of propriety and decency, both in conduct and expression. We conclude by presenting our readers with the following extract from an article in the Albany Evening Journal, as we have met with nothing that seemed more judiciously expressed : He expressed the hope that his friends would go into the Whig National Convention" pledged heart and soul" to the support of its nominee, adding that the nominee would have his best wishes for success. These sentiments, but for what we must regard as an error of judgment in the friends of Gen. Taylor at Washington, would have been made known three weeks ago. Before the Whigs of the Union, therefore, Gen. Taylor stood, when the National Convention met, in a false position. This, however, was less his own error than the error of the Whig friends in whom he confided. Gen. Taylor, though just what his answer to Col. Haskell, of Tennessee, imports—“ I am a Whig and a quarter over"-having been forty years in the army, was wholly unlearned and unpracticed in politics. His position now became as embarrassing as it was novel. The friends who enjoyed his confidence acquiesced in, if they did not advise the course he has pursued. That course complicated and perplexed the question. In all that was done, however, the FACT that he was and is a WHIG is fixed and remains. We come not now to commend or to approve Gen. Taylor's letters. Though showing him independent, honest, and patriotic, time has proved that the idea of a "no party" President is wholly impracticable. And this truth, we doubt not, is as apparent to Gen. Taylor as it was and is to the troops of Whig friends whom his letters pained but could not alienate. At an early day, before Gen. Taylor's political sentiments were known, leading men of the Administration party declared in his favor for President. But when the fact that he is a Whig became fixed, they generally fell off. Several such who had been nominated as electors or who had been active in Taylor meetings gave public notice of their secession, assigning as their reason, that they could not support a Whig. Those who adhered to him, regularly or irregularly, and of whatever political hue, finally referred their hopes and based their expectations upon the action of the Whig National Convention. They are therefore merged in the Whig party. Gen. Taylor is now, his friends having unreservedly pledged themselves to abide the result of the Whig National Convention, the candidate of the Whig party. To the past, well-intended but illjudged, there is an oblivion. In the future, | there will be abiding faith on the one hand and enduring fidelity on the other. principles of our candidate, and what will be It remains for us only to inquire what are the the character of his administration? Upon these topics we shall speak freely and frankly, from unquestionable authority, but as briefly and concisely as possible. Gen. Taylor is by birth and early education, a Republican. His father, "Col. Dick Taylor," (as he was familiarly and honorably known in Kentucky,) was an elector of President who voted first for Jefferson, and then for Madison. In 1808 Zachary Taylor received his first commission in the U. S. Army, with which he has ever since been gloriously connected. He can look back through that long vista of trial and privation without finding a reproach upon his name or a stain upon his escutcheon. He has had no quarrels with his brother officers and no collisions with his fellow-citizens. He is "a Whig, though not an ultra one." But he is a Whig who was warmly in favor of encouraging American Industry; and after the National Debt was extinguished, he was as warmly in favor of a distribution of the proceeds of the Public Lands among the heirs of the Republic, as "the most just, equitable, and federal" disposition of that surplus. He is a Whig who warmly opposed those wild Governmental Experiments which brought bankruptcy and ruin upon the people and the country. He is a Whig who warmly opposed the Annexation of Texas, foreseeing, as did other Whigs, that it would inevitably involve us in War and Debt. He is a Whig who, deprecating the spirit of conquest, was opposed to the subjugation or the dismemberment of Mexico. *** There is, however, another and a higher question involved in this issue. Shall the geographical boundary, and the political power of slavery, be enlarged and augmented by means of the territory wrung from Mexico? Gen. Taylor is identified by birth, location and interest, with the South and its institutions. He is a planter and a slaveholder. But what have been his sentiments upon these questions? Though a Southern man, like Messrs. Critten den, Berrien, Mangum, Clingman and other distinguished Southern Whigs, he was firm and uncompromising in his opposition to the Annexation of Texas; and, to our shame and dishonor be it remembered, that while Kentucky and North Carolina and Tennessee cast their Electoral Votes against the Texas and Mexican War Candidate, New York! and Pennsylvania! and New Hampshire! and Maine! are ingloriously responsible for the election of Polk, the Annexation of Texas, the War with Mexico, and all their attendant consequences! It was from no wish and no fault of Gen. Taylor, that we have Texas and a part of Mexico. But now that we have, by virtue of conquest and treaty, vast territorial acquisitions, the question returns, shall that territory remain free, or become bonded? And that question, when Gen. Taylor shall have been elected President, will remain to be decided by the People and their Representatives, to whom it rightfully belongs, and to which decision, when thus made, whatever that decision may be, Gen. Tavlor will affix his name and seal. * * * We have, in Gov. Cass, a northern candidate with southern principles, while in Gen. Taylor we have a southern candidate with national principles. In the former we see a man who has been as sand in the hands of those who moulded him to their wishes. For a presidential nomination, he has made merchandise of all that is high, and precions, and sacred. In the latter, we see an honest, upright, inflexible, free-thinking, out-speaking man, who would not compromise a principle, suppress a sentiment, nor modify an opinion to gain the presidency. In the hands of Gov. Cass, the government, judging his future by his past, would be corruptly administered, with a view, by its corrupting influences, to secure his reelection. In the hands of Gen. Taylor, judging his future by pis past, the government will be brought back to the integrity and purity which distinguished the administration of WASHINGTON, for Gen. Taylor is one of " God's noblest works;" and in the language of a ven erable divine who was an army chaplain at Matamoras, Monterey, Buena Vista, &c., "he comes up, in his life, character, and principles, nearer to Washington than any other public man I have ever known." There are those among us who, exasperated by the conduct of Tyler and Polk, and the miseries which have been inflicted upon the country by the last eight years of misrule, are unwilling to vote for a southern President, and who are anxious to make an open issue with slavery. We are among those who appreciate all the evils of slavery, and who are sure to be on the side of freedom when her banner, with sufficient provocation, shall be unfurled. But we cannot, nor should others forget that only for the conduct of Senators Cass, Buchanan, Allen, Dickinson, Dix, &c., sanctioned by their political friends at the ballot boxes, there would have been no annexation of Texas, no war with Mexico, no hundred million debt, and no extension of slavery. If the South, without the treasonable participation of the Northern States, was alone responsible for annexation, war, debt, and extended slavery, we too should have been prepared to strike. But let us, before that issue is made, see that we occupy vantage ground. Let our " cause of quarrel be just," and then we shall be ready to do battle with those who enter first and farthest into the conflict. PRESS-THE NECESSITY OF PARTY-THE LOCOFOCO PLATFORM. It is a very common error among the ignorant to cry out against party, and to disavow partialities: patriotism, according to these disinterested persons, is neither for this nor that side, but for the country. Let us agree with them for the moment; as not desiring, in this easy race of protestation, to be left behind, and becoming quite impartial in our affections, let us propose a plan for the good of the nation: let it be a tariff, or a tax on property, or a sub-treasury. Is it possible that any friend of his country can be offended at the proposal of so necessary a measure? But many are offended. A division has begun, and the yeas and nays have gone over to different sides. Let any national measure be offered to the consideration of a promiscuous body of citizens, a division will arise as to its expediency. Some will go into opposition upon grounds merely theoretic; others will find arguments against it from policy, as being ill-timed; others, again, will find it at variance with the pecuniary or political interests of themselves or their friends; all these will unite against it, and form a party to oppose it. Parties, therefore, whatever be our private opinion of them, are unavoidable, and it becomes us, instead of crying out against them, or affecting a haughty indifference to them, to use them, rather, as the only remedy for the less endurable evils of anarchy and despotism. Nor can the struggle for power be deemed discreditable, when it is seen that this struggle is the most arduous and the most important that men can engage in, and that the very life of liberty is maintained only by the strife of contending parties. In free states, where public questions are decided by majorities, the strife of party begins in the office and the market place; every point of policy is agitated in private, and the representative is chosen with the expectation that he will maintain the opinion, and even the prejudice, which he represents. When the majority are well informed, and their representative is true to his function, liberty and humanity will be observed, and the morals of private life become the guiding principles of legislation. When the Constitution confers the power of suffrage upon a citizen, it imposes a duty; he has taken a share in the government, and is a legally qualified member of the great Council of the nation, from which emanate, if not particular measures, at least the first impulses of opinion, on which the character and power of the nation reveals itself. In election to public offices, the people know, or should know, that they are merely choosing one of their number in whom they confide to represent the opinion, the character, and the interests of the majority; the Constitution intrusts them with this power of choice, and in using it, they impress their private judgment, and their private will, upon the government of which they thus become true and responsible members. How unworthy, then, of this high privilege are those inert or supercilious citizens, who affect to disregard the elections, or who speak of them as a vain and interested contest of office-seekers. A people who respect their institutions, and who not only know, but feel, that government emanates from themselves, will not confound the contemptible enthusiasm of place-seekers, with the ardor of patriots, or -if even that most sacred appellation have lately acquired some taint of men who seek for power only to avoid dishonor. National dishonor falls not only upon the mean and insignificant, but upon the able, the bold and the well informed; the honor of the nation is an element, yes, a palpable element, of its power and prosperity; if the affairs of the nation are badly con ducted, not only the weak and mean, but the men of character, of genius, and of enterprise, have to bear the dishonor and the punishment. Whoever, therefore, accounts himself one of these, whoever feels within himself the least spark of that generosity of soul which makes men republicans, is, so far, a POLITICIAN. Politics, the judging and acting for the honor and the prosperity of the nation, is properly an art to which all of us are born. We, the citizens, who think we have no masters but the laws, cannot be too careful or too vigilant in the exercise of the power of election, in which we perform the initiative art of government. In the exercise of the franchise we are removed alike by our character and our circumstances, from any corrupting influences. We are too jealous and too proud to be influenced by our superiors in social rank, (if we admit that any such exist,) and the greatness of our numbers renders it impossible to buy us; neither by a bribe, nor by a threat, can we be enticed or terrified: only the trembling servants of a corrupt Executive, who, for an uncertain subsistence, have resigned every merit but that of an interested obedience, can be suspected of a corrupted vote. The motives which actuate us are those lawful and necessary prejudices, which form so great a part of the virtue of imperfect humanity: the prejudices of theory, of experience, of country, of family, of education, and of temperament. Either, or all of these, will give the free mind its bias, and make us of the one party or the other, on every question submitted to our vote. Those who mean to influence us individually, must appeal to each or all of these sources of opinion; and their only power is in that lawful superiority which is given by skill of persuasion, or of intellectual power. They may show us that national interests are at stake; they may terrify us with a gloomy prospect of the future; they may tempt us on with visions of golden prosperity; they may appeal to our generosity, our shame, or our pity;-but here their power ends; all beyond is corruption. If there ever was a nation, in which the liberty of popular election was as general and as unobstructed as in our own, its history has not been handed down to us; and yet, this first privilege of freedom, believed |