Hurrah for the Republic! I always get up early on the glorious anniversary. This morning I found it was half past three (a few minutes after I went to bed). Turned out with alacrity, rushed to the window and according [319]

Olmsted’s Staten Island Farmhouse

I have given up writing all those letters of my Fancy, the hope for the leisure for which has delayed me so long. I have a great deal to talk to you—but can write but little. Sacred be this day to Patriotism and Politics. I was much pleased, Charley, with the political part of your last letter. I think I sympathize very closely with your feelings. And so far as you expressed opinions, I even agree with you more than usual. I am willing to admit that I exalted Clay too highly. His northern tour did seem to me to show a little of the imbecility of age. Before the Convention met, my zeal for him had cooled, but in favor of a northern man—no 10th-rate availability man—no fierce sectional—but for Daniel Webster. Not all I could ask, but on the whole far the best man for President now living I think. But if I did exalt Clay I do not think it began to be as much as you depreciated him.

I confess, I do think you took a more bigoted, mean, partisan view of him than I know you to of anything else. It makes me afraid of you as a partisan. Loving your friends or favorites superabundantly is a very different thing from despising and refusing to consider favorably an enemy. I think that there was something entirely wrong at the bottom of your view of Clay—or rather your distortions of him, for you refused to view him.

[320]

I am not sorry to see the prospect of General Taylor’s election. I think much good will be done by that, besides the somewhat dubious good you think so much of. It will break old parties. And the fact that the respectable old, Federal, moral, orthodox Dr. Hawes Whigs of little Connecticut stand almost to a man to their guns, “without a why or wherefore,” after such a flag has been run up over them, shows how much any influence against party trammels is to be desired.

Mind you, I am not despising them for thinking General Taylor is good enough Whig for them, but because they evidently in Connecticut—the main body of them—have not thought at all. They either consider their delegates supreme judges, against whose decision their reason cannot appeal, or they think how a turncoat would be despised-not a turncoat from principles, but from men, with whom he has acted, i.e., from party.

This I think is plainly indicated by the fact that so few of those who speak have disagreed from the main body—or the Convention. I do not doubt they will be surprised to find (at the election) how many have thought for themselves and come to a different opinion from the delegates.

You understand that I do not consider it a matter of course, nor do I mean you shall imply that I think it equally probable that honest men should come to a different decision from the delegates that nominated Taylor. I do think they had a very hard question indeed to decide. I do not believe a body of clergymen—under similar circumstances—would have conducted themselves as reasonably and gentlemanly to a decision.

If they had simply declared themselves unable to agree as “Whigs” and then, as many as pleased, organized a new party, made a declaration of objects and principles on which they or a certain respectable number of them could agree—such as (objects) union (opposition to sectional action), opposition to War Policy—the reduction of the Army and Navy without prejudice to the old officers—a moderate increase of Protection to certain manufactures—Internal Improvement, and in general opposition to the besotted laisser aller (faire) principle (pretended) of Loco Focoism, and nominated Taylor as the leader of these or such measures—I should have honored them—and been quite as likely to vote with them—as now.

After all, I am not at all sure but they were right as they were. If they had nominated anybody but Taylor (just then), they could not calculate on the Barnburners as allies. Cass would very probably have cursed and disgraced the country as its President. I think it is right of two evils to choose the least. If you thought your vote would elect Taylor over Cass, should he not have it, even though by permitting Cass’ election you gave expression to your dislike to both of them? I think the Philadelphia Convention was in such a predicament. Fortunately you and I are not, I think.