And why should we not all be united in support of Franklin Pierce? It is his peculiar distinction, above all other public men within my knowledge, that he has never had occasion to take a single step backwards. What speech, vote, or sentiment of his whole political career has been inconsistent with the purest and strictest principles of Jeffersonian Democracy? Our opponents, with all their vigilance and research, have not yet been able to discover a single one. His public character as a Democrat is above all exception. In supporting him, therefore, we shall do no more than sustain in his person our dear and cherished principles.
Our candidate, throughout his life, has proved himself to be peculiarly unselfish. The offices and honors which other men seek with so much eagerness, have sought him only to be refused. He has either positively declined to accept, or has resigned the highest stations which the Federal Government or his own native State could bestow upon him.
Indeed, the public character of General Pierce is so invulnerable that it has scarcely been seriously assaulted. Our political opponents have, therefore, in perfect desperation, been driven to defame his private character. At first, they denounced him as a drunkard, a friend of the infamous anti-Catholic test in the Constitution of New Hampshire, and a coward. In what have these infamous accusations resulted? They have already recoiled upon their inventors. The poisoned chalice has been returned to their own lips. No decent man of the Whig party will now publicly venture to repeat these slanders.
Frank Pierce a coward! That man a coward, who, when his country was involved in a foreign war, abandoned a lucrative and honorable profession and all the sweets and comforts of domestic life in his own happy family, to become a private volunteer soldier in the ranks! How preposterous! And why a coward?
According to the testimony of General Scott himself, he was in such a sick, wounded, and enfeebled condition, that he was “just able to keep his saddle!” Yet his own gallant spirit impelled him to lead his brigade into the bloody battle of Churubusco. But his exhausted physical nature was not strong enough to sustain the brave soul which animated it, and he sank insensible on the field in front of his brigade. Was this evidence of cowardice? These circumstances, so far from being an impeachment of his courage, prove conclusively that he possesses that high quality in an uncommon degree. Almost any other man, nay, almost any other brave man, in his weak and disabled condition, would have remained in his tent; but the promptings of his gallant and patriotic spirit impelled him to rush into the midst of the battle. To what lengths will not party rancor and malignity proceed when such high evidences of indomitable courage are construed into proofs of cowardice? How different was General Scott’s opinion from that of the revilers of Franklin Pierce! It was on this very occasion that he conferred upon him the proud title of “the gallant Brigadier-General Pierce.”
The cordial union of the Democratic party throughout the country presents a sure presage of approaching victory. Even our political opponents admit that we are in the majority when thoroughly united. And I venture now to predict that, whether with or without the vote of Pennsylvania, Franklin Pierce and William R. King, should their lives be spared, will as certainly be elected President and Vice President of the United States on the first Tuesday in November next, as that the blessed sun shall rise on that auspicious day. We feel the inspiration of victory from the infallible indications of public opinion throughout our sister States.
Shall this victory be achieved without the voice or vote of Pennsylvania? No President has ever yet been elected without her vote. Shall this historical truth be reversed, and shall Pierce and King be elected in November, despite the vote of the good old Keystone? God bless her! No—never, never, shall the Democracy of our great and glorious State be subjected to this disgrace.
And yet, strange to say, the Whigs at Washington and the Whigs throughout every State of the Union claim the vote of Pennsylvania with the utmost apparent confidence. To secure her vote was one of the main inducements for the nomination of General Scott over the head of Millard Fillmore. Is there one unprejudiced citizen of any party in the United States, who can lay his hand upon his heart and declare that he believes General Scott would make as good and as safe a President as Mr. Fillmore? No, fellow-citizens, all of us must concur in opinion with Mr. Clay, that Fillmore had superior claims and qualifications to those of Scott for the highest civil station. Availability, and availability alone, produced the nomination of Scott.
The Whigs well knew that the Democrats of the Keystone were in the majority. What must then be done to secure her vote? Pennsylvania Democrats must be seduced from their party allegiance—they must be induced to abandon the political altars at which they have so long worshipped—they must be persuaded to renounce the principles of Jefferson and of Jackson, by the nomination of a military hero; and this hero, too, a most bitter and uncompromising Whig. General Scott is none of your half-way Whigs—he is not like General Taylor, a Whig, but not an ultra Whig. He goes the whole. Is there a single Whig doctrine, or a single Whig principle, however odious to the Democracy, to which he is not devoted, which he has not announced and taught under his own hand? If there be, I have never heard it mentioned. Nay, more: these odious doctrines are with him not merely strong opinions, but they are absolute convictions, rules of faith and of practice. The Bank of the United States, the Bankrupt Law, the distribution of the proceeds of the public lands among the States, the abolishment of the veto power from the Constitution; in short, all the Whig measures against which the Democracy of the country have always waged incessant war—are so many articles of General Scott’s political creed. When asked, in October, 1841, whether, “if nominated as a candidate for the Presidency, would you accept the nomination?” after expressing his strong approbation of all the Whig measures to which I have just referred, as well as others of a similar[similar] character, he answers: “I beg leave respectfully to reply—Yes; provided that I be not required to renounce any principles professed above. My principles are convictions.”
I will do him the justice to declare that he has never yet recanted or renounced any one of these principles. They are still convictions with him; and yet the Democracy of Pennsylvania are asked to recant and renounce their own most solemn and deliberate convictions, and vote for a candidate for the Presidency, merely on account of his military fame, who, if elected, would exert the power and influence of his administration to subvert and to destroy all the essential principles which bind us together as members of the great and glorious Democratic party of the Union. Is not the bare imputation, much more the confident belief, that the Democrats of Pennsylvania will renounce their birthright for such a miserable mess of pottage, the highest insult which can be offered to them? The Whigs, in effect, say to you: We know you are Democrats—we know you are in the majority; but yet we believe you will renounce the political faith of your fathers, that you may shout hosannas to a successful general, and bow down before the image of military glory which we have erected for the purpose of captivating your senses.