View Document Frames
"General Harrison's Candidacy,"Charleston
Courier, 8 Jan. 1840.
Gen. Harrison.-In compliance with our determination to deal fairly with this
distinguished citizen, now again regularly presented to the people of the U.S., as
a candidate for the Presidency, and in order that the South especially may judge
of every thing connected with his position on the slave question, we publish the
following evidence ofabolition hostility to him from a recent number of theEmancipator.
We are glad to perceive this movement, and trust that Gen. HARRISON will take an
early opportunity to declare his present sentiments on the subject of slavery, to
do away all suspicion arising out of the exceedingly objectionable passage in his
Cheviot speech, which we cited a few days since, and to confirm the abolitionists
in their opposition to him. By so doing, he may not promote his elevation to the
Presidency, but he will certainly fulfil [sic] the duty of a true patriot, alive
to the best interests and anxious for the continued harmony of the Union. We hope
the abolitionists will perform their threat of complete isolation from both political
parties, and thus no longer have any shield against the unmingled scorn and detestation
of the whole country.
From the Emancipator
GENERAL HARRISON
Many have supposed that it might be expedient for the Executive Committee to interrogate
Gen. Harrison, now that he is the recognized candidate for the Presidency, with some
prospect of election, to learn his views with respect to the abolition of slavery.
But where is the use? It is true, we rejoice in the rejection of Henry Clay, because
he is a slave-holder, and a defender of slavery. Gen. Harrison, we know, is not a
slaveholder. Neither is Mr. Van Buren. but no one thinks it necessary to interrogate
Mr. Van Buren. Why? Because his principles are known to be in favor of the ascendancy
of the SLAVE POWER. But are those of Gen. Harrison any less so? He is the man of
his party, and that party have shown the absoluteness of their subserviency, by nominating
a slaveholder, a peculiarly bigoted devotee of slavery, on the same ticket with Gen.
Harrison, and now by electing a nullifying slaveholder, from slave breeding Virginia,
for Speaker.
But we submit, farther, that General Harrison's principles are already well
known by his deeds, of which we find the following summary in the Rochester Freeman:
In December, 1802, while Governor of Indiana Territory, he was President of a Convention
of people of that Territory, held at Vincennes, and transmitted to Congress a memorial
of the Convention, praying that the sixth article of the "Ordinance of '87,"
which prohibited slavery there,might be suspended. (See Am. State papers,
1803.) His efforts to make Indiana a slave State were prosecuted for years while
he was Governor of that Territory.
In 1819, Feb. 16, Gen. Harrison voted, as a member of the House of Representatives,against
a clause prohibiting the further introduction of slavery in Missouri andagainst
a clause for the further emancipation (at 25) of slaves born within that State.
Two days afterwards, he voted against a clause prohibiting the future introduction
of slavery into Arkansas, andagainst the future emancipation of slaves born
in Arkansas.
So basely did he bow to slavery, that even Ohio was shocked. He was indignantly rejected
at the next Congressional election in 1822. The National Intelligencer of October
20, 1822, says:-"It is confirmed to us, that Mr. Gazely is elected in opposition
to Gen. Harrison. A friend informs us, which we are sorry to learn, that he was opposed
particularly on account of his adherence to that principle of the Constitution which
secures to the people of the South their preexisting rights." It seems, then,
that Gen. Harrison claimed for the South the right to fasten slavery, upon any soil
which the nation might have or purchase.
He has had but little opportunity to act in a public capacity, upon the subject of
slavery since that time; but, an address from his political friends in Virginia,
in 1836, says:"he is sound to the core, on the subject of slavery."
Under these circumstances, we submit that conscientious abolitionists are bound to
regard the two parties and their candidates, as standing precisely on the same ground-that
of unlimited subserviency to the dominion of Slavocracy. It is true-Gen. Harrison's
personal demonstrations are less recent than Mr. Van Buren's. But, they are much
stronger, for Mr. Van Buren helped to send Rufus King to the U. S. Senate to oppose
slavery in Missouri, and he has never attempted to extend slavery to regions where
it was already abolished. And further, the demonstrations of the Harrison party are
more recent, than those of the other. And, if it is said that we should give the
old General a chance to repent of his pro-slavery, we reply: that it belongs to the
man who repents to exhibit his own repentance. Certainly, there are no circumstances
in the case, which warrant the slightest presumptions in favor of his repentance.
Let him, or his friends, if they choose, show wherein his views now differ from his
actions in 1802, and 1819, and 1836. And, in default of this, let the friends of
human rights come at once to the conviction that the cause they have espoused, is,
by Divine Providence, entrusted to their own guardianship, and that for its success
or failure, their country and posterity will hold them responsible.
