Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 14.djvu/388

 382 Southern Historical Society Papers.

as alleged, to meet the objections of the first bill and to con- form to the opinion of the President, It is said it was privately- submitted to him and approved by hi)??, and his Cabi7iet, " but it is clear from the evidenci that the President never at any time gave his consent to any particular form of bill, and tried all in his power to gel the bill, when introduced in the House, conformed to his view of the subject. Yet every amendment looking to the consent of the States was voted down by the Whigs."

Soon after this, the Cabinet, with the exception of Webster, re- signed. The second veto message of the bank bill explained the reasons actuating the President for the course taken, but it was unsatisfactory to a large portion of the Whig party. The members of the Cabinet resigning their seats were Ewing, Bell, Badger, Gran- ger and Crittenden. They reflected severely on the President. Granger's letter was not published, but it was understood that he agreed with the other members who had resigned. Webster did not sustain the President, yet he expressed no censure at his course, and in his letter to the National Intelligencer said he saw no reason for a dissolution of the Cabinet, and had confidence in the hope that the President would co-operate with the Legislature in overcoming all difficulties in obtaining a bank bill that would not be objectionable. We refer to the letter of Webster in the National bitelligencer of September 13, 1840. The President, in his second veto, was sus- tained by some of the first statesmen of the day, among whom may be mentioned Rives and Wise of Virginia.

The compiler of the work under consideration presents in the sec- ond volume a full history of this question, with a statement from the President of the reasons sustaining his course. We think the Presi- dent not only acted in strict honor on this great occasion, but was consistent ; and yet, while we do not agree with many leading states- men of that day in denouncing the President, we also dififer from the writer in attaching duplicity to the leading members of the Whig party, or apostacy to Clay in his connection with the bank bills. The men on each side of this excited contest were of an honor and integ- rity that would never have stoo[)ed to anything reflective on their character. The cordial union of Webster and the President, and the Cabinet he appointed, consisting of Forward, McLean, Upshur, Wicklifif, Legare, Gilmer. Calhoun and Mason, is strong proof of his honor and integrity, and we are pleased to think that John Tyler, President of the United .States, outlived every slander and abuse uttered against his name and character, and that the voice of those