« ZurückWeiter »
are not true, and nothing gives me more pain, than to see a misrepresentation in the paper. I have ever considered the British government as having been remarkably attentive to the royalists who put themselves under its protection, and as having made them most liberal indemnification for their losses. Nor is it true, that the nation is faithless, as the paragraph asserts. It is not true of any nation. The mass of people, in all countries, occupied in their work-shops, their counting houses, and on their farms, are honest and virtuous,
"I know no disposition in this country, among the friends of our government, to open the wounds inflicted by our revolution war, unless it is excited by the unmerited slander and calumny which continually issues from the press of Porcupine, against many of the most respectable American citizens, and the best supporters of our government. If any hostile feelings exist against the English, it is principally owing to the countenance they give to that şcurrility--and it is very possible, that it may raise à ferment which will not be easily extinguished. But you will be careful to avoid inserting illiberal reflections personal and national; at the same time, to resent, with becoming spirit, any attempts to control the freedom of the press.
“ NOAH WEBSTER, jun." There are three distinguishing features in this address, rancour, impudent falsehood, and baseness, of which it is difficult to point out the most prominent. .
In the two offensive publications, which gave rise to this penitent letter, Great Britain was abused merely for the sake of belying and abusing me : the same malignant disposition is evident in this. The wretch is viper enough to hint, that, unless I abstain from attacking him and his clan," the
.. wounds wounds inflicted by the revolution," shall be again torn open! Is not this candid? When did I make the vile slander that has been heaped on me, an excuse for attacking the people of America ? Poor, impotent wretch! Does he jinagine that I am to be deterred from censuring him, from answering his atrocious slander, lest those wounds should be opened afresh ? Let them be opened. I have no fear of the issue. I am far from wishing to begin : I always avoid it with extreme care ; but I am not to stand by and hear the country that gave me birth, calumniated, and hold my tongue, lest Noah WEBSTER should revive the History of the American Revolution, and tell certain hobgoblin lies of the British army. Let him begin: he shall proceed without interruption from me ; for, I repeat, again and again, he shall never draw me into a quarrel with the people of America. This is what he wants to do, and this he shall never accomplish.
“ I have never written, uttered, or published, a " disrespectful word concerning the British na« tion.”-Mean, shuffling fellow! Was it not disrespectful to compare the British army to the he. roes of the “ CANNIBAL'S PROGRESS," and to quote, as an instance, one of the most scandalous and abominable falsehoods that ever was put on paper by a partial historian ? Was it not disrespectful to say, that the British government was “op“ pressive and tyrannical ”. Was it not disrespectful to lump the King of Great Britain amongst the idiot, princes of Europe? -No, no; WEBSTER geis rid of all this, and ten times more that he has said on the government of Great Britain, executive and legislative, civil and military; he shuffles out of all, by saying that he never slandered the “nation," that is, “the mass of the people.” This is a true
French distinction; a separation of the government from the people.” But, wretch, wretch, are not the army and navy composed of Britons ? are not the parliament and the ministry also composed of Britons ? and is not the King a Briton ? And in abusing all these, all that gives union, strength, activity, character, consequence, and even existence to the British nation; in abusing and vilifying all these, do you not, I say, abuse the British nation? Like a true French philosopher, the object of your praises is, “the mass of the people in all countries, is occupied in their workshops, their counting « houses, and on their farms." These are all virtuous and honest. In one of your late insolent attacks on the British nation, you graciously condescended to allow, that “amongst the citizens in the “ heart of the country, there is as much hospitality as " is to be found any where.” Who told you su, you demagogue coxcomb? And who told you to call the subjects of the King of Great Britain citizens? Go; only go to the little parish where I was born, and call my old playmates citizens, and see how soon they will hospitably furnish you with a pair of black eyes or a cross-buttock. They, thank Heaven ! are yet uncorrupted by your new fangled cant. .
Webster, do you know what the close of the last paragraph has put me in mind of ? Why, I was thinking, how the rustics in my country would stare, if I were to take you home, just as you stand, and tell then that you are a 'SQUIRE. I absolutely would give fifty pounds to have you as a show for three months; for, you must know, the 'SQUIRES in my country bear no earthly reseniblance to you. I am confident, hospitable as they are, you would not get admittance to dine even with their footmen, unless your medical abilities might ingratiate you with some of the unfortunate members of this party-coloured tribe, After this digression, let us return to the penitent letter. It is the first instance, I believe, of a man's setting down and gravely giving the lie to his own publications. Not indirectly, or by way of apology, but by directly and flatly contradicting himself ; disputing with himself, point by point, and finally. proving himself to be a most gross calumniator, a great fool, and a barefaced liar.--As to the silly puff about supporting the freedom of the press, it is too palpable, too contemptible to bestow a laugh on.
Amidst all this, what a precious figure Mr. Hop. KINS cuts ! Poor devil! To be toad-eater to Noah WEBSTER, jun. Esq. is, I think, a blessed birth indeed! The types that such a man handles must be impregnated with baseness. I should think that his touch would convert gold into copper, or even into lead. And is it for such creatures as these to talk of supporting “the freedom of an American 6 press”.- I turn from them with loathing, and beg pardon of my readers for so long detaining their attention on objects so disgusting.
The following letter will speak for itself, and will, doubtless, be attentively compared with WEBSTER's penitential letter, on which I have commented in this day's Gazette. The letter was received by this day's mail, and the author's NAME, is, as he stutes, in my possession.
“Mr. COBBETT, “When wilful falsehoods are maliciously published, defaming the character of a brave and generous nation, for the purpose (to give it the best construction) of gratifying the spleen of an individual, it becomes the duty of every friend to truth and justice, as far as lays in his power, to remove the injurious impression ,
Though extremely averse to political disputes, those reasons compel me to assert (in contradiction to Mr. Webster's repeated publications) that to my certain knowledge the British had no concern whatever in the death of the Rev. Mr. Caldwell, and that he was actually shot by an American sentinel or soldier, at Elizabeth Town Point, attempting to take a parcel of tea on shore from a flag of truce.
.“ The publication of this falsehood respecting Mr. Caldwell's death is perhaps more extensive than you are apprized of. In Mr. Webster's American Selection of Lessons to improve the minds and refine the taste of youth, as also to instruct thein in History and Politics, page 130, he informs the rising generation, that “in the summer of 1780, “ the British troops made frequent incursions “ from New York into the Jerseys, ravaging and « plundering the country. In some of these de“ scents, the Rev. Mr. Caldwell, a respectable “ clergyman, and warm patriot, and his lady, rs were inhumanely murdered by the savage sol66 diery.” How far this may refine the taste of the American youth, is not at present the question ; it is more in point to inquire, whether such publications, dictated under the influence of prejudice and ignorance, is likely to iinprove their minds, or make them sound politicians.
" The remoteness of my situation, and the busy occupation of a farmer, prevented me observing those late publications of Mr. Webster, and giving you this information sooner. You are at liberty to give my name to any person who has a right to demand it; for the same purpose, it is left at Messrs. M‘Lean and Lang's, and though an entire stranger to you and Mr. Webster, it is known to most of the gentlemen of New-York. July 18. “A FARMER OF WESTCHESTER,"