A Review and Exposition, of the Falsehoods and Misrepresentations, of a Pamphlet Addressed to the Republicans of the County of Saratoga, Signed, "A Citizen" — A Closer Reading

(0 User reviews)   270
In Category - Government
Elector Project Gutenberg 2005 Not confirmed
One of their fellow citizens. Defence, or, An apology for a majority of the Republican electors in the county of Saratoga; Young, Samuel, 1779-1850; Saratoga County (N.Y.) -- Politics and government Readers of public-domain and historical texts
Project Gutenberg digital edition en

Edition facts

Words 23,439
Reading time 102 min
Text sections 3

This digital edition of A Review and Exposition, of the Falsehoods and Misrepresentations, of a Pamphlet Addressed to the Republicans of the County of Saratoga, Signed, "A Citizen" — A Closer Reading is described by source-level measurements including 23,439 words, 1 hr 42 min estimated reading time, and 3 detected text sections.

The text analysis averages about 23.9 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.

Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Young, Samuel, 1779-1850,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.

An 1816 political pamphlet by 'Elector' systematically refutes 'A Citizen's' attack on Saratoga County Republicans, using sarcasm, certificates, and rhetorical questions to expose alleged falsehoods about Samuel Young's nomination and conduct.
Share
Editorial Edition Score 4.5/5

Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.

How this score is calculated
  • Description quality20 pts
  • Title & short description10 pts
  • Source metadata20 pts
  • Text length15 pts
  • Chapters / structure15 pts
  • EPUB file integrity20 pts

Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.

Edition quality

Read the Text

Young was not so popular as he had been.' On my asking him why, he replied, 'for his ill treatment to his colleagues, having grown haughty, &c.' This I understood him to have received directly from the said members, Messrs. Gardner, Cowles and Ketcham. In the spring of the same year, after Messrs. Palmer and Bunce had made known similar complaints, that the said three members had made to them of Young's treatment, I had another conversation with the said Prior on the subject, in which he the said Prior intimated, 'he did not believe the said members had told the said Palmer and Bunce what they had pretended.' I then asked him, if the members were not as likely to tell them of it, as himself, and repeated to the said Prior what he had told me in the winter, of the members having made the same complaint to him, which the said Prior did not pretend to deny as having heard from the members, nor having told me the same.--JOSEPH MITCHEL. _Dated, Greenfield, March 15, 1815_."

"I hereby certify, that in the early part of the winter past, I had a conversation with Isaac Myers of Stillwater, relative to the conduct of Richard Ketcham, late a member of the Legislature; when he the said Myers told me that _he knew_ the said Ketcham had _contradicted himself_, relative to what he had said of Mr. Young; that _previous_ to the McBain meeting, Ketcham had _denied_ to him, ever saying any thing _against_ Young, or complaining of his treatment; but that _afterwards_ he had _owned to several in his presence, that he had spoken against_ Young, &c.--ASA B. JEWEL. _Saratoga, March 25th 1816_."

Other affidavits and statements might be produced to the same effect but twelve or fourteen different conversations, at different times, and, in presence of different men are already proved upon them, all importing explicitly that Mr. Young had ill-treated or neglected them--and shewing a desire on their part that Mr. Young should not be sent to the Legislature the ensuing year. If then Mr. Young had an undoubted right to a seat in the legislature, which would perhaps be questionable upon republican ground, and was deprived of that right by "management and fraud," with whom did this system of corruption commence! and to whose account ought it to be placed? To that of his colleagues, or other men whom their misstatements and falsehoods had seduced? It may however, be very well to enquire whether these declarations were ever made use of to any purpose, and whether Mr. Young must have succeeded in his nomination, had these _free_ and _unreserved_ conversations of his colleagues, been kept entirely out of view; whether Palmer and Bunce, were alone in singling out the candidate who was nominated, or whether some other person or persons had not tho't of him even _before_ Palmer and Bunce went to Albany.

The pamphlet opens with a theatrical flourish, comparing the opponent's work to 'a maniac dancing in his chains' and invoking Iago to signal a tone of moral outrage and contempt. The author, writing as 'Elector,' immediately frames the dispute as a battle against 'concealment and treachery, falsehood and detraction,' establishing a combative, prosecutorial voice that persists throughout.

Rather than summarizing the entire controversy, the text zeroes in on a single 'loop'—the certificate of Ketcham, Gardner, and Cowles—as the weak point on which the opposing argument hangs. This narrowing of focus is a deliberate structural choice, allowing the author to dissect evidence piece by piece rather than engage in broad rebuttal.

Theatrical Framing and Moral Posture

The author's opening salvo borrows from stage drama, likening the opponent to Iago and describing the pamphlet as 'the last effort of an expiring faction.' This is not mere ornament; it sets up a binary of virtuous republicans versus a scheming, 'fiend-like' adversary. The language of 'contempt and pity' positions the reader as an enlightened judge, while the opponent is reduced to a 'maniac' or a dying object. Such framing recurs in later passages, where the author accuses 'The Citizen' of 'manufacturing assertions' and 'denying them' with theatrical cunning.

The moral posture is reinforced by the author's claim that he would have let the pamphlet 'sink into oblivion' had it not been for its 'lowest attempts at concealment.' This self-justification is a common rhetorical move in political polemics of the era, but here it is executed with unusual vividness, blending legalistic precision with emotional appeal.

Evidence Through Certificates and Cross-Examination

The text relies heavily on reprinted certificates from witnesses like Seth C. Baldwin Jr. and Jesup Raymond, which are presented as raw evidence. The author does not simply quote them; he frames them with sarcastic commentary. For instance, after Baldwin's certificate, he asks, 'Will you certify that you did not give a friendly hint…?' This direct address to the opponent mimics courtroom cross-examination, turning the pamphlet into a performative trial.

The certificates themselves are mundane—conversations about travel plans, job expectations—but the author treats them as damning. Raymond's certificate, for example, reports Young saying he could 'reside at the Springs' and do the Secretary's business 'by Deputy.' The author lets the certificate speak, then adds a fable reference ('Country maid, and her milk pail') to imply Young's overreaching ambition. This technique of juxtaposing dry testimony with literary allusion creates a layered argument that rewards close reading.

Rhetorical Questions and Shifting Pace

The author frequently breaks from exposition to pose pointed questions: 'Will you certify…?' 'At it again Merrill.' These interjections accelerate the pace, breaking the monotony of point-by-point rebuttal. They also simulate dialogue, giving the text a conversational, almost hectoring rhythm. The questions are not open-ended; they are traps designed to corner the opponent into silence or contradiction.

In contrast, the author occasionally slows down to dwell on a single accusation, such as the 'mansion house for the new secretary' query. Here, he notes the opponent's 'cautious silence,' using the pause to imply guilt. This alternation between rapid-fire interrogation and deliberate scrutiny controls the reader's attention, making the pamphlet feel less like a dry legal brief and more like a dramatic performance. The shifts in pace are a key feature of the author's persuasive strategy, keeping the argument dynamic despite its dense subject matter.

Readers should attend to how the author uses certificates not as neutral evidence but as props in a rhetorical performance. The interplay between quoted testimony and the author's sarcastic framing reveals a sophisticated understanding of persuasion. The pamphlet's value lies less in its historical accuracy than in its demonstration of early American political writing—a blend of legal argument, theatrical allusion, and personal invective that shaped public debate in the young republic.

Holding this 1816 pamphlet, I remembered my grandfather’s crumbling copy of Ulster’s Stand For Union, where margins held his pencil scratches. Both books felt like arguments frozen mid-breath—voices certain history would vindicate them. That same quiet ache of distant partisanship surfaced, a tenderness for people who believed their words could mend a fractured country. Ulster's Stand For Union — Reading Companion carries that weight gently, like old paper whispering its cause.

There are no reviews for this eBook.

0
0 out of 5 (0 User reviews )

Add a Review

Your Rating *
There are no comments for this eBook.

Reader reflection

Your personal reading reflection

Build a private reading journal entry for this title.

Your progress 0 / 10
1

What is your current status with this title?

2

Was reading this book enjoyable?

3

Would you encourage someone else to read it?

4

Did the language feel accessible?

Related eBooks