



Produced by Bryan Ness, Josephine Paolucci and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This
book was produced from scanned images of public domain
material from the Google Print project.)






[Illustration: REV. W. G. BROWNLOW.]




AMERICANISM CONTRASTED

WITH

Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy,

IN THE LIGHT OF

REASON, HISTORY, AND SCRIPTURE;

IN WHICH

CERTAIN DEMAGOGUES IN TENNESSEE, AND ELSEWHERE, ARE SHOWN UP IN THEIR
TRUE COLORS.

BY

WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW,

EDITOR OF "BROWNLOW'S KNOXVILLE WHIG."

        "----Go to your bloody rites again:
    Preach--perpetuate damnation in your den;
    Then let your altars, ye blasphemers, peal
    With thanks to Heaven, that let you loose again,
    To practice deeds with torturing fire and steel,
    No eye may search, no tongue may challenge or reveal!"

            THOMAS CAMPBELL.

Nashville, Tenn.:
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR.
1856.

ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by
WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW,
In the Clerk's office of the District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.




Dedication.


TO THE YOUNG MEN OF AMERICA.

YOUNG GENTLEMEN:--Almighty God has conferred on you the peculiar honor
and the eminent responsibility of preserving and perpetuating the
liberties of this country, both civil and religious. That the American
people are on the eve of an eventful period, will not be doubted by any
sane man, who can discern the "signs of the times." Indeed, it is an
every-day remark, that, as a nation, we are in the midst of a crisis.
If, however, a crisis ever did exist in the affairs of this Nation,
since its independence was first achieved, which called upon the NATIVE
AND LEGAL VOTERS of the country to watch with sleepless vigilance over
their blood-bought liberties, that crisis must be dated in the year of
our Lord, ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SIX! The great
Commonwealth of Humanity, in behalf of the momentous interests of Truth,
Liberty, and Religion, calls upon the present generation of YOUNG MEN,
who will have the issues of a coming revolution to meet, to qualify
themselves for the task.

There never was a time known, since the dark days of the Revolution,
when the civil and religious liberties of this country were so much
endangered as at the present time. This danger we are threatened with
from _Foreign influence_, and the rapid strides of _Romanism_, to which
we may add _Native treachery_, connived at, as they are, by certain
leading demagogues of the country, and a powerful and influential
political party, falsely called _Democrats_, who seek the Foreign and
Catholic vote, and are willing to obtain it at the expense of Liberty,
and the sacrifice of the Protestant Religion!

The great criminal of the nineteenth century, the PAPAL HIERARCHY, is
now on trial before the bar of public opinion, having been arraigned by
the AMERICAN PARTY. You are called on to decide, YOUNG MEN, as you wield
the balance of power, whether this Criminal, arraigned for treason
against God, and hostility to the human race, deserves the execrations
of all honest and patriotic men, and avenging judgments of a righteous
God! In order to decide this grave question, YOUNG _Gentlemen of the
Nineteenth Century_, you are to consider the inevitable tendency of the
principles of the Church of Rome--the actual results of these tendencies
as embodied in history--the indictment brought in by the AMERICAN PARTY,
and the testimony of the witnesses. When you have intelligently
considered the part the self-styled _Democratic Party_ has acted in this
infamous drama, you will feel it to be your duty to indict the
corporation claiming the right to be called the Great Democratic Party,
as _accessory_ to the treason, crimes, and infamy, of the aforesaid
Papal Hierarchy!

To you, then, Gentlemen, is this brief work most affectionately
inscribed by

     THE AUTHOR.




PREFACE.


For the last twenty-five years, the writer of this work has employed
much of his time in the reading and study of the controversy between
Roman Catholics and Protestants. And those who have been subscribers to
the paper he has edited and published for the LAST SEVENTEEN YEARS, will
bear him witness that he has kept up a fierce and unceasing fire against
that dangerous and immoral _Corporation_, claiming the right to be
called the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. This he has done, and still continues
to do, because he believes firmly that the system of Popery, as taught
in the standards of the Church of Rome, as enforced by her Bishops and
Priests, and as believed and practised by the great body of Romanists,
both in Europe and America, is at war with the true religion taught in
the Bible, and is injurious to the public and private morals of the
civilized world; and, if unchecked, will overturn the civil and
religious liberties of the United States. Such, he believes, is its
tendency and the design of its leaders.

Popery is deceitful in its character; and the design of this brief work
is, in part, to drag it forward into the light of the middle of the
nineteenth century, to strip the flimsy vizor off its face, and to bring
it, with all its abuses, corruptions, and hypocritical Protestant
advocates, before the bar of enlightened public opinion, for judgment in
the case. Roman Catholics misrepresent their own creed, their Church,
and its corrupt institutions. The most revolting, wicked, and immoral
features of their _holy and immutable system_, are kept out of sight by
its corrupt Clergy, and Jesuitical teachers; while, with a purpose to
_deceive_, a _Protestant sense_ is attached to most of their doctrines
and peculiarities. By this vile means, they designedly _misrepresent
themselves_, and impose on the public, by inducing charitable and
uninformed persons to believe that they are not as profligate as they
are represented to be. This game has been played with a bold hand in
_Knoxville_, for the last twelve months, and it is being played in every
city and town in the South and West, where Romanism is being planted.
One object, then, of this _epitomized_ work, setting forth the
boastings, threats, and disclosures of leading Catholic organs and
Bishops, as to their real principles and designs upon this country,
suffered to go forth in their more excited moments, or unguarded hours,
is, to spread before the people, in a cheap form, true Popery, and to
strip it of its _Protestant garb_, which it has for the time being
assumed.

An additional reason for bringing out this publication, at this
particular time, is, to expose a corrupt bargain entered into by the
leaders of the Catholic Church, and the leaders of a corrupt and
designing political party, falsely called the Democratic party. One of
the most alarming "signs of the times" is, that while Protestant
ministers, of different persuasions, only two brief years ago, could
preach with power and eloquence against the dogmas and corrupting
tendencies of _Romanism_, and pass out of the doors of their churches,
receiving the compliments and extravagant praises of their entire
congregations, let one of them now dare to hold up this Corporation as a
dangerous foreign enemy--let him warn his charge against the influence
of Popery, or but only designate the Catholic Hierarchy as the "man of
sin" described in the Scriptures, and one half of his congregation are
grossly insulted: they charge him with meddling in politics; and, by way
of resentment, they will either not hear him again, or they will starve
him out, by refusing to contribute to his support!

The hypocritical and profligate portion of the Methodist, Presbyterian,
Baptist, and Episcopal membership in this country, are not so much
misled by Popery, as they are influenced by _party politics_, and are in
love with the _loose moral code_ of Romanism. It lays no restraints on
their lusts, and gives a loose rein to all their unsanctified passions
and desires. Backslidden, unconverted, or unprincipled members of
Protestant Churches, find in Popery a _sympathizing irreligion_, adapted
to their vicious lives; and hence they fall in with its disgusting
superstitions and insulting claims. They are, therefore, ensnared with
the delusions of Popery, of _choice_. In other words, Popery is a
system of mere human policy; altogether of Foreign origin; Foreign in
its support; importing Foreign vassals and paupers by multiplied
thousands; and sending into every State and Territory in this Union, a
most baneful Foreign and anti-Republican influence. Its old _goutified_,
immoral, and drunken Pope, his Bishops and Priests, are _politicians_;
men of the world, earthly, sensual, and devilish, and mere men of
pleasure. Associated with them for the purpose, in great State and
National contests, of securing the Catholic vote, are the worst class of
American politicians, designing demagogues, selfish office-seekers, and
bad men, calling themselves _Democrats_ and "Old-Line Whigs!" These
politicians know that Popery, as a system, is in the hands of a Foreign
despotism, precisely what the Koran is in the hands of the Grand Turk
and his partisans. But corrupt and ambitious politicians in this
country, are willing to act the part of traitors to our laws and
Constitution, for the sake of profitable offices; and they are willing
to sacrifice the Protestant Religion, on the ancient and profligate
altar at Rome, if they may but rise to distinction on its ruins!

The great Democratic party of this country, which has degenerated into a
_Semi-Papal Organization_, for the base purposes of power and plunder,
now fully partakes of the intolerant spirit of Rome, and is acting it
out in all the departments of our State and General Governments. What
Romanism has been to the Old World, this Papal and Anti-American
organization seeks and promises to be to this country. What is Popery in
Roman Catholic Europe? It is as intolerant in politics as in religion:
it taxes and oppresses the subjects and citizens of every country; it
interdicts nations; dethrones governors, chief magistrates, and kings;
dissolves civil governments; suspends commerce; annuls civil laws; and,
to gratify its unsanctified lust of ambition, it has overrun whole
nations with bloodshed, and thrown them into confusion. So it is with
this "_Bogus_" Democracy: it wages a war of extermination against the
freedom of the press, and against the liberty of speech, the rights of
human conscience, and the liberties of man: hence its indiscriminate
proscription of all who dare to unite with the AMERICAN PARTY, or openly
espouse their cause. Popery aims at universal power over the bodies and
souls of all men; and history proclaims that its weapons have been
dungeons, racks, chains, fire, and sword! The _bastard_ Democracy of the
present age has united with the Prelates, Priests, Monks, and Nuns of
Romanism, and is daily affiliating with hundreds of thousands of the
very off-scourings of the European Catholic population--stimulating them
to deeds of violence, and to the shedding of blood! To-day, they sustain
a _Baker_ in the foul murder of a _Poole_, in New York, because he was a
member of the so-called Know-Nothing party, which had just routed, in an
election, this Foreign Locofoco party! To-morrow, we find this same vile
party, its editors and orators, sustaining a Foreign Catholic Mob in
Louisville, Ky.; and the members of the same party, in surrounding
States, exulting over the murder of Protestant Americans! And in the
next breath, as it were, we find these sons of Belial, falsely called
_Democrats_, after reaching the power they lusted after in Philadelphia,
sending up shouts over the lawless deeds of a Foreign Catholic riot,
which made the ears of every American citizen to tingle!

Under the guidance of an ALL-WISE PROVIDENCE, the Protector of our
Republic, and of the Protestant Religion, it is in the power of the free
and independent voters of these United States to cause this enemy's long
"_arm to be clean dried up, and his right eye to be utterly darkened_,"
by elevating to the two first offices within the gift of the world,
MILLARD FILLMORE and ANDREW J. DONELSON!

I am, candid Reader, your fellow-citizen,

     W. G. BROWNLOW.

     KNOXVILLE, July, 1856.


AMERICANISM CONTRASTED

WITH

Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy.




INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

     The Creed of the American Party--The Platform misrepresented by
     Mr. Watkins--Official Vote on the adoption of the new
     Platform--What the Abolitionists and Democrats say of the
     Platform--Seceders from the Nominating Convention, and their
     Address.


Lord Byron, just as the war of Greece approached, said: "It is not one
man, nor a million, but the _spirit of liberty_ which must be spread;"
and, carrying out the same bold idea of liberty, he continues, "It is
time to act;" or, in the language of the Know Nothing salutation, "It is
time for work;" for "what signifies _self_, if a single spark of that
genius of liberty worthy of the past, can be bequeathed unquenchably to
the future?" In the language of a fair poetess:

              --"Our country is a whole,
    Of which we all are parts; nor should a citizen
    Regard his interests as distinct from hers:
    No hopes or fears should touch his patriot soul,
    But what affects her honor or her shame."

The civilization--the nationality--the institutions, civil and
religious--and the mission of the United States, are all eminently
American. Mental light and personal independence, constitutional union,
national supremacy, submission to law and rules of order, homogeneous
population, and instinctive patriotism, are all vital elements of
American liberty, nationality, and upward and onward progress. Foreign
immigration, foreign Catholic influence, and sectional factions
nourished by them--and breeding demagogues in the name of _Democracy_,
by a prostitution of the elective franchise--have already corrupted our
nationality, degraded our councils, both State and National, weakened
the bonds of union, disturbed our country's peace, and awakened
apprehensions of insecurity and _progressive deterioration_, threatening
ultimate ruin! To rescue and restore American institutions--to maintain
American nationality, and to secure American birthrights, is the mission
and the sole purpose of the AMERICAN PARTY--composed of conservative,
patriotic, Protestant, Union-loving, native-born citizens of every
section, and of every Christian denomination--self-sacrificing patriots,
who prefer their country, and the religion of their fathers, and of the
Bible, to a factious name, a plundering political organization, and an
infamous Papal hierarchy!

The paramount and ultimate object of our AMERICAN ORGANIZATION is to
save and exalt the Union, and to preserve and perpetuate the rights and
blessings of the Protestant religion. We contend that American
principles should mould American policy; that American mind should rule
American destiny; that all sectional parties, such as a party _North_,
or a party _South_, should be renounced; that all sectional agitations,
such as are kept up by Abolitionists, Free Soilers, and Black
Republicans, should be resisted; that Congress should never agitate the
subject of domestic slavery, in any form or for any purpose, but leave
it where the Constitution fixes it; that as the destiny of the country
depends on the mind of the country, intelligence should rule; that the
ballot-box should be purified, and corrupt Romanism and foreign
influence checked; that any allegiance "to any foreign prince,
potentate, or power"--to any power, regal or pontifical, should be
rebuked as the most fatal canker of the germ of American independence;
that every citizen should be encouraged to exercise freely his own
conscience; and that the popular mind should be enlightened, and the
popular heart rectified, by proper and universal Christian education.
This is the essence of the American creed; and when methodized into a
Political Decalogue, it constitutes the _Ten Commandments_ of the
American party.

In this connection, and at this point, we will give the much-abused
Platform of the American party, adopted at the session of the National
Council, February 21, 1856. Examine the Platform, and answer to your
conscience the question: What true American head can disapprove--what
pure American heart can revolt? Can men taking their stand on this
Platform be the enemies of civil and religious liberties? Can either
civil or religious liberties rest secure on any other grounds? And must
not those "Bogus" Democrats and Anti-Americans, therefore, who wage war
against this citadel of American birthrights, act as enemies to the
Federal Constitution, enemies to the Union, to the mental independence
of American citizens--enemies to the Protestant religion, and enemies,
consequently, "to civil and religious liberty?"

     PLATFORM OF THE AMERICAN PARTY.

     1st. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being for his
     protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful
     Revolutionary struggle, and hitherto manifested to us, their
     descendants, in the preservation of the liberties, the
     independence, and the union of these States.

     2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of
     our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of
     American Independence.

     3d. _Americans must rule America_, and to this end,
     _native_-born citizens should be selected for all State,
     Federal, and municipal offices, or government employment, in
     preference to all others: nevertheless,

     4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily
     abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born
     citizens; but,

     5th. No person should be selected for political station,
     (whether of native or foreign birth,) who recognizes any
     allegiance or obligation of any description, to any foreign
     prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the
     Federal and State constitutions (each within its sphere) as
     paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

     6th. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the
     reserved rights of the several States, and the cultivation of
     harmony and fraternal good-will between the citizens of the
     several States; and to this end, non-interference by Congress
     with questions appertaining solely to the individual States,
     and non-intervention by each State with the affairs of any
     other State.

     7th. The recognition of the right of the native-born and
     naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing
     in any Territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws,
     and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own
     mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal
     Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union
     whenever they have the requisite population for one
     Representative in Congress. _Provided always_, that none but
     those who are citizens of the United States, under the
     constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence
     in any such Territory, ought to participate in the formation of
     the constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said
     Territory or State.

     8th. An enforcement of the principle that no State or Territory
     ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the
     right of suffrage, or of holding political office.

     9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued
     residence of twenty-one years, of all not hereinbefore provided
     for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and
     excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from
     landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested
     rights of foreigners.

     10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State: no
     interference with religious faith or worship, and no test-oaths
     for office.

     11th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged
     abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public
     expenditures.

     12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws
     constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or
     shall be declared null and void by competent judicial
     authority.

     13th. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the
     present administration in the general management of our
     national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing
     "Americans" (by designation) and conservatives in principle,
     from office, and placing foreigners and ultraists in their
     places: as shown in a truckling subserviency to the stronger,
     and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward the weaker powers:
     as shown in reoepening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the
     Missouri Compromise: as shown in granting to unnaturalized
     foreigners the right of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska: as
     shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas and Nebraska
     question: as shown in the corruptions which pervade some of the
     departments of the government: as shown in disgracing
     meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice; and as
     shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations.

     14th. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the
     disastrous consequences otherwise resulting therefrom, we would
     build up the "American party" upon the principles hereinbefore
     stated.

     15th. That each State Council shall have authority to amend
     their several constitutions, so as to abolish the several
     degrees, and institute a pledge of honor, instead of other
     obligations, for fellowship and admission into the party.

     16th. A free and open discussion of all political principles
     embraced in our platform.

The HON. MR. WATKINS, a renegade from the American ranks, in East
Tennessee, delivered a speech in Congress on the 6th of May, 1856; which
speech we find reported in the _Washington Union_--a speech which
betrays an utter ignorance of the point he undertook to discuss. It is
due to _his betrayed constituents_ that we should expose his ignorance,
and the blundering fallacy of his attempts to justify his turning
_Locofoco Cataline Judas Sag-Nicht_! He says, as reported by his
political organ-grinder:

     "But, sir, the platform recently adopted by the Philadelphia
     Convention cannot receive my approbation. I cannot support Mr.
     Fillmore, or any other distinguished Whig, upon that platform.
     The only solitary plank in the Philadelphia platform of June,
     1855, was the twelfth section--that section which denied to
     Congress the right to interfere with slavery in the
     Territories, declaring the doctrine of non-intervention, and of
     popular sovereignty in the Territories. But, sir, that plank in
     the platform was stricken out by the convention recently held,
     and the sixth resolution of the platform then adopted
     substituted in its place. And what does that resolution
     endorse? Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution
     of the Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right
     of Congress to interfere upon the subject of slavery in the
     sixth resolution of the Philadelphia platform? Certainly not."

In lieu of the _June_ platform, we have this _February_ platform. The
June platform contained _no such denial to Congress_, as is here alleged
by Mr. Watkins, of the right to interfere with slavery in the
Territories! And it is marvellous, indeed, that a grave Member of
Congress should undertake to discuss Platforms, which he had either
never read, or the purport of which, if he had ever read them, he had
either wholly forgotten, or lacked the sense to comprehend! The twelfth
section of the June Platform says:

     "And expressly _pretermitting any expression of opinion_ upon
     the power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any
     Territory, it is the sense of this National Council, that
     Congress OUGHT NOT to legislate upon the subject of slavery
     within the Territories of the United States."

Thus, instead of _denying_ to Congress the right to interfere with
slavery in the Territories, as erroneously and recklessly charged by
this new-born Democrat, all opinion on that subject was "_expressly
pretermitted_" in the June Platform! Mr. Watkins was in such a hurry to
join the Forney, Pierce, and Catholic Democracy, that he did not stop to
examine even the Platform which most disgusted him! But this is not the
worst blunder which he committed in that speech. He turned to the new
Platform, and asked, with an air of triumph:

     "Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution of the
     (new) Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right
     of Congress to interfere with the subject of slavery in the
     sixth resolution of the (new) Philadelphia platform?"

And he answers, "_Certainly not!_" The ignorant man, it would seem, only
read as far as to the sixth section of the new Platform; and even _that_
section contains a direct affirmative answer to his question; which, in
order to place the American party in a false position, he answers,
"_Certainly not!_"

Now, we ask such as may have noticed his _misrepresentations_, to read a
_little further on_, at least to the end of the 7th section of this new
Platform, and see where it leaves Mr. Watkins! Turn back to the 7th
section, and it will be seen that this section, instead of
"_pretermitting any opinion_" on the question, announces the doctrine
that the citizens of the United States permanently residing in the
Territories, have a "_right_" to frame their Constitution and laws, and
to regulate their domestic affairs in their own mode, subject only to
the provisions of the Federal Constitution!

The _New York Evening Post_, a Pierce and foreign Democratic organ, thus
alludes to the action of the Convention which nominated FILLMORE and
DONELSON:--

     "The 12th section of the June Platform, it is true, had been
     abrogated; BUT IT HAD BEEN REPLACED BY ANOTHER, MEANING
     PRECISELY THE SAME THING!"

The _Cincinnati Gazette_, an Abolition, Anti-American Foreign sheet,
came out in opposition to the American nominees, in its issue of Feb.
29th, 1856, on account of the _Pro-slavery_ character of the new
Platform. The Gazette says:--

     "We are glad that the action of the Convention _proved so
     decided as to leave no doubt as to the character of the
     Platform_. THE LATTER IS CLEARLY AND DECIDEDLY PRO-SLAVERY AND
     NEBRASKA, _and in this respect corresponds precisely with the_
     PRINCIPLES OF THE PIERCE DEMOCRACY! _Fillmore and Donelson_ are
     therefore presented to the American people as candidates for
     the Presidency and Vice Presidency, ON A THOROUGH AND DECIDED
     NEBRASKA PRO-SLAVERY PLATFORM, and the citizens of Northern
     States are asked to vote for them!"

The _New York Tribune_, whose editor was a prominent member of the
Pittsburgh Black Republican Convention, and who is violent in his
opposition to FILLMORE and DONELSON, says:

     "The object of the Know Nothings has dwindled down to this--TO
     DEFEAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! That is to say, this is the object
     of those who have managed the Philadelphia Convention, and
     nominated Mr. Fillmore. I have diligently inquired for a member
     who voted for _Banks_ for Speaker, and now supports _Fillmore_;
     but up to this time--more than three days after the
     nomination--I have not heard of one. That sort must be scarce!"

The following is the OFFICIAL vote on the adoption of the new Platform
by the National Council, which met four days previous to the Nominating
Convention:

     NEW HAMPSHIRE--_Nays_--Messrs. Colby and Emery.

     MASSACHUSETTS--_Yeas_--Messrs. Ely, Weith, Brewster, Robinson,
     and Arnold. _Nays_--Messrs. Richmond, Wheelwright, Temple,
     Thurston, Sumner, Allen, Sawin, and Hawkes.

     CONNECTICUT--_Nays_--Messrs. Sperry, Dunbar, Peck, Booth,
     Holley, and Perkins.

     RHODE ISLAND--_Yeas_--Messrs. Chase and Knight. _Nays_--Messrs.
     Simons and Nightingale.

     NEW YORK--_Yeas_--Messrs. Walker, Oakley, Morgan, Woodward,
     Reynolds, Chester, Owens, Sanders, Whiston, Nichols, Van Dusen,
     Westbrook, Parsons, Picket, Campbell, Lowell, Sammons, Oakes,
     Seymour, Squire, Cooper, Burr, Bennett, Marvine, Midler,
     Stephens, Johnson, Wetmore, Hammond, and S. Seymour. _Nay_--Mr.
     Barker.

     DELAWARE--_Yeas_--Messrs. Clement and Smithers.

     MARYLAND--_Yeas_--Messrs. Codet, Alexander, Winchester,
     Stephens, and Wilmot. _Nays_--Messrs. Purnell, Ricaud, Pinkney,
     and Kramer.

     VIRGINIA--_Nays_--Messrs. Bolling, McHugh, Cochran, Boteler,
     Preston, and Maupin.

     FLORIDA--_Yea_--Mr. Call.

     NEW JERSEY--_Yeas_--Messrs. Deshler, Weeks, Lyon, and
     McClellan.

     PENNSYLVANIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Freeman, Nelclede, Gossler,
     Smith, Gillinham, Hammond, Wood, Gilford, Pyle, Farrand, and
     Williamson. _Nays_--Messrs. Johnson, Sewell, Jones, Parker,
     Heistand, Kase, Kinkaid, Coffee, Carlisle, Crovode, Edie,
     Sewell, and Power.

     LOUISIANA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Lathrop and Elam. _Nays_--Messrs.
     Harman and Hardy.

     CALIFORNIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Wood and Stanley.

     ARKANSAS--_Yea_--Mr. Logan. _Nay_--Mr. Fowler.

     TENNESSEE--_Yeas_--Messrs. Brownlow, Bankhead, Zollicoffer,
     Burton, Campbell, Donelson, Harris, Bilbo, and Beloat.
     _Nays_--Messrs. Nelson, Reedy, and Picket.

     KENTUCKY--_Yeas_--Messrs. Stowers, Campbell, Raphael, Todd,
     Clay, Goodloe, and Bartlett. _Nays_--Messrs. Shanklin, Jones,
     Carpenter, Gist, and Underwood.

     OHIO--_Yeas_--Messrs. White, Nash, Simpson, and Lippett.
     _Nays_--Messrs. Gabriel, Olds, Ford, Barker, Potter, Stanbaugh,
     Rodgers, Spooner, Hodges, Kyle, Lees, Swigart, Allison,
     Fishback, Thomas, Corwine, Chapman, Ayres, and Johnson.

     INDIANA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Sheets and Phelps. _Nay_--Mr.
     Meredith.

     MISSOURI--_Yeas_--Messrs. Edward, Fletcher, and Hockaday.
     _Nay_--Mr. Breckenridge.

     MICHIGAN--_Yea_--Mr. Wood.

     WISCONSIN--_Yeas_--Messrs. Lockwood, Cook, Chandler, and
     Gillies.

     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Ellis and Evans.

     ILLINOIS--_Yeas_--Messrs. Danenhower and Allen. _Nays_--Messrs.
     Jennings and Gear.

     IOWA--_Nays_--Messrs. Webster and Thorrington.

     _Yeas_--108. _Nays_--77.

We will close this chapter by giving the delegates who seceded from the
Nominating Convention, with the Address published by them on the
occasion. That recession was a more inconsiderable affair than has been
represented by the foreign party of this country. The author of this
work was the Chairman of the large Committee on Credentials, and
reported TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SEVEN delegates, which report was
received without opposition, as to numbers. Of these, _forty-two_ only
seceded, viz.: 13 out of 28 from Ohio; _one_ of two from New Hampshire;
6--all--from Connecticut; 2 out of 13 from Massachusetts; _one_ out of 3
from Illinois; 7 out of 27 from Pennsylvania; _one_ out of 4 from Rhode
Island; 5--all--from Michigan; 5--all--from Wisconsin; _one_--all--from
Iowa; 42 out of 277--not a _sixth_, and but little over a _seventh_ of
the whole!


ADDRESS.

The seceders or "bolters" made the following address, to which they
appended their States and names. What they say of the _Louisiana_
delegates, we have explained in another portion of this work:

     "The undersigned, delegates to the nominating Convention now in
     session at Philadelphia, find themselves compelled to dissent
     from the principles avowed by that body; and holding opinions,
     as they do, that the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, as
     demanded by a majority of the whole people, is a redress of an
     undeniable wrong, and the execution of it, in spirit at least,
     indispensable to the repose of the country, they have regarded
     the refusal of that Convention to recognize the well-defined
     opinion of the country, and of the Americans of the free
     States, upon this question, as a denial of their rights and a
     rebuke to their sentiments; and they hold that the admission
     into the National Council and nominating Convention, of
     delegates from Louisiana, representing a Roman Catholic
     Constituency, absolved every true American from all obligations
     to sustain the action of either of the said bodies.

     "They have therefore withdrawn from the nominating Convention,
     refusing to participate in the proposed nomination, and now
     address themselves to the Americans of the country, and
     especially of the States they represent, to justify and approve
     of their action; and to the end that a nomination conforming to
     the overruling sentiment of the country in the great issue may
     be regularly and auspiciously made, the undersigned propose to
     the Americans in all the States to assemble in their several
     State organizations, and elect delegates to a Convention to
     meet in the city of New York, on Thursday, the 12th day of June
     next, for the purpose of nominating candidates for President
     and Vice President of the United States."

     OHIO--Thos. H. Ford, J. H. Baker, B. S. Kyle, W. H. C.
     Mitchell, E. T. Sturtevant, O. T. Fishback, Jacob Ebbert, Wm.
     B. Allison, H. C. Hodges, L. H. Olds, W. B. Chapman, Thos.
     McYees, Charles Nichols.

     NEW HAMPSHIRE--Anthony Colby.

     CONNECTICUT--Lucius G. Peck, Jas. E. Dunham, Hezekiah Griswold,
     Austin Baldwin, Edmund Perkins, David Booth.

     MASSACHUSETTS--Wild. S. Thurston, Z. R. Pangborn.

     ILLINOIS--Henry S. Jennings.

     PENNSYLVANIA--Wm. F. Johnston, S. C. Kase, R. M. Riddle, T. J.
     Coffey, John Williamson, J. Harrison, S. Ewell.

     RHODE ISLAND--E. J. Nightingale.

     MICHIGAN--S. T. Lyon, W. Fuller, W. S. Wood, P. P. Meddler, J.
     Hamilton.

     WISCONSIN--D. A. Gillis, John Lockwood, Robt. Chandler, G.
     Burdick, C. W. Cook.

     IOWA--L. H. Webster.


THE ELECTION OF BANKS--THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

One of the issues in the Presidential contest now going on, is the
_slavery question_. A. O. P. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, of the Washington
Union, who canvassed this State in opposition to Scott, and shed his
_crocodile_ tears before every crowd he addressed, because so good a man
as Fillmore, who had stood firm for the _rights of the South_, had been
set aside by an ungrateful Convention at Baltimore, to give place to
Scott, the favorite of _Seward_--this miserable hypocrite, we say, now
comes out and says, "Fillmore's abolitionism will suit the North."

The Central Democratic Committee for East Tennessee, in a call for a
District Convention at Clinton, in May last, through the _Knoxville
Standard_, conclude said call in this language:

     "The time has again arrived when the national Democracy must
     rally to their country's call and preserve the Constitution as
     it is in its purity, and perpetuate the union of the States
     from the rain which the _Black Republican Party of the North_,
     aided by THEIR KNOW-NOTHING ALLIES OF THE SOUTH, would bring
     upon them. By order of the

     "CENTRAL COMMITTEE."

The _Sag-Nicht Convention_ held at Somerville, on Thursday the 8th of
May, and which selected D. M. Currin as their Electoral candidate,
adopted the following resolution:

     "_Resolved_, That we have been appointed by the Democracy of
     this Electoral District to organize to fight, in the coming
     Presidential election, the BLACK REPUBLICANS AND KNOW-NOTHINGS.
     _Resolved_, That we _can_ beat them, and we _will_ do it.
     _Resolved_, That we will cordially receive the _co-operation of
     all Old-Line Whigs_ who will assist us in carrying out these
     resolutions."

Now, the charge is here made that the Know-Nothings of the South are the
allies of the Black Republicans of the North. This is the impression
intended to be made, first by these _concealed calumniators_ at
Knoxville, and afterwards by the _open and avowed slanderers_ of the
same party at Somerville! With such _wholesale lying_ as is displayed in
both of these cases, we have but little patience: we only give their
language, to show their recklessness in making such an issue. And
although this Foreign party claim to be the guardians of Southern
interests, we propose to show, before we conclude this chapter, that
they are themselves the "allies of the Black Republicans of the North,"
and are giving them more "aid and comfort" than all the other parties in
the country!

FRANCIS P. BLAIR, former editor of Gen. Jackson's organ at Washington,
was the President of the Black Republican Convention at Pittsburg, in
February last! _John M. Niles_; Democratic Senator in Congress, was
President of the Black Republican Convention held in Connecticut! In the
Pittsburg Convention, over which Blair presided, PRESTON KING, ABIJAH
MANN, DAVID WILMOT, and JACOB BRINKERHOFF, Old-Line Democrats, figured
conspicuously.

For two long and cold winter months, the Democrats, both North and
South, voted for _Richardson_, of Illinois, for Speaker, a violent
_anti-slavery man_, whose speeches _against_ slavery, and in _favor_ of
Abolitionism, were matters of record in the Congressional Globe, and
were delivered on the floor of Congress so late as 1850! The _immortal_
75 Democrats did not cease to vote for this man _Richardson_, until GEN.
ZOLLICOFFER, of Tennessee, read his speeches upon him, in the presence
of his friends!

On the 2d of February, SAMUEL A. SMITH, of Tennessee, a Democratic
Representative in Congress, _renewed_ his motion to adopt the PLURALITY
RULE. His proposition, which it was evident would elect _Banks_, was
carried by Black Republican votes, who went for it in a body. This would
still not have elected _Banks_, but for the fact that the following
_Democrats_ voted for the odious plurality rule: _Clingman_, _Herbert_,
_Hickman_, _Jewett_, _Kelley_, _Barclay_, _Bayard_, _Wells_, _Williams_,
and SAMUEL A. SMITH! Mr. Clarke was the only American who voted for the
odious rule!

MR. CARLILE, a national American, of Virginia, before the vote was taken
upon this plurality rule, offered the following substitute for it:

     "_Resolved_, That the HON. WM. AIKEN, a Representative from the
     State of South Carolina, be, and he is hereby declared Speaker
     of the Thirty-Fourth Congress."

GOV. AIKEN is a sound Southern Democrat--never was any thing else--but
COL. SMITH _objected_, and demanded the _previous question_, which cut
off MR. CARLILE'S resolution, and which was to prevent its adoption! The
candidate of the Democratic party, at that time, MR. ORR, immediately
_withdrew in favor of_ GOV. AIKEN, upon the introduction of MR.
CARLILE'S resolution; and to _prevent Aiken's election_, SAMUEL A. SMITH
cut off said resolution by a call of the previous question!

Banks was elected by _one_ vote, and this could not be accomplished
until SEVEN DEMOCRATS got _behind the bar_, and refused to vote at all!
These were HICKMAN, PARKER, and BARCLAY, of Pennsylvania; CRAIG, of
North Carolina; TAYLOR, of Louisiana; RICHARDSON, of Illinois; and
SEWARD, of Georgia! Any _two_ of these _Southern_ Democrats could have
made AIKEN Speaker, but they did not want him--they knew Banks to be a
_Democrat_, if he were a Black Republican--and to elect him, they
believed would give them the strength of that odious party in the coming
contest.

We have before us the _Washington Union_ of Sept. 27th, 1853, giving,
editorially, a glowing account of the Massachusetts Democratic State
Convention, reporting the speech of Nathaniel P. Banks, of Waltham,
concluding that report in these words:

     "Mr. Banks emphatically and decidedly, on his own part, and on
     that of the _Democrats of Massachusetts_, disclaimed the truth
     of the rumors in certain newspapers that an arrangement had
     been entered into with another political party in the
     Commonwealth concerning the distribution of State offices. It
     was his and this Convention's and all true Democrats' desire,
     belief, and determination, that Henry W. Bishop should be
     elected governor of Massachusetts, and that the other
     Democratic State officers should also be elected. He was not
     afraid of defeat, and less afraid of _Whig success_, which, to
     judge by its recent effects, was simply equivalent to a defeat.
     [Applause.]"

It may be said, and doubtless will be, that _Banks_ has allied himself
with the Republicans. But Banks says he has _always been a Democrat_,
and that he was _nominated as a Democrat in his district_. And certain
it is, that he was elected Speaker by DEMOCRATS, under the _compulsion_
of an odious plurality rule, and the _gag_ of the previous question!

It will be said, and said truthfully too, that SIX AMERICANS FROM THE
NORTH voted for MR. FULLER, of Pennsylvania. So they did; and in doing
so, they voted for a sound national and conservative man. But did this
justify _Southern_ Democrats in _dodging_ the question, and thereby
electing a Black Republican Speaker? Gov. Aiken was the candidate of the
_seven_ Democrats--he was not the candidate of the _six_ Americans!
Democracy, moreover, had refused to vote for an American under any
circumstances, and had, on the first day of the meeting of Congress,
passed a resolution insulting the whole American party, in caucus! We
would have seen them banished to the farthest verge of astronomical
imagination, before we would have voted for any man that favored that
insulting resolution!

In 1847, by a _unanimous vote_, both branches of the Legislature of New
Hampshire adopted resolutions denunciatory of the institution of
slavery, and approving of the Wilmot Proviso. These resolutions were
reported to the House, by the Representative from Hillsboro, the native
town of _Gen. Pierce_, and were in the _handwriting_ of Pierce!

On the 2d of October, 1847, the Democratic Soft-Shells, who are now the
supporters of Pierce's administration, and fill the offices he has to
dispose of in New York, held a State Convention, and declared their
"_uncompromising hostility to slavery_" in a string of resolutions they
adopted and ordered to be published.

On the 16th of February, 1848, a Democratic State Convention for New
York convened at Utica, to appoint Delegates to the National Convention
to nominate candidates for President and Vice President, at which a
string of anti-Southern resolutions were adopted, denouncing "_slavery_
or _involuntary servitude_," as repugnant to the genius of
Republicanism.

On the 18th of July, 1848, the Democratic Soft-Shells held a
mass-meeting in the park of New York, and, by way of making perfect
their organization against General Cass, declared, by resolutions, their
"_uncompromising hostility to slavery or involuntary servitude!_"

On the 13th of September, 1848, a Democratic mass-meeting convened at
Buffalo, in New York, and, in a general Abolition jubilee, adopted
resolutions condemning and denouncing the institution of slavery!

In 1852, while the contest was going on between Pierce and Scott, the
_Washington Union_ said, editorially:

     "THE FREE-SOIL DEMOCRATIC LEADERS OF THE NORTH, ARE A REGULAR
     PORTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY; AND GENERAL PIERCE, IF
     ELECTED, WILL MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM AND THE REST OF
     THE DEMOCRACY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICIAL PATRONAGE, AND IN
     THE SELECTION OF AGENTS FOR ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT!"

The Black Republicans recently held a meeting in New York, at which
_Benjamin F. Butler_, of "pious memory," and Van Buren Swartwout
notoriety, presided! On his right hand sat, as Vice President of the
meeting, _Moses H. Grinnell_, one of the Democratic "pipe-layers" of
1840, whom this Van Buren Attorney-General Butler made efforts to send
to the State prison! Another Vice President, gravely looking on, and
arranged in dignified grandeur upon the stand, was John W. Edmonds,
ex-"blanket contractor" in a large swindle, and a practical
spiritual-rapper! A third and last Vice President was the notorious _Dr.
Townsend_, the sarsaparilla man, who has not yet wound up his
controversy with a man of the same name, as to who is the greatest
rascal in the way of manufacturing this medicine!

Among the other officers, secretaries, and prominent men in the meeting,
was _C. A. Dana_, of the Tribune office, a _Fourierist_, who, at a
public meeting on a former occasion, toasted "Horace Greeley, Charles
Fourier, and Jesus Christ!" Prominent in the meeting was _C. A.
Stetson_, of the Astor House, an _Amalgamationist_. Henry J. Raymond,
the Abolition editor of the Times, and _Rudolph Garrigue_, a noisy
German Abolitionist, looked and acted as though they believed the
salvation of the Union depended upon the success of the Republicans! A
fellow who made frequent motions, an Irishman by the name of _McMorrow_,
had served an apprenticeship of twelve months in the State prison, for
breaking open a store after night! The principal speaker, who spoke for
two hours on the subject of slavery, was the notorious _Bingham_, an
itinerant Abolitionist from Ohio. It was a queer medley of men, parties,
principles, and characters--two-thirds of all the active partisans in
the meeting having held offices in the ranks of Democracy! And still,
that party boasts of its Northern wing being sound upon the slavery
question.

And here is the resolution of the 8th of January _Democratic_ Convention
in Ohio, appointing delegates to the Cincinnati Pow-wow:

     "_Resolved_, That the people of Ohio now, as they have always
     done, look upon slavery as an evil, and unfavorable to the
     development of the spirit and practical benefits of free
     institutions; and that, entertaining these sentiments, they
     will at all times feel it to be their duty to use all power
     clearly given by the terms of the national compact, to prevent
     its increase, to mitigate, _and finally eradicate the evil_."

To show, just here, where Tennessee Democrats stand upon the infamous
Wilmot Proviso question, we give the following extract from a recent
number of the _Nashville Patriot_:

     JAMES K. POLK,

     who, in 1847, approved the Oregon bill, which contained this
     odious and unconstitutional clause: next in order is

     CAVE JOHNSON,

     now President of the Bank of Tennessee, who voted for the same
     bill which Mr. Polk sanctioned: next we have

     AARON V. BROWN,

     an aspirant before the Cincinnati Convention, who did likewise:
     then comes

     JULIUS W. BLACKWELL,

     a star whose light has been quenched in obscurity, but who
     voted with his colleagues for the Oregon bill in '47: next in
     the procession of Southern men "dangerous to the South" is

     BARCLAY MARTIN,

     President Pierce's U. S. Mail Agent, who cast a similar vote:
     following him we have

     LUCIEN B. CHASE,

     author of the History of the Polk Administration, at present a
     resident of New York city, but at the time he exhibited himself
     as "a dangerous man to the South," a representative in Congress
     from this State: he is succeeded by

     FRED. P. STANTON,

     for ten years a Democratic Congressman from the Memphis
     district: he voted for the Oregon bill, with the Wilmot
     Proviso annexed: behind him in the march is

     ALVAN CULLOM,

     a Democratic Congressman, who has squatted on the _other_ side
     of one of his native mountains in the fourth district, and been
     quiescent for some years: he was one of the Tennessee
     "dangerous men:" he voted twice for the Wilmot Proviso: in the
     same category is

     GEORGE W. JONES,

     in the language of another, the "goose which cackles at the
     door of the Treasury vault:" notorious as a Southern supporter
     of the Squatter Sovereignty doctrine, with two votes on record
     in favor of the Wilmot Proviso. He may be reckoned as _very_
     "dangerous to the South:" last, but not least in this dread
     array of "dangerous men," is

     ANDREW JOHNSON,

     the present Governor of Tennessee, and Cincinnati aspirant: he
     voted _three_ times for the Wilmot Proviso, and so doubtful are
     his doctrines on the slavery question, that many slaveholding
     members of his own party regard him as _extremely_ "dangerous
     to the South."

By the way, in 1842, this same _Gov. Johnson_ was a Senator in our State
Legislature, and introduced the following _Abolition_ resolutions,
commonly called his _White Basis System_:

     "_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee_,
     That the basis to be observed in laying the State off into
     Congressional districts shall be the voting population, WITHOUT
     ANY REGARD TO THREE-FIFTHS OF THE <DW64> POPULATION.

     "_Resolved_, That the 120,083 qualified voters shall be divided
     by eleven, and that each eleventh of the 120,083 of qualified
     voters shall be entitled to elect one member in the Congress of
     the United States, or so near as may be practicable without a
     division of counties."

The position of Gov. Johnson is this: he wishes the State entitled to
her slave representation _as a State_, but _in her own borders_ the
representative districts are to be made according to her white
population! In other words, he desires the State to retain her _ten_
Congressmen, representing both her white and slave population, but
wishes them appointed throughout the State without regard to the slave
population: so that the county containing ten thousand white
inhabitants, and double that number of slaves, should be entitled to no
more representation than the county containing _ten_ thousand white
inhabitants and no slaves!

We heard Johnson last summer, in his debate with Gentry, in Campbell
county, contend that the county of Campbell should have the same
representation in Congress as the county of Shelby, which he stated had
FIFTEEN THOUSAND <DW64>s! He appealed to the prejudices and passions of
the poor--inquired of the hard working-men of that county how they liked
to see their wives and daughters _offset_, in enumerating the strength
of the county, by the "_greasy <DW64> wenches of Shelby, Davidson,
Fayette, Sumner and Rutherford counties_." He made a real, stirring
abolition appeal to the poor, and non-slaveholding portion of the crowd,
which was in the proportion of _ten to one_ of that county, to array
them against the rich, and especially against the owners of large
numbers of slaves. He told them that these <DW64> wenches belonged to the
lordly slaveholders of Middle and West Tennessee, and that as our
Constitution now is, these wenches were placed on an _equality_ with the
fair daughters and virtuous wives of laboring men. On this ground he
advocated his infamous amendment to the Constitution, which would
incorporate his "White Basis" scheme!

This is a rank Abolition measure, and fraught with more danger to the
South than any thing proposed by the whole brood of Abolitionists, Free
Soilers, and Black Republicans at the North. Already the South is weak
enough, and not at all able to vote with the North in our National
Legislature. The effect of this scheme is to deprive the South of
one-third of her strength in Congress. Not only is this the effect, but
it is the design of the mover. We hold that Johnson is a Free Soiler,
and has been for years. It is stated by his Northern Democratic friends,
that when he quit Congress, he came home to run for Governor--with a
determination, if defeated, to remove to some of the Northwestern
States, and take a new start! Had he been defeated by Maj. Henry in
1853, he would now be a Black Republican in one of the Free States,
running for office! And yet the propagator of this infamous Abolition
doctrine of a "White Basis" representation--this demagogue who arrays
the poor against slaveholders, is the man for the ultra guardians of the
slave interests of the South! A man who would not own <DW64>s when he
could, but loaned his money out at interest, and left his wife and
daughters to do their own work--a man who is at heart and in his
doctrines a rank Free Soiler--a man who has only remained in the South
to _experiment_ upon office-seeking! This is the man that Georgia,
Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, and Carolinas, rejoiced to see elected
Governor of a Southern slave State!

It was seeing the position of Johnson on this question that induced the
"_Democratic Herald_" in Ohio, in June, 1855, thus to notice our race
for Governor:

     "TENNESSEE.--An animated contest is going on in this good old
     Democratic State for Governor, and the largest crowds flock to
     hear the candidates that ever attended political meetings since
     the Hero of New Orleans used to address the masses in person.
     The present incumbent, Andrew Johnson, is the Democratic
     candidate, and a _Mr. Gentry_, a _pro-slavery_ renegade from
     the Federal Whig ranks, is the opposing candidate, brought out
     by a Know Nothing conclave. This man is on the stump abusing
     the Catholics, and denouncing them for their tyranny, while he
     openly advocates the _slavery doctrines of Southern Niggerdom_!
     On the other hand, his competitor, Gov. Johnson, well and
     favorably known to our leading Democrats of Ohio, HAS NO
     SYMPATHIES WITH SLAVERY, and is the advocate of such amendments
     to the Federal Constitution as will give all power to the
     people, and EFFECTUALLY PUT DOWN THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY!"

Now, this showing up of Democracy, on the Slavery question, may look
_shabby_ to many ultra Southern men, and it may induce them to charge
that the Democratic party are _inconsistent_. We defend them against the
charge of _inconsistency_, and maintain that what would be called
_inconsistency_ here, is nothing but _Democracy_. For instance, A. O. P.
Q. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, the editor of the great official organ of
Democracy at Washington, said, editorially, and "by authority," so late
as 1855:

     "IT IS NO PART OF THE CREED OF A DEMOCRAT, AS SUCH, TO ADVOCATE
     OR OPPOSE THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY. HE MAY DO THE ONE OR THE
     OTHER, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN, AND NOT
     OFFEND AGAINST HIS DEMOCRATIC FEALTY!"

Precisely so! A man may advocate the _abolition_ of slavery where it
exists; he may, as a Black Republican, arm himself with Sharpe's rifle,
and go into Kansas, and shoot down pro-slavery men, and still be a
consistent Democrat, if he vote for the party, and stand by the nominees
of the party conventions! Hence, all the factions at home and from
abroad--all religions--all the ends and odds of God's creation are now
associated together, and are battling in the same unholy cause, in the
name of _Democracy_!

And further to exhibit the inconsistency of this Democratic and Foreign
party, it will be recollected that, in 1844, they nominated SILAS
WRIGHT, of New York, for Vice-President, to run on the ticket with COL.
POLK--a position he declined, because he would not agree to be _second
best_ on the ticket. In a letter to JAMES H. TITUS, ESQ., bearing date
April 15, 1847, MR. WRIGHT says:

     "If the question had been propounded to me at any period of my
     public life, Shall the arms of the Union be employed to
     conquer, or the money of the Union be used to purchase
     Territory now constitutionally free, for the purpose of
     planting Slavery upon it, I should have answered, No! And this
     answer to this question is the Wilmot Proviso, as I understand
     it. _I am surprised that any one should suppose me capable of
     entertaining any other opinion, or giving any other answer as
     to such a proposition._"

Now, if SILAS WRIGHT, one of the great "Northern lights" of Democracy,
held these sentiments in 1847, what must they have been in 1844, when
that party sought to elevate him to the second office within the gift of
the nation? But we are just reminded of what is said in "the law and the
prophets," that is to say, "_It is no part of the creed of a Democrat_,
AS SUCH, _to advocate or oppose the extension of slavery!_" What a
party!




[From the Knoxville Whig for Sept. 22, 1855.]

TO REV. A. B. LONGSTREET,

PROFESSOR OF METHODISM, ROMANISM, AND LOCOFOCOISM.


REVEREND SIR:--I see a _pastoral address_ of yours, to "Methodist
Know-Nothing Preachers," going the rounds of the Locofoco Foreign Sag
Nicht papers of the South, occupying from four to six columns, according
to the dimensions of the papers copying. I have waded through your
learned address, and find it to be one of more ponderous magnitude than
the Report made to the British House of Commons, by Lord North, on a
subject of far greater interest! And as I am one of the class of men you
address, notwithstanding your great advantage over me in point of age
and experience; and as no one has made a _formal_ response to your
_pious warnings_, it will not be deemed insolent in me to take you up.

My first acquaintance with you was in 1847, at an Annual Meeting of the
Georgia Conference, held in Madison; and although the impressions made
upon my mind by you, on that occasion, were any thing but favorable to
you, as a man, still, I am capable, as I believe, of doing you justice.
I supposed you then to be the rise of sixty years, certainly in your
_dotage_ and among the _vainest_ old gentlemen I had ever met with. You
obtained leave, as I understand, by your own seeking, to deliver a
lecture to the Conference, upon the subject of _correctly reading and
pronouncing the Scriptures_. I was in attendance, and listened to you
with all the attention and impartiality I was capable of exercising. I
thought it a little _presumptuous_ for any one man to assume to teach
more than one hundred able ministers how to read and pronounce the
inspired writings; and the more so, when I knew that several of the
number were presidents and professors in different male and female
colleges, and that many others of them were graduates of the best
literary institutions in the South. Still, my apology for you was, that
you was a vain old gentleman, and that to listen to you, respectfully,
was to obey the Divine teaching of one who has taught us to "bear the
infirmities of the weak." Your _samples_, both of reading and
pronunciation, were amusing and novel to me. And so far as I could
gather the prevailing sentiment, it was, that to adopt your style would
render the reading of the Scriptures perfectly ridiculous.

In your address to "Methodist Know-Nothing Preachers," I discover that
you are still the man you were at Madison, in 1847: you have a great
deal to say about _yourself_, and make free use of the personal pronoun
I! _I_ advise--_I_ believe--_I_ am satisfied--_I_ will not agree--_I_
warn and caution--_I_ fear, or _I_ apprehend, etc. To parse the
different sentences in your partisan harangue syntactically, little else
is necessary but to understand the _first person singular_, and to
repeat the rule as often as it occurs: a peculiarity which characterizes
every paragraph in your labored address. Beside, the frequent use of the
pronouns _I_, _me_, _my_, _mine_, etc., too frequently occur to be worth
estimating. And it will be seen, upon examination, that not merely the
verbiage, but the sentiment, is thus egotistic throughout, exhibiting a
degree of arrogance and self-importance, only to be met with in a
_Clerical Locofoco_, used by bad men for ignoble purposes. To carry out
the idea of your _vanity_, you say in the winding up of your address:

     "And now, brethren, have _I_ or Mr. Wesley hit upon one good
     reason why you should not have joined the Know-Nothings? If
     either of _us_ have, then _I_ beseech you to come from among
     them. If _we_ have not, there is yet another in reserve which,
     if it does not prevail will show--or prove to my satisfaction
     at least--that if _an angel from heaven_ were to denounce your
     order, you would cleave to it still."

Any other man but yourself would, from considerations of _modesty_, have
given JOHN WESLEY the preference, in this connection, and come in as
_second best_. But no, you are _first in place_, and, in your own
estimation, in _importance_ likewise, as a religious teacher.

I have no doubt you consider yourself a much greater man than John
Wesley ever was; and in proof of this, I need only cite what you have
said in reference to Mr. Wesley's opposition to Romanism:

     "Even good old John Wesley caught the spirit of the times, and
     wrote that letter, from which it appears he thought if the
     Catholics got into power, they would abuse Protestants. What
     abuse they could have heaped on them, greater than they heaped
     on Catholics, short of cutting their throats, I cannot
     conceive."

The only superior you acknowledge is CARDINAL WISEMAN, a bigoted Roman
Catholic, and you seem to knock under to him quite reluctantly, and not
without informing the public that you have been a laborious student for
forty years, and "_a profound thinker_." Here is your praise:

     "I have been a pretty severe student for near forty years, and
     a laborious, if not _profound thinker_ for a long time; but
     when I compare myself in intellectual stature with that man, I
     shrink in my own estimation to the insignificance of a mite."

So much by way of noticing vanity. You are a literary and theological
star of the first magnitude! You are an encyclopedia of the learning,
science, patriotism, and religion of the country! Sir, if you possessed
a little more _sheep-faced modesty_, and could exhibit a little less of
_lion-headed impudence_ than you do, you would be a much more useful,
not to say successful minister of the New Testament!

Sir, you have taken the field in opposition to Know-Nothingism,
_professedly_ through your deep and abiding concern for Christianity,
and the interests of Methodism. You say:

     "You cannot surely be so weak as to suppose you can crush
     Romanism by Know-Nothing agencies; but you have almost ruined
     Methodism by them already.

     "Now the ruler of this nation is spoken evil of by your party
     continually, and therefore, in the judgment of Wesley, I might
     stand up in the pulpit and defend him."

The truth is, you are influenced alone by partisan political feelings;
and occupying a position in a Mississippi College, in the midst of
Fire-eating Disunion Progressive Democracy, you desire to please them,
rather than serve the interests of your country or Church. To take the
stump, or the pulpit, in defence of _Frank Pierce_ and his corrupt
administration, would be a pleasant talk to you, who have been, all your
life-time, an inveterate Locofoco in politics, and "a profound thinker"
in favor of its iniquitous measures and principles. In your early
political training, you have been swayed by interest and popular favor,
and in most cases at the expense of truth, just as you now are, in your
mad vindication of Romanism. A tool for others to work with, till you
have found yourself in a condition to use such tools as you yourself
have been, you are now a trimmer and weathercock, leading on men of less
sense than yourself, to such distinction as interest and ambition may
dictate!

Sir, you take the ground, throughout, that there is no danger of
Catholics in this country, and that they do not seek to establish their
religion. Here is a specimen of your logic:

     "Thank God no religious sect can tyrannize over another in this
     country, so long as they all respect the Federal Constitution.
     Until we see, then, the Catholics treating that instrument with
     disrespect, it is madness to entertain fears of them and worse
     than madness to form combinations against them."

Now, sir, the foregoing statement is untrue, and in making it you could
not have been sincere. You are a man of too much sense, and of too much
information, to believe what you are wickedly trying to palm upon
others. Brownson's Quarterly Review, the most able, as well as the most
authentic organ of Catholicism in the United States, employs the
following language to the American people--mark it:

     "_Are your free institutions infallible?_ Are they founded on
     _Divine right_? This you deny. Is not the proper question for
     you to discuss, then, _not_ whether the Papacy be or be not
     compatible with republican government, but whether _it be or be
     not founded in Divine right_? If the Papacy be founded in
     Divine right, it is supreme over whatever is founded only in
     human right, and then your institutions should be made to
     harmonize with it: not it with your institutions!!! The real
     question, then, is not the compatibility or the incompatibility
     of the Catholic Church with _democratic institutions_, but, Is
     the _Catholic Church the Church of God_?

     "Settle this question first. But in point of fact, _democracy
     is a mischievous dream, wherever the Catholic Church does not
     predominate_, to inspire the people with reverence, and to
     teach and accustom them to obedience to authority."

Here is still plainer language from the Roman Catholic Bishop of St.
Louis:

     "Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as
     in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are
     Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part
     of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes."

Here is what the _Boston Pilot_ says, a Catholic paper of high standing:

     "_No good government can exist_ without religion, and there can
     be no religion without an _inquisition_, which is wisely
     designed for the promotion and protection of the _true faith_."

Here is the _Shepherd of the Valley_, published under the eye and with
the approbation of the Bishop of St. Louis:

     "The Church is, of necessity, intolerant. Heresy she endures
     when and where she _must_; but she hates it, and directs all
     her energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an
     immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country
     is _at an end_: so say our enemies--_so say we_."

And here is what the _Rambler_ says, a devoted Catholic periodical, high
in the confidence of the Bishops and Priests of that Church:

     "You ask if he (the Pope) were lord in the land, and you were
     in the minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he
     do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on
     circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he
     would tolerate you--if expedient, he would imprison you, banish
     you, fine you, probably he might even hang you; but, be assured
     of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the
     'glorious principles' of civil and religious liberty."

I could give other quotations of this character, which have met your eye
long since, but I forbear, as they would extend my letter beyond the
limit I have prescribed for myself. These are the publications which, in
part at least, have given rise to the Know-Nothing organization, so
cordially hated by you.

You say there is no danger of injury to our institutions from the rapid
strides of Romanism. Allow me to ask your attention to the following
remarkable political prediction by the Duke of Richmond, late
Governor-General of Canada, and a British noble, who declared himself
hostile to the United States on all occasions. Speaking of our
Government, this deadly enemy said:

     "It will be destroyed; it ought not, it will not be permitted
     to exist." "The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent
     wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its
     example; and so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon
     his throne; and the _sovereigns of Europe are aware of it_; and
     they have _determined upon its destruction, and have come to an
     understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means
     to accomplish it_; and they will eventually succeed by
     SUBVERSION _rather than conquest_." "All the low and surplus
     population of the different nations of Europe will be carried
     into that country. It is and will be a receptacle for the bad
     and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted
     for soldiers, or to supply the navies; _and the governments of
     Europe will favor such a course_. This will create a surplus
     and majority of low population, who are so very easily excited;
     and they will _bring with them their principles_; and in nine
     cases out of ten adhere to their ancient and former
     governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion; and will
     transmit them to their posterity; and in many cases propagate
     them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and, by
     the constitution and laws, will be invested with the right of
     suffrage." "Hence, _discord_, _dissension_, _anarchy and civil
     war will ensue_; and some popular individual will assume the
     government, and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe,
     the emigrants, and many of the natives will sustain him." "The
     Church of Rome has a design upon that country; and it will in
     time be the established religion, and will aid in the
     destruction of that Republic." "I have _conversed with many of
     the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously
     expressed these opinions relative to the government of the
     United States, and their determination to subvert it_."

But, sir, after eulogizing Catholics for their devotion to religious
toleration in this country, you make two assertions, touching the
Methodist Church, for which I wish to arraign you, and for which the
authorities of said Church ought to arraign you, under that section of
our Discipline which forbids _railing out against our Doctrines and
Discipline_. You say:

     "And if I were to take the stump against you, I would say to
     the honest yeomanry of the country. 'Good people, if you think
     your liberties will be _any safer in the hands of Methodists
     than Catholics, you are vastly mistaken_.'

     "I would add, in humiliation but in candor, 'You have ten
     thousand times more to fear, just at this time, from
     Methodists, than Catholics; simply because the first are more
     numerous than the last, because the first are actually in the
     field for office, while the last are not.'"

If you have this opinion of the Methodist Church, you cannot be an
honest man and remain within her jurisdiction. You ought to leave her
communion forthwith, and go over to Rome; and in doing this, you would
_not have far to go_! Occupying the position you do, and holding the
sentiments you do, I would not send a child to any school or college
over which you might preside. Nor do I think any Protestant parent or
guardian ought to patronize any school under your care. Your influence,
whatever you may possess, is against the Protestant faith, and in favor
of Catholicism. In a word, you are a dangerous man in a Republican
government.

Upon the subject of religious toleration by the Catholics, you seem to
have fallen into the same error adopted by the Hon. Mr. Stephens, of
Georgia--a man for whom you have great regard now, but who, in the days
of _Clay Whiggery_, was a stench in your Locofoco nostrils! Mr. Stephens
made the assertion, in a public speech in Augusta, that "the Catholic
Colony of Maryland, under Lord Baltimore, was the first to _establish_
the principle of free toleration in religious worship." The Colony of
Maryland was a Catholic Colony, and the "Toleration Act" was written by
Lord Baltimore himself. That Act is dated 21st April, 1649, when Lord
Baltimore was in the zenith of his glory. Here is the language of that
"Act" of religious toleration:

     "Denying the Holy _Trinity_ is to be punished with _death_, and
     confiscation of land and goods to the Lord Proprietary, (Lord
     Baltimore himself!). Persons using any reproachful words
     concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Apostles or
     Evangelists, to be fined L5, or in default of payment to be
     publicly whipped and _imprisoned, at the pleasure_ of his
     Lordship, (Lord Baltimore himself!) or of his
     Lieutenant-General." _See Laws of Maryland, at large, by T.
     Bacon_, A. D. 1765. 16 and 17 _Cecilius's Lord Baltimore_.

God deliver us from such toleration! _Death_ was the penalty for
expressing certain religious opinions, not acceptable to Lord Baltimore
and the Holy Catholic Church! Fines and _whipping at the post_ was the
penalty for speaking against the image-worship of the Catholic Church.
But I need not pursue this subject further: the _onus propandi_ is on
your side.

Speaking of Mr. Wesley, you say:

     "If Wesley were alive, what would he think of your midnight
     plots, and open tirades against <DW7>s? But a letter of his
     has been going the rounds of the newspapers, which the Know
     Nothings obviously think gives the sanction of that good man to
     their movement. Not so. Mr. Wesley was not the man to write as
     inconsistently as their version of this letter makes him
     write."

Why, sir, Mr. Wesley goes much further in his political opposition to
Roman Catholics than the American party have ever proposed to go. The
American party say only that they will not vote for Catholics, or put
them in office, because their principles are antagonistic to the spirit
of Republican institutions. Mr. Wesley lays down the comprehensive, but
_true doctrine_, in this very letter, that "_no government not Roman
Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion_." And
to show how fully and clearly he sustains this position, I quote from
his letter at length. You will find the letter in Vol. 5, page 817, of
Wesley's Miscellaneous Works, dated January 12th, 1780. It was
originally addressed to the Dublin Freeman's Journal. Here is what Mr.
Wesley says, in the very letter you seek to _deny out of_:

     "I consider not whether the Romish religion is true or false:
     build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore, away
     with all your common-place declamation about intolerance and
     persecution for religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius's
     creed to be true! Suppose the Council of Trent to have been
     infallible; yet I insist upon it that no government not Roman
     Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic
     persuasion.

     "I prove this by a plain argument--let him answer it that
     can--that no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his
     allegiance or peaceable behavior. I prove it thus: It is a
     Roman Catholic maxim, established not by private men, but by
     public council, that 'No faith is to be kept with heretics.'
     This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it
     has never been openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow
     or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But
     as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain than that the
     members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any
     government for their allegiance and peaceable behavior.
     Therefore, they ought not to be tolerated by any government,
     Protestant, Mohammedan, or Pagan. You say, 'Nay, but they take
     an oath of allegiance.' True, five hundred oaths; but the
     maxim, 'No faith is to be kept with heretics,' sweeps them all
     away as a spider's web. So that still no governors that are not
     Roman Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.

     "Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the Pope
     can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but
     all Roman Catholics acknowledge this: therefore they can give
     no security for their allegiance. The power of granting pardons
     for all sins--past, present, and to come--is, and has been for
     many centuries, one branch of his spiritual power. But those
     who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can give no
     security for their allegiance, since they believe the Pope can
     pardon rebellion, high treason, and all other sins whatever.
     The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is
     another branch of the spiritual power of the Pope: all who
     acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But
     whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope, can give
     no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths and
     promises are none: they are as light as air--a dispensation
     makes them null and void. Nay, not only the Pope, but even a
     priest has power to pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine
     of the Church of Rome. But they that acknowledge this, cannot
     possibly give any security for their allegiance to any
     government. Oaths are no security at all; for the priest can
     pardon both perjury and high treason. Setting their religion
     aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, no
     government ought to tolerate men who cannot give any security
     to that government for their allegiance and peaceful behavior.
     But this, no Romanist can do; not only while he holds that 'no
     faith is to be kept with heretics,' but so long as he
     acknowledges either priestly absolution, or the spiritual power
     of the Pope.

     "If any one pleases to answer this, and set his name, I shall
     probably reply. But the productions of anonymous writers I do
     not promise to take any notice of.

     "I am, sir, your humble servant,

     "JOHN WESLEY.

     "CITY ROAD, January 12, 1780."

But, sir, you know as well as any living man that the history of the
Church, from the days of the first Pope down to the iniquitous reign of
Pius IX., sustains Mr. Wesley in his views on this subject, and
justifies the steps taken by the American party. Notwithstanding the
oft-repeated profession of Catholic liberality and Romish toleration, so
triumphantly paraded by you, and other interested aspirants and
unprincipled demagogues, the Catholic Church has invariably shown
herself to be destitute of both, whenever she had the opportunity of
using them. Sir, _intolerance_ is an element of her faith, and
_persecution_ a specimen of her piety; and no man knows it better than
you do. In taking upon herself the obligation of "true obedience to the
Pope," the Catholic Church imposes upon herself a task that proves
beyond all doubt she cannot, under any circumstances, remain faithful to
that obligation, and yet maintain "allegiance" to such a government as
ours!

Sir, I have no patience with a Protestant minister who stands forth as
the apologist of Catholicism; nor have I any confidence in one who does
it, provided he is a man of _intelligence_, as I admit you to be. The
only excuse I can render for your strange and inconsistent conduct is,
that you are in your dotage; that you are a violent old partisan; and
that you are the tool of designing demagogues, infamous disunionists,
and unmitigated repudiators. I shall not be at all surprised to hear
that you have apostatized from the Methodist Church, and gone over to
the Roman Catholics. I learn from the Little Rock Gazette, a Democratic
paper, that but the other day, Gov. E. N. Carway, of Arkansas, a member
of the Methodist Church, had actually apostatized from Methodism, and
the Protestant faith, and united with the Roman Catholics. And what
makes his defection from the faith of his fathers still more notorious,
his organ is down upon the Protestant clergy in bitter and unrelenting
denunciations! I believe that _you_ are preparing to go over to the
Roman Catholics; and to justify your change, when the time comes, you
now assert, "in humiliation but in candor," you say, that the people
"have _ten thousand times more_ to fear from Methodists than from
Catholics." If you believe this, you ought to leave the Methodist Church
_instantly_, even without the formalities of a withdrawal or
expulsion--even though you should be denied admittance into the Catholic
Church! I deny that we have "_ten thousand times more to fear_" from the
_Devil_ than we have from the Catholics; and according to your argument,
_the Methodists are worse than the Devil_! This, their most bitter
revilers and enemies do not believe; and for obvious reasons. The
Methodist Church has no St. Bartholomew's Day, with its rivers of blood
staining her garments: she never indiscriminately slaughtered the
Albigenses, or Waldenses, or Huguenots: she never established an
infernal Inquisition: she never lit up the fires of Smithfield: never
burned the Holy Bible, and prohibited, upon pain of eternal death, the
printing and circulating of God's word; and last, but not least, she has
not sought to keep the people in ignorance. Wherever Methodism has been
planted, the people have become great and happy. If you please, wherever
_Protestantism_ has prevailed, the people have been prosperous and
happy. But look to Old Spain, Italy, the German Confederacies, Sardinia,
Naples, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Bavaria, Baden, South America, and
Mexico, where Romanism is the established religion, and the places of
her influence are a hissing and a by-word in the eyes of the civilized
world! Protestantism has done more for the world in the last hundred
years than the Roman Catholic Church has for the _eighteen hundred
years_!

Sir, the Puritans, of New England; the Hollanders, of New York; the
Quakers, Lutherans, and German Reformed, of Pennsylvania; the Baptists,
of Rhode Island; the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, of Virginia; the
Lutherans and followers of Wesley and Whitefield, of Georgia; the
Huguenots and Episcopalians, of the Carolinas; and the Seceders in
several of the States, who were the religious pioneers of these States,
were all Protestants and Know Nothings; and if they were living, they
would be ashamed of you and your teachings. They selected this
wilderness country as their home, in order that they might enjoy those
religious privileges from which they had been debarred in the old world,
by the very Church and people you are seeking to vindicate.

But you will say, as you have done in substance, that this is no longer
the characteristic of Romanism. Why is it not? Has she ever changed for
the better? When did she renounce her doctrines and practices? Never!
Rome is the same tyrannical system now, where she has the power, that
she ever has been, and for ever must be. Wo to this land of ours, if
ever Rome gets the ascendancy here! Her creed is the same here and now,
in this respect, that it has everywhere been, and must always be. It is
her boast that she is always right, and knows no change. She practices
her unholy inquisitorial and Jesuitical doctrines in this country, as
far as she can and dare act them out. Her whole system is adverse to our
republican institutions and she hesitates not to declare it. She has
publicly burned our Bible in different States in this Union, and
recently, in New York and Pennsylvania. Archbishop Hughes, the Head of
the Catholic Church in this country, has taken an oath, administered by
the Pope of Rome, of which this is a part:

     "Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said Lord (the Pope)
     or his aforesaid successors, I will, to my utmost power,
     _persecute and wage war with_."

The Church of Rome declares all who are not its members to be heretics.
It is painful, in view of all these things, to see an old Protestant
minister, whose head has been withered by the frosts of seventy
winters, openly in the field advocating a Church whose Bishops, Priests,
and members are "drunken with the blood of saints."

There is but one remaining feature of your singular address to Know
Nothing Methodist Preachers to be replied to, and I am through. You
assail the new party on the score of its _secrecy_, and of its
_concealment_ of its acts from the public. Had this objection come from
any one but a Methodist Preacher, and a known advocate of
_Class-meetings being held with closed doors_, I would now dispose of it
without occupying as much space as I shall do in my concluding remarks!

Notwithstanding all the _secrecy_ in the new Order of Know Nothings has
been set aside by the act of the National Council which created it; and
notwithstanding our members tell all about their Councils, where and
when they meet, and our orators read out and publish to the world our
obligations, rules, and principles, it is still objected that ours is a
secret Order, liable to be used for bad purposes; that we travel about
with dark lanterns; that our proceedings are not restrained by the
wholesome check of public opinion!

Now, this, the great objection to our Order, comes from men who belong
to Lodges of Free Masons and Odd Fellows, and who have taken all the
_binding_ oaths attached to the different _degrees_ of these respective
Orders! The same objection is urged against the American party, by men
who belong to the Order of Sons of Temperance, who have deemed a _rigid
secret organization_ necessary to combat successfully a _domestic_ evil!
It is urged in bitterness against the Order, by demagogues and
partisans, who have acted for years with the _secret political
conclaves_ of their respective parties, who have held their meetings
with _closed doors_--kept their _places_ of meeting a profound
secret--and when they have adjourned, they have enjoined _secrecy_ upon
all present! Last, but not least, this _secret feature_ is urged against
the American organization by the vile apologists for the Catholic
Church, and its corrupt Priesthood and membership, in this country.
These demagogues know that the Roman Catholic Church is a _secret
society_, directed by a talented, designing, and villainous
HIERARCHY--absolutely controlled by an _anti_-Republican Priesthood, to
a degree which has never been exercised by any political party in the
known world! The _Confessional_ is a secret tribunal, before which every
member of that Church is required to make known, not only _immoral_
actions, but every thought and purpose of the heart, and upon pain of
incurring the anathema of the Church, which is equivalent to a sentence
of eternal damnation! The corrupt order of JESUITS, the infamous society
of SAN FEDESTI, and the infinitely infernal society of IRISH RIBBON
MEN--these are all oath-bound societies of the Catholic Church,
connected directly with the horrid operations of the "_Holy
Inquisition_."

Now, I put the question to any man of reason and common sense, if Roman
Catholics and their _patriotic Democratic_ admirers and advocates, in
this country, are not the last men on earth who should object to the
_secret_ doings of the order of Know Nothings, even if their secrecy
were kept up? Every Roman Catholic in the known world is under the
absolute control of a secret society, by considerations not only of a
_temporal_, but of an ETERNAL WEIGHT!

But I am not done with these _Democratic_ opposers of SECRECY. The
Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, sat in
the old State House in Philadelphia, _with closed doors, from the 25th
of May to the 17th of September_, wanting only eight days of four
months. That body of men had a Doorkeeper and Sergeant-at-arms, both
under oath, to keep their doors barred, and all their proceedings a
secret. So says Mr. Jefferson's biography! And such men as Washington,
Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Harrison, Hancock, Hopkins, and
others, composed that body! During the war of the Revolution, General
Washington, Generals Lee, Wayne, Marion, and others, organized a _secret
American Society_, with its branches extending from North to South,
having their _passwords_, _signs_, and _grips_, and writing to each
other in figures, and "an unknown tongue," as the Know Nothings have
been doing, and all, too, with a view to oppose Foreign intrigues and
oppressions! It is as well known as any political truth, that General
WASHINGTON, at the time of his death, was the _President_ of the
Cincinnati Society, a secret political society, in which, we see it
stated on unquestionable authority, no man was eligible to membership
unless he was a _native American_. The _Columbian Order_, known as the
"_Tammany Society_," was a secret political society, and highly
influential, and maintains its existence to this day, and without danger
to the liberties of the country. Gen. SAM HOUSTON publishes to the world
that himself and Gen. JACKSON were members of this Society. What say the
_anti_-Americans to all these facts? Do they believe that Gen.
Washington, or Jackson, would have united with any association or order
not purely American? Would either have entered into any political
league, when _secrecy_ was enjoined, if he had not approved of the
principle of secrecy in political associations? Never! From the
characters of Washington and Jackson--the sacrifices they made for their
country, united with their fervid patriotism, and their known preference
for every thing _American_, I do not doubt for one moment, that if they
were both now living, they would unite with the veritable Order of Know
Nothings!

I believe the hand of God to be in this very movement, and as much in
the _secrecy_ of it, in the outset, as in any other feature. I regard
the movement as one growing out of a great crisis in the affairs of our
country, and a precursor of a sound, healthful, and vigorous
nationality, and which will ultimately prevent the liberties of this
country from being destroyed, by the machinations of such demagogues and
factionists as now seek to _excuse_ Romanism, and fellowship Foreign
Pauperism. Secret societies are only dangerous to despots and tyrants,
and history shows that these above all others have made war upon them.
They have denounced and proscribed Masonry in every quarter of the
globe, where they have had the power. The Pope, with the aid of his
Cardinals, has crushed the ancient order of Free Masons in his
dominions. There is not a Masonic Lodge in Italy. In our own country,
not a single Catholic is to be found associated with the order of Free
Masons; and why? Masonry is founded upon the Bible, and requires the
reading of the Protestant Bible in all its Lodges, and this don't suit
Romanism. We state these general and historical facts, without knowing
any thing of our own knowledge of Masonry.

In the young and growing city of Knoxville, it is within our own
knowledge, that many of the Irish Catholics attached themselves to the
Order of the Sons of Temperance, with a view, as they said, of throwing
around them the wholesome restraints of the Order. On the first visit of
a priest to the city, commonly called "Father Brown," these Irish
Catholics began to drop off one by one, until not one of them is now in
the Order, and most of those who were, are daily seen drunk in our
streets. Indeed, some of them in withdrawing had the candor to
acknowledge that the priest required them to do so! And why? Because, in
all the Divisions of the Sons of Temperance here, we have the Protestant
Scriptures read, and have Protestant prayers offered up. This don't suit
the Church of Rome!

     I have the honor to be, very truly and frankly,

     W. G. BROWNLOW.




TO THE RIGHT REVEREND AARON V. BROWN, M. S.


SIR:--I have received by mail a pamphlet copy of your "Letter to the
Bishops, Elders, and _other_ Ministers, Itinerant and _Local_, of the
Methodist Episcopal Church South," covering twenty-eight octavo pages. I
thank you for a copy of your _Pastoral_ address; and I am happy to be
able to _infer_ from its teachings that you have made a profession of
religion, before taking upon yourself "Holy Orders." I suppose the
_time_ of your conversion, you date back to the memorable period when
you "saw sights" on Mount Pisgah, and had conferred on you the degree of
_Modern Seer_, and entered upon the duties of "High Priest" of
Democracy! As I am one of the parties addressed, and the customs of the
Church and the country require a response to so grave a document, I have
felt it incumbent upon me to perform the task. I may style this the
_Last_ epistle of Aaron, the Priest, and illustrious Chief of Foreign
Catholic Sag Nicht Locofocoism!

My first impulses were, upon reading your address, to call for your
_credentials_, and to examine into your _authority_ for assuming to
dictate to the entire Ministry of the Southern portion of the Methodist
Church. You must either enter the Ecclesiastical ring under the
_imposition of the hands_ of BISHOP SOULE or _Andy Johnson_. If BISHOP
SOULE ordained you for the Ministry, and set you apart as the
Lieutenant-General of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, the
presumption is that he examined you on doctrinal points, and upon all
questions affecting the government of the Church, as was his duty, and
is our custom, and that he found you orthodox! It follows, as a matter
of course, that you renounced your heresy you advocated in the Hartford
Convention, held at Nashville, and that you obtained forgiveness for
that and numerous other "sins of omission and commission"--aye, for the
whole catalogue of your inward and outward iniquities, which so
_eminently_ disqualified you for the work of the Ministry! But if _Andy
Johnson_ ordained you for the work, of which there is no sort of doubt,
the Church South, through me, protests against your authority, and
utterly refuses to submit to your teachings. Our Church does not agree
with Johnson on the "White Basis" issue, or the great question of
slavery; and in proof of this, I cite to the fact of her separation from
the North, in 1844, upon this very question. She has within her bounds
of communion, rich men and poor, educated and uneducated, and is
unwilling to unite with him in arraying the poor against the rich, or
the unlearned against the learned. Nor does our Church believe that
Jesus Christ was a Locofoco, as Johnson asserts in his Inaugural, and
held that Christianity and Democracy, in converging lines, led to the
foot of Jacob's Ladder, and thence to heaven, _via_ Mount Pisgah, from
whose lofty summit you first beheld the promised land!

It therefore follows, that, in presenting yourself as a spiritual leader
in the Church, called to the work, as you have been, by _Andy Johnson_,
your case is fully met by a quotation from Job:

     "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present
     themselves before the Lord, and _Satan_ came also among them."

A second passage, from the Book of Jeremiah, meets your case, and leaves
no doubt that the inspired Prophet had you in his eye:

     "We have heard the pride of Moab, (he is exceedingly proud,)
     his loftiness, and his _arrogance_, and his pride, and his
     haughtiness of heart.

     "I know his wrath, saith the Lord; but it shall not be so; his
     _lies_ shall not so effect it."

To be candid with you, Gov. Brown, I regard your address, under all the
circumstances, as a display of the most brazen-faced assurance and the
most unmitigated impudence I ever met with in my life! I have known for
years that you were capable of great presumption, but in this insolent
and dictatorial address you surpass _yourself_--you positively out-Herod
Herod! In the whole history of the country, and of parties, I venture
the assertion, that a parallel piece of impudence, and downright
bold-faced assurance, cannot be pointed to, as the act of any partisan.
It is really past all belief, if I had not your production before me.
But more of this hereafter.

Copies of your pamphlet were distributed through the aisles and seats of
the Annual Conference room in Nashville, and have been sent all over the
South, to members of other Conferences. Your _proof-sheet_ was seen ten
days before the meeting of the Middle Tennessee Conference, and your
"work of faith and labor of love" was ready for distribution when the
Conference first convened, but you held it back till the Conference was
ready to adjourn, and to a period so late, that a reply, if one had been
deemed necessary, could not be made. This was _cowardly_, and in keeping
with your political tactics and code of morals. In saying that this was
in keeping with your code of morals, I allude to the _Woodberry
affair_.

I shall now take up your address, Governor, and wade through its
twenty-eight pages of double-distilled Sag Nichtism, sublimated
impudence, and concealed advocacy of _Romanism_, mixed up with
contradictions, false assertions, and glaring absurdities, as it is,
from beginning to end. In the opening paragraph, you predicate your
right to instruct the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the
entire Church, South, upon the real or assumed fact, that you are "The
son of a now sainted father, who for forty years ministered at your
altars, the co-laborer of that noble band of Christian ministers, who,
under Asbury and Coke, founded your Church in America!"

Alas, that any "sainted Father" should be represented by so degenerate a
son--an irreligious son--not a member of any Church--but having the
hardihood, in the face of those who know the facts, to disguise himself
in the priestly robes of a "sainted Father"--like an ass in a lion's
skin, to _bray out_ against better men than himself, or, like a wolf in
sheep's clothing, to _steal into the fold_, where that Father was
accustomed to minister in holy things, and with soft and honeyed words,
and hypocritical teachings, and Satan-like misrepresentations, seek whom
he may devour! You tell the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," that
you really "approve" their "creed," and, what is still more
soul-cheering, you have "witnessed their growth and progress for years,
with the highest satisfaction." This is very _condescending_ in the "son
of a now sainted father!" It is quite flattering! But these "Bishops,
Elders, and other Ministers," would receive all this with a greater
degree of allowance, if they did not believe that your generous
patronage, so lavishly bestowed upon them and their "creed," was
prompted by a principle of which _selfishness_ is the soul! They
believe, and so express themselves in conversation, that your forced
smile of approbation, your reluctant eulogy, have both been wrung from
you, because you are a sycophantic partisan suitor for patronage, in the
way of votes for your party. These Clergymen whom you address, think it
a great pity that the "son of a now sainted father" should exhibit so
much "satisfaction" at witnessing their prosperity, in _theory_, and
manifest not one particle in _practice_. They think that you would be in
your proper place, to be found among the _mourners_, instead of the
_teachers_ in their Church; and that it is high time, considering your
age in life, and the extent of your iniquities, that you should be found
upon your knees, in an altar full of fresh straw, at an old-fashioned
Camp-Meeting, asking the pious to pray for you, and God, for the sake of
the forty years labors of "a now sainted father," to have mercy upon
you, and save your sinful old soul from that death that never dies.

Why, Sir, the Devil himself would blush to perpetrate such an act of
arrogance as you have done, in thus volunteering your advice to the
"Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," of the Methodist Church. An old
political party hack, who is not now, and never was, a member of any
Church--an intriguing old sinner, who never even attends Church, and
who, in this respect, shows that he neither fears God, respects the
Christian Sabbath, nor "approves the creed" of any orthodox
denomination, to be lecturing a numerous body of Clergymen, as to what
they ought or ought not to do, it is the culmination of all that is
called effrontery! The "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the
Methodist Church, wish the _evidence_ of your conversion to God, before
they consent to obey you, as "having the rule over them." Your approval
of their "creed," and the "satisfaction" with which you have witnessed
their progress, is not sufficient to satisfy their doubting minds, as
long as you continue to ride into Nashville on Sabbath, and retail
political slang at the INN, or read Sag Nicht papers at the _Union
Office_, to the neglect of the house of God, and the evil example set
before young men, against the statute in such cases made and provided!
We must, as Ministers, hear you relate your experience, in a regular
class-meeting. Nay, more, knowing your _raising_, and your ability to
"deceive, even the very elect," we must see you down upon your
marrow-bones, surrounded by noisy and zealous officials, pounding you on
the back, and exclaiming, as in the days of your "sainted father," _Pray
on, Aaron_! We must hear you _groan_--we must see your sinful old bosom
_heave_--we must witness the falling of _big tears_, as you publicly
confess and manfully repent of your misdeeds--of the whole catalogue, of
all the inward and outward iniquities of your past life--your sins of
omission and commission, which God knows are more numerous than the
hairs upon your old sinful head! I say we must see all this, and even
more, before we can have faith in your teachings, as big as even a grain
of mustard seed!

But you are the "son of a now sainted father"--you derive great
"satisfaction" from the "growth and progress" of Methodism--you
"approve" the Methodist "creed"--and hence, a glorious future awaits the
Methodist Church: _provided_ always, that her "Bishops, Elders, and
other Ministers" hearken to and obey your teachings, a thing they are
very certain not to do, in the matter under consideration. It is a
melancholy fact, that many of the sons of Methodist, and other
Ministers, are very wicked and unpromising men; and it is equally true,
and certainly notorious, that where they turn out to be sinners, they
are sinners above all offenders, dwelling either at Jerusalem or
elsewhere! I have no hesitancy in pronouncing you as _hard a case_, in a
moral point of view, as ever came before the Church, and the only
appropriate reply her ecclesiastical dignitaries can make to your
address, is to appoint a day of fasting and prayer to God, for your
conversion, to be observed throughout her borders. I now, as the
appointed organ of the Church, set apart the first day of January, 1856,
and I pray you, as one desiring the salvation of your soul, to be in the
spirit and in a proper frame of mind on that day! Humble yourself before
God--tell him that you were in error in stealing the livery of Heaven to
serve the Devil in! Tell him that you are an old worn-out political
hack--that you have grown gray in the service of sin--that during the
whole of a somewhat eventful life, your labors have been in the dirtiest
pools of party politics--that you have been insincere and unscrupulous
in all your teachings and acts--that you stand before the people of
Tennessee publicly branded by _eight_ respectable and reliable citizens
of Wilson county, as a _falsifier_ in the Know Nothing controversy of
the past summer--and that you are sorry for having come forth steeped to
the nose and chin in political profligacy, to lecture grave Clergymen
upon subjects you ought to set at their feet and learn lessons about!
Tell your God, what he doubtless knows, that though the "son of a now
sainted father," you are as full of devils as ever Mary Magdalene
was--that like the "Imps of Sin," in Milton, these "yelp all around"
you--that this is no reflection upon a "now sainted father," whose
seeming neglect of your early training grew out of his continual absence
from home, as is the case with most Methodist Preachers,--aye, tell your
God, that once out of this scrape, you will never be caught in another
of the kind! You say,

     "From the foundation of our government, it has been a conceded
     and settled doctrine, that the various religious denominations
     should not, as such, intermeddle with the political contests of
     the day. No instance is now remembered where they have done
     so!"

This is a remarkable sentence, and partakes of the nature of your Wilson
county assertions! The history of the Church, and of the world,
contradicts every word of the foregoing, and demonstrates that the
"settled doctrine" of the Catholic Church, has ever been, as it still
is, to "intermeddle with the political contests of the day." I will
trouble you with two instances in which "religious denominations, as
such," have been guilty of what you deny. The Albany (N. Y.) State
Register, a paper which usually does not say what it cannot maintain,
states that ARCHBISHOP HUGHES has issued a mandate, _commanding_ all
Catholics in the Albany District, in the exciting State election now
coming off, to cast their votes for Mr. Crosby for the Senate. But Roman
Catholics, you falsely tell us, never "intermeddle with the political
contests of the day:" O no!

The other "instance now remembered," is the one in which you were a
candidate for a seat in the Legislature of Tennessee, in the county of
Giles: this was, according to my recollection, in 1831, or a quarter of
a century ago. At that time, there was a small Manual Labor School in
Giles, which had been incorporated by the Legislature, and at the head
of which was a _Presbyterian_. The gentleman who ran against you, if not
a member of the Presbyterian Church, "approved" their "creed," and
"witnessed their growth and progress for years with the highest
satisfaction." _You_ charged upon the stump that the Presbyterians were
seeking to establish their religion by law, to unite Church and
State--appealed to the Methodist and Baptist to put them down by
electing you, with a promise that you would check their march by
counter-legislation--and you were elected upon this issue. At the same
time, as the oldest inhabitants of Giles know, there were not fifty
Presbyterians in the county! But "no instance is remembered" in which
one sect has intermeddled with another--O no! You say:

     "In the mutations of parties in this country, a new one has
     lately arisen, to which, I apprehend, more of the Methodist
     ministers have attached themselves, at least in the State of
     Tennessee, than might have been expected. This party, known as
     the Know Nothings, is so _peculiar_ in its organization, that
     it seems strange to me that any minister or professor of
     religion should be willing longer to continue in it."

Your apprehensions are well-founded, when you suppose that a very large
proportion of the Methodist ministers in Tennessee are either members of
this new party or sympathize with it. And, sir, more of the ministers of
other denominations than you seem to be aware of, have either attached
themselves to this party, "in the mutations of parties," or act with it,
and endorse its aims and objects, than you have yet dreamed of! And "it
seems strange" to these ministers, and thousands of the purest and best
laymen in the Protestant ranks, "that any minister or professor of
religion should be willing longer" to oppose the principles of this
party, or array themselves under the black flag of Papal Rome, and of
the pauper emigrants with whom she is flooding our land! But, sir, the
object of your Address is, to persuade if you can, and if not, _to
drive_, by motives of fear, the Clergy of the Methodist Church from
their position on this great American and Protestant question. Alas, how
little does the "son of a sainted father" understand the material he
attempts to work upon! Methodist ministers are free men, the equals of
other moral and upright men in heroic virtues, and far in advance of
that of politicians in Tennessee who believe parties in religion, as in
politics, are only "held together by the cohesive power of public
plunder," and who assume to direct public opinion from a principle, of
which _selfishness_ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end!
Sir, the violence, bitterness, and the very inflammatory tone, not to
say language, of your Gallatin, Lebanon, and Columbia speeches, are
enough, it seems to me, to _nauseate_ every good and conservative
citizen, and to disgust every "Bishop, Elder, and other Ministers,
Itinerant and Local, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." Even in
this Address, you insult these ministers on every page. I see not how
any preacher, with a true Protestant and American heart in him, can read
this address of yours through, without rising up from his seat and
saying: "I have voted with this Anti-Protestant and Anti-American party
for the last time."

In warning Methodist ministers to withdraw their sanction and
approbation of Know Nothingism, you say:

     "I therefore call upon them this day to come out of these
     lodges, and never return to them: at all events, never return
     to them until all _secrecy_, all their bits of red paper,
     (indicating _blood_, even by the selection of color,) all their
     signs and signals, are utterly abolished and dispensed with. I
     call upon them to do this, and to do it forthwith--by their
     hopes of heaven--by their obedience to the word of God--by
     their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of their
     country--to come out from any party which has adopted a mode
     and plan of organization so fatal to the peace of society, and
     the progress of true religion."

What egotism! _You_ call upon them! You make a freer use of the personal
pronoun _I_, than even old Parson Longstreet, the Know Nothing slayer of
Mississippi. To parse your different sentences syntactically, nothing
else is necessary but to understand the first person singular, and to
repeat the rule. Not only your verbiage but your sentiment is thus
egotistic throughout!

Your appeal to the ministers to come out of this organization, on the
ground of its _secrecy_, is a species of demagoguism, the more
disgusting when it is considered that you are a _Free Mason_, and have,
by all the arts and blandishment of your nature, sought to induce
ministers to go into that organization. But, then, there is no violation
of law or the Constitution in _Masonry_--"fatal to the peace of society
and to the progress of true religion"--no, nothing! Understand me: I am
not opposed to Masonry.

On this subject of the Romish creed, which you excuse, and even
_advocate_, you admit that there are "_alleged_ abuses," which have
prompted the Protestant Churches to unite themselves with this new
Order! Then you insultingly tell these Churches this tale:

     "But they ought to have remembered, that even a virtuous
     indignation can never justify _proscription and persecution_:
     these bring no remedy to the real or supposed evils, but are
     sure to increase and aggravate them. These errors in faith, and
     abominations in practice, if they really exist, were known to
     the Wesleys, and Cokes, and Asburys, who founded your Church:
     to the Lees, the Bruces, the Capers, the Logan Douglasses, the
     Summerfields, and the Bascoms, who subsequently extended and
     adorned it. But they never proposed to kindle, in this
     enlightened age of Christianity, the consuming fires of
     RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION."

Now, sir, every distinguished "founder" of the Methodist Church you have
named, from WESLEY to BASCOM, has written and preached against the
"errors in faith, and abominations in practice," of the Romish Church,
and they each and all have taken this very ground upon the religious
issues. I have heard _three_ of these men preach, and I am familiar with
the writings of the rest, and know whereof I speak.

You _intentionally_ deceive and misrepresent the American party, when
you charge that they seek to proscribe one class of our citizens--that
they desire to interfere with the rights of conscience--and to say _how_
men should worship God. Why don't you inform your readers that
Archbishop Hughes, and other Catholic Bishops, were the first to
introduce religion into political discussion in this country? This would
not suit your purposes--it suits your objects, taste, and inclination
better, to slander the American party by wholesale, and to charge upon
its members the atrocities committed by your foreign and pauper allies.
We only choose to vote against them, and to vote for American-born
citizens and Protestants: which is as much our _right_, as it is the
right of these foreign Catholics to vote against and proscribe American
Protestants. For this, you and your villainous associates exhaust the
whole vocabulary of Billingsgate upon the American party. What is their
offence? Why, they simply place certain questions before persons
desiring to act with them, which they think, at least, may affect the
national welfare, and before the people of the Union, and ask their
opinion of these questions at the ballot-box. The American party has
always denied, and I again reiterate the denial, that we do, at all
proscribe, or in any way interfere with, any class of our foreign
citizens, save that we propose to send _convicts_ from European prisons
back to their own native and infamous dens, as fast as they land
here--but these are not _citizens_ of ours. I appeal to our Platform,
and our Book of Constitutions, and I offer to any man a handsome
reward--any man who will produce in either a statement containing the
proscription you falsely charge against us. I now say, Gov. Brown,
either do this, or cease your empty vaporing against the _proscriptive_
features of our system, as you are pleased to style it. You declaim most
lustily in favor of religious liberty for Catholics, which you know we
do not propose as a party to interfere with; and this you plead for at
the altar of Methodist "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," who know
there is no religious liberty for Protestants where Catholics have the
power to prevent it! You plead in the most plaintive tones for the
rights of foreign Catholics to be sworn into good citizens in less than
_one year_ after they land here, but do not seem to remember the
American Protestant wives and children, who have to subsist on charity
during our severe winters, in consequence of their husbands and fathers
being elbowed out of employment by the competition of foreign pauper
laborers!

Sir, the American party, if in power, would put a stop to that
proscription from office that has always characterized the party with
which you act, and which has made the present Administration so very and
so justly odious to the country. Proscription, indeed! Was there ever
such _glaring_ and _actual_ proscription for the sake of religious and
political creeds committed as by the present Administration? The
infamous Sag Nicht party with which you act, and of which you are a
leader and a High Priest, though the "son of a now sainted father," has
applied the political guillotine to almost every man in office who has
dared to differ with them in their high estimate of foreign paupers and
Catholic vagabonds, in many instances turning out native-born
Protestants, and filling their places with foreign Catholics. And yet,
with a degree of effrontery that throws the Devil far into the shade,
you turn round and charge the American party with proscription, and ask
the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," of the Methodist Church, "by
their hopes of heaven--by their obedience to the word of God--and by
their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of their country," to come
out from a party so proscriptive! Why, sir, you out-Herod old Herod
himself! Your teachings contrasted with your practice, would cause a
crimsoned negative to settle on the cheeks of old Pilate! And still you
are the "son of a now sainted father"--you "approve" the "creed" of
Methodism, and have "witnessed its growth and prosperity for years, with
the highest satisfaction!"

You quote from the Declaration of Independence, to show that toleration
should be extended to Catholics and foreigners, and then insultingly
add, as if you supposed no Methodist minister had ever perused the
writings of Mr. JEFFERSON:

     "These are the words of Mr. Jefferson, but the immortal
     sentiment springs directly from the word of the living and true
     God. No: persecution at the stake, or by exclusion of Catholics
     from office, is not the weapon to be wielded by the Protestant
     Churches."

_You_ know that the notes of warning given to his countrymen by the sage
of Monticello, and the great APOSTLE of American Democracy, are in
harmony with the doctrines of the Know Nothing party. But you choose to
conceal this fact from the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the
Methodist Church, in the vain hope that their numerous pressing and
official engagements will not allow them time to look up the documents.
In Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, written in 1781, and published in
1794, pages 124-5, I find the following _Know Nothing doctrine_:

     "But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale
     against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers
     by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of
     those united in society to harmonize, as much as possible, in
     matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil
     government being the sole object of forming societies, its
     administration must be conducted by common consent. Every
     species of government has specific principles. Ours, perhaps,
     are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It
     is a composition of the freest principles of the English
     constitution, with others derived from natural right and
     natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the
     maxims of absolute monarchs. Yet _from such we are to expect
     the greatest number of immigrants_. They will bring with them
     the _principles of the government they leave, imbibed in early
     youth_: or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange
     for an _unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from
     one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop
     precisely at the point of temperate liberty_. These principles,
     with their language, they will transmit to their children. In
     proportion with their numbers, they will share with us the
     legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and
     bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent,
     distracted mass. _I may appeal to experience during the present
     contest for a verification of these conjectures._ But if they
     be not certain in event, are they not possible? are they not
     probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven
     years and three months longer for the attainment of every
     degree of population desired or expected? May not our
     government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?"

Again, Mr. JEFFERSON, whilst our Minister to the Court of St. Cloud,
addressed a letter to JOHN JAY, dated November 14, 1788, in which he
uses this language:

     "With respect to the _Consular_ appointments, it is a duty on
     me to add some observations, which my situation here has
     enabled me to make. I think it was in the spring of 1784, that
     Congress (harassed by multiplied applications from foreigners,
     of whom nothing was known but on their information, or on that
     of others as unknown as themselves) came to the resolution that
     the interest of America would not permit the naming of any
     person, not a citizen, to the office of Consul, or Agent, or
     Commissary. _Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are
     preferable to aliens, or citizens alien-born._ Native citizens
     possess our language, know our laws, customs and commerce, have
     general acquaintance in the United States, give better
     satisfaction, _and are more to be relied on in a point of
     fidelity_. To avail ourselves of our native citizens, it
     appears to me advisable to _declare, by standing law_, that no
     person but a native citizen shall be capable of the office of
     Consul. This was the rule of 1784, restraining the office of
     Consul to native citizens."

In 1797, Mr. JEFFERSON drafted a petition to the Legislature of
Virginia, on behalf of the citizens of Amherst, Albemarle, Fluvana, and
Gouchland Bounties, in which he uses the following language:

     "Your petitioners further submit to the two Houses of Assembly,
     whether the safety of the citizens of this Commonwealth, in
     their persons, their property, their laws and government, does
     not require that the capacity to act in the important office of
     _Juror, Grand or Petty, civil or criminal_, should not be
     restrained in future to native citizens, or such as were
     citizens at the date of the Treaty of Peace which closed our
     revolutionary war; and whether ignorance of our laws, and
     natural partiality to the countries of their birth, are not
     reasonable causes for declaring this to be one of their rights
     incommunicable in future to adopted citizens."--_Jefferson's
     Writings, Vol. IX., page 453._

Now, Sir, answer me in candor, are you not ashamed of having quoted Mr.
JEFFERSON, and of having so basely misrepresented his position on this
great American question? Did not Mr. JEFFERSON propose to carry his
opposition to foreigners much farther than the American party now do?

But, you vile old demagogue, though "son of a now sainted father," I am
determined you shall not escape the indignant powers of those "Bishops,
Elders, and other Ministers," whom you have wickedly sought to deceive.
It is known to you, and to the world, in what veneration all American
Democrats hold the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and '99, and the fame of
Mr. MADISON, who was the ruling spirit of that session of the
Legislature. That Legislature passed the following Resolution, which you
may find by consulting Henning's Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, New Series,
page 194:

     "That the General Assembly, nevertheless, concurring in opinion
     with the Legislature of Massachusetts that every Constitutional
     barrier should be opposed to the introduction of foreign
     influence into our National Councils,--_Resolved_, That the
     Constitution ought to be so amended that _no foreigner, who
     shall have acquired the right, under our Constitution and laws,
     at the time of making the amendment, shall hereafter be
     eligible to the office of Senator or Representative_, in
     Congress of the United States, nor to _any office in the
     Judiciary or Executive_. Agreed to by the Senate, Jan. 16,
     1799."

I shall next consider two extracts from your Address, under one general
head, relating to the _temporal_ power of the Pope. You say:

     "But the genius of sophistry may fly to the rescue of
     Know-Nothingism, by pretending that it is not on account of
     _his religion_ that the Catholic is to be excluded from office,
     but because he is subjected, not merely to the spiritual but
     the _temporal dominion_ or jurisdiction of the Pope. No error
     has been wider spread than this."

Again:

     "A late distinguished Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Berrien,) in a
     recent address to the public, has copied a letter of Mr.
     Wesley, which may require a few observations. That letter was
     dated in January, 1780. All its conclusions were founded on the
     ASSUMED AND POPULAR OPINION of that day, that the Pope _did_
     claim a civil jurisdiction beyond his own dominions--that he
     _could_ absolve the subjects of other governments from their
     oaths of allegiance, and _that there was_ a principle in one of
     the tenets of that Church, that Catholics were justified in not
     keeping faith with heretics. Against these ASSUMED AND POPULAR
     OPINIONS, the Catholics of England in that day, as they now do
     in this country, were solemnly protesting."

This is a modest way of giving Mr. Wesley the _lie_, but it is
nevertheless quite _direct_, and is the more surprising, as it comes
from the "son of a now sainted father," who was a follower of Wesley, a
"co-laborer of that noble band of Christian ministers" he was
instrumental in starting out into the world--aye, the son of a "father
who, for forty years, ministered at the altars" this same Wesley
erected! In holding up John Wesley as the _vile calumniator_ of the
Catholic Church in England, it is well enough, Governor, to be modest
about it, and cautious in the selection of your words, as you are
addressing a class of men who believe in John Wesley, as a faithful man
of God, and one incapable of misrepresenting the Catholics of England,
the Pope of Rome, or any other sect or individual! John Wesley
ministered at the sacred altars of religion for more than sixty years;
he had with him the power of God, and the witness that he pleased Him;
and the last words he uttered, with his hands clasped, and his eyes
raised toward heaven, were these: "_The best of all is, God is with
us!_" And yet the sons and grandsons in the gospel, of this venerated
and sainted man of God, are insulted in Tennessee, by being told by an
_impertinent old sinner_, and a _vile old party hack_, that he was A
LIAR, while living, and the _slanderer of the Catholic Church_, now that
he is no more! If Mr. Wesley "_assumed_" falsehoods in reference to the
Romish Church in England, he either did it in _ignorance_, or with _a
guilty knowledge_ of the fact. He was a man of too much learning and
information for his friends to get him out of such an indictment under a
plea of ignorance. He is therefore, though dead, A WILFUL LIAR,
according to "Ex-Gov. A. V. Brown," for the Governor goes on to argue
the cause against him, and, on page 19 of his address, quotes _Catholic_
authority to _prove_ him a liar! Shame on the "son of a now sainted
father," and on the _holy seer of Pisgah_! O! Aaron, thou priest of
corrupt Democracy, you need not endeavor to gull "bishops, elders, and
other ministers," with your _whining cant_, while you thus traduce their
great spiritual head, who, under God, taught them the lessons of
salvation!

Gov. Brown, go with me, as one of the admirers of John Wesley, to the
humble dwellings of the miners of Cornwall, to the homely tents of the
colliers of Kingswood and Newcastle, and to the equally humble workshops
of the manufacturers of Yorkshire, in England, who are rejoicing in God
their Saviour that a Wesley was ever born into the world, and ask them
if they believe him capable of slandering the Catholics! Go with me
among the backwoodsmen of North America, and examine them in their lone
tents--go among the honest and virtuous settlers on our Western
frontiers, amid the interminable forests of the far off West, whose
thousands are brought into the fold of Christ, through the
instrumentality of Wesleyan ministers, and ask them if they think the
founder of their Church was _a wilful liar_!

Go with me to the rich pastures and luxuriant harvest-fields of your own
native Middle Tennessee: enter the neat cottages and stately mansions of
that glorious division of our State, and ask the intelligent and
educated females, who are rejoicing in God, in hope of future and
eternal life, through the prayers and sermons of Wesleyan ministers, as
instruments in the hands of God, if they believe the founder of their
Church was _a wicked calumniator_! Go to the islands of the sea, to the
burning sands of Africa, and ask the benighted converts from heathenism,
through the instrumentality of Wesleyan ministers, if they believe the
venerable founder of their Church was a man of truth!

Enter the dwellings of the rich and fashionable planters of the
South--ride around their sugar and cotton plantations, among the sable
sons and daughters of Africa, and witness the blessed fruits of the
pious life, Christian integrity, and triumphant death of John Wesley!
Come over to East Tennessee, Governor, and enter the log-cabins of the
virtuous, happy peasantry of the "hill country," and ask them whether
they believe Mr. Wesley or your Catholic authorities, touching the
temporal power of the Pope of Rome!

Alas! Gov. Brown, the Reformation dawned with LUTHER in Germany, but the
sun of its glory rose with Methodism in England; the first streaks of
_Protestant_ light were seen on the horizon of the sixteenth century,
but the meridian sun of the Reformation dawned in all his brightness on
the Wesleys and Whitefield! But America has been the land of the glory
and triumph of the doctrines of the man you labor to convict of the
awful sin of lying!

But you deny that the Pope of Rome, in _temporal_ matters, claims what
Mr. Wesley attributed to him in the letter copied by Senator Berrien.
You also deny that the Popes claim and have exercised the right to
interfere with matters of government, and the right to absolve their
followers in other countries, and under other governments, from their
allegiance to such rulers and governments. I will proceed to vindicate
Mr. Wesley, and, by the proof, saddle the lie on you! Whilst John was
King of England, he had the "Magna Charta," the great charter securing,
among other things, the right of trial by jury, wrung from him at the
point of the bayonet. This great charter was annulled by Pope Innocent.
Here is the proof:

     "While the king was employed in the siege of Rochester, he
     received the pleasing intelligence, that according to his
     request the charter had been annulled by the pontiff. Innocent,
     enumerating the grounds of his judgment, insists strongly on
     the violence employed by the barons. If they really felt
     themselves aggrieved, they ought, he observes, to have accepted
     the offer of redress by due course of law. They had preferred,
     however, to break the oath of fealty, which they had taken, and
     had appointed themselves judges to sit upon their lord. They
     knew, moreover, that John had enrolled himself among the
     crusaders; and yet they had not scrupled to violate the
     privileges which all Christian nations had granted to the
     champions of the cross. Lastly, England was become the fief of
     the holy see; and they could not be ignorant that if the king
     had the will, he had not at least the power, to give away the
     rights of the crown, without the consent of his feudal
     superior. He was therefore bound to annul the concessions which
     had been extorted from John, as having been obtained in
     contempt of the holy see, to the degradation of royalty, the
     disgrace of the nation, and to the impediment of the crusade.
     At the same time he wrote to the barons, re-stating his
     reasons, exhorting them to submit, requesting them to lay their
     claims before him in the council to be held at Rome; and
     promising that he would induce the king to consent to whatever
     might be deemed just or reasonable, to take care that all
     grievances should be abolished, that the crown should be
     content with its just rights, and the clergy and people should
     enjoy their ancient liberties."--_Lingard's History of
     England_, vol. ii., page 71.

Will it be said that this was not interfering with _temporal_ matters?
Will it be said that the right of trial by jury was a _spiritual_
matter? Will it be said that the tyranny of King John, and his
oppressions, of which the barons justly complained, were _spiritual_
matters? No sensible advocate of Romanism will say this!

The next instance of an interference by the Pope in temporal affairs, to
which I shall call your attention, Governor, is his excommunication of
Elizabeth, Queen of England. She was immediately preceded on that throne
by her sister Mary, who was a Catholic. For no other reason than that
Elizabeth was a _Protestant_, and would not submit her rights and
kingdom to the control of the Pope, Pius V. thundered forth at her
devoted head the following anathema, from his throne at the Vatican,
situated at the foot of one of the seven hills upon which Rome is built:

     EXCOMMUNICATION AND DEPOSITION Of QUEEN ELIZABETH OF ENGLAND.

     "Pius, etc., for a future memorial of the matter. He that
     reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and on
     earth, committed one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, _out
     of which there is no salvation_, to one alone upon the earth,
     Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the
     Bishop of Rome, to be governed in _fulness of power_. Him alone
     he made prince over all people, and all kingdoms, to pluck up,
     destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build, etc. But the number
     of the ungodly hath gotten such power, that there is now no
     place left in the whole world which they have not essayed to
     corrupt with their most wicked doctrines. Amongst others,
     Elizabeth, _the pretended Queen of England, a slave of
     wickedness_, lending thereunto her helping hand, with whom, as
     in a sanctuary, the most pernicious of all men have found a
     refuge; this very woman having seized upon the kingdom, and
     monstrously usurping the place of the supreme Head of the
     Church in all England, and the chief authority and jurisdiction
     thereof, hath again brought back the same kingdom to miserable
     destruction, which was then newly reduced to the faith, and to
     good order. For having by strong hand inhibited the true
     religion, which Mary, the lawful queen, of famous memory, had,
     by the help of this See, restored, after it had been formerly
     overthrown by King Henry VIII., a revolter therefrom, and
     following and embracing the errors of _heretics_, she hath
     removed the royal council, consisting of the English nobility,
     and filled it with obscure men, being heretics; hath oppressed
     the embracers of the Roman faith, hath placed impious
     preachers, ministers of iniquity, and abolished the sacrifice
     of the mass, prayers, fastings, distinction of meats, a single
     life, and the rites and ceremonies; hath commanded books to be
     read in the whole realm, containing manifest heresy, etc. She
     hath not only contemned the godly requests and admonitions of
     princes concerning her healing and conversion, but also bath
     not so much as permitted the Nuncios of the See to cross the
     seas into England, etc. We do, therefore, out of the fulness of
     our apostolic power, declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being
     heretic, and a favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the
     matter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema,
     and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And,
     moreover, we do declare her to be deprived of her pretended
     title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity,
     and privilege whatsoever; and also the nobility, subjects, and
     people of the said kingdom, and all others which have in any
     sort sworn unto her, to be for ever absolved from any such
     oath, and all manner of duty or dominion, allegiance and
     obedience; as we also do, by the authority of these presents,
     absolve them, and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her
     pretended title to the kingdom, and all other things aforesaid.
     And we do command and interdict all and every one of the
     noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they
     presume not to obey her, or her admonitions, mandates, and
     laws; and those who shall do the contrary, we do innodate with
     the like sentence of ANATHEMA.

     "Given at St. Peter's at Rome, in the year 1569, and the fifth
     of our pontificate."--_Dowling's History of Romanism_, p. 564.

One more: Sixtus V. thunders his bull of excommunication at this same
Queen of England--incites Philip of Catholic Spain to make war against
her country--and graciously _gives_ the British Isles to Philip! Here is
the bull of Pope Sixtus:

     "We, Sixtus the Fifth, the universal shepherd of the flock of
     Christ, the supreme chief, to whom the government of the whole
     world appertains, considering that the people of England and
     Ireland, after having been so long celebrated for their
     virtues, their religion, and their submission to our see, have
     become putrid members, infected, and capable of corrupting the
     whole Christian body, and on account of their subjection to the
     impious, tyrannical, and sanguinary government of Elizabeth,
     the bastard queen, and by the influence of her adherents, who
     equal her in wickedness; and who refuse, like her, to recognize
     the power of the Roman Church: regarding that Henry VIII.
     formerly, for motives of debauchery, commenced all these
     disorders by revolting against the submission which he owed to
     the Pope, the sole and true sovereign of England; considering
     that the usurper Elizabeth has followed the path of this
     infamous king, we declare that there exists but one mode of
     remedying these evils, of restoring peace, tranquillity, and
     union to Christendom, of re-establishing religion, and of
     leading back the people to obedience to us, which is, to depose
     from the throne that execrable Elizabeth, who falsely arrogates
     to herself the title of Queen of the British Isles. Being then
     inspired by the Holy Spirit for the general good of the Church,
     we renew, by the virtue of our apostolic power, the sentence
     pronounced by our predecessor, Pius the Fifth and Gregory the
     Thirteenth, against the modern Jezebel: we proclaim her
     deprived of her royal authority, of the rights, titles, or
     pretensions to which she may lay claim over the kingdoms of
     Ireland and England, affirming that she possesses them
     unlawfully and by usurpation. We relieve all her subjects from
     the oaths they may have taken to her, and we prohibit them from
     rendering any kind of service to this execrable woman; it is
     our will, that she be driven from door to door like one
     possessed of a devil, and that all human aid be refused her;
     we declare, moreover, that foreigners or Englishmen are
     permitted, as a meritorious work, to seize the person of
     Elizabeth and surrender her, living or dead, to the tribunals
     of the inquisition. We promise to those who shall accomplish
     this glorious mission, infinite recompenses, not only in the
     life eternal, but even in this world. Finally, we grant plenary
     indulgence to the faithful who shall willingly unite with the
     Catholic army which is going to combat the impious Elizabeth,
     under the orders of our dear son Philip the Second, to whom we
     give the British Isles in full sovereignty, as a recompense for
     the zeal he has always shown toward our see, and for the
     particular affection he has shown for the Catholics of the Low
     Country."--_De Cormenin's History of the Popes_, p. 262.

Here is what Macaulay, a reliable historian, says of the baneful effects
of Romanism:

     "From the time when the barbarians overran the Western Empire
     to the time of the revival of letters, the influence of the
     Church of Rome has been generally favorable to science, to
     civilization, and to good government. But, during the last
     three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been
     her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has
     been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts
     of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been
     in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most
     fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk
     into poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual
     torpor, while Protestant countries, once proverbial for
     sterility and barbarism, have been turned, by skill and
     industry, into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes
     and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what
     Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what four hundred years
     ago they naturally were, shall now compare the country round
     Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form
     some judgment of the tendency of Papal domination. The descent
     of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths
     of degradation, the elevation of Holland, in spite of many
     natural disadvantages, to a position such as no commonwealth so
     small has ever reached, teach the same lesson. Whoever passes,
     in Germany, from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant principality,
     in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant canton, in
     Ireland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant county, finds
     that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade of
     civilization. On the other side of the Atlantic the same law
     prevails. The Protestants of the United States have left far
     behind the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The
     Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain inert, while the whole
     continent round them is in a ferment with Protestant activity
     and enterprise."--_Macaulay's History of England_, vol. i., p.
     37.

I must be permitted to add, just here, that in 1848, when the people of
France expelled Louis Philippe from the throne in Paris, and established
a Republic, the present old drunken, goutified debauchee, Pope Pius IX.,
hurled at the French nation a fearful bull of excommunication, and
denied them the right of revolution! Was this interfering in temporal
matters? But no longer ago than the year 1854, this same old vagabond,
Pope Pius, issued orders absolving his followers from all allegiance to
the Sardinian Government, because that government chose to abolish the
infamous monasteries, which had been so long supported at the expense of
an oppressed people! Was this not interfering in temporal matters? I
could multiply authorities, Governor, to an indefinite extent,
sustaining Mr. Wesley's views, and falsifying all you say, but this
would swell my reply beyond what I intended in the outset. Let me call
your attention to Brownson's Review, for July, 1853, where you will find
all this power, and even more, claimed for the Pope, over temporal
sovereigns and their subjects, the world over! This _Review_ is the
acknowledged organ of _Archbishop Hughes_, the head and front of the
Catholic Church in North America.

You state that our Declaration of Independence absolved from every
possible obligation to the Pope in temporal matters. Your language is:

     "The moment it was read and proclaimed from old Independence
     Hall in Philadelphia, obedience in temporal matters, if it ever
     existed, ceased for ever, as to every native-born son in
     America."

You further add that the Constitution of the United States set aside all
temporal power of the Pope in this country, and that if any doubts
remain, the finishing touch is given by the following oath of
naturalization, taken by our naturalized citizens:

     "I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of
     the United States, and that I do _absolutely and entirely_
     renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
     prince, potentate, or state, or sovereignty _whatever_."

Sir, do you suppose that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers,"
whom you have the impudence to address, are all fools? Do you suppose
they are men of no reading or information? If they know any thing, they
certainly know that the oath of naturalization they, the Catholics,
take, weighs no more with them than a feather. A Catholic can evade the
force of any oath, by a _mental reservation_. Here is what Sanchez says,
the very highest Catholic authority, whose teaching, including this
interpretation of oaths, has been endorsed by the Council of Trent:

     "It is lawful to use _ambiguous terms_ to give the impression a
     different sense from that which you understand yourself. A
     person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing,
     though in fact he has, by saying to himself it was not done on
     a certain day, or before he was born, or by concealing any
     other similar circumstances; which gives another meaning to it.
     This is extremely convenient, and always very just, when
     necessary to your health, honor, or prosperity."

In addition to this, let me tell you, if you never before knew the fact,
that Judge Gaston, a distinguished Jurist, and a gentleman of excellent
character, though a rigid Roman Catholic, of North Carolina, was
appointed to a seat upon the Supreme Bench of that State. The
Constitution of that State, unlike those of almost all other States,
requires every Judge to take an oath, among other things, that HE
BELIEVES IN THE TRUTH OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION. Mr. Gaston asked time
to think over the matter--he repaired to the Archbishop at Baltimore,
doubtless obtained a dispensation--wrote back to Raleigh from there,
that he would take the oath--returned, and in due time solemnly swore
that _he believed in the truth of the Protestant Religion_. He died in
Raleigh, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court--but lived and died a
Roman Catholic!

During the past month, in this city, W. G. McAdoo, the Attorney General
for this Judicial Circuit, had some Irish Catholics brought before the
Grand Jury, to testify in cases of unlawful gaming and the retailing of
ardent spirits. The Clerk swore them on a common English Testament, and
they returned to the Jury room, and testified that they knew of no
cases! The Attorney for the Commonwealth then procured the _Catholic
Douay Bible_, with a large _Cross_ upon its outside, swore them upon
this--sent them in, and they _disgorged_, telling of various cases, and
enabling the Jury to find bills against even some of their own folks! An
oath, then, is nothing with strict Roman Catholics, who believe their
Priests can absolve them from the obligations of any and all oaths. For
notwithstanding your denial of the fact, it is notoriously true, that
the members of the Catholic Church believe their Priesthood to exercise,
by Divine right, the power to fix and determine their eternal destiny.
Nay, every Roman Catholic in the known world is under the absolute
control of the Catholic Priesthood, by considerations not only of a
temporal, but an eternal weight. This is what gives their Priesthood
such power and influence in elections; an influence they are using in
every State, against the American party. And it is this faculty of
concentration, this political influence, this power of the Priesthood to
control the Catholic community, and cause a vast multitude of ignorant
foreigners to vote as a _unit_, and thus control the will of the
American people, that has engendered this opposition to the Catholic
Church. It is this aggressive policy and corrupting tendency of the
Romish Church; this organized and concentrated political power of a
distinct class of men; foreign by birth; inferior in intelligence and
virtue to the American people, and not their religion and form of
worship, objectionable as these are known to be, which have called forth
the opposition of the American party to the Catholic Church.

But, sir, you occupy several pages in copying and commenting upon the
several oaths administered to the members of the American party--oaths
which, as you tell us, are revolting in their character, and lead to the
indiscriminate proscription of all foreigners. I meet all your
conjectures and wild speculations in reference to these several oaths
and obligations, by saying, just here, that I have taken them all, and
that they express my sentiments and feelings to the very letter; and I
am willing, for the remainder of my days, to go before an acting Justice
of the Peace, for the county of Knox, and have all three of these oaths
administered every Monday morning, upon the "Holy Bible and Cross."

You have failed, in your zeal to advocate Romanism and oppose the
American party, to tell the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom
you address, that we resort to our oaths and obligations to combat
successfully the most powerful oath-bound organization the world ever
knew. The oath of every _Roman Catholic Bishop_ and _Archbishop_ binds
him to absolute and unquestioned obedience, not only to the present Pope
but to his successors, "canonically coming in," and to "oppose and
persecute" all who do not submit to his authority! The oath of every
_Priest_ binds him to the Church of Rome "as the chief head and matron
above all pretended Churches throughout the whole earth," and to
"further her interests more than his own earthly good." The oath of the
_Jesuit_ binds him to the Pope, as "Christ's Vicar-General," by "all the
saints and hosts of heaven," and to "denounce and disown any allegiance
as due to Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates
or officers." The oath of the _San Fedisti_, a secret Order established
by the Papal government in 1821, binds them to sustain "the Papal altar
and throne, and to exterminate heretics, without pity for the cries of
children, or of men and women." The oath of the _Irish Ribbon Men_, an
Order established by the Papal government, and introduced into this
country by _Bedini_, the Pope's Nuncio, but a few years ago, binds him
"to extirpate all heretics, and all the Protestants, and to walk in
their blood to the knees." Is it not time to take the alarm, Governor,
and to combine to resist all these secret oath-bound associations, which
now threaten us with the loss of all that freemen and Protestant
Christians hold dear on earth?

It is a matter of utter astonishment to find a great political party in
this country, most of whom are native-born Protestants, taking sides
with a foreign Church, whose designs against this country, according to
the avowals of the Duke of Richmond, lately Governor-General of Canada,
are of the most wicked and fearful character! Speaking of this
government, the Duke said in a public address, on our northern border:

     "It will be destroyed: it ought not, and will not be permitted
     to exist. The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent
     wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its
     example; and so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon
     his throne; and _the sovereigns of Europe are aware of it_, and
     they have _determined upon its destruction, and have come to an
     understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means
     to accomplish it_; and they will eventually succeed, by
     SUBVERSION _rather than conquest_. All the low and surplus
     population of the different nations of Europe will be carried
     into that country. It is and will be a receptacle for the bad
     and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted
     for soldiers, or to supply the navies; _and the governments of
     Europe will favor such a course_. This will create a surplus
     and majority of low population, who are so very easily excited;
     and they will bring with them their principles, and in nine
     cases out of ten adhere to their ancient and former
     governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion, and will
     transmit them to their posterity; and in many cases propagate
     them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and by
     the Constitution and laws will be invested with the right of
     suffrage. Hence, discord, dissension, anarchy, and civil war
     will ensue; and some popular individual will assume the
     government, and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe,
     the emigrants, and many of the natives, will sustain him. The
     Church of Rome has a design upon that country; and it will in
     time be the established religion, and will aid in the
     destruction of that Republic. _I have conversed with many of
     the sovereigns and princes of Europe; and they have unanimously
     expressed these opinions relative to the government of the
     United States, and their determination to subvert it._"

The monarchs of Europe, says the Duke of Richmond, will aid in sending
us a surplus of "low, excitable, bad, and disaffected men," who will
bring with them their principles, and will adhere to their foreign
notions of government, laws, manners, customs, and religion--and that
religion Catholic; and yet _you_, the "son of a now sainted father," of
Protestant raising, have the brazen effrontery to call upon the
"Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of an American Protestant Church
to aid you, your corrupt party, and the monarchs of Europe, in
destroying both our government and Church!

Sir, it is passing strange that Protestant Christians and their children
should be found side by side with you, Bishop Hughes, Gov. Johnson, and
the thousands of bad men who are seeking to build up a Roman Hierarchy
in this free country of ours! What do you promise the country and
yourselves, if Romanism proves successful in this contest? The history
of the past informs us that Rome has slain 1,000,000 of Albigenses and
Waldenses; 1,500,000 Jews, in Spain; 3,000,000 Moors, in Spain. France
will never forget St. Bartholomew's Night, when 100,000 souls perished
in Paris alone! The blood of Protestants has fertilized the soil of
England, Germany, and Ireland. I mean by this, that enough of Protestant
blood has been shed to _enrich_ all the poor lands of England, Germany,
and Ireland, if it were properly distributed. In all, the authentic
records of the Romish Church show, (and of this she makes her boast,)
that she has put to death SIXTY-EIGHT MILLIONS of human beings, for no
other offence than that of being _Protestants_ in their religious faith!
Average each person slain at four gallons of blood, and medical writers
say a healthy person yields more, and it makes TWO HUNDRED AND
SEVENTY-TWO MILLIONS OF GALLONS!--enough to overflow the banks of the
Mississippi, and destroy all the cotton and sugar plantations in
Mississippi and Louisiana!

But you argue, in your blasphemous publication, that this is no longer a
characteristic of the Romish Hierarchy. Why is it not? Has she ever
changed for the better? When did she ever renounce these doctrines and
practices? Never, no, never! Hers is the same tyrannical system
now--where she has the power--that it always has been, and always must
be, in the very nature of things! It is her boast, and the boast of her
standard authors, that she is always right, and knows no change! And wo
to this land of ours, if ever Rome gets the ascendancy here! Her whole
system is adverse to our Republican institutions, and she hesitates not
to declare it! _Brownson_ says in his Review:

     "Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the _lying
     world_, and, instead of pleading for our Church at the bar of
     the State, _summon the State itself to plead at the bar of the
     Church, its divinely constituted judge_."

No wonder, sir, that the American people are aroused! Such bold and
startling avowals are calculated to arouse and unite the somewhat
divided bands of Protestant Christians; to wake up a host of Luthers,
Calvins, Cranmers, and Wesleys; to bind together "the heretics condemned
in a mass." The very latest thing I have seen is the "Pastoral Letter"
of the Bishops of the Province of St. Louis, just issued. That document
explicitly says:

     "We maintain the superiority of the _spiritual_ over the
     _temporal_ order. We maintain that the temporal ruler is
     _bound_ to conform his enactments to the Divine law. We
     maintain that the Church is the supreme judge of all questions
     concerning faith and morals; and that in the determination of
     such question, the _Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ_,
     constitutes a tribunal from which there is no appeal; and to
     whose award all the children of the Church must yield
     obedience."

Now, sir, after this authoritative and official announcement, I don't
want to see any more of your wire-drawn distinctions between spiritual
and temporal allegiance to the Pope. These Bishops say that both are
alike binding. Nor do I want to see any more of your malignant efforts
to fix the _lie_ upon Mr. Wesley, for affirming in Europe, during the
past century, what the Bishops of the United States have announced, in a
Pastoral Address, in the present day!

Pope Pius IX. has, by a special act, made the Virgin Mary the special
patron of these United States; but the Protestants of this country have
also made a decree, and that decree is, that Jesus Christ, and not the
Virgin Mary, shall be the patron of these United States.

And I am happy to have it in my power to inform you, notwithstanding the
influence of your Address, that the "Bishops, Elders, and other
Ministers" of the Methodist Church, both North and South, are ready to
make a common, determined, prayerful effort to save our native land from
the threatened slavery of submission to the decisions of the Council of
Trent, and the equally corrupt conventions of Progressive Democracy!

Assuming what is notoriously _false_--that the Know Nothings are in
favor of all measures fatal to the South, and destructive to the
Constitution--you ask on page 25 of your _infinitely infernal_ Address:

     "What if a proposition be pending to repeal the Fugitive Slave
     Law--the Kansas and Nebraska law--the rejection of a State
     asking admission into the Union, because its constitution may
     tolerate slavery?"

You know, sir, that the 12th Plank in the Philadelphia Platform of the
American party is a safer guaranty upon this slavery question, and the
perpetuity of existing laws, than is to be found anywhere in the creeds
of political parties. Here it is in full:

     "The American party having arisen upon the ruins, and in spite
     of the opposition of the Whig and Democratic parties, can not
     be held in any manner responsible for the obnoxious acts or
     violated pledges of either; and the systematic agitation of the
     slavery question by those parties having elevated sectional
     hostility into a positive element of political power, and
     brought our institutions into peril, it has therefore become
     the imperative duty of the American party to interpose, for the
     purpose of giving peace to the country, and perpetuity to the
     Union. And as experience has shown it impossible to reconcile
     opinions so extreme as those which separate the disputants, and
     as there can be no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the
     National Council has deemed it the best guaranty of common
     justice and of future peace, to abide by and maintain the
     existing laws upon the subject of slavery, as a final and
     conclusive settlement of that subject in spirit and in
     substance.

     "And regarding it the highest duty to avow their opinions upon
     a subject so important, in distinct and unequivocal terms, it
     is hereby declared as the sense of this National Council, that
     Congress possesses no power, under the Constitution, to
     legislate upon the subject of slavery in the States where it
     does or may exist, or to exclude any State from admission into
     the Union, because its Constitution does or does not recognize
     the institution of slavery as a part of its social system; and
     expressly pretermitting any expression of opinion upon the
     power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any
     Territory, it is the sense of the National Council that
     Congress ought not to legislate upon the subject of slavery
     within the Territories of the United States, and that any
     interference by Congress with slavery as it exists in the
     District of Columbia, would be a violation of the spirit and
     intention of the compact by which the State of Maryland ceded
     the District to the United States, and a breach of the national
     faith."

In the "wild hunt" for territory by the progressive Democracy, and their
efforts to settle our Western lands with foreigners who are to a man
Free Soilers and Abolitionists, the South has more to fear than from all
other considerations. What is Gov. Johnson's iniquitous Homestead Bill,
but a bid for foreigners? He proposes to give to the heads of families
one hundred and sixty acres of land, thus _hiring_ all the convicts and
paupers of Europe to come and settle in our Western States and
Territories! Sir, but let your progressive, sublimated,
double-distilled, converging-lines, Johnsonian Democracy bring into this
Union one million of Spanish <DW7>s--black, brown, sorrel, and
tawny--under the guise of acquiring Cuba for the South: let them bring
eight hundred thousand French and English <DW7>s, under the name of
acquiring Canada for the North: let them bring two millions of Mexican
<DW7>s--brown, tawny, red and black, being a mixture of all colors and
all nations--under the specious pretence of "extending the area of
freedom"--let all this be done--and your party, made up of native
traitors, and foreign vagabonds, and Catholic paupers, are aiming at
it--let it be done, I say, and farewell to liberty, and all that is
sacred in this country! With five millions of <DW7>s in our midst--four
millions and a half being of foreign birth, and four millions speaking a
foreign language--all taught from infancy to hate and detest
Protestantism as a crime--an American party would become an absolute
political necessity. Well do the Free Soil papers comprehend this
matter. Hear the infamous but influential _Chicago Tribune_, one of your
Douglass organs--one of your foreign Catholic organs. I quote from the
paper itself:

     "It is now a well-attested fact, that Atchison is a member of
     the Superior Order of the Spangled Banner, or Know Nothings,
     and that his infernal villainy in Kansas has been carried on
     under the protection and patronage of the lodges in Western
     Missouri. This is a matter that all men in the North should
     understand, that Northern voters may be exceedingly cautious
     how they give countenance or support to an Order that, in any
     of its phases or localities, is capable of producing such
     results. It is further said, that the members of that Kansas
     Legislature, now outraging all sense of right and justice by
     their devilish enactments, are the chosen men of the affiliated
     Know Nothings in Missouri and Kansas, who back then up in
     whatever thing they do. Atchison and his gang are the friends
     of the Order, and through it and Southern Know Nothing support
     they are sure that their efforts to establish a despotism in
     the Territory, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet, will
     be successful. These facts account for many things heretofore
     inexplicable, and they develop the true reason of the hostility
     of the border-ruffians to the foreign immigration that would,
     under other circumstances, people that vast and fertile country
     west of the Missouri."

Thus it appears that a host of _lousy_ foreigners, fresh from the
emigrant ships, in which they are brought over to this country as
_ballast_--having the right to vote conferred upon them by an infamous
_progressive_ Democratic feature in the Kansas Bill, were expected to
get the control of affairs in Kansas. It further appears, however, that
Senator Atchison and his pro-slavery associates supposed that, though
fresh from their farms, and crossing the line of their State into the
new Territory, they too had the right to vote without being
_naturalized_ in Kansas. Hence, in the estimation of this Sag Nicht
organ at Chicago, a great outrage is committed upon Germany, Ireland,
and Italy!

Sir, you need not lay the flattering unction to your soul, that you can
drive the clergy generally from the noble stand they have taken upon
this great question. Nor need you suppose, for one moment, that the
American party are conquered, though defeated in several States in the
recent elections. The party will remain true to its ends. Though it fail
to command office, it cannot fail to exercise large power. Office is not
always strength; but sometimes, nay, frequently, as in the case of the
present Administration, weakness, as time will prove! The aim of the
American party is, by fair party means, to correct a great social evil
and political wrong; and if they cannot do that, to mitigate the evil
and the wrong; if they cannot do that, to prevent its _further
increase_; and if neither can be done, why, then I confess to you, the
party will have failed. But, sir, if such a failure take place, rest
assured that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the Methodist
Church, South, will not help to bring about such a failure! We can
afford to let such minions of party as you are, rave and rant, and
publish their expositions, and issue their warnings to Churches: they
will all serve to swell our ranks. All true American hearts, not chained
to the car of party, or bound down by the cords of plunder, think alike
upon the great questions that have called the American party into
existence. Little do we regard the slanders of the pensioners of party.
Let their speeches and publications teem with wholesale slanders of our
creed: the political jockeyism of these thimble-riggers, as in your own
case, is too apparent!

From Maine to the shores of the Pacific the country is convulsed with
intense excitement upon this subject. Shall Americans govern themselves,
or shall Foreigners, unacquainted with our laws, and brought up under
monarchical governments, rule? Shall those who are temporally and
spiritually subject to a foreign prince be our legislators,
post-masters, foreign ministers, and military leaders, and change our
laws as they are directed by the Pope of Rome? Such results the American
party have set out to prevent. The present excitement will not cease;
true Americans and Protestants will labor and pray until our distracted
country shall be redeemed from the influence of civil and ecclesiastical
tyranny.

Now, Governor, I have noticed all your charges, arguments, and appeals,
but one, and that is the allegation that Methodist clerical Know
Nothings are _conspirators_. Your argument is--and I wish to represent
you correctly--"The offence of conspiracy is not confined to the
prejudicing of a particular individual; it may be to injure public
trade, to affect public health, or to _violate public policy_."

You cite Blackstone's Commentary, and other English Law Books, to
satisfy the Clergy as to the _law of conspiracy_. This done, you
overwhelm them with this sage and logical conclusion:

     "The gist of the offence of conspiracy consists in a
     confederacy to do an _unlawful act_, and the offence is
     complete when the confederacy is made."

I will concede, for the sake of the argument, that this is sound law,
and that yours is a logical deduction. Nay, I will concede more--I grant
that it is an unlawful act for native Americans, and Protestant
Christians, whether ministers or laymen, to resolve, or swear, as we
Know Nothings have all done, that we will not vote for Catholics and
Foreigners for public offices! I take the ground you do, that a man's
vote is not his own, and that it is only to be disposed of by the
leaders of the party with which he may act!

And now, if you and I, both great men, and _Doctors of Law_, are correct
in laying down the law, and the _privilege of voters in this free
country_, what an infamous body of conspirators the Democrats are, and
have always been! For a quarter of a century, they have conspired to
keep the Whigs out of office--have succeeded in doing so most of that
time--and have kept thousands of them who are poor from becoming rich!
More recently, they have conspired with Abolitionists, Free Soilers,
Fourierites, Spiritualists, Roman Catholics, Irish, French, and German
paupers, and all manner of European convicts, to keep the American party
out of office, and have succeeded in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and other States--thereby
depriving the Americans of "lots" of money and honors, both of which
they need, and both of which are their _birthrights_!

The "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom you address, in
opposition to the great sin of _conspiracy_, would more cheerfully unite
with you to enforce law and order, and to prosecute offenders, but for
the fact that the _Abolition wing of your party_ once conspired against
them, to deprive their wives, children, widows, and orphans, of their
lawful portion of the great Book Concern in New York, and they were
compelled to punish the conspirators, at great expense, however, in the
District and Supreme Courts of the United States!

But, Sir, upon the subject of _oaths_, you are eloquent, apt in your
quotations of Scripture, and evince great learning in the legal
profession! You charge that "Know Nothingism is both unchristian and
unlawful, because of its _oaths_, which have no Scripture warrant for
their administration!" One of your quotations from the Bible is this:
"Swear not at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne: nor by the
earth, for it is his footstool." Your mind has undergone a great change
upon the subject of _oaths_ and _hard swearing_, since the 21st of
June, 1845, when you delivered your celebrated "Mount Pisgah" speech at
Athens. You then advised the people of the State to administer "horrible
oaths," and to swear by the "_heavens_," aye, "God's throne." But then
you were a Know Nothing. Here is what you say in your _revised_ copy of
that memorable speech:

     "Go up with me in imagination and stand for awhile on some
     lofty summit of the Rocky Mountains. Let us take one ravishing
     view of this broad land of liberty. Turn your face toward the
     Gulf of Mexico: what do you behold? Instead of one lone star
     faintly shining in the far distant south, a whole galaxy of
     stars of the first magnitude are bursting on your vision and
     shining with a bright and glorious effulgence. Now turn with me
     to the west--the mighty west--where the setting sun dips her
     disk in the western ocean. Look away down through the misty
     distance to the shores of the Pacific, with all its bays, and
     harbors, and rivers. Cast your eyes as far as the Russian
     Possessions, in latitude fifty-four degrees and forty minutes.
     What a new world lies before you! How many magnificent States
     to be the future homes of the sons and daughters of freedom!
     But you have not gazed on half this glorious country. Turn now
     your face to the east, where the morning sun first shines on
     this land of liberty. Away yonder, you see the immortal old
     thirteen, who achieved our independence; nearer to us lie the
     twelve or fifteen States of the great valley of the
     Mississippi, stretching and reposing like so many giants in
     their slumbers. O! now I see your heart is full--it can take in
     no more. Who now feels like he was a party man, or a southern
     man, or a northern man? Who does not feel that he is an
     American, and thankful to Heaven that his lot was cast in such
     a goodly land? When did mental vision ever rest on such a
     scene? Moses, when standing on the top of Mount Pisgah, looking
     over on the promised land, gazed not on a scene half so lovely.
     O! let us this day _vow_ that whatever else we may do, by
     whatever name we may be called, we will never surrender one
     square acre of this goodly heritage to the DICTATION of any
     king or potentate on earth. SWEAR IT! SWEAR IT! my countrymen,
     and let HEAVEN RECORD THE VOW FOR EVER!"

In conclusion, Governor, suffer a few words of advice, and I will bring
this letter, already too long, to a close. You are advanced in years,
nay, you have grown gray in the service of sin, and political intrigues;
and at most you have not long to live. Cease your political aspirations,
and turn your attention to future and eternal things! You have been a
member of our State Legislature; subsequently, a member of Congress; and
more recently the Governor of our State; honors and stations, to say the
least of it, equal to your merits and talents!

As a true "son of a now sainted father," from whom you have been
separated for many years, so demean yourself in future, that you may not
be separated, world without end! Humble yourself before God; confess
your numerous sins; and instead of lecturing God's ministers upon the
subject of party politics, ask them, with tears in your eyes, to pray
for you! Exercise a living faith in Christ, who came down from heaven,
and made upon the cross a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice,
oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world. Thus
obtaining forgiveness, cease your Sunday discussions on political
subjects; attend at the house of God, and set an example to other
ungodly Sag Nichts, and lead a new and different life!

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

     W. G. BROWNLOW,

     _A Local Methodist Minister._




GOVERNOR JOHNSON AND EDITOR EASTMAN.


On the 9th of October, 1855, and while the Legislature was in session at
Nashville, we delivered a speech to an immense crowd on the Public
Square; which, after certain preliminary remarks, we will give to the
public, just as it was spoken. The reason why the call was made on us to
deliver the speech was, that we had, the previous weeks, delivered the
same, in _substance_, at Shelbyville and Clarksville, and the American
party at Nashville hearing of it, and approving what was said, desired
us to repeat it; and, to be candid, we desired to repeat it there and
then!

Mr. Wise, of Virginia, gained great notoriety, in the spring of 1855, by
his abuse and blackguardism, heaped upon the American party. He was
successful; and Johnson, of Tennessee, whose ambition was to gain a more
infamous notoriety, profiting by the example of Wise, plunged into the
lowest depths of Billingsgate, and piled his vulgar epithets upon the
party _indiscriminately_. Wise, then, like all inventors and
originators, has had numerous _imitators_, and among the most successful
of these are Johnson, of Tennessee; Stephens, of Georgia; and Clingman,
of North Carolina. But as an adept in low Billingsgate slang, coarse
blackguardism, and as a slanderer and maligner of better men than
himself, Johnson has excelled his patron, Wise, and left far in the
shades of the distant caverns of abuse, both Stephens and Clingman!

To prepare the public mind for the degree of severity we used in
reference to the Governor of the State, we will introduce as many as
_five_ different extracts from his speeches, in his late canvass for
Governor, at Murfreesboro' and Manchester; as reported by his partisan
organ, the _Nashville Union_, and his _pliant tool_, its Abolition
editor, _E. G. Eastman_:

     "THE DEVIL, HIS SATANIC MAJESTY, THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS, WHO
     PRESIDES OVER THE SECRET CONCLAVE HELD IN PANDEMONIUM, MAKES
     WAR UPON ALL BRANCHES OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. THE KNOW NOTHINGS
     ADVOCATE AND DEFEND NONE, BUT MAKE WAR UPON ONE OF THE
     CHURCHES, AND THUS FAR BECOME THE ALLIES OF THE PRINCE OF
     DARKNESS."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Murfreesboro'.

     "A DENOMINATION LIKE THIS, TO SET UP AS THE GUARDIANS OF THE
     RELIGION AND MORALS OF THE COUNTRY! A DENOMINATION BOUND
     TOGETHER BY SECRET AND TERRIBLE OATHS: THE FIRST OF WHICH, ON
     THE VERY INITIATION, FIXES AND REQUIRES THEM TO CARRY A LIE IN
     THEIR MOUTHS."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Murfreesboro'.

     "SHOW ME THE DIMENSIONS OF A KNOW NOTHING, AND I WILL SHOW YOU
     A HUGE REPTILE, UPON WHOSE NECK THE FOOT OF EVERY HONEST MAN
     OUGHT TO BE PLACED."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Manchester.

     "THEY ARE LIKE THE HYENA, AND COME FROM THEIR LAIR AFTER
     MIDNIGHT TO PREY UPON HUMAN CARCASSES."--[Speech of ANDREW
     JOHNSON, at Manchester.

     "I WOULD AS SOON BE FOUND IN THE CLAN OF JOHN A. MURRELL AS IN
     A KNOW NOTHING COUNCIL."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at
     Manchester.

The _blackguard_ and _calumniator_ using this language, was elected by a
majority of two thousand votes: that majority being cast by _Foreigners
and illegal voters_; and consequently, his competitor, COL. GENTRY--than
whom there is not a more talented, patriotic, and honorable gentleman in
Tennessee--was fairly and justly elected. This, then, is the language
used by the Governor of Tennessee, _towards a majority of the legal
voters of the State_! Under these circumstances, we made the speech that
follows, to an immense crowd on the Square: the correspondence preceding
which, will explain itself:

                                   NASHVILLE, Oct. 10th, 1855.

     W. G. BROWNLOW, ESQ.:

     _Dear Sir_:--The undersigned, having heard your speech on the
     Square, last night, respectfully request that you embody the
     substance of the same, and publish it in the Knoxville Whig.
     The desire to see it in print is very general; and those who
     heard it approved its severity, without it were such as were
     bitter against the American party.

     Your friends,
     CHARLES G. SMITH,
     JOHN MORRISON,
     F. M. BURTON,
     ROBT. S. NORTHCUTT,
     SAML. DAVIS.


                                    NASHVILLE, Oct. 13th, 1855.

     MESSRS. SMITH, MORRISON, AND OTHERS:

     _Gentlemen_:--Your note requesting me to publish the substance
     of my remarks on the Square, last Tuesday night, has been
     received, and I would have replied sooner, but for my absence
     at Shelbyville. I have now made the same speech at Clarksville,
     Nashville, and Shelbyville; and my only regrets are, that my
     engagements prevent me from delivering the same speech at every
     point in this State, where Gov. Johnson held me up as the "High
     Priest of the Order," and argued therefrom the _want of
     respectability_ for the Order. In addition to your request, I
     have had verbal applications from many gentlemen to publish my
     remarks--gentlemen who have been mild and moderate throughout
     their political course. I shall, therefore, comply with your
     request and theirs, at my earliest convenience.

     I hold that no man's position in life should shield him from
     the rebukes he may merit by his bad conduct; and as for the
     present Governor of Tennessee, his wholesale abuse of the
     American party, towards whose members, without a single
     exception, he has indulged in language which ought not to be
     tolerated within the precincts of Billingsgate, no epithet is
     too low, too degrading, or disgraceful, to pay him back in.

     Respectfully, &c.,

     W. G. BROWNLOW.

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--The occasion which has called you together to-night,
is the special appointment of our young friend, Mr. Crowe, to whose
eloquence we have all listened with pleasure. I have made no appointment
to speak here; nor have I prompted the loud and long calls made upon me,
this evening, by this large Nashville audience. I shall speak to you;
but not upon the _issues_ of the late canvass, nor upon those of the
approaching canvass of 1856. I will discuss _Andrew Johnson_ and _E. G.
Eastman_; and if they are in the assembly, I hope they will come forward
and take seats on this stand, that I may have the pleasure of looking
them full in the face, as I denounce them in unmeasured terms: which is
my purpose to-night, let the consequences be what they may!

On a memorable night in August, after it was understood that _Andrew
Johnson_ was reelected to the office of Governor, a procession was
formed in Knoxville, composed of the worst materials in that young and
growing city--such as drunken, red-mouthed Irishmen, lousy Germans, and
insolent <DW64>s, with three or four men of respectable pretensions
thrown in, to exercise a controlling influence over these bad materials.
This riotous mob halted in front of my dwelling, in East Knoxville, and
_groaned_ and _sang_ for my especial benefit: all which was natural
enough--as they had triumphed over me in the election of a Governor. I
took no offence at their rejoicing over the election of Gov. Johnson, as
I told them; and for the reason, that I knew them to be of that class of
men who would _actually need the exercise of the pardoning power_, at
the hands of the present Governor, to release them from the
penitentiary, before his present term of service would expire!

From my humble dwelling, this _beautiful_ procession marched to the
Coleman House, on Gay street, yelling like devils, and insulting the
inmates of every house they passed. "Huzza for _Andy McJohnson_!"
exclaimed one. "Three cheers for _Andy O'Johnson_!" exclaimed another.
While, to cap the climax--"Well done, my _Johnsing_ and the _White
Bastard_," (meaning _Basis_,) exclaimed a drunken <DW64>! Halting in
front of the Coleman House, the Governor elect mounted a goods box, and
under feelings of great excitement, hatred, and malice, delivered a
speech abusive of the whole American party, excepting none, in coarse,
bitter language, in a style peculiarly his own--adapted alone to the
foul precincts of Billingsgate--rounding his periods with a diabolical
and infernal _grin_, alone suited to a display of oratory by a land
pirate!

I reported this slanderous speech--not in as offensive style--as it was
delivered; for his _looks_ and _grins_ no man can report on paper. I
also wrote the substance of what he said to Major Donelson, in a letter,
of which I shall have something more to say before I leave this stand.
Just here, I will repeat what the Governor did say, and what I reported
him to have said in my paper. I wish this large audience to hear me
distinctly, and to recollect the points I make; for I shall wind up on
the Governor and his miserable tool, _Eastman_, with a degree of
severity you have not been accustomed to, but which shall be warranted
by the facts in each case.

Gov. Johnson said this new party of self-styled Americans professed to
have organized with a view to purify and reform the old political
parties. A beautiful set, said he, to reform! The Order of Know Nothings
was composed of the worst men in the Whig and Democratic parties. As a
_sample_ of these men, he pointed out _Andrew J. Donelson_, by
name--exclaiming as often as twice, _Who is Andrew J. Donelson?_ He is a
soured, office-seeking, disappointed politician, who has been kicked out
of the Democratic party. To illustrate his views more fully, he told the
crowd to imagine a large gang of _counterfeiters_ out there! and an
equally large gang of _horse-thieves_ out yonder! Take from these two
companies the worst men in their ranks, form a third party of these, and
you have a representation of this Know Nothing party. This was a
beautiful party to propose reform, or to speak of other parties being
corrupt! He was interrupted repeatedly; and I think I may safely say,
among hands, they gave him the d----d lie fifty times! James M. Davis, a
respectable mechanic, asked him if he would say that to Major Donelson's
face? He replied, that he heard the hissing of an adder, or a goose, and
went through with certain stereotyped phrases you have all heard from
his lips. This call upon him by Mr. Davis was not named in my newspaper
report, nor in my letter to Major Donelson. Indeed, I did not anticipate
a denial of his abuse.

Now, fellow-citizens, it was in this connection, as well as in the most
offensive language, that Gov. Johnson introduced the name of Andrew J.
Donelson, repeating it more than once, emphasizing upon it, and
repeating it with scorn and bitterness. This is the report, _in
substance_, I made of his speech through my paper, and in a letter I
addressed to Major Donelson. And to the truth of my report, there are
one hundred respectable gentlemen in Knoxville who will make oath upon
the Holy Bible. There are now a half-dozen respectable gentlemen in this
crowd who were in the street at Knoxville on that occasion, and heard
every word the Governor said, and will sustain me in my account of it.
Among these I will name Messrs. White and Armstrong, members of the
House, Senator Rogers, Col. James C. Luttrell, and Mr. Fleming, the
editor of the Knoxville Register.

Well, gentlemen--and I am proud to have an opportunity of vindicating
myself before so large a Nashville audience as this is--I say Major
Donelson came to Nashville, after receiving intelligence of the abuse of
the Governor, and was seen walking these streets with a _large and
homely stick_ in his hand, looking _grum_, as any gentleman would do
under the circumstances. The friends of Gov. Johnson seeing what would
likely be the result of this affair, asked for, and very properly
obtained that letter, with a view to laying it before their slanderous
and abusive Executive officer, that he might _lie out of what he said_
about an honorable and brave man; and thereby avoid the disgrace of a
cudgelling! Did he lie out of the scrape? He did: aye, he _ingloriously
lied out_ of what he had said--leaving Major Donelson no ground for any
difficulty with him: although the Major had a right to suppose that any
man base enough to make such charges, would have no hesitancy in lying
out of his disreputable and cowardly abuse. I therefore pronounce your
Governor, here upon his own dunghill, an UNMITIGATED LIAR AND
CALUMNIATOR, and a VILLAINOUS COWARD, wanting the _nerve_ to stand up to
his abuse of better men than himself!

But it will be said that the Governor _proves_ me a liar, by a citizen
of Nashville, who was present at Knoxville and heard his speech. That is
so, but I prove both him and his witness liars, by a multitude of
witnesses who were also present, and who are gentlemen of the first
standing. But who is it that testifies that I have lied? It is _E. G.
Eastman_, the editor of the Sag Nicht organ in this city. And who is _E.
G. Eastman_? He is a dirty, lying, and unscrupulous Abolitionist, from
Massachusetts, who once conducted an Abolitionist paper either in that
State, or the State of New Hampshire. He was brought out to this State
to lie for the unscrupulous leaders of his party. He is paid for
_telling_ and _writing_ falsehoods, and would, if the interests of his
party required it, and a consideration were paid him in hand, _swear
lies_ as readily as he would write them down for publication. He is a
poor devil, as void of truth and honor as he has shown himself to be of
courage and resentment. He edits a low, dirty, scurrilous sheet; and,
like his master, Gov. Johnson, never could elevate himself above the
level of a common blackguard. No epithet is too low, too degrading, or
disgraceful to be applied to the members of the American party, by
either of these Billingsgate graduates. Decent men shun coming in
contact with either of them, as they would avoid a night-cart, or other
vehicle of filth. As some fish thrive only in dirty water, so the
Nashville Union and American would not exist a week out of the
atmosphere of slang and vituperation. A fit organ, this, for all who
arrange themselves under the dark piratical flag of Andrew Johnson and
his progressive Democracy. I am the more specific in reference to
_Eastman_, because I understand he is in this assembly!

But, fellow-citizens, I am not yet through with this Knoxville speech of
the Governor. Maj. Donelson visited Knoxville, one month after this
slanderous speech was made against him; he visited there upon the
invitation of the American party, to address a Mass Meeting. I waited
upon Maj. Donelson, upon his arrival, and found him at the house of
Doct. Curry. I told the Major that I was tired of having questions of
veracity between me and Governors and Ex-Governors of Tennessee, and
that I desired that others should state to him what had been said by the
Governor. Accordingly, different gentlemen, citizens of character,
informed him that they were in the crowd and heard Johnson, and that he
did say all that was attributed to him, both in the letter he had
received from me, and in the two Knoxville papers. Consequently, when
Maj. Donelson made his speech next day, he denounced the Governor as a
miserable calumniator, and refuted his villainous charges, in a manner
becoming the occasion, and with a frankness which carried with it a
conviction of its truth, and gave satisfaction to his numerous friends.

And now, gentlemen, I take occasion to state, that there is no longer an
adjourned question of veracity between me and Johnson and Eastman. The
issue is between Johnson and Eastman, on the one hand, and various
respectable gentlemen of Knoxville, on the other hand. Either the
Governor and his man Friday have basely lied, or a number of the
citizens of Knoxville and vicinity, have testified to what is false. I
assert, once more, that the Governor and his dirty Editor have lied out
of the villainous abuse the former heaped upon better men than himself.
And if their friends are willing to see them remain under the charge,
the American party are satisfied with the settlement of the question.

Fellow-citizens, while I am on the stand, I will notice some other
points personal to myself. And before I enter upon these, I will call
your attention to the wholesale abuse of the Governor, of some
thirty-five or forty thousand voters in Tennessee. In his Murfreesboro'
speech, he asserted that "_the Devil, his Satanic Majesty, presides over
all the secret conclaves_" held by the Know Nothings, and that "_they
are the allies of the Prince of Darkness_." I quote from his printed
speeches from memory, but it will be found that I quote correctly. In
that same speech, he asserts that all Know Nothings are "_bound by
terrible oaths to fix and carry a lie in their mouths_!" In his
Manchester speech, I believe it was, he called all members of the new
party "_Hyenas_," and "_huge reptiles, upon whose neck the feet of all
honest men ought to be placed_." And in this same speech he says he
"WOULD AS SOON BE FOUND IN A CLAN OF JOHN A. MURRELL'S MEN, AS IN A KNOW
NOTHING COUNCIL!"

What an imputation upon nearly one half of the legal voters of
Tennessee! He has used the most odious terms his _limited_ knowledge of
the English language would enable him to employ, to deride, defame,
insult, and blackguard every man who has joined the new party, or dares
to act with them in politics. In the plenitude of his bitter and
supercilious arrogance, Andrew Johnson has indulged in language against
the entire American party, which would not be tolerated within the
precincts of Billingsgate, or the lowest fish-market in London. And from
Johnson to Shelby counties, during the entire summer, this low-flung and
ill-bred scoundrel, pursued this same strain of vulgar and disgusting
abuse. And whether speaking of the most enlightened statesman, the
purest patriot, or the most pious clergyman, he pursued the same strain
of abuse. With him, a vile demagogue, whose daily employment is to
administer to the very worst appetites of mankind, no virtue, no honor,
no truth, exists anywhere, but in the breasts of such as are either
corrupt enough or fool enough to follow him, and a few malignant
falsifiers who worship at his shrine. He is a wretched and vile caterer
to the morbid foreign and Catholic appetite of this country. "It is a
dirty bird that fouls its own nest," says the proverb; and it applies to
this man Johnson with as much force as to the dirtiest of the feathered
tribe.

    "Where is the wretch, so lost, so dead,
    Who never to himself hath said,
      This is my _own_, MY NATIVE LAND!"

He now disgraces the Executive Chair of this gallant State. Most of
God's creatures, human and brute, have an attachment to "HOME, SWEET
HOME;" but here is a contemptible and selfish demagogue who discards all
such feelings, and would transfer his country and home to strangers and
outlaws, to European paupers and criminals, if he could thereby receive
a temporary election, or receive a pocket-full of money. For such a
wretch I have no sympathy, and no feelings but those of scorn and
contempt, and hence it is that I speak of him in such terms.

On every stump in Tennessee, he held me up as "the High Priest of the
Order," representing Col. Gentry as _my_ candidate. Since I came to
Middle Tennessee, I have been informed that he pointed to the fancied
fact that I was the head of the Order, as an evidence of _its utter want
of respectability_. Turning up his nose, and grinning significantly, he
would inquire, _Who is William G. Brownlow?_

Now, gentlemen, since he makes this issue of _respectability_ with me, I
will accept it. Since he throws down the glove, I will take it up, and I
will show you that he is the last man on God's green earth to call in
question the respectability of other men, or their families! It would be
both cruel and unbecoming in me to speak of what the dishonest and
villainous relatives of Gov. Johnson have done, if he conducted himself
prudently, and did not abuse others with such great profusion. I am not
aware of any relative of mine ever having been hung, sent to the
penitentiary, or being placed in the stocks. I have no doubt that
persons related to me, directly or remotely, have deserved such a fate
long since. There is not a man in this vast assembly who can say, and
tell the truth, that he has no mean kin. Can Gov. Johnson say so?
Rather, can he say he has any other kind? He is a member of a numerous
family of Johnsons, in North Carolina, who are generally THIEVES and
LIARS; and though he is the best one of the family I have ever met with,
I unhesitatingly affirm, to-night, that there are better men than Andrew
Johnson in our Penitentiary! His relatives in the Old North State, have
stood in the Stocks for crimes they have committed. And his _own born
cousin_, Madison Johnson, was hung in Raleigh, for murder and robbery! I
told him of this years ago, in Jonesboro', and he denied it, and put me
to the trouble of procuring the testimony of Gov. John M. Morehead to
prove it! The Governor was petitioned to pardon Madison Johnson, and
declined, as he knew he suffered justly. This explains why this
_scape-gallows_ has been so bitter against Whig and Know Nothing
Governors. They have been so unfeeling, as to suffer his dear relatives
to _pull hemp without foothold_, when a jury of twelve honest men have
said that they deserved death! Is he not one of the last men living to
talk about a want of respectability on the part of any one? Certainly he
is!

Well, gentlemen, Johnson is again the Governor of Tennessee; but if he
could be mortified, he would have the mortification to know that he is
the Governor with a majority of the _legal native votes of the State_
cast in opposition to him. We all committed one capital blunder in the
late canvass, and that alone defeated Gentry, and elected Johnson. We
copied from the Book of Pardons a list of FORTY-SEVEN names of culprits
pardoned out of our State Prison by Johnson--some for <DW64>-stealing,
some for counterfeiting, house-breaking, rape, and other _Democratic_
measures--more pardons than all his "illustrious predecessors" ever
granted. In copying this list, we said to the voters of the State that
Johnson had spoken his honest sentiments when he said he preferred
being among a clan of Murrell men, to being found in a Know Nothing
Council; and in the same breath we assured them that if Gentry was
elected, he would let all such rascals stay in prison as long as the
courts of the country decreed they should. And while thousands of
honorable, high-minded men voted for Johnson, under the lash of party,
or because they were blinded by his glaring demerits, it is not to be
disguised that all the _petit larceny_ and _Penitentiary men_ in the
State voted for him. There never was a time in Tennessee when there were
not five thousand voters who either _had been stealing_, or _intended to
steal_! These would naturally look to where they would find a friend, in
the event of their being overtaken by justice. In the person of Andrew
Johnson, they felt assured of "a friend indeed, because a friend in
_need_." He had publicly told them that he preferred the company of
Murrell men to the society of the most respectable lawyers, doctors,
preachers, farmers, and mechanics in the State, who met in certain
councils. The fact of his turning so many Murrell men out of the State
Prison, and of his having been _raised up in such society_, left no
doubt of the sincerity of his profession!

In conclusion, fellow-citizens, if Gov. Johnson cannot lawfully canvass
the State a _third_ time for the office he now fills, I hope the
Legislature will legalize such a race by a special act, and I propose to
be the candidate against him. I will show the people of the State in his
presence, from the same stand, who are Murrell men, and who are not able
to look honest men in the face!

If I have said any thing to-night offensive to your Governor, or any of
his friends or understrappers in this city, they know where to find me.
When I am not on the streets, I can be found at No. 43, on the lower
floor of Sam Scott's City Hotel, opposite the ladies' parlor. I shall
remain here for the next ten days only, and whatever punishment any one
may wish to inflict upon me, it must be done in that time. I say this,
not because I seek a difficulty, but because I don't intend it shall be
said that I made this speech and took to flight!

I thank you, gentlemen, for the patience with which you have heard me in
a matter personal to myself, and I hope you are prepared to acquit me of
lying in the Donelson case, although Gov. Johnson and Editor Eastman
bear testimony against me. I thank you, and now bid you good night!

       *       *       *       *       *

We beg leave to add, that in March, 1842, Andrew Johnson laid hold of us
in a speech in Blountville, when we were in Jonesborough, distant twenty
miles. He held up a picture or drawing of us, and accompanied it with
many abusive remarks. In turn, we held him up in the Whig of the 29th of
the same month, and gave his _pedigree_ in full, and with it a
_representation of his cousin Madison Johnson, under the gallows_ in
Raleigh!

The first Monday in April following, Johnson spoke in Jonesborough, and
denied _most solemnly that he ever had a relative by the name of Madison
Johnson--denied that a man of that name had ever been hung in
Raleigh--and asserted that the man hung there in 1841 was by the name of
Scott--a nephew, he said, of General Winfield Scott!_ This bold denial,
made in the presence of a large and anxious crowd, overwhelmed us _for
the time being_, as Johnson was raised in the vicinity of Raleigh, and
had learned his trade there. He was supposed to know, and for the moment
we were branded with falsehood. To aid him in his war upon us, the
"_Jonesborough Sentinel_," Johnson's organ, came out upon us, and
noticed his denial of our charge and his speech, in an article of which
the following is an extract:

     "Brownlow said, some time back, that Col. Johnson had a cousin
     hung in North Carolina. The Colonel developed the fact the day
     he used up or skinned Brownlow alive in Jonesborough, _that
     instead of its being his cousin, it was the nephew of Gen.
     Winfield Scott_, now a _quasi_ <DW53> candidate for the
     Presidency. Brownlow _is so silent_!"

After this, the Sentinel noticed us again, and this notice drew out
WESTON R. GALES, the then editor of the Raleigh Register, in the
following:

     EDITORIAL COMPLIMENTS.

     "We find the following editorial in the 'Jonesboro' (Tenn.)
     Sentinel,' a Locofoco print, in relation to the editor of the
     'Jonesboro Whig:'

     "BROWNLOW made an awkward attempt last week to caricature a
     person who was hung some years ago in North Carolina, whom he
     termed the cousin of Col. JOHNSON. But it turns out to have
     been the nephew of Gen. WINFIELD SCOTT, a distinguished <DW53>
     leader. Poor BROWNLOW!--it ought to be his time next. Wonder
     how many hen-roosts he robbed last summer?"

     "We have nothing to do with whose time it is to be hung next,
     nor with the number of hen-roosts robbed, nor by whom robbed,
     but we will take occasion to correct the 'Sentinel' as to the
     person hung here 'some years ago.'

     "In the spring of 1841, a man named MADISON JOHNSON was hung in
     this place for the murder of HENRY BEASLEY, but we were not
     aware that he was any relation of Col. JOHNSON, if it be meant
     thereby Col. R. M. JOHNSON, of Kentucky. He was, however,
     connected with A. JOHNSON, the candidate for Congress in the
     Jonesboro' District, MADISON and he being first cousins.

     "The last man hung in this place by the name of SCOTT, was
     MASON SCOTT, in 1820, and if the 'Sentinel' means to reflect
     upon the Whig party by saying he was a nephew of Gen. WINFIELD
     SCOTT, a 'distinguished <DW53> leader,' we are willing for him to
     indulge in such misstatements.

     "IF THE 'SENTINEL' HAD TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO CONSULT MR. A.
     JOHNSON ON THE SUBJECT, HE WOULD HAVE SATISFIED HIM OF THE
     FACTS, AS HE WAS IN THIS CITY ABOUT THE TIME MADISON WAS
     EXECUTED."

It will be seen, that while Johnson was uttering his _solemn but false
denial_ at Jonesborough, he _knew he was lying_, for he was in Raleigh
"_about the time Madison was executed!_"

But we told our friends to hold on, to have patience, and to give us
time, and we would make good our charge. Accordingly, in the same issue
in which we brought out this extract from the Raleigh Register, we
published the following letter from Gov. MOREHEAD, in answer to one we
had written him:

                                    RALEIGH, 24th April, 1843.

     [EXECUTIVE OFFICE.]

     "DEAR SIR--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours
     of the 14th inst., requesting me to inform you what was the
     name of the man hung in Raleigh in the spring of 1841.

     "His name was MADISON JOHNSON. His case was taken to the
     Supreme Court, and you will find it reported, December Term,
     1840, vol. 1st, page 354, Iredell's Reports.

     "He was hung for the murder of Henry Beasley. A strong effort
     was made to procure a pardon for him; but believing his case a
     clear murder, I refused to grant it.

     "The only man named Scott that was ever convicted of murder at
     this place, was Mason Scott, in 1820.

     "You will find his case reported in the reports of the Supreme
     Court, January Term, 1820, 1st Stark's Reports, page 24.

     "I am not aware that any other man named Scott was ever
     convicted of a capital offence in this county.

     "I have the honor to be

     "Your most ob't serv't,

     "J. M. MOREHEAD."

     "Rev. W. G. BROWNLOW."

In conclusion, after this letter appeared, and Johnson was elected, he
sent an appointment to Raleigh, for a speech--attended there, and
blackguarded and vilified "Morehead and Brownlow" for two hours. He made
the _letter_ of Morehead the pretext for his abuse, but the real cause
was the Governor's refusal to _pardon his cousin_. Johnson was there to
procure his pardon, and brought every appliance to bear within his
power, but the North Carolina Governor was inflexible in the discharge
of his sworn duty! We do not make the point against Johnson that he has
_mean kin_, only so far as it may _offset_ his abuse of others, for who
of us are without mean kinsfolks? But our point is, his _deliberate
lying_ before a Jonesboro' audience!




From the Knoxville Whig of Dec. 1, 1855.]

GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S THANKSGIVING DAY.


As the sixth of the present month has been set apart by our Governor, to
be observed as a day of prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God for his
numerous and unmerited mercies conferred upon the people of our State
and nation; and as it is desirable that the different sects shall act in
concert on the occasion, and at least pray "with the understanding,"
that is to say, _appropriately_, we have been at the trouble to prepare
a form of prayer for the occasion. This we do in no irreverend spirit,
but in all candor and sincerity, after this wise:

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, in whom we live, and move, and have our
being: we, thy needy creatures, render thee our humble praises, for thy
preservation of us from the beginning of our lives to this day of public
thanksgiving, and especially for having delivered us from all the
dangers and afflictions of the year about to close. By thy knowledge,
most gracious God, the depths were broken up during the past seed-time
and harvest, and the rains descended: while by night the clouds
distilled the gentle dew, filling our barns with plenty: thus crowning
the year with thy goodness, in the increase of the ground, and the
gathering in of the fruits thereof. And we beseech thee, O most merciful
Father, give us a just sense of this great mercy: such as may appear in
our lives, by an humble, holy, and obedient walking before thee all our
days!

To thy watchful providence, O most merciful God, we are indebted for all
our mercies, and not any works or merit of ours; for many of us entered
into the scramble to elevate to the Executive Chair of the State the
present incumbent, with a perfect knowledge that he had abused thy Son,
JESUS CHRIST, our Lord, on the floor of our State Senate, as a swindler,
advocating unlawful interest: we knew that he had voted in Congress
against offering prayers to thee: we knew that he had opposed the
temperance cause, which is the cause of God and of all mankind: we knew
that he had vilified the Protestant religion, and slandered the
Protestant clergy, defending and eulogizing the corruptions of the
Roman Catholic Church, throughout the length and breadth of our State;
yet such was the force of party ties, O most mighty God, that we went
into the support of our INFIDEL GOVERNOR blind, and, by our zeal in his
behalf, gave the lie to our professions of piety, rendered ourselves
hateful in the eyes of all honest and consistent men, meriting a degree
of punishment we have never received! We do most heartily repent, O
merciful God, for these shameful sins: we humble ourselves in lowest
depths of humility, and ask forgiveness of a God whom we have justly
provoked to anger, and the forgiveness of our insulted brethren, whom we
have wickedly blackguarded, to the great injury of the cause of Christ!

O most merciful God, who art of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, turn
not a deaf ear to our supplications on this day, because the day has
been set apart by a Governor who really does not subscribe to the
Christian religion; does not attend Divine service; who swears
profanely; and has insulted Heaven and outraged the feelings of all
pious Christians, by teaching the blasphemous sentiment that
Christianity is of no higher or holier origin than his Democracy! Have
mercy, our Father and God, upon that portion of this congregation who
have endeavored to find peace to their souls by travelling along the
"converging lines" of a spurious Democracy, in search of the foot of
"Jacob's Ladder," and give them repentance and better minds! And do
thou, O God of pity, show all such, that instead of ascending to heaven
on an imaginary "Ladder," they are chained fast to the Locomotive of
Hell, with the Devil for their Chief Engineer, the Pope of Rome as
Conductor, and an ungodly Governor as Breakman; and that, at more than
railroad speed, they are driving on to where they are to be eternally
punished by Him whom thou hast appointed the Judge of quick and dead,
thy Son JESUS CHRIST, our Lord. Amen!




[From the Knoxville Whig of May 24, 1856.]

THE FOREIGN SPIRIT ILLUSTRATED.


The following correspondence will explain itself, whilst it will serve
to show the spirit which governs this Bogus Foreign Catholic Democracy:

                                    RICHMOND, April 21, 1856.

     REV. AND DEAR SIR:--It cannot be unkind in me, though
     personally unknown to you, to address you on a subject in which
     our peace as citizens is alike concerned. I see in the
     Fincastle Democrat of 18th inst. what purports to be a review
     of an article of yours in the Knoxville Whig of 5th inst., in
     which I suppose, from the remarks contained in the Democrat, I
     have been very, _very_ severely handled by you, for an offence
     I never committed. You will allow me to say, sir, that I have
     no recollection of ever writing or speaking a disrespectful
     word of you in all my life, but, on the contrary, have
     frequently spoken approvingly of much you have written. Such
     being the fact, you will not be surprised to learn how deeply I
     regret that the purest innocence on my part has failed to be a
     protection against personal abuse. That you have been misled by
     some person, is to my mind very plain, and if, through the
     influence of another, you have inflicted a wound upon one that
     never harmed you, nor ever designed to harm you, is it not
     within the range of a generous nature--of an honest man--to
     repair the injury by at once giving up to the injured party the
     name of the deceiver, or publish him to the world as authority
     for the assault, and let him assume its responsibilities?

     In a change of circumstances, I should feel bound, by the honor
     of a man, to do that much, and in my present relation to the
     case I ask nothing more. It is perhaps due to you to be
     informed, that I have not seen your article, nor do I know a
     word it contains, and it is due to myself to say that I knew
     nothing of the article in the Democrat assailing you, till I
     saw it in print some hundred of miles from home, where I have
     not yet arrived after an absence of nearly two months. On the
     subject of dues, I may add that it is due to the public that
     the name of the deceiver be given them. I of course suppose him
     to be a man of great personal courage, ready to assume all his
     own responsibilities. In conclusion, permit me to say, that any
     effort on your part to aid in concealing the hand that uses the
     dagger in the dark, will detract largely from the estimate I
     have placed upon your character, as a man without hesitation or
     fear, when the claims of justice are presented. My address is
     Fincastle, Botetourt Co., Va., and I am very respectfully,

     S. D. HOPKINS.

       *       *       *       *       *

                                    KNOXVILLE, May 21st, 1856.

    REV. S. D. HOPKINS:

    SIR--Through the weakness, mismanagement, and culpable
    remissness of the contemptible Jesuit now at the head of the
    Post Office Department, and his numerous lackeys--all of whom
    you sustain in their politics--a letter written by you one month
    ago was received a few days since, while I was absent at a Know
    Nothing Convention, aiding my political brethren in placing
    before the people of this Congressional District an electoral
    candidate, to aid in the great Christian and patriotic work of
    overthrowing the corrupt, profligate, unprincipled, Foreign
    Catholic Bogus Democratic party, of which _you_ are a member,
    and in the service of which you are an editor! But my delay in
    replying to your letter shall be atoned for in the _length_ and
    _plainness_ of my reply.

    It is true, sir, that I published an editorial in my paper, of
    some severity against you; but the article was in _reply_ to a
    low, cowardly, and abusive editorial against me in the
    "Fincastle Democrat," of which you are the editor. And "you will
    allow me to say, sir," that at the time this attack was made
    upon me in _your_ paper, I never had said a word about you or
    your paper in my life, either "good, bad, or indifferent;" and
    "if through the influence of another you have inflicted a wound
    upon one that never harmed you, is it not within the range of a
    generous nature--of an honest man"--to repair the injury by
    taking back the article, and apologizing through the same medium
    for the injury? If, however, you believe you have not "been
    misled by some person," and have done me no more than justice in
    that abusive article, hold on to it. Having made oath that the
    horse is _fifteen feet high_, allow of no correction!

    In all frankness, you must permit me to say, that I believe you
    expected to find in the office on your return to Fincastle, a
    letter from me demanding your authority for admitting into your
    paper such an article against me, who, as you very well knew, up
    to that hour had never said one word, publicly or privately,
    against you or your paper. I think you concluded to _take the
    start of me_, and thus to _forestall_ me, by writing from
    Richmond some twenty-four hours before you would arrive at home!

    In your paper of the 18th of April, issued only three days
    before this letter was written at Richmond, an editorial of half
    a column appears, in which _your_ paper styles me a "notorious
    blackguard"--a "bullying blackguard"--an "unwanted and lying
    man"--who "is mean enough to lie, cheat, or even steal"--a man
    "wearing the garb of righteousness to serve the Devil in;" and
    in the same article, the case of a Locofoco editor, who was
    involved in a shooting scrape on account of his attack upon a
    lady, is actually attributed to ME! Although you are a Reverend
    Methodist Preacher, and a grave and dignified Steam Doctor,
    conducting one of the organs of the Foreign and Anti-American
    party in Virginia, you must pardon me for saying, as I now do,
    that in calling upon me for my authority for what I had said in
    reply to the unmitigated abuse of _your_ paper, you have proven
    to my mind, that if you do not possess the cool and collected
    impudence of the _Devil_, you are at least possessed of the
    lion-headed impudence of an unprincipled Sag Nicht partisan,
    hired to do the dirty work of an equally unprincipled and dirty
    organization!

    But it is due to the history of this controversy that I should
    say, this second attack upon me sets forth that you are from
    home, and that "the _Junior_ is responsible for the article."
    This might be credited, if, on your return home, you had
    protested against such abuse, but it seems from your silence to
    have met with your heart's approval, and gave "general
    satisfaction," at least to _you_! It is true that you were
    absent at the time of both these publications, but it does not
    follow, as a matter of course, that you were not the veritable
    author, and that they did not find their way to the "Democrat"
    office at the same time and in the same way that your "Baltimore
    Correspondence" got there. The "Junior," as he styles himself,
    claims the fraternity; and were it not that he is too well known
    in Fincastle for any sane man to believe that _he_ wrote the
    articles, he might have the credit (if credit there be attached
    to it) of so low, malicious, and lying articles. But he is known
    in Fincastle to be a brainless man, and to be incapable of
    writing a paragraph on any subject. He is known to have no use
    of language, and to be incapable of applying epithets to any
    one. So that, if _you_ did not write these articles, they were
    manufactured at "Irish Corner," in Fincastle, your "Junior" not
    being able to do it, for the reason that he is wholly incapable.
    My opinion is, that the articles were manufactured by the "Great
    Mogul" of the Anti-American party in your town, and if he will
    only avow himself the author, I will make some disclosures upon
    him that will make him wish himself back in "Swate Ireland,"
    where he "lives, and moves, and has his being;" no disclosures
    are necessary--his books, and his person, damn him to
    everlasting infamy. He has the filthiest-looking mouth, and the
    most offensive breath, of any man in the Valley of Virginia. No
    man who knows him will meet him square on the pavement, or place
    himself in a position, if it can be avoided, of meeting a breeze
    from that great reservoir of all nastiness, his mouth! It is
    really a wonder how any human being can LIVE, and emit all the
    time a stream of such overwhelming and uninterrupted STENCH! You
    must permit me to christen this man as the But-Cut of Original
    Sin, and the Upper-crust of all Nastiness!

    It may not set well upon your stomach, that being a "Minister of
    the Gospel, and having the care of souls," I should seem not to
    place implicit confidence in your denial of any participation in
    this unprovoked war upon me. I will be candid with you, and
    though it is possible for me to be mistaken in my views, still,
    if I am, I am honestly deceived. I have no confidence in the
    moral honesty and Christian integrity of any Protestant
    Preacher, of any denomination, in this country, who openly
    arrays himself against the American party, and takes the side of
    the Catholics, Foreigners, and self-styled Democrats associated
    with them. Nor will I hear one such preach or pray, if I know
    him to be such, and can get out of his hearing. The growing
    light and improvements of this age forbid that an intelligent
    and pious man and minister should identify himself with that
    party. And the fiery genius, corrupting tendencies, and
    uncompromising intolerance of that party, are rapidly driving
    good and true men out of the party.

    There never was a time since the division of parties in this
    country, when I had so little confidence in what is called the
    Democratic party as at present; and as at present organized and
    constituted, I believe it to be the most corrupt organization.
    It is made up of the odds and ends of all factions and parties
    on the continent, and is one of the most anomalous combinations
    of fanaticism, idolatry, prostitution, crime, and absurdities
    conceivable! The _isms_ composing the party of which you are a
    member, are: Abolitionism; Free-soilism; Agrarianism;
    Fourieritism; Millerism; Radicalism; Woman's Rightsism; Mobism;
    Mormonism; Spiritualism; Locofocoism; Higher-Lawism; Foreign
    Pauperism; Anti-Americanism; Roman Catholicism; Deism, and
    modern Sag Nichtism! All this tide of fanaticism and error,
    originating North of Mason and Dixon's Line, went for Pierce in
    the last Presidential contest: they are with that party now,
    against the American party; and it is bad company in which to
    find a Protestant minister! Yet, miserable Protestants hesitate
    not to commend these enemies of the natural rights of man, and
    of the Christian religion, as being just as good Christians as
    their neighbors!

    "Oh! judgment, thou hast fled to brutish beasts; And men have
    not their reason!"

    But, Doctor, why were you at Baltimore? Why, sir, during the
    past year, you and other conscientious Methodists took it into
    your heads to arraign a young man who was travelling your
    circuit, Mr. Hall, and, for the Church's good, to have him
    expelled, whose great sin was that he was a _Know-Nothing_, or
    sympathized with the Order! The authorities of the Church, after
    a patient hearing of the whole case, pro and con, acquitted the
    young man. You followed him up to the Annual Conference, as the
    representative of and attorney for Sag Nichtism. The Conference
    acquitted the young preacher again, and sent him to an
    enlightened circuit in Maryland. This so offended you, and your
    patriotic, not to say _pious_ associates, that, for the Church's
    good, they resigned their stewardship in the Church, and were
    so offended at the course of the Presiding Elder, _Rev. M.
    Goheen_, than whom there is not a more modest, unassuming,
    conservative Christian gentleman in the Valley of Virginia,
    that, at a recent Quarterly Meeting there, they refused to
    attend church, or to hear him preach. This is just the spirit
    that actuates your party, everywhere.

    You demand of me the name or names of such person or persons as
    have given me information in reference to you. Reconsider this
    demand, if you please, and ask yourself if, under all the
    circumstances, it is not a cool piece of impudence. I have
    published nothing about you upon the authority of others, but
    upon my own authority and responsibility. You _suspect_ some of
    your neighbors for writing to me, and hence you make this
    demand. It is true, I have friends in Fincastle, and some of
    these write to me, and when I publish any thing about you, or
    any one of your associates, and give these friends of mine as
    authority, I will give you their names, if called upon to do so;
    or I will assume the responsibility myself. What I have said in
    reply to the wicked, slanderous, and cowardly assault upon me,
    in the dirty paper controlled by you, I have said upon my own
    responsibilities, as a man, and as a member of the same Church
    to which you belong; and whether my "peace as a citizen" is
    preserved or destroyed, I am not the man to be intimidated or
    driven from my position. My failure to give you the names of any
    citizens of your vicinity, who may have written me private
    letters, relating to your war upon young Hall, the Circuit
    Preacher, "will detract largely from the estimate you have
    placed upon my character." This I am sorry to hear, as I do not
    wish to fall below the "estimate" placed upon my character in
    the two issues of your paper, now before me! This would be
    reaching "a lower deep," as the poet classically styles it!

    Now, sir, I have a letter from a town in Virginia, not far
    distant from Fincastle, written by a gentleman of as "great
    personal courage" as you or myself, who states, that a gentleman
    who was present at the trial of Rev. Mr. Hall, heard you make
    the assertion, on that occasion, that you alone were responsible
    for all the editorials that appeared in the "Democrat," and that
    the "Junior" partner was not! If you think proper to make an
    issue with this gentleman, you can have his name!

    I am, Dr. Hopkins, your humble servant,

                              W. G. BROWNLOW,

                                  _Editor of the Knoxville Whig._




[From the Knoxville Whig.]

TO STEPHEN TRIBBLE.


VILLAINOUS SIR:--Letters from my friends in the West inform me that you
are making a full team in the service of the Devil, Locofocoism, and
crime, in portions of Missouri and Kentucky! You have recently held
forth in Charleston, a pleasant post-village, the capital of Mississippi
county, Missouri, about six miles south-west of the "Father of Waters!"
In that town you undertook to inform the good people, the Circuit Judge
being present, _who I am_, and to demonstrate that I am not entitled to
credit in any thing I say! You claimed to have once lived in East
Tennessee--to know the people and the country--and to have known William
T. Senter and James Y. Crawford, two other Methodist preachers, whose
_pedigrees_ you pretend to give!

Mr. Senter was an able man--a moral and upright man--and a Whig
Representative in Congress, from the District you represented _in the
jail of Sullivan county_, for a long time previous to your being
_branded in the hand and on the cheeks_, for MANSLAUGHTER, the
particulars of which I will remind you of before I close this familiar
letter! Mr. Senter could have gone to Congress longer, but voluntarily
retired. Mr. Crawford was a brother-in-law to Mr. Senter, and was a
preacher of respectable talents, and in good standing in his Church.
They are both in their graves, beyond the reach of your malice, where
the sound of your infamous voice, and the words of your lying tongue,
can never penetrate their ears! But I am still above ground, daily
kicking, and making war upon the Locofoco Paupers and Foreign Catholics,
as well as Native Traitors, with whom you are associated, and with whom
you act in politics. I acknowledge myself to be game for you to hunt
down!

You are now a _Campbellite preacher_ as well as a _Sag Nicht
Missionary_; and the garb of religion you wear, gives a degree of weight
to your falsehoods and slanders, among strangers, that they otherwise
would not have. The idea of "_Stev Tribble_," who ingloriously fled from
this country for crimes he could not meet in open court, being a
preacher, and itinerating through the West, "in search of the lost sheep
of the house of Israel," is so ridiculous, as scarcely to be believed at
all, although there is no doubt but what he has been regularly installed
in Kentucky, and now has the "care of souls."

Why, you unmitigated old villain, your whole career, from your "youth
up," has been one of crime and revolting blackguardism. While a boy and
a young man, where Hoss's school was taught in Washington county, your
vulgar conversation, immoral practices, indecent habits, and
blackguardism, disgusted the entire neighborhood, and rendered you so
odious that no decent family would board you! All the waters of the
far-famed _Jordan_, in the palmiest days of that bold stream, were not
sufficient to wash your sins away! If the Lord Bishop of London were to
_immerse_ you as often as "seventy times seven," in the waters of "bold
Jordan," and in the name of the holy Trinity, you would still remain
what you were when you fled from this country to avoid the extreme
penalty of the law--one of the greatest scoundrels for whom Christ died!

Yourself and half-brother _Havron_ were confined in Blountville Jail,
for the murder of _William Humphreys_, a promising young man, whom you
brutally assaulted and murdered in open daylight in the streets of
Kingsport, in Sullivan county, and without provocation! _You_ were tried
and convicted of _manslaughter_, and branded in the _hand_ and on the
_cheek_. After being branded, you _bit the letters out of your hand_,
and _clawed them out of your face_, but the _scars_ are to be seen in
both. Indeed, I have been written to, to know why these scars are on
your face! I take this method of answering those inquiries; and
publishing them in my "Whig," which has a circulation of 5,000, and our
"Campaigner," which circulates 7,000 copies, I shall be able to
introduce you to as many persons as may have heard you preach my
funeral.

While in the Blountville Jail, with your half-brother, Havron, whose
blow killed Humphreys, after you had weakened him, you caught hold of
the jailor, Montgomery Irvin, and held him in a scuffle, when he entered
the room with your dinner, until Havron made his escape. Havron would
have pulled hemp, had he not escaped; and had our penitentiary system
existed at that time, you would have been sentenced for life! But you
would not have remained there longer than the past summer, as we have a
Governor who pardons out all such men, and has more sympathies for them
than any other Executive Officer in the nation. You have a half-brother
who is a Sag Nicht member of our Legislature, and a great friend and
supporter of our Governor and his foreign associates, and he could have
turned you out and procured for you an office if you had remained. But
then you followed the teachings of "the spirit" of Sag Nichtism, in
leaving between two days, and emigrating to Kentucky, as many precious
souls would never have "heard the word," or had their sin washed away,
but for you!

In an unmentionable and disgraceful enterprise, you became possessed of
a _broken leg_, and were mean enough to abscond without paying the bill
of your physician, Dr. Patton, whose unremitting attention saved you
from your grave, and from the clutches of the Devil, sooner than the old
fellow was prepared for your reception! If you had the honor of a first
class thief, you would pay this medical bill out of the proceeds of the
first public collection you take up, either in Missouri or Kentucky. And
if you suffer it to go unpaid until your infinitely infernal career is
wound up, the Day of Judgment will disclose the manner of your breaking
your leg! If I were you, I would sooner pay this bill now, than to be
asked in the great day how my leg was broken!

Disgraced as you are, unprincipled and villainous, you have gone into
Kentucky, taken upon yourself "holy orders," and married a wife,
imposing most shamefully upon the family into which you married. The
woman you have thus imposed upon, would be justifiable now, in the eyes
of both God and man, in forsaking you and applying for a divorce. And no
court or jury would refuse her application, when made acquainted with
your character.

It is a remarkable fact--one that I desire to call, not so much to your
notice, as to the notice of the public generally--that while all the
members of this Foreign Democratic party are by no means villains,
destitute of principle; yet, all the assassins, cut-throats, thieves,
and hypocrites in the country have crowded into the ranks of that party!
Fawned upon, fostered and pampered by the villainous leaders,
demagogues, and tricksters of the party, who need the services of all
such scavengers, you are encouraged to act with them. These leaders, who
are really no better than you are, _generously_ admit you to a
fellowship, and _courteously_ acknowledge all such abandoned rascals to
be their equals! Such men, to a great extent, now constitute the
free-democracy of the country--they desecrate the ballot-box--disgust
decent men wherever they come in contact with them--blaspheme the name
of God--and swear that they will either rule or ruin the country!

But, Sir, it was said of a certain man in the Scriptures, that he was a
"sinner above all the sinners that dwell in Jerusalem." So it may in
perfect truth be said of you, that you are a scoundrel above all the
scoundrels in the hateful ranks of Sag Nichtism. You deserve, for your
depraved course of life, a greater punishment than you have received or
are likely to receive in this life. The guilt of foul calumny, of the
most black and odious kind, attaches to every sentence uttered by your
lying tongue. Guilt, the offspring of fiend-like malice, shamefully
false, deeply corrupt, and badly matured: perfidy, dishonesty, and rank
poison--hot incense of murder, theft, inhuman spoliation, and deep, dark
forebodings of damnation have been rooted and grounded in your heart,
for lo! these many years! Dark despair, endless death, inexpressible
misery, manifold, and worse than death, follow in the ghastly train of
your crimes, and riot in your corrupt bosom, as with infernal
drunkenness of delight! The record of your deep depravity, of your utter
want of principle, and of your ten thousand villainous exploits, is
_stereotyped_ upon the burning sands of eternity, and stamped on the
imperishable walls of the _rotunda_ of the Devil's Hell, to which you
are driving at railroad speed! In upper East Tennessee, where you are
known, it would disgrace an _Algerine Bandit_ to sit and hear you
pretend to preach! _You_ pretend to preach Christ and him crucified, and
_immerse_ persons in the name of the Trinity! Shrouded in the _sackcloth
and ashes_ of disgrace, enclosed in a _vault_ filled to the brim with
_buried and putrefied venality_, and steeped to the very nose and chin
in crime, how dare you attempt to preach!

I repeat, you vile slanderer of the living and the dead, that, in
justice to the cause of God and of civilization, I will keep spread the
unfurled banner of your infamy on every breeze, and cause it to float in
the atmosphere of every State in this Union, until your very _name_
becomes a mockery and a by-word! And I call upon the people of Kentucky
and Missouri to ring the loud knell of your infamy, from steep to steep,
and from valley to valley, until their swelling sounds are heard in
startling echoes, mingling with the rush of the criminal's torrent, and
the mighty cataract's earthquake-voice!

                              W. G. BROWNLOW,

                                  _Editor of the Knoxville Whig._

     June 7th, 1856.




AN EXPOSE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM.


The following articles, setting forth the DESIGNS and TENDENCY of
Romanism in the United States, appeared in the "KNOXVILLE WHIG" of May
and June, 1856, and will speak for themselves. The writer has opposed
the Papal Hierarchy for twenty years; and in a series of articles, now
filed in a number of the "JONESBOROUGH WHIG," published _sixteen years
ago_, he _predicted_ that the very state of things we are now realizing
would come upon us as soon as the year 1860, and that the party calling
itself by the revered name of _Democrat_, would identify itself with
political Romanism!


THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.--NO. I.

     The American Party and the Religious Test--The Louisiana
     Delegation and the Gallican Catholics--The vote of the
     Philadelphia Convention to admit the Louisiana Delegates--The
     American Councils in Louisiana--Catholics proper cannot be true
     citizens of a Republic.

It is sometimes said by the Anties, that the American party, at their
late Philadelphia Convention, dismissed the Catholic Question from their
platform, and that they admitted into their Council a Catholic
Delegation from Louisiana. We were in that Convention, from the hour of
its opening until its final close, and we deny both statements. The
fifth and tenth sections of the platform adopted at Philadelphia, and
for which we voted, are in the following words, and they express all our
platform says upon that subject:

     5th. No person should be selected for political station,
     (whether of native or foreign birth,) who recognizes any
     allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign
     prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the
     Federal and State Constitutions (each within its sphere) as
     paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

     10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State; no
     interference with religious faith or worship, and no tests
     oaths for office.

The American party was against political Romanism--against all who
acknowledge any allegiance to a foreign Prince, Potentate, or Power; or
who acknowledge any authority on earth, higher and more binding than
the Constitutions of our States, and General Government. And those who
are familiar with the temporal assumptions of Popery, and the political
intrigues of the Order of Jesuits, can have no other feelings than those
of disgust, upon hearing the Locofoco demagogues of the country cry out
against the American party for their opposition to the poor Catholics!
Against Popes confined to _Rome_, we make no war; but against Popes
usurping civil and spiritual authority, in America, we protest most
solemnly, and intend to make war, unrelenting and unceasing war!

The Louisiana Delegation, five in number, were _two_ Methodist--_one_
Old School Presbyterian--one Episcopalian--and the other, Mr. Eustes, a
member of Congress, not a member of any Church. Those gentlemen
presented their credentials for admission, and they were objected to,
because Roman Catholics were admitted into the Order by the Louisiana
State Council. A warm debate ensued, on a motion to admit the
Delegation, on their credentials, which finally prevailed, by yeas 67,
nays 50, many of the members having left for their lodgings, because of
the lateness of the hour, and of their fatigue. _We_ were in favor of
their admission, and so was Mr. Nelson, of East Tennessee, and we both
claim to be _ultra_ Protestant, if the reader please.

The "Catholicism" of Louisiana, we wish it borne in mind--that is the
Gallican wing of the Church--is a very different species of
"Catholicism" from that of our Irish and German Hierarchy taught in this
country, under the training of Archbishop Hughes and Monseigneur Bedini,
the Pope's villainous Nuncio. The French Gallican Church has so little
respect for the Pope of Rome, that when the King of Sardinia was in
Paris, less than twelve months ago, though he was under the interdict of
a Papal Bull of excommunication from Pius IX., the Gallican Archbishops
of Pius, and other Priests associated with them, visited him regularly,
and tendered him unbounded courtesies and honors. The Gallican wing of
the Catholic Church of France is liberal, as well as hostile to the
insulting claims and pretensions of the Pope. But it is diluted still
more with liberality, and with opposition to these claims of the Pope,
among the French Creoles of Louisiana. Most of them, though Roman
Catholics by name, from being educated in the forms of the Roman Church,
have just about as much respect for Rome, and confidence in the Pope, as
we have, and God knows that is very little. They denounce Papal Bulls,
interdicts, and Nuncios. They throw off all temporal and spiritual
allegiance to the Pope--the civil authorities of the United States with
them are supreme--they are American born--and hence, our platform does
not exclude them, and consequently they were admitted at Philadelphia,
or, which is the same, their representatives.

In 1652, under Louis XIV., the Gallican clergy met in Paris, and adopted
the following point: "That the Pope has no power, of _Divine right_, to
interfere with the temporal affairs of independent States." Thus, the
Catholics of Louisiana rejecting the doctrine of the temporal power of
the Pope, are not proscribed by the American party. They constitute a
sound portion of the American party.

Mr. Lathrop, a Presbyterian Elder, and a Delegate from Louisiana, read
to the Convention from the ritual of the subordinate organizations of
the American party of Louisiana, and showed that, while it admitted
those to membership who professed the Roman Catholic religion, IT
REQUIRED OF THEM THE DENIAL OF ALLEGIANCE TO ANY TEMPORAL AUTHORITY NOT
COGNIZABLE IN THE STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; and from each
secured a pledge, UPON OATH, that they would not divulge the secrets of
the Order! He defended the Louisiana Catholics, as being true Americans,
recognizing no civil or spiritual power in their Priests, and resisting
every attempt, whether by a Bishop or Priest, to interfere with the
institutions of our country. He cited cases which had occurred in
Louisiana, of controversies between the Clergy and Laity, for the
control of Church property, and the decisions of courts over which
Gallican Catholic Judges presided, in favor of titles and control
vesting in Trustees, the Laity. He showed that the native Catholics of
Louisiana were the friends of common schools, and the advocates of
popular education. He proclaimed aloud that the native Catholics of his
State recognized no persons as proper depositaries of office, who
acknowledged an allegiance to any person, civil or ecclesiastical,
superior to that of the laws and Constitution of our country. He
proclaimed that the Nuncios of the Pope of Rome hated these Louisiana
Catholics, with a more perfect hatred than they did the "apostle
heretics" called Protestants! This speech was received with unbounded
applause, the question was called, and, as we have before stated, it was
sanctioned, very properly too, by a vote of 67 to 50!

The American party not only advocate religious toleration, but religious
liberty, which is a very different thing. Toleration is not the word in
our vocabulary--it does not express enough, because it implies the right
to _permit_ or _prohibit_. We contend for LIBERTY, the meaning of which
is, that men are not responsible _to each other, to Popes, Bishops, or
Priests_, for their religious opinions or practices, and that
consequently religion is not a subject of toleration.

The Catholics, proper, have taken an oath of allegiance to the Pope of
Rome, a "foreign prince, potentate, and power," and their obligations to
him are higher, more sacred, and more binding, than any obligations
they can take upon them to support the laws and Constitution of this
country. These are the men that we refuse to vote for, or put in office.
They are not and cannot be true Americans. The oaths of the priests bind
them to war upon all Protestant sects, and upon all Republican powers of
Government. These oaths bind them to the foot of the Papal Throne; and
with these oaths upon their souls, they cannot be true citizens of this
Republic without perjury. And if guilty of perjury, the State prison
should be their residence.

In our next, we shall consider this subject more at length, in
connection with the oath of allegiance to our country, and the Catholic
evasion of that oath.




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 2.

     Ambiguous terms in swearing--The case of Judge Gaston--Temporal
     power of the Pope--Catholic authorities in Europe--The spirit
     of the Catholic press in America!


We are told by the Democratic sympathizers with the Catholics, that all
Catholic emigrants to this country take an oath of allegiance to the
United States upon becoming naturalized. Yes, they do, and the oath
after it is taken, has no more weight with them, than has a
regular-built Know Nothing speech.

Here is a paragraph from SANCHEZ, the highest authority in the Catholic
Church, Pope Pius only excepted. This writer, "by authority," shows how
this oath of allegiance is evaded by a mental reservation:

     "It is lawful to use ambiguous terms to give the impression a
     different sense from that which you understand yourself. A
     person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing,
     though in fact he has, by saying to himself it was not done on
     a certain day, or before he was born, or by any other similar
     circumstances, which gives another meaning to it. This is
     extremely convenient, and always very just, when necessary to
     your health, honor or prosperity."

Here, then, we have it from the highest Catholic authority, that
Catholics are absolved from all allegiance to this government, because
they take the oath of allegiance without committing perjury, by the holy
process of a mental reservation--the use of "ambiguous terms," setting
forth one thing while they swear another! We have no doubt that Chief
Justice TANEY, a devoted Catholic of Baltimore, and now at the head of
the Supreme Court of the United States, took his oath of office
requiring him to support the Constitution, with this same mental
reservation. We have no doubt that those Catholic Judges upon the
Federal Bench in several States in the Union, and those Catholic
Attorney Generals, appointed to office by Mr. Pierce, so understood
their oaths of office, and of allegiance! And the practice of
Post-Master General Campbell, a bigoted Catholic, and a member of the
order of Jesuits, proves that he so understood his oath to support the
Constitution. As true Catholics, they are bound to swear with this
mental reservation, because they could not owe allegiance to a
government of "heretics," such as they believe ours to be. As Catholics,
they are bound to overthrow our Constitution, and aid in the destruction
of our government.

It is a matter of history that when the Legislature of North Carolina
elected Judge GASTON to the Supreme Bench in that State, he hesitated as
to whether he would take the oath or not. And why? He was, although an
able man, and in all the private relations of life a most excellent man,
a decided and devoted Roman Catholic. This is not all. The oath of a
Judge in that State, which is not common in other States, requires the
man taking it to avow his belief in the Protestant religion. Judge
Gaston asked for a few days to consider--he went instantly to Baltimore,
as was believed, to consult the Catholic Bishop, who then resided
there--obtained a dispensation, as was supposed--wrote back that he
would accept the office--returned, was qualified, and to the day of his
death was on the Bench! This affair illustrates Romanism. And what Rome
was, she is, and always will be. Can Rome change? Can the Ethiopian
change his skin, or the leopard his spots?

Here is what Philopater, an approved Catholic authority of the first
grade, says, touching the principle in controversy:

     "All theologians and ecclesiastical lawyers affirm that every
     Christian government, as soon as it openly abandons the _Romish
     faith_, is instantly degraded from all power and dignity: all
     the subjects are absolved from the oath of fidelity and
     obedience which they have taken, and they may and ought, if
     they have the power, to drive such government from every
     Christian State, as an apostate, heretic, and deserter from
     Jesus Christ. This certain and indubitable decision of all the
     most learned men is perfectly conformed to the most apostolic
     doctrines."

Our Locofoco advocates of Romanism deny that the Pope lays claim to the
supremacy charged by the American party. On this point, we desire that
the Catholics may speak for themselves. One of their standard writers,
FARRARIS, in his Ecclesiastical Dictionary, a work endorsed by their
Council of Bishops and Cardinals, under the article headed "Pope," uses
this emphatic and expressive language:

     "The Pope is of such dignity and highness, that he is not
     simply man, but, as it were, God, and the vicar of God. Hence
     the Pope is such supreme and sovereign dignity, that, properly
     speaking, he is not merely constituted in dignity, but is
     rather placed on the very summit of dignities. Hence, also, the
     Pope is rather father of fathers, and he alone can use this
     name, because he only can be called father of fathers: since he
     possesses the primacy over all, is truly greater than all, and
     the greatest of all. He is called most holy, because he is
     presumed to be such. On account of the excellency of his
     supreme dignity, he is called bishop of bishops, ordinary of
     ordinaries, universal bishop of the Church, bishop of diocesan,
     of the whole world, divine monarch, supreme emperor, and king
     of kings."

PETER DENS, of Maynooth College notoriety, whose "Theology" is the
highest Catholic authority known this side of the Vatican at Rome, gives
entire the Bull of Pope Sixtus V. against the King of Navarre and the
Prince of Conde, whom he styles the _sons of wrath_. In this Bull,
issued in the year 1585, he says:

     "The authority given to Saint Peter and his successors, by the
     immense power of the eternal King, _excels all the power of
     earthly kings and princes_. It passeth uncontrollable sentence
     upon them all. And if it find any of them resisting God's
     obedience, it takes more severe vengeance on them, casting them
     down from their thrones, however powerful they may be, and
     tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the
     ministers of aspiring Lucifer."

Here is what _Daniel O'Connell_ said so late as 1843, and he was a true
Catholic and a true exponent of this faith:

     "You should do all in your power to carry out the intentions of
     His Holiness the Pope. Where you have the electoral franchise,
     give your votes to none but those who will assist you in so
     holy a struggle.

     "I declare my most unequivocal submission to the Head of the
     Church, and to the hierarchy in its different orders. If the
     Bishop makes a declaration on this bill, I never would be heard
     speaking against it, but would submit at once unequivocally to
     that decision. They have only to decide, and I close my mouth:
     they have only to determine, and I obey. I wish it to be
     understood that _such is the duty of all Catholics_."--_Daniel
     O'Connell_, 1843.

Here comes one of the Pope's organs in France:

     "A heretic, examined and convicted by the Church, used to be
     delivered over to the secular power and punished with death.
     Nothing has ever appeared to us more necessary. More than one
     hundred thousand persons perished in consequence of the heresy
     of Wickliffe; a still greater number for that of John Huss; and
     it would not be possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by
     Luther; and it is not yet over."--_Paris Univers._

     "As for myself, what I regret, I frankly own, is that they did
     not burn John Huss sooner, and that they did not likewise burn
     Luther; this happened because there was not found some prince
     sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against
     Protestants."--_Paris Univers._

But here is the Pope himself arguing with the authorities already
quoted:

     "The absurd or erroneous doctrines or ravings in defence of
     liberty of conscience, is a most pestilential error--a pest, of
     all others, most to be dreaded in a State."--_Encyclical Letter
     of Pope Pius IX., Aug._ 15, 1852.

Now, let us hear their organs in our own country:

     "Heresy and unbelief are crimes, and in Christian countries,
     like Italy and Spain for instance, where all the people are
     Catholics, and where the Christian religion is an essential
     part of the law of the land, they are punished as other
     crimes."--_R. C. Archbishop of St. Louis._

     "For our own part, we take this opportunity of expressing our
     hearty delight at the suppression of the Protestant chapel at
     Rome. This may be thought intolerant, but when, we would ask,
     _did we ever profess to be tolerant of Protestantism_, or favor
     the doctrine that Protestantism _ought to be tolerated_? On
     the contrary, we hate Protestantism--we detest it with our
     whole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may
     never decrease. We hold it meet that in the Eternal City no
     worship repugnant to _God_ should be tolerated, and we are
     sincerely glad that the enemies of truth are no longer allowed
     to meet together in the capital of the Christian
     world."--_Pittsburg Catholic Visitor_, 1848.

     "No good government can exist without religion; and there can
     be no religion without an _Inquisition_, which is wisely
     designed for the promotion and protection of the true
     faith."--_Boston Pilot._

     "You ask, if he (the Pope) were lord in the land, and you were
     in a minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he
     do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on
     circumstances. If it would _benefit the cause of Catholicism_,
     he would tolerate you--if expedient, he would imprison
     you--banish you--possibly, _hang you_--but be assured of one
     thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the
     _'glorious principles' of civil and religious
     liberty._"--_Rambler._

     "Protestantism of every form has not and never can have any
     rights where Catholicity is triumphant."--_Brownson's Quarterly
     Review._

     "Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the lying
     world, and, instead of pleading for our Church at the bar of
     the State, _summon the State itself to plead at the bar of the
     Church, its divinely constituted judge_."--_Ibid._

     "I never think of publishing any thing in regard to the Church
     without submitting my articles to the Bishop for inspection,
     approval, and endorsement."--_Ibid._

In view of the foregoing, and other facts and arguments which we will
hereafter present, we cannot be mistaken in our views of Roman
Catholicism. We cannot tamely surrender our dearest rights as
Protestants, without a struggle. We cannot cry peace, peace, when there
is no peace!

     "Protestantism, of every kind, Catholicity inserts in her
     catalogue of moral sins; she endures it when and where she
     must; but she hates it, and directs all her energies to effect
     its destruction."--_St. Louis Shepherd of the Valley._

     "Religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by
     every man to choose his religion, is one of the most wretched
     delusions ever foisted on this age by the father of
     deceit."--_The Rambler_, 1853.

     "The Church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when
     and where she must, but she hates it, and directs all her
     energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an immense
     numerical majority in this country, religious freedom is at an
     end. So say our enemies. So say we."--_Shepherd of the Valley._

     "The liberty of heresy and unbelief is not a right.... All the
     rights the sects have, or can have, are derived from the State,
     and rest on expediency. As they have, in their character of
     sects hostile to the true religion, no rights under the law of
     nature or the law of God, they are neither wronged nor deprived
     of liberty, if the State refuses to grant them any rights at
     all."--_Brownson's Review, Oct., 1853_, p. 456.

     "The sorriest sight to us is a Catholic throwing up his cap,
     and shouting, 'All hail, Democracy!'"--_Ibid, October, 1852_,
     pp. 554-8.

     "We think the 'masses' were never less happy, less respectable,
     and less respected, than they have been since the reformation,
     and particularly within the last fifty or one hundred years,
     since Lord Brougham caught the mania of teaching them to read
     and communicate the disease to a large proportion of the
     English nation; of which, in spite of all our talk, we are
     often the servile imitators."--_Shepherd of the Valley, Oct.
     22, 1853._




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 3.

     The Catholic Church supreme over all authorities--Meddling in
     Political Contests--Brownson's Review and the Boston Pilot
     reflecting the sentiments of that Church--Protestants
     advocating Romanism--The Nashville Union in 1835.


The Anti-American, Foreign-loving, Catholic admirers of the Locofoco
school of politics, everywhere seek to frighten native Protestant
citizens with the bugbear cry of religious proscription. But let
Americans and Protestants watch with increased vigilance both the Roman
and Locofoco Jesuits around them. To call the damnable and accursed
system of political intrigue practised for past centuries by the Roman
Church by the term _Religion_, is a solemn mockery of the hallowed word.
Religion teaches love and obedience to God, and the legally constituted
authorities of the country. Romanism teaches fear of and obedience to a
crowned potentate called the Pope, and opposition to all Protestant
governments, as worthy to be cast down to hell! The one tends to free
and ennoble the soul: the other to enslave and debauch every faculty of
man's nature which likens him to the Almighty! The one is republican:
the other is barbaric, and at war with every principle of free
government!

The American party does oppose and denounce Romanism _as a political
system at war_ with American institutions; and we here ask candid men to
weigh the evidence we shall adduce to sustain this charge. We shall
quote none other than Roman Catholic authority--the organs of
Romanism--so as out of their own mouths to condemn them. Brownson's
Review is the accredited organ of Romanism in the United States. He
ostentatiously parades the names of the Archbishops and Bishops on the
cover of his Review, to give it the stamp of authority, and asserts in
the work:

     "I NEVER THINK OF PUBLISHING ANY THING IN REGARD TO THE CHURCH
     WITHOUT SUBMITTING MY ARTICLES TO THE BISHOP FOR INSPECTION,
     APPROVAL, AND ENDORSEMENT."

Let us then look to his pages for an exposition of the doctrines of his
Church. In the January number for 1853, he says:

     "For every Catholic at least, the Church is the supreme judge
     of the extent and limits of her power. She can be judged by no
     one; and this of itself implies her absolute supremacy, and
     that the temporal order must receive its laws from her."

The uniform practice of the Church of Rome has been, and still is, to
assert her power--not in _words_, but in _deeds_--to GIVE OR TAKE AWAY
CROWNS--to depose ungodly rulers, and to absolve their subjects from
their "horrible" OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE!

Again, in the July number for 1853, Brownson says:

     "The Church is supreme, and you have no power except what you
     hold in subordination to her, either in spirituals or in
     temporals.... You no more have political than ecclesiastical
     independence. The Church alone, under God, is independent, and
     she defines both your powers and hers."

     "They have heard it said from their youth up that the Church
     has nothing to do with politics; that she has received no
     mission in regard to the political order."

     "In opposing the nonjuring bishops and priests, they believed
     they were only asserting their national rights as men, or as
     the State, and were merely resisting the unwarrantable
     assumption of the spiritual power. If they had been distinctly
     taught that the political authority is always subordinate to
     the spiritual, and had grown up in the doctrine that the nation
     is not competent to define, in relation to the ecclesiastical
     power, its own rights--that the Church defines both its powers
     and her own, and that though the nation may be, and ought to
     be, independent in relation to other nations, it has, and can
     have, no independence in the face of the Church, the kingdom of
     God on earth: they would have seen at a glance that support of
     the civil authority against the spiritual, no matter in what
     manner, was the renunciation of their faith as Catholics, and
     the actual or virtual assertion of the supremacy of the
     temporal power."

In the same number, page 301, he says:

     "She (the Church) has the right to judge who has, or has not,
     according to the law of God, the right to reign: whether the
     prince has, by his infidelity, his misdeeds, his tyranny and
     oppression, forfeited his trust, and lost his right to the
     allegiance of his subjects; and therefore whether they are
     still held to their allegiance, or are released from it by the
     law of God. If she have the right to judge, she has the right
     to pronounce judgment, and order its execution: therefore to
     pronounce sentence of deposition upon the prince who has
     forfeited his right to reign, and to declare his subjects
     absolved from their allegiance to him, and free to elect
     themselves a new sovereign."

We might multiply authorities of this kind on this point, to an almost
indefinite extent, from the debate between Bishop Hughes and Mr.
Breckenridge, and the controversy between Hughes and Erastus Brooks, but
it is wholly unnecessary.

As early as 1844, the Catholics took their stand as a body in the arena
of political strife; and the illustrious CLAY and the virtuous
FRELINGHUYSEN were the victims of their particular hostility. Mr.
Frelinghuysen was the President of the Board of Foreign Missions, and
this was made the _excuse_ for the bitter animosity of the Catholic
press, and of the clergy and membership of the Catholic sect, against
Mr. Clay. Brownson, in his July number for 1844, in the very heat of the
contest, thus assailed Mr. Clay:

     "He is ambitious, but short-sighted. He is abashed by no
     inconsistency, disturbed by no contradiction, and can defend,
     with a firm countenance, without the least misgiving, what
     everybody but himself sees to be a political fallacy or logical
     absurdity.... He is no more disturbed by being convinced of
     moral insensibility, than intellectual absurdity.... A man of
     rare abilities, but apparently void of both moral and
     intellectual conscience.... He is, therefore, a man whom no
     power under that of the Almighty can restrain; he must needs be
     the most dangerous man to be placed at the head of affairs it
     is possible to conceive."

The Boston Pilot, another Catholic organ, published under the eye of the
Bishop, discloses _the same plot_, in its issue for the 31st of October,
1844, only six days before the election! Here is what this organ said:

     "We say to all men in the United States, entitled to be
     naturalized, become citizens while you can--let nothing delay
     you for an hour--let no hindrance, short of mortal disease,
     banish you from the ballot-box. To those who are citizens, we
     say, vote your principles, whatever they may be--never desert
     them--do not be wheedled or terrified--but vote quietly, and
     unobtrusively. Leave to others the noisy warfare of words. Let
     your opinions be proved by your deliberate and determined
     action. We recommend you to no party; we condemn no candidate
     but one, and he is Theodore Frelinghuysen. We have nothing to
     say to him as a Whig--we have nothing to say to Mr. Clay or any
     other Whig, as such--but to the President of the American Board
     of Foreign Missions, the friend and patron of the Kirks and
     Cones, we have much to say. We hate his intolerance--we dislike
     his associates--and shudder at the blackness and bitterness of
     that school of sectarians to which he belongs, and amongst whom
     he is regarded as an authority."

Protestants! do you hear that? Old Line Whigs! do you hear that? If so,
do you think that Americans are warring upon civil and religious
liberty, when they take an oath that they will rebuke such infamous
sentiments? These appeals of Brownson, Hughes, and the Pilot, had the
effect to defeat the Clay ticket in New York, and that State lost him
his election. The Catholics were all at the polls, and voted for Polk
and Dallas. On the 9th of November, 1844, Frelinghuysen wrote to Mr.
Clay as follows:

     "More than 3,000, it is confidently said, have been naturalized
     in this city (New York) alone since the first of October. It is
     an alarming fact that this foreign vote has decided the great
     questions of American policy, and contracted a nation's
     gratitude."

And after they achieved the victory of 1844, Brownson came out with this
avowal:

     "Heretofore we have taken our politics from one or another of
     the parties which divide the country, and have suffered the
     enemies of our religion to impose their political doctrine upon
     us; but it is time for us to begin to teach the country itself
     those moral and political doctrines which flow from the
     teachings of our own Church. We are at home here, wherever we
     may have been born; this is our country, and as it is to become
     THOROUGHLY CATHOLIC, we have a deeper interest in public
     affairs than any other of our citizens. The sects are only for
     a day; the Church for ever."

When Gen. Cass made his speech in the Senate, in 1852, in favor of free
worship and the rights of conscience for Americans abroad, reflecting on
the Catholics by name, Brownson came out in his October number, and
said:

     "We are glad to see Gen. Cass laid on the shelf, for we can
     never support a man who turns radical in his old age."

In the same number, Brownson continues:

     "The sorriest sight to us is a Catholic throwing up his cap and
     shouting, 'All hail, Democracy!'"

This too at the very time he was supporting the Democratic party in the
Presidential contest! He would sooner have heard the cry, "All hail,
Catholicism!" and he was only using Democracy as an instrument to
advance his primary wish!

We offer no comments on the foregoing extracts, of our own, but leave
every reader to judge for himself. The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance. We apply the remark to religious as well as civil liberty.
All we ask of the people is to be vigilant. Do not support men at the
ballot-box who are in league with these enemies of our Republic, and of
the Protestant religion!

Behold the enemy is at our gates! A foreign priest has been lecturing
here in Knoxville, within the last ten days, avowing sentiments similar
to these, and claiming that this country would ultimately become a
Catholic country! The crisis is approaching! Rouse up, Americans, and
hasten to your country's salvation! Not a moment is to be lost! GOD AND
OUR COUNTRY, must be the watchword of every Christian and patriot, of
every political party in the land. America expects us all to do our
duty!

And is there no cause for alarm?

Eighteen months ago, a Protestant minister, Baptist, Methodist, or
Presbyterian, might expose Romanism, and warn his congregation against
its corrupting influences, for hours at a time--come down out of his
pulpit, and his congregation would, without distinction of party, say,
"Well done, good and faithful servant!"

But let him now dare _allude_ to Romanism--he offends one-half of his
congregation--he is _preaching_ politics--they will hear him no more; or
forsooth, which is more common, they will withhold his support and
starve him out! Are not these signs alarming?

But here in Tennessee, _Protestant_ Tennessee, on the 15th of May,
1855, the _Nashville Daily Union_, the organ of the self-styled
Democratic party, came out at the Capital of the State with this daring
broadside against the Protestant clergy and their religion:

     "A Church that can boast of an existence of thirteen
     centuries--passing through all the various vicissitudes of her
     eventful career unscathed, can certainly show, with all her
     atrocious barbarity, many bright spots which may be placed in
     favorable contrast with the Protestant Church, with its
     thousand and one wrangling sects. Men are beginning to see
     through the transparent gauze that veils this Know-Nothing
     movement. They are beginning to ask 'What has Protestantism
     done for the world? What has she done to alleviate and elevate
     the down-trodden? Is the race any better off for having
     accepted her faith? THESE REVEREND HYPOCRITES--these scribes
     and pharisees, are treading on a terrible volcano. They will
     find their treasonable schemes and infernal plotting against
     the liberties of man tried and condemned by the pure light of
     God's own truth and love, which shines and throbs in every
     pulsation of humanity's heart. If Protestantism prove recreant
     to her high trust, she will have to pass the ordeal of
     enlightened public opinion and be consigned to her merited
     obscurity.

     "Popery, with all its crimes against God and man, adapts itself
     to the times and to the circumstances, and thus saves itself
     from being absorbed in the mass of conflicting elements."




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 4.

     A Catholic Priest the Minister from the Rivas-Walker
     Government--Nicaragua, Texas, and Gen. Jackson--Bishop Hughes
     and Orestes Brownson--Buchanan bidding for the Catholic
     vote--A. H. Stephens, of Georgia--Lord Baltimore and Religious
     Toleration.


Three months ago, PARKER H. FRENCH arrived in Washington, as the
Representative of the Walker Government of Nicaragua--an American-born
citizen and a Protestant--but the Government declined to recognize him,
upon the ground that Walker's Government was not established even _de
facto_. Since then, our Government has recognized Walker's Government,
and endorsed his war upon Costa Rica, although the former objection of
our Government lies with as much force against such recognition now as
it did three months ago. That the approach of the Cincinnati Convention,
and the importance of conciliating the "Young American" wing, and the
Filibustering division of the Democratic party, had great influence in
producing this recognition, there can be no sort of doubt. But a still
more palpable reason why this Government gave its sanction to the
Rivas-Walker Government is, that PADRE VIJIL, the second Minister sent
here, is a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, and a shrewd Spaniard--better
understands the influences that prevail at Washington. When we remember
that a Roman Catholic, and a member of the Order of Jesuits, is a member
of Pierce's Cabinet, the Postmaster-General--and when we remember that
Democracy now, without the Catholic-Foreign vote, is almost a nullity in
the United States, we have a clear solution of this preference given the
Spanish priest, PADRE VIJIL, over the American citizen, but a few weeks
afterwards! As a sign of the times, the fact is one worthy of note. It
shows, at least, that when Protestantism cannot prevail with the
Administration of Pierce, Roman Catholicism can; and that hence, when we
proclaim the power of the Pope, even in America, we but utter
demonstrable facts. Romanism is even carrying Democracy from all its old
wayside land-marks. In December, 1836, GEN. JACKSON sent a special
message to the Senate of the United States, in relation to a proposition
to recognize the new Government of Texas, and he gave reasons _against_
it, which are exactly applicable to this Rivas-Walker affair:

     "Upon the issue," he says, "of this threatened invasion by
     Mexico, the independence of Texas may be considered as
     suspended; and were there nothing peculiar in the relative
     situation of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgments
     of its independence at such a crisis could scarcely be
     considered as consistent _with that prudent reserve with which
     we have heretofore held ourselves bound to treat all similar
     questions_."

The existing Government of Nicaragua is in a far more critical condition
now than that of Texas was in 1836, when Gen. Jackson went on to say:

     "It becomes us to beware of a too early movement, as it might
     subject us, however unjustly, to the imputation of seeking to
     establish the claim of our neighbors to a territory, with a
     view to its subsequent acquisition by ourselves. Prudence,
     therefore, seems to dictate that we should still stand aloof,
     and maintain our present attitude, if not until Mexico itself,
     or one of the great foreign powers, shall recognize the
     independence of the new Government, at least until the lapse of
     time or the course of events shall have proved, beyond cavil or
     dispute, the ability of the people of that country to maintain
     their separate sovereignty, and to uphold the Government
     constituted by them. Neither of the contending parties can
     justly complain of this course. By pursuing it, we are but
     carrying out the long-established policy of our Government--a
     policy which has secured to us respect and influence abroad,
     and inspired confidence at home."

But Romanism is rapidly leading Democracy to the Devil! Archbishop
Hughes--the head and front of the Papal Hierarchy in this country--has
openly declared the grand aim and object of the Catholic Church is "TO
MAKE ROME THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!" This same
Archbishop is now engaged in raising an immense fund, for the avowed
purpose of ESTABLISHING A COLLEGE IN ROME, for the education of a high
order of Priests and Jesuits for the United States; the Roman Pontiff
deeming the education of Priests defective if obtained in this land of
liberty! This same Archbishop Hughes has now actively enlisted for the
Presidential contest, for 1856, in order, to use his own language, "TO
BREAK THE SPINAL CORD OF THE AMERICAN PARTY." The Irish Catholic vote is
to be fused with the Black Republicans in the North, to prevent the
success of the Fillmore ticket, and the Irish and German Catholic vote
is to be cast for Democracy in the South and North-West--the Archbishop
stipulating for special legislation for Rome, and for promoting this
mammoth college!

ORESTES BROWNSON, a leading Catholic authority, and the editor of
Archbishop Hughes's organ--one of the most zealous as well as able
advocates of Romanism in America--declares: "THE POPE IS MY INTERPRETER
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!" The Supreme Court at
Washington is subordinate to the Vatican, situated at the foot of one
of the seven hills upon which Rome is built! Through the influence of
the _Jesuit_ who is a member of Pierce's cabinet, the Papal Nuncio, who
was sent from Rome two years ago, clothed with _foreign_ authority, was
received by our government at Washington, and sent around the lakes to
the North-West at government expense; and allowed to adjudicate upon a
secular question AFFECTING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION in the great State
of New York!

Mr. Buchanan, one of the several candidates before the Cincinnati
Convention for the Presidential nomination, said, in a public speech in
Baltimore, just before the meeting of that Convention, _by way of
bidding for the Catholic vote_:

     "In the age of religious bigotry and intolerance, Lord
     Baltimore was the first legislator who proclaimed the sacred
     rights of conscience, and established for the government of his
     colony the principle, not merely of toleration, but perfect
     religious freedom and equality among all sects of Christians."

Lord Baltimore was a Catholic; and with a view to enlist the same
influence, HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, of Georgia, sent forth a
published speech last summer, from which we make the following extract:

     "The Catholic colony of Maryland, organized under the auspices
     of Lord Baltimore, was the first to establish the principle of
     free toleration in religious worship on this continent.

     "The Colony of Maryland afforded protection to _all_ persecuted
     sects."

Now, in order to judge of Mr. Buchanan's "_perfect religious freedom and
equality_," and Mr. Stephens's "_principle of free toleration_," let us
examine an Act passed April 21, 1649, when Lord Baltimore was in the
zenith of his power:

     "Denying the Holy _Trinity_ is to be punished with _death_, and
     confiscation of land and goods to the Lord Proprietary (Lord
     Baltimore himself!) Persons using any reproachful words
     concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Apostles or
     Evangelists, to be fined L5, or in default of payment to be
     publicly whipped and _imprisoned, at the pleasure of_ his
     Lordship, (Lord Baltimore himself!) or of his
     Lieutenant-General." _See Laws of Maryland at large, by T.
     Bacon, A. D. 1765._ _16 and 17 Cecilius's Lord Baltimore_.

S. F. STREETER, Esq., of Baltimore, is the author of a work entitled
"_Maryland two hundred years ago_." In this work, at page 26, Mr.
Streeter says:

     "The policy of Lord Baltimore, in regard to religious matters
     in his colony, has, in some particulars at least, been
     misapprehended and therefore misstated. The assertion has long
     passed uncontradicted, that toleration was promised to the
     colonists in the first conditions of plantation; that the
     rights of conscience were recognized in a law passed by the
     first assembly held in the colony; and that the principal
     officers from the year 1636 or '37, bound themselves by on oath
     not to molest on account of his religion any one professing to
     believe in Jesus Christ. I can find _no authority_ for _any_ of
     these statements. Lord Baltimore's first and earlier conditions
     of plantation breathe not a word on the subject of religion: no
     act recognizing the principle of toleration was passed in the
     first or in any following assembly, until fifteen years after
     the first settlement, at which time (1649) a Protestant had
     been appointed Governor, and a majority of the Burgesses were
     of the same faith; and when, _for the first time_, a clause
     involving a promise not to molest any person professing to
     believe in Jesus Christ, the words "and particularly a Roman
     Catholic," were inserted by the direction of Lord Baltimore in
     the official oath."

McMahon, the tried friend of Lord Baltimore, speaking on this same
subject, says:

     "The proprietary dominion (Lord B.'s) had never known that
     hour, (when there was opportunity to persecute.) The Protestant
     religion was the established religion of the mother country,
     and any effort on the part of the Proprietary (Lord B.) to
     oppress its followers would have _drawn down destruction on his
     government_. The _great body_ of the colonists were themselves
     Protestants, and, by their _number_ and their participation in
     the government, they were fully equal to their own protection,
     and _too powerful_ for the Proprietaries in the event of an
     open collision."

Thus it will be seen that in Maryland, as everywhere else, in all past
ages, so far as toleration is concerned, it was granted _to_
Catholics--never _by_ them.




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 5.

     Popish aims at supremacy--Avowals by distinguished
     Catholics--The order of Jesuits--Startling disclosures and
     authentic references!--The strength of Romanism in the United
     States!


The Romish hierarchy aims at supremacy in the Church and the State. It
is nothing more nor less than a great _political_ system, arrogating to
itself the right to sway the spiritual and temporal concerns of men--a
right it claims to have derived from God, and that therefore the Romish
Church is above all, and may rule all. Hence the conspiracy against our
government emanating from the Vatican, and planned by the Pope, his
Cardinals and Bishops, in the late grand council at Rome! They there and
then resolved on affecting the objects of the _Leopold Foundation_,
established in Vienna, May 13, 1829, to support Catholic missionaries in
the United States. Every member of this Society--and its branches are
numerous, being scattered over the whole earth--agrees to offer prayers
daily to _St. Leopold_, and every week to contribute as much as a
_crucifix_. The valley of the Mississippi has been surveyed and mapped
by the Jesuits, under the directions of the Vatican, and Popish
Cardinals in Europe are boasting of the certainty of their subjecting
this land of freedom at no distant day to papal supremacy! Rev. Dr.
JAMES, an eminent clergyman of England, says:

     "The Church of Rome has determined to compensate herself for
     her losses in the old world, by her conquest in the new."

Hence, too, a Papal editor in Europe conducting a Catholic organ, and
advising vigorous measures for the extension of Papal power, says:

     "We must make haste--the moments are precious--America may
     become the centre of civilization."

The Rev. Dr. Reze, of Detroit, a priest of distinction, who is now in
custody at Rome, a few years since, writing from Michigan to his master,
the Pope, says:

     "We shall see the truth triumph--the temple of idols
     overthrown--the seat of falsehood brought to silence--and all
     the United States embraced in the same faith of that Catholic
     Church, wherein dwell truth and temporal happiness."

A Catholic priest in Indiana told a Protestant minister, an able
Methodist clergyman, in a controversy, "The time will come when
Catholics will make Protestants wade knee-deep in blood in the valley of
the Mississippi!"

Bishop England, one of their master-spirits in this country, in a letter
to the Pope written from Charleston, and which was so good that his
Holiness caused it to be published, said:

     "Within thirty years, the Protestant heresy will come to an
     end. If we can secure the West and South, we will take care of
     New England."

This same dignitary said to his brethren at Vienna in that memorable
letter, by way of advice and encouragement:

     "All that is necessary is money and priests, to subjugate the
     mock liberties of America."

The Jesuits profess to be a more devoted branch of the Pope's army than
any other order. The Abbe De Pradt, formerly Roman Archbishop at
Malines, calls them "the Pope's zealous militia:" another correctly
calls them "the Pope's body-guard, organized for the express purpose of
defending the Papal See, and undertaking a spiritual crusade against
heretics." Pius VII., in his Bull of August 7, 1814, reestablishing the
order, which Clement XIV. had suppressed, says: "We would be guilty of a
great crime," if, amid the dangers threatening the Papal interests, and
"if, placed in the barque of Peter, tossed and assailed by continual
storms, we refused to employ the vigorous and experienced rowers who
volunteer their services in order to break the waves of a sea which
threatens every moment shipwreck and death."

The presumption is, that "these vigorous and experienced rowers who thus
volunteer their services," have some moving principle, some hidden
spring, which moves with that oneness and constancy under all
discouragements. The watch does not show the spring that sets it in
motion: who that looks at its face and observes the movement of the
hands will doubt that it is there, and that they move in proportion to
the strength or weakness of that spring?

The old Romans used to swear their soldiers: the Roman Church swears
even her private members. Read the following from the creed: "I solemnly
promise, vow, and _swear_ true obedience to the Roman bishop," &c. "This
true Catholic faith, out of which there is no salvation, &c.--I promise,
vow, and _swear_ most constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and
entire, with God's assistance, to the end of my life, and procure, as
far as lies in my power, that the same shall be held, taught, and
preached by all who are under me," &c. "I also profess and undoubtedly
receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred
canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of
Trent; and, likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all
things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned,
rejected, and anathematized by the Church."

The Jesuits are more strict, subservient, devoted to the Vatican, than
any other wing of the Catholic Church. In the second volume of the
constitutions of the Jesuits, under the heading of _obedience to
superiors_, is written:

     "You shall always see Jesus Christ in the General."

     "You shall obey him in every thing. Your obedience shall be
     boundless in the execution, in the will and understanding. You
     shall persuade yourselves that God speaks in his mouth: that
     when he orders, God himself orders. You shall execute his
     command immediately, with joy and with steadiness."

     "You shall be in his hands a dead body, which he will govern,
     move, place, displace, according to his will."

Under these teachings, says ARNAULD, a student in a college of Jesuits
stated, on hearing of the implicit obedience of another:

     "I would have done still more. Were God to order me, through
     the voice of my superior, to put to death father, mother,
     children, brothers, and sisters, I would do it with an eye as
     tearless and a heart as calm as if I were seated at the banquet
     of the Paschal lamb."

Andrew B. Cross, of Baltimore, in a recent publication, says:

     "As early as 1624, the University of Paris charged them with
     being governed by 'secret laws.' In 1649, Palafox, Bishop of
     Angelopolis, in his letter to Innocent X., accuses them of
     having 'a secret constitution, hidden privileges, and concealed
     laws of their own.'"

What will our Democratic Protestant opposers of Know Nothing _secret
lodges_ say to this? What will our Democratic advocates of Popery say to
the principles of such an organization, and to its "horrible oaths?" But
hear the Roman Catholic King of Portugal, in his manifesto to his
Bishops, in 1759, only ninety-seven years ago:

     "In order to form the union, the consistency, and the strength
     of the society, there should be a government not only
     monarchical, but so sovereign, so absolute, so despotic, that
     even the Provincials themselves should not have it in their
     power, by any act of theirs, to resist or <DW44> the execution
     of the orders of the General. By this legislative, inviolable
     and despotic power; by the profound devotedness of the subjects
     of this company to mysterious laws with which they are not
     themselves acquainted; by the blind and passive obedience with
     which they are compelled to execute, without hesitation or
     reply, whatever their superiors command," &c.

But our Democratic anti-Know Nothings not only object to our having
formerly kept our ritual concealed, but especially to our denial of the
existence of our organization. Let them procure a copy of the secret
instructions of the Jesuits, styled "_Secreta Monita_," and in the
preface they will find these _lovely_ words:

     "The greatest care imaginable must be also taken that these
     instructions do not fall into the hands of strangers, &c.; if
     they should, _let it be positively denied that these are the
     principles of the society_," &c.

But again:

     "Auquetil, in the fourth volume, page 333, of his History of
     France, gives an account of the celebrated case of the
     bankruptcy of the Rev. Father Jesuit La Valette, the Jesuit
     agent, for three million francs. Their ships had been taken by
     the English; the bankers in Marseilles, who had accepted bills
     of exchange to the amount of one and a half millions, required
     prompt payment. They wrote to De Sacy, the General Procurator
     of the Missions; he wrote to the General at Rome, but the
     General died at the same time; and before a new General could
     be elected, and an order sent to pay the money, the Fathers had
     become bankrupt, and suits were instituted. After delay and
     manoeuvre on their part, the case came on unexpectedly in
     1760. All the Jesuits were accused. They tried to lay the guilt
     upon La Valette, but the bankers charged that all the Jesuits
     were under the General, and La Valette was only agent. In this
     sad condition they proposed to prove, according to their
     constitutions, that as a society their body possessed nothing,
     that all belonged to each college-house, convent, &c. The
     proposal of the Jesuits was accepted. On the 8th of May, 1761,
     after trial, the Parliament condemned the General and all the
     society to pay bills, costs, damages, &c., which they did
     without selling any of their property.

     "It was in this evil hour to the Jesuits that their
     constitutions, which had been acted upon for two hundred years
     in secret, were brought to light. Rules and constitutions maybe
     in existence and acted upon, when it would be impossible to
     obtain a copy from any one who was sufficiently advanced in the
     order to be trusted with a copy."

It will astonish American Protestants to be told how numerous,
influential, and strong the Catholics are in this land of liberty! They
have 7 archbishops, 40 bishops, 1704 priests, 1824 churches, 21
colleges, 37 ecclesiastical institutions for the education of priests
and Jesuits, 117 female academies, all of which are, in reality,
_Convents_. Nuns, priests, and Jesuits are the professors, teachers, and
matrons; and, strange to say, _Protestant_ young ladies are their chief
supporters!

The Romish Hierarchy is far more numerous in _Protestant_ America, than
in any Catholic country on earth. Their strength in America equals what
it is in Ireland, Scotland, and England combined! How extensive is this
religious organization in our land: how subtle! Its ramifications are
all so many _arteries_, which receive their life's blood from the heart
at Rome, and return it there by its regular palpitations! It is now
concentrating its _arteries_ at Washington City, and is promised "aid
and comfort" from the great Democratic party--a party fast becoming the
foe of true liberty, and of the evangelical Protestant faith.




THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 6.

     The Oath of a Bishop--Oath of a Priest--Oath of a Jesuit--Oath
     of a San Fedisti--Oath of an Irish Ribbon-man--The Romish
     Curse!


In this chapter we will exhibit the "_horrible oaths_" of the various
grades of Catholics, from a _Bishop_ down to a _private member_--even to
the "Irish Ribbon-men," thousands of whom swarm the United States. To
these we will add the oath of the "Order of San Fedisti," an infamous
secret society established in Italy, and introduced for the first time
into this country by that prince of murderers, _Bedini_, the Pope's
Nuncio; who was honored with a steamer at the expense of our government,
Pierce at its head, to sail round our northern lakes, organizing these
infamous societies. Last of all, we give the ROMISH CURSE, which is in
full force and power in all Catholic countries, and is even pronounced
publicly in our large cities, upon renegades from the Catholic faith.

These oaths will be found commencing on page 42 of "A Treatise of the
Pope's Supremacy. By REV. ISAAC BARROW, D. D. Second American Edition,
1844." By this author, the Latin is given and then translated. The same,
in part, will be found in the debate between MR. BRECKENRIDGE, of the
Presbyterian Church, and ARCHBISHOP HUGHES, and by the latter publicly
acknowledged to be genuine, before a Baltimore audience who heard the
discussion!

But these particular forms of oaths in question, which reckless
Catholics and unprincipled Democrats deny, were published in England by
Archbishop Usher, whose correctness and reliability is equal to that of
any man. These oaths will be found in a volume entitled "Foxes and
Firebrands," from a collection of papers by Archbishop Usher, and it is
there stated that "it remains on record at Paris, among the Society of
Jesus," and was drawn up in that form to URBAN VIII., in 1642, when he
revived the bull of Pious V., which had slumbered seventy-three years.
These oaths, as published, contain nothing which is not taught by Popes
and Councils, Priests and Jesuits. Examine these _oaths_, and this
_curse_, and answer us the question, Can men taking them, and
subscribing to their doctrines, make citizens of this Republic?


OATH OF THE BISHOPS.

     "I, G. N., elect of the church of N., from henceforth will be
     _faithful_ and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the
     holy Roman Church, and to our lord, the lord N. Pope N., and to
     his successors canonically coming in. I will neither advise,
     consent, nor do any thing that they may lose life or member, or
     that their persons may be seized or hands anywise laid upon
     them, or any injuries offered to them, under any pretence
     whatsoever. The counsel which they shall intrust me withal by
     themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will not knowingly
     reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to defend
     and keep the Roman Papacy and the royalties of St. Peter,
     saving my order against all men. The legate of the Apostolic
     see, going and coming, I will honorably treat, and help in his
     necessities. The rights, honors, privileges, and authority of
     the holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and his aforesaid
     successors, I will endeavor to preserve, defend, increase, and
     advance. I will not be in any council, action, or treaty, in
     which shall be plotted against our said lord and the said Roman
     Church, any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their persons,
     right, honor, state, or power; and if I shall know any such
     thing to be treated or agitated by any whomsoever, I will
     hinder it all that I can; and as soon as I can, will signify it
     to our said lord, or to some other, by whom it may come to his
     knowledge. The rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolic
     decrees, ordinances, or disposals, reservations, provisions,
     and mandates, I will observe with all my might, and cause by
     others. Heretics, Schismatics, and Rebels to our said lord, or
     his aforesaid successors, I will to the utmost of my power
     persecute and oppose. I will come to a council when I am
     called, unless I am hindered by a canonical impediment. I will,
     by myself in person, visit the threshold of the Apostles every
     three years; and give an account to our lord, and his aforesaid
     successors, of all my pastoral office, and of all things
     anywise belonging to the state of my church, to the discipline
     of my clergy and people, and, lastly, to the salvation of souls
     committed to my trust; and will, in like manner, humbly receive
     and diligently execute the Apostolic commands. And if I be
     detained by a lawful impediment, I will perform all things
     aforesaid by a certain messenger hereto specially empowered, a
     member of my Chapter or some other in ecclesiastical dignity,
     or else having a parsonage; or in default of these, by a priest
     of the diocese; or in default of one of the clergy, (of the
     diocese,) by some other secular or regular priest of approved
     integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things above
     mentioned. And such impediment I will make out by lawful
     proofs, to be transmitted by the aforesaid messenger to the
     Cardinal proponent of the holy Roman Church, in the
     Congregation of the Sacred Council. The possessions belonging
     to my table, I will neither sell nor give away, mortgage nor
     grant anew in fee, nor anywise alienate, no, not even with
     consent of the Chapter of my Church, without consulting the
     Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make any alienation, I will
     thereby incur the penalties contained in a certain Constitution
     put forth about this matter.

     "So help me God, and these holy Gospels of God."


OATH OF THE PRIESTS.

     "I, A. B., do acknowledge the ecclesiastical power of his
     holiness; and the mother Church of Rome, as the chief head and
     matron above all pretended churches throughout the whole earth;
     and that my zeal shall be for St. Peter and his successors, as
     the founder of the true and ancient Catholic faith, against all
     heretical kings, princes, states, or powers repugnant to the
     same; and although I, A. B., may follow, in case of persecution
     or otherwise, to be heretically despised, yet in soul and
     conscience I shall hold, aid, and succor the mother Church of
     Rome, as the true, ancient, and apostolic Church. I, A. B.,
     further do declare not to act or control any matter or thing
     prejudicial unto her, in her sacred orders, doctrines, tenets,
     or commands, without leave of its supreme power or its
     authority, under her appointed; and being so permitted, then to
     act and further her interests more than my own earthly good and
     earthly pleasure, as she and her Head, his Holiness, and his
     successors have, or ought to have, the supremacy over all
     kings, princes, estates, or powers whatsoever, either to
     deprive them of their crowns, sceptres, powers, privileges,
     realms, countries, or governments, or to set up others in lieu
     thereof; they dissenting from the mother Church and her
     commands."


OATH OF THE JESUITS

     "I, A. B., now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed
     Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St.
     John the Baptist, the holy apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and
     all the saints and hosts of heaven, and to you my ghostly
     father, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation,
     that his Holiness Pope ---- is Christ's Vicar General, and is
     the true and only Head of the Catholic or universal Church
     throughout the earth; and by the virtue of the keys of binding
     and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Saviour Jesus Christ,
     he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states,
     commonwealths, and governments, all being illegal without his
     sacred confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed:
     THEREFORE, to the utmost of my power, I shall and will defend
     this doctrine, and his Holiness' rights and customs, against
     all usurpers of the heretical (or Protestant) authority
     whatsoever; especially against the now pretended authority and
     Church of England, and all adherents, in regard that they and
     she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred mother Church
     of Rome, I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to
     Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates
     or officers, I do further declare the doctrine of the Church of
     England, the Calvinists, Huguenots, and of others of the name
     Protestants, to be damnable, and that they themselves are
     damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do
     further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or
     any of his Holiness' agents, in any place wherever I shall be,
     in England, Scotland, and Ireland, or in any other territory or
     kingdom I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the
     heretical Protestant's doctrine, and to destroy all their
     pretended powers, regal or otherwise. I do further promise and
     declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume
     any religion heretical, for the propagating of the mother
     Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents'
     counsels, from time to time, as they intrust me, and not to
     divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or
     circumstance, whatever, but to execute all that shall be
     proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me, by you my
     ghostly father, or any of this sacred convent. All which, I, A.
     B., do swear, by the blessed Sacrament I am now to receive, to
     perform, and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call all the
     heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real
     intentions to keep this, my oath. In testimony hereof, I take
     this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, and
     witness the same further with my hand and seal, in the face of
     this holy convent this day--An. Dom., etc."


OATH OF THE SAN FEDISTI.

     "I, Son of the Holy Faith, No. --, promise and swear to sustain
     the altar and the Papal throne, to exterminate heretics,
     liberals, and all enemies of the Church, without pity for the
     cries of children, or of men and women. So help me God."


OATH OF THE IRISH RIBBON-MEN.

     "I, Patrick McKenna, swear by Saints Peter and Paul, and by the
     blessed Virgin Mary, to be always faithful to the Society (of
     Ribbon-men); to keep and conceal all the secrets, and its words
     of order; to be always ready to execute the commands of my
     superior officers, and, as far as it shall lie in my power, to
     extirpate all heretics, and ALL THE PROTESTANTS, and to walk in
     their blood to the knee! May the Virgin Mary and all saints
     help me! To-day, the 2d of July, 1852.

     "PAT. MCKENNA, _from Tydavenet_."

The following are the curses pronounced by the Papal Church against all
who leave it for any Evangelical Church:


THE ROMISH CURSE.

     "By the authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and Holy
     Ghost, and the undefiled Virgin Mary, mother and patroness of
     our Saviour, and of all celestial virtues, Angels, Archangels,
     Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Cherubim, and Seraphim; and of all
     the Holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and of all the Apostles and
     Evangelists, of the Holy Innocents, who in the sight of the
     Holy Lamb are found worthy to sing the new song of the Holy
     Martyrs and Holy Confessors, and of all the Holy Virgins, and
     of all Saints together with the holy elect of God; may he,
     ----, be damned. We excommunicate and anathematize him from the
     threshold of the Holy Church of God Almighty. We sequester him,
     that lie may be tormented, disposed, and be delivered over with
     Dathan and Abiram, and with those who say unto the Lord:
     'Depart from us, we desire none of thy ways:' as a fire is
     quenched with water, so let the light of him be put out for
     evermore, unless he shall repent him and make satisfaction.
     Amen!

     "May the Father, who creates man, curse him! May the Son, who
     suffered for us, curse him! May the Holy Ghost, who is poured
     out in Baptism, curse him! May the Holy Cross, which Christ,
     for our salvation, triumphing over his enemies, ascended, curse
     him!

     "May the Holy Mary, ever virgin and mother of God, curse him!
     May St. Michael, the advocate of the Holy Souls, curse him! May
     all the Angels, Principalities, and Powers, and all Heavenly
     Armies, curse him! May the glorious band of the Patriarchs and
     Prophets curse him!

     "May St. John the Precursor, and St. John the Baptist, and St.
     Peter, and St. Paul, and St. Andrew, and all other of Christ's
     Apostles together, curse him! And may all the rest of the
     Disciples and Evangelists, who, by their preaching converted
     the universe, and the holy and wonderful company of Martyrs and
     Confessors, who by their works are found pleasing to God
     Almighty, curse him! May the holy choir of the Holy Virgins,
     who for the honor of Christ have despised the things of the
     world, damn him! May all the saints from the beginning of the
     world to everlasting ages, who are found to be beloved of God,
     damn him!

     "May he be damned wherever he be, whether in the house, or in
     the alley, or in the water, or in the church! May he be cursed
     in living and dying!

     "May he be cursed in eating and drinking, in being hungry, in
     being thirsty, in fasting, and sleeping, in slumbering, and in
     sitting, in living, in working, in resting, and * * * and in
     blood-letting.

     "May he be cursed in all the faculties of his body!

     "May he be cursed inwardly and outwardly! May he be cursed in
     his hair; cursed be he in his brains, and in his vertex, in his
     temples, in his eyebrows, in his cheeks, in his jaw-bones, in
     his nostrils, in his teeth and grinders, in his lips, in his
     shoulders, in his arms, in his fingers!

     "May he be damned in his mouth, in his breast, in his heart,
     and purtenances, down to the very stomach!

     "May he be cursed in his reins and his groins; in his thighs,
     in his genitals, and in his hips, and in his knees, his legs,
     and his feet, and toe-nails!

     "May he be cursed in all his joints, and articulation of the
     members; from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet
     may there be no soundness!

     "May the Son of the living God, with all the glory of His
     Majesty, curse him! And may heaven, with all the powers that
     move therein, rise up against him, and curse and damn him;
     unless he repent and make satisfaction! Amen! So be it. Be it
     so. Amen!"

Now, we ask all candid men whose eyes have not been blinded by the dust
of Popery and Democracy, can a Bishop or Priest, a Jesuit or Catholic,
with these oaths upon their souls, be true American citizens? Not
without the guilt of perjury, as black as the altar of a Roman
Confessional! And if guilty of such perjury, the penitentiary should be
their canonical residence for life! Strange to say, however, the Chief
Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, is a Roman Catholic! Gen.
Pierce's Postmaster-General, James Campbell, is both a Roman Catholic,
and a member of the Order of Jesuits, having taken this very oath! Roman
Catholics are now on the Federal Bench in the United States: Roman
Catholics fill the offices of Attorneys-general; Roman Catholics
represent this Government abroad; and Roman Catholics fill post-offices,
land-offices, and a variety of offices at home, out of which Protestants
were driven by Pierce's Administration, to make room for them!




LETTER FROM THOMAS A. R. NELSON, ESQ.


This gentleman, an able lawyer of East Tennessee, a member of the
Presbyterian Church, and a member of the American party, was nominated
an Elector for the State of Tennessee at large, by the American State
Convention at Nashville, in February last. Though an ardent American--a
great friend of _Mr. Fillmore_--and a member of the late Philadelphia
Convention, and aided in the nomination of _Maj. Donelson_, he has been
reluctantly compelled to decline the position of Elector. Under date of
May 30, 1856, he addressed a letter of nine columns, of great force and
ability, to _Messrs. A. W. Johnson, Robert C. Foster, 3d., John H.
Callender, William N. Bilbo, Sam'l. Pritchett, and E. D. Farnsworth,
State Executive Committee of the American Party, Nashville, Tennessee_,
declining the position. Although we regret his inability to serve, as do
the whole party in this State, yet, if his letter could be placed in the
hands of every voter in the State, we would be willing to risk the
contest without further discussion. Such is our estimate of this
document. For the benefit of "Old Line Whigs," and such Democrats as are
disposed to excuse and apologise for Romanism, we give the four
concluding columns of this letter. The five preceding columns are mainly
occupied with an outline and defence of the action of the Philadelphia
Nominating Convention, and a discussion of the slavery
question--questions we had discussed in this work before this document
came to hand. Mr. Nelson concludes thus:

     "The Foreigners and Catholics were directly appealed to in the
     Presidential elections of 1848 and 1852. Who does not remember
     that, immediately preceding the election in 1844, fraudulent
     naturalization papers were manufactured in New York? Who has
     forgotten the Plaquemines fraud in Louisiana? Who has not heard
     of the abuse of Mr. Frelinghuysen for no other cause than that
     he was the President of the American Bible Society?

     "But, without dwelling upon other illustrations, look to the
     Democratic platform of 1852, and read the 8th section of the
     third resolution, which is in the following words:

     "'That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the
     Declaration of Independence and sanctioned in the Constitution,
     which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the
     oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles
     in the Democratic faith, and every attempt to abridge the
     present privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil
     among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept
     the alien and sedition laws from our statute books.'

     "During the last election in Tennessee, it was often said by
     Democrats that they were just as much opposed to the
     immigration of foreign criminals and paupers as members of the
     American party, but would not attach themselves to the latter
     because of their objections to its organization. But the
     Democratic Platform of 1852 contains no exception against
     criminals and paupers. The naturalization laws have, in
     practice, been found inadequate to their exclusion, and the
     platform, in effect, avows unqualified adherence to them
     without _abridgement_ or modification.

     "These laws are, in substance, declared to have '_ever been
     cardinal principles_ in the Democratic faith.' By its own
     avowal, the Democratic party is responsible for giving
     encouragement to the whole policy of foreign immigration. If
     that policy has flooded the country with criminals and paupers;
     if it has produced riots and bloodshed in our large cities; if
     it has endangered the religious as well as the civil liberty of
     Protestants; if it has swelled the ranks of Abolition and
     fanned the flame of Agitation--the Democratic party, by its own
     avowal, is amenable at the bar of public opinion for these
     astounding and deplorable results. Reckless of consequences, it
     has persevered in a system hazardous to the stability of our
     institutions, because that system has annually swelled the
     number of its adherents, and increased the chances of its
     perpetual ascendency.

     "Without adverting to the census tables, or repeating those
     familiar facts connected with the statistics of immigration
     which have been so extensively published, it is sufficient to
     observe that, under this continued patronage of the Democratic
     party, the immigration of foreigners has increased from a few
     thousands, twenty years ago, to nearly half a million in 1854.

     "But the Democratic party cannot justly claim the exclusive
     honor of projecting or carrying out the system. More than
     twenty years ago, the Duke of Richmond declared, in substance,
     that he had conversed with most of the sovereigns and princes
     of Europe; that they were jealous of the influence of our
     republican institutions upon their own Government; that they
     did not expect to conquer us as a nation, but designed the
     subversion of our Government by the introduction of the low and
     surplus population of Europe among us; that 'discord,
     dissension, anarchy, and civil war would ensue, and some
     popular individual would assume the government and restore
     order, and the sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of
     the natives, would sustain him.' He also said, in speaking of
     the United States, that 'the Church of Rome has a design upon
     that country, and it will, in time, be the established
     religion, and will aid in the destruction of that republic.'

     "These statements of the Duke of Richmond are abundantly
     corroborated by other declarations, as well as the most
     undeniable facts which have occurred since their promulgation.

     "I have in my possession, among various others, two small books
     published by 'the American and Foreign Christian Union,' 156
     Chambers street, New York, the one entitled 'Foreign
     Conspiracy,' the other, 'Startling Facts,' both of which, as I
     infer from their contents, were written in the year 1834, long
     before the American party had an existence. The work entitled
     'Foreign Conspiracy' is composed of a series of articles
     originally published, over the signature of Brutus, in the New
     York Observer. They now appear with the name of the author,
     SAMUEL F. B. MORSE. His object in writing the work was to
     arouse public attention to the efforts then being made in
     Europe to propagate the Catholic religion in the United States,
     and to show its danger to our republican institutions. He
     traces the origin of the Leopold Foundation in Austria, under
     the especial patronage of the Emperor at Vienna on the 12th
     May, 1829, and shows that one of its leading objects was 'to
     promote the greater activity of Catholic missions in America.'

     "The letter of Prince _Metternich_ to Bishop Fenwich, of
     Cincinnati, under date, Vienna, April 27, 1830, is set out at
     length; and, in that letter, the Prince informs the Bishop,
     among other things, that the Emperor 'allows his people to
     contribute to the support of the Catholic Church in America.'
     Numerous quotations are made from the letters of Foreign
     Bishops in the United States to their patrons at home, and,
     among the rest, on page 85, is the following statement, made by
     one of them, in regard to the people of the United States: 'We
     entreat all European Christians to unite in prayer to God for
     the conversion of these unhappy heathen and obstinate
     heretics.' But, forbearing to multiply quotations from this
     little work, admirable in most of its positions, my main
     object, in citing it, was to make the following extract, from
     page 15 of the preface, taken by the author from the lectures
     of the celebrated Frederick Schlegel, delivered at Vienna in
     1828, where that distinguished foreigner says, 'The true
     nursery of all these destructive principles, the revolutionary
     school for France and the rest of Europe, has been North
     America. Thence the evil has spread over many other lands,
     either by national contagion or by arbitrary communication;'
     and also the following quotation, from page 118 of Mr. Morse's
     book: 'Austria, one of the Holy Alliance of sovereigns, leagued
     against the liberties of the world, has the superintendence _of
     the operations of Popery in this country_.'

     "In the tract entitled 'Startling Facts for American
     Protestants,' written in the year 1834, by REV. HERMAN NORTON,
     Corresponding Secretary of the American Protestant Society,
     from pages 27 to 39, an account is given of a London pamphlet
     entitled 'New Plan of Emigration,' the production of a Roman
     Catholic gentleman, a London Banker; in which a project for
     occupying the North Western States with the Roman Catholic
     population of Europe, is unfolded, together with _a map of the
     country_, and, among other things, it is said, on page 29: 'The
     first settlements should be made in those fertile prairie
     districts situated on the southern sides of the Canadian lakes,
     _where slavery is unknown_. On page 28, the objects of this
     society, as set forth in this pamphlet, are stated to be,

     "'1. To provide the means for colonizing the surplus Roman
     Catholic population of Europe in our Western States.

     "'2. To do this in such a way as to create a large demand for
     articles of British manufacture.

     "'3. _To make Romanism the predominant religion of this
     country._'

     "The census tables will show that, since these plans were set
     on foot, in England and in Europe, to break down our
     government, there has been an astonishing increase in the
     foreign immigration to this country. Great as it was prior to
     the Revolutions in Europe in 1848, it has been amazingly
     augmented since that time. Millions of foreign money have been
     collected in Europe and expended since the organization of the
     society for the propagation of the faith, at Lyons in France,
     about the year 1822, in the United States. While an Austrian
     Emperor has had the charge, in a good degree, of the
     propagation of the Catholic religion in the United States, the
     public authorities in various parts of Europe have defrayed the
     expenses of their criminals and paupers to this country, as was
     clearly shown by Congressional investigations.

     "What do these facts prove? Why, that the declaration of the
     Duke of Richmond, that the crowned heads of Europe intended to
     subvert our government, was true. What more do they prove? Why,
     that the effort to establish the Catholic religion in this
     country has, for more than twenty years, been conducted with
     steady perseverance, until the Catholics, who, in 1850, were
     more numerous, as the census compendium shows, than any one
     denomination of Methodists, are now no doubt stronger than all
     the Methodists put together, and stronger than any other
     denomination of Protestants.

     "While these publications have been before the American people
     for more than twenty years, Democratic leaders have received,
     with open arms, the swarms of foreigners who have settled upon
     our shores. What care _they_ for the slavery question, when
     they have seen this foreign immigration, according to the plan
     concerted in England, settling in the non-slaveholding States,
     and every year increasing the Abolition power? What care they
     for the Protestant religion, if the Catholics can only give
     them the numerical strength at the ballot-box? What regard have
     _they_ for the preservation of our liberties, when European
     despots are seeking to undermine them, if those despots only
     send such myrmidons as will shout hosannas to Democracy and
     drive from the polls peaceful American citizens who oppose
     them? Is the preservation of the Union a matter of any
     consequence to them? Do they not in vision behold its scattered
     fragments and contemplate new confederacies, with hosts of new
     offices and millions of spoil?

     "Can any one doubt that the Democratic party is in league with
     all the dangerous elements that have disturbed and are
     continuing to disturb our once peaceful and happy country, and
     that they stickle at nothing when votes are at stake?

     "Look to their conduct in running Mr. Polk as a tariff man in
     the North, and an anti-tariff man in the South! Look to the two
     lives of Cass. Look to their equivocal position as to slavery
     and the Union. Look to their appeals to foreigners and
     Catholics by name in the elections of 1844 and 1852, and
     probably in 1848. Look to their alliance with Free Germans and
     Fourierites, Free Soilers and Secessionists. And, above all,
     look to the miserable cant with which they raise the hue and
     cry of persecution in favor of the Catholics, and, indirectly,
     deny to Protestant ministers the right to make war upon a huge
     corporation, calling itself a church, dealing in human souls,
     reeking with the blood of martyrs, and begrimed with more than
     ten centuries of oppression.

     "No wonder that they have vilified and denounced the American
     party with every term of opprobrium that our vocabulary can
     furnish. No wonder they talk of dark lanterns and secret oaths
     and midnight assemblies. No wonder that they strive to frighten
     their followers with the notion that the American party is a
     raw-head and bloody bones, which should be shunned and avoided.
     For, if honest men of that party will only take the trouble to
     shake off the control of their leaders: to think, examine, to
     read, reflect, and act for themselves, there are thousands of
     Democrats in the South who would scorn, like the American
     party, an alliance with Abolitionists, and there are tens of
     thousands of Protestant Union-loving Democrats everywhere, who
     have only confided in, to be deceived and betrayed by, their
     leaders, and, if they discover, as it is hoped they will, that
     they have brought them to the crumbling verge of an awful
     precipice, they have patriotism enough and Protestantism enough
     to break away from them rather than make the awful plunge.

     "I regret that I am admonished by the length to which I have
     extended this communication, that I cannot now discuss the
     Catholic question, as I had hoped to do at the outset, and I
     shall present only a few disjointed remarks in connection with
     it.

     "The American party does not seek to impose any religious test
     such as prevailed in the reign of Charles II., when two
     thousand Non-conformist ministers were driven from their
     pulpits, or such, as in the same reign, was imposed upon Roman
     Catholics and continued from 1673 to 1828. The American party
     does not propose that any religious test, of any kind, shall be
     imposed by law, upon any person whatever, but it does seek to
     organize a public sentiment on the Catholic question, just in
     the same mode that, in times past, parties have sought to
     organize public sentiment upon the tariff question--the bank
     question--the internal improvement question--the temperance
     question, and every other question which has been the subject
     of difference. If it is lawful to say, I will not vote for you
     because you are a Whig, it is equally lawful to say--I will not
     vote for you because you are a foreigner. If it is lawful to
     say, I will not vote for you because you are a Democrat, it is
     equally lawful to say, I will not vote for you because you are
     a Catholic.

     "Neither does the American party propose, in the slightest
     degree, to interfere with any of the rights secured to Roman
     Catholics, in common with others, by the Constitution. If they
     choose to worship a great DOLL as the Virgin Mary--to burn tall
     wax-candles in daylight--to pray to God in an unknown
     tongue--to believe that a simple wafer is the actual body, and
     common wine the very blood of our Saviour--to enforce the
     celibacy of the clergy--to worship the host--to believe that
     old toe-nails and pieces of wood are precious relics--to
     prevent their people from reading the Bible--to refuse to send
     their children to Protestant schools--to retain the
     confessional and the nunnery--to pin their faith to
     unauthenticated traditions--to assert that theirs is the only
     true Church, and to perpetrate a thousand ridiculous
     mummeries--the members of the American party with one accord
     will say, molest them not, disturb them not, trouble them not;
     the religious privileges of this country are as free to them as
     they are to us, and we will not, by law or by violence,
     interrupt or interfere with them in the slightest degree. But
     knowing that the Catholic Church was for a thousand years
     allied to the State; that it claimed dominion, in temporal as
     well as spiritual affairs, over the kings of the earth; that it
     regards the Pope as the Vicegerent of the Almighty; that he
     wears the tiara as the symbol of his power in heaven, earth,
     and hell; that Romanists treat all other professions as
     heretics; that its Archbishops, Bishops and Priests are sworn
     to persecute all who differ with them; that the persecuting
     spirit of that Church has been displayed, for centuries, in the
     most odious acts of cruelty as well as the most despotic
     tyranny that ever cursed the earth; that fire and <DW19>,
     confiscation and torture have been its favorite weapons; that
     no age, or sex or condition has been exempt from its inhuman
     butcheries and demoniac lusts; that it exterminated the
     Albigenses and Waldenses; that it caused the gutters of Paris
     to run with human blood on St. Bartholomew's day; that it
     lighted the fires of Smithfield; that through the
     instrumentality of Tyrconnel and Catholic and Irish Rappadees,
     it perpetrated the inhuman atrocities of the Irish Massacres;
     that, it drove the Huguenots from France, and the Puritans from
     England; that it has delighted in the chains and dungeons of
     the Inquisition, and shouted, with fiendish exultation, at the
     cries and groans of the victims in the _auto da fe_; that no
     republican government has ever flourished under its sway; that
     it regards ignorance as the mother of devotion, and denies the
     obligation of an oath; that it gave rise to the Order of
     Jesuits, the most detestable sect that the earth has ever seen;
     that, in the midst of the blaze of the nineteenth century, it
     has burned the Bible in America and imprisoned men and women in
     Europe for no other offence than that of reading it; that,
     abusing the freedom of the press and speech secured in the
     United States, it unblushingly avows that all Protestantism is
     heresy--that it is a crime--and punished in _Christian
     countries like Spain and Italy_ as a crime; that it has
     banished the Bible from Protestant schools, when under its
     control; that it has intermeddled in political elections, and
     is struggling for political power; that it wears a mask and
     claims to be harmless in this country for present effect,
     although it has never renounced one of its dogmas in any
     authoritative mode; that it is typified, in the Bible, as the
     Man of Sin and the Great Whore of Babylon; that it comes to us
     as an angel of light, but is allied with the Prince of
     Darkness: knowing all these things, and believing that the
     Roman Catholic Church, now that it is covered with the broad
     wings of Modern Democracy, partakes of its meat and is pampered
     by its patronage, is, infinitely, the most dangerous political
     power with which the people of the United States have ever been
     compelled to grapple, the American party invites all who love
     national liberty more than Democracy; who prefer civil and
     religious freedom to the spoils of office; who revere the
     memory of Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin; of Cranmer, Latimer, and
     Ridley; of the seven Bishops; of Fox; of the Puritan fathers;
     of Wesley and Hall; of the Reformers and Protestants of every
     name, and, more than all, of our revolutionary ancestors, to
     burst the fetters of party and come to the rescue of their
     bleeding country, bleeding at every pore from wounds inflicted
     by Democratic hands, amidst the jeers of European despots, the
     shouts of foreigners in our midst, and the taunts and sneers of
     Catholics and Jesuits all around us!

     "Let not Protestant ministers be intimidated by the impudent
     assaults of a venal press, or the fierce denunciations of
     infuriated politicians, from doing their whole duty in the
     pulpit and at the polls. No Presbyterian has ever denied to a
     Methodist the right to question his religious faith, and no
     Methodist will dispute the right of other denominations to
     impugn his creed. Methodists have assailed the Presbyterian
     doctrine of election. Presbyterians, in turn, have assailed
     their ideas of perfection and falling from grace. Both have
     controverted the Baptists' views of immersion, and all have
     denied the Episcopalians' doctrine of _apostolic succession_.
     These and many other points of difference have, from the
     foundation of our government, often been the subjects of
     earnest, protracted, and excited discussion; but when did any
     American Protestant ever deny to another American Protestant
     the constitutional right to differ with him in opinion, and to
     express that difference through the press, in the pulpit, or
     any other constitutional mode? Yet, it has been reserved for
     Democratic presses to attempt, for electioneering purposes, to
     curb the free spirit of Protestant ministers: to denounce them
     as "REVEREND HYPOCRITES;" and, when beholding at home and
     abroad, on the land and on the sea, among Christians and
     Pagans, in the halls of legislation, in churches and schools,
     in free speech, and in a free press, and in ten thousand other
     forms, the magnificent and glorious results of the Reformation,
     to ask, with impudent assurance, 'WHAT HAS PROTESTANTISM DONE
     FOR THE WORLD?' Not satisfied with the storm of execration
     which such an infamous interrogatory produced, the Nashville
     Union and American, the leading Democratic paper in Tennessee,
     in a very abusive article entitled '_What has it
     accomplished?_' under date of April 26, 1856, thus speaks,
     among other things, of what he styles 'the Know Nothing
     Organization:'

     "'_It has done more than this: it has gone into the Church and_
     CONVERTED THE PULPIT INTO A POLITICAL ROSTRUM--_it has turned
     the attention of the ministry from_ THE PEACEFUL PATHS OF
     CHRISTIANITY TO THE ARENA OF POLITICAL TURMOIL--_it has pulled
     down the banner of the Cross, and placed in its stead_ THE RED
     FLAG OF INTOLERANCE AND PROSCRIPTION.'

     "While Protestant ministers, in the enjoyment of the rights
     secured to them by the Constitution, have, as before stated,
     often engaged in controversies with each other as to their
     differences in matters of Church government and speculative
     faith, they have, with one accord, from the foundation of the
     government, preached and published their views against the
     Roman Catholic Church--which arrogates a superiority over them
     all, and stigmatizes them as sects--long before the American
     party ever had an existence. But because, in the course of
     events, it has become necessary for politicians to inquire what
     effect an acknowledgment of the temporal supremacy of the Pope
     may have upon our free institutions, the Democratic party--if
     it is to be judged of by its organ--would gag the Protestant
     clergy, deny to them a right which they have always exercised,
     and, if they dare to oppose the colossal strides of Rome,
     denounce them as having converted the pulpit into a _political
     rostrum_,' and as having raised '_the red flag of Intolerance
     and Proscription_.'

     "It is not for me to prescribe, nor do I desire to dictate the
     duty of Protestant ministers; but if, in the combined efforts
     which the Catholics have been making under the patronage of
     European despots and noblemen, and the encouragement of
     Democratic demagogues in our own country, they see that this
     tremendous corporation has planted its footsteps in all our
     large cities--is possessing itself of the North-West and the
     Mississippi valley--and is encircling them, as it were, with a
     wall of fire: if they see that the newspapers and periodicals
     of that corporation have published doctrines in this free
     country which they would scarcely avow in the Roman Catholic
     countries of Europe: if, in one word, they believe that they
     are to be persecuted and exterminated by Catholics, or take
     care of themselves before it is too late--then Protestant
     ministers, agreeing as they do in all great doctrines, and
     differing only as to those which are not absolutely essential,
     will cease to disagree among themselves, at least until after
     they avert a common danger, and will rally as a band of
     brethren to resist, in such mode as they may deem proper, the
     encroachments and the insults of Rome, and all her satellites
     and allies.

     "If I do not greatly err in the estimate which I place upon the
     Protestant clergymen of America, the Democratic party and the
     Catholics will discover, sooner or later, that the same spirit
     which caused the Protestant fathers to brave the perils of the
     BOOT and the STAKE: to stand, without flinching, before such
     miscreant judges as _Jeffreys_ and _Scroggs_: to yield two
     thousand pulpits and look beggary and starvation in the face,
     rather than compromise with conscience; and, above all, to risk
     the untried dangers of the ocean and settle among savages--will
     nobly animate their descendants, and they will act in a manner
     worthy of themselves and of the great cause which is intrusted
     to their keeping.

     "Never was a more unfounded charge made against any party than
     that of _proscription_ against the American party. It is only
     the political feature--the allegiance to the Pope of
     Rome--which we have felt called upon especially to oppose:
     leaving it to Protestant ministers to expose, if they choose,
     the absurdity of Catholic theological tenets.

     "It is a historical fact that the Romish clergy of France in
     1682, under the lead of Louis XIV., made a declaration that
     'Kings and sovereigns are not subject to any ecclesiastical
     power by the order of God in temporal things, and their
     subjects cannot be released from the obedience which they owe
     them, nor absolved from their oath of allegiance.' The doctrine
     of this declaration is called indifferently 'the Gallican, or
     the French, or the Cis-Alpine doctrine. That of the Court of
     Rome is called the Italian, or trans-Alpine doctrine."

     "Under the solemn assurance of the Louisiana delegation that
     the native Catholics of Louisiana do not acknowledge the
     temporal supremacy of the Pope, they were admitted to
     representation in the American Council and Convention, and this
     fact abundantly proves that there is no desire to _persecute_
     Catholics for their religion, but only a determination to
     resist their political doctrine, which, although denied by Mr.
     Chandler in Congress, has been incontrovertibly established by
     the history of that Church for ages, the avowals of Mr.
     Brownson, the rebuke of Mr. Chandler by the Dublin Tablet, and
     other overwhelming proofs.

     "In concluding this letter, it would, perhaps, be proper to
     dwell upon the claims of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson to the
     support of the American people of all parties; but their
     characters are so well known, and I have already so extended my
     remarks, that I deem it unnecessary to observe any thing more
     than that Mr. Fillmore, by the faithful discharge of his duty,
     won the most cordial approbation of his political enemies as
     well as political friends, and had the confidence of the whole
     country when he retired from office, and has done nothing since
     to destroy it; while Maj. Donelson, as our Minister to Texas,
     to Prussia, and to Denmark, sustained the dignity of our
     country and acquitted himself with honor--denounced the
     unhallowed proceedings of the Southern Convention--struggled
     manfully, as the Democratic editor of the Washington Union, in
     behalf of the Compromise, and never withdrew from it until May,
     1852, when, so far as I understand his course from his public
     acts, being unwilling to 'blow hot and cold' on the slavery
     question, and to aid the Democratic party in wearing a Northern
     and a Southern face, he indignantly retired from it, and
     subsequently attached himself to the American party in the hope
     that it could carry on his most cherished object--the
     preservation of the Union.

     "The object of selecting an old-line Whig and an old-line
     Democrat, was to nail to the counter the charge that the
     American party is the Whig party in disguise, and to induce, if
     possible, conservative men of both the old parties to unite and
     rescue the country from Democratic misrule.

     "Hundreds, thousands of Democrats in Tennessee, acting upon
     their own impulses and without concert with their leaders,
     attached themselves to the American party, but under the abuse
     of the leaders withdrew from it. Although, personally, I have
     no claims upon the Democracy, and have been always opposed to
     that party, yet I would respectfully observe that first
     impressions are often the best, and if such Democrats will take
     the trouble faithfully and honestly to examine the questions of
     the day for themselves, uninfluenced by the dictation of party
     leaders on either side, they will, doubtless, find many and
     cogent reasons to return to their first love.

     "But to such of the old-line Whigs as have not already gone
     over to the Democratic party, I do feel that I have the right
     through this or any other medium to address a few words. It is
     well known that I have been a Whig from my boyhood, and until I
     attached myself to the American party about twelve months ago;
     and that, in some form or other, I have labored in behalf of
     the Whig cause from my youth up--in good report and evil
     report, in prosperity and in adversity, and without fee or
     reward. And, with great deference to the opinions of others, I
     would inquire what has any old-line Whig to gain, either for
     his country or himself, by listening to the seductive
     flatteries of Democracy, as he looks upon the dismembered
     fragments of the Whig party, or sits, like Marius, amid the
     ruins of Carthage? What party is it that has brought about the
     desolation you behold? To whose strategy was it owing that the
     once impregnable city was betrayed and surrounded, and its
     lofty battlements levelled with the dust? What foul coalition
     circumvented you, and whose pestilential breath is now
     whispering in your ear? Has that party against which you have
     fought for twenty years--which you have regarded as essentially
     corrupt and dangerous to the Union--all at once, and by some
     magical and unknown process, been cleansed of its impurities,
     and does it stand before you clothed in a white and spotless
     robe? What are some of the reasons why you opposed it?

     "It denounced proscription for opinion's sake before it came
     into power, but kept the guillotine in continual motion
     afterwards. It rebuked any interference with the freedom of
     elections, and then denied its doctrine, and sought in
     countless ways to control them. It charged the administration
     of John Quincy Adams with reckless extravagance, and has
     expended as much, or nearly as much, of the public treasure in
     one year as he did in the course of his administration. It was
     favorable to _a_ bank, a judicious tariff, and internal
     improvements by the general government, but has crushed beneath
     its iron heel the whole American system. It promised a gold and
     silver currency, and told the farmers that they and their wives
     should have 'long silken purses, through the interstices of
     which the yellow gold would shine and glitter,' but has given
     us instead more than thirteen hundred State bonds, with a
     capital of more than three hundred millions. It has united the
     purse and the sword by means of its odious Sub-Treasury. It
     trampled beneath its feet the broad seal of the State of New
     Jersey, and encouraged Dorr's rebellion.

     "It annexed Texas and California, and has strengthened the
     Abolition power. It sustains the frequent use of the veto, and
     under the name of Democracy delights in the exercise of
     monarchical prerogative. It proclaimed in 1844 and 1845, that
     not a thimblefull of blood would be shed by any war growing out
     of the annexation of Texas, when that war sacrificed thousands
     of lives, and has cost us millions in money and land. It
     boasted, in regard to the Oregon question, that we must have
     '54 deg. 40' or fight,' but swallowed its own words, and in later
     times has attempted to retrieve its courage by the sublime and
     magnificent bombardment of Greytown! It ordered General Taylor
     into the heart of the Mexican country with a feeble force, and
     when his victories had won the grateful plaudits of his
     countrymen, it had the unparalleled meanness, while he was
     still fighting our battles, to censure the capitulation of
     Monterey. It had the baseness to call General Scott from the
     head of a victorious army, and to attempt to disgrace him in
     the eyes of his own country and the world. It denounced Judge
     White as a renegade, General Harrison as a coward, Mr. Clay as
     a blackguard, and General Scott as a fool. And, without
     repeating what has been already urged in regard to its attitude
     upon the slavery question and the other topics that have been
     discussed, I submit to the old-line Whigs that there is no
     principle which the Democratic party sincerely holds in common
     with them, and that they should unite with us in the effort to
     man the ship of State with officers and men devoted to the
     Constitution and true to the Union, in the hope that it may be
     rescued from the whirlpools and breakers among which it has
     been so recklessly conducted.

     "Having expressed myself with the independence which should
     characterize a freeman, I cannot expect that a party which has
     dealt in the most unmitigated denunciation of wiser and better
     men than myself, will permit my observations to pass with
     impunity, but I shall be amply compensated for their abuse if
     abler tongues and pens will improve upon these hurried remarks,
     and teach our Democratic traducers that they cannot continue,
     without just retaliation, their unjustifiable assaults upon the
     American party.

     "Yours respectfully,

     "THOS. A. R. NELSON."




PROSCRIBING FOREIGNERS--FOREIGN IMMIGRATION--FOREIGN PAUPERS AND
CRIMINALS--FOREIGNERS ELECTED GEN. PIERCE--OPINIONS OF GREAT MEN.


The issue which most disturbs the Sag-Nicht Foreign Catholic Locofoco
Dry-rot _patriots_, of the present day, in connection with the
principles of the American party, is their _proscription_ of
foreign-born citizens. If the reader will turn back to the Philadelphia
Platform, and consult the 3d, 4th, 5th, and 9th sections of that
instrument, it will be seen that the American party really proscribe
only those who are proscribed by the _Constitution of the United
States_, and the laws defining the rights of foreign-born citizens. The
American party demand the enactment of laws upon this subject more
_definite_, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

The only _positive_ work which the Constitution does, in regard to
foreigners, is to _proscribe_. It contains but five clauses touching the
subject: four of these are PROHIBITORY, and the other is simply
_permissive_. There is no guaranteeing clause whatever. We must be
pardoned for recalling the very language of the Constitution--for in
this _progressive_ age, our "Young American" generation is fast losing
sight of the plainest features of that document: which, with
Fillibustering, Fire-eating agitators, is _Old Fogyism_! Let the
Constitution speak for itself:

Section 5, Article II. of the Constitution says: "No person, except a
natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of
President." That is proscription.

Section 3, Article XII., says: "No person constitutionally ineligible to
the office of President shall be eligible to the office of
Vice-President of the United States." That is proscription.

Section 8, Article I., says: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not
have attained the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of
these United States." That is proscription.

Section 2, Article I., says: "No person shall be a Representative who
shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and been seven
years a citizen." This is proscription.

These are the disabilities imposed upon Foreigners after they have been
made citizens. But, more than this, the Constitution leaves it
discretionary whether to make them citizens at all. It simply confers
the power--_simply permits_. Here is the remaining clause, to which we
have alluded:

Section 8, Article I., says: "Congress shall have power to establish a
uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcies throughout the United States."

But let us notice the matter of foreign emigration to this country. In
that fragment of a nation, composed of three and a quarter millions,
which accomplished the American Revolution, there were in the United
Colonies, in the year 1775, just 20,000 more foreigners than now come
into this country in six months!

The progress of emigration into this country, as shown from the State
Department at Washington, is after this fashion:

In the year 1852,                                             375,000
In the year 1853,                                             368,000
In the year 1854, the returns of the first six months
warrant the estimate for the entire year of                   500,000
                                                            ---------
The aggregate, for the first four and a half years of
this decennial term, is                                     1,801,000

There is no reason for believing that the vast immigration
of this year will diminish. In fact, there is no
limit to its rate of progress but the means of conveyance.
Now, then, we have upon this basis an aggregate
for the six years and a half intervening between
this period and 1860, of                                    3,250,000
                                                            ---------
Making for the current ten years, the astounding aggregate
of                                                          5,051,000

Let Americans charge continually that the righteous ground upon which it
plants itself is, THAT AMERICANS SHALL RULE AMERICA. Let them point the
voters of the country to solid facts, from which there is no escape.
Tell them that the emigration to this country, according to the Census
records at Washington, was:

      From 1790 to 1810     120,000
        "  1810 to 1820     114,000
        "  1820 to 1830     203,979
        "  1830 to 1840     778,500
        "  1840 to 1850   1,542,850

--and that statistics show that during the present decade, from 1850 to
1860, in regularly increasing ratio, nearly four millions of aliens will
probably be poured in upon us.

Point to the fact, that from this immigration spring nearly four-fifths
of the beggary, two-thirds of the pauperism, and more than three-fifths
of the crime of our country; that more than half the public charities,
more than half the prisons and alms-houses, more than half the police
and the cost of administering criminal justice, are for foreigners,--and
let the demand be made, that national and State legislation shall
interfere, to direct, ameliorate, and control these elements, so far as
it may be done within the limits of the Constitution.

Let Americans everywhere, and at all times, charge home and force upon
the attention of the people the alarming fact that if immigration
continues at the above rates, in thirty years from this time the
population of this country will exceed that of France, England, Spain,
Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland, all combined; that in fifteen years
the foreign will outnumber the native population; that in 1854 the
number of foreign immigrants was 500,000, of which 307,639 arrived at
the port of New York; that the white population of North Carolina is
only a little over 500,000--so that enough come to settle a State as
populous as North Carolina in a year. Set forth the statistical facts,
as shown by the last Census, that the immigration of 1854 was more than
equal to the white population of either one of eighteen States of this
Union; and in proof, point them to the following startling facts:

A. Table comparing the white population of the States therein
enumerated, with the foreign immigration of 1854, and showing the excess
of foreign immigrants for this year above the respective population of
the several States.

                White population.     Excess of
States.                               immigrants.
Arkansas        162,189               337,811
Alabama         426,514                73,486
California       91,635               418,365
South Carolina  274,563               226,437
Connecticut     363,099               136,901
Delaware         71,169               328,831
Florida          47,203               452,717
Iowa            191,881               308,119
Louisiana       225,491               374,509
Maryland        417,943                82,057
Michigan        395,071               104,929
Mississippi     295,718               204,282
New Hampshire   317,456               182,514
New Jersey      465,509                34,491
Rhode Island    143,875               356,125
Texas           154,034               345,946
Vermont         213,402               186,598
Wisconsin       304,756               195,244

Analyze this table, and show from it that the foreign immigration of
1854 was sufficient to have settled three States equal to Arkansas,
three equal to Iowa, three equal to Texas, two to Louisiana, four to
Rhode Island, five to California, seven to Delaware, or ten to Florida;
so that under the principle of the Kansas and Nebraska act, while
immigrants continue pouring in upon us at the present rate, we may have
within one year ten new States applying for admission into the Union,
entitled to their twenty Senators in the United States Senate; and yet
this would be but the Senatorial representation of 500,000 foreigners.

Let the light of truth be heard upon the great question of immigration,
and let the people see that if the ratio of immigration continues as it
has been since 1850, during the ten years from 1850 to 1860 there will
have come four millions of foreigners into this country--enough to
settle eighty States equal to Florida, thirty-two equal to Rhode Island,
sixteen equal to Louisiana, or eight equal to Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Vermont, Alabama, New
Hampshire, or New Jersey. So the Senatorial representation of foreigners
may reach one hundred and sixty members in the United States Senate, and
cannot be less than twenty in a body composed of but sixty-two members
representing thirty-one States.


UNITED STATES COAST SURVEY--FOREIGNISM AND NATIVEISM.

The reader will find below a list of the names of the employees in the
Coast Survey, classified according to birth, and their respective
salaries:


Natives.                Salary. | Foreigners.                Salary.
                                |
E. Nutty                 $1,200 | J. E. Hilgard               $2,200
J. T. Hoover                600 | S. E. Werner                 1,419
J. H. Toomer                519 | C. A. Schott                 1,500
J. E. Blackenship           500 | J. Main                      1,100
R. Freeman                  350 | G. Rumpf                     1,000
H. Mitchell               1,000 | J. Weisner                     900
H. Heaton                   700 | L. F. Pourtales              1,500
R. S. Avery                 660 | S. Hein                      2,500
J. Kincheloe                339 | J. Welch                     1,565
G. C. Blanchard             339 | A. Brschke                   1,408
R. E. Evans                 339 | ---- Balback                   639
R. L. Hawkins             1,200 | ---- Lendenkehl                782
W. McPherson                700 | W. P. Schultz                  704
W. M. C. Fairfax          1,800 | G. McCoy                     2,000
M. J. McClery             1,600 | A. Rolle                     1,700
---- Poterfield           1,000 | G. B. Metzenroth             1,095
L. Williams                 860 | J. C. Koudnip                  939
John Key                    782 | J. Rutherdall                  526
---- Martin                 751 | J. Barrett                     375
B. Hooe                     419 | J. Vierbunchen               1,095
F. Fairfax                  500 | P. Vierbunchen                 281
H. McCormick                156 | T. Hunt                        704
E. Wharton                1,100 | J. Missenson                   626
J. Knight                 1,700 | R. Schelpass                   469
F. Dankworth              1,700 | C. Ramkin                      313
J. V. N. Throop           1,252 | F. White                       960
R. Knight                   939 | D. Flyn                        600
C. A. Knight                626 | T. Kinney                      525
G. Mathiot                1,800 | C. Kraft                       420
S. Harris                   519 | B. Neff                        526
S. D. O'Brien             1,059 | A. Maedell                   1,095
A. Geatman                  704 |                            -------
H. Tine                     626 |                            $31,867
C. B. Snow                1,000 |
J. Smith                    593 |
G. Hitz                     313 |
J. Cronion                  519 |
A. W. Russell             1,300 |
---- Tansill                660 |
V. E. King                  720 |
F. Holden                   500 |
J. Mitchell                 331 |
W. Bright                   216 |
                        ------- |
                        $24,429 |

The whole number of natives, 43; number of foreigners, 31. Amount paid
natives, $24,429; amount paid foreigners, $31,867. The average salary of
the natives is $568 12 per year; of the foreigners, $1,029 98 per
year--nearly double that of the natives. Is not this _favoritism_ to the
foreigner, and _discrimination_ against the native? The disbursing
officer, S. Hein, receives $2,500.

The result of the last Presidential election was controlled by _foreign
votes_, beyond all question. Look at the figures--see how they foot
up--and see that the country is controlled by foreigners:

                                                       Electoral
                Foreign       Foreign     Pierce's     vote for
States.       population.      vote.      majority.     Pierce.

New York,     655,224         93,317      27,201          35
Pennsylvania, 303,105         43,300      19,446          27
Maryland,      51,011          7,287       4,945           8
Louisiana,     67,308          9,615       1,392           6
Missouri,      76,570         10,938       7,698           9
Illinois,     111,860         15,980      15,653          11
Ohio,         218,099         31,157      16,694          23
Wisconsin,    110,471         15,781      11,418           5
Iowa,          20,968          2,995       1,180           4
Rhode Island,  23,832          3,404       1,109           4
Connecticut,   38,374          5,482       2,870           6
Delaware,       5,243            749          25           3
New Jersey,    59,804          8,543       5,749           7
California,    21,628         10,000       5,694           4
             --------        -------     -------        ----
                             258,548     120,094         152

RECAPITULATION.

Pierce's vote,            1,602,663
Scott's vote,             1,385,990
                          ---------
                            216,673
Foreign vote,               367,320
Pierce's majority,          216,673
                          ---------
                            150,647

The foreign vote exceeded Pierce's majority over Scott, 150,647 votes.

It is thus demonstrated that in each of these fourteen States the
foreign vote was larger than the majority given for General Pierce; and
it is also demonstrated that the aggregate foreign vote of these
fourteen States is more than twice the whole number of General Pierce's
majorities in said States. If even one-half of the foreign vote had been
given to General Scott, he would have been elected instead of General
Pierce!

The following New York City statistics set forth the amount of _crime_
committed in that city for six months ending in June, 1855:

     "It appears that the number of arrests made during that time
     were 25,110. Of these, no less than 9,755 were for intoxication
     and disorderly conduct combined; and 7,025 for crimes that had
     their origin in the dram-shops, to wit:

     "Assault and battery, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, &c. The
     greatest number of arrests were in June, showing that during
     the hot weather, as is generally the case, more liquor was
     drank. The birth-place of the criminals, for two months, was as
     follows:

     United States,               1,750
     Ireland,                     5,117
     Germany,                     1,010
     All other places,            4,847

     "It needs no argument to prove if there had been no
     intoxicating liquor sold in that city, a large portion of the
     crimes and the misery resulting therefrom would have been
     prevented."

MORE INSTRUCTIVE STATISTICS.--The Jersey City Sentinel of the 22d ult.
publishes statistics of crime and pauperism in Jersey City and Hudson
County, as follows:

     "Number of inhabitants in Jersey City, 21,000, viz.: natives,
     13,000; Irish, 5,000; other foreigners, 4,000. Number of
     persons who have been confined in the city prison, 4,100, viz.:
     natives, 75; Irish, 3,550; other foreigners, 475. Number of
     persons confined in the county jail at present, 68, viz.:
     natives, 2; Irish, 58: other foreigners, 8. Of 188 persons who
     have been inmates of the Almshouse, none have been natives, and
     no foreigners except Irish. Of 723 who received aid from the
     Poor-master, 2 were natives, and 721 were Irish."

We will now submit, as authorities, some names which ought to have
weight with the American people, and which demonstrate, beyond all
contradiction, that we have had "Know Nothings" in our country in
former days, if they were not called by that name! Here are the words
and sentiments of these "dark-lantern patriots:"

     "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure
     you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free
     people ought to be constantly awake. It is one of the most
     baneful foes of a Republican government."--WASHINGTON.

     "I hope we may find some hope in future of shielding ourselves
     from foreign influence, in whatever form it may be attempted. I
     wish there were an ocean of fire between this and the old
     world."--JEFFERSON.

     "Foreign influence is a Grecian horse to the republic: we
     cannot be too careful to exclude its entrance."--MADISON.

     "There is an imperative necessity for reforming the
     Naturalization Laws of the United States."--DANIEL WEBSTER.

     "It is high time we should become a little more Americanized,
     and instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of England,
     feed our own; or else, in a short time, by our present policy,
     we shall become paupers ourselves."--ANDREW JACKSON.

     "I agree with the father of his country, that we should guard
     with a jealousy becoming a free people, our institutions,
     against the insidious wiles of foreign influence."--HENRY CLAY.

     "Our naturalization laws are unquestionably defective, or our
     alms-houses would not now be filled with paupers. Of the
     134,000 paupers in the United States, 68,000 are foreigners,
     and 66,000 natives. The annals of crime have swelled as the
     jails of Europe have poured their contents into the country,
     and the felon convict, reeking from a murder in Europe, or who
     has had the fortune to escape punishment for any other crime
     abroad, easily gains naturalization here, by spending a part of
     five years within the limits of the United States. Our country
     has become a Botany Bay, into which Europe annually discharges
     her criminals of every description."--JOHN M. CLAYTON, United
     States Senator.

Forty years ago, this subject came up in the Congress of the United
States, and that far-seeing statesman and patriot, JOHN RANDOLPH, of
Virginia, made a speech, from which we take the following extract:

     "How long the country would endure this foreign yoke in its
     most odious and disgusting form he could not tell, but this he
     would say, that if we were to be dictated to and ruled by
     foreigners, he would much rather be ruled by a British
     Parliament than by British subjects here. Should he be told
     that those men fought in the war of the Revolution, he would
     answer, that those who did so were not included by him in the
     class he adverted to. That was a civil war, and they and we
     were at its commencement alike British subjects. Native
     Britons, therefore, then taking arms on our side, gave them the
     same rights as those who were born in this country, and his
     motion could be easily modified so as to provide for any that
     might be of this description, but no such modification, he was
     sure, would be found necessary, for this plain reason, to wit:

     "Where were the soldiers of the Revolution who were not
     natives? They were either already retired or else retiring to
     that great reckoning where discounts were not allowed. If the
     honorable gentleman (opposing the proposition) would point his
     finger to any such kind of person now living, he would agree to
     his being made an exception to the amendment. It was time that
     the American people should have a character of their own, and
     where would they find it? In New England and in Virginia only,
     because they were a homogeneous race--a peculiar people. They
     never yet appointed foreigners to sit in that house (of
     Congress) for them, or to fill their high offices. In both
     States this was their policy: it was not found in, nor was it
     owing to their paper constitutions, but what was better, it was
     interwoven in the frame of their thoughts and sentiments, in
     their steady habits, in their principles from the cradle--a
     much more solid security than could be found in any abracadabra
     which constitution-mongers could scrawl upon paper.

     "It might be indiscreet in him to say it, for, to say the
     truth, he had as little of that rascally virtue, prudence, he
     apprehended, as any man, and could as little conceal what he
     felt as affect what he did not feel. He knew it was not the way
     for him to conciliate the manufacturing body, yet he would say
     that he wished with all his heart that his bootmaker, his
     hatter, and other manufacturers, would rather stay in Great
     Britain, under their own laws, than come here to make laws for
     us, and leave us to import our covering. We must have our
     clothing home-made, (said he,) but I would much rather have my
     workmen home-made, and import my clothing. Was it best to have
     our own unpolluted republic peopled with its own pure _native_
     republicans, or erect another Sheffield, another Manchester,
     and another Birmingham, upon the banks of the Schuylkill, the
     Delaware, and the Brandywine, or have a host of Luddites
     amongst us--wretches from whom every vestige of the human
     creation seemed to be effaced? Would they wish to have their
     elections on that floor decided by a rabble? What was the ruin
     of old Rome? Why, their opening their gates and letting in the
     rabble of the whole world to be their legislators!"

     "If (said he) you wish to preserve among your fellow-citizens
     that exalted sense of freedom which gave birth to the
     Revolution--if you wish to keep alive among them the spirit of
     '76, you must endeavor to stop this flood of immigration! You
     must teach the people of Europe that if they do come here, all
     they must hope to receive is protection--but that they must
     have no share in the government. From such men a temporary
     party may receive precarious aid, but the country cannot be
     safe nor the people happy where they are introduced into
     government, or meddle with public concerns in any great
     degree."

            *       *       *       *       *

     "This (said Mr. Randolph) is a favorable time to make a stand
     against this evil (immigration,) and if not _this_ session, he
     hoped that in the _next_ there would be a revisal of the
     naturalization laws."

A few short epistles from the pen of Gen. WASHINGTON, and we will close
this chapter. These we take from the "Papers of Washington by Sparks."
George Washington, justly styled the "father of his country," was a
great and good man--a primitive Know Nothing--a praying Protestant--and
withal, the man who was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the
hearts of his countrymen." Here are the honest sentiments of this man:

     TO RICHARD HENRY LEE.

     "MORRISTOWN, May 17, 1777.

     "DEAR SIR:--I take the liberty to ask you what Congress expects
     I am to do with the many foreigners they have at different
     times promoted to the rank of field-officers, and, by the last
     resolve, two to that of colonels.... These men have no
     attachment nor ties to the country, further than interest binds
     them. Our officers think it exceedingly hard, after they have
     toiled in this service and have sustained many losses, to have
     strangers put over them, whose merit, perhaps, is not equal to
     their own, but whose effrontery will take no denial.... It is
     by the zeal and activity of our own people that the cause must
     be supported, and not by a few hungry adventurers....

                              "I am, &c.,

                                  "G. WASHINGTON."

[Vol. IV., p. 423.]

       *       *       *       *       *

     TO THE SAME.

                                    "MIDDLEBROOK, June 1, 1777.

     "You will, before this can reach you, have seen Monsieur
     Ducoudray. What his real expectations are, I do not know; but I
     fear, if his appointment is equal to what I have been told is
     his expectation, it will be attended with unhappy consequences.
     _To say nothing of the policy of intrusting a department, on
     the execution of which the salvation of the army depends, to a
     foreigner who has no other tie to bind him to the interests of
     this country than honor_, I would beg leave to observe that by
     putting Mr. D. at the head of the artillery, you will lose a
     very valuable officer in General Knox, who is a man of great
     military reading, sound judgment, and clear conceptions, who
     will resign if any one is put over him.... I am, &c.,

                                    "G. WASHINGTON."

[Vol. IV., p. 446.]

       *       *       *       *       *

     TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, ESQ.

                                    "WHITE PLAINS, July 24, 1778.

     "DEAR SIR:--The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a
     subject of very great importance to the well-being of these
     States: much more so than will appear at first view. I mean
     _the appointment of so many foreigners to offices of high rank
     and trust in our service_.

     "The lavish manner in which rank has hitherto been bestowed on
     these gentlemen, will certainly be productive of one or the
     other of these two evils--_either to make us despicable in the
     eyes of Europe, or become a means of pouring them in upon us
     like a torrent, and adding to our present burden_.

     "But it is neither the expense nor trouble of them that I
     dread: there is an evil more extensive in its nature and fatal
     in its consequences to be apprehended, and that is the driving
     of all our own officers out of the service, and throwing not
     only our army but our military councils entirely into the hands
     of foreigners.

     "The officers, my dear sir, on whom you must depend for the
     defence of this cause, distinguished by length of service,
     their connections, property, and military merit, will not
     submit much, if any longer, to the unnatural promotion of men
     over them who have nothing more than a little plausibility,
     unbounded pride and ambition, and a perseverance in application
     not to be resisted but by uncommon firmness, to support their
     pretensions: men who, in the first instance, tell you they wish
     for nothing more than the honor of serving in so glorious a
     cause as volunteers, the next day solicit rank without pay, the
     day following want money advanced to them, and in the course of
     a week want further promotion, and are not satisfied with any
     thing you can do for them. The expediency and the policy of the
     measure remain to be considered, and whether it is consistent
     with justice or prudence to promote these military
     fortune-hunters at the hazard of your army.

     "Baron Steuben, I now find, is also wanting to quit his
     inspectorship for a command in the line. This will be
     productive of much discontent to the brigadiers. In a word,
     although I think the Baron an excellent officer, _I do most
     devoutly wish that we had not a single foreigner among us,
     except the Marquis de Lafayette_, who acts upon very different
     principles from those which govern the rest. Adieu.

                              "I am most sincerely yours,

                                 "G. WASHINGTON."

[Vol. VI., p. 13.]

       *       *       *       *       *

     TO JOHN ADAMS, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

                                    "PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 27, 1794.

     "DEAR SIR:--... My opinion with respect to immigration is, that
     except of useful mechanics and some particular description of
     men or professions, there is no need of encouragement. I am,
     &c.,

                                    "G. WASHINGTON."

[Vol. XI., p. 1.]

       *       *       *       *       *

     TO J. Q. ADAMS, AMERICAN MINISTER AT BERLIN.

                                    "MOUNT VERNON, Jan. 20, 1799.

     "SIR:--... You know, my good sir, that it is not the policy of
     this country to employ aliens where it can well be avoided,
     either in the civil or military walks of life.... There is a
     species of self-importance in all foreign officers that cannot
     be gratified without doing injustice to meritorious characters
     among our own countrymen, who conceive, and justly, where there
     is no great preponderancy of experience or merit, that they are
     entitled to the occupancy of all offices in the gift of their
     government.

                                "I am, &c.,

                                    "G. WASHINGTON."

[Vol. XI., p. 392.]

       *       *       *       *       *

     SAME DATE, TO A FOREIGNER APPLYING FOR OFFICE.

     "DEAR SIR:--... It does not accord with the policy of this
     government to bestow offices, civil or military, upon
     foreigners, to the exclusion of our own citizens. Yours, &c.,

                                    "G. WASHINGTON."

[Vol. XI., p. 392.]

       *       *       *       *       *

     INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL.

                                    "WAR DEPARTMENT, Feb. 4, 1799.

     "... For the cavalry, for the regulations restrict the
     recruiting officers to engage none _except natives_ for this
     corps, and those only as from their known character and
     fidelity may be trusted."




[From the Knoxville Whig for March, 1856.]

WHO IS MILLARD FILLMORE?


A Brief history of the American nominee for the Presidency is this: He
was born in the year 1800, in Cayuga county, New York, and is now
fifty-six years of age. His father was then, as he now is, a farmer, in
moderate circumstances; and now lives in the county of Erie, a short
distance from Buffalo. The limited means of the family prevented the old
gentleman from giving his son Millard any other or better education than
was obtained in the imperfect common schools of that age.

In his sixteenth year, Mr. Fillmore was placed with a merchant tailor
near his home to learn that business. He remained four years in his
apprenticeship, during which time he had access to a small library,
improving the advantages it offered by perusing all the books therein
contained. Judge Wood, of Cayuga county, pleased with his intellectual
advancement, urged him to study the profession of the law; and as his
poverty was the only obstacle in his way, Judge Wood advanced him the
necessary means, relying upon his making a lawyer, and being able by the
practice of the profession to refund the money again. With a portion of
this money young Fillmore bought his unexpired time, which was for the
winter, and he pursued his legal studies with energy and success, in the
office of the noble Judge.

In 1822, he removed to Buffalo, where he was admitted to the bar. His
object in removing to Buffalo was to complete his studies and to obtain
a license. This accomplished, he removed to Aurora, not far from where
his parents resided, and there commenced the practice of his profession.
The confidence of his neighbors in his integrity and abilities was such
that he found himself in the midst of a lucrative practice at once. In
1826, he was married to Miss Powers, the daughter of a clergyman in the
village of Aurora, and this excellent woman lived to see him elected
Vice-President of the United States.

In 1829, Mr. Fillmore was elected from the county in which he married
and where his parents lived to the General Assembly of New York, and for
three years continued a member of this body, distinguishing himself by
his energy, tact, and wisdom in legislation. Through his energy and
speeches, _Imprisonment for Debt_ was abolished, and this so increased
his popularity throughout the State, that it was apparent that he could
be elected to any office in the gift of the people of that State.

In 1829, he was admitted a counsellor in the Supreme Court of New York,
and in 1832 he removed to Buffalo, where he settled permanently and
enlarged his practice as an attorney. In 1832, he was elected a
representative in the 23d Congress, in which he served with industry and
credit to himself and his district. At the end of his term he renewed
the practice of the law, of choice, but, in 1836, was prevailed on to
again serve his district in Congress; and in the celebrated New Jersey
contested elections, distinguished himself. He was chosen to the next
Congress by the largest majority ever given to any man in the district;
and as Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, acquired a
reputation that any man might be proud of.

At the close of the 27th Congress, his friends were anxious for his
continuance in public life, but he declined. And in his address to his
constituents, dated at Washington, July 11th, 1842, he says:

     "Pardon the personal vanity, though it be a weakness, that
     induces me to recur for a moment to the cherished recollections
     of your early friendship and abiding confidence. I cannot give
     vent to the feelings of my heart without it. It is now nearly
     fourteen years since you did me the unsolicited honor to
     nominate me to represent you in the State Legislature. Seven
     times have I received renewed evidence of your confidence by as
     many elections, and, at the expiration of my present term, I
     shall have served you three years in the State and eight years
     in the National Councils. I cannot recall the thousand acts of
     generous devotion from so many friends, without feeling the
     deepest emotions of gratitude. I came among you a poor and
     friendless boy. You kindly took me by the hand and gave me your
     confidence and support. You have conferred upon me distinction
     and honors, for which I could make no adequate return, but by
     honest and untiring effort faithfully to discharge the high
     trust which you confided to my keeping. If my humble efforts
     have met your approbation, I freely admit, next to the approval
     of my own conscience, it is the highest reward which I could
     receive for days of unceasing toil and nights of sleepless
     anxiety. I profess not to be above or below the common
     frailties of our nature. I will therefore not disguise the
     fact, that I was highly gratified at my first election to
     Congress; yet I can truly say that my utmost ambition has been
     gratified. I aspire to nothing more, and shall retire from the
     exciting scenes of political strife to the quiet employments of
     my family and fireside, with still more satisfaction than I
     felt when first elevated to distinguished station."

During this same year he returned to the practice of his profession,
and, in 1844, the Whig State Convention of New York put him in
nomination for the office of Governor, in opposition to Silas Wright.
This was the only conflict in which he ever suffered defeat, and the
race was close. In 1847, without seeking or desiring the highly
responsible office, he was elected Comptroller of the Finances of the
State, and removed to Albany, where he discharged the duties of the
office with great credit to himself and usefulness to the State,
resigning the office in February, 1849, to enter upon the duties of the
office of Vice-President, to which he had been called by the election in
1848. Gen. Taylor dying, he became President, and every patriot in the
land remembers and admires the history of his administration. Gen. Cass
and other distinguished Democrats said his career had been one of
genuine patriotism, honor, and usefulness; and Gov. Wise, upon the stump
in Virginia, characterized it as "Washington-like;" while the Democratic
papers and orators, from Maine to California, declared that he ought to
have been nominated in lieu of Gen. Scott, because he was one of the
best men in America.

He is now in Europe, familiarizing himself with the workings of the
despotic governments of that country. Before leaving, almost one year
ago, he told his friends, in answer to questions relating to the
presidency, not to start any newspapers for his benefit--not to publish
any documents--not to make any speeches, or even electioneer--and added,
that if the American people nominated him, of their own free will and
accord, he would accept their nomination, and if elected, he would serve
them to the best of his abilities. His nomination, therefore, under the
circumstances, is a great honor, and shows the implicit confidence the
real people have in the integrity, patriotism, and qualifications of the
man. That he will go into the presidential chair almost by acclamation,
we have not the shadow of doubt.

As to Mr. Fillmore's chances, we consider them excellent, and growing
brighter every day. The indications are now very clear that he will
obtain a _plurality_, if not a _majority_ vote, in most of the Northern
States; and under the most unfavorable circumstances, he will be sure to
divide the electoral vote of the South, so as to carry more States than
MR. BUCHANAN. Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, are
the only four States we concede to the Cincinnati nominee and _one_ of
these, we confidently expect to carry. Georgia and Arkansas we set down
as doubtful, and we contend that Buchanan can't get either of them
without a severe struggle.

We then make this estimate, and claim as certain for FILLMORE and
DONELSON the following States, viz.:

     Massachusetts   13
     Rhode Island     4
     New York        35
     New Jersey       7
     Pennsylvania    27
     Maryland         8
     Kentucky        12
     Tennessee       12
     North Carolina  10
     Louisiana        6
     Missouri         9
     California       4
     Delaware         3
     Florida          3

This makes a total of 157--_eleven,_ more than is necessary to an
election. This is not an extravagant, but a very fair estimate. The
friends of the American ticket have a right to feel encouraged. With
proper exertions our ticket will carry. Let every American consider
himself a sentinel upon the watch-tower--let every friend of the party
do his duty, and the result will not be doubtful. And let all who
believe that "Americans ought to rule America," take courage--"the skies
are bright and brightening."

As it regards MR. FILLMORE'S Americanism, _that_ is settled--he has been
a Protestant American _fifteen years in advance_ of the party, as it now
exists. The Hon. J. T. HEADLEY, Secretary of State of New York,
delivered a speech at the Capital of his State, March 7th, 1856, in
which he spoke of Mr. Fillmore in the following language:

     "Now, in the first place, he was an American years before those
     who denounce him ever thought of Americanism. The Police
     constable of Newburg elected last year on the American ticket,
     told me, that years ago, when that well-known conflict occurred
     between the citizens of Buffalo and the foreign population,
     that a combination was formed called the "_American League_."
     The members of this League entered into _a solemn compact to
     stand together and fight together for the rights of Americans_.
     This constable was at the time an humble mechanic in Buffalo,
     and he said that _he constantly met Mr. Fillmore (who was a
     member of that League with him) at the Council Room_. Thus you
     see that those who would arrogate to themselves the title of
     Americans, and yet carp at Mr. Fillmore as wanting in American
     sentiment, are really recent volunteers compared with him. Mr.
     Fillmore carried his American principles still farther and
     became (so an officer in the same order informs me) _a member
     of the United Americans_. He has always been a true American,
     _he is now, and ever will be_, and is worthy to move at the
     head of the glorious column over which floats the flag bearing
     the inscription, 'Americans shall rule America.'"

After the defeat of MR. CLAY, in 1844, MR. FILLMORE addressed him this
noble _American_ letter:

                                    "BUFFALO, Nov. 14, 1844.

     "MY DEAR SIR:--I have thought for three or four days that I
     would write to you, but really I am unmanned. I have no courage
     or resolution. All is gone. The last hope, which hung first
     upon the city of New York, and then upon Virginia, is finally
     dissipated, and I see nothing but despair depicted upon every
     countenance.

     "For myself, I have no regrets. I was nominated for Governor
     much against my will, and though not insensible to the pride of
     success, yet I feel a kind of relief at being defeated. But not
     so for you or the nation. Every consideration of justice, every
     feeling of gratitude conspired in the minds of honest men to
     insure your election, and though always doubtful of my own
     success, I could never doubt yours, till the painful conviction
     was forced upon me.

     "The Abolitionists and _Foreign Catholics have defeated us in
     this State_. I will not trust myself to speak of the vile
     hypocrisy of the leading Abolitionists now. Doubtless many
     acted honestly and ignorantly in what they did. But it is clear
     that Birney and his associates sold themselves to Locofocoism,
     and they will doubtless receive their reward.

     "_Our opponents, by pointing to the Native Americans and to Mr.
     Frelinghuysen, drove the Foreign Catholics from us and defeated
     us in this State._

     "But it is vain to look at the causes by which this infamous
     result has been produced. It is enough to say that all is gone.
     I must confess that nothing has happened to shake my confidence
     in our ability to sustain a free government so much as this.

                                    "MILLARD FILLMORE."

But here is one other letter, written to ISAAC NEWTON, just before MR.
FILLMORE left the United States for Europe. A more patriotic letter,
breathing more of the genuine American spirit, we have never met with:

                                    "BUFFALO, N. Y., Jan. 3, 1855.

     "RESPECTED FRIEND ISAAC NEWTON:--It would give me great
     pleasure to accept your kind invitation to visit Philadelphia,
     if it were possible to make my visit private, and limit it to a
     few personal friends whom I should be most happy to see; but I
     know that this would be out of my power, and I am therefore
     reluctantly compelled to decline your invitation, as I have
     done others to New York and Boston, for the same reason.

     "I return you many thanks for your information on the subject
     of politics. I am always happy to hear what is going forward,
     but, independent of the fact that I feel myself withdrawn from
     the political arena, I have been too much depressed in spirit
     to take an active part in the late elections. I contented
     myself with giving a silent vote for Mr. Ullman, for Governor.

     "While, however, I am an inactive observer of public events, I
     am by no means an indifferent one, and I may say to you in the
     frankness of private friendship, that I have for a long time
     looked with dread and apprehension at the corrupting influence
     which the contest for the foreign vote is exerting upon our
     elections. This seems to result from its being banded together,
     and subject to the control of a few interested and selfish
     leaders. Hence it has been a subject of bargain and sale, and
     each of the great political parties of the country have been
     bidding to obtain it, and, as usual in all such contests, the
     party which is most corrupt is most successful. The consequence
     is, that it is fast demoralizing the whole country; corrupting
     the very fountains of political power; and converting the
     ballot-box--that great palladium of our liberty--into an
     unmeaning mockery, where the rights of native-born citizens are
     voted away by those who blindly follow their mercenary and
     selfish leaders. The evidence of this is found not merely in
     the shameless chaffering for the foreign vote at every
     election, but in the large disproportion of offices which are
     now held by foreigners at home and abroad, as compared with our
     native citizens. Where is the true-hearted American whose cheek
     does not tingle with shame and mortification to see our highest
     and most coveted foreign missions filled by men of foreign
     birth to the exclusion of native-born? Such appointments are a
     humiliating confession to the crowned heads of Europe that a
     Republican soil does not produce sufficient talent to represent
     a Republican nation at a monarchical court. I confess that it
     seems to me--with all due respect to others--that, as a general
     rule, our country should be governed by American-born citizens.
     Let us give to the oppressed of every country an asylum and a
     home in our happy land, give to all the benefits of equal laws,
     and equal protection; but let us at the same time cherish, as
     the apple of our eye, the great principles of constitutional
     liberty, which few who have not had the good fortune to be
     reared in a free country know how to appreciate and still less
     how to preserve.

     "Washington, in that inestimable legacy which he left to his
     country--his farewell address--has wisely warned us to beware
     of foreign influence as the most baneful foe of a republican
     government. He saw it to be sure in a different light from that
     in which it now presents itself; but he knew it would approach
     us in all forms, and hence he cautioned us against the
     _insidious wiles of its influence_. Therefore, as well for our
     own sakes, to whom this invaluable inheritance of
     self-government has been left by our forefathers, as for the
     sake of unborn millions who are to inherit this land--foreign
     and native--let us take warning of the Father of his Country,
     and do what we can justly to preserve our institutions from
     corruption and our country from dishonor, but let this be done
     by the people themselves in their sovereign capacity by making
     a proper discrimination in the selection of officers, and not
     by depriving any individual--native or foreign-born--of any
     constitutional or legal right to which he is entitled.

     "These are my sentiments in brief; and although I have
     sometimes almost despaired of my country when I have witnessed
     the rapid strides of corruption, yet I think I perceive a gleam
     of hope in the future, and I now feel confident, that when the
     great mass of intelligence in this enlightened country is once
     fully aroused, and the danger manifested, it will fearlessly
     apply the remedy, and bring back the government to the pure
     days of Washington's administration. Finally, let us adopt the
     old Roman motto, '_Never despair of the Republic._' Let us do
     our duty, and trust in that Providence which has so signally
     watched over and preserved us for the result. But I have said
     more than I intended, and much more than I should have said to
     any one but a trusted friend, as I have no desire to mingle in
     political strife.

     "Remember me kindly to your family, and believe me truly your
     friend,

                                    "MILLARD FILLMORE."

In March, 1851, LEWIS CASS, than whom there is not a more devoted
partisan in the Democratic ranks, delivered a speech on the floor of the
United States Senate, in the course of which he paid the following just
compliment to Mr. Fillmore's integrity, and to his efficiency in
"_pacifying the country_," while he was President. We quote from the
Congressional Globe, and hold it up as a withering rebuke to those
"lesser lights" of Democracy, who are now defaming this pure and
patriotic statesman:

     "The Administration has placed itself high in the great work of
     _pacifying the country_, and they received the meed of
     approbation from political friends and political foes. _I
     partake of the same sentiment._ I do them justice. But I am a
     Democrat, and, God willing, I mean to die one. This is a Whig
     administration, but there is no reason I should not do them
     justice; and I do it with pleasure, in this great matter of
     _the salvation of this country_--if I may say so. I have done
     so; shall continue to do so, whatever sneers their papers may
     contain; for I do it not for their sake, but _for the sake of
     their country_."

The _Democratic Review_--the highest Democratic authority in the United
States--for December, 1855, commenting upon the Compromise Measures of
1850, thus spoke of Mr. Fillmore, in a moment of candor, long before Mr.
Fillmore was nominated by the American party for the Presidency:

     "Momentous events were transpiring. The agitation of the
     question of slavery was paramount in the public mind. In this
     crisis, it was well that so reliable a man as Mr. Fillmore was
     found in the Presidential chair. The safety and perpetuity of
     the Union were threatened. Already had fanaticism raised its
     hydra-head. Schemes and 'isms' leaped from a thousand
     ambuscades. The enemies of the Union started forth on every
     side--Abolitionism here; secessionism there; acquisition and
     filibusterism elsewhere. These were the formidable elements of
     misrule with which the Executive had to cope. How well he met,
     and how entirely he for the time overcame these enemies of the
     peace of the republic, we leave the historian to relate; but
     our retrospect would be incomplete and disingenuous, did we not
     accord the meed of praise justly due to high moral excellence
     and intellectual and administrative honesty and talent, as
     developed in the administration of Mr. Fillmore."

Since the foregoing was prepared for the press, Mr. Fillmore's letter of
acceptance has come to hand, greatly to the annoyance of the Democratic
and anti-American fuglemen and politicians. We congratulate the country
upon the patriotic, national, and _truly American_ spirit which pervades
this chaste and well-written document. It is just what we expected from
_one of the very first men in the Nation_. His reference to his past
course as a guaranty for the future is well-timed. _Sectional_
legislation he is opposed to; and sectional agitation he will use his
influence to suppress. We ask every man into whose hands this work shall
fall, to read this admirable letter for himself: it is worthy of the man
and the times; nay, it is the letter of a patriot and a statesman--

    "Who for his country feels alone,
    And loves her weal, beyond his own."

     [COPY.]

                                    PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 26th, 1856.

     _To the Hon. Millard Fillmore_:

     SIR:--The National Convention of the American party, which has
     just closed its session in this city, has unanimously chosen
     you as the candidate for the Presidency of the United States in
     the election to be held in November next. It has associated
     with you Andrew Jackson Donelson, Esq., of Tennessee, as the
     candidate for the Vice-Presidency.

     The Convention has charged the undersigned with the agreeable
     duty of communicating these proceedings to you, and of asking
     your acceptance of a nomination which will receive not only the
     cordial support of the great national party in whose name it is
     made, but the approbation also of large numbers of other
     enlightened friends of the Constitution and the Union, who will
     rejoice in the opportunity to testify their grateful
     appreciation of your faithful service in the past, and their
     confidence in your experience and integrity for the guidance of
     the future.

     The undersigned take advantage of this occasion to tender to
     you the expression of their own gratification in the
     proceedings of the Convention, and to assure you of the high
     consideration with which they are yours, &c.

                                    ALEXANDER H. H. STUART,
                                    ANDREW STEWART,
                                    ERASTUS BROOKS,
                                    E. B. BARTLETT,
                                    WM. J. EAMES,
                                    EPHRAIM MARSH.

                                    _Committee, &c._

                                    PARIS, May 21st, 1856.

     GENTLEMEN:--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your
     letter informing me that the National Convention of the
     American party, which had just closed its session at
     Philadelphia, had unanimously presented my name for the
     Presidency of the United States, and associated with it that of
     Andrew Jackson Donelson for the Vice-Presidency. This
     unexpected communication met me at Venice on my return from
     Italy, and the duplicate, mailed thirteen days later, was
     received on my arrival in this city last evening. This must
     account for my apparent neglect in giving a more prompt reply.

     You will pardon me for saying that when my administration
     closed in 1853, I considered my political life as a public man
     at an end, and thenceforth I was only anxious to discharge my
     duty as a private citizen. Hence I have taken no active part in
     politics. But I have by no means been an indifferent spectator
     of passing events; nor have I hesitated to express my opinion
     on all political subjects when asked; nor to give my vote and
     private influence for those men and measures I thought best
     calculated to promote the prosperity and glory of our common
     country. Beyond this I deemed it improper for me to interfere.
     But this unsolicited and unexpected nomination has imposed upon
     me a new duty, from which I cannot shrink; and therefore,
     approving, as I do, of the general objects of the party which
     has honored me with its confidence, I cheerfully accept its
     nomination, without waiting to inquire of its prospects of
     success or defeat. It is sufficient for me to know that by so
     doing I yield to the wishes of a large portion of my
     fellow-citizens in every part of the Union, who, like myself,
     are sincerely anxious to see the administration of our
     government restored to that original simplicity and purity
     which marked the first years of its existence; and, if
     possible, to quiet that alarming sectional agitation, which,
     while it delights the Monarchists of Europe, causes every true
     friend of our own country to mourn.

     Having the experience of past service in the administration of
     the Government, I may be permitted to refer to that as the
     exponent of the future, and to say, should the choice of the
     Convention be sanctioned by the people, I shall, with the same
     scrupulous regard for the rights of every section of the Union
     which then influenced my conduct, endeavor to perform every
     duty confided by the Constitution and laws to the Executive.

     As the proceedings of this Convention have marked a new era in
     the history of the country, by bringing a new political
     organization into the approaching Presidential canvass, I take
     the occasion to reaffirm my full confidence in the patriotic
     purposes of that organization, which I regard as springing out
     of a public necessity, forced upon the country, to a large
     extent, by unfortunate sectional divisions, and the dangerous
     tendency of those divisions towards disunion. It alone, in my
     opinion, of all the political agencies now existing, is
     possessed of the power to silence this violent and disastrous
     agitation, and to restore harmony by its own example of
     moderation and forbearance. It has a claim, therefore, in my
     judgment, upon every earnest friend of the integrity of the
     Union.

     So estimating this party, both in its present position and
     future destiny, I freely adopt its great leading principles as
     announced in the recent declaration of the National Council at
     Philadelphia, a copy of which you were so kind as to enclose
     me, holding them to be just and liberal to every true interest
     of the country, and wisely adapted to the establishment and
     support of an enlightened, safe, and effective American policy,
     in full accord with the ideas and the hopes of the fathers of
     our Republic.

     I expect shortly to sail for America; and, with the blessings
     of Divine Providence, hope soon to tread my native soil. My
     opportunity of comparing my own country and the condition of
     its people with those of Europe, has only served to increase my
     admiration and love for our own blessed land of liberty, and I
     shall return to it without even a desire ever to cross the
     Atlantic again.

     I beg of you, gentlemen, to accept my thanks for the very
     flattering manner in which you have been pleased to communicate
     the results of the action of that enlightened and patriotic
     body of men who composed the late Convention, and to be assured
     that

     I am, with profound respect and esteem,

     Your friend and fellow-citizen,

                                    MILLARD FILLMORE.

     Messrs. Alex. H. H. Stuart, Andrew Stewart, Erastus Brooks, E.
     B. Bartlett, Wm. J. Eames, Ephraim Marsh, _Committee_.




WHO IS ANDREW J. DONELSON?


This gentleman being now the nominee of the American party for the
office of Vice-President, naturally attracts much of public attention;
and as a matter to be looked for, and not at all to be regretted, draws
down upon him great abuse and slander from the hireling editors of the
corrupt party opposing him. We will let a neighbor of Major Donelson,
who has had access to his papers, and who has prepared and published in
the _Nashville Banner_ a sketch of his life, answer the question
propounded at the head of this chapter:

     "MR. DONELSON is the second son of Samuel Donelson, deceased,
     who was the brother of the late Mrs. Jackson. His eldest
     brother died in 1817, soon after the Creek War, in which he
     participated as a soldier under General Jackson. His death was
     announced to Mr. Donelson by General Jackson in the following
     terms: 'Whilst we regret his loss, he has left us the endearing
     recollection that there was not a stain upon his character. He
     has performed his duty here below, and has taken his flight to
     realms above, as unspotted as an angel. What a lesson he has
     given us! How delightful to dwell upon the idea that he has
     walked in the paths of virtue during his whole life, without a
     blemish on his character, and that all his friends may recount
     his acts with pride and pleasure!' The younger brother is still
     living in the paternal mansion, and was a member of the last
     Legislature of Tennessee. The mother of these children
     afterwards married Mr. James Sanders, of Sumner county,
     Tennessee, and is still enjoying good health. She is the only
     daughter of Gen. Daniel Smith, who was one of the surveyors of
     the line between Virginia and North Carolina, and succeeded
     Gen. Jackson in the Senate of the United States.

     "General Smith had an important agency in shaping the early
     history of Tennessee--having represented a portion of the
     people in the North Carolina Legislature, and in the Convention
     which ratified the Constitution of the United States. He was
     also Secretary of the Territory, and a member of the Convention
     of 1796. He was a native of Virginia, and emigrated to
     Tennessee soon after he had surveyed the line between that
     State and North Carolina, having, while in the execution of
     that service, seen the fine lands in Middle Tennessee. He
     settled the lands upon which his grandson, Henry Smith, now
     resides; and built the mansion, which is still there, at a
     period when the men engaged in quarrying the rock had to be
     guarded from the attacks of the Indians.

     "The father of Samuel Donelson, Col. John Donelson, was also a
     native of Virginia, and at onetime a Representative of one of
     her oldest counties, Pittsylvania, in the House of Burgesses.
     He possessed in an eminent degree the respect of the Provincial
     Governor of that Commonwealth, from whom he received the
     appointment of Indian Commissioner about the year 1770; and it
     is to his bold and enterprising spirit that we are in a great
     measure indebted for the Indian Treaties which extended the
     settlements of Virginia through Kentucky to the Ohio river. He
     left Port Patrick Henry in 1779, descending the Tennessee river
     with all his family, in boats built on the Holston, and came up
     the Cumberland in those boats as high as the Clover Bottom,
     encountering incredible toils and dangers. Three years
     afterwards, in 1793, in conjunction with Col. Martin, he
     concluded an Indian Treaty, by which the settlements on the
     Cumberland river were greatly benefited; but he had, previously
     to his departure from Virginia, under a contract with Georgia,
     explored the country, and run the line between that State and
     North Carolina, as far west as the Mississippi river. After
     settling his family near the present site of the Hermitage, he
     was killed by the Indians, on a journey to Kentucky, near the
     Big Barren River, at the advanced age of 75.

     "Samuel Donelson was a lawyer by profession, and the intimate
     friend and associate of Gen. Jackson, after whom he named his
     son Andrew, who was born on the 25th of August, 1800. On the
     second marriage of his mother, this son was taken into the
     family of the General, who became his guardian and patron; and
     he remained the most of his time with him until he was prepared
     to enter the Cumberland College. After finishing his studies at
     this school, Gen. Jackson obtained for him a Cadet's warrant,
     which enabled him to enter the Military Academy at West Point,
     in 1816. He was one of the first class which was graduated
     under the superintendence of Col. Thayer--finishing the course
     of studies in three, instead of four years; as is customary.
     Throughout his service at West Point, he was distinguished for
     his proficiency in mathematics, and for the facility with which
     he mastered all the studies which appertain to military
     science. No higher proof need be adduced of this fact, than the
     position assigned to him by the Board of Examiners and
     Visitors, when he graduated. He was placed No. 2, in a class of
     great merit, notwithstanding he had the studies of two years to
     pass through in one year, and was recommended to the Department
     of War for a commission in the Engineer Corps--a compliment
     accorded only to the most distinguished of the class.

     "After obtaining his commission, Mr. Donelson was ordered to
     the Western frontier to build a fort; but before he reached
     this destination, the War Department, on the application of
     Gen. Jackson, allowed him to accept the appointment of
     Aide-de-camp in the staff of the General. In this capacity he
     attended the General when he took possession of the Floridas,
     and remained with him until the latter resigned his commission
     in the army.

     "At this period, Mr. Donelson seeing no prospect for rapid
     promotion in the corps of Engineers, and sharing the conviction
     then so prevalent in the army, that the conclusion of the war
     with England had shut the door for a long time to come against
     those military enterprises which are so tempting to the officer
     and soldier, and feeling also that he could be more useful in
     the pursuits of civil life, turned his attention to the study
     of law. He accordingly resigned his commission; and after
     attending the course of law lectures in the Transylvania
     University, then under the presidency of Dr. Holly, he received
     his license, and appeared at the Nashville bar in 1823, having
     formed a partnership with Mr. Duncan. Circumstances, however,
     soon occurred, which withdrew him in a great degree from the
     practice. General Jackson was again in the field as a candidate
     for the Presidency, and needed the services of a confidential
     friend to aid him in repelling the bitter assaults which were
     made upon his character and services. Animated by a deep sense
     of gratitude, no duty could be more pleasing to Mr. Donelson
     than that of contributing his labor to advance the great
     popular movement which aimed, by the elevation of his
     benefactor and friend, to promote the highest interests of the
     country. He therefore cheerfully entered again into the
     General's family, and travelled with him to Washington City
     after the elections in 1824. Those elections devolved the
     choice of President upon the House of Representatives. Mr.
     Adams was the successful candidate, although Gen. Jackson had a
     much larger popular vote, and was evidently the favorite of the
     people.

     "As is well known to the country, the result of that election
     gave increased force to the sentiment which had placed Gen.
     Jackson in nomination. The efforts of his friends throughout
     the Union became more active, and were never abated until the
     decision of the House of Representatives in 1824 was reversed,
     and Gen. Jackson placed in the Presidential chair. During these
     four years, Mr. Donelson, who had married in 1824, settled upon
     his plantation adjoining the Hermitage, and continued there to
     promote the cause he had espoused so warmly in the beginning.

     "When the elections of 1828 were over, Gen. Jackson insisted
     upon the acceptance by Mr. Donelson of the post of private
     Secretary. Mr. D. accordingly set out with him in the winter of
     1828 for the city of Washington, taking with him his wife, whom
     he had married in 1824. This lady was the youngest daughter of
     Capt. John Donelson, and was invited by Gen. Jackson to do the
     honors of the White House--a position which she held throughout
     the greater portion of his Presidency.

     "It was in this capacity that Mr. Donelson endeared himself
     still more than ever to the Hero of the Hermitage. He spent the
     prime of his life, from 1828 to 1836, in his service, and he
     felt himself amply rewarded by the knowledge he thus acquired
     of public men and measures.

     "At the close of Gen. Jackson's Presidency, Mr. Donelson
     declined to take office under Mr. Van Buren, being anxious for
     a respite from public affairs, and to enjoy the pleasures of
     his farm; upon which he remained until he was called
     unexpectedly to take a part in the negotiation which brought
     Texas into our Union. It was upon this theatre that he
     displayed the judgment and tact which brought him prominently
     before the country as a man that understood the public
     interests, and knew how to take care of them.

     "The commission appointing Mr. Donelson Minister to Texas is
     dated the 16th of September, 1844. Mr. Calhoun, then Secretary
     of State, in the letter enclosing the commission, says:

     "'The state of things in Texas is such as to require that the
     place (Charge d'Affaires) should be filled without delay, and
     to select him who, under all circumstances, may be thought best
     calculated to bring to a successful decision the great question
     of annexation pending before the two countries. After full
     deliberation, you have been selected as that individual; and I
     do trust, my dear sir, that you will not decline the
     appointment, however great may be the personal sacrifice of
     accepting. That great question must be decided in the next
     three or four months; and whether it shall be favorable or not,
     will depend on him who shall fill the mission now tendered you.
     I need not tell you how much depends on its decision for weal
     or woe to our country, and perhaps the whole continent. It is
     sufficient to say that, viewed in all its consequences, it is
     one of the first magnitude; and that it gives an importance to
     the mission at this time, that raises it to the level with the
     highest in the gift of the Government.

     "Assuming, therefore, that you will not decline the
     appointment, unless some insuperable difficulty should
     interpose, and in order to avoid delay, a commission is
     herewith transmitted, without the formality of waiting your
     acceptance, with all the necessary papers.'"

President Polk, after this, confided an important and most critical
foreign negotiation to Major Donelson; and his estimate of the prudence,
discretion, and ability with which Major Donelson discharged his trust,
appears from a letter to Major D. from the Hon. John Y. Mason,
President Polk's Secretary of War, dated August 7th, 1845. From that
letter, complimentary from beginning to end, we copy only this portion:

     "The services which you have rendered your country in the
     delicate negotiations intrusted to you, are justly appreciated.
     _Your prudence, discretion, and ability have inspired the
     President with a confidence which would make him feel much more
     at ease if that delicate task could be in your hands._

     "It gives me great pleasure to assure you that _the publication
     of your official correspondence will give you a most enviable
     reputation for the highest qualities of a statesman and
     diplomatist_.

     "The President unites in the kindest regards, with your friend,

                                    "J. Y. MASON."

PRESIDENT PIERCE'S opinion of Major Donelson may be learned from the
following letter, written by him to the Major when the latter was the
editor of the _Washington Union_, the National Organ of the Democratic
party:

                                    "CONCORD, May 30, 1851.

     "MY DEAR SIR: I rejoice that the leading organ of our party is
     now under your control, and regard the change as most
     auspicious at this juncture. There is a great battle before
     us--a battle for the Union--a battle for the ascendency of the
     principles, the maintenance of which so nobly signalized the
     administration of General Jackson. THE TONE, VIGOR, AND
     STATESMANLIKE GRASP _which you have brought to the columns of
     the Union are not merely important, they are_ ABSOLUTELY
     INDISPENSABLE _in this crisis_.

     "With great respect, your friend and servant,

                                    "FRANK. PIERCE."

The following article is from the _Nashville Union_, of October 15,
1844, the Tennessee Organ of Democracy, published within a few miles of
where Major Donelson lives, and has passed most of his life. This
article shows what opinion was entertained of him before he became a
_Know-Nothing_:

     "The diplomatic agency of this government in Texas is, at this
     moment, the most important mission abroad; although it ranks
     with those of the second class, its high and important duties
     require the talents of one every way qualified for the first
     foreign mission on the globe.

     "_We congratulate the administration on having been able to
     secure the services of one so eminently qualified in all
     respects for the station, whose thorough knowledge of the
     relations subsisting between the two countries, and whose
     intimate acquaintance with the prominent statesmen of this and
     that government, will place him in the enjoyment of advantages
     which cannot fail to secure to us the most desirable results._

     "Major Donelson leaves his plantation near the Hermitage
     to-day--proceeding overland to the Mississippi river on his way
     to the Texan Capital--and we cannot but participate in the
     painful emotions with which the word 'farewell' will be
     exchanged between himself and his venerable patron, friend, and
     relative, 'The Sage of the Hermitage.'

     "In view of the advanced age of General Jackson, it is more
     than probable that they may never meet again. A relationship
     next to that of father and son, if, indeed, it be not equally
     near and dear, will be severed perhaps for ever. And we feel
     assured that nothing short of a sense of DUTY TO HIS COUNTRY
     could have induced an acceptance of the mission. Nor, for this
     patriotic reason, would the aged veteran advise him to decline
     it.

     "Major D. leaves a host of good and true friends, who will
     continue to have an abiding solicitude for his health and
     happiness, and for his early and complete success in 'extending
     the area of freedom.'"

Mr. Clayton, Secretary of State under Gen. Taylor, wrote to Major
Donelson, announcing the expiration of the diplomatic relations between
the United States and Germany, (where the Major was stationed,) and
closed with the following complimentary expressions:

     "I am directed by the President to express to you his entire
     approbation of your conduct, and I cannot take leave of you in
     your public character without adding my testimony to that of
     the President to the ability and faithfulness with which you
     have discharged the arduous and delicate duties which your
     mission imposed upon you.

                                    "JOHN M. CLAYTON."

The Democratic party having always boasted that Gen. Jackson was
unsurpassed in his keen and unerring insight into the characters of men,
we must be permitted to call their attention to a clause in the _Last
Will and Testament_ of Gen. Jackson, as recorded in the county of
Davidson. This clause sets forth the estimate placed upon Mr. Donelson
by the old General, after this fashion:

                                    "HERMITAGE, June 7, 1843.

     ... "I bequeath to my well-beloved nephew, Andrew J. Donelson,
     son of Samuel Donelson, deceased, the elegant sword presented
     to me by the State of Tennessee, with this injunction, that he
     fail not to use it when necessary in support and protection of
     our glorious Union, and for the protection of the
     constitutional rights of our beloved country, should they be
     assailed by foreign enemies or _domestic traitors_. This, from
     the great change in my worldly affairs of late, is, with my
     blessing, all that I can bequeath him, doing justice to those
     creditors to whom I am responsible. This bequest is made as a
     memento of the high regard, affection, and esteem I bear for
     him as a _high-minded, honest, and honorable man_."

And now, to show that Gen. Jackson had not changed his opinion of the
Major, we give about the last epistle he ever wrote to him, as it bears
date but a few days previous to his death:

                                    "HERMITAGE, May 24, 1845.

     "MY DEAR ANDREW: I received last night your affectionate letter
     of the 15th inst., with the enclosed for your dear Elizabeth,
     which I sent forthwith, and your kind letter of the 13th this
     morning. Your family were here yesterday. All well, but looking
     out for you hourly. I assured Elizabeth that you could not
     leave your mission before the Texan Congress acted upon the
     subject with which you were charged. I shall admonish her to be
     patient and await your return, which will be the moment your
     honor and duty will permit.

            *       *       *       *       *

     "My dear Andrew:--What may be my fate God only knows. I am
     greatly afflicted--suffer much, and it will be almost a miracle
     if I shall survive my present attack. I am swollen from the
     toes to the crown of the head, and in bandages to my hips.

     "How far my God may think proper to bear me up under my weight
     of afflictions, he only knows. But, my dear Major, live or die,
     you have my blessing and prayers for your welfare and happiness
     in this world, and that we may meet in a blissful immortality.

                                "Your affectionate uncle,

                                    "ANDREW JACKSON."

While editor of the _Washington Union_, Major Donelson frankly admitted,
in his account of the election in Tennessee, between Gov. Campbell and
Gen. Trousdale, that the latter owed his defeat to his opposition to the
Compromise measures, and his sympathies with the Disunionists. In the
_Hartford_ Convention held in Nashville, the Major appeared in person,
and denounced the whole concern as a blow at the Union, and its prime
movers and advocates as _traitors to their country and to the
Constitution_. These _Secession_ Democrats, headed by A. V. Brown,
Eastman & Co., are uncompromising in their hatred of the Major, and they
never will forgive him, while he remains true to the Union of these
States, and the Constitution as it is, which will be to the latest hour
of his earthly existence! Had he never opposed the _treasonable_ designs
of the Nashville Convention--and had he not advocated the doctrines of
the American party, these same men would now be loud in his praise, as
the relative, the political student, and the _successor_ of the Sage of
the Hermitage!




[From the Knoxville Whig of June 14, 1856.]

BUCHANAN NOMINATED AT CINCINNATI.--DISPERSION OF FALSTAFF'S ARMY!


The Cincinnati Anti-American, Anti-Protestant, Foreign Catholic,
Locofoco Pow Wow, has met--transacted its appropriate
business--nominated old Federal James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, for the
Presidency, and Robert C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, for the Vice
Presidency--and dispersed: dealing largely in the old game of _brag_, as
to the _nationality_, _soundness_, and _ability_ of their ticket; when
it is notorious, that they have at the head of their ticket one of the
most vulnerable men in the nation; an old political hack, who has been
"every thing by turns and nothing long;" advocating and opposing all the
leading measures which have agitated the country for the last forty
years, as we shall show in the sequel!

They had an awful time at Cincinnati! They organized by calling to the
chair, temporarily, the notorious _Sam'l. Medary_, the Abolition editor
of the Ohio Statesman. Either the anti-slavery forces were in the
majority, or the "odds and ends" of all parties represented in the
Convention desired to conciliate the Abolition and Black Republican
wings of their _Foreign Corporation_!

The Missouri Delegation were refused their seats, and they openly
rebelled, forcing their way into the Convention with _clubs_, knocking
down and cruelly mangling the head and shoulders of the poor doorkeeper!
From this, it would seem that they were doing business with _closed
doors_! Wonder if they had a _password_! Had they "signs and grips,"
other than those by which they made themselves known to the
_doorkeeper_?

Did they carry with them "dark-lanterns?" Not they--they are opposed to
all _secrecy_--they are opposed to all disorderly conduct--they are the
"harmonious Democracy," and labor alone for the good of the country, and
of posterity! What a farce their Cincinnati Convention was! And what
hypocrites they are!

But two full sets of Delegates appeared from New York, and claimed their
seats; these were _Hards_ and _Softs_--Pierce and
_anti_-Pierce--Nebraska and _anti_-Nebraska--pro-Slavery and
_anti_-Slavery, _Filibustering Foreign Catholic Democrats_! Being
unable to agree among themselves, and the Convention not wishing to
_offend_ either of these wings of the "great Harmonious Democratic
Party," they rejected both delegations! This was having a bad effect, as
a portion of each delegation was out of doors cursing the majority, and
making threats as to what they would do. So the Convention reconsidered
their cases, and ADMITTED BOTH DELEGATIONS TO SEATS. They then
progressed "harmoniously," much after the style of a rickety old cart on
a hill-side, drawn by a balky horse, whose driver curses him when at
fault, and curses him when faultless.

Frequently the scenes of confusion and excitement were alike disgusting
and alarming. The friends of Douglass, Pierce, and Buchanan, were alike
bitter, and each disposed to ruin the party if they should fail to get
their man nominated. The anti-slavery portion of the Convention were
much incensed against the South for the "_lam-basting_" given to
_Senator Sumner_ by _Representative Brooks_, for words spoken in debate.
One of Buchanan's men boasted that the assault of Brooks on Sumner had
gained _twenty_ votes for "Old Buck!" And others of the Buchanan wing,
out of doors, were stating that they had reliable evidence that "Old
Buck" did not approve the assault, while Pierce and Douglass did! We
have no doubt that this sort of influence, added to Buchanan's _known
hostility to slavery_, secured for him the nomination. And, as if
desirous to atone for the sin against the South of nominating an old
_Anti-Slavery Federalist_, they came into a Southern State, Kentucky,
and selected a young and inexperienced politician, Mr. Robert C.
Breckenridge, for the Vice Presidency. As Breckenridge is brave, and has
challenged his man for a _duel_, they can now turn about and appeal to
the Church-going folks to sustain their ticket _for what_ they implored
them to repudiate the Whig ticket in 1844! Besides, Breckenridge
_approves_ the basting of Sumner by Brooks, and this will _offset_
Buchanan's opposition to that _Southern Democratic measure_!
Breckenridge has another virtue, which aided in securing his nomination.
Though the nephew of those _able Know-Nothing Presbyterian Preachers_ of
that State, he has the independence to come out in opposition to them,
and the insulting claims set up by _Protestants generally_, and to
advocate and defend the Roman Catholics.

The "rich and racy" scenes that came off in the Convention, we will
leave our several friends from Nashville, who were there as reporters in
the Convention for the American papers, to set forth. With more truth
than poetry, the "unterrified Democracy" convened at Cincinnati can say,
"Our army swore terribly in Flanders!" And how could it have been
otherwise? The Convention was large--composed of several hundred
delegates, drawn together from all sections of the country, East, West,
North, and South--"held together by the cohesive power of public
plunder"--and representing every variety and shade of opinion known and
held under the much abused but comprehensive name of Democracy! Nor was
the moral and personal character of the Convention less mixed and
many- than was its politics.

In looking over the proceedings of this coalition and combination of
Bogus Democrats, Foreign Pauper Advocates, and anti-Protestant lovers of
Religious Liberty, we have looked in vain for the names of distinguished
Tennesseeans, who ought to have been second best, to say the least of
it, in the ballots for a nomination! It was that Aaron V. Brown, "the
son of a now sainted father," was put in nomination for the office of
Vice President, by a Mr. Brown, supposed to be his nephew; but making no
run at all, he was taken off the track instantly--rubbed down and salted
away!

But Andrew Johnson, who was to have been nominated for the first office
within the gift of the American people and no mistake, (!) was not even
named, and some say he was not even thought of for the position. We had
supposed that there existed among the leaders of the self-styled
Democracy, a determination to doom to utter extinction the light that
has guided the children of Political Reform in Tennessee, and throughout
the known world, and now we know it! The opposers of intellectual
emancipation, of "Jacob's Ladder Democracy," so superior to
Christianity, have triumphed at Cincinnati, and trampled under foot,
with impunity, the soul-stirring doctrine of "converging lines." The
next steps with these "enemies of righteousness" will be the rack, the
gibbet, and a second edition of the infernal inquisition! Will the
friends of the "White Basis" Governor of Tennessee tamely surrender
their dearest rights to these Cincinnati _crusaders_, without a single
struggle? Will they allow the saddle of Federal domination to be quietly
thrown on their backs? Ye Greene county delegates forbid it!

But Johnson is doomed to an inglorious retirement from public life. He
can console himself with the reflection, that rank only degrades--wealth
only impoverishes--ornaments but disfigure him! The man who discovered
that the Bogus Democracy of the nineteenth century leads fallen sinful
man to the throne of God, needs no office to elevate him. These Johnson
Democrats enjoy the pure religion of Democracy--a religion which enters
the closet--pours forth its supplications in private, feeds the poor,
clothes the naked--inflames not the prejudices of Protestant sects--is
modest and unassuming in its demeanor--is charitable and kind to the
persecuted and pious Catholics--bears with the infirmities of Foreign
Paupers--is not ambitious and designing, seeking to accomplish vast
schemes by doubtful means!

While Old Federal Buck was nominated on the seventeenth ballot, after
much excitement, wrangling and abuse, young Breckenridge, whose only
merit is his having challenged the Hon. Francis B. Cutting, of New York,
to fight a duel, two years ago, was nominated on the second ballot. The
ballot for a candidate for the Vice Presidency resulted as follows:

    John C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky,      55
    John A. Quitman, of Mississippi,        59
    Linn Boyd, of Kentucky,                 33
    Benjamin Fitzpatrick, of Alabama,       11
    Aaron V. Brown, of Tennessee,           29
    Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia,        31
    Thomas J. Rusk, of Texas,                2
    Wm  H. Polk, of Tennessee,               5
    J. C. Dobbin, of North Carolina,        13

A second ballot was entered into, when Hon. John C. Breckenridge, of
Kentucky, was unanimously chosen.

Tennessee, in voting for a Presidential candidate, voted SIX times for
Pierce, and EIGHT times for Douglass, and never came over to old Federal
Buck until they could do nothing for Pierce or Douglass. Buck seems to
have been a fill for Tennessee! But now, the Tennessee Democracy say:

    "With hounds and horn,
    At rosy morn,
    We _Bucks_ a hunting go!"

Well, we Americans will get after Old Buck's venison too, and between
this and November next, many will be the steak we shall eat out of his
old Federal carcass. It is venison worthy of the chase, for

    ----"Finer or fatter
    Ne'er roamed in the forest,
    Or smoked in a platter."

So--

    "Hi, ho, Chevy,
    Hark away, hark away, tantivy,
    Here rests the burthen of my song,
    This _time_ a stag must die."

But Democracy have commenced their old game of brag, by puffing their
ticket as a national and conservative ticket, the very thing they
denied. Now let us look into the soundness and nationality of the HEAD
of the ticket. We have before us a copy of a work published in 1839, by
Robert Mayo, M. D., entitled, "Political Sketches of Eight Years in
Washington, in four parts." This work has gone through various editions,
having been published by Fielding Lucas, Jr., of Baltimore; Garret
Anderson, of Washington; J. R. Smith, of Richmond; Carey, Hart & Co., of
Philadelphia, and by others in New York and Boston. On page 38 of this
work, which Mr. Buchanan has never contradicted, he is reported to have
denounced the visions, patronage, and corruptions of the Democratic
Administrations, while he, Buchanan, was a member of the Old Federal
Party.

On page 6 of this work, in the preface, the author says, in speaking of
Buchanan before he turned Democrat:

     "The declarations of some of these new disciples of Democracy
     in past times are striking enough. MR. BUCHANAN of
     PENNSYLVANIA, while he acted in his true character, DECLARED
     THAT IF HE HAD A DROP OF DEMOCRATIC BLOOD IN HIS VEINS, HE
     WOULD LET IT OUT! He put his royal declaration on paper, and it
     has risen up against him."

A recent brief memoir of Mr. Buchanan, put forth in Pennsylvania, states
that he was elected to the Legislature in 1815, where he distinguished
himself by those exhibitions of intellect which gave promise of future
eminence. The Lancaster _Register_, published in the immediate vicinity
of Mr. Buchanan's residence, asks _by whom_ was he elected? and thus
supplies the record for 1815:

     ASSEMBLY.

     For JAMES BUCHANAN,   Federal    3051
      "  Molton O. Rogers, Democrat   2502

The memoir sets forth that Mr. Buchanan was elected to Congress in 1820,
and that he retained his position in that body for ten years,
voluntarily retiring.

The Lancaster _Register_ inquires if he were elected as a _Democrat_,
and answers the inquiry by the following historical facts:

     CONGRESS.

     1820--James Buchanan, Federal      4642
       "   Jacob Hibsman, Democrat      3666
     1822--James Buchanan, Federal      2153
       "   Jacob Hibsman, Democrat      1940
     1824--James Buchanan, Federal      3560
       "   Samuel Houston, Democrat     3046
     1826--James Buchanan, Federal      2760
       "   Dr. John McCamant, Democrat  2307
     1828--James Buchanan, Jackson      5203
       "   William Hiester, Adams       3904

The Lancaster _Register_ then pursues its criticism as follows:

     "On the 4th of July, 1815, Mr. Buchanan, when he was a
     candidate for Assembly on the _Federal ticket_, delivered 'an
     oration' in Lancaster, in which he showed his _love_ of
     Federalism and _hatred_ of Democracy, by attacking the
     Administration of James Madison. He said:

     "'Time will not allow me to enumerate all the other evils and
     wicked projects of the Democratic administration.'

     "And again, in the same oration, he said:

     "'What must be our opinion of an opposition whose passions were
     so dark and malignant as to be gratified in endeavoring to
     blast the character and imbitter the old age of Washington?
     After thus persecuting the saviour of his country, _how can the
     Democratic party dare to call themselves his disciples_?'"

And who does not recollect, in Tennessee, with what force and effect
JAMES C. JONES used to point out JAMES BUCHANAN as one of the _rank old
Federalists_ who had come over to the Democratic ranks, and was battling
with _Col. Polk_, side by side, while he was consuming half his time in
abuse of the Federal party? When the Democratic candidate for Congress
in this District, JULIUS W. BLACKWELL, charged _Federalism_ upon the
Whig party, who does not recollect with what effect and spirit JOHN H.
CROZIER ran over the list of ODIOUS OLD FEDERALISTS, then fighting under
the Democratic flag, among them naming out JAMES BUCHANAN? And will not
the files of the KNOXVILLE POST, edited by Capt. JAMES WILLIAMS, show
how he held up JAMES BUCHANAN and others as an _old Federalist of the
first water_?

On the subject of _Slavery_ the memoir is not definite, and the
Lancaster Register comes to its aid by publishing the following
proceedings of a public meeting held in that city on the 23d of
November, 1819:

     "WHEREAS, the people of this State, pursuing the maxims and
     animated by the beneficence of the great founder of
     Pennsylvania, first gave effect to the gradual abolition of
     slavery by a national act, which has not only rescued the
     unhappy and helpless African within their territory from the
     demoralizing influence of slavery, but ameliorating his state
     and condition throughout Europe and America; and whereas, it
     would illy comport with those humane and Christian efforts to
     be silent spectators when this great cause of humanity is about
     to be agitated in Congress, by fixing the destiny of the new
     domains of the United States: therefore,

     "_Resolved_, That the representatives in Congress from this
     district be and they are hereby most earnestly requested to use
     their utmost endeavors, as members of the National Legislature,
     to prevent the existence of slavery in any of the Territories
     or new States which may be created by Congress.

     "_Resolved_, As the opinion of this meeting, that as the
     Legislature of this State will shortly be in session, it will
     be highly deserving of their wisdom and patriotism to take into
     their early and most serious consideration the propriety of
     instructing our representatives in the National Legislature to
     use the most zealous and strenuous exertions to inhibit the
     existence of slavery in any of the Territories or States which
     may hereafter be created by Congress; and that the members of
     Assembly from this county be requested to embrace the earliest
     opportunity of bringing this subject before both Houses of the
     Legislature.

     "_Resolved_, That, in the opinion of this meeting, the members
     of Congress who at the last session sustained the cause of
     justice, humanity, and patriotism, in opposing the introduction
     of slavery into the State then endeavored to be formed out of
     the Missouri Territory, are entitled to the warmest thanks of
     every friend of humanity.

     "_Resolved_, That the proceedings of this meeting be published
     in the newspapers in this city.

                                    "JAMES HOPKINS,
                                    WM. JENKINS,
                                    JAMES BUCHANAN."

     "The foregoing resolutions being read were unanimously adopted,
     after which the meeting adjourned. (Signed)

                                    WALTER FRANKLIN, Ch'n.

     "Attest--WM. JENKINS, Sec'y."

The "Perry County Democratic Press," for April 9th, 1856, an able paper
published at Bloomfield in Pennsylvania, shows up the _Federal
anti-slavery, anti-Democratic, turn-coat character_ of Mr. Buchanan,
after this fashion:


     JAMES BUCHANAN'S SOMERSETS.

     "No man in the United States has turned his political coat as
     often as James Buchanan. He has espoused the principles of
     every party that has had an existence since the memorable
     Hartford Convention, and has been on all sides of political
     questions.

     "A brief reference to his history will establish conclusively
     our assertions."


     HIS FEDERALISM.

     "He entered political life in 1814 as a rank Federalist, and by
     the Federal party he was elected to the Legislature of the
     State. He was re-elected in 1815, defeating Molton C. Rogers,
     the Democratic candidate, and afterwards one of the Supreme
     Judges of the State.

     "In 1820, he was the Federal candidate for Congress, and was
     elected over Jacob Hibsman, the Democratic candidate, by 976
     majority. In 1822, he was reelected over the same man by 813
     majority. In 1824, he was the Federal candidate for Congress,
     and elected over Samuel Houston, the Democratic candidate, by
     519 votes. In 1826, he was re-elected over Dr. John McCamant,
     the Democratic candidate, by 453 votes. His majorities were
     becoming less each time, and in order to satisfy his Federal
     friends of his fidelity to the party, he had to declare that
     'if he had a drop of Democratic blood in his veins, he would
     open them and let it out.'"


     HE BECOMES A DEMOCRAT.

     "Two years after this, he changed his coat and became a
     full-blooded Democrat, and ran for Congress as the Democratic
     candidate, and was elected by virtue of General Jackson's
     popularity. He was afraid to run a second term, and he
     declined."


     HIS TEN CENT SPEECH.

     "In 1843, in the United States Senate, he made a speech
     advocating the principle that ten cents is a sufficient
     compensation for a day's labor. Hence he is called 'Ten Cent
     Jimmy.'

     "In 1845, he became Secretary of State under Polk's
     administration, and consented to give away about half of the
     Territory of Oregon to the British government, after he had
     proven that they had not a spark of title to it.

     "He extolled the Federal administration of John Adams, and
     endorsed the abominable Alien and Sedition laws of the Federal
     reign of terror. He bitterly denounced the administration of
     that pure Democrat, James Madison, and ridiculed what he termed
     the follies of Thomas Jefferson."


     HIS SLAVERY SOMERSETS.

     "In 1819, at a meeting in Lancaster, he reported resolutions
     favoring resistance to the extension of slavery and the
     admission of the State of Missouri as a slave State.

     "In 1847, he wrote to the Democracy of Berks county, saying
     that the Missouri Compromise had given peace to the country,
     and that instead of repealing it he was in favor of its
     extension and maintenance.

     "In 1850, in a letter to Col. Forney, he rejoiced over the
     settlement of the slavery agitation by the passage of the
     compromise measures during Fillmore's administration, and hoped
     that before a dissolution of the Union he might be gathered to
     his fathers, and never be permitted to witness the sad
     catastrophe.

     "In 1852, he wrote to Mr. Leake, of Virginia, concerning
     Fillmore's compromise measures of 1850, which had been passed
     by Congress, and said, 'that the volcano has been extinguished,
     and the man who would apply the firebrand to the combustible
     materials still remaining, will produce an eruption that will
     overwhelm the Constitution and the Union."


     BUCHANAN'S LAST SOMERSET.

     "On the 28th of December, 1855, about three months ago, Mr.
     Buchanan, in a letter to John Slidell, of Louisiana, says: 'The
     Missouri Compromise is gone, and gone for ever. It has
     departed. The time for it has passed away, and the best, nay,
     the only mode now left of _putting down_ the fanatical and
     reckless spirit of the North is to adhere to the existing
     settlement without the slightest thought or appearance of
     wavering, and without regarding any storm which may be raised
     against it."

Here, then, is an authentic record--if the reader please, a GILT-FRAME
PENNSYLVANIA LOOKING-GLASS, in which the Democracy of the South who
admire the nominee of the late Cincinnati Convention can _see him as he
is_! Heretofore, to use the language of Holy Writ, they have seen him
"through a glass darkly, but now face to face." Here they see him
standing erect upon the floor of the United States Senate, in all the
pride of that _aristocracy_ which has characterized his course in life,
and giving vent to the old and bitter feelings of the _royalists_ in
Pennsylvania, by advocating the _oppressive British doctrine_, that TEN
CENTS PER DAY _is enough for a poor white man as a day-laborer_! And
here, too, our hard-fisted working-men, North and South, can see what
sort of a man the Democracy are asking them to vote for for the
Presidency!

In his Fourth of July oration in 1815, delivered in the hearing of an
immense crowd, and afterwards published in all the leading papers of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Buchanan came out as a _Know-Nothing_, which he has
now to repudiate in stepping upon the _Anti-American Catholic Platform_
prepared for him at Cincinnati! Here is what he said in that celebrated
oration:

     "The greater part of those foreigners who would not be thus
     affected by it, have long been the warmest friends of the
     party. They had been _one of the great means of elevating the
     present ruling_ (Democratic) party, and it would have been
     ungrateful for that party to have abandoned them. To secure
     this foreign feeling has been the labor of their leaders for
     more than twenty years, and well have they been paid for their
     trouble, for it has been one of the principal causes of
     introducing and continuing them in power. Immediately before
     the war this foreign influence had completely embodied itself
     with the majority, particularly in the West, and its voice was
     heard so loud at the seat of government, that President Madison
     was obliged either to yield to its dictates or retire from
     office. The choice was easily made by a man who preferred his
     private interests to the public good, and therefore hurried us
     into a war for which we were utterly unprepared."

And then again:

     "We ought to use every honest exertion to turn out of power
     those weak and wicked men whose wild and visionary theories
     have been tested and found wanting. Above all, we ought to
     drive from our shores foreign influence, and cherish American
     feeling. Foreign influence has been in every age the curse of
     republics--its jaundiced eye sees every thing in false
     colors--the thick atmosphere of prejudice by which it is ever
     surrounded, excluding from its sight the light of reason. Let
     us then learn wisdom from experience, and for ever banish this
     fiend from our country."

And here is what JACKSON thought of BUCHANAN. The Democratic Washington
correspondent of the New York Evening Post, who was favorable to the
nomination of Pierce, makes this statement--a statement we have often
heard before, and never heard contradicted:

     "On the night before leaving Nashville to occupy the White
     House, Mr. Polk, in company with Gen. Robert Armstrong, called
     at the Hermitage to procure some advice from the old hero as to
     the selection of his cabinet. Jackson strongly urged the
     President-elect to give no place in it to Buchanan, as he could
     not be relied upon. It so happened that Polk had already
     determined to make that very appointment, having probably
     offered the situation to the statesman of Pennsylvania. This
     fact induced Gen. Armstrong subsequently to tell Jackson that
     he had given Polk a rather hard rub, as Buchanan had already
     been selected for Secretary of State. 'I can't help it,' said
     the old man: 'I felt it my duty to warn him against Mr.
     Buchanan, whether it was agreeable or not. Mr. Polk will find
     Buchanan an unreliable man. I know him well, and Mr. Polk will
     yet admit the correctness of my prediction.'

     "It was the last visit ever made by Mr. Polk to the old hero
     when this unavailing remonstrance was delivered, but the new
     President, long before the end of his administration, had
     reason to acknowledge its propriety and justice, and in the
     diary kept by him during that period may still be read a most
     emphatic declaration of his distrust of Mr. Buchanan. Every one
     is aware of two marked instances in which, as Secretary of
     State, the latter failed to support the policy of the
     administration, viz., on the question of the tariff of 1846,
     and the requisition of the ten regiments voted by Congress for
     the Mexican war. On both of these measures he was known to be
     opposed to the wishes of Mr. Polk."

_Mr. Charles Irving_, the Democratic editor of the Lynchburg Republican,
and a delegate at Richmond in the State Convention, thus disposes of Mr.
Buchanan in a long and able letter, dated May 7th, 1856:

     "If silence during the battle constitutes a claim for office,
     how can the South expect Northern statesmen to uphold her
     banner, when abolitionists are seeking to tear it to tatters?
     If an ability to get free-soil votes makes a candidate
     available, and that species of availability is recognized as a
     merit at the South, Northern statesmen should court
     free-soilers, and not struggle with them, if they wish to be
     Presidents. Such availability may be very desirable to those
     who wish success alone, but those who look to the interests of
     the country may well be excused if they prefer a different
     standard. I certainly _prefer_ that the South shall PREFER the
     selection, not only of a sound man, but that she shall vote for
     the nomination of no man upon any such ground of availability.
     The coming election must settle the slavery agitation. I do not
     wish a single free-soiler to vote the Democratic ticket, nor
     will I willingly afford them the slightest excuse for so doing.
     A prominent North-West Democrat told me to-day, that the
     nomination of Mr. Buchanan would enable Trumbull, Wentworth,
     and other free-soilers to come back into the party. I am not
     anxious to get back such characters. These are some reasons for
     not preferring Mr. Buchanan.

     "But there is still another reason. That reason is in his
     record. To carry the entire South, we must have not only a
     sound man, but one who is above impeachment--whose record is as
     stainless as the principles he advocates. Is such the case with
     Mr. Buchanan? Let the record answer.

     "On the 27th of December, 1837, Mr. Calhoun submitted to the
     Senate that celebrated series of resolutions, the great objects
     of which were to set forth with precision and force the
     constitutional rights of the slaveholding States, and to
     attract to their support an enlightened public opinion against
     the attacks of Northern fanaticism. The second resolution was
     in these words: (Calhoun's Works, volume 3, page 140.)

     "'_Resolved_, That in delegating a portion of their powers to
     be exercised by the Federal Government, the States retained
     severally the exclusive and sole right over their own domestic
     institutions and police, and are alone responsible for them,
     and that any intermeddling of any one or more States, or a
     combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions
     and police of the others, on any ground or under any pretext
     whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their
     alteration or subversion, is an assumption of superiority not
     warranted by the Constitution, insulting to the States
     interfered with, tending to endanger their domestic peace and
     tranquillity, subversive of the objects for which the
     Constitution was formed, and, by necessary consequence, tending
     to weaken and destroy the Union itself.'

     "Mr. Morris of Ohio, who was then the only avowed Abolitionist
     in the Senate, moved to strike out the words 'moral and
     religious.' Had the motion prevailed, the effect would have
     been to encourage agitation in the form in which it would be
     most likely to be fatal to the South. It would have been a
     direct encouragement to the Abolitionized clergy of the North
     to take the very course which was taken by the 'three thousand
     and fifty divines' who, in 1854, sacrilegiously assumed, 'in
     the name of Almighty God, and in his presence,' to denounce the
     repeal of the Missouri Compromise as 'a violation of plighted
     faith and a breach of a national compact.' Subsequent events
     have abundantly attested the truth of what Mr. Calhoun said,
     when arguing against the motion, 'that the whole spirit of the
     resolution hinged upon that word _religious_.'

     "The vote taken on Mr. Morris's amendment stood as follows:
     (Congressional Globe, volume 6, page 74.)

     "Yeas--Messrs. Bayard, BUCHANAN, Clayton, Davis, McKeon,
     Morris, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Smyth of Indiana,
     Southward, Swift, Tipton, and Webster--14.

     "Nays--Messrs. Allen, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama,
     Clay of Kentucky, Cuthbert, Fulton, Hubbard, King, Knight,
     Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston,
     Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smyth of Connecticut, Strange,
     Walker, Wall, White, Williams, Wright, and Young--31.

     "The fifth resolution to which Mr. Calhoun here referred, and
     which he justly regarded as the most important of all, and
     struggled most perseveringly to have passed without amendment,
     was strictly as follows:

     "'Resolved, That the intermeddling of any State or States, or
     their citizens, to abolish slavery in this District, or in any
     of the Territories, on the ground, or under the pretext, that
     it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of any act or measure
     of Congress, with that view, would be a direct and dangerous
     attack on the institutions of all the slaveholding States.'

     "This resolution covered the whole premises. It met the issue
     boldly and fully. No Southern Democrat can hesitate to say that
     it embodied a great truth, to which events have borne emphatic
     testimony. Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, moved to strike it out, and
     insert the following as a substitute:

     "'Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the
     States of Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic
     slavery existed in both of those States, including the ceded
     territory; and that, as it still continues in both of them, it
     could not be abolished within the District without a violation
     of that good faith which was implied in the cession, and in the
     acceptance of the territory, nor unless compensation were made
     for the slaves, without a manifest infringement of an amendment
     of the Constitution of the United States, nor without exciting
     a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the States
     recognizing slavery, far transcending, in mischievous tendency,
     any possible benefit which would be accomplished by the
     abolition.' (Congressional Globe, vol. 6, page 58.)

     "The utter insufficiency of this temporizing amendment scarcely
     need be pointed out. Objectionable as it was in conceding to
     Congress the constitutional power to abolish slavery in the
     District of Columbia, and declaring against the exercise of
     that power only on the ground of inexpediency, it was still
     more so in this, that it made no reference whatever to the
     territories of the United States. The passage of Mr. Calhoun's
     resolution would have committed the Senate, not only against
     the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, but
     against the application of the Wilmot Proviso and kindred
     measures to the Territories. Mr. Clay's amendment was entirely
     silent on the subject. It is true, that in another resolution
     which he proposed to have adopted as an additional amendment,
     it was declared that the abolition of slavery in the Territory
     of Florida would be highly inexpedient, for the principal
     reason 'that it would be in violation of a solemn compromise
     made at a memorable and critical period in the history of this
     country, by which, while slavery was prohibited north, it was
     admitted south of the line of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes
     north latitude.' The defect in the first amendment can hardly
     be considered by Southern men as remedied by another which
     recognized the binding force of the Missouri Compromise.

     "On the question to strike out Mr. Calhoun's resolution, and
     insert Mr. Clay's as an amendment, after it had been modified
     by striking out the part relating to compensation for slaves,
     the vote stood--yeas 19, nays 18. (Congressional Globe, vol.
     6, page 62.) _Mr. Buchanan's name stands recorded in the
     affirmative._

     "On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Calhoun, with a view to infuse
     vitality into Mr. Clay's amendment, moved to insert that any
     attempt of Congress to abolish slavery in the Territories,
     'would be a dangerous attack upon the States in which slavery
     exists.' Mr. Buchanan opposed the amendment, and it was in
     reply to his speech that Mr. Calhoun made the remarks which may
     be found in the third volume of his works, pages 194 to 196,
     and which he commenced by saying that 'the remarks of the
     Senator from Pennsylvania were of such a character that he
     could not permit them to pass in silence.'

     "From these votes, and this language of Mr. Buchanan, it is
     clear:

     "1st. That he was not opposed to the _religious_ agitation of
     the slavery question--a species of agitation which Mr. Calhoun
     justly regarded as more fatal than any other.

     "2d. That he recognized the constitutional power of Congress to
     abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, opposing its
     existence only on the ground of its inexpediency--a proposition
     which the position of Mr. Van Buren shows affords no reliable
     protection to Southern institutions.

     "3d. That he refused to commit himself fully on the great
     question as to the power of Congress over the Territories of
     the United States, and as far as he did go, evidently left it
     to be understood that the abolition of slavery by Congress in
     those Territories would be no attack on the States in which it
     exists.'

     "If his opinions, in these respects, have undergone any
     material change, the country has not yet been authoritatively
     apprised of the fact. The reflections cast by him on the
     institution of slavery, in one of his speeches in England, and
     the studied design he has manifested to keep aloof from the
     excitement growing out of the repeal of the Missouri
     Compromise, are not well calculated to inspire confidence, that
     if his views have undergone any change, it has been a change
     for the better."

After thus disposing of the _slavery issue_, _Mr. Irving_ thus turns to
the _Tariff Question_:

     "So much for the slavery issue. How does Mr. Buchanan stand
     upon the tariff? Will the Sentinel say that he is sound, or
     justify his 'low wages' speech? How does he stand upon the
     French Spoliation bill, which President Polk and President
     Pierce vetoed? Everybody knows that he was in favor of it. How
     does he stand upon the Pacific Railroad? He declared himself in
     favor of an appropriation of public money to build it, as is
     notorious. In fact, is there a single Federal measure except
     that of the United States Bank, upon which he is not recorded
     against Democratic principles? How can we hope to carry the
     united South with such a record? Will Southern Democrats
     overlook this record? Will Northern Nebraska men overlook this
     ignoring of Pierce and Douglass? Is there no danger that in
     admitting the abolitionist Trumbull, we may not dishearten the
     gallant Douglass? Is there no fear that in reinstating the
     free-soil Hickman, who is in favor of Reeder, we may not palsy
     the arm of Richardson? In fine, is there no fear that in hoping
     for free-soil aid, we may not lose the few real friends the
     South has in the North? It is evident to the commonest
     understanding, that the first step of Northern Black
     Republicanism is to kill off all those influential men at the
     North, like Pierce or Douglass, who have actively participated
     in the fight for our rights. Is not the South aiding them in
     this first step, when it not only ignores its own sons, but
     also ignores, upon the ground of availability, those Northern
     men identified with the late Kansas-Nebraska bill? This is a
     question the South would do well to ponder. If Mr. Buchanan is
     to be nominated, and Pierce and Douglass in the North ignored,
     let the responsibility rest elsewhere than upon the State of
     Virginia. He may be, and probably is sound, but these are times
     when more than ordinary caution is necessary. It may become the
     duty of the South to support him. When that time arrives I can
     discharge the duty; but I do think that the reasons above
     stated exempt me from any blame for not advocating him until
     that responsibility devolves upon me. Very respectfully, CHAS.
     IRVING.

The Southern Dough-faces of the Foreign Catholic party pretend to hold
Mr. Fillmore responsible for a letter he wrote more than twenty years
ago, in which he answers certain interrogatories in reference to
slavery, _affirmatively_, and in opposition to the extension of slavery!
The _latest_ record of Buchanan is in 1844, and proves him to be an
ABOLITIONIST OF THE BLACKEST DYE. About the last speech he ever made in
Congress, was IN OPPOSITION TO SLAVERY, in secret session of the Senate,
just before Mr. Polk, in opposition to the wishes of Gen. Jackson, gave
him a seat in his cabinet. This speech will be found in the
Congressional Globe for 1844, an extract from which is in these
_explicit_ and _memorable_ words:

     "In arriving at the conclusion to support this treaty, I had to
     encounter _but one serious obstacle_, AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION
     OF SLAVERY. Whilst I have ever maintained, and ever shall
     maintain, in their full force and vigor, the constitutional
     rights of the Southern States over their slave property, I yet
     feel a strong repugnance by any act of mine to extend the
     limits of the Union over a new slaveholding territory. After
     mature reflection, however, I overcame these scruples, and now
     believe that the acquisition of Texas will be the means of
     limiting, not enlarging, the dominion of slavery.

     "In the government of the world, Providence generally produces
     great changes by gradual means. There is nothing rash in the
     counsels of the Almighty. May not, then, the acquisition of
     Texas be the means of gradually drawing the slaves far to the
     South to a climate more congenial to their nature; and may they
     not finally pass off into Mexico, and THERE MINGLE WITH A RACE
     WHERE NO PREJUDICE EXISTS AGAINST THEIR COLOR? The Mexican
     nation is composed of Spaniards, Indians, and <DW64>s, blended
     together in every variety, who would receive our slaves on
     terms of perfect social equality. To this condition they never
     can be admitted in the United States.

     "That the acquisition of Texas would ere long convert Maryland,
     Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and probably others of the more
     Northern Slave States, into free States, I entertain not a
     doubt....

     "But should Texas be annexed to the Union, causes will be
     brought into operation which must inevitably remove slavery
     from what may be called the farming States. From the best
     information, it is no longer profitable to raise wheat, rye,
     and corn, by slave labor. Where these articles are the only
     staples of agriculture, in the pointed and expressive language
     of Randolph, if the slave does not run away from his master,
     the master must run away from the slave. The slave will
     naturally be removed from such a country, where his labor is
     scarcely adequate to his own support, to a region where he can
     not only maintain himself, but yield large profits to his
     master. Texas will open an outlet; and slavery itself may thus
     finally pass the Del Norte, and be lost in Mexico. One thing is
     certain, the present number of slaves cannot be increased by
     the annexation of Texas.

     "I have never apprehended the preponderance of the slave States
     in the councils of the nation. Such a fear has always appeared
     to me visionary. But those who entertain such apprehensions
     need not be alarmed by the acquisition of Texas. More than
     one-half of its territory is wholly unfit for the slave labor;
     and, therefore, in the nature of things must be free. Mr. Clay,
     in his letter of the 17th of April last, on the subject of
     annexation, states that, according to his information--

     "'The Territory of Texas is susceptible of a division into five
     States of convenient size and form. Of these, two only would be
     adapted to those peculiar institutions (slavery) to which I
     have referred; and the other three, lying west and north of San
     Antonio, being only adapted to farming and grazing purposes,
     from the nature of their soil, climate, and productions, would
     not admit of these institutions. In the end, therefore, there
     would be two slave and three free States probably added to the
     Union.'

     "And here permit me to observe, that there is one defect in the
     treaty which ought to be amended if we all did not know that it
     is destined to be rejected. The treaty itself ought to
     determine how many free and how many slave States should be
     made out of this territory."

On the 11th of April, 1826, James Buchanan, who is now being supported
by _Southern slaveholders_, made a speech in Congress, _eleven years
after_ his Fourth of July oration, from which the following is taken:

     "Permit me here, Mr. Chairman, for a moment, to speak upon a
     subject to which I have never before adverted upon this floor,
     and to which, I trust, I may never again have occasion to
     advert. I mean the subject of slavery. I BELIEVE IT TO BE A
     GREAT POLITICAL AND A GREAT MORAL EVIL. I THANK GOD, MY LOT HAS
     BEEN CAST IN A STATE WHERE IT DOES NOT EXIST.... IT HAS BEEN A
     CURSE ENTAILED UPON US BY THAT NATION WHICH MAKES IT A SUBJECT
     OF REPROACH TO OUR INSTITUTIONS." (See Gales and Seaton's
     Register of Debates, page 2180, vol. ii., part 2.)


MORE BUCHANAN ANTECEDENTS.

When a "_Uniform Bankrupt Law_" was enacted by Congress, after the
election of General Harrison, there were on the files of the Judiciary
Committee of the Senate _fifty-one petitions_, praying for the passage
of such a law. Twenty-nine of these were from New York, five from New
Jersey, three from Ohio, two from Indiana, two from Massachusetts, and
_one_ from each of the States of Tennessee and Mississippi. There were
_twenty-five_ other petitions praying for "_A General Bankrupt Law_;"
_fifteen_ of which were from New York, and eight from Pennsylvania; and
how will the Democracy like to see it hereafter proven that BUCHANAN
presented these petitions, and voted for the law? If it shall turn out
that "Old Buck" did really go for the "odious Bankrupt Law," let his
friends defend him on the ground that his _State_ desired it, and had
always favored the measure!

In the House of Representatives, in Congress, January 3, 1815, _Mr.
Ingersoll_, a notorious Democrat from Pennsylvania, and a _Boy Tory_ of
the war of the Revolution, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported
a bill to establish _a uniform law of Bankruptcy throughout the United
States_! If these facts should not turn out to be a sufficient
justification of _Mr. Buchanan's course_, provided he went for this
Bankrupt Law, let his friends present these facts, and show that he was
in good old Federal Democratic _company_:

NUMBER 1. On the 5th of September, 1837, Mr. Van Buren's _Democratic_
Secretary of the Treasury made a report to Congress, praying the passage
of a _uniform Bankrupt Law_, which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.

NUMBER 2. On the 13th day of January, 1840, _Mr. Norvell_, a Democratic
Senator from Michigan, moved that the Judiciary be instructed to inquire
into the expediency of reporting a bill for the establishment of a
_General Bankrupt Law_.

NUMBER 3. On the 22d of April, 1840, _Garret D. Wall_, a flaming
Democratic Senator in Congress, reported certain amendments to a
Bankrupt Law, from a minority of the Committee; which were referred to
the Senate's select Committee, and reported by Mr. Wall, and passed--21
to 19--and sent to the House.

NUMBER 4. In the Senate, July 23, 1841, _Mr. Nicholson_, a Democratic
Senator from Tennessee, delivered an able speech in favor of a uniform
system of Bankruptcy, and moved to amend the bill then pending, by
inserting "BANKS AND OTHER CORPORATIONS;" which motion was lost by a
vote of 34 to 16.

NUMBER 5. That great light of Democracy, _Col. Richard M. Johnson_, late
Vice-President of the United States, wrote and spoke in favor of a
General Bankrupt Law. In a letter of his, now before us, dated
Washington, January 18, 1841, he says, speaking of such a law: "_My
opinion is that it will redound to the honor of our country._"

But we will do Mr. Buchanan justice, by stating that he said he would
vote _against_ the Bankrupt Law of 1840, because he did not like its
features. When Mr. Webster spoke in favor of the law, and of the
character of the _petitioners_, many of whom presented their petitions
through Mr. Buchanan, the latter spoke on the 24th of February, 1840;
and, to satisfy Mr. Webster and others that he was not opposed to the
_principle_ in former days, stated, "_He came to the other House of
Congress, many years since_, A FRIEND OF A BANKRUPT LAW. The subject was
before the House when he entered the body twenty years ago." He added,
"He was _open to conviction_, and might change his purpose!"

Thus, it will be seen that Mr. Buchanan, in this, as in every thing
else, _was on both sides_! And how does it look in a Presidential
candidate, to have supported a _General Bankrupt Law_ for the relief of
_rich, extravagant, and aristocratic_ gentlemen, and then to turn round
and advocate "ten cents per day" for poor folks and laboring men? It
will look rather bad; but, then, Sag Nicht Democracy can go any thing!
This old "ten cents per day" champion of Democracy advocated, in so many
words, the reduction of all paper money prices to the real Cuba standard
of solid money! We take extracts from his speech, which will be found in
the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, page 135:

     "In Germany, where the currency is purely metallic, and the
     cost of every thing is REDUCED to a hard money standard, a
     piece of broadcloth can be manufactured for fifty dollars; the
     manufacture of which in our country, from the expansion of
     paper currency, would cost one hundred dollars. What is the
     consequence? The foreign French and German manufacturer imports
     this cloth into our country, and sells it for a hundred. Does
     not every person perceive that the redundancy of our currency
     is equal to a premium of one hundred per cent. in favor of the
     manufacturer?"

     "No tariff of protection, unless it amounted to prohibition,
     could counteract this advantage in favor of foreign
     manufactures. I would to heaven that I could arouse the
     attention of every manufacturer of the nation to this important
     subject."

     "What is the reason that, with all these advantages, and with
     the protective duties which our laws afford to the domestic
     manufacturer of cotton, we cannot obtain exclusive possession
     of the home market, and successfully contend for the markets of
     the world? It is simply because we manufacture at the nominal
     prices of our inflated currency, and are compelled to sell at
     the real prices of other nations. REDUCE OUR NOMINAL STANDARD
     OF PRICES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, and you cover our country with
     blessings and benefits."

            *       *       *       *       *

     "The comparative LOW PRICES of France and Germany have afforded
     such a stimulus to their manufactures, that they are now
     rapidly extending themselves, and would obtain possession, in
     no small degree, even of the English home market, IF IT WERE
     NOT FOR THEIR PROTECTING DUTIES. While British manufactures are
     now languishing, those of the continent are springing into a
     healthy and vigorous existence."

How will the _Free Trade Democracy_ of the South relish these
"protecting duties" of an old Federal politician? They are about as
consistent in their support of the Cincinnati nominee as "Clay Whigs"
are, when they know that Buchanan was the only man living who had it in
his power to do Clay justice, in reference to the "bargain and intrigue"
calumny, and obstinately refused!


CLAY AND BUCHANAN.

In 1825, Mr. Buchanan, then a member of the House, entered the room of
Mr. Clay, who was at the time in company with his only messmate, Hon. R.
P. Letcher, also a member of the House, and since Governor of Kentucky.
Buchanan introduced the subject of the approaching Presidential
election, Letcher witnessing what was said; and after that, when Mr.
Clay was hotly assailed with the charge of "bargain, intrigue, and
corruption," notified Mr. Buchanan of his intention to publish the
conversation, but was induced, by the _earnest entreaties of Buchanan_,
to forbear. And Mr. Clay died with a letter in his possession, from
Buchanan, which, if published, as it should be, would place Buchanan
without the pale of Democracy, and disgrace him in the eyes of all
honorable men. _That_ letter, too, would explain why Gen. Jackson had no
confidence in him, and was opposed to his taking a seat in Polk's
cabinet. Let it come!

_Keep it before the People_, That it was the vote of James Buchanan
which, in the Senate, in 1832, secured the passage of the "Black
Tariff," so offensive to the "Free Trade" Democracy of Tennessee, South
Carolina, and other Southern States, and which Gov. JONES threw up to
Col. Polk with so much effect in their race of 1843!

_Keep it before the People_, That the Cincinnati Platform unblushingly
affirms that "the Constitution does not confer upon the Federal
government authority to assume the debts of the several States,
contracted for local internal improvements, or for other State
purposes;" while the Democratic members of Congress annually violate
this principle by voting away hundreds of acres of public lands to the
States, for purposes of railroads and other improvements.

_Keep it before the People_, That the same Platform hypocritically
asserts, that "it is the duty of every branch of our Government to
enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public
affairs;" when the expenditures of Pierce's administration are TWENTY
MILLIONS PER ANNUM over that of MILLARD FILLMORE!

_Keep it before the People_, That the 8th of the series in this Platform
declares, that "the attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming
citizens and owners of soil amongst us ought to be resisted with the
same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute
book:" and then the hypocritical builders of the platform turned about
and nominated James Buchanan, who commenced public life as the advocate
of the "alien and sedition laws," and sustained, in and out of Congress,
the Federal party, who passed these laws.

_Keep it before the People_, That the Cincinnati Platform, which prates
so loudly about the privilege of becoming "owners of the soil," and
which rebukes all efforts to amend our naturalization laws as oppressive
to foreigners, nominated a man for the Presidency who spoke publicly in
this language: "Above all, we ought to drive from our shores foreign
influence, which has been in every age the curse of republics!"

_Keep it before the People_, That this Cincinnati Platform pledges
itself to the "Acts known as the Compromise Measures," and then resolves
"to resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the
agitation of slavery;" while the second best nags before the Convention
were Douglass and Pierce, who brought forward the bill repealing the
Missouri Compromise line, and opening up anew the slavery agitation,
while Pierce signed the bill and adopted it as an Administration
measure!

_Keep it before the People_, That this same Platform asserts, as an
indispensable article of the Democratic faith, that "the proceeds of the
public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects
specified in the Constitution;" and yet a majority of the Democracy, in
one branch of Congress, unhesitatingly voted for a bill introduced by
Robert M. T. Hunter, a leader of "the most straitest sect" of Democratic
Pharisees, which proposed to give away the whole body of the public
lands to squatters, at the nominal price of ninepence an acre, and at
five years' credit!

_Keep it before the People_, That this same platform deprecates a policy
which legislates for the few at the expense of the many; yet its
builders nominated a man for the Presidency who has avowed himself on
the floor of the Senate in favor of reducing the wages of poor white men
to the Cuban standard of TEN CENTS per day!

_Keep it before the People_, That this Cincinnati Platform utterly fails
to come up to that high Southern standard, which the country looked for
from a party so lavish of promises, and that it has deliberately and
completely shirked the slavery issue, the only apology for which is
found in their having nominated an old anti-slavery Federalist.

_Keep it before the People_, That JAMES BUCHANAN was opposed to the war
of 1812, but is in favor of the next war--while a Federalist he was
conservative in his views, but is now square upon a Filibustering
Platform--his nomination, an overture to the Sumner Wing of Democracy,
is the very nomination for the Nullifiers, Fire-eaters, and Disunionists
of the South--that while we cry North, shout South, every faction is
united.




THE CINCINNATI VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.


_John C. Breckenridge_, of Kentucky, is now the Democratic candidate for
the Vice Presidency; and in our devotion to the _head_ of the ticket, we
do not wish to neglect the _tail_. Mr. Breckenridge is a good speaker,
and is about as good a selection as his party could make. He has not
been long enough in public life to attain any experience as a statesman,
nor has he been guilty of any great indiscretion in his short
Congressional career. He will be unable to carry Kentucky for his party,
though he has some elements of strength. Standing out in violent
opposition to his relatives upon the _Know Nothing_ issues, he will be
acceptable to all Foreigners, and the Catholics in particular! Being on
the very best of terms with _Cassius M. Clay_, and voting with the
Emancipationists of Kentucky, he will be rather acceptable to the
Anti-Slavery men than otherwise! He was a zealous supporter of the bill
in Congress appropriating a million or two dollars to works of Internal
Improvement, which was _vetoed_ by Pierce. That bill provided $50,000
for the improvement of the Kentucky River, to which he urged an
amendment insisting on $150,000. This will give him strength with the
Democracy of the North and North-West, who advocated the doctrine of
Internal Improvements by the General Government!

On May 20th, 1856, the _Charleston Mercury_ came out advising the South
as to the selection of candidates, which advice, if adhered to, would
prove ruinous alike to Buchanan and Breckenridge. A brief extract from
that article is in these words:

     "A man unsound on Slavery, Free Trade, and Internal
     Improvements, or whose opinions are shrouded in treacherous
     ambiguity--such a man, be he Black Republican or Democrat, is
     unworthy of her support. To vote for either, is to give away
     her influence, to be used against her. It is to stultify
     principle, and be the instrument of her own undoing."

This doctrine would get very much in the way of such men as _Toombs and
Stephens_, of Georgia, and other Anti-Internal Improvement Democrats,
but they can excuse Breckenridge on the ground that he acquiesced in the
veto of Pierce, and was possibly only trying to make a little capital at
home, which is common with Democracy. Besides, Mr. Breckenridge being
raised a _Clay Whig_, and representing the Ashland District as a
Democrat, should be allowed to pass over the _Jordan_ of Democracy by
degrees!

His name can be used advantageously in this contest in another respect.
While Mr. Buchanan was Mr. Clay's most vindictive enemy, traducer, and
calumniator, Mr. Breckenridge can be held up to the Clay Whigs, as
having announced to the House of Representatives the death of Mr. Clay,
in language and sentiments branding Buchanan as a malignant slanderer,
without mentioning his name, by the character he gave to Clay! Closing
his eulogy upon Mr. Clay in these words, Mr. Breckenridge evidently
looked with the eye of prophecy at the slanders of Buchanan, the
recollection of which would "cluster" around his grave:--

     "Every memorial of such a man will possess a meaning and value
     to his countrymen. His tomb will be a hallowed spot. Great
     memories will cluster there, and his countrymen as they visit
     it may well exclaim:

    "Such graves as his are pilgrim shrines--
      Shrines to no creed or code confined;
    The Delphian vales, the Palestines,
      The Meccas of the mind."

If we mistake not, this young Breckenridge is the nephew of the Rev.
John Breckenridge, formerly of Baltimore, and pastor of the Presbyterian
Church. If so, he is the nephew of the Rev. Robert Breckenridge, the
talented and staunch advocate of the American party. The venerable uncle
of this young man, whilst pastor of the Church in Baltimore, was a most
formidable opponent of the Roman Catholic religion, and is the man who
conducted the debate with Archbishop Hughes, in 1836, which we now have
before us, in a large volume of 550 pages. Of course _Bishop Hughes_
will require the young man to repudiate his uncle's views and charges in
opposition to the Papal religion; and this, we should think, he will do
for the sake of the Catholic vote in America!




From the Knoxville Whig of June 14, 1856.

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY--ITS LEGITIMATE FRUITS.


The following important document we take from the National
Intelligencer, of January 22, 1851. It was signed and published by
gentlemen irrespective of parties--FORTY-FOUR Senators and
Representatives in Congress. It will be a _curiosity_ to those of our
readers who may have forgotten its well-timed and patriotic pledges. How
unfortunate it has been for the country, and especially the public
tranquillity, that the determination and counsels of these men were, in
an evil hour, departed from, and flagrantly violated by the demagogues
of the self-styled Democratic party! To the violation of this solemn
pledge by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise line, and the reoepening
of the Slavery agitation by the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska
bill, intended to elevate that miserable little demagogue, _Stephen A.
Douglass_, to the Presidency, we are indebted for all the scenes of
bloodshed in Kansas, to the angry slavery discussions in Congress, and
the disgraceful scenes of riot being almost daily enacted there!

Several copies of the following Declaration were circulated in Congress,
and obtained a number of signatures in both halls; but no other list was
ever published, that we know of, besides this, which, it will be seen,
was headed by the illustrious HENRY CLAY:

     "The undersigned, members of the thirty-first Congress of the
     United States, believing that a renewal of sectional
     controversy upon the subject of slavery would be both dangerous
     to the Union and destructive of its objects; and seeing no mode
     by which such controversy can be avoided, except by a strict
     adherence to the settlement thereof effected by the Compromise
     Acts passed at the last session of Congress, do hereby declare
     their intention to maintain the said settlement inviolate, and
     to resist all attempts to repeal or alter the acts aforesaid,
     unless by the general consent of the friends of the measure,
     and to remedy such evils, if any, as time and experience may
     develop. And, for the purpose of making this resolution
     effective, they further declare that they will not support for
     the office of President, Vice-President, Senator, or
     Representative in Congress, or as a member of a State
     Legislature, any man, of whatever party, who is not known to be
     opposed to the disturbance of the settlement aforesaid, and to
     the renewal, in any form, of agitation upon the subject of
     slavery.

     "Henry Clay,
     C. S. Morehead,
     Robt. L. Rose,
     W. C. Dawson,
     Thos. J. Rusk,
     Jere. Clemens,
     James Cooper,
     Thos. C. Pratt,
     Wm. M. Gwin,
     Samuel A. Elliot,
     David Outlaw,
     O. H. Williams,
     J. Philips Phoenix,
     A. M. Schemerhorn,
     Jno. R. Thurman,
     D. A. Bokee,
     Geo. R. Andrews,
     W. P. Mangum,
     Jeremiah Morton,
     R. I. Bowie,
     E. C. Cabell,
     Alex. Evans,
     Howell Cobb,
     H. S. Foote,
     Wm. Duer,
     Jas. Brooks,
     A. H. Stephens,
     R. Toombs,
     M. P. Gentry,
     H. W. Hilliard,
     F. E. McLean,
     A. G. Watkins,
     H. A. Bullard,
     T. S. Haywood,
     A. H. Shephard,
     Daniel Breck,
     Jas. L. Johnson,
     J. B. Thompson,
     J. M. Anderson,
     John B. Kerr,
     J. P. Caldwell,
     Ed. Deberry,
     H. Marshall,
     Allen F. Owen."

The _rowdyism_ and _treachery_ of Democracy never intended to abide by
this pledge--and hence their "disturbance of the settlement aforesaid,"
by opening up anew this villainous "agitation upon the subject of
slavery." This violation of a solemn pledge has introduced into Kansas
civil war, caused bloodshed, the shooting down of men in cold blood, and
overrun that country with contending parties, called "_Friends of
Freedom_" and "_Border Ruffians_," armed with Sharpe's rifles, Colt's
revolvers, bowie-knives, and clubs, mixed with Bibles!

All this really affords an illustration of the domineering insolence of
Democratic Abolitionism--an element in our Federal Government which will
stop at no extremity of violence, in order to subdue the people of the
Slave States, and force them into a miserable subservience to its
fanatical dominion. And it is worthy of note, that the shooting of
Sheriff Jones and others in Kansas, occurred immediately after the
arrival of the _New Haven Emigrant Rifle Company_! This, too, calls to
mind forcibly the very delectable _conversational speechifying_ that
took place at the New Haven Rifle Meeting, among the pious villains who
figured most conspicuously. As it is short, we give it entire:

     Rev. Mr. Dutton (pastor of the church.)--One of the deacons of
     this church, Mr. Harvey Hall, is going out with the company to
     Kansas, and I, as his pastor, desire to present him a Bible and
     a Sharpe's rifle. (Great applause.)

     E. P. Pie.--I will give one.

     Stephen D. Purdee.--I will give one for myself, and also
     another one for my wife.

     Mr. Beecher.--I like to see that--it is a bold stroke both
     right and left. (Great laughter.)

     Charles Ives.--Put me down for three.

     Thomas R. Trowbridge.--Put me down for four. (Continued
     laughter.) Dr. J. I. Howe.--I will subscribe for one.

     A gentleman said that Miss Mary Dutton would give one.

     Dr. Stephen G. Hubbard.--One.

     Mr. Beecher here stated that if twenty-five could be raised on
     the spot, he would pledge twenty-five more from the church at
     Plymouth--fifty being a sufficient number for the whole supply.
     (Clapping of hands all over the house.)

     Prof. Silliman now left Mr. Beecher to speak for the bid, and
     sat down to enjoy the occasion.

     Mr. Killem.--I give one.

     Mr. Beecher.--_Killem_--that's a significant name in connection
     with a good Sharpe's rifle. (Laughter.)

After this, this clerical vagabond, Beecher, blessed the weapons, and
encouraged the party to go forth and "do or die" in the sublime "cause
of <DW65> freedom!" In all human probability, sweet Mary Dutton's rifle
may have sped the ball that pierced the side of Sheriff Jones, the
officer of the law, while in the honest discharge of a sworn duty!
Subsequent murders, where pro-slavery men were shot down with these
rifles, we attribute to the _omen_ that Beecher found in his name
"_Killem_"--it is a significant name in connection with Sharpe's rifle.
The real assassins shoot down their men, and with their _rifles_ and
_Bibles_ flee; but _she_ who unfrocked herself by furnishing a rifle,
and _he_ who gave and blessed the weapon of death, are here to accept
the thanks of their admirers and partisans. Let sweet Mary and her
_beloved_ pastor be crowned with wreaths of deadly night-shade, and
consigned to one cell in Sing Sing prison!

But the success of Ruffianism in Kansas, in the hands of those vile
Abolition Democrats, has emboldened members of the same party to
introduce it in the Federal Capital. But the other day, MR. SUMNER, of
Massachusetts, made, in his place in the U. S. Senate, one of the most
incendiary and inflammatory speeches ever uttered on the floor of either
House of Congress! The vocabulary of Billingsgate was exhausted in
denouncing all who dared to justify the institution of slavery--using,
over and over again, such terms as "hireling, picked from the drunken
spew of an uneasy civilization in the form of men," &c. The language
made use of was disgraceful to the vile Abolitionist himself, and to the
Senate, of which he never ought to have been a member. There was no
limit to the personal abuse in which the villainous Senator indulged, no
restraint to the vile epithets coined in his insane head; and the very
natural consequence was, a personal chastisement of Mr. Sumner, in the
Senate chamber, by Mr. Brooks, a Representative from South Carolina, and
a relative of Judge Butler, the gentleman abused in his absence, which,
for its severity, never was equalled in Washington. Mr. Sumner was the
aggressor, because he poured out the vials of his wrath upon not only
Judge Butler, a distinguished Senator, but upon the whole State of South
Carolina.

We do not justify the selection of a _time_ and _place_ by _Mr. Brooks_,
for punishing this Massachusetts Abolitionist; but we should despise the
son of South Carolina who could hear his native State arraigned in such
temper and language, without feeling intensely, and _manifesting_ that
feeling at a proper time and place. Indeed, it would be strange if a
South Carolinian did not resent the arrogant, insulting, and
contemptuous tone which Mr. Sumner saw fit to indulge in towards South
Carolina in general, and her Senator in particular! We know Judge
Butler--we have seen him on the Bench, in the discharge of the duties of
a Circuit-Judge--we have seen and heard him in the Senate Chamber, where
he has served for years, with credit to himself and honor to his State.
He is an accomplished man, and a most amiable and honorable gentleman.
His character is unblemished; he stands deservedly high; he is a
gentleman of urbane and courteous demeanor, and is beloved, esteemed,
and respected, by all _gentlemen_ who know him or associate with him.
Besides, he is an old man, gray-haired, and palsied; and, whether
present or absent, deserved to be treated as a gentleman.

Northern men may not expect to vilify the South in this way, without
having to atone for it. Men who profess to belong to the peace party,
ought not to employ language that will provoke a fight, and then shield
themselves behind their non-resistant defences. They voluntarily put
themselves upon the platform of _resistance_--they pass insults, and
they must submit to the consequences. We have just finished the perusal
of a case in AEsop's Fables, exactly in point. It is the case of a
_trumpeter_ taken prisoner in battle. He claimed exemption from the
common fate of prisoners of war, in ancient times, on the ground that he
carried no weapons, and was, in fact, a non-combatant, belonging to the
peace party! "Non-combatant, the Devil!" exclaimed the opposing party,
pointing to his trumpet, as preparations were being made to put him to
death, "Why, Sir, you hold in your hands the very instrument which
incites our foes to tenfold furies against us!"

But this fight between the parties has to come, and it should begin at
Washington, and if not in the halls of Congress, at least in the
_streets_ of the Federal city. Let the battle be fought there, and not
in _Kansas_, and let it fall upon the villainous agitators of the
Slavery question, and the _Democratic_ disturbers of the Compromises of
the Constitution. Let it come _now_, that it may be fought out and
settled, and not left to _posterity_, to curse and crush the rising
generation!

Mr. Brooks is a Democrat, and an anti-Know Nothing. Mr. Sumner is a
Democrat--was elected by the votes of the Democrats, over that noble and
dignified Whig, Mr. Winthrop, and his election was hailed throughout the
Union as a Democratic triumph!

Massachusetts, irrespective of parties, seems to have taken great
offence at this occurrence, and to have held indignation meetings, and
was to have had _Legislative_ action upon the subject. We tell
Massachusetts that she is alone to blame, for sending such a man to the
United States Senate. There was a great debate in the Senate twenty-five
years ago, in which Daniel Webster and Gov. Hayne met each other and
grappled like giants, as they were. The State of South Carolina, in that
day, though represented by an able, patriotic, and great man, came off
_second best_. The Senator from Massachusetts, of that day, was an able
statesman, a Constitutional lawyer of unsurpassed abilities, and,
withal, a cautious gentleman, and rose above the low blackguardism of a
Sumner and a Wilson. When _taunted_ by the Senator from South Carolina
with _Federalism_, and opposition to some of the features of the War of
1812, the great Webster presented Massachusetts before the Senate and
the Union, in such a manner that men of all sections bowed down and
worshipped her. Standing erect with the flash of his eagle eye, he
exclaimed, "There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker
Hill"--let them testify to the loyalty of Massachusetts to this glorious
Union! Not only did Mr. Webster come out of that controversy with South
Carolina with the admiration of every man in the country, but with the
respect and admiration of Calhoun, Hayne, McDuffie, and all the
high-toned statesmen of the South. And why? Because he was not a Sumner,
a Wilson, or an _Abolition Blackguard_. Times have changed--a different
man takes the place of a Webster, with only the memory of an insulting
speech and a broken head! Let Massachusetts send men to the United
States Senate who can and will demean themselves like gentlemen, and
gentlemen from the South will appreciate them, while they differ
honestly with them on great questions.

What wonderful _progress_ Democracy is making in the country! _First_,
Democracy quarrelled and jowered over the election of a Speaker two
months, and finally, by the introduction of the _Plurality Rule_, caused
Banks, a Black Republican, to be elected. And as if determined to atone
for this wear of time and money, they have brought about a series of
fights, which, before they are disposed of, will cost the government
half a million of dollars!

_First_ then, William Smith, an ex-Governor of the State of Virginia,
and member of the House of Representatives, assailed and beat the editor
of the _Evening Star_, in December last, in the street.

_Second_, Albert Rusk, a member of the House of Representatives from
Arkansas, assailed and beat the editor of the New York _Tribune_ in the
grounds of the capitol, immediately after leaving the House of
Representatives.

_Third_, Philip T. Herbert, of Alabama, a member of Congress from
California, shot down and killed an Irish Catholic waiter at Willard's,
and is now under bonds to appear before the Court and await his trial
for such crime as they may adjudge him to have committed.

_Fourth_, Preston S. Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives
from South Carolina, assails and beats unmercifully a Senator from
Massachusetts, when occupying his seat in the Senate of the United
States.

_Fifth_, Mr. Bright knocked down the doorkeeper, for an inconsiderable
offence. Here, then, we have five breaches of the peace in five months,
by Democrats upon Democrats, although the "Boston Pilot," a Catholic
organ, falsely charges that some of the parties making these assaults
are "Know Nothings." We congratulate the Democratic party upon the
progress of its leading members! They are sinking by swift descent into
barbarism, and bringing the country to ruin. And in keeping with all
this, they have tried to nominate for the Vice-Presidency a man who
openly proposed in Congress the repeal of our neutrality laws, so as to
bring a general fight!

It will not do to say that _Sumner_ is not of the Democratic party,
because he is a regular-built Free-Soiler and Black Republican: the
Washington _Union_ settled this point in 1852, when it uttered these
memorable words:

     "The Free-soil Democratic leaders of the North are a regular
     portion of the Democratic party, and General Pierce, if
     elected, will make no distinction between them and the rest of
     the Democracy in the distribution of official patronage, and in
     the selection of agents for administering the government."

The rules of the Senate forbid personalities in debate, and it was the
sworn duty of its Locofoco President, Mr. Bright, to have called Mr.
Sumner to order for his abuse of Judge Butler. But as far back as thirty
years ago, under the auspices of JOHN C. CALHOUN as presiding officer, a
decision was made to the effect that the presiding officer of the Senate
was neither bound nor had he the power to call Senators to order! That
power, according to his decision, belonged wholly to the Senate
itself----thus delivering over the minority of that body to "the tender
mercies" of the majority! The object of Mr. CALHOUN at the time was to
play into the hands of a combination which had been formed to break down
the Administration of John Quincy Adams, and to <DW36> Henry Clay. The
instrument used was the sarcastic, irritating, and personal rhetoric of
John Randolph, then a member of the Senate. To this end, Randolph was
suffered to deliver in the Senate a long succession of tirades,
disgraceful to the Senate, abusive of New England and of Henry Clay.
Here is a specimen of Randolph's abuse, which led to a duel between him
and Mr. Clay:

     "This man, (mankind, I crave pardon,) this worm, (little
     animals, forgive the insult,) was raised to a higher life than
     he was born to, for he was raised to the society of
     blackguards. Some fortune--kind to him, cruel to us--has tossed
     him to the Secretaryship of State. Contempt has the property of
     descending, but stops far short of him. She would die before
     she would reach him: he dwells below her fall. I would hate
     him, if I did not despise him. It is not WHAT he is, but WHERE
     he is, that puts my thoughts into action. The alphabet which
     writes the name of Thersites, blackguard, squalidity, refuses
     her letters for him. That mind which thinks on what it cannot
     express, can scarcely think on him. An hyperbole for MEANNESS
     would be an ellipsis for CLAY."

This was pleasing to Mr. Calhoun and the dominant party in the Senate,
and his decision which tolerated it never was questioned by any
authoritative precedent, until MILLARD FILLMORE was elected
Vice-President. With characteristic independence, he determined that a
precedent so unreasonable and absurd should not be binding on him as the
presiding officer of the Senate. He therefore, on assuming the duties of
his office, delivered an address to the Senate, in which he informed
that body that he considered it his sworn duty to preserve decorum, and
would _reverse_ the rule which had so long prevailed, that Senators were
not to be called to order for words spoken in debate! The Senate ordered
this address to be entered at large on their journals, as an evidence of
their endorsement of its doctrines; and there it is now, recorded
evidence of the patriotism, high sense of decorum, and senatorial
dignity of that great and good man, MILLARD FILLMORE.




STRENGTH OF PARTIES IN TENNESSEE.

OFFICIAL VOTES OF THE STATE.


The following tables exhibit the official vote of Tennessee for
President in 1852, for Governor in 1853, and for Governor in 1855, as
compared at the capital of the State, and will be valuable as a table
for reference. In the last contest, when the _Know Nothing issues_ were
fully made, causing all the _latent blackguardism in the Democratic
ranks to be fully developed_, it will be seen that _Andrew Johnson_
received 67,499 votes, and _Meredith P. Gentry_ 65,342, leaving Johnson
a majority of 2,157, a falling off of 104 votes from his majority over
_Maj. Henry_ two years before that. It will also be perceived that the
vote of the State at this last election is an increase of 8,260 over the
vote two years previous. Of this increase, _Col. Gentry_ gets 4,182, his
vote exceeding _Maj. Henry's_ by that much, while Johnson's increase
upon his own vote two years previous was 4,078.

It is a moderate calculation to say that Johnson received at least two
thousand _foreign and illegal votes_; while we are within bounds when we
say that at least 5,000 old-line Whigs refused to vote for _Col.
Gentry_--demonstrating beyond all doubt that a majority of the legal
voters of the State were opposed to Johnson and his party.

In the contest now being waged, _Fillmore and Donelson_ will carry the
State by a majority ranging from _three_ to _five_ thousand votes,
despite the low Billingsgate slang and vile blackguardism that may be
heaped upon them and their supporters. And as this calculation is made
in _June_, five months in advance of the election, we must ask those
into whose hands this work shall fall without the limits of Tennessee,
to bear it in mind, and when they get the returns in November, to give
us credit for our sagacity or our want of sagacity!

The contest will be fierce and bitter, exceeding any former political
battle witnessed in the State. If the orators and editors of the
self-styled Democratic party have not greatly reformed in the space of
one year, but little argument will be adduced, but little gentlemanly
courtesy manifested; and instead of facts, figures and arguments, bitter
invective, low blackguardism, and Billingsgate abuse of secret
organizations, dark lanterns, and Protestant clergymen, will be the
order of the day. In this _congenial_ work, all the conglomeration of
ignorant men, foreign paupers, and fag-ends and factions, styling
themselves _Democrats_, will engage!

But to the official vote of the State:

_Popular Vote of Tennessee--Official._

                           EAST TENNESSEE.

                      1852.              1853.                1855.

Counties.        Scott.  Pierce.    Henry.  Johnson.    Gentry.  Johnson.

Anderson          602     267        648     379          772     333
Bledsoe           464     209        469     303          404     361
Blount            827     566       1146     734         1069     789
Bradley           547     778        562    1085          644    1021
Campbell          313     251        356     445          507     383
Carter            585     139        721     294          768     238
Claiborne         503     519        620     707          756     744
Cooke             743     196        867     383          929     422
Grainger          852     477        998     767         1327     621
Greene            780    1301        902    1915          989    1985
Hawkins           778     831        805    1180          887    1158
Hamilton          774     648        786     972          966    1044
Hancock           241     336        221     532          264     589
Jefferson        1168     307       1396     639         1697     444
Johnson           365      93        392     184          400     215
Knox             1863     565       2279     770         2560     695
McMinn            796     866        799     965          909     953
Meigs             141     442        118     561           97     588
Marion            453     292        476     357          554     468
Monroe            805     847        739     900          851    1005
Morgan            240     222        229     260          219     358
Polk              272     470        249     527          385     676
Rhea              300     307        270     358          298     415
Roane             820     678        912     755         1002     769
Sevier            621      80        824     133          964     120
Scott             199     127        186     182          121     259
Sullivan          260    1114        361    1407          601    1403
Washington        565     853        967    1069          847    1338
                                  ------  ------       ------  ------
                                  19,298  18,763       21,787  19,394

MIDDLE TENNESSEE.

Counties.        Scott.  Pierce.    Henry.  Johnson.    Gentry.  Johnson.

Bedford          1390    1356       1359    1257        1630     1293
Cannon            453     727        445     803         458      859
Coffee            205     722        274     824         294      880
Davidson         2617    2058       2597    1963        3132     1783
De Kalb           559     588        632     610         560      738
Dickson           323     607        357     743         388      745
Fentress          153     411        166     504         129      616
Franklin          330    1133        356    1224         394     1302
Giles            1303    1447       1301    1468        1312     1439
Grundy             44     327         58     374          22      425
Hardin            643     808        671     827         745      775
Hickman           241     839        263     812         223     1053
Humphreys         263     471        341     501         354      543
Jackson          1170     803       1154     995        1122     1131
Lawrence          547     583        523     731         524      845
Lewis              43     186         66     182          34      243
Lincoln           606    2297        617    2322         402     2521
Maury            1324    1799       1238    1731        1444     1793
Montgomery       1260     993       1309    1004        1502      881
Marshall          666    1340        671    1282         678     1310
Macon             617     374        553     341         540      424
Overton           345    1039        431    1282         290     1528
Robertson        1013     769       1183     763        1256      804
Rutherford       1495    1313       1407    1243        1435     1288
Smith            1742     520       1735     546        1572      644
Stewart           533     725        479     718         563      785
Sumner            825    1563        806    1425         780     1740
Van Buren         107     165        110     205          90      228
Warren            344     922        402    1093         393     1153
Wayne             666     380        709     430         687      535
White             949     518        974     634         978      694
Williamson       1583     763       1502     710        1621      688
Wilson           2248     923       2241     995        2290      937
                                  ------  ------      ------   ------
                                  26,930  30,550      27,842   32,623


WEST TENNESSEE.

Counties.        Scott.  Pierce.    Henry.  Johnson.    Gentry.  Johnson.

Benton            340     485        393     465         475      453
Carroll          1498     649       1469     663        1567      694
Decatur           400     315        408     285         353      429
Dyer              508     411        476     373         442      483
Fayette          1006    1034       1011    1006        1151      940
Gibson           1570     901       1514    1024        1618     1213
Hardeman          717    1024        651    1025         619     1123
Henderson        1193     511       1301     593        1230      734
Henry             899    1516        891    1496         871     1738
Haywood           790     732        726     785         803      762
Lauderdale        330     277        319     252         354      297
McNairy           921     872       1016     984         915     1059
Madison          1426     819       1261     795        1448      788
Obion             431     644        547     792         407      865
Perry             325     314        387     329         320      450
Shelby           1824    1628       1545    1435        1831     1477
Tipton            357     565        284     527         424      566
Weakley           783    1149        733    1279         885     1411
               ------  ------     ------  ------      ------   ------
               58,802  57,123     14,932  14,108      15,713   15,482
               57,123
               ------
Scott's
 majority,      1,679


    East Tennessee,               19,298  18,763      21,787   19,394
    Middle Tennessee,             26,930  30,550      27,842   32,623
                                  ------  ------      ------   ------
                                  61,160  63,421      65,342   67,499
                                          61,160               65,342
                                          ------               ------
          Johnson's majority               2,261                2,157


_Fillmore and Donelson Electoral Ticket._

As a matter of reference, and that none may mistake the American Ticket
on the day of the election, we give it as agreed upon and matured by our
party:

FOR THE STATE.

HON. NEILL S. BROWN, of Davidson.
HORACE MAYNARD, of Knox.

FOR THE DISTRICTS.

1st District--N. G. TAYLOR, of Carter.
2d     "      MOSES WHITE, of Knox.
3d     "      REESE B. BRABSON, of Hamilton.
4th    "      W. P. HICKERSON, of Coffee.
5th    "      ROBERT HATTON, of Wilson.
6th    "      W. H. WISENER, of Bedford.
7th    "      C. C. CROWE, of Giles.
8th    "      J. M. QUARLES, of Montgomery.
9th    "      ISAAC R. HAWKINS, of Carroll.
10th   "      JOSEPH R. MOSBY, of Fayette.

This is an able ticket, and greatly superior to the opposing ticket, as
our readers will bear us witness when they hear the parties in debate.
Most of these gentlemen have consented to serve on the ticket at great
personal sacrifices; and like their chief, Mr. FILLMORE, they have
undertaken to serve their party and country "without waiting to inquire
of its prospects of success or defeat." And all the reward they seek is
to be able to conduct the struggle to a victorious consummation in
Tennessee, and this we feel confident they will do. The battle in
Tennessee will be hotly contested, but it is by no means doubtful.
Tennessee for the last twenty years, and in five preceding presidential
contests, has refused to range herself under the black banner of
Locofocoism; and now that that banner is doubly infamous by being raised
and cheered by Catholics, foreigners, and paupers of every clime, it is
fair to presume she will spurn the flag!




THE BLACK REPUBLICAN NOMINEES.


The Black Republican Party, in their recent Convention at Philadelphia,
have nominated JOHN CHARLES FREMONT, of California, for the Presidency,
and Ex-Senator WILLIAM L. DAYTON, of New Jersey, for the Vice
Presidency!

This man Fremont is no statesman--has no experience in political
life--has not the first qualification for this eminent and responsible
station--and his nomination has not been made upon any plausible pretext
whatever. He is an Engineer by profession--once penetrated with his
companions to the Pacific coast, across the Rocky Mountains--is the
son-in-law of _Tom Benton_--is a Free Trade Locofoco, and an avowed Free
Soiler.

The following letter addressed by Fremont to the great Tabernacle
Abolition meeting in New York, last spring, is full and explicit, and
defines his position on the slavery question:

                                    "NEW YORK, April 29, 1856.

     "GENTLEMEN: I have to thank you for the honor of an invitation
     to a meeting this evening at the Broadway Tabernacle, and
     regret that other engagements have interfered to prevent my
     being present.

     "I heartily concur in all movements which have for their object
     'to repair the mischiefs arising from the violation of good
     faith in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.' I am opposed
     to slavery in the abstract and upon principle, sustained and
     made habitual by long-settled convictions.

     "While I feel inflexible in the belief that it ought not to be
     interfered with where it exists under the shield of State
     sovereignty, I am as inflexibly opposed to its extension on
     this continent beyond its present limits.

     "With the assurance of regard for yourselves,

                                     "I am very respectfully yours,

                                         "J. C. FREMONT."

     "Messrs. J. D. Morgan and others."

In addition to this, Fremont is the representative of _aggression_: he
is a _Filibuster_, and the exponent of a civilization above all
constitutions, and all laws. The fact that Seward, Chase, Giddings, and
such men--able anti-slavery men, and experienced politicians, were
passed over, is proof that they were not governed by _principle_, but
seek to shift the issue, and to make it personal and sectional. Take
into the account, moreover, the fact that Dayton, a man of moderate
talents, is a sort of _Protective Tariff Locofoco_, the advocate of
Foreign Pauper labor, and the largest liberty for _Catholics_, and it
gives to the ticket a considerable degree of interest.

The leading men in the Convention were reckless and unprincipled
demagogues, of the Locofoco school of politics, including the British
Free Trade policy, Filibusterism, etc., whose only aim is place and
plunder. Their Free-soil principles, outside of their radical purposes,
are scarcely skin deep!

By many well-informed men, no doubts are entertained now, that the
nomination of Fremont and Dayton has been the result of an intrigue
between Seward and Archbishop Hughes; and from a resolution of their
platform, as reported by the Committee on Resolutions, we attach credit
to this inference. It will bring the Buchanan party at the North to
terms, as they are likely to be the only sufferers from this ticket. It
will be managed in future alone with an eye to the _aid_ of Buchanan!

We take the following notice of Fremont from the Charleston (S. C.)
Standard, and consider it every way reliable:

     "Mr. Fremont will be destined to play a distinguished part in
     the drama, and his history and character therefore will,
     doubtless, become subjects of considerable importance. He is
     generally regarded as a native of Charleston, but of this we
     have occasion to doubt. Many gentlemen here, who knew him in
     early life, concur in saying that he was born in Savannah. Up
     to within a short time prior to his birth, his mother was a
     resident of Norfolk, in Virginia, and it is generally asserted
     that his parents resided in Savannah before they became settled
     in Charleston; however this may have been, it is at least
     conceded that he first came into notice in this city. His
     prospects here were not particularly promising, but he
     attracted the attention of some philanthropic gentlemen, who
     provided the means for his entrance and instruction in the
     Charleston College. His progress there was not remarkable, and
     when his class graduated he was not considered entitled to a
     diploma. He was afterwards recommended as a proper person to
     take charge of the night-school of the Apprentices' Library
     Association; but, though his attainments were sufficient, and
     his address particularly acceptable to the Directors of that
     Institution, he was not as attentive as he might have been, and
     the school fell through. He afterwards procured, through Mr.
     Poinsett, a situation as instructor of junior officers on board
     a vessel of war bound to the Pacific, and in this condition is
     said to have acquitted himself well. He afterwards acquired
     some knowledge of civil engineering, and filling unimportant
     positions in connection with one and another public work, was
     at length brought to notice and distinction by his connection
     with Mr. Nicholet in his Survey of the Mississippi Valley, and
     from that marched steadily on to the Rocky Mountains, and a
     renown that has placed his name before the country.

     "From the records of his early life, it would seem that he had
     talent, and was quite addicted to naval reading, but was
     wayward, and if not indolent, was inefficient in the tasks
     undertaken at the instance of other people, and up to the time
     of his entrance upon his duties as instructor in the naval
     school, had hardly made up his mind whether he would be a man
     of character or a blackguard. He was fond of dress, however,
     and the records of the court still show that he wore a suit of
     clothes which he was afterwards compelled to declare on oath
     his inability to pay for, in order to avoid inconvenient
     restrictions upon his personal liberty; but chance gave a
     proper direction to his abilities; he had the latent energy of
     character to act up to his opportunities, and he has really
     presented a career which any one might regard with
     satisfaction. It is certainly to be regretted that he should
     lend himself to the uses of a party so reckless and subversive,
     not only of the Union but of the rights of that section to
     which, if capable of sentiments of patriotism, he might be
     supposed to feel attachment; but the prospect of the Presidency
     would be a sore trial to the probity of most men, and we find
     nothing in the antecedents of Mr. Fremont to cause a feeling of
     disappointment that he should yield to the allurements of
     power.

     "He is commended for his attentions to his mother, and they
     were certainly exemplary. She was poor, and after he determined
     to behave himself and work like a man, he made her as entirely
     comfortable as there was the reason to believe his
     circumstances permitted."

POSTSCRIPT.--Mr. Fremont turns out to be a Roman Catholic, and to have
been raised one, and this explains the readiness of Bishop Hughes to
abandon Buchanan, and go over to Fremont. It also explains why it is
that so many _German Catholic papers_ are coming out for Fremont, in the
large cities, and in the North-Western States.

In 1850, Fremont held a seat in the United States Senate, for the space
of about three months, and during that time sought to introduce a
Catholic Priest to open their services with prayers, and was successful
to some extent. He also attended service at the Catholic Church. The
_Washington Star_, of the 19th June, 1856, gives the following
exposition of facts, in reference to Fremont and his religion:

     "A SORT OF A CATHOLIC.--We take it for granted that among the
     informal pledges extracted by delegations in George Law's
     Convention, from Col. Fremont, there was not one against the
     Catholic Church; insomuch as, up to the recent birth of his
     aspirations for the Presidency, he always passed in Washington
     for a good enough outside Roman Catholic; that being the Church
     in which he was reared. He was married in this city, it will be
     remembered, by Father Van Horseigh, a clergyman of his
     Church--not of that of his wife's family."

The Republicans sought to incorporate into their platform a plank in
opposition to the _Religious Proscription_ of the American party, so as
to suit the taste of Romanists generally; but Thaddeus Stevens, who
knows Pennsylvania as well as any man living, implored them not to do
so, and stated that such a course, with Fremont as their nominee, would
lose them Pennsylvania by 50,000 votes!

It turns out, however, that Fremont, as the anti-American,
anti-Protestant candidate, with Mr. Dayton on the ticket, equally
anti-American, and devoted to Romanism, will sweep the Catholic vote in
the United States. Catholics may favor Buchanan in such Southern States
as do not run a Fremont ticket, but in all the Northern and
North-Western States, the Fremont ticket will ruin the Buchanan ticket.

This question, taken in connection with the Slavery issue, and the
Filibustering issue, narrows the contest down to one between Fillmore
and Fremont. Buchanan is defeated, and the Southern fire-eaters see and
feel it! The _Atlanta_ (Ga.) _Intelligencer_ comes out and states, that
if Buchanan can't be elected, it prefers Fremont to Fillmore! And the
South Carolina and Mississippi Disunionists openly avow, that they wish
this to be the last contest of the kind. They are for Buchanan or
Fremont, over Fillmore, because they believe the election of either will
have the glorious effect to bring about a dissolution of the Union! In
the same breath they admit that Fillmore will labor to perpetuate the
Union, and that his election will have the effect to prolong its
existence a few brief years!

Southern men, and Northern men, Union men, and national, conservative
men, of all parties, can now see _where_ we are driving to, and _who_
they should support for the Presidency. Let them guard against these
demons of Popery--these incarnate fiends of the Free Soil faith--these
fanatics of a sectional cast--these slimy vultures of Secession--these
bogus Democrats--and these infinitely infernal traitors to the
Constitution and the Union!

     "Col. Fremont was educated in and graduated from St. Mary's
     College, in Baltimore, a Roman Catholic Institution. He was
     brought up in the Catholic Faith, and is a Catholic. He married
     a daughter of Col. Benton. Miss Benton was a Presbyterian. They
     were married by a clergyman of that denomination; but a
     Catholic priest made a fuss about it as being null, void, and
     heretical, and the ceremony was re-performed by him!"--_Auburn
     American._

The _American_ might have added, that Fremont is the son of a _Catholic
Frenchman_, the son of a _Catholic mother_, and was reared under
Catholic influence. Nay, Fremont educates his children at the Roman
Catholic Institution at Georgetown, in the District of Columbia! The
placing of such a candidate before the public, seems especially designed
to defy public sentiment, and mock the Protestant American feeling of
the country! We had expected the Catholics, with Bishop Hughes at their
head, in a few years more, to come out openly, and run a Catholic for
the Presidency, but we had not supposed them bold enough to attempt it
in 1856. To show beyond all doubt that the nomination of Fremont was the
result of a coalition between Seward and Hughes, more in reference to
the _Catholic question_ than the _Slavery issue_, we present the record
of Fremont in the United States Senate--his _ultra-Pro-Slavery
course_--his voting against justice to the Colonization Society, and
_seven hundred and fifty_ captured slaves--his opposition to the
abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia!


HE IS EXTREME SOUTHERN AND PRO-SLAVERY.

John C. Fremont held a seat in the United States Senate, in 1850, for
the space of a few months. During that time he made no speeches; indeed,
he has scarcely ever been known to utter any sentiments, or sanction any
opinions. Yet his votes, as a member of the Senate, did make for him a
record; and it is this record that will stare him in the face as long as
he lives--a record in direct conflict with his present professions and
position before the country:

     LOOK AT IT!--JOHN C. FREMONT'S STATESMANSHIP.

     [From the Congressional Globe--Vol. 21, part 2d, p. 1803, etc.]

                        "IN SENATE OF UNITED STATES, Sept. 11, 1850.

     "Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, called up the bill for the relief
     of the American Colonization Society. The slaves that were
     recaptured on the barque Pons were turned over to the
     Colonization Society, by the authority of the United States,
     sent to Liberia, and there kept at the expense of the society
     for one or two years. Most of them were children of twelve,
     fifteen, and sixteen years of age. The society thinks that the
     expense of feeding, clothing, and educating these people, which
     was thus devolved on them by the action of the Government,
     ought to be repaid them. It was certainly an expense incurred
     by the society, through the action of the Government in
     throwing these young <DW64>s upon them for maintenance, instead
     of taking them, as the Government was bound to do by law, and
     providing for them. That is the nature of the claim. They
     simply ask that so much shall be paid them as the society, from
     its own experience, pays in reference to its own emigrants. The
     claim was reported upon favorably two years ago. A similar
     report has again been made; and as the necessities of the
     society require that they should have the money, I hope, said
     Mr. U., the Senate will consent to take up the bill. The Senate
     agreed to take up the bill, and proceeded to consider it as in
     Committee of the Whole.

     "Mr. Turney asked for the reading of the report of the
     Committee.

     "The Secretary read the report accordingly. It sets forth that
     a liberal construction of the act of Congress of March 3d,
     1819, would require that the Government should provide for the
     support of these recaptured Africans, for a reasonable time
     after they had been landed in Liberia, and that it is beneath
     the dignity of the Government to devolve this duty upon the
     society. The petition of the executive committee of the society
     which the Committee incorporated in their report, states that
     on the 16th of December, 1845, the United States Ship Yorktown,
     Commodore Bell, landed at Monrovia, in Liberia, from the slaver
     Pons, seven hundred and fifty recaptured Africans, in a naked,
     starving, and dying condition, all of them excepting twenty-one
     being under the age of twenty-one. The United States made no
     provision for their support after they were landed....

     "The services of providing for the destitute <DW64>s were not
     required to be performed by the society under their
     constitution, but the alternative was to leave these recaptured
     Africans to starve and die, and the society therefore
     cheerfully took charge of them, relying upon the Government of
     the United States to refund the cost to them."

The question was discussed at length as to whether the United States
would pay these just and legal demands; and on the vote being taken for
the engrossment of the bill to a third reading, Mr. Fremont's name is
found recorded in the negative--as follows:

     "YEAS--Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Chase, Clayton, Davis of
     Mass., DAYTON, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglass, Ewing,
     Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Pearce, Pratt,
     Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales,
     Walker, Whitcomb, and Winthrop--29.

     "NAYS--Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Benton, Butler, Dawson,
     Dickinson, Downs, FREMONT, Hunter, King, Mason, Rusk,
     Sebastian, Soule, Turner, and Yulee--16."

LOOK AGAIN!--On the 18th day of September, 1850, the bill to prevent
persons from enticing away slaves from the District of Columbia was
under consideration, and John P. Hale "moved that it be committed to the
Committee on the District of Columbia, with instructions _to so amend it
as to_ ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." On the vote being
taken, FREMONT'S name was recorded in the NEGATIVE. (See Cong. Globe,
31st Congress, part 2, p. 1859.)

Such is Mr. Fremont's _record of Statesmanship_. It shows his nomination
by the "_Republicans_" to have been a hollow mockery--"a dishonest
farce,"--an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

We shall hereafter pursue the record of this "remarkable man."

Bishop Hughes and Wm. H. Seward have been, for years, intimate personal
and political friends. It is a part of the political history of New
York, that Seward is alone indebted to Hughes for his reelection to the
United States Senate. They are both now united in the support of
Fremont, and they procured his nomination over Judge McLean, a pure and
patriotic man--for many years a _Methodist Class-Leader_, and an officer
of a _Protestant Bible Society_.

The coalition between Hughes, Seward and Fremont, is complete, and the
evidence of the foul coalition and conspiracy will appear in full, in a
few days, but not in time for us to get it into this work. We are right
glad of it, as it narrows the contest down to one between Fillmore and
Fremont, and especially at the North.

In some of the Northern States, it is now conclusive that a _Buchanan_
ticket will not be run, while in every Northern State where such a
ticket is run, it will be with no hope of success! Hughes and Seward
will induce several States to drop Buchanan, and unite on Fremont, by
_bargaining_ with them, and obligating themselves to give the Democracy
half of the spoils. Already several _Southern_ Democratic papers are
saying, that if they can't elect Buchanan, they prefer Fremont to
Fillmore! This ought to open the eyes of all true patriots.




OLD LINE WHIGS, AND THE MOTIVES GOVERNING SOME OF THEM!


In this free country of ours, gentlemen have a right to support any
Presidential or other ticket they may choose to support; and where they
are governed by pure motives in differing from a majority of their
neighbors and old political associates, no one has a right to complain.

Some few gentlemen, known as "Old Line Whigs," will not come into the
support of the American ticket, but will even support the Democratic
ticket; and do it from an honest (though mistaken) belief that they can
most effectually serve the interests of the country by this course. With
such, we shall be the last man to raise a quarrel--claiming the right to
do as we please in matters of the sort. But there are some men in the
ranks of the enemy now, who are governed by very different motives; and
as these are quoted against the American party, or, as their refusal to
act with the party is a matter of _boasting_ in the Democratic ranks, it
is due to the cause of truth, and of the country, that they should be
understood, that their efforts may be _appreciated_.

Without intending to be tedious, we name JAMES C. JONES, of Tennessee,
as at the head of the list of _Old Liners_, whose devotion to the
_South_, and love of _liberty_, prevent him from supporting Fillmore and
Donelson. This is the veriest _stuff_ in the political world! Gov. Jones
cannot excuse the matter of his opposition to Millard Fillmore upon the
grounds he rests the case, in his Circular addressed to his
constituents. The true secret of the matter must come to light, that old
Whigs and new Whigs, Americans and Democrats, may appreciate his
motives.

Last fall, at the Fair in Jackson, in West Tennessee, in the house and
at the bedside of ANDREW GUTHRIE, on being inquired of as to his future
course, the Governor became very much excited, and roundly asserted,
that if the American party nominated _Fillmore_, he should go against
him. ==> _Because Fillmore, in his appointment of persons to office in
Tennessee, did not consult him, but in many cases appointed his personal
enemies!_ Mark, he did not pause to inquire _who_ might be the opposing
candidate to Mr. Fillmore. He was not then, as he is not now, governed
by any _principle_ in the matter, but by _passion_. He is _against Mr.
Fillmore_, under all circumstances, no matter who may oppose him! And
why? Because Mr. Fillmore did not suffer him to put his numerous _active
friends_ into fat offices under the General Government; to many of whom
he had made pledges while he was struggling for a seat in the United
States Senate--where he ought never to have gone, and where the better
portion of those who aided in his election now regret having sent him!

But it is true, Fillmore and his Cabinet did refuse the extravagant
demands made for office by the Governor; and in no single instance did
they appoint men to office from Tennessee without consultation with
BELL, GENTRY, and WILLIAMS; all three of whom were offensive to _Jones_.
They had proven themselves to be worthy of consultation; the Governor
had not! This accounts, moreover, for the efforts of Jones at Baltimore
to defeat the nomination of Fillmore, and to procure the nomination of
Scott--efforts which, unfortunately for the country, were but too
successful!

When the American party was organized in Tennessee, JONES had no
objection to the creed, and would have fallen into the ranks, but then
he beheld _Gentry_ and _Brownlow_ in the party--men whom he despised
above all others. He tried to prevent the nomination of Gentry for
Governor by letter-writing, and by seeking to get up a _Whig_
Convention. Failing in these schemes, he threw himself into the arena,
and _secretly_ damaged Gentry all he could, and played into the hands of
Johnson, who was only elected by a majority of some _two thousand
votes_!

We are not informed as to the course Gov. Jones will pursue in this
contest, further than this, he will go against Fillmore. We predict that
he will support Buchanan. _Pride of character_ may keep him from it--if
he have any of that commodity left, after his five years' residence at
Washington! The platform upon which Buchanan has been placed by the
Cincinnati Convention, is a reiteration of violent and undying hostility
to every measure of public policy that was advocated by HENRY CLAY and
the Old Whig party. Jones still _professes_ an equally undying devotion
to Clay and his principles. Moreover, Jones has, on every stump in
Tennessee, held up Buchanan as a _rank old Federalist_, a Pennsylvania
_Abolitionist_, and as the _wicked traducer_, _violent calumniator_, and
_malignant persecutor_ of Henry Clay--even attributing his promotion to
the Secretaryship of State, by Mr. Polk, to his _infamous agency_ in
fastening upon Mr. Clay the foul charge of "bargain, intrigue, and
corruption." We confess that we are at a loss to see how Jones can fall
into the support of Buchanan. The _nomination_ of the man is a direct
insult to Old Clay Whigs!

ALBERT G. WATKINS, the Representative in Congress from the First
Congressional District of Tennessee, has gone over to Democracy, placing
his change upon the ground of his _great concern for the South_! We take
it that he will support Buchanan without hesitancy. This would place
Watkins before the country in his true colors, and reflect the likeness
of the man with _daguerreotype_ accuracy!! With such a platform, and
such a candidate on it, Watkins would have the appearance of a man
walking in one direction, with his head turned completely around, and
his face looking the other way! The incongruity of the platform, and the
peculiar reputation of Buchanan for political inconsistency, are alike
adapted to the history and incidents of Watkins's late canvass for
Congress! The plain truth is, that the man so completely destroyed
himself, and was so ruinously exposed by his competitor, COL. TAYLOR,
whom he beat only some two hundred votes, (and that by means that make
his seat in Congress one of _thorns_,) that he could but go over to
Locofocoism. And although he has, in former days, held up Buchanan on
the stump as an old Federalist, and as the reviler and persecutor of
Henry Clay, he can advocate him now with a better grace than he can look
his Know Nothing constituents in the face! We cannot say of this man as
Pope said of Craggs:

    "Broke no promise, served no private end,
    Gained no title, and who lost no friend."

WILLIAM G. SWAN, of Knoxville, is next on the list of "Old Line Whigs"
who have gone over to the Foreign Catholic Democratic party, and of
whose conversion the Democrats at a distance boast. Here they do not
brag; but on the other hand, some of the leaders, whose names we can
supply, authorize us to state that they do not want him, and will not
receive him. This man was twice beaten for the Legislature in this
county--never elected by the people to any position outside of
Knoxville--and became soured at the Whig party. He went for _Johnson and
Sag Nichtism_ last summer, and his loss is not regretted by the American
party in this county.

But JOHN H. CROZIER, of Knoxville, has gone over to "Old Buck" and his
admirers; and this is claimed as a change! This little man, _supremely
selfish_, was turned out of Congress five years ago, by JOSIAH M.
ANDERSON, with the people at his back, for _taking too much mileage_, by
several hundred dollars per session, for four years! He afterwards
desired the Whig party to run him for Governor; but they were not
willing to undertake the _load_. He became soured, and last summer paid
a visit to some of the counties below, to avoid, as was believed, voting
for Gentry for Governor, and Sneed for Congress. He was formerly very
bitter in his opposition to Democracy; and on many a stump has he
denounced _Buchanan_, and all others concerned in the "bargain and
intrigue" slander of Clay, besides holding up "Buck" as a Blue-light
Federalist! At a recent Buchanan Ratification meeting in Knoxville, he
made a bitter speech against the American party!

These two men, Swan and Crozier, were active in getting up an
organization against us, in 1849, by heading a company which purchased
the "_Register Establishment_," of this city, at the head of which they
placed one _john miller m'kee_, behind whom they and others concealed
themselves and wrote violent and abusive articles, through a controversy
of two years. Driving the whole of them to the wall, as we did, in the
controversy, they determined to _mob and tear down our office_; and with
a view to this, those concerned deposited their _guns_, and other
"implements of husbandry," in the law office jointly occupied by these
two men, who have operated as _twin brothers_ for several years--each
sympathizing with the other in his political defeats! Those concerned
were deterred from this contemplated and well-arranged assault upon our
office, by COL. LUTTRELL, the Comptroller of the State, and other
gentlemen of nerve, arming themselves with shot-guns, pistols, and
hatchets, and taking their stand at our office!

Nothing daunted by this defeat, these _gallant_ lawyers, and
_generous_--not to say _brave_--opponents betook themselves to the
county of Anderson, in this Judicial Circuit, and with great difficulty
got up an indictment against us, under an old statute, forgotten by
gentlemen of the bar, for _advertising a Baltimore lottery scheme_; when
they themselves, and their relatives, were dealing in the _Art Union
lottery_ in this city! They were most signally defeated in that
indictment; and, together with the two Williamses, brothers-in-law of
Crozier, sought to drive the business men of the place, and others, from
advertising in our paper, or subscribing for it. Failing in this, they
sought to prevent us from getting the Government advertising under
Fillmore's administration; and in this they failed, though this is the
ground of their hostility to Fillmore and his Cabinet, as well as to
John Bell, M. P. Gentry, and C. H. Williams.

The _Register_ fell through--was sold under the hammer for _twenty-two
hundred dollars_--McKee ran away--and the company have had about FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS to pay for him, which hurts prodigiously! Our WHIG has
steadily increased in favor with the people, and its circulation is now
THE RISE OF FIVE THOUSAND--being the largest circulation that any
political or other journal ever attained in East Tennessee! Indeed, no
political weekly in Tennessee now has, or ever did have, a circulation
equal to "BROWNLOW'S KNOXVILLE WHIG."

A young man calling himself _Luther Patterson_, has been conducting a
foreign Sag Nicht sheet at Kingston, called the "Gazetteer," and which
has gone by the board for the want of patronage. This little eight by
ten sheet has been editorially, and by means of anonymous
communications, assaulting the writer of this work, and the editor of
the _Register_, MR. FLEMING. Patterson paid a recent visit to this
place; at which time Fleming met with him on the street, and publicly
chastised him, applying the toe of a stiff boot to the _west end_ of his
person, with some force. Patterson turned about and boasted in his paper
that he had the best of the fight. Our paper and Fleming's corrected
this false version of the affair, and gave the facts; whereupon
Patterson sued out a writ in the Circuit Court for Fleming, for damages
done to his person in said rencontre, laying his damages at $5,000!
Shortly after this he instituted a civil action against the publishers
of the paper we edit, and another against us for the article we wrote
against him; and these suits are now pending.

These two _gallant_ attorneys, as we are informed, are employed as
counsel by Patterson--a young man who has no visible means of paying
lawyers, but the _eagerness_ of these gentlemen to get after us would
lead them to "work for nothing and find themselves." In addition to
their several civil suits against several of us, they have sent their
man before the Grand Jury of Knox county, and made a presentment against
us for having _out-wrote_ their Sag Nicht editor! The object of these
suits against the editors and publishers of the American papers here, is
to _gag_ them, or to check their influence in this contest. But they
have mistaken their men. Like other vipers, they will find, before these
matters end, that they bite a file--a file of good _American_ steel, and
tempered to that degree of hardness that all their malignity, intense
and active as it is known to be, will not be able to prevail against it!

When we came to this city of Knoxville, in 1849, we sold our office at
Jonesborough, at private sale, to pay a _security debt_, and purchased a
new press and materials on a credit. These we sent on to the care of
WILLIAMS & CO., the brothers-in-law of Crozier, who kept about the only
commission and forwarding house in Knoxville. We were detained at
Jonesborough four weeks by close confinement to our bed; and our
materials arriving here, these "Old Line Whigs," who had always
professed friendship toward us, refused to give them house-room; and had
not JAMES W. NELSON and others stepped forward and paid the charges, and
procured a house for them, the steamboat captain would have sold them
out for the carriage!

These _magnanimous_ gentlemen, members of the learned profession of the
law, next contrived, through certain influences they brought to bear,
to turn us out of the only office we could rent in the city, and thus
they drove us _without the limits of the Corporation_, and compelled us
to erect a temporary office upon our own lot, which we had bought on a
credit. They were now at the end of their row. One was a candidate for
Congress, the other for a seat in the Legislature. We pitched into both,
and they were both defeated; but we do not claim that it was through our
influence. Like Cardinal Wolsey, however, they both had to bid
"farewell, a long farewell, to all their greatness." From the pinnacle
of Congressional and Legislative honors, they have been precipitated to
the shades of private life, and to political obscurity. Their chief
ambition now is, to play "fantastic tricks" in courts of justice, and
before grand jurors, in the way of annoying those they have neither the
_manliness_ nor _courage_ to call to an account upon their own hooks!

The established usage of _gentlemen_, when offended by a newspaper
editor, is to exact personal satisfaction. To acknowledge that you are
personally aggrieved, and then to retort in tricks behind the offender's
back, or words behind your privileges at the Bar, is to acknowledge that
one is either a _fool_ or a _coward_--perhaps both. A chief object in
this crusade against us is to gag us during this campaign, and kill us
off from the stump and the press; but they have certainly studied our
character to but little purpose. And whatever line of policy their
prompters and associates of the Locofoco school may urge upon them, let
them be assured that they cannot muzzle criticism of their personal or
political delinquencies. It is a sacred duty to unmask the _renegade_,
to expose the _traitor_, and to hold up the _demagogue_ to public
reprobation. That duty will be performed freely and fearlessly, by the
author of this work, come weal or come woe. If these two "Knights of the
Rueful Countenance" kill and eat a dozen Know Nothings, we know one
member of the Order they will not affright into silence. For their
cowardly assaults and their officious intermeddlings they may bare their
backs to the lash. We will be with them to the bitter end, and will only
forsake them in the _Gethsemane_ of their retreat!

Had we come here with press and type, in 1849, and agreed to be
controlled by these men and their particular friends, we could have been
_the_ man for the times. Had we stooped to flirt and coquette and fawn
and dance around these men, we could have had their endorsement, their
influence, and their money, to any reasonable extent. But we neither
sought their friendship, nor coveted their adulations. We claim to have
been made of such inflexible materials, as not readily to go through the
transmutations necessary to secure the kind regards of these men. We are
no office-seeker, and desire no reward beyond the consciousness of
having performed our duty, and of having served our country to the best
of our ability.

We take this occasion to repeat what we have heretofore said in our
journal, that nearly every prominent man in the country, calling himself
an "Old Line Whig," and now opposed to Fillmore and Donelson, is
influenced by personal grievances, or a desire to get office--matters
with which the people have not the slightest concern. Their opposition
to the American ticket proceeds from personal hostility, either to the
candidates, some of the electoral candidates, or certain prominent
advocates of the ticket, and from no less unworthy motives. Of course
there are exceptions to this rule.

The idea of an Old Clay Whig supporting the Buchanan ticket is both
absurd and ridiculous. To say nothing of the foul and malignant charge
of "bargain, intrigue, and corruption," Buchanan labored to fasten upon
Clay, the Platform upon which the Cincinnati Convention has placed
Buchanan repudiates every principle Clay contended for, and held as
sacred to the day of his death. On the contrary, the American party has
not ignored one political tenet held by the Whig party, but has added
new ones; none of which are at war with the creed of Clay, or the
Constitution of our country! To make short work of a long story, no man
who ever was a _true Whig_, and acted with that party _from principle_,
can consistently go over to the _bogus_ Democracy of this day, and vote
for Buchanan and Breckenridge!

Talk about a Clay Whig turning Sag Nicht! What an idea! What principle
does this Foreign Democratic party hold, that an Old Line Whig, or a
conservative man, North or South, does not disapprove? What principles
have they ever held, the evil effects of which are not now standing out
in bold relief as a monument of their shame, and to which they have
added the unpardonable sin of making war upon NATIVE AMERICAN
PROTESTANTS?

In conclusion, the reader will please allow a few remarks PERSONAL to
the writer, and he is done--leaving the public to make their own
comments, and their own disposition of both this book and its author.
Our life has been a public life--our cause a public cause. We have our
faults, as most men have; and we have committed some errors, as most men
have. Our few acts of goodness and virtue, if any, we leave others to
hunt up; our faults are subjects of criticism, and are viewed with a
_jaundiced eye_ by our opponents. Through a course of _eighteen years_
of editorial invective, (whether right or wrong,) we claim to have been
actuated by none other than the best of motives. We have never been
prompted by ambition, malice, or a desire to make money. Our voice,
which has echoed over many hills and through many valleys, has never
been heard in extenuation of guilt; has never been heard to plead the
cause of the gambler, the swearer, the drunkard, the robber, or the
assassin. Wherever vice has lifted its "seven heads and ten
horns"--wherever fraud has showed its thieving hand--wherever gambling
has displayed its rotten heart--wherever demagogues have sought to
impose on the honest people--there have we tried to be conspicuous; not
as their aider and abettor, but as their scourge, their accuser, and
their unrelenting foe. And among this class of men are our most bitter
foes. What friends we have are to be found at the fireside of
virtue--among sober, sedate, and thinking men, and among the brave and
honorable. We have never been the slave or sycophant of any man or
party, as our immense band of subscribers, numbering thousands, will
bear us witness.

And now, AMERICANS, while we look forward to the future with pleasing
anticipations--while we rejoice in prospect of the final triumph of
wisdom, of reason, and of virtue, over audacious ignorance, palpable
corruption, canting hypocrisy, and caballing Democracy--God forbid that
we should indulge the vain idea that we have nothing to do! Let every
friend of American rights and Protestant liberties take a bold, a
decided stand, vowing most solemnly that he will have no fellowship at
the ballot-box with the friends of that unpitying monster, a DEMOCRATIC
PAPAL HIERARCHY! Be active, be vigilant, and persevering, and the day is
ultimately ours!

    "Strike till the last armed foe expires;
    Strike for your altars and your fires;
    Strike for the green graves of your sires,
        God, and your native land!"




TO STEPHEN TRIBBLE--LETTER No. 2.


SIR:--On the night of the 9th of June, 1856, you held forth in the
Court-House in Charleston, Mo., taking myself, _Rev. Josiah McCrary_,
the Methodist stationed preacher of that town, and Methodists generally,
for your text. It would seem that the _touch_ I gave you, and a letter
of mine read before a large congregation in Charleston, on Sabbath
evening, June 8th, _have fully developed all the latent blackguardism of
your early training and corrupt nature_! I will now place the record of
your _infamy_ before the world in such a permanent form, and circulate
it so extensively, that your low Billingsgate and vile blackguardism can
never harm any man or sect. I will make such a showing of you that no
persons of refined feelings or of any pride of character will hear you
preach or entertain you in future! I will remind many readers of the
showing up of your infamous character and conduct, by the editor of the
Louisville Journal, ten or twelve years ago, and of the exposure of your
villainous conduct by the _Rev. Mr. McNutt_, of Kentucky, through the
Nashville Advocate, some eight or nine years ago.

I will only add the following article from my paper of the 21st June,
1856, as it completes your record, so far as Tennessee is concerned. I
will only add, that you were driven out of McMinn County in East
Tennessee, where you were preaching, lying, and drinking whiskey, years
ago. There and then, too, the records of the Sullivan County affair,
certified to by the Clerk, were produced against you! But to the article
from my late paper:


STEPHEN TRIBBLE AGAIN.

This old hypocrite and scoundrel has been denying in the pulpit that he
was ever convicted of manslaughter or branded! It turns out, also, that
the old villain once joined the American party in West Tennessee! And
last, but not least, it seems that he was turned out of both the
Methodist and Presbyterian Churches before he became a Campbellite
preacher. A pretty disciple to be abusing honest men! But to the law and
to the testimony:

                                    "ROANE COUNTY, June 3d, 1856.

     "SIR:--In your issue of the 14th of May, you notice _Stephen
     Tribble_, and ask for information concerning him. He came to
     the lower end of Roane county from one of the upper counties of
     East Tennessee, and passed himself for an Arian preacher. I
     objected to his preaching in a meeting-house, and came near
     getting myself into a scrape. About that time a gentleman came
     from our upper country, and said he had seen his father apply
     the branding-iron to Tribble, and the smoke rose ten feet high!
     I then began to play on a harp of one string against him, and
     that was _a tribble_, whereupon he left between two days for
     Kentucky! He was once expelled from the Methodist Church, and
     afterwards he was expelled from the Presbyterian Church. If
     Tribble disputes what I say, all I ask is a chance to prove it.
     I live ten miles south of Kingston, near Barnardsville. Yours
     truly,

                                    "JOHN BLAIR."

       *       *       *       *       *

                                    "PARIS, TENN., June 6th, 1856.

     "DEAR SIR:--I see in a late issue of yours that you are after a
     Reverend wolf, Stephen Tribble. I am personally acquainted with
     him, as I lived in Sullivan county when he was in the
     Blountville jail. I have heard him preach here, and deny from
     the stand ever having been in jail, when he and I had talked
     the whole matter over the day before. He is now about
     forty-eight years of age--has a scar on his cheek. He preached
     here monthly in 1846, and here it was that he joined the
     American party. He now resides either in Graves or Fulton
     county, Kentucky. One of his brothers told me last week that he
     now preaches at one point in Kentucky, and the rest of his time
     in Missouri. One of their preachers told me that he gets drunk
     and cuts up largely. Yours, with respect,

                                    "A. J. HICKS."

To the foregoing letters we add a certified copy of the records of the
Circuit Court of Sullivan county, and after this we shall leave this
_old clerical debauchee_ to preach for such Sag Nichts as may feel
edified by his ministry:

                                    "MONDAY, Sept. 24, 1827.

     "State of Tennessee, First Circuit, Sullivan County Court: met
     according to adjournment. Present, Honorable Samuel Powell,
     Judge, &c."

                                    "FRIDAY, Sept. 28, 1827.

     "STATE _vs._ STEPHEN TRIBBLE AND JOHN TRIBBLE.

     "In this cause, the jury having retired yesterday to consider
     of their verdict, under the care of an officer, and the same
     jury, to wit: James Steele, Wm. Morgan, Joshua Miller, John
     Thomas, Wm. Hashman, John Wassum, Thomas Brown, Stephen B.
     Cawood, John K. Arnold, Thomas Fain, William Hughes, and
     William H. Biggs, returning to the bar, do say, they find the
     defendants not guilty of the murder, but they find them guilty
     of manslaughter as charged in the bill of indictment. Whereupon
     the defendants moved the Court for a rule to show cause why a
     new trial should be had, which rule is granted, and on argument
     said rule is discharged. It is therefore considered by the
     Court that for such offence the said defendants be imprisoned
     for the term of four calendar months: that they be branded with
     the letter M in the brawn of the thumbs of their left hands on
     to-morrow morning, and that they pay the costs of this suit or
     remain in custody until the same is paid."

       *       *       *       *       *

     "STATE OF TENNESSEE, SULLIVAN COUNTY.

"I, Jno. W. Cox, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Sullivan County, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and perfect copy of
the final judgment in the case of State _vs._ Stephen Tribble and John
Tribble, as appears of record in my office.

"Given under my hand at this office, the 10th of June, 1856.

                                    "Jno. W. Cox, Clerk,

                                    "By A. J. Cox, Dep. Clerk."

In conclusion, _Stephen_, I take my leave of you now, having introduced
you to the 5,000 subscribers to the Whig, the 7,500 subscribers to our
campaign paper, and the _tens of thousands of readers_ of this book--a
work which will exist and be referred to when I am in my grave, and you
are in the hot embraces of the Devil! You will at least agree with me
that _that_ was an evil hour for you when you travelled out of your way
to assail me before a strange audience in Missouri.

                                  I am, &c.,

                                    W. G. BROWNLOW.

                                      Knoxville, June 23d, 1856.




A SERMON ON SLAVERY.


     Delivered by the undersigned in Temperance Hall in Knoxville,
     on Sabbath, 8th of June, 1856, to a large and attentive
     audience, composed of citizens and strangers--some from the
     North and some from the South--occupying one hour and a quarter
     in the delivery. It is published as it was delivered, without
     an omission or an alteration. Respectfully, &c.,

                                    W. G. BROWNLOW.

     TEXT.--"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their
     own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
     doctrine be not blasphemed."--1 Tim. vi. 1.

Whoever reflects upon the nature of man, will find him to be almost
entirely the creature of circumstances: his habits and sentiments are,
in a great measure, the growth of adventitious circumstances and causes;
hence the endless variety and condition of our species. That race of men
in our country known as Abolitionists, Free-soilers, or Black
Republicans, look upon any deviation from the constant round in which
_they_ have been spinning out the thread of their existence as a
departure from nature's great system; and, from a known principle of our
nature, the first impulse of these fanatics is to condemn. It is thus
that the man born and matured in a free State looks upon slavery as
unnatural and horrible, and in violation of every law of justice or
humanity! And it is not uncommon to hear bigots of this character, in
their churches at the North, imploring the Divine wrath to shower down
the consuming fires of heaven on that great Sodom and Gomorrah of the
New World, all that section of country south of Mason and Dixon's line,
where this unjust practice prevails.

When an unprejudiced and candid mind examines into the past condition of
our race, and learns the fact which history develops, as the inquirer
will, that a majority of mankind were _slaves_, he will be driven to the
melancholy reflection, that the world, when first peopled by God
himself, was not a world of freemen, but of _slaves_!

Slavery was really established and sanctioned by Divine authority among
even God's chosen people, the favored children of Israel. Abraham, the
founder of this interesting nation, and the chosen servant of the Most
High, was the owner of more slaves than any cotton-planter in South
Carolina or Mississippi. That magnificent shrine, the gorgeous temple of
Solomon, commenced and completed under the pious promptings of religion
and ancient Free-Masonry, was reared alone by the hands of slaves!
Egypt's venerable and enduring pyramids were reared by the hands of
slaves! Involuntary servitude, reduced to a science, existed in ancient
Assyria and Babylon. The ten tribes of Israel were carried off to
Assyria by Shalmanezer, and the two strong tribes of Judah were
subsequently carried in triumph by Nebuchadnezzar to end their days in
Babylon as slaves, and to labor to adorn the city. Ancient Phoenicia
and Carthage were literally overrun with slavery, because the slave
population outnumbered the free and the owners of slaves! The Greeks and
Trojans, at the siege of Troy, were attended with large numbers of their
slaves. Athens, and Sparta, and Thebes--indeed, the whole Grecian and
Roman worlds--had more slaves than freemen. And in those ages which
succeeded the extinction of the Roman empire in the West, slaves were
the most numerous class. Even in the days of civilization and Christian
light which revolutionized governments, laboring serfs and abject slaves
were distributed throughout Eastern Europe, and a portion of Western
Asia--conclusively showing that slavery existed over these boundless
regions. In China, the worst forms of slavery have existed since its
earliest history. And when we turn to Africa, we find slavery, in all
its most horrid forms, existing throughout its whole extent, the slaves
outnumbering the freemen at least three to one. Looking, then, to the
whole world, we may with confidence assert, that slavery in its worst
forms subdues by far the largest portion of the human race!

Now, the inquiry is, how has slavery risen and thus spread over our
whole earth? We answer, by the _laws of war_, _the state of property_,
_the feebleness of governments_, the thirst for _bargain and sale_, the
_increase of crime_, and last, but not least, _by and with the consent
and approbation of Deity_!

These remarks may suffice by way of an introduction, and they will serve
to indicate the course we intend to pursue, if the announcement of the
text has not already done that. _Let as many servants as are under the
yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor_, &c. The word here
rendered _servants_ means SLAVES, converted to the Christian faith; and
the word rendered _yoke_ signifies the _state of slavery_ in which
Christ and the apostles found the world involved when the Christian
Church was first organized. By the word rendered _masters_ we are to
understand the heathen masters of those Christianized slaves. Even
these, in such circumstances, and under such domination, are commanded
to treat their masters with all honor and respect, that the name of God,
by which they were called, and the doctrine of God, to wit,
Christianity, which they had professed, might not be blasphemed, might
not be evil spoken of in consequence of their improper conduct. Civil
rights are never abolished by any communication from God's Spirit; and
those fiery bigots at the North who propose to abolish the institution
of slavery in this country are not following the dictates of God's
Spirit or law. The civil state in which a man was before his conversion,
is not altered by that conversion; nor does the grace of God absolve him
from any claims which the State, his neighbor, or lawful owner may have
had on him. All these outward things continue unaltered: hence, if a man
be under the sentence of death for murder, and God see fit to convert
him, he is not released from suffering the extreme penalty of the law!

The Church of Christ, when originally constituted, claimed no right, _as
an ecclesiastical organization_, to interfere in any way with the civil
government. This was the principle upon which the Church was founded, as
announced by its immortal Head. When Christ was doomed by a cruel Roman
law to its most ignominious condemnation, he did not so much as resist
it, because _it was law_, nor did he complain of it as oppressive.

     "Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called
     Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?...
     Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
     were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should
     not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from
     hence.... To this end was I born, and for this cause came I
     into the world, that I should bear witness unto the
     truth."--John xviii. 33-37.

When Christ came into the world on the business of his mission, he found
the Jewish people subject to the dominion of the Roman kingdom; and in
no instance did he counsel the Jews to rebellion, or incite them to
throw off the Roman yoke, as do the vagabond philanthropists of the
North in reference to the existing laws of the United States upon the
subject of slavery. Christ was, by lineal descent, "THE KING OF THE
JEWS," but he did not assert his temporal power, but actually refused to
be crowned in that right.

Under the Roman law, human liberty was held by no more certain tenure
than the whim of the sovereign power, protected by no definite
constitution. Slavery constituted the most powerful and essential
element of the government, and that slavery was of the most cruel
character, and gave to the master absolute discretion over the lives of
the slaves. Notwithstanding all this, Christ did not make war upon the
existing government, nor denounce the rulers for conferring such powers,
although he looked upon cruel legislation in the light in which the
character of his mission required. And although the _Church itself_ was
not what it should have been, in no instance did Christ ever denounce
_that_. The only denunciations the Saviour ever uttered, were those
against the doctors and lawyers, ministers and expounders of the Jewish
code of ecclesiastical law.

But allow us to present the case of the Apostle Paul, as proof more
palpable and overwhelming, on this very point. He had been falsely
accused, cruelly imprisoned, and tyrannically arraigned; and that, too,
before a licentious governor, an unjust and dissipated ruler, and an
unprincipled infidel. The Roman law in force at the time arrested the
freedom of speech, denied the rights of conscience, and even forbade the
free expression of opinion in all matters conflicting with the
provisions of the laws of the Roman government. In his defence before
Felix, Paul never so much as speaks of Roman law, though well acquainted
with it, but "he reasoned of _righteousness_, and _temperance_, and the
_judgment to come_." Here was a suitable occasion to condemn the
regulations and to question the authority of the villainous statutes of
Rome; but instead of this, Paul plead his rights _under_ the unjust
regulations of the law. He charged Felix with _official_ delinquency,
with _personal_ crime, and, as a _man_, he held him up to public scorn,
and threatened him with the vengeance of God! He appealed _to the law_,
and justified himself _by the law_. He claimed the rights of a "_Roman
citizen_"--demanded the protection due to a Roman citizen--and he
scorned to find fault with the law, cruel and unjust as he knew it to
be. And the consequence was, that the licentious infidel who ruled,
"_trembled_."

The views we have here presented are not at all new, but have been
uniformly acted upon by evangelical Christians, in all ages of the
world. Since the days of St. Paul and Simon Peter, no reformer has
appeared who was more violent than that good and great man, MARTIN
LUTHER. JOHN CALVIN possessed a revolutionary spirit--he fought every
thing he believed to be wrong--he was unyielding in his disposition, and
unmitigated in his severity. Yet neither of these great men ever made
war upon the existing laws of their respective countries. JOHN WESLEY
was the great reformer of the past century--he reformed the whole
ecclesiastical machinery of the modern Church of Christ; and his
doctrines, and manner of conducting revivals, are leading elements of
American Christianity. But Mr. Wesley never made war upon the English
government, under which he lived and died. On the other hand, it is a
matter of serious complaint among sectarians not friendly to the spread
of Methodism, that Wesley wrote elaborately against the war of the
Revolution. He was devoted to law and order, and he deemed it a
religious duty to oppose all resistance to existing laws. In his
troubles at Savannah, Georgia, like Paul before the licentious
governor, he appealed _to the law_, and sought by every means in his
power to be tried _under_ the law, asking only the privilege of being
heard in his own defence! And it was, in all the instances we have
mentioned, "_that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed_,"
to quote the expressive language of the text, that existing laws have
been adhered to by the propagators of gospel truth.

The essential principles of the great moral law delivered to Moses by
God himself, are set forth in what is called the tenth commandment, in
the 20th chapter of Exodus: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,
thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his _man-servant_, nor his
_maid servant_, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbor's." Now, the only true interpretation of this portion of the
Word of God is, that the species of property mentioned are _lawful_, and
that all men are forbid to disturb others in the lawful enjoyment of
their property. "Man-servants and maid-servants" are distinctly
_consecrated as property_, and guaranteed to man for his exclusive
benefit--proof irresistible that slavery was thus ordained by God
himself. We have seen learned dissertations from the pens of
Abolitionists, saying, that the term "servant," and not "slave," is used
here. To this we reply, that both the Hebrew and Greek words translated
"servant," mean also "slave," and are more frequently used in this sense
than in the former. Besides, the Hebrew Scriptures teach us, that God
especially authorized his peculiar people to _purchase_ "BONDMEN FOR
EVER;" and if to be in _bondage for ever_ does not constitute _slavery_,
we yield the point.

The visionary notions of piety and philanthropy entertained by many men
at the North, lead them to resist the _Fugitive Slave Law_ of this
government, and even to _violate the tenth commandment_, by stealing our
"men-servants and maid-servants," and running them into what they call
free territory. Nay, the _villainous piety_ of some leads them to
contribute _Sharpe's Rifles_ and _Holy Bibles_, to send the
_uncircumcised Philistines_ of New England into Kansas and Nebraska, to
shoot down the Christian owners of slaves, and then to perform religious
ceremonies over their dead bodies! Clergymen lay aside their Bibles at
the North, and females, as in the case of that model beauty, _Harriet
Beecher Stowe_, unsex themselves to carry on this horrid and slanderous
warfare against slaveholders of the South! And English travellers,
steeped to the nose and chin in prejudices against this government and
our institutions, have written books upon the subject. The Halls,
Hamiltons, Trollopes, and Miss Martineaus, _et ed omne genus_, all have
misrepresented us! These English writers all denounce slavery, and
eulogize _Democracy_; as if an Englishman could be a Democrat, in the
modern, vulgar sense of the term, and be a consistent man!

But we do not propose, in this brief discourse, to enter into any
defence of the African slave trade. Although the evils of it are greatly
exaggerated, its evils and cruelties, its barbarities, are not justified
by the most ultra slaveholders of this age. The vile traffic was
abolished by the United States, even before the British Parliament
prohibited it. All the powers in the world have subsequently prohibited
this trade--some of the more influential and powerful of them declaring
it _piracy_, and covering the African seas with armed vessels to prevent
it!

This trade, which seems so shocking to the feelings of mankind, dates
its origin as far back as the year 1442. Antony Gonzales, a Portuguese
mariner, while exploring the coast of Africa, was the first to steal
some _Moors_, and was subsequently forced by Prince Henry of Portugal to
carry them back to Africa. In the year 1502, the Spaniards began to
steal <DW64>s, and employ them in the mines of Hispaniola, Cuba, and
Jamaica. In 1517, the Emperor Charles V. granted a _patent_ to certain
privileged persons, _to steal exclusively_ a supply of 4,000 <DW64>s
annually, for these islands!

African slaves were first imported into America in 1620, a century after
their introduction into the West Indies. The first cargo, of twenty
Africans, by a Dutch vessel, was brought up the James River, into
Virginia, and sold out as slaves. England then being the most commercial
of European nations, engrossed the trade; and from 1680 to 1780, there
were imported into the British Possessions alone, TWO MILLIONS OF
SLAVES--making an average annual importation of more than 20,000! And
the annual importation into America has transcended 50,000! The States
of this Union, north of Mason and Dixon's Line, commonly called the New
England States, were never, to any great extent, _slaveholding_; their
virtuous and pious minds were chiefly exercised in _slave-stealing_ and
_slave-selling_! To Old England our New England States owe their
knowledge of the art of slave-stealing; and to New England these
Southern States are wholly indebted for their slaves. They stole the
African from his native land, and sold him into bondage for the sake of
gain. They kept but few of their captives among themselves, because it
was not profitable to use <DW64> labor in the cold and sterile regions of
New England. And when they enacted laws in the New England States
abolishing slavery, they brought their <DW64>s into the South and sold
them before their laws could go into operation! This is the true history
of slavery in New England. They stole and sold property which it was not
profitable to keep, and for which they now refuse all warranty. And
what few American ships are in the trade now, at the peril of piracy,
are New England ships.

The pious and religious portion of New England Abolitionists, we take
it, are the better portion, and in these we have no sort of confidence.
Take, for example, the case of that great man, and powerful pulpit
orator, STEPHEN OLIN, who came into Georgia, and was introduced into the
ministry by BISHOP ANDREW and his friends, and by this means married a
lady owning a number of slaves. He sold them all for the money, pocketed
the money, and returned to his congenial North; and when BISHOP ANDREW
was arraigned before the General Conference of 1844, because he had
married a widow lady owning a few slaves, this man OLIN appeared on the
floor, and spoke and voted against the Bishop! Dr. Olin had washed his
hands of the sin of slavery--had his money out at interest--and he was
ready to plead for the rights of the poor African! May we not exclaim,
"Lord, what is man?"

We are acquainted with many of the leading Abolitionists of the North
connected with the Methodist Church; and although we suppose they are
about as good as the Abolitionists of other denominations we have no
confidence in them. The most of them would enter their fine churches on
the Sabbath, preach for hours against the sin of slavery, shed their
tears over the oppressions of the "servile progeny of Ham," in these
Southern States; and on the next day, in a purely business transaction,
behind a counter, or in the settlement of an account, cheat a Southern
slave out of the _pewter_ that ornaments the head of his cane!

There is much in the political papers of the country calculated, if not
intended, to fan a flame of intense warfare upon the subject of slavery,
which can result in no possible good to any one. Those politicians who
are exciting the whole country, and fanning society into a livid
consuming flame, particularly at the North, have no sympathies for the
black man, and care nothing for his comfort. They only seek their own
glory. This political disquiet and commotion is giving birth to new and
loftier schemes of agitation and disunion, among the vile Abolitionists
of the country, and to bold and hazardous enterprises in the States and
Territories. And many of our Southern altars smoke with the vile incense
of Abolitionism. We have scores of Abolitionists in the South, in
disguise--designing men--some filling our pulpits--some occupying high
positions in our colleges--some editing political and religious
papers--some selling goods--and some following one calling and some
another, who, though among us, are not of us, Southern men may rest
assured!

We endorse, without reserve, that much-abused sentiment of a
distinguished South Carolina statesmen, now no more, that "slavery is
the corner-stone of our republican edifice;" while we repudiate, as
ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded, but nowhere-accredited dogma of
MR. JEFFERSON, that "all men are born equal." God never intended to make
the _butcher_ a judge, nor the _baker_ a president, but to protect them
according to their claims as butcher and baker. Pope has beautifully
expressed this sentiment, where he has said:

    "Order is heaven's first law, and this confessed,
    _Some are_, and _must be_, greater than the rest."

We have gone among the free <DW64>s at the North--we have visited their
miserable dwellings in Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and other points;
and, in every instance, we have found them more miserable and destitute,
as a whole, than the slave population of the South. In our Southern
States, where <DW64>s have been set at liberty, in nine cases out of ten
their conditions have been made worse; while the most wretched,
indolent, immoral, and dishonest class of persons to be found in the
Southern States, are _free persons of color_.

The freedom of <DW64>s in even the Northern States, is, in all respects,
only an empty name. The citizen <DW64> does not vote, and takes good care
not to do so. The law does not interdict him this privilege, but if he
attempt to avail himself of the privilege, he is apprehensive of
"apostolic blows and kicks," which the pious Abolitionists will
administer to him. All the social advantages, all the respectable
employments, all the honors, and even the pleasures of life, are denied
the free <DW64>s of the North, by citizens full of sympathy for the
down-trodden African! The <DW64> cannot get into an omnibus, cannot enter
a bar-room frequented by whites, nor a church, nor a theatre; nor can he
enter the cabin of a steamboat, in one of the Northern rivers or lakes,
or enter a first class passenger car on one of their railroads. They are
not suffered to enter a stage-coach with whites, but are forced upon the
deck, whether it shall rain or shine--whether it be hot or cold.
Industry is closed to them, and they are forced to live as _servants_ in
hotels, or adopt the professions of barber, or boot-black, or open
oysters in saloons, or sell villainous liquors to the lower classes of
German and Irish emigrants, who throng our large cities and towns. The
<DW64>s even have their _own streets_, and their own low-down kennels;
they have their hospitals, their churches, their cars, upon which are
written in large letters, "FOR <DW52> PEOPLE!" Finally, they are forced
to have their own _grave-yards_--the _yellow_ remains of Northern
Abolitionists, and pious white men, refusing to mingle with the
bleeching bones of the dead <DW64>! While, in the South, they crowd the
galleries and back seats in our churches, travel in our passenger cars,
and even _loan their money_ to our white men at interest! Such is an
outline of the contrast between free <DW64>s at the North, and slaves at
the South.

Let us turn again to the Holy Scriptures, and see whether or not they
sustain or condemn the institution of slavery. The opposers of slavery
profess to be governed alone by the teachings of the Bible, in their war
upon this institution. It is vain to look to Christ or any of his
apostles to justify the blasphemous perversions of the word of God,
continually paraded before the world by these graceless agitators.
Although slavery in its most revolting forms was everywhere visible
around them, no visionary notions of piety or schemes of philanthropy
ever tempted either Christ or one of his apostles to gainsay the LAW,
even to mitigate the cruel severity of the slavery system then existing.
On the contrary, finding slavery _established by law_, as well as an
_inevitable and necessary consequence_, growing out of the condition of
human society, their efforts were to sustain the institution. Hence, St.
Paul actually apprehended a "_fugitive slave_," and sent him back to his
lawful owner and earthly master!

Having already appealed to the authority of the Old Testament
Scriptures, we turn to that of the New, where we learn that slavery
existed in the earliest days of the Christian Church, and that both
_masters_ and _slaves_ were members of the same Christian congregations.
Slavery was an institution of the State in the Roman Empire, as it is in
the Southern States of this confederacy, and the apostles did not feel
at liberty to denounce it, if, indeed, they felt the least opposition to
it--a thing we deny.

But, before we appeal to the irresistible authority of the New
Testament, we will submit a few only of a great many passages from the
Old Testament--not having quoted as extensively as may have been deemed
necessary:

     "And he said, I _am_ Abraham's servant."--GEN. xxiv. 34.

     "And there was of the house of Saul a _servant_, whose name was
     Ziba; and when they had called him unto David, the king said
     unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, _Thy servant is he_."--2
     SAM. ix. 2.

     "Then the king called to Ziba, Saul's _servant_, and said unto
     him, I have given unto thy _master's_ son all that pertained to
     Saul, and to all his house."--Verse 9th.

     "Thou, therefore, and thy sons, and thy _servants_, shall till
     the land for him, and thou shalt bring in _the fruits_, that
     thy _master's_ son may have food to eat, &c. Now Ziba had
     fifteen sons and TWENTY SERVANTS."--Verse 10th.

     "I got me _servants_ and maidens, and had _servants born in my
     house_; also, I had great possessions of great and small
     cattle, above all that were in Jerusalem before me."--ECCLES.
     ii. 7.

     "And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? And she
     said, I flee from the face of my _mistress_ Sarai."--GEN. xvi.
     8.

     "And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, _Return to thy
     mistress_, and submit thyself to her hands."--Verse 9th.

The only comments we have to offer upon these passages are, first, one
individual acknowledges himself the owner of twenty slaves! Another was
raising slaves, and having them born in his house!! And last, but not
least, the angel of God ordered the fugitive slave to return to her
lawful owner!! High authority, this, for apprehending runaway slaves!

In reference to bad servants, we read in Prov. xxix. 19:

     "A servant will not be corrected by _words_; for though he
     understand, he will not answer."

The Scriptures look to the correction of servants, and really enjoin it,
as they do in the case of children. We esteem it the duty of Christian
masters to feed and clothe well, and in cases of disobedience to _whip
well_.

In the book of Joel, iii. 8, the _slave trade_ is recognized as of
Divine authority:

     "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the land of
     the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans,
     to a people far off; FOR THE LORD HATH SPOKEN IT!"

     "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
     Art thou called, being _a servant_? Care not for it; but if
     thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called
     in the Lord, being _a servant_, is the Lord's freeman; likewise
     also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant."--1
     Cor. vii. 20-22.

     "_Servants_, be obedient to them that are your _masters
     according to the flesh_, with fear and trembling, in singleness
     of your heart, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service, as
     men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of
     God from the heart. With good-will doing service, as to the
     Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any
     man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be
     bond or free. And, _ye masters_, do the same things unto them,
     forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in
     heaven: neither is there respect of persons with him."--Eph.
     vi. 5-9.

     "_Servants_, obey in all things your _masters according to the
     flesh_: not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in
     singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatsoever ye do, do it
     heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men: knowing that of the
     Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye
     serve the Lord Christ."--Col. iii. 22-25.

     "_Masters_, give unto _your servants_ that which is just and
     equal: knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."--Col. iv.
     1.

     "Let as many _servants as are under the yoke_ count their _own
     masters_ worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
     doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have _believing
     masters_, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;
     but rather do them service, because they are faithful and
     beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and
     exhort."--1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.

     "Exhort _servants_ to be obedient unto their _own masters_, and
     to please them well in all things; not answering again; not
     purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn
     the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things."--Titus ii. 9,
     10.

     "_Servants_, be subject to _your masters_ with all fear; not
     only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this
     is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure
     grief, suffering wrongfully."--1 Peter ii. 18, 19.

We have but a single word of comment to offer upon these passages of
Scripture. The original words used by the Greek writers, both sacred and
profane, to express slave; the most abject condition of slavery; to
express the absolute owner of a slave, and the absolute control of a
slave, are the strongest that the language affords, and are used in the
passages here quoted. If the apostles understood the common use of
words, and desired to convey these ideas, and to recognize the relations
of master and servant, they would, naturally enough, employ the very
words used. To say that they did not know the primary meaning and _usus
loquendi_ of the original words, is paying them a compliment we wish not
to participate in! And to show that we are not singular in our views of
the meaning expressed in the passages quoted, showing that they express
in the one case slaves, and in the other masters or owners, actually
holding them as property, under the sanction of the laws of the State,
we quote from the following authorities:

That great commentator, Dr. ADAM CLARKE, on 1 Cor. vii. 21, says:

     "Art thou converted to Christ while thou art a slave--the
     property of another person, and bought with his money? _Care
     not for it._"

The learned Dr. Neander, in his work entitled "Planting and Training of
the Church," in referring to _Onesimus_, mentioned in the epistle to
Philemon, says of him:

     "It does not appear to be surprising that a _runaway slave_
     should betake himself at once to Rome."

To the foregoing might be added other authorities of equal weight and
importance.

It is a well-known historical fact, that slaveholders were admitted into
the APOSTOLIC CHURCHES; nor would this assumed position of the advocates
of slavery be at all denied by any intelligent and well-read men at the
North, but for the fact that they think such an admission would decide
the question against abolitionists. We have given much attention to this
subject within ten years past, and we feel no sort of delicacy in
expressing our views and convictions, as revolting as they may be to
Northern men and Free-soilers, even among us. We believe that the
primitive Christians held slaves in bondage, and that the apostles
favored slavery, by admitting slaveholders into the Church, and by
promoting them to official stations in the Church. And why do we believe
all this? Because we are sustained in these positions by uninterrupted
historical testimony!

Well, for the information of abolitionists and other anti-slavery men
dispersed throughout the South, we assume that the fact of the apostles
admitting into Church fellowship slaveholders, and promoting them to
positions of honor and trust, shows that the simple relation of master
and slave was no bar to Church-membership. Masters and slaves, in the
days of the apostles, were admitted into the Church as brethren: they
partook in common of the benefits of the Church: they held to the same
religious principles: they squared their lives by the same rule of
conduct: acknowledged the same obligations one to another; and
worshipped at the same altar. This was true of the first and succeeding
centuries, when the relations of master and slave, and the practice of
the Church in reference thereto, were very much like they are in the
Southern States of our Union at present. But to the proof that
slaveholders were admitted into the apostolic Churches:

1. Historians all agree that slavery existed, and was general throughout
the Roman empire, at the time the apostolic Churches were instituted. We
have at our command the authorities to prove this, but to quote from
them would swell this discourse beyond what we have intended. We will
cite the authorities only; and anti-slavery men who deny our position
can examine our authorities. See Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire," vol. i. See "Inquiry into Roman Slavery, by Wm. Blair,"
Edinburgh edition of 1833. See vol. iv. of "Lardner's Works," page 213.
See vol. i. of "Dr. Robertson's Works," London edition. Other
authorities might be given, but these are sufficient, as they show that
slavery was a civil institution of the State; that the Roman laws
regarded slaves as _property_, at the disposal of their masters; that
these slaves, whether white or , had no civil existence or
rights, and contended for none; and that there were _three slaves to one
citizen_--showing something of a similarity between the Roman empire and
our Southern States! Gibbon says that slavery existed in "every province
and every family," and that they were bought and sold according to their
capacities for usefulness, and the demand for laborers--selling at
hundreds of dollars, and from that down to the price of a beast of
burden! Now, it is notorious that the gospel made considerable progress
among the citizens of the Roman empire; and, as nearly every family
owned slaves, it is certain that slaveholders were converted and
admitted into the Church. It will not do to say that the poor, including
the slaves, were alone converted to God, because the apostles make
frequent allusions to the receiving into the Church of intelligent,
learned, and opulent persons. The learned DR. MOSHEIM, in his Church
History, vol. i., relating to the _first three centuries_, settles this
question most effectually. He says:

     "The apostles, in their writings, prescribe rules for the
     conduct of the rich as well as the poor, for _masters_ as well
     as _servants_--a convincing proof that among the members of the
     Church planted by them were to be found persons of opulence
     and masters of families. St. Paul and St. Peter admonished
     Christian women not to study the adorning of themselves with
     pearls, with gold and silver, or costly array. 1 Tim. ii. 9: 1
     Peter iii. 3. It is, therefore, plain that there must have been
     women possessed of wealth adequate to the purchase of bodily
     ornaments of great price. From 1 Tim. vi. 20, and Col. ii. 8,
     it is manifest that among the first converts to Christianity
     there were men of learning and philosophers; for, if the wise
     and the learned had unanimously rejected the Christian
     religion, what occasion could there have been for this caution?
     1 Cor. i. 26 unquestionably carries with it the plainest
     intimation that persons of rank or power were not wholly
     wanting in that assembly. Indeed, lists of the names of various
     illustrious persons who embraced Christianity, in its weak and
     infantile state, are given by Blondel, p. 235 de Episcopis et
     Presbyteris: also by Wetstein, in his Preface to Origen's Dia.
     Con. Mar., p. 13."

A few reflections, by way of concluding, and we are through with our
discourse, already extended beyond the limits we had prescribed:

_First._--There is not a single passage in the New Testament, nor a
single act in the records of the Church, during her early history, for
even centuries, containing any direct, professed, or intended
denunciation of slavery. But the apostles found the institution
existing, under the authority and sanction of law; and, in their labors
among the people, masters and slaves bowed at the same altar, communed
at the some table, and were taken into the Church together; while they
exhorted the one to treat the other as became the gospel, and the other
to obedience and honesty, that their religious professions might not be
evil spoken of!

_Secondly._--The early Church not only admitted the existence of
slavery, but in various ways, by her teachings and discipline, expressed
her approbation of it, enforcing the observance of certain Fugitive
Slave Laws which had been enacted by the State. And, in the various acts
of the Church, from the times of the apostles downward through several
centuries, she enacted laws and adopted regulations touching the duties
of masters and slaves, _as such_. This, in our humble judgment, amounts
to a justification and defence of the institution of slavery.

_Thirdly._--Our investigations of this subject have led us regularly,
gradually, certainly, to the conclusion that God intended the relation
of master and slave to exist. Hence, when God opened the way for the
organization of the Church, the apostles and first teachers of
Christianity found slavery _incorporated with every department of
society_; and, in the adoption of rules for the government of the
members of the Church, they provided for the rights of owners, and the
wants of slaves.

_Fourthly._--Slavery, in the age of the apostles, had so penetrated
society, and was so intimately interwoven with it, that a religion
preaching freedom to the slave would have arrayed against it the civil
authorities, armed against itself the whole power of the State, and
destroyed the usefulness of its preachers. St. Paul knew this, and did
not assail the institution of slavery, but labored to get both masters
and slaves to heaven, as all ministers should do in our day.

_Fifthly._--Slavery having existed ever since the first organization of
the Church, the Scriptures clearly teach that it will exist even to the
end of time. Rev. vi. 12-17 points to "The Day of Judgment," "The Last
Day," "The Great Day," and the condition of the human race at that time,
as well as the classes of persons to be judged, rewarded, and punished!
A portion of this text reads, "And the kings of the earth, and the great
men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and
every BONDMAN, and every FREEMAN," etc., will be there; evidently
implying that slavery will exist, and that the relations of master and
slave will be recognized, to the end of time!





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Americanism Contrasted with
Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy in the Light of Reason, History, and Scripture;, by William Gannaway Brownlow

*** 