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."

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.

[Pg 3]

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,[Pg 4] 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.

[Pg 5]

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[Pg 6] 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[Pg 7] 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[Pg 8] 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.

[Pg 9]

AMERICANISM CONTRASTED

WITH

Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

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:

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[Pg 10] 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[Pg 11] 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.

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:

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:

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:

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 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:—

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 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:

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:

[Pg 17]

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 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:

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[Pg 18] 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:

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;[Pg 19] 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:

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[Pg 20] 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 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[Pg 21] 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:

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:

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:

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 NEGROES! 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 negro wenches of Shelby, Davidson, Fayette,[Pg 23] 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 Negro 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 negroes 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:

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:

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:

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!

[Pg 25]

[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[Pg 26] 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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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,[Pg 28] 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:

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

Here is what the Boston Pilot says, a Catholic paper of high standing:

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

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

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[Pg 29] 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:

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:

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[Pg 30] 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:

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:

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[Pg 31] 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 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[Pg 32] 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[Pg 33] 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:

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[Pg 34] 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[Pg 35] 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![Pg 36]

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.

[Pg 37]

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[Pg 38] 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:

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

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.[Pg 39]

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[Pg 40] 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[Pg 41] 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,

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[Pg 42] 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:

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,[Pg 43] 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:

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:

[Pg 44]

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[Pg 45] 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:

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:[Pg 46]

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:

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:

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:

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

Again:

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[Pg 48] 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![Pg 49]

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:

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.

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:

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

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?[Pg 53] 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:

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:

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:

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.[Pg 54] 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[Pg 55] 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:

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[Pg 57] 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:

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:

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[Pg 58] 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:

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:

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[Pg 59] 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 Papists—black, brown, sorrel, and tawny—under the guise of acquiring Cuba for the South: let them bring eight hundred thousand French and English Papists, under the name of acquiring Canada for the North: let them bring two millions of Mexican Papists—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 Papists 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:

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[Pg 60] 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."[Pg 61]

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:

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[Pg 62] 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:

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[Pg 63] 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.

[Pg 64]

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 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.:

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 reëlected 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 negroes, 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 negro! 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,[Pg 67] 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[Pg 68] 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,[Pg 69] 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[Pg 70] 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.

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[Pg 71] 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 negro-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[Pg 72] 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[Pg 73] 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:

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.

It will be seen, that while Johnson was uttering his[Pg 74] 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:

"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!

[Pg 75]

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[Pg 76] 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!

[Pg 77]

[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.

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[Pg 78] 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[Pg 79] 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[Pg 80] 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!

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[Pg 81] 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.

[Pg 82]

[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."[Pg 83]

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[Pg 84] 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![Pg 85] 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.

[Pg 86]

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.

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:

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[Pg 87] 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.[Pg 88]

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[Pg 89] 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.

[Pg 90]

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION—No. 2.

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:

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[Pg 91] 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:

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:

[Pg 92]

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:

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

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

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

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

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!

[Pg 94]

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION—No. 3.

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:

Let us then look to his pages for an exposition of the doctrines of his Church. In the January number for 1853, he says:[Pg 95]

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:

In the same number, page 301, he says:

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[Pg 96] 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:

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:

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:

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

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:

In the same number, Brownson continues:

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[Pg 98] 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:

[Pg 99]

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION—No. 4.

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[Pg 100] the new Government of Texas, and he gave reasons against it, which are exactly applicable to this Rivas-Walker affair:

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:

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[Pg 101] 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:

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:

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:

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:

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

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.

[Pg 103]

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION—No. 5.

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:

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

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:

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:

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

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, reëstablishing 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[Pg 105] 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:

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

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

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:

But our Democratic anti-Know Nothings not only object to our having formerly kept our ritual concealed, but especially to our[Pg 106] 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:

But again:

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.

[Pg 107]

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION—No. 6.

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?[Pg 108]

OATH OF THE BISHOPS.

OATH OF THE PRIESTS.

OATH OF THE JESUITS

OATH OF THE SAN FEDISTI.

[Pg 110]

OATH OF THE IRISH RIBBON-MEN.

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

THE ROMISH CURSE.

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!

[Pg 112]

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:

"Yours respectfully,

"THOS. A. R. NELSON."

[Pg 121]

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[Pg 122] 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:

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:

[Pg 123]

—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.

[Pg 124]

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:

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:

[Pg 126]

RECAPITULATION.

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:

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:

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[Pg 127] our country in former days, if they were not called by that name! Here are the words and sentiments of these "dark-lantern patriots:"

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:

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.

[Vol. IV., p. 423.]

TO THE SAME.

"Middlebrook, June 1, 1777.

"G. Washington."

[Vol. IV., p. 446.]

TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, ESQ.

"White Plains, July 24, 1778.

"I am most sincerely yours,

"G. Washington."

[Vol. VI., p. 13.]

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

"Philadelphia, Nov. 27, 1794.

"G. Washington."

[Vol. XI., p. 1.]

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

"Mount Vernon, Jan. 20, 1799.

"I am, &c.,

"G. Washington."

[Vol. XI., p. 392.]

SAME DATE, TO A FOREIGNER APPLYING FOR OFFICE.

"G. Washington."

[Vol. XI., p. 392.]

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

"War Department, Feb. 4, 1799.

[Pg 131]

[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.[Pg 132] 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:

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[Pg 133] 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.:

[Pg 134]

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:

After the defeat of Mr. Clay, in 1844, Mr. Fillmore addressed him this noble American letter:

"Buffalo, Nov. 14, 1844.

"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.

"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 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:

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—

Philadelphia, Feb. 26th, 1856.

To the Hon. Millard Fillmore:

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

Committee, &c.
[Pg 138]

Paris, May 21st, 1856.

I am, with profound respect and esteem,

Your friend and fellow-citizen,

MILLARD FILLMORE.

[Pg 140]

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:

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.[Pg 143] 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:

"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.

"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:

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:

"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.

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.

"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!

[Pg 146]

[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,[Pg 147] 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[Pg 148] 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-colored 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[Pg 149] 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:

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:

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

So—

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,[Pg 150] "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:

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.

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.

The Lancaster Register then pursues its criticism as follows:

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:

"James Hopkins,
Wm. Jenkins,
JAMES BUCHANAN."

WALTER FRANKLIN, Ch'n.

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.

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,[Pg 154] 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:

And then again:

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:

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:

After thus disposing of the slavery issue, Mr. Irving thus turns to the Tariff Question:

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:

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:

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[Pg 160] 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[Pg 161] 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:

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[Pg 162] 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[Pg 163] 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.

[Pg 164]

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:

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[Pg 165] 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:—

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[Pg 166] 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 reöpening 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:

[Pg 167]

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:

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 nigger 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[Pg 168] 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;[Pg 169] 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 Æsop'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[Pg 170] 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[Pg 171] 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 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 cripple 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 was pleasing to Mr. Calhoun and the dominant party in the Senate, and his decision which tolerated it never was questioned[Pg 172] 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.

[Pg 173]

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[Pg 174] 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.

[Pg 175]

MIDDLE TENNESSEE.

WEST TENNESSEE.

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.

FOR THE DISTRICTS.

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[Pg 177] 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!

[Pg 178]

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.

"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,[Pg 179] 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:

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:

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[Pg 181] 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!

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![Pg 182]

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.]

[Pg 183]

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:

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.

[Pg 184]

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. [**hand pointing right ==>]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.[Pg 185] 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![Pg 186]

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:

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[Pg 187] 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."[Pg 188]

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[Pg 189] 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,[Pg 190] 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[Pg 191] 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!

[Pg 192]

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[Pg 193] 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.

"John Blair."

"Paris, Tenn., June 6th, 1856.

"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, 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.

[Pg 195]

A SERMON ON SLAVERY.

W. G. Brownlow.

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[Pg 196] 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 Phœnicia 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[Pg 197] 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.

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[Pg 198] 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[Pg 199] 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[Pg 200] 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 negroes, 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 negroes 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 negro 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 negroes 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[Pg 201] 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[Pg 202] "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:

We have gone among the free negroes 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 negroes 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 negroes in even the Northern States, is, in all respects, only an empty name. The citizen negro 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 negroes of the North, by citizens full of sympathy for the down-trodden African! The negro 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 negroes 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 COLORED 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 negro! While, in the South, they crowd the galleries and back seats in our churches,[Pg 203] 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 negroes 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:

[Pg 204]

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:

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:

[Pg 205]

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:

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:

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[Pg 206] 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 colored, 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:

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[Pg 208] 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!