Section 5, Article II. of the Constitution says: "No person, except a

Produced by Bryan Ness, Josephine Paolucci and the Online

Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This

book was produced from scanned images of public domain

material from the Google Print project.)

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

AMERICANISM CONTRASTED

WITH

Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy,

IN THE LIGHT OF

REASON, HISTORY, AND SCRIPTURE;

IN WHICH

CERTAIN DEMAGOGUES IN TENNESSEE, AND ELSEWHERE, ARE SHOWN UP IN THEIR

TRUE COLORS.

BY

WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW,

EDITOR OF "BROWNLOW'S KNOXVILLE WHIG."

"----Go to your bloody rites again:

Preach--perpetuate damnation in your den;

Then let your altars, ye blasphemers, peal

With thanks to Heaven, that let you loose again,

To practice deeds with torturing fire and steel,

No eye may search, no tongue may challenge or reveal!"

THOMAS CAMPBELL.

Nashville, Tenn.:

PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR.

1856.

ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by

WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW,

In the Clerk's office of the District Court for the Middle District of

Tennessee.

Dedication.

TO THE YOUNG MEN OF AMERICA.

YOUNG GENTLEMEN:--Almighty God has conferred on you the peculiar honor

and the eminent responsibility of preserving and perpetuating the

liberties of this country, both civil and religious. That the American

people are on the eve of an eventful period, will not be doubted by any

sane man, who can discern the "signs of the times." Indeed, it is an

every-day remark, that, as a nation, we are in the midst of a crisis.

If, however, a crisis ever did exist in the affairs of this Nation,

since its independence was first achieved, which called upon the NATIVE

AND LEGAL VOTERS of the country to watch with sleepless vigilance over

their blood-bought liberties, that crisis must be dated in the year of

our Lord, ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SIX! The great

Commonwealth of Humanity, in behalf of the momentous interests of Truth,

Liberty, and Religion, calls upon the present generation of YOUNG MEN,

who will have the issues of a coming revolution to meet, to qualify

themselves for the task.

There never was a time known, since the dark days of the Revolution,

when the civil and religious liberties of this country were so much

endangered as at the present time. This danger we are threatened with

from _Foreign influence_, and the rapid strides of _Romanism_, to which

we may add _Native treachery_, connived at, as they are, by certain

leading demagogues of the country, and a powerful and influential

political party, falsely called _Democrats_, who seek the Foreign and

Catholic vote, and are willing to obtain it at the expense of Liberty,

and the sacrifice of the Protestant Religion!

The great criminal of the nineteenth century, the PAPAL HIERARCHY, is

now on trial before the bar of public opinion, having been arraigned by

the AMERICAN PARTY. You are called on to decide, YOUNG MEN, as you wield

the balance of power, whether this Criminal, arraigned for treason

against God, and hostility to the human race, deserves the execrations

of all honest and patriotic men, and avenging judgments of a righteous

God! In order to decide this grave question, YOUNG _Gentlemen of the

Nineteenth Century_, you are to consider the inevitable tendency of the

principles of the Church of Rome--the actual results of these tendencies

as embodied in history--the indictment brought in by the AMERICAN PARTY,

and the testimony of the witnesses. When you have intelligently

considered the part the self-styled _Democratic Party_ has acted in this

infamous drama, you will feel it to be your duty to indict the

corporation claiming the right to be called the Great Democratic Party,

as _accessory_ to the treason, crimes, and infamy, of the aforesaid

Papal Hierarchy!

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

inscribed by

THE AUTHOR.

PREFACE.

For the last twenty-five years, the writer of this work has employed

much of his time in the reading and study of the controversy between

Roman Catholics and Protestants. And those who have been subscribers to

the paper he has edited and published for the LAST SEVENTEEN YEARS, will

bear him witness that he has kept up a fierce and unceasing fire against

that dangerous and immoral _Corporation_, claiming the right to be

called the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. This he has done, and still continues

to do, because he believes firmly that the system of Popery, as taught

in the standards of the Church of Rome, as enforced by her Bishops and

Priests, and as believed and practised by the great body of Romanists,

both in Europe and America, is at war with the true religion taught in

the Bible, and is injurious to the public and private morals of the

civilized world; and, if unchecked, will overturn the civil and

religious liberties of the United States. Such, he believes, is its

tendency and the design of its leaders.

Popery is deceitful in its character; and the design of this brief work

is, in part, to drag it forward into the light of the middle of the

nineteenth century, to strip the flimsy vizor off its face, and to bring

it, with all its abuses, corruptions, and hypocritical Protestant

advocates, before the bar of enlightened public opinion, for judgment in

the case. Roman Catholics misrepresent their own creed, their Church,

and its corrupt institutions. The most revolting, wicked, and immoral

features of their _holy and immutable system_, are kept out of sight by

its corrupt Clergy, and Jesuitical teachers; while, with a purpose to

_deceive_, a _Protestant sense_ is attached to most of their doctrines

and peculiarities. By this vile means, they designedly _misrepresent

themselves_, and impose on the public, by inducing charitable and

uninformed persons to believe that they are not as profligate as they

are represented to be. This game has been played with a bold hand in

_Knoxville_, for the last twelve months, and it is being played in every

city and town in the South and West, where Romanism is being planted.

One object, then, of this _epitomized_ work, setting forth the

boastings, threats, and disclosures of leading Catholic organs and

Bishops, as to their real principles and designs upon this country,

suffered to go forth in their more excited moments, or unguarded hours,

is, to spread before the people, in a cheap form, true Popery, and to

strip it of its _Protestant garb_, which it has for the time being

assumed.

An additional reason for bringing out this publication, at this

particular time, is, to expose a corrupt bargain entered into by the

leaders of the Catholic Church, and the leaders of a corrupt and

designing political party, falsely called the Democratic party. One of

the most alarming "signs of the times" is, that while Protestant

ministers, of different persuasions, only two brief years ago, could

preach with power and eloquence against the dogmas and corrupting

tendencies of _Romanism_, and pass out of the doors of their churches,

receiving the compliments and extravagant praises of their entire

congregations, let one of them now dare to hold up this Corporation as a

dangerous foreign enemy--let him warn his charge against the influence

of Popery, or but only designate the Catholic Hierarchy as the "man of

sin" described in the Scriptures, and one half of his congregation are

grossly insulted: they charge him with meddling in politics; and, by way

of resentment, they will either not hear him again, or they will starve

him out, by refusing to contribute to his support!

The hypocritical and profligate portion of the Methodist, Presbyterian,

Baptist, and Episcopal membership in this country, are not so much

misled by Popery, as they are influenced by _party politics_, and are in

love with the _loose moral code_ of Romanism. It lays no restraints on

their lusts, and gives a loose rein to all their unsanctified passions

and desires. Backslidden, unconverted, or unprincipled members of

Protestant Churches, find in Popery a _sympathizing irreligion_, adapted

to their vicious lives; and hence they fall in with its disgusting

superstitions and insulting claims. They are, therefore, ensnared with

the delusions of Popery, of _choice_. In other words, Popery is a

system of mere human policy; altogether of Foreign origin; Foreign in

its support; importing Foreign vassals and paupers by multiplied

thousands; and sending into every State and Territory in this Union, a

most baneful Foreign and anti-Republican influence. Its old _goutified_,

immoral, and drunken Pope, his Bishops and Priests, are _politicians_;

men of the world, earthly, sensual, and devilish, and mere men of

pleasure. Associated with them for the purpose, in great State and

National contests, of securing the Catholic vote, are the worst class of

American politicians, designing demagogues, selfish office-seekers, and

bad men, calling themselves _Democrats_ and "Old-Line Whigs!" These

politicians know that Popery, as a system, is in the hands of a Foreign

despotism, precisely what the Koran is in the hands of the Grand Turk

and his partisans. But corrupt and ambitious politicians in this

country, are willing to act the part of traitors to our laws and

Constitution, for the sake of profitable offices; and they are willing

to sacrifice the Protestant Religion, on the ancient and profligate

altar at Rome, if they may but rise to distinction on its ruins!

The great Democratic party of this country, which has degenerated into a

_Semi-Papal Organization_, for the base purposes of power and plunder,

now fully partakes of the intolerant spirit of Rome, and is acting it

out in all the departments of our State and General Governments. What

Romanism has been to the Old World, this Papal and Anti-American

organization seeks and promises to be to this country. What is Popery in

Roman Catholic Europe? It is as intolerant in politics as in religion:

it taxes and oppresses the subjects and citizens of every country; it

interdicts nations; dethrones governors, chief magistrates, and kings;

dissolves civil governments; suspends commerce; annuls civil laws; and,

to gratify its unsanctified lust of ambition, it has overrun whole

nations with bloodshed, and thrown them into confusion. So it is with

this "_Bogus_" Democracy: it wages a war of extermination against the

freedom of the press, and against the liberty of speech, the rights of

human conscience, and the liberties of man: hence its indiscriminate

proscription of all who dare to unite with the AMERICAN PARTY, or openly

espouse their cause. Popery aims at universal power over the bodies and

souls of all men; and history proclaims that its weapons have been

dungeons, racks, chains, fire, and sword! The _bastard_ Democracy of the

present age has united with the Prelates, Priests, Monks, and Nuns of

Romanism, and is daily affiliating with hundreds of thousands of the

very off-scourings of the European Catholic population--stimulating them

to deeds of violence, and to the shedding of blood! To-day, they sustain

a _Baker_ in the foul murder of a _Poole_, in New York, because he was a

member of the so-called Know-Nothing party, which had just routed, in an

election, this Foreign Locofoco party! To-morrow, we find this same vile

party, its editors and orators, sustaining a Foreign Catholic Mob in

Louisville, Ky.; and the members of the same party, in surrounding

States, exulting over the murder of Protestant Americans! And in the

next breath, as it were, we find these sons of Belial, falsely called

_Democrats_, after reaching the power they lusted after in Philadelphia,

sending up shouts over the lawless deeds of a Foreign Catholic riot,

which made the ears of every American citizen to tingle!

Under the guidance of an ALL-WISE PROVIDENCE, the Protector of our

Republic, and of the Protestant Religion, it is in the power of the free

and independent voters of these United States to cause this enemy's long

"_arm to be clean dried up, and his right eye to be utterly darkened_,"

by elevating to the two first offices within the gift of the world,

MILLARD FILLMORE and ANDREW J. DONELSON!

I am, candid Reader, your fellow-citizen,

W. G. BROWNLOW.

KNOXVILLE, July, 1856.

AMERICANISM CONTRASTED

WITH

Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

The Creed of the American Party--The Platform misrepresented by

Mr. Watkins--Official Vote on the adoption of the new

Platform--What the Abolitionists and Democrats say of the

Platform--Seceders from the Nominating Convention, and their

Address.

Lord Byron, just as the war of Greece approached, said: "It is not one

man, nor a million, but the _spirit of liberty_ which must be spread;"

and, carrying out the same bold idea of liberty, he continues, "It is

time to act;" or, in the language of the Know Nothing salutation, "It is

time for work;" for "what signifies _self_, if a single spark of that

genius of liberty worthy of the past, can be bequeathed unquenchably to

the future?" In the language of a fair poetess:

--"Our country is a whole,

Of which we all are parts; nor should a citizen

Regard his interests as distinct from hers:

No hopes or fears should touch his patriot soul,

But what affects her honor or her shame."

The civilization--the nationality--the institutions, civil and

religious--and the mission of the United States, are all eminently

American. Mental light and personal independence, constitutional union,

national supremacy, submission to law and rules of order, homogeneous

population, and instinctive patriotism, are all vital elements of

American liberty, nationality, and upward and onward progress. Foreign

immigration, foreign Catholic influence, and sectional factions

nourished by them--and breeding demagogues in the name of _Democracy_,

by a prostitution of the elective franchise--have already corrupted our

nationality, degraded our councils, both State and National, weakened

the bonds of union, disturbed our country's peace, and awakened

apprehensions of insecurity and _progressive deterioration_, threatening

ultimate ruin! To rescue and restore American institutions--to maintain

American nationality, and to secure American birthrights, is the mission

and the sole purpose of the AMERICAN PARTY--composed of conservative,

patriotic, Protestant, Union-loving, native-born citizens of every

section, and of every Christian denomination--self-sacrificing patriots,

who prefer their country, and the religion of their fathers, and of the

Bible, to a factious name, a plundering political organization, and an

infamous Papal hierarchy!

The paramount and ultimate object of our AMERICAN ORGANIZATION is to

save and exalt the Union, and to preserve and perpetuate the rights and

blessings of the Protestant religion. We contend that American

principles should mould American policy; that American mind should rule

American destiny; that all sectional parties, such as a party _North_,

or a party _South_, should be renounced; that all sectional agitations,

such as are kept up by Abolitionists, Free Soilers, and Black

Republicans, should be resisted; that Congress should never agitate the

subject of domestic slavery, in any form or for any purpose, but leave

it where the Constitution fixes it; that as the destiny of the country

depends on the mind of the country, intelligence should rule; that the

ballot-box should be purified, and corrupt Romanism and foreign

influence checked; that any allegiance "to any foreign prince,

potentate, or power"--to any power, regal or pontifical, should be

rebuked as the most fatal canker of the germ of American independence;

that every citizen should be encouraged to exercise freely his own

conscience; and that the popular mind should be enlightened, and the

popular heart rectified, by proper and universal Christian education.

This is the essence of the American creed; and when methodized into a

Political Decalogue, it constitutes the _Ten Commandments_ of the

American party.

In this connection, and at this point, we will give the much-abused

Platform of the American party, adopted at the session of the National

Council, February 21, 1856. Examine the Platform, and answer to your

conscience the question: What true American head can disapprove--what

pure American heart can revolt? Can men taking their stand on this

Platform be the enemies of civil and religious liberties? Can either

civil or religious liberties rest secure on any other grounds? And must

not those "Bogus" Democrats and Anti-Americans, therefore, who wage war

against this citadel of American birthrights, act as enemies to the

Federal Constitution, enemies to the Union, to the mental independence

of American citizens--enemies to the Protestant religion, and enemies,

consequently, "to civil and religious liberty?"

PLATFORM OF THE AMERICAN PARTY.

1st. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being for his

protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful

Revolutionary struggle, and hitherto manifested to us, their

descendants, in the preservation of the liberties, the

independence, and the union of these States.

2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of

our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of

American Independence.

3d. _Americans must rule America_, and to this end,

_native_-born citizens should be selected for all State,

Federal, and municipal offices, or government employment, in

preference to all others: nevertheless,

4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily

abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born

citizens; but,

5th. No person should be selected for political station,

(whether of native or foreign birth,) who recognizes any

allegiance or obligation of any description, to any foreign

prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the

Federal and State constitutions (each within its sphere) as

paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

6th. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the

reserved rights of the several States, and the cultivation of

harmony and fraternal good-will between the citizens of the

several States; and to this end, non-interference by Congress

with questions appertaining solely to the individual States,

and non-intervention by each State with the affairs of any

other State.

7th. The recognition of the right of the native-born and

naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing

in any Territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws,

and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own

mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal

Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union

whenever they have the requisite population for one

Representative in Congress. _Provided always_, that none but

those who are citizens of the United States, under the

constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence

in any such Territory, ought to participate in the formation of

the constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said

Territory or State.

8th. An enforcement of the principle that no State or Territory

ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the

right of suffrage, or of holding political office.

9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued

residence of twenty-one years, of all not hereinbefore provided

for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and

excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from

landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested

rights of foreigners.

10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State: no

interference with religious faith or worship, and no test-oaths

for office.

11th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged

abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public

expenditures.

12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws

constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or

shall be declared null and void by competent judicial

authority.

13th. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the

present administration in the general management of our

national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing

"Americans" (by designation) and conservatives in principle,

from office, and placing foreigners and ultraists in their

places: as shown in a truckling subserviency to the stronger,

and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward the weaker powers:

as shown in reöpening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the

Missouri Compromise: as shown in granting to unnaturalized

foreigners the right of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska: as

shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas and Nebraska

question: as shown in the corruptions which pervade some of the

departments of the government: as shown in disgracing

meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice; and as

shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations.

14th. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the

disastrous consequences otherwise resulting therefrom, we would

build up the "American party" upon the principles hereinbefore

stated.

15th. That each State Council shall have authority to amend

their several constitutions, so as to abolish the several

degrees, and institute a pledge of honor, instead of other

obligations, for fellowship and admission into the party.

16th. A free and open discussion of all political principles

embraced in our platform.

The HON. MR. WATKINS, a renegade from the American ranks, in East

Tennessee, delivered a speech in Congress on the 6th of May, 1856; which

speech we find reported in the _Washington Union_--a speech which

betrays an utter ignorance of the point he undertook to discuss. It is

due to _his betrayed constituents_ that we should expose his ignorance,

and the blundering fallacy of his attempts to justify his turning

_Locofoco Cataline Judas Sag-Nicht_! He says, as reported by his

political organ-grinder:

"But, sir, the platform recently adopted by the Philadelphia

Convention cannot receive my approbation. I cannot support Mr.

Fillmore, or any other distinguished Whig, upon that platform.

The only solitary plank in the Philadelphia platform of June,

1855, was the twelfth section--that section which denied to

Congress the right to interfere with slavery in the

Territories, declaring the doctrine of non-intervention, and of

popular sovereignty in the Territories. But, sir, that plank in

the platform was stricken out by the convention recently held,

and the sixth resolution of the platform then adopted

substituted in its place. And what does that resolution

endorse? Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution

of the Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right

of Congress to interfere upon the subject of slavery in the

sixth resolution of the Philadelphia platform? Certainly not."

In lieu of the _June_ platform, we have this _February_ platform. The

June platform contained _no such denial to Congress_, as is here alleged

by Mr. Watkins, of the right to interfere with slavery in the

Territories! And it is marvellous, indeed, that a grave Member of

Congress should undertake to discuss Platforms, which he had either

never read, or the purport of which, if he had ever read them, he had

either wholly forgotten, or lacked the sense to comprehend! The twelfth

section of the June Platform says:

"And expressly _pretermitting any expression of opinion_ upon

the power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any

Territory, it is the sense of this National Council, that

Congress OUGHT NOT to legislate upon the subject of slavery

within the Territories of the United States."

Thus, instead of _denying_ to Congress the right to interfere with

slavery in the Territories, as erroneously and recklessly charged by

this new-born Democrat, all opinion on that subject was "_expressly

pretermitted_" in the June Platform! Mr. Watkins was in such a hurry to

join the Forney, Pierce, and Catholic Democracy, that he did not stop to

examine even the Platform which most disgusted him! But this is not the

worst blunder which he committed in that speech. He turned to the new

Platform, and asked, with an air of triumph:

"Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution of the

(new) Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right

of Congress to interfere with the subject of slavery in the

sixth resolution of the (new) Philadelphia platform?"

And he answers, "_Certainly not!_" The ignorant man, it would seem, only

read as far as to the sixth section of the new Platform; and even _that_

section contains a direct affirmative answer to his question; which, in

order to place the American party in a false position, he answers,

"_Certainly not!_"

Now, we ask such as may have noticed his _misrepresentations_, to read a

_little further on_, at least to the end of the 7th section of this new

Platform, and see where it leaves Mr. Watkins! Turn back to the 7th

section, and it will be seen that this section, instead of

"_pretermitting any opinion_" on the question, announces the doctrine

that the citizens of the United States permanently residing in the

Territories, have a "_right_" to frame their Constitution and laws, and

to regulate their domestic affairs in their own mode, subject only to

the provisions of the Federal Constitution!

The _New York Evening Post_, a Pierce and foreign Democratic organ, thus

alludes to the action of the Convention which nominated FILLMORE and

DONELSON:--

"The 12th section of the June Platform, it is true, had been

abrogated; BUT IT HAD BEEN REPLACED BY ANOTHER, MEANING

PRECISELY THE SAME THING!"

The _Cincinnati Gazette_, an Abolition, Anti-American Foreign sheet,

came out in opposition to the American nominees, in its issue of Feb.

29th, 1856, on account of the _Pro-slavery_ character of the new

Platform. The Gazette says:--

"We are glad that the action of the Convention _proved so

decided as to leave no doubt as to the character of the

Platform_. THE LATTER IS CLEARLY AND DECIDEDLY PRO-SLAVERY AND

NEBRASKA, _and in this respect corresponds precisely with the_

PRINCIPLES OF THE PIERCE DEMOCRACY! _Fillmore and Donelson_ are

therefore presented to the American people as candidates for

the Presidency and Vice Presidency, ON A THOROUGH AND DECIDED

NEBRASKA PRO-SLAVERY PLATFORM, and the citizens of Northern

States are asked to vote for them!"

The _New York Tribune_, whose editor was a prominent member of the

Pittsburgh Black Republican Convention, and who is violent in his

opposition to FILLMORE and DONELSON, says:

"The object of the Know Nothings has dwindled down to this--TO

DEFEAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! That is to say, this is the object

of those who have managed the Philadelphia Convention, and

nominated Mr. Fillmore. I have diligently inquired for a member

who voted for _Banks_ for Speaker, and now supports _Fillmore_;

but up to this time--more than three days after the

nomination--I have not heard of one. That sort must be scarce!"

The following is the OFFICIAL vote on the adoption of the new Platform

by the National Council, which met four days previous to the Nominating

Convention:

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

MASSACHUSETTS--_Yeas_--Messrs. Ely, Weith, Brewster, Robinson,

and Arnold. _Nays_--Messrs. Richmond, Wheelwright, Temple,

Thurston, Sumner, Allen, Sawin, and Hawkes.

CONNECTICUT--_Nays_--Messrs. Sperry, Dunbar, Peck, Booth,

Holley, and Perkins.

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

Simons and Nightingale.

NEW YORK--_Yeas_--Messrs. Walker, Oakley, Morgan, Woodward,

Reynolds, Chester, Owens, Sanders, Whiston, Nichols, Van Dusen,

Westbrook, Parsons, Picket, Campbell, Lowell, Sammons, Oakes,

Seymour, Squire, Cooper, Burr, Bennett, Marvine, Midler,

Stephens, Johnson, Wetmore, Hammond, and S. Seymour. _Nay_--Mr.

Barker.

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

MARYLAND--_Yeas_--Messrs. Codet, Alexander, Winchester,

Stephens, and Wilmot. _Nays_--Messrs. Purnell, Ricaud, Pinkney,

and Kramer.

VIRGINIA--_Nays_--Messrs. Bolling, McHugh, Cochran, Boteler,

Preston, and Maupin.

FLORIDA--_Yea_--Mr. Call.

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

McClellan.

PENNSYLVANIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Freeman, Nelclede, Gossler,

Smith, Gillinham, Hammond, Wood, Gilford, Pyle, Farrand, and

Williamson. _Nays_--Messrs. Johnson, Sewell, Jones, Parker,

Heistand, Kase, Kinkaid, Coffee, Carlisle, Crovode, Edie,

Sewell, and Power.

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

Harman and Hardy.

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

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

TENNESSEE--_Yeas_--Messrs. Brownlow, Bankhead, Zollicoffer,

Burton, Campbell, Donelson, Harris, Bilbo, and Beloat.

_Nays_--Messrs. Nelson, Reedy, and Picket.

KENTUCKY--_Yeas_--Messrs. Stowers, Campbell, Raphael, Todd,

Clay, Goodloe, and Bartlett. _Nays_--Messrs. Shanklin, Jones,

Carpenter, Gist, and Underwood.

OHIO--_Yeas_--Messrs. White, Nash, Simpson, and Lippett.

_Nays_--Messrs. Gabriel, Olds, Ford, Barker, Potter, Stanbaugh,

Rodgers, Spooner, Hodges, Kyle, Lees, Swigart, Allison,

Fishback, Thomas, Corwine, Chapman, Ayres, and Johnson.

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

Meredith.

MISSOURI--_Yeas_--Messrs. Edward, Fletcher, and Hockaday.

_Nay_--Mr. Breckenridge.

MICHIGAN--_Yea_--Mr. Wood.

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

Gillies.

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

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

Jennings and Gear.

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

_Yeas_--108. _Nays_--77.

We will close this chapter by giving the delegates who seceded from the

Nominating Convention, with the Address published by them on the

occasion. That recession was a more inconsiderable affair than has been

represented by the foreign party of this country. The author of this

work was the Chairman of the large Committee on Credentials, and

reported TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SEVEN delegates, which report was

received without opposition, as to numbers. Of these, _forty-two_ only

seceded, viz.: 13 out of 28 from Ohio; _one_ of two from New Hampshire;

6--all--from Connecticut; 2 out of 13 from Massachusetts; _one_ out of 3

from Illinois; 7 out of 27 from Pennsylvania; _one_ out of 4 from Rhode

Island; 5--all--from Michigan; 5--all--from Wisconsin; _one_--all--from

Iowa; 42 out of 277--not a _sixth_, and but little over a _seventh_ of

the whole!

ADDRESS.

The seceders or "bolters" made the following address, to which they

appended their States and names. What they say of the _Louisiana_

delegates, we have explained in another portion of this work:

"The undersigned, delegates to the nominating Convention now in

session at Philadelphia, find themselves compelled to dissent

from the principles avowed by that body; and holding opinions,

as they do, that the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, as

demanded by a majority of the whole people, is a redress of an

undeniable wrong, and the execution of it, in spirit at least,

indispensable to the repose of the country, they have regarded

the refusal of that Convention to recognize the well-defined

opinion of the country, and of the Americans of the free

States, upon this question, as a denial of their rights and a

rebuke to their sentiments; and they hold that the admission

into the National Council and nominating Convention, of

delegates from Louisiana, representing a Roman Catholic

Constituency, absolved every true American from all obligations

to sustain the action of either of the said bodies.

"They have therefore withdrawn from the nominating Convention,

refusing to participate in the proposed nomination, and now

address themselves to the Americans of the country, and

especially of the States they represent, to justify and approve

of their action; and to the end that a nomination conforming to

the overruling sentiment of the country in the great issue may

be regularly and auspiciously made, the undersigned propose to

the Americans in all the States to assemble in their several

State organizations, and elect delegates to a Convention to

meet in the city of New York, on Thursday, the 12th day of June

next, for the purpose of nominating candidates for President

and Vice President of the United States."

OHIO--Thos. H. Ford, J. H. Baker, B. S. Kyle, W. H. C.

Mitchell, E. T. Sturtevant, O. T. Fishback, Jacob Ebbert, Wm.

B. Allison, H. C. Hodges, L. H. Olds, W. B. Chapman, Thos.

McYees, Charles Nichols.

NEW HAMPSHIRE--Anthony Colby.

CONNECTICUT--Lucius G. Peck, Jas. E. Dunham, Hezekiah Griswold,

Austin Baldwin, Edmund Perkins, David Booth.

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

ILLINOIS--Henry S. Jennings.

PENNSYLVANIA--Wm. F. Johnston, S. C. Kase, R. M. Riddle, T. J.

Coffey, John Williamson, J. Harrison, S. Ewell.

RHODE ISLAND--E. J. Nightingale.

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

Hamilton.

WISCONSIN--D. A. Gillis, John Lockwood, Robt. Chandler, G.

Burdick, C. W. Cook.

IOWA--L. H. Webster.

THE ELECTION OF BANKS--THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

One of the issues in the Presidential contest now going on, is the

_slavery question_. A. O. P. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, of the Washington

Union, who canvassed this State in opposition to Scott, and shed his

_crocodile_ tears before every crowd he addressed, because so good a man

as Fillmore, who had stood firm for the _rights of the South_, had been

set aside by an ungrateful Convention at Baltimore, to give place to

Scott, the favorite of _Seward_--this miserable hypocrite, we say, now

comes out and says, "Fillmore's abolitionism will suit the North."

The Central Democratic Committee for East Tennessee, in a call for a

District Convention at Clinton, in May last, through the _Knoxville

Standard_, conclude said call in this language:

"The time has again arrived when the national Democracy must

rally to their country's call and preserve the Constitution as

it is in its purity, and perpetuate the union of the States

from the rain which the _Black Republican Party of the North_,

aided by THEIR KNOW-NOTHING ALLIES OF THE SOUTH, would bring

upon them. By order of the

"CENTRAL COMMITTEE."

The _Sag-Nicht Convention_ held at Somerville, on Thursday the 8th of

May, and which selected D. M. Currin as their Electoral candidate,

adopted the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That we have been appointed by the Democracy of

this Electoral District to organize to fight, in the coming

Presidential election, the BLACK REPUBLICANS AND KNOW-NOTHINGS.

_Resolved_, That we _can_ beat them, and we _will_ do it.

_Resolved_, That we will cordially receive the _co-operation of

all Old-Line Whigs_ who will assist us in carrying out these

resolutions."

Now, the charge is here made that the Know-Nothings of the South are the

allies of the Black Republicans of the North. This is the impression

intended to be made, first by these _concealed calumniators_ at

Knoxville, and afterwards by the _open and avowed slanderers_ of the

same party at Somerville! With such _wholesale lying_ as is displayed in

both of these cases, we have but little patience: we only give their

language, to show their recklessness in making such an issue. And

although this Foreign party claim to be the guardians of Southern

interests, we propose to show, before we conclude this chapter, that

they are themselves the "allies of the Black Republicans of the North,"

and are giving them more "aid and comfort" than all the other parties in

the country!

FRANCIS P. BLAIR, former editor of Gen. Jackson's organ at Washington,

was the President of the Black Republican Convention at Pittsburg, in

February last! _John M. Niles_; Democratic Senator in Congress, was

President of the Black Republican Convention held in Connecticut! In the

Pittsburg Convention, over which Blair presided, PRESTON KING, ABIJAH

MANN, DAVID WILMOT, and JACOB BRINKERHOFF, Old-Line Democrats, figured

conspicuously.

For two long and cold winter months, the Democrats, both North and

South, voted for _Richardson_, of Illinois, for Speaker, a violent

_anti-slavery man_, whose speeches _against_ slavery, and in _favor_ of

Abolitionism, were matters of record in the Congressional Globe, and

were delivered on the floor of Congress so late as 1850! The _immortal_

75 Democrats did not cease to vote for this man _Richardson_, until GEN.

ZOLLICOFFER, of Tennessee, read his speeches upon him, in the presence

of his friends!

On the 2d of February, SAMUEL A. SMITH, of Tennessee, a Democratic

Representative in Congress, _renewed_ his motion to adopt the PLURALITY

RULE. His proposition, which it was evident would elect _Banks_, was

carried by Black Republican votes, who went for it in a body. This would

still not have elected _Banks_, but for the fact that the following

_Democrats_ voted for the odious plurality rule: _Clingman_, _Herbert_,

_Hickman_, _Jewett_, _Kelley_, _Barclay_, _Bayard_, _Wells_, _Williams_,

and SAMUEL A. SMITH! Mr. Clarke was the only American who voted for the

odious rule!

MR. CARLILE, a national American, of Virginia, before the vote was taken

upon this plurality rule, offered the following substitute for it:

"_Resolved_, That the HON. WM. AIKEN, a Representative from the

State of South Carolina, be, and he is hereby declared Speaker

of the Thirty-Fourth Congress."

GOV. AIKEN is a sound Southern Democrat--never was any thing else--but

COL. SMITH _objected_, and demanded the _previous question_, which cut

off MR. CARLILE'S resolution, and which was to prevent its adoption! The

candidate of the Democratic party, at that time, MR. ORR, immediately

_withdrew in favor of_ GOV. AIKEN, upon the introduction of MR.

CARLILE'S resolution; and to _prevent Aiken's election_, SAMUEL A. SMITH

cut off said resolution by a call of the previous question!

Banks was elected by _one_ vote, and this could not be accomplished

until SEVEN DEMOCRATS got _behind the bar_, and refused to vote at all!

These were HICKMAN, PARKER, and BARCLAY, of Pennsylvania; CRAIG, of

North Carolina; TAYLOR, of Louisiana; RICHARDSON, of Illinois; and

SEWARD, of Georgia! Any _two_ of these _Southern_ Democrats could have

made AIKEN Speaker, but they did not want him--they knew Banks to be a

_Democrat_, if he were a Black Republican--and to elect him, they

believed would give them the strength of that odious party in the coming

contest.

We have before us the _Washington Union_ of Sept. 27th, 1853, giving,

editorially, a glowing account of the Massachusetts Democratic State

Convention, reporting the speech of Nathaniel P. Banks, of Waltham,

concluding that report in these words:

"Mr. Banks emphatically and decidedly, on his own part, and on

that of the _Democrats of Massachusetts_, disclaimed the truth

of the rumors in certain newspapers that an arrangement had

been entered into with another political party in the

Commonwealth concerning the distribution of State offices. It

was his and this Convention's and all true Democrats' desire,

belief, and determination, that Henry W. Bishop should be

elected governor of Massachusetts, and that the other

Democratic State officers should also be elected. He was not

afraid of defeat, and less afraid of _Whig success_, which, to

judge by its recent effects, was simply equivalent to a defeat.

[Applause.]"

It may be said, and doubtless will be, that _Banks_ has allied himself

with the Republicans. But Banks says he has _always been a Democrat_,

and that he was _nominated as a Democrat in his district_. And certain

it is, that he was elected Speaker by DEMOCRATS, under the _compulsion_

of an odious plurality rule, and the _gag_ of the previous question!

It will be said, and said truthfully too, that SIX AMERICANS FROM THE

NORTH voted for MR. FULLER, of Pennsylvania. So they did; and in doing

so, they voted for a sound national and conservative man. But did this

justify _Southern_ Democrats in _dodging_ the question, and thereby

electing a Black Republican Speaker? Gov. Aiken was the candidate of the

_seven_ Democrats--he was not the candidate of the _six_ Americans!

Democracy, moreover, had refused to vote for an American under any

circumstances, and had, on the first day of the meeting of Congress,

passed a resolution insulting the whole American party, in caucus! We

would have seen them banished to the farthest verge of astronomical

imagination, before we would have voted for any man that favored that

insulting resolution!

In 1847, by a _unanimous vote_, both branches of the Legislature of New

Hampshire adopted resolutions denunciatory of the institution of

slavery, and approving of the Wilmot Proviso. These resolutions were

reported to the House, by the Representative from Hillsboro, the native

town of _Gen. Pierce_, and were in the _handwriting_ of Pierce!

On the 2d of October, 1847, the Democratic Soft-Shells, who are now the

supporters of Pierce's administration, and fill the offices he has to

dispose of in New York, held a State Convention, and declared their

"_uncompromising hostility to slavery_" in a string of resolutions they

adopted and ordered to be published.

On the 16th of February, 1848, a Democratic State Convention for New

York convened at Utica, to appoint Delegates to the National Convention

to nominate candidates for President and Vice President, at which a

string of anti-Southern resolutions were adopted, denouncing "_slavery_

or _involuntary servitude_," as repugnant to the genius of

Republicanism.

On the 18th of July, 1848, the Democratic Soft-Shells held a

mass-meeting in the park of New York, and, by way of making perfect

their organization against General Cass, declared, by resolutions, their

"_uncompromising hostility to slavery or involuntary servitude!_"

On the 13th of September, 1848, a Democratic mass-meeting convened at

Buffalo, in New York, and, in a general Abolition jubilee, adopted

resolutions condemning and denouncing the institution of slavery!

In 1852, while the contest was going on between Pierce and Scott, the

_Washington Union_ said, editorially:

"THE FREE-SOIL DEMOCRATIC LEADERS OF THE NORTH, ARE A REGULAR

PORTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY; AND GENERAL PIERCE, IF

ELECTED, WILL MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM AND THE REST OF

THE DEMOCRACY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICIAL PATRONAGE, AND IN

THE SELECTION OF AGENTS FOR ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT!"

The Black Republicans recently held a meeting in New York, at which

_Benjamin F. Butler_, of "pious memory," and Van Buren Swartwout

notoriety, presided! On his right hand sat, as Vice President of the

meeting, _Moses H. Grinnell_, one of the Democratic "pipe-layers" of

1840, whom this Van Buren Attorney-General Butler made efforts to send

to the State prison! Another Vice President, gravely looking on, and

arranged in dignified grandeur upon the stand, was John W. Edmonds,

ex-"blanket contractor" in a large swindle, and a practical

spiritual-rapper! A third and last Vice President was the notorious _Dr.

Townsend_, the sarsaparilla man, who has not yet wound up his

controversy with a man of the same name, as to who is the greatest

rascal in the way of manufacturing this medicine!

Among the other officers, secretaries, and prominent men in the meeting,

was _C. A. Dana_, of the Tribune office, a _Fourierist_, who, at a

public meeting on a former occasion, toasted "Horace Greeley, Charles

Fourier, and Jesus Christ!" Prominent in the meeting was _C. A.

Stetson_, of the Astor House, an _Amalgamationist_. Henry J. Raymond,

the Abolition editor of the Times, and _Rudolph Garrigue_, a noisy

German Abolitionist, looked and acted as though they believed the

salvation of the Union depended upon the success of the Republicans! A

fellow who made frequent motions, an Irishman by the name of _McMorrow_,

had served an apprenticeship of twelve months in the State prison, for

breaking open a store after night! The principal speaker, who spoke for

two hours on the subject of slavery, was the notorious _Bingham_, an

itinerant Abolitionist from Ohio. It was a queer medley of men, parties,

principles, and characters--two-thirds of all the active partisans in

the meeting having held offices in the ranks of Democracy! And still,

that party boasts of its Northern wing being sound upon the slavery

question.

And here is the resolution of the 8th of January _Democratic_ Convention

in Ohio, appointing delegates to the Cincinnati Pow-wow:

"_Resolved_, That the people of Ohio now, as they have always

done, look upon slavery as an evil, and unfavorable to the

development of the spirit and practical benefits of free

institutions; and that, entertaining these sentiments, they

will at all times feel it to be their duty to use all power

clearly given by the terms of the national compact, to prevent

its increase, to mitigate, _and finally eradicate the evil_."

To show, just here, where Tennessee Democrats stand upon the infamous

Wilmot Proviso question, we give the following extract from a recent

number of the _Nashville Patriot_:

JAMES K. POLK,

who, in 1847, approved the Oregon bill, which contained this

odious and unconstitutional clause: next in order is

CAVE JOHNSON,

now President of the Bank of Tennessee, who voted for the same

bill which Mr. Polk sanctioned: next we have

AARON V. BROWN,

an aspirant before the Cincinnati Convention, who did likewise:

then comes

JULIUS W. BLACKWELL,

a star whose light has been quenched in obscurity, but who

voted with his colleagues for the Oregon bill in '47: next in

the procession of Southern men "dangerous to the South" is

BARCLAY MARTIN,

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

following him we have

LUCIEN B. CHASE,

author of the History of the Polk Administration, at present a

resident of New York city, but at the time he exhibited himself

as "a dangerous man to the South," a representative in Congress

from this State: he is succeeded by

FRED. P. STANTON,

for ten years a Democratic Congressman from the Memphis

district: he voted for the Oregon bill, with the Wilmot

Proviso annexed: behind him in the march is

ALVAN CULLOM,

a Democratic Congressman, who has squatted on the _other_ side

of one of his native mountains in the fourth district, and been

quiescent for some years: he was one of the Tennessee

"dangerous men:" he voted twice for the Wilmot Proviso: in the

same category is

GEORGE W. JONES,

in the language of another, the "goose which cackles at the

door of the Treasury vault:" notorious as a Southern supporter

of the Squatter Sovereignty doctrine, with two votes on record

in favor of the Wilmot Proviso. He may be reckoned as _very_

"dangerous to the South:" last, but not least in this dread

array of "dangerous men," is

ANDREW JOHNSON,

the present Governor of Tennessee, and Cincinnati aspirant: he

voted _three_ times for the Wilmot Proviso, and so doubtful are

his doctrines on the slavery question, that many slaveholding

members of his own party regard him as _extremely_ "dangerous

to the South."

By the way, in 1842, this same _Gov. Johnson_ was a Senator in our State

Legislature, and introduced the following _Abolition_ resolutions,

commonly called his _White Basis System_:

"_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee_,

That the basis to be observed in laying the State off into

Congressional districts shall be the voting population, WITHOUT

ANY REGARD TO THREE-FIFTHS OF THE NEGRO POPULATION.

"_Resolved_, That the 120,083 qualified voters shall be divided

by eleven, and that each eleventh of the 120,083 of qualified

voters shall be entitled to elect one member in the Congress of

the United States, or so near as may be practicable without a

division of counties."

The position of Gov. Johnson is this: he wishes the State entitled to

her slave representation _as a State_, but _in her own borders_ the

representative districts are to be made according to her white

population! In other words, he desires the State to retain her _ten_

Congressmen, representing both her white and slave population, but

wishes them appointed throughout the State without regard to the slave

population: so that the county containing ten thousand white

inhabitants, and double that number of slaves, should be entitled to no

more representation than the county containing _ten_ thousand white

inhabitants and no slaves!

We heard Johnson last summer, in his debate with Gentry, in Campbell

county, contend that the county of Campbell should have the same

representation in Congress as the county of Shelby, which he stated had

FIFTEEN THOUSAND 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, 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:

"TENNESSEE.--An animated contest is going on in this good old

Democratic State for Governor, and the largest crowds flock to

hear the candidates that ever attended political meetings since

the Hero of New Orleans used to address the masses in person.

The present incumbent, Andrew Johnson, is the Democratic

candidate, and a _Mr. Gentry_, a _pro-slavery_ renegade from

the Federal Whig ranks, is the opposing candidate, brought out

by a Know Nothing conclave. This man is on the stump abusing

the Catholics, and denouncing them for their tyranny, while he

openly advocates the _slavery doctrines of Southern Niggerdom_!

On the other hand, his competitor, Gov. Johnson, well and

favorably known to our leading Democrats of Ohio, HAS NO

SYMPATHIES WITH SLAVERY, and is the advocate of such amendments

to the Federal Constitution as will give all power to the

people, and EFFECTUALLY PUT DOWN THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY!"

Now, this showing up of Democracy, on the Slavery question, may look

_shabby_ to many ultra Southern men, and it may induce them to charge

that the Democratic party are _inconsistent_. We defend them against the

charge of _inconsistency_, and maintain that what would be called

_inconsistency_ here, is nothing but _Democracy_. For instance, A. O. P.

Q. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, the editor of the great official organ of

Democracy at Washington, said, editorially, and "by authority," so late

as 1855:

"IT IS NO PART OF THE CREED OF A DEMOCRAT, AS SUCH, TO ADVOCATE

OR OPPOSE THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY. HE MAY DO THE ONE OR THE

OTHER, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN, AND NOT

OFFEND AGAINST HIS DEMOCRATIC FEALTY!"

Precisely so! A man may advocate the _abolition_ of slavery where it

exists; he may, as a Black Republican, arm himself with Sharpe's rifle,

and go into Kansas, and shoot down pro-slavery men, and still be a

consistent Democrat, if he vote for the party, and stand by the nominees

of the party conventions! Hence, all the factions at home and from

abroad--all religions--all the ends and odds of God's creation are now

associated together, and are battling in the same unholy cause, in the

name of _Democracy_!

And further to exhibit the inconsistency of this Democratic and Foreign

party, it will be recollected that, in 1844, they nominated SILAS

WRIGHT, of New York, for Vice-President, to run on the ticket with COL.

POLK--a position he declined, because he would not agree to be _second

best_ on the ticket. In a letter to JAMES H. TITUS, ESQ., bearing date

April 15, 1847, MR. WRIGHT says:

"If the question had been propounded to me at any period of my

public life, Shall the arms of the Union be employed to

conquer, or the money of the Union be used to purchase

Territory now constitutionally free, for the purpose of

planting Slavery upon it, I should have answered, No! And this

answer to this question is the Wilmot Proviso, as I understand

it. _I am surprised that any one should suppose me capable of

entertaining any other opinion, or giving any other answer as

to such a proposition._"

Now, if SILAS WRIGHT, one of the great "Northern lights" of Democracy,

held these sentiments in 1847, what must they have been in 1844, when

that party sought to elevate him to the second office within the gift of

the nation? But we are just reminded of what is said in "the law and the

prophets," that is to say, "_It is no part of the creed of a Democrat_,

AS SUCH, _to advocate or oppose the extension of slavery!_" What a

party!

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

TO REV. A. B. LONGSTREET,

PROFESSOR OF METHODISM, ROMANISM, AND LOCOFOCOISM.

REVEREND SIR:--I see a _pastoral address_ of yours, to "Methodist

Know-Nothing Preachers," going the rounds of the Locofoco Foreign Sag

Nicht papers of the South, occupying from four to six columns, according

to the dimensions of the papers copying. I have waded through your

learned address, and find it to be one of more ponderous magnitude than

the Report made to the British House of Commons, by Lord North, on a

subject of far greater interest! And as I am one of the class of men you

address, notwithstanding your great advantage over me in point of age

and experience; and as no one has made a _formal_ response to your

_pious warnings_, it will not be deemed insolent in me to take you up.

My first acquaintance with you was in 1847, at an Annual Meeting of the

Georgia Conference, held in Madison; and although the impressions made

upon my mind by you, on that occasion, were any thing but favorable to

you, as a man, still, I am capable, as I believe, of doing you justice.

I supposed you then to be the rise of sixty years, certainly in your

_dotage_ and among the _vainest_ old gentlemen I had ever met with. You

obtained leave, as I understand, by your own seeking, to deliver a

lecture to the Conference, upon the subject of _correctly reading and

pronouncing the Scriptures_. I was in attendance, and listened to you

with all the attention and impartiality I was capable of exercising. I

thought it a little _presumptuous_ for any one man to assume to teach

more than one hundred able ministers how to read and pronounce the

inspired writings; and the more so, when I knew that several of the

number were presidents and professors in different male and female

colleges, and that many others of them were graduates of the best

literary institutions in the South. Still, my apology for you was, that

you was a vain old gentleman, and that to listen to you, respectfully,

was to obey the Divine teaching of one who has taught us to "bear the

infirmities of the weak." Your _samples_, both of reading and

pronunciation, were amusing and novel to me. And so far as I could

gather the prevailing sentiment, it was, that to adopt your style would

render the reading of the Scriptures perfectly ridiculous.

In your address to "Methodist Know-Nothing Preachers," I discover that

you are still the man you were at Madison, in 1847: you have a great

deal to say about _yourself_, and make free use of the personal pronoun

I! _I_ advise--_I_ believe--_I_ am satisfied--_I_ will not agree--_I_

warn and caution--_I_ fear, or _I_ apprehend, etc. To parse the

different sentences in your partisan harangue syntactically, little else

is necessary but to understand the _first person singular_, and to

repeat the rule as often as it occurs: a peculiarity which characterizes

every paragraph in your labored address. Beside, the frequent use of the

pronouns _I_, _me_, _my_, _mine_, etc., too frequently occur to be worth

estimating. And it will be seen, upon examination, that not merely the

verbiage, but the sentiment, is thus egotistic throughout, exhibiting a

degree of arrogance and self-importance, only to be met with in a

_Clerical Locofoco_, used by bad men for ignoble purposes. To carry out

the idea of your _vanity_, you say in the winding up of your address:

"And now, brethren, have _I_ or Mr. Wesley hit upon one good

reason why you should not have joined the Know-Nothings? If

either of _us_ have, then _I_ beseech you to come from among

them. If _we_ have not, there is yet another in reserve which,

if it does not prevail will show--or prove to my satisfaction

at least--that if _an angel from heaven_ were to denounce your

order, you would cleave to it still."

Any other man but yourself would, from considerations of _modesty_, have

given JOHN WESLEY the preference, in this connection, and come in as

_second best_. But no, you are _first in place_, and, in your own

estimation, in _importance_ likewise, as a religious teacher.

I have no doubt you consider yourself a much greater man than John

Wesley ever was; and in proof of this, I need only cite what you have

said in reference to Mr. Wesley's opposition to Romanism:

"Even good old John Wesley caught the spirit of the times, and

wrote that letter, from which it appears he thought if the

Catholics got into power, they would abuse Protestants. What

abuse they could have heaped on them, greater than they heaped

on Catholics, short of cutting their throats, I cannot

conceive."

The only superior you acknowledge is CARDINAL WISEMAN, a bigoted Roman

Catholic, and you seem to knock under to him quite reluctantly, and not

without informing the public that you have been a laborious student for

forty years, and "_a profound thinker_." Here is your praise:

"I have been a pretty severe student for near forty years, and

a laborious, if not _profound thinker_ for a long time; but

when I compare myself in intellectual stature with that man, I

shrink in my own estimation to the insignificance of a mite."

So much by way of noticing vanity. You are a literary and theological

star of the first magnitude! You are an encyclopedia of the learning,

science, patriotism, and religion of the country! Sir, if you possessed

a little more _sheep-faced modesty_, and could exhibit a little less of

_lion-headed impudence_ than you do, you would be a much more useful,

not to say successful minister of the New Testament!

Sir, you have taken the field in opposition to Know-Nothingism,

_professedly_ through your deep and abiding concern for Christianity,

and the interests of Methodism. You say:

"You cannot surely be so weak as to suppose you can crush

Romanism by Know-Nothing agencies; but you have almost ruined

Methodism by them already.

"Now the ruler of this nation is spoken evil of by your party

continually, and therefore, in the judgment of Wesley, I might

stand up in the pulpit and defend him."

The truth is, you are influenced alone by partisan political feelings;

and occupying a position in a Mississippi College, in the midst of

Fire-eating Disunion Progressive Democracy, you desire to please them,

rather than serve the interests of your country or Church. To take the

stump, or the pulpit, in defence of _Frank Pierce_ and his corrupt

administration, would be a pleasant talk to you, who have been, all your

life-time, an inveterate Locofoco in politics, and "a profound thinker"

in favor of its iniquitous measures and principles. In your early

political training, you have been swayed by interest and popular favor,

and in most cases at the expense of truth, just as you now are, in your

mad vindication of Romanism. A tool for others to work with, till you

have found yourself in a condition to use such tools as you yourself

have been, you are now a trimmer and weathercock, leading on men of less

sense than yourself, to such distinction as interest and ambition may

dictate!

Sir, you take the ground, throughout, that there is no danger of

Catholics in this country, and that they do not seek to establish their

religion. Here is a specimen of your logic:

"Thank God no religious sect can tyrannize over another in this

country, so long as they all respect the Federal Constitution.

Until we see, then, the Catholics treating that instrument with

disrespect, it is madness to entertain fears of them and worse

than madness to form combinations against them."

Now, sir, the foregoing statement is untrue, and in making it you could

not have been sincere. You are a man of too much sense, and of too much

information, to believe what you are wickedly trying to palm upon

others. Brownson's Quarterly Review, the most able, as well as the most

authentic organ of Catholicism in the United States, employs the

following language to the American people--mark it:

"_Are your free institutions infallible?_ Are they founded on

_Divine right_? This you deny. Is not the proper question for

you to discuss, then, _not_ whether the Papacy be or be not

compatible with republican government, but whether _it be or be

not founded in Divine right_? If the Papacy be founded in

Divine right, it is supreme over whatever is founded only in

human right, and then your institutions should be made to

harmonize with it: not it with your institutions!!! The real

question, then, is not the compatibility or the incompatibility

of the Catholic Church with _democratic institutions_, but, Is

the _Catholic Church the Church of God_?

"Settle this question first. But in point of fact, _democracy

is a mischievous dream, wherever the Catholic Church does not

predominate_, to inspire the people with reverence, and to

teach and accustom them to obedience to authority."

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

Louis:

"Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as

in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are

Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part

of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes."

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

"_No good government can exist_ without religion, and there can

be no religion without an _inquisition_, which is wisely

designed for the promotion and protection of the _true faith_."

Here is the _Shepherd of the Valley_, published under the eye and with

the approbation of the Bishop of St. Louis:

"The Church is, of necessity, intolerant. Heresy she endures

when and where she _must_; but she hates it, and directs all

her energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an

immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country

is _at an end_: so say our enemies--_so say we_."

And here is what the _Rambler_ says, a devoted Catholic periodical, high

in the confidence of the Bishops and Priests of that Church:

"You ask if he (the Pope) were lord in the land, and you were

in the minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he

do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on

circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he

would tolerate you--if expedient, he would imprison you, banish

you, fine you, probably he might even hang you; but, be assured

of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the

'glorious principles' of civil and religious liberty."

I could give other quotations of this character, which have met your eye

long since, but I forbear, as they would extend my letter beyond the

limit I have prescribed for myself. These are the publications which, in

part at least, have given rise to the Know-Nothing organization, so

cordially hated by you.

You say there is no danger of injury to our institutions from the rapid

strides of Romanism. Allow me to ask your attention to the following

remarkable political prediction by the Duke of Richmond, late

Governor-General of Canada, and a British noble, who declared himself

hostile to the United States on all occasions. Speaking of our

Government, this deadly enemy said:

"It will be destroyed; it ought not, it will not be permitted

to exist." "The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent

wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its

example; and so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon

his throne; and the _sovereigns of Europe are aware of it_; and

they have _determined upon its destruction, and have come to an

understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means

to accomplish it_; and they will eventually succeed by

SUBVERSION _rather than conquest_." "All the low and surplus

population of the different nations of Europe will be carried

into that country. It is and will be a receptacle for the bad

and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted

for soldiers, or to supply the navies; _and the governments of

Europe will favor such a course_. This will create a surplus

and majority of low population, who are so very easily excited;

and they will _bring with them their principles_; and in nine

cases out of ten adhere to their ancient and former

governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion; and will

transmit them to their posterity; and in many cases propagate

them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and, by

the constitution and laws, will be invested with the right of

suffrage." "Hence, _discord_, _dissension_, _anarchy and civil

war will ensue_; and some popular individual will assume the

government, and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe,

the emigrants, and many of the natives will sustain him." "The

Church of Rome has a design upon that country; and it will in

time be the established religion, and will aid in the

destruction of that Republic." "I have _conversed with many of

the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously

expressed these opinions relative to the government of the

United States, and their determination to subvert it_."

But, sir, after eulogizing Catholics for their devotion to religious

toleration in this country, you make two assertions, touching the

Methodist Church, for which I wish to arraign you, and for which the

authorities of said Church ought to arraign you, under that section of

our Discipline which forbids _railing out against our Doctrines and

Discipline_. You say:

"And if I were to take the stump against you, I would say to

the honest yeomanry of the country. 'Good people, if you think

your liberties will be _any safer in the hands of Methodists

than Catholics, you are vastly mistaken_.'

"I would add, in humiliation but in candor, 'You have ten

thousand times more to fear, just at this time, from

Methodists, than Catholics; simply because the first are more

numerous than the last, because the first are actually in the

field for office, while the last are not.'"

If you have this opinion of the Methodist Church, you cannot be an

honest man and remain within her jurisdiction. You ought to leave her

communion forthwith, and go over to Rome; and in doing this, you would

_not have far to go_! Occupying the position you do, and holding the

sentiments you do, I would not send a child to any school or college

over which you might preside. Nor do I think any Protestant parent or

guardian ought to patronize any school under your care. Your influence,

whatever you may possess, is against the Protestant faith, and in favor

of Catholicism. In a word, you are a dangerous man in a Republican

government.

Upon the subject of religious toleration by the Catholics, you seem to

have fallen into the same error adopted by the Hon. Mr. Stephens, of

Georgia--a man for whom you have great regard now, but who, in the days

of _Clay Whiggery_, was a stench in your Locofoco nostrils! Mr. Stephens

made the assertion, in a public speech in Augusta, that "the Catholic

Colony of Maryland, under Lord Baltimore, was the first to _establish_

the principle of free toleration in religious worship." The Colony of

Maryland was a Catholic Colony, and the "Toleration Act" was written by

Lord Baltimore himself. That Act is dated 21st April, 1649, when Lord

Baltimore was in the zenith of his glory. Here is the language of that

"Act" of religious toleration:

"Denying the Holy _Trinity_ is to be punished with _death_, and

confiscation of land and goods to the Lord Proprietary, (Lord

Baltimore himself!). Persons using any reproachful words

concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Apostles or

Evangelists, to be fined £5, or in default of payment to be

publicly whipped and _imprisoned, at the pleasure_ of his

Lordship, (Lord Baltimore himself!) or of his

Lieutenant-General." _See Laws of Maryland, at large, by T.

Bacon_, A. D. 1765. 16 and 17 _Cecilius's Lord Baltimore_.

God deliver us from such toleration! _Death_ was the penalty for

expressing certain religious opinions, not acceptable to Lord Baltimore

and the Holy Catholic Church! Fines and _whipping at the post_ was the

penalty for speaking against the image-worship of the Catholic Church.

But I need not pursue this subject further: the _onus propandi_ is on

your side.

Speaking of Mr. Wesley, you say:

"If Wesley were alive, what would he think of your midnight

plots, and open tirades against Papists? But a letter of his

has been going the rounds of the newspapers, which the Know

Nothings obviously think gives the sanction of that good man to

their movement. Not so. Mr. Wesley was not the man to write as

inconsistently as their version of this letter makes him

write."

Why, sir, Mr. Wesley goes much further in his political opposition to

Roman Catholics than the American party have ever proposed to go. The

American party say only that they will not vote for Catholics, or put

them in office, because their principles are antagonistic to the spirit

of Republican institutions. Mr. Wesley lays down the comprehensive, but

_true doctrine_, in this very letter, that "_no government not Roman

Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion_." And

to show how fully and clearly he sustains this position, I quote from

his letter at length. You will find the letter in Vol. 5, page 817, of

Wesley's Miscellaneous Works, dated January 12th, 1780. It was

originally addressed to the Dublin Freeman's Journal. Here is what Mr.

Wesley says, in the very letter you seek to _deny out of_:

"I consider not whether the Romish religion is true or false:

build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore, away

with all your common-place declamation about intolerance and

persecution for religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius's

creed to be true! Suppose the Council of Trent to have been

infallible; yet I insist upon it that no government not Roman

Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic

persuasion.

"I prove this by a plain argument--let him answer it that

can--that no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his

allegiance or peaceable behavior. I prove it thus: It is a

Roman Catholic maxim, established not by private men, but by

public council, that 'No faith is to be kept with heretics.'

This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it

has never been openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow

or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But

as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain than that the

members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any

government for their allegiance and peaceable behavior.

Therefore, they ought not to be tolerated by any government,

Protestant, Mohammedan, or Pagan. You say, 'Nay, but they take

an oath of allegiance.' True, five hundred oaths; but the

maxim, 'No faith is to be kept with heretics,' sweeps them all

away as a spider's web. So that still no governors that are not

Roman Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.

"Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the Pope

can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but

all Roman Catholics acknowledge this: therefore they can give

no security for their allegiance. The power of granting pardons

for all sins--past, present, and to come--is, and has been for

many centuries, one branch of his spiritual power. But those

who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can give no

security for their allegiance, since they believe the Pope can

pardon rebellion, high treason, and all other sins whatever.

The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is

another branch of the spiritual power of the Pope: all who

acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But

whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope, can give

no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths and

promises are none: they are as light as air--a dispensation

makes them null and void. Nay, not only the Pope, but even a

priest has power to pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine

of the Church of Rome. But they that acknowledge this, cannot

possibly give any security for their allegiance to any

government. Oaths are no security at all; for the priest can

pardon both perjury and high treason. Setting their religion

aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, no

government ought to tolerate men who cannot give any security

to that government for their allegiance and peaceful behavior.

But this, no Romanist can do; not only while he holds that 'no

faith is to be kept with heretics,' but so long as he

acknowledges either priestly absolution, or the spiritual power

of the Pope.

"If any one pleases to answer this, and set his name, I shall

probably reply. But the productions of anonymous writers I do

not promise to take any notice of.

"I am, sir, your humble servant,

"JOHN WESLEY.

"CITY ROAD, January 12, 1780."

But, sir, you know as well as any living man that the history of the

Church, from the days of the first Pope down to the iniquitous reign of

Pius IX., sustains Mr. Wesley in his views on this subject, and

justifies the steps taken by the American party. Notwithstanding the

oft-repeated profession of Catholic liberality and Romish toleration, so

triumphantly paraded by you, and other interested aspirants and

unprincipled demagogues, the Catholic Church has invariably shown

herself to be destitute of both, whenever she had the opportunity of

using them. Sir, _intolerance_ is an element of her faith, and

_persecution_ a specimen of her piety; and no man knows it better than

you do. In taking upon herself the obligation of "true obedience to the

Pope," the Catholic Church imposes upon herself a task that proves

beyond all doubt she cannot, under any circumstances, remain faithful to

that obligation, and yet maintain "allegiance" to such a government as

ours!

Sir, I have no patience with a Protestant minister who stands forth as

the apologist of Catholicism; nor have I any confidence in one who does

it, provided he is a man of _intelligence_, as I admit you to be. The

only excuse I can render for your strange and inconsistent conduct is,

that you are in your dotage; that you are a violent old partisan; and

that you are the tool of designing demagogues, infamous disunionists,

and unmitigated repudiators. I shall not be at all surprised to hear

that you have apostatized from the Methodist Church, and gone over to

the Roman Catholics. I learn from the Little Rock Gazette, a Democratic

paper, that but the other day, Gov. E. N. Carway, of Arkansas, a member

of the Methodist Church, had actually apostatized from Methodism, and

the Protestant faith, and united with the Roman Catholics. And what

makes his defection from the faith of his fathers still more notorious,

his organ is down upon the Protestant clergy in bitter and unrelenting

denunciations! I believe that _you_ are preparing to go over to the

Roman Catholics; and to justify your change, when the time comes, you

now assert, "in humiliation but in candor," you say, that the people

"have _ten thousand times more_ to fear from Methodists than from

Catholics." If you believe this, you ought to leave the Methodist Church

_instantly_, even without the formalities of a withdrawal or

expulsion--even though you should be denied admittance into the Catholic

Church! I deny that we have "_ten thousand times more to fear_" from the

_Devil_ than we have from the Catholics; and according to your argument,

_the Methodists are worse than the Devil_! This, their most bitter

revilers and enemies do not believe; and for obvious reasons. The

Methodist Church has no St. Bartholomew's Day, with its rivers of blood

staining her garments: she never indiscriminately slaughtered the

Albigenses, or Waldenses, or Huguenots: she never established an

infernal Inquisition: she never lit up the fires of Smithfield: never

burned the Holy Bible, and prohibited, upon pain of eternal death, the

printing and circulating of God's word; and last, but not least, she has

not sought to keep the people in ignorance. Wherever Methodism has been

planted, the people have become great and happy. If you please, wherever

_Protestantism_ has prevailed, the people have been prosperous and

happy. But look to Old Spain, Italy, the German Confederacies, Sardinia,

Naples, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Bavaria, Baden, South America, and

Mexico, where Romanism is the established religion, and the places of

her influence are a hissing and a by-word in the eyes of the civilized

world! Protestantism has done more for the world in the last hundred

years than the Roman Catholic Church has for the _eighteen hundred

years_!

Sir, the Puritans, of New England; the Hollanders, of New York; the

Quakers, Lutherans, and German Reformed, of Pennsylvania; the Baptists,

of Rhode Island; the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, of Virginia; the

Lutherans and followers of Wesley and Whitefield, of Georgia; the

Huguenots and Episcopalians, of the Carolinas; and the Seceders in

several of the States, who were the religious pioneers of these States,

were all Protestants and Know Nothings; and if they were living, they

would be ashamed of you and your teachings. They selected this

wilderness country as their home, in order that they might enjoy those

religious privileges from which they had been debarred in the old world,

by the very Church and people you are seeking to vindicate.

But you will say, as you have done in substance, that this is no longer

the characteristic of Romanism. Why is it not? Has she ever changed for

the better? When did she renounce her doctrines and practices? Never!

Rome is the same tyrannical system now, where she has the power, that

she ever has been, and for ever must be. Wo to this land of ours, if

ever Rome gets the ascendancy here! Her creed is the same here and now,

in this respect, that it has everywhere been, and must always be. It is

her boast that she is always right, and knows no change. She practices

her unholy inquisitorial and Jesuitical doctrines in this country, as

far as she can and dare act them out. Her whole system is adverse to our

republican institutions and she hesitates not to declare it. She has

publicly burned our Bible in different States in this Union, and

recently, in New York and Pennsylvania. Archbishop Hughes, the Head of

the Catholic Church in this country, has taken an oath, administered by

the Pope of Rome, of which this is a part:

"Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said Lord (the Pope)

or his aforesaid successors, I will, to my utmost power,

_persecute and wage war with_."

The Church of Rome declares all who are not its members to be heretics.

It is painful, in view of all these things, to see an old Protestant

minister, whose head has been withered by the frosts of seventy

winters, openly in the field advocating a Church whose Bishops, Priests,

and members are "drunken with the blood of saints."

There is but one remaining feature of your singular address to Know

Nothing Methodist Preachers to be replied to, and I am through. You

assail the new party on the score of its _secrecy_, and of its

_concealment_ of its acts from the public. Had this objection come from

any one but a Methodist Preacher, and a known advocate of

_Class-meetings being held with closed doors_, I would now dispose of it

without occupying as much space as I shall do in my concluding remarks!

Notwithstanding all the _secrecy_ in the new Order of Know Nothings has

been set aside by the act of the National Council which created it; and

notwithstanding our members tell all about their Councils, where and

when they meet, and our orators read out and publish to the world our

obligations, rules, and principles, it is still objected that ours is a

secret Order, liable to be used for bad purposes; that we travel about

with dark lanterns; that our proceedings are not restrained by the

wholesome check of public opinion!

Now, this, the great objection to our Order, comes from men who belong

to Lodges of Free Masons and Odd Fellows, and who have taken all the

_binding_ oaths attached to the different _degrees_ of these respective

Orders! The same objection is urged against the American party, by men

who belong to the Order of Sons of Temperance, who have deemed a _rigid

secret organization_ necessary to combat successfully a _domestic_ evil!

It is urged in bitterness against the Order, by demagogues and

partisans, who have acted for years with the _secret political

conclaves_ of their respective parties, who have held their meetings

with _closed doors_--kept their _places_ of meeting a profound

secret--and when they have adjourned, they have enjoined _secrecy_ upon

all present! Last, but not least, this _secret feature_ is urged against

the American organization by the vile apologists for the Catholic

Church, and its corrupt Priesthood and membership, in this country.

These demagogues know that the Roman Catholic Church is a _secret

society_, directed by a talented, designing, and villainous

HIERARCHY--absolutely controlled by an _anti_-Republican Priesthood, to

a degree which has never been exercised by any political party in the

known world! The _Confessional_ is a secret tribunal, before which every

member of that Church is required to make known, not only _immoral_

actions, but every thought and purpose of the heart, and upon pain of

incurring the anathema of the Church, which is equivalent to a sentence

of eternal damnation! The corrupt order of JESUITS, the infamous society

of SAN FEDESTI, and the infinitely infernal society of IRISH RIBBON

MEN--these are all oath-bound societies of the Catholic Church,

connected directly with the horrid operations of the "_Holy

Inquisition_."

Now, I put the question to any man of reason and common sense, if Roman

Catholics and their _patriotic Democratic_ admirers and advocates, in

this country, are not the last men on earth who should object to the

_secret_ doings of the order of Know Nothings, even if their secrecy

were kept up? Every Roman Catholic in the known world is under the

absolute control of a secret society, by considerations not only of a

_temporal_, but of an ETERNAL WEIGHT!

But I am not done with these _Democratic_ opposers of SECRECY. The

Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, sat in

the old State House in Philadelphia, _with closed doors, from the 25th

of May to the 17th of September_, wanting only eight days of four

months. That body of men had a Doorkeeper and Sergeant-at-arms, both

under oath, to keep their doors barred, and all their proceedings a

secret. So says Mr. Jefferson's biography! And such men as Washington,

Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Harrison, Hancock, Hopkins, and

others, composed that body! During the war of the Revolution, General

Washington, Generals Lee, Wayne, Marion, and others, organized a _secret

American Society_, with its branches extending from North to South,

having their _passwords_, _signs_, and _grips_, and writing to each

other in figures, and "an unknown tongue," as the Know Nothings have

been doing, and all, too, with a view to oppose Foreign intrigues and

oppressions! It is as well known as any political truth, that General

WASHINGTON, at the time of his death, was the _President_ of the

Cincinnati Society, a secret political society, in which, we see it

stated on unquestionable authority, no man was eligible to membership

unless he was a _native American_. The _Columbian Order_, known as the

"_Tammany Society_," was a secret political society, and highly

influential, and maintains its existence to this day, and without danger

to the liberties of the country. Gen. SAM HOUSTON publishes to the world

that himself and Gen. JACKSON were members of this Society. What say the

_anti_-Americans to all these facts? Do they believe that Gen.

Washington, or Jackson, would have united with any association or order

not purely American? Would either have entered into any political

league, when _secrecy_ was enjoined, if he had not approved of the

principle of secrecy in political associations? Never! From the

characters of Washington and Jackson--the sacrifices they made for their

country, united with their fervid patriotism, and their known preference

for every thing _American_, I do not doubt for one moment, that if they

were both now living, they would unite with the veritable Order of Know

Nothings!

I believe the hand of God to be in this very movement, and as much in

the _secrecy_ of it, in the outset, as in any other feature. I regard

the movement as one growing out of a great crisis in the affairs of our

country, and a precursor of a sound, healthful, and vigorous

nationality, and which will ultimately prevent the liberties of this

country from being destroyed, by the machinations of such demagogues and

factionists as now seek to _excuse_ Romanism, and fellowship Foreign

Pauperism. Secret societies are only dangerous to despots and tyrants,

and history shows that these above all others have made war upon them.

They have denounced and proscribed Masonry in every quarter of the

globe, where they have had the power. The Pope, with the aid of his

Cardinals, has crushed the ancient order of Free Masons in his

dominions. There is not a Masonic Lodge in Italy. In our own country,

not a single Catholic is to be found associated with the order of Free

Masons; and why? Masonry is founded upon the Bible, and requires the

reading of the Protestant Bible in all its Lodges, and this don't suit

Romanism. We state these general and historical facts, without knowing

any thing of our own knowledge of Masonry.

In the young and growing city of Knoxville, it is within our own

knowledge, that many of the Irish Catholics attached themselves to the

Order of the Sons of Temperance, with a view, as they said, of throwing

around them the wholesome restraints of the Order. On the first visit of

a priest to the city, commonly called "Father Brown," these Irish

Catholics began to drop off one by one, until not one of them is now in

the Order, and most of those who were, are daily seen drunk in our

streets. Indeed, some of them in withdrawing had the candor to

acknowledge that the priest required them to do so! And why? Because, in

all the Divisions of the Sons of Temperance here, we have the Protestant

Scriptures read, and have Protestant prayers offered up. This don't suit

the Church of Rome!

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

W. G. BROWNLOW.

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

SIR:--I have received by mail a pamphlet copy of your "Letter to the

Bishops, Elders, and _other_ Ministers, Itinerant and _Local_, of the

Methodist Episcopal Church South," covering twenty-eight octavo pages. I

thank you for a copy of your _Pastoral_ address; and I am happy to be

able to _infer_ from its teachings that you have made a profession of

religion, before taking upon yourself "Holy Orders." I suppose the

_time_ of your conversion, you date back to the memorable period when

you "saw sights" on Mount Pisgah, and had conferred on you the degree of

_Modern Seer_, and entered upon the duties of "High Priest" of

Democracy! As I am one of the parties addressed, and the customs of the

Church and the country require a response to so grave a document, I have

felt it incumbent upon me to perform the task. I may style this the

_Last_ epistle of Aaron, the Priest, and illustrious Chief of Foreign

Catholic Sag Nicht Locofocoism!

My first impulses were, upon reading your address, to call for your

_credentials_, and to examine into your _authority_ for assuming to

dictate to the entire Ministry of the Southern portion of the Methodist

Church. You must either enter the Ecclesiastical ring under the

_imposition of the hands_ of BISHOP SOULE or _Andy Johnson_. If BISHOP

SOULE ordained you for the Ministry, and set you apart as the

Lieutenant-General of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, the

presumption is that he examined you on doctrinal points, and upon all

questions affecting the government of the Church, as was his duty, and

is our custom, and that he found you orthodox! It follows, as a matter

of course, that you renounced your heresy you advocated in the Hartford

Convention, held at Nashville, and that you obtained forgiveness for

that and numerous other "sins of omission and commission"--aye, for the

whole catalogue of your inward and outward iniquities, which so

_eminently_ disqualified you for the work of the Ministry! But if _Andy

Johnson_ ordained you for the work, of which there is no sort of doubt,

the Church South, through me, protests against your authority, and

utterly refuses to submit to your teachings. Our Church does not agree

with Johnson on the "White Basis" issue, or the great question of

slavery; and in proof of this, I cite to the fact of her separation from

the North, in 1844, upon this very question. She has within her bounds

of communion, rich men and poor, educated and uneducated, and is

unwilling to unite with him in arraying the poor against the rich, or

the unlearned against the learned. Nor does our Church believe that

Jesus Christ was a Locofoco, as Johnson asserts in his Inaugural, and

held that Christianity and Democracy, in converging lines, led to the

foot of Jacob's Ladder, and thence to heaven, _via_ Mount Pisgah, from

whose lofty summit you first beheld the promised land!

It therefore follows, that, in presenting yourself as a spiritual leader

in the Church, called to the work, as you have been, by _Andy Johnson_,

your case is fully met by a quotation from Job:

"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present

themselves before the Lord, and _Satan_ came also among them."

A second passage, from the Book of Jeremiah, meets your case, and leaves

no doubt that the inspired Prophet had you in his eye:

"We have heard the pride of Moab, (he is exceedingly proud,)

his loftiness, and his _arrogance_, and his pride, and his

haughtiness of heart.

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

_lies_ shall not so effect it."

To be candid with you, Gov. Brown, I regard your address, under all the

circumstances, as a display of the most brazen-faced assurance and the

most unmitigated impudence I ever met with in my life! I have known for

years that you were capable of great presumption, but in this insolent

and dictatorial address you surpass _yourself_--you positively out-Herod

Herod! In the whole history of the country, and of parties, I venture

the assertion, that a parallel piece of impudence, and downright

bold-faced assurance, cannot be pointed to, as the act of any partisan.

It is really past all belief, if I had not your production before me.

But more of this hereafter.

Copies of your pamphlet were distributed through the aisles and seats of

the Annual Conference room in Nashville, and have been sent all over the

South, to members of other Conferences. Your _proof-sheet_ was seen ten

days before the meeting of the Middle Tennessee Conference, and your

"work of faith and labor of love" was ready for distribution when the

Conference first convened, but you held it back till the Conference was

ready to adjourn, and to a period so late, that a reply, if one had been

deemed necessary, could not be made. This was _cowardly_, and in keeping

with your political tactics and code of morals. In saying that this was

in keeping with your code of morals, I allude to the _Woodberry

affair_.

I shall now take up your address, Governor, and wade through its

twenty-eight pages of double-distilled Sag Nichtism, sublimated

impudence, and concealed advocacy of _Romanism_, mixed up with

contradictions, false assertions, and glaring absurdities, as it is,

from beginning to end. In the opening paragraph, you predicate your

right to instruct the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the

entire Church, South, upon the real or assumed fact, that you are "The

son of a now sainted father, who for forty years ministered at your

altars, the co-laborer of that noble band of Christian ministers, who,

under Asbury and Coke, founded your Church in America!"

Alas, that any "sainted Father" should be represented by so degenerate a

son--an irreligious son--not a member of any Church--but having the

hardihood, in the face of those who know the facts, to disguise himself

in the priestly robes of a "sainted Father"--like an ass in a lion's

skin, to _bray out_ against better men than himself, or, like a wolf in

sheep's clothing, to _steal into the fold_, where that Father was

accustomed to minister in holy things, and with soft and honeyed words,

and hypocritical teachings, and Satan-like misrepresentations, seek whom

he may devour! You tell the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," that

you really "approve" their "creed," and, what is still more

soul-cheering, you have "witnessed their growth and progress for years,

with the highest satisfaction." This is very _condescending_ in the "son

of a now sainted father!" It is quite flattering! But these "Bishops,

Elders, and other Ministers," would receive all this with a greater

degree of allowance, if they did not believe that your generous

patronage, so lavishly bestowed upon them and their "creed," was

prompted by a principle of which _selfishness_ is the soul! They

believe, and so express themselves in conversation, that your forced

smile of approbation, your reluctant eulogy, have both been wrung from

you, because you are a sycophantic partisan suitor for patronage, in the

way of votes for your party. These Clergymen whom you address, think it

a great pity that the "son of a now sainted father" should exhibit so

much "satisfaction" at witnessing their prosperity, in _theory_, and

manifest not one particle in _practice_. They think that you would be in

your proper place, to be found among the _mourners_, instead of the

_teachers_ in their Church; and that it is high time, considering your

age in life, and the extent of your iniquities, that you should be found

upon your knees, in an altar full of fresh straw, at an old-fashioned

Camp-Meeting, asking the pious to pray for you, and God, for the sake of

the forty years labors of "a now sainted father," to have mercy upon

you, and save your sinful old soul from that death that never dies.

Why, Sir, the Devil himself would blush to perpetrate such an act of

arrogance as you have done, in thus volunteering your advice to the

"Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," of the Methodist Church. An old

political party hack, who is not now, and never was, a member of any

Church--an intriguing old sinner, who never even attends Church, and

who, in this respect, shows that he neither fears God, respects the

Christian Sabbath, nor "approves the creed" of any orthodox

denomination, to be lecturing a numerous body of Clergymen, as to what

they ought or ought not to do, it is the culmination of all that is

called effrontery! The "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the

Methodist Church, wish the _evidence_ of your conversion to God, before

they consent to obey you, as "having the rule over them." Your approval

of their "creed," and the "satisfaction" with which you have witnessed

their progress, is not sufficient to satisfy their doubting minds, as

long as you continue to ride into Nashville on Sabbath, and retail

political slang at the INN, or read Sag Nicht papers at the _Union

Office_, to the neglect of the house of God, and the evil example set

before young men, against the statute in such cases made and provided!

We must, as Ministers, hear you relate your experience, in a regular

class-meeting. Nay, more, knowing your _raising_, and your ability to

"deceive, even the very elect," we must see you down upon your

marrow-bones, surrounded by noisy and zealous officials, pounding you on

the back, and exclaiming, as in the days of your "sainted father," _Pray

on, Aaron_! We must hear you _groan_--we must see your sinful old bosom

_heave_--we must witness the falling of _big tears_, as you publicly

confess and manfully repent of your misdeeds--of the whole catalogue, of

all the inward and outward iniquities of your past life--your sins of

omission and commission, which God knows are more numerous than the

hairs upon your old sinful head! I say we must see all this, and even

more, before we can have faith in your teachings, as big as even a grain

of mustard seed!

But you are the "son of a now sainted father"--you derive great

"satisfaction" from the "growth and progress" of Methodism--you

"approve" the Methodist "creed"--and hence, a glorious future awaits the

Methodist Church: _provided_ always, that her "Bishops, Elders, and

other Ministers" hearken to and obey your teachings, a thing they are

very certain not to do, in the matter under consideration. It is a

melancholy fact, that many of the sons of Methodist, and other

Ministers, are very wicked and unpromising men; and it is equally true,

and certainly notorious, that where they turn out to be sinners, they

are sinners above all offenders, dwelling either at Jerusalem or

elsewhere! I have no hesitancy in pronouncing you as _hard a case_, in a

moral point of view, as ever came before the Church, and the only

appropriate reply her ecclesiastical dignitaries can make to your

address, is to appoint a day of fasting and prayer to God, for your

conversion, to be observed throughout her borders. I now, as the

appointed organ of the Church, set apart the first day of January, 1856,

and I pray you, as one desiring the salvation of your soul, to be in the

spirit and in a proper frame of mind on that day! Humble yourself before

God--tell him that you were in error in stealing the livery of Heaven to

serve the Devil in! Tell him that you are an old worn-out political

hack--that you have grown gray in the service of sin--that during the

whole of a somewhat eventful life, your labors have been in the dirtiest

pools of party politics--that you have been insincere and unscrupulous

in all your teachings and acts--that you stand before the people of

Tennessee publicly branded by _eight_ respectable and reliable citizens

of Wilson county, as a _falsifier_ in the Know Nothing controversy of

the past summer--and that you are sorry for having come forth steeped to

the nose and chin in political profligacy, to lecture grave Clergymen

upon subjects you ought to set at their feet and learn lessons about!

Tell your God, what he doubtless knows, that though the "son of a now

sainted father," you are as full of devils as ever Mary Magdalene

was--that like the "Imps of Sin," in Milton, these "yelp all around"

you--that this is no reflection upon a "now sainted father," whose

seeming neglect of your early training grew out of his continual absence

from home, as is the case with most Methodist Preachers,--aye, tell your

God, that once out of this scrape, you will never be caught in another

of the kind! You say,

"From the foundation of our government, it has been a conceded

and settled doctrine, that the various religious denominations

should not, as such, intermeddle with the political contests of

the day. No instance is now remembered where they have done

so!"

This is a remarkable sentence, and partakes of the nature of your Wilson

county assertions! The history of the Church, and of the world,

contradicts every word of the foregoing, and demonstrates that the

"settled doctrine" of the Catholic Church, has ever been, as it still

is, to "intermeddle with the political contests of the day." I will

trouble you with two instances in which "religious denominations, as

such," have been guilty of what you deny. The Albany (N. Y.) State

Register, a paper which usually does not say what it cannot maintain,

states that ARCHBISHOP HUGHES has issued a mandate, _commanding_ all

Catholics in the Albany District, in the exciting State election now

coming off, to cast their votes for Mr. Crosby for the Senate. But Roman

Catholics, you falsely tell us, never "intermeddle with the political

contests of the day:" O no!

The other "instance now remembered," is the one in which you were a

candidate for a seat in the Legislature of Tennessee, in the county of

Giles: this was, according to my recollection, in 1831, or a quarter of

a century ago. At that time, there was a small Manual Labor School in

Giles, which had been incorporated by the Legislature, and at the head

of which was a _Presbyterian_. The gentleman who ran against you, if not

a member of the Presbyterian Church, "approved" their "creed," and

"witnessed their growth and progress for years with the highest

satisfaction." _You_ charged upon the stump that the Presbyterians were

seeking to establish their religion by law, to unite Church and

State--appealed to the Methodist and Baptist to put them down by

electing you, with a promise that you would check their march by

counter-legislation--and you were elected upon this issue. At the same

time, as the oldest inhabitants of Giles know, there were not fifty

Presbyterians in the county! But "no instance is remembered" in which

one sect has intermeddled with another--O no! You say:

"In the mutations of parties in this country, a new one has

lately arisen, to which, I apprehend, more of the Methodist

ministers have attached themselves, at least in the State of

Tennessee, than might have been expected. This party, known as

the Know Nothings, is so _peculiar_ in its organization, that

it seems strange to me that any minister or professor of

religion should be willing longer to continue in it."

Your apprehensions are well-founded, when you suppose that a very large

proportion of the Methodist ministers in Tennessee are either members of

this new party or sympathize with it. And, sir, more of the ministers of

other denominations than you seem to be aware of, have either attached

themselves to this party, "in the mutations of parties," or act with it,

and endorse its aims and objects, than you have yet dreamed of! And "it

seems strange" to these ministers, and thousands of the purest and best

laymen in the Protestant ranks, "that any minister or professor of

religion should be willing longer" to oppose the principles of this

party, or array themselves under the black flag of Papal Rome, and of

the pauper emigrants with whom she is flooding our land! But, sir, the

object of your Address is, to persuade if you can, and if not, _to

drive_, by motives of fear, the Clergy of the Methodist Church from

their position on this great American and Protestant question. Alas, how

little does the "son of a sainted father" understand the material he

attempts to work upon! Methodist ministers are free men, the equals of

other moral and upright men in heroic virtues, and far in advance of

that of politicians in Tennessee who believe parties in religion, as in

politics, are only "held together by the cohesive power of public

plunder," and who assume to direct public opinion from a principle, of

which _selfishness_ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end!

Sir, the violence, bitterness, and the very inflammatory tone, not to

say language, of your Gallatin, Lebanon, and Columbia speeches, are

enough, it seems to me, to _nauseate_ every good and conservative

citizen, and to disgust every "Bishop, Elder, and other Ministers,

Itinerant and Local, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." Even in

this Address, you insult these ministers on every page. I see not how

any preacher, with a true Protestant and American heart in him, can read

this address of yours through, without rising up from his seat and

saying: "I have voted with this Anti-Protestant and Anti-American party

for the last time."

In warning Methodist ministers to withdraw their sanction and

approbation of Know Nothingism, you say:

"I therefore call upon them this day to come out of these

lodges, and never return to them: at all events, never return

to them until all _secrecy_, all their bits of red paper,

(indicating _blood_, even by the selection of color,) all their

signs and signals, are utterly abolished and dispensed with. I

call upon them to do this, and to do it forthwith--by their

hopes of heaven--by their obedience to the word of God--by

their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of their

country--to come out from any party which has adopted a mode

and plan of organization so fatal to the peace of society, and

the progress of true religion."

What egotism! _You_ call upon them! You make a freer use of the personal

pronoun _I_, than even old Parson Longstreet, the Know Nothing slayer of

Mississippi. To parse your different sentences syntactically, nothing

else is necessary but to understand the first person singular, and to

repeat the rule. Not only your verbiage but your sentiment is thus

egotistic throughout!

Your appeal to the ministers to come out of this organization, on the

ground of its _secrecy_, is a species of demagoguism, the more

disgusting when it is considered that you are a _Free Mason_, and have,

by all the arts and blandishment of your nature, sought to induce

ministers to go into that organization. But, then, there is no violation

of law or the Constitution in _Masonry_--"fatal to the peace of society

and to the progress of true religion"--no, nothing! Understand me: I am

not opposed to Masonry.

On this subject of the Romish creed, which you excuse, and even

_advocate_, you admit that there are "_alleged_ abuses," which have

prompted the Protestant Churches to unite themselves with this new

Order! Then you insultingly tell these Churches this tale:

"But they ought to have remembered, that even a virtuous

indignation can never justify _proscription and persecution_:

these bring no remedy to the real or supposed evils, but are

sure to increase and aggravate them. These errors in faith, and

abominations in practice, if they really exist, were known to

the Wesleys, and Cokes, and Asburys, who founded your Church:

to the Lees, the Bruces, the Capers, the Logan Douglasses, the

Summerfields, and the Bascoms, who subsequently extended and

adorned it. But they never proposed to kindle, in this

enlightened age of Christianity, the consuming fires of

RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION."

Now, sir, every distinguished "founder" of the Methodist Church you have

named, from WESLEY to BASCOM, has written and preached against the

"errors in faith, and abominations in practice," of the Romish Church,

and they each and all have taken this very ground upon the religious

issues. I have heard _three_ of these men preach, and I am familiar with

the writings of the rest, and know whereof I speak.

You _intentionally_ deceive and misrepresent the American party, when

you charge that they seek to proscribe one class of our citizens--that

they desire to interfere with the rights of conscience--and to say _how_

men should worship God. Why don't you inform your readers that

Archbishop Hughes, and other Catholic Bishops, were the first to

introduce religion into political discussion in this country? This would

not suit your purposes--it suits your objects, taste, and inclination

better, to slander the American party by wholesale, and to charge upon

its members the atrocities committed by your foreign and pauper allies.

We only choose to vote against them, and to vote for American-born

citizens and Protestants: which is as much our _right_, as it is the

right of these foreign Catholics to vote against and proscribe American

Protestants. For this, you and your villainous associates exhaust the

whole vocabulary of Billingsgate upon the American party. What is their

offence? Why, they simply place certain questions before persons

desiring to act with them, which they think, at least, may affect the

national welfare, and before the people of the Union, and ask their

opinion of these questions at the ballot-box. The American party has

always denied, and I again reiterate the denial, that we do, at all

proscribe, or in any way interfere with, any class of our foreign

citizens, save that we propose to send _convicts_ from European prisons

back to their own native and infamous dens, as fast as they land

here--but these are not _citizens_ of ours. I appeal to our Platform,

and our Book of Constitutions, and I offer to any man a handsome

reward--any man who will produce in either a statement containing the

proscription you falsely charge against us. I now say, Gov. Brown,

either do this, or cease your empty vaporing against the _proscriptive_

features of our system, as you are pleased to style it. You declaim most

lustily in favor of religious liberty for Catholics, which you know we

do not propose as a party to interfere with; and this you plead for at

the altar of Methodist "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," who know

there is no religious liberty for Protestants where Catholics have the

power to prevent it! You plead in the most plaintive tones for the

rights of foreign Catholics to be sworn into good citizens in less than

_one year_ after they land here, but do not seem to remember the

American Protestant wives and children, who have to subsist on charity

during our severe winters, in consequence of their husbands and fathers

being elbowed out of employment by the competition of foreign pauper

laborers!

Sir, the American party, if in power, would put a stop to that

proscription from office that has always characterized the party with

which you act, and which has made the present Administration so very and

so justly odious to the country. Proscription, indeed! Was there ever

such _glaring_ and _actual_ proscription for the sake of religious and

political creeds committed as by the present Administration? The

infamous Sag Nicht party with which you act, and of which you are a

leader and a High Priest, though the "son of a now sainted father," has

applied the political guillotine to almost every man in office who has

dared to differ with them in their high estimate of foreign paupers and

Catholic vagabonds, in many instances turning out native-born

Protestants, and filling their places with foreign Catholics. And yet,

with a degree of effrontery that throws the Devil far into the shade,

you turn round and charge the American party with proscription, and ask

the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," of the Methodist Church, "by

their hopes of heaven--by their obedience to the word of God--and by

their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of their country," to come

out from a party so proscriptive! Why, sir, you out-Herod old Herod

himself! Your teachings contrasted with your practice, would cause a

crimsoned negative to settle on the cheeks of old Pilate! And still you

are the "son of a now sainted father"--you "approve" the "creed" of

Methodism, and have "witnessed its growth and prosperity for years, with

the highest satisfaction!"

You quote from the Declaration of Independence, to show that toleration

should be extended to Catholics and foreigners, and then insultingly

add, as if you supposed no Methodist minister had ever perused the

writings of Mr. JEFFERSON:

"These are the words of Mr. Jefferson, but the immortal

sentiment springs directly from the word of the living and true

God. No: persecution at the stake, or by exclusion of Catholics

from office, is not the weapon to be wielded by the Protestant

Churches."

_You_ know that the notes of warning given to his countrymen by the sage

of Monticello, and the great APOSTLE of American Democracy, are in

harmony with the doctrines of the Know Nothing party. But you choose to

conceal this fact from the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the

Methodist Church, in the vain hope that their numerous pressing and

official engagements will not allow them time to look up the documents.

In Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, written in 1781, and published in

1794, pages 124-5, I find the following _Know Nothing doctrine_:

"But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale

against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers

by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of

those united in society to harmonize, as much as possible, in

matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil

government being the sole object of forming societies, its

administration must be conducted by common consent. Every

species of government has specific principles. Ours, perhaps,

are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It

is a composition of the freest principles of the English

constitution, with others derived from natural right and

natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the

maxims of absolute monarchs. Yet _from such we are to expect

the greatest number of immigrants_. They will bring with them

the _principles of the government they leave, imbibed in early

youth_: or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange

for an _unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from

one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop

precisely at the point of temperate liberty_. These principles,

with their language, they will transmit to their children. In

proportion with their numbers, they will share with us the

legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and

bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent,

distracted mass. _I may appeal to experience during the present

contest for a verification of these conjectures._ But if they

be not certain in event, are they not possible? are they not

probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven

years and three months longer for the attainment of every

degree of population desired or expected? May not our

government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?"

Again, Mr. JEFFERSON, whilst our Minister to the Court of St. Cloud,

addressed a letter to JOHN JAY, dated November 14, 1788, in which he

uses this language:

"With respect to the _Consular_ appointments, it is a duty on

me to add some observations, which my situation here has

enabled me to make. I think it was in the spring of 1784, that

Congress (harassed by multiplied applications from foreigners,

of whom nothing was known but on their information, or on that

of others as unknown as themselves) came to the resolution that

the interest of America would not permit the naming of any

person, not a citizen, to the office of Consul, or Agent, or

Commissary. _Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are

preferable to aliens, or citizens alien-born._ Native citizens

possess our language, know our laws, customs and commerce, have

general acquaintance in the United States, give better

satisfaction, _and are more to be relied on in a point of

fidelity_. To avail ourselves of our native citizens, it

appears to me advisable to _declare, by standing law_, that no

person but a native citizen shall be capable of the office of

Consul. This was the rule of 1784, restraining the office of

Consul to native citizens."

In 1797, Mr. JEFFERSON drafted a petition to the Legislature of

Virginia, on behalf of the citizens of Amherst, Albemarle, Fluvana, and

Gouchland Bounties, in which he uses the following language:

"Your petitioners further submit to the two Houses of Assembly,

whether the safety of the citizens of this Commonwealth, in

their persons, their property, their laws and government, does

not require that the capacity to act in the important office of

_Juror, Grand or Petty, civil or criminal_, should not be

restrained in future to native citizens, or such as were

citizens at the date of the Treaty of Peace which closed our

revolutionary war; and whether ignorance of our laws, and

natural partiality to the countries of their birth, are not

reasonable causes for declaring this to be one of their rights

incommunicable in future to adopted citizens."--_Jefferson's

Writings, Vol. IX., page 453._

Now, Sir, answer me in candor, are you not ashamed of having quoted Mr.

JEFFERSON, and of having so basely misrepresented his position on this

great American question? Did not Mr. JEFFERSON propose to carry his

opposition to foreigners much farther than the American party now do?

But, you vile old demagogue, though "son of a now sainted father," I am

determined you shall not escape the indignant powers of those "Bishops,

Elders, and other Ministers," whom you have wickedly sought to deceive.

It is known to you, and to the world, in what veneration all American

Democrats hold the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and '99, and the fame of

Mr. MADISON, who was the ruling spirit of that session of the

Legislature. That Legislature passed the following Resolution, which you

may find by consulting Henning's Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, New Series,

page 194:

"That the General Assembly, nevertheless, concurring in opinion

with the Legislature of Massachusetts that every Constitutional

barrier should be opposed to the introduction of foreign

influence into our National Councils,--_Resolved_, That the

Constitution ought to be so amended that _no foreigner, who

shall have acquired the right, under our Constitution and laws,

at the time of making the amendment, shall hereafter be

eligible to the office of Senator or Representative_, in

Congress of the United States, nor to _any office in the

Judiciary or Executive_. Agreed to by the Senate, Jan. 16,

1799."

I shall next consider two extracts from your Address, under one general

head, relating to the _temporal_ power of the Pope. You say:

"But the genius of sophistry may fly to the rescue of

Know-Nothingism, by pretending that it is not on account of

_his religion_ that the Catholic is to be excluded from office,

but because he is subjected, not merely to the spiritual but

the _temporal dominion_ or jurisdiction of the Pope. No error

has been wider spread than this."

Again:

"A late distinguished Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Berrien,) in a

recent address to the public, has copied a letter of Mr.

Wesley, which may require a few observations. That letter was

dated in January, 1780. All its conclusions were founded on the

ASSUMED AND POPULAR OPINION of that day, that the Pope _did_

claim a civil jurisdiction beyond his own dominions--that he

_could_ absolve the subjects of other governments from their

oaths of allegiance, and _that there was_ a principle in one of

the tenets of that Church, that Catholics were justified in not

keeping faith with heretics. Against these ASSUMED AND POPULAR

OPINIONS, the Catholics of England in that day, as they now do

in this country, were solemnly protesting."

This is a modest way of giving Mr. Wesley the _lie_, but it is

nevertheless quite _direct_, and is the more surprising, as it comes

from the "son of a now sainted father," who was a follower of Wesley, a

"co-laborer of that noble band of Christian ministers" he was

instrumental in starting out into the world--aye, the son of a "father

who, for forty years, ministered at the altars" this same Wesley

erected! In holding up John Wesley as the _vile calumniator_ of the

Catholic Church in England, it is well enough, Governor, to be modest

about it, and cautious in the selection of your words, as you are

addressing a class of men who believe in John Wesley, as a faithful man

of God, and one incapable of misrepresenting the Catholics of England,

the Pope of Rome, or any other sect or individual! John Wesley

ministered at the sacred altars of religion for more than sixty years;

he had with him the power of God, and the witness that he pleased Him;

and the last words he uttered, with his hands clasped, and his eyes

raised toward heaven, were these: "_The best of all is, God is with

us!_" And yet the sons and grandsons in the gospel, of this venerated

and sainted man of God, are insulted in Tennessee, by being told by an

_impertinent old sinner_, and a _vile old party hack_, that he was A

LIAR, while living, and the _slanderer of the Catholic Church_, now that

he is no more! If Mr. Wesley "_assumed_" falsehoods in reference to the

Romish Church in England, he either did it in _ignorance_, or with _a

guilty knowledge_ of the fact. He was a man of too much learning and

information for his friends to get him out of such an indictment under a

plea of ignorance. He is therefore, though dead, A WILFUL LIAR,

according to "Ex-Gov. A. V. Brown," for the Governor goes on to argue

the cause against him, and, on page 19 of his address, quotes _Catholic_

authority to _prove_ him a liar! Shame on the "son of a now sainted

father," and on the _holy seer of Pisgah_! O! Aaron, thou priest of

corrupt Democracy, you need not endeavor to gull "bishops, elders, and

other ministers," with your _whining cant_, while you thus traduce their

great spiritual head, who, under God, taught them the lessons of

salvation!

Gov. Brown, go with me, as one of the admirers of John Wesley, to the

humble dwellings of the miners of Cornwall, to the homely tents of the

colliers of Kingswood and Newcastle, and to the equally humble workshops

of the manufacturers of Yorkshire, in England, who are rejoicing in God

their Saviour that a Wesley was ever born into the world, and ask them

if they believe him capable of slandering the Catholics! Go with me

among the backwoodsmen of North America, and examine them in their lone

tents--go among the honest and virtuous settlers on our Western

frontiers, amid the interminable forests of the far off West, whose

thousands are brought into the fold of Christ, through the

instrumentality of Wesleyan ministers, and ask them if they think the

founder of their Church was _a wilful liar_!

Go with me to the rich pastures and luxuriant harvest-fields of your own

native Middle Tennessee: enter the neat cottages and stately mansions of

that glorious division of our State, and ask the intelligent and

educated females, who are rejoicing in God, in hope of future and

eternal life, through the prayers and sermons of Wesleyan ministers, as

instruments in the hands of God, if they believe the founder of their

Church was _a wicked calumniator_! Go to the islands of the sea, to the

burning sands of Africa, and ask the benighted converts from heathenism,

through the instrumentality of Wesleyan ministers, if they believe the

venerable founder of their Church was a man of truth!

Enter the dwellings of the rich and fashionable planters of the

South--ride around their sugar and cotton plantations, among the sable

sons and daughters of Africa, and witness the blessed fruits of the

pious life, Christian integrity, and triumphant death of John Wesley!

Come over to East Tennessee, Governor, and enter the log-cabins of the

virtuous, happy peasantry of the "hill country," and ask them whether

they believe Mr. Wesley or your Catholic authorities, touching the

temporal power of the Pope of Rome!

Alas! Gov. Brown, the Reformation dawned with LUTHER in Germany, but the

sun of its glory rose with Methodism in England; the first streaks of

_Protestant_ light were seen on the horizon of the sixteenth century,

but the meridian sun of the Reformation dawned in all his brightness on

the Wesleys and Whitefield! But America has been the land of the glory

and triumph of the doctrines of the man you labor to convict of the

awful sin of lying!

But you deny that the Pope of Rome, in _temporal_ matters, claims what

Mr. Wesley attributed to him in the letter copied by Senator Berrien.

You also deny that the Popes claim and have exercised the right to

interfere with matters of government, and the right to absolve their

followers in other countries, and under other governments, from their

allegiance to such rulers and governments. I will proceed to vindicate

Mr. Wesley, and, by the proof, saddle the lie on you! Whilst John was

King of England, he had the "Magna Charta," the great charter securing,

among other things, the right of trial by jury, wrung from him at the

point of the bayonet. This great charter was annulled by Pope Innocent.

Here is the proof:

"While the king was employed in the siege of Rochester, he

received the pleasing intelligence, that according to his

request the charter had been annulled by the pontiff. Innocent,

enumerating the grounds of his judgment, insists strongly on

the violence employed by the barons. If they really felt

themselves aggrieved, they ought, he observes, to have accepted

the offer of redress by due course of law. They had preferred,

however, to break the oath of fealty, which they had taken, and

had appointed themselves judges to sit upon their lord. They

knew, moreover, that John had enrolled himself among the

crusaders; and yet they had not scrupled to violate the

privileges which all Christian nations had granted to the

champions of the cross. Lastly, England was become the fief of

the holy see; and they could not be ignorant that if the king

had the will, he had not at least the power, to give away the

rights of the crown, without the consent of his feudal

superior. He was therefore bound to annul the concessions which

had been extorted from John, as having been obtained in

contempt of the holy see, to the degradation of royalty, the

disgrace of the nation, and to the impediment of the crusade.

At the same time he wrote to the barons, re-stating his

reasons, exhorting them to submit, requesting them to lay their

claims before him in the council to be held at Rome; and

promising that he would induce the king to consent to whatever

might be deemed just or reasonable, to take care that all

grievances should be abolished, that the crown should be

content with its just rights, and the clergy and people should

enjoy their ancient liberties."--_Lingard's History of

England_, vol. ii., page 71.

Will it be said that this was not interfering with _temporal_ matters?

Will it be said that the right of trial by jury was a _spiritual_

matter? Will it be said that the tyranny of King John, and his

oppressions, of which the barons justly complained, were _spiritual_

matters? No sensible advocate of Romanism will say this!

The next instance of an interference by the Pope in temporal affairs, to

which I shall call your attention, Governor, is his excommunication of

Elizabeth, Queen of England. She was immediately preceded on that throne

by her sister Mary, who was a Catholic. For no other reason than that

Elizabeth was a _Protestant_, and would not submit her rights and

kingdom to the control of the Pope, Pius V. thundered forth at her

devoted head the following anathema, from his throne at the Vatican,

situated at the foot of one of the seven hills upon which Rome is built:

EXCOMMUNICATION AND DEPOSITION Of QUEEN ELIZABETH OF ENGLAND.

"Pius, etc., for a future memorial of the matter. He that

reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and on

earth, committed one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, _out

of which there is no salvation_, to one alone upon the earth,

Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the

Bishop of Rome, to be governed in _fulness of power_. Him alone

he made prince over all people, and all kingdoms, to pluck up,

destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build, etc. But the number

of the ungodly hath gotten such power, that there is now no

place left in the whole world which they have not essayed to

corrupt with their most wicked doctrines. Amongst others,

Elizabeth, _the pretended Queen of England, a slave of

wickedness_, lending thereunto her helping hand, with whom, as

in a sanctuary, the most pernicious of all men have found a

refuge; this very woman having seized upon the kingdom, and

monstrously usurping the place of the supreme Head of the

Church in all England, and the chief authority and jurisdiction

thereof, hath again brought back the same kingdom to miserable

destruction, which was then newly reduced to the faith, and to

good order. For having by strong hand inhibited the true

religion, which Mary, the lawful queen, of famous memory, had,

by the help of this See, restored, after it had been formerly

overthrown by King Henry VIII., a revolter therefrom, and

following and embracing the errors of _heretics_, she hath

removed the royal council, consisting of the English nobility,

and filled it with obscure men, being heretics; hath oppressed

the embracers of the Roman faith, hath placed impious

preachers, ministers of iniquity, and abolished the sacrifice

of the mass, prayers, fastings, distinction of meats, a single

life, and the rites and ceremonies; hath commanded books to be

read in the whole realm, containing manifest heresy, etc. She

hath not only contemned the godly requests and admonitions of

princes concerning her healing and conversion, but also bath

not so much as permitted the Nuncios of the See to cross the

seas into England, etc. We do, therefore, out of the fulness of

our apostolic power, declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being

heretic, and a favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the

matter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema,

and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And,

moreover, we do declare her to be deprived of her pretended

title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity,

and privilege whatsoever; and also the nobility, subjects, and

people of the said kingdom, and all others which have in any

sort sworn unto her, to be for ever absolved from any such

oath, and all manner of duty or dominion, allegiance and

obedience; as we also do, by the authority of these presents,

absolve them, and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her

pretended title to the kingdom, and all other things aforesaid.

And we do command and interdict all and every one of the

noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they

presume not to obey her, or her admonitions, mandates, and

laws; and those who shall do the contrary, we do innodate with

the like sentence of ANATHEMA.

"Given at St. Peter's at Rome, in the year 1569, and the fifth

of our pontificate."--_Dowling's History of Romanism_, p. 564.

One more: Sixtus V. thunders his bull of excommunication at this same

Queen of England--incites Philip of Catholic Spain to make war against

her country--and graciously _gives_ the British Isles to Philip! Here is

the bull of Pope Sixtus:

"We, Sixtus the Fifth, the universal shepherd of the flock of

Christ, the supreme chief, to whom the government of the whole

world appertains, considering that the people of England and

Ireland, after having been so long celebrated for their

virtues, their religion, and their submission to our see, have

become putrid members, infected, and capable of corrupting the

whole Christian body, and on account of their subjection to the

impious, tyrannical, and sanguinary government of Elizabeth,

the bastard queen, and by the influence of her adherents, who

equal her in wickedness; and who refuse, like her, to recognize

the power of the Roman Church: regarding that Henry VIII.

formerly, for motives of debauchery, commenced all these

disorders by revolting against the submission which he owed to

the Pope, the sole and true sovereign of England; considering

that the usurper Elizabeth has followed the path of this

infamous king, we declare that there exists but one mode of

remedying these evils, of restoring peace, tranquillity, and

union to Christendom, of re-establishing religion, and of

leading back the people to obedience to us, which is, to depose

from the throne that execrable Elizabeth, who falsely arrogates

to herself the title of Queen of the British Isles. Being then

inspired by the Holy Spirit for the general good of the Church,

we renew, by the virtue of our apostolic power, the sentence

pronounced by our predecessor, Pius the Fifth and Gregory the

Thirteenth, against the modern Jezebel: we proclaim her

deprived of her royal authority, of the rights, titles, or

pretensions to which she may lay claim over the kingdoms of

Ireland and England, affirming that she possesses them

unlawfully and by usurpation. We relieve all her subjects from

the oaths they may have taken to her, and we prohibit them from

rendering any kind of service to this execrable woman; it is

our will, that she be driven from door to door like one

possessed of a devil, and that all human aid be refused her;

we declare, moreover, that foreigners or Englishmen are

permitted, as a meritorious work, to seize the person of

Elizabeth and surrender her, living or dead, to the tribunals

of the inquisition. We promise to those who shall accomplish

this glorious mission, infinite recompenses, not only in the

life eternal, but even in this world. Finally, we grant plenary

indulgence to the faithful who shall willingly unite with the

Catholic army which is going to combat the impious Elizabeth,

under the orders of our dear son Philip the Second, to whom we

give the British Isles in full sovereignty, as a recompense for

the zeal he has always shown toward our see, and for the

particular affection he has shown for the Catholics of the Low

Country."--_De Cormenin's History of the Popes_, p. 262.

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

of Romanism:

"From the time when the barbarians overran the Western Empire

to the time of the revival of letters, the influence of the

Church of Rome has been generally favorable to science, to

civilization, and to good government. But, during the last

three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been

her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has

been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts

of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been

in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most

fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk

into poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual

torpor, while Protestant countries, once proverbial for

sterility and barbarism, have been turned, by skill and

industry, into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes

and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what

Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what four hundred years

ago they naturally were, shall now compare the country round

Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form

some judgment of the tendency of Papal domination. The descent

of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths

of degradation, the elevation of Holland, in spite of many

natural disadvantages, to a position such as no commonwealth so

small has ever reached, teach the same lesson. Whoever passes,

in Germany, from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant principality,

in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant canton, in

Ireland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant county, finds

that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade of

civilization. On the other side of the Atlantic the same law

prevails. The Protestants of the United States have left far

behind the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The

Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain inert, while the whole

continent round them is in a ferment with Protestant activity

and enterprise."--_Macaulay's History of England_, vol. i., p.

37.

I must be permitted to add, just here, that in 1848, when the people of

France expelled Louis Philippe from the throne in Paris, and established

a Republic, the present old drunken, goutified debauchee, Pope Pius IX.,

hurled at the French nation a fearful bull of excommunication, and

denied them the right of revolution! Was this interfering in temporal

matters? But no longer ago than the year 1854, this same old vagabond,

Pope Pius, issued orders absolving his followers from all allegiance to

the Sardinian Government, because that government chose to abolish the

infamous monasteries, which had been so long supported at the expense of

an oppressed people! Was this not interfering in temporal matters? I

could multiply authorities, Governor, to an indefinite extent,

sustaining Mr. Wesley's views, and falsifying all you say, but this

would swell my reply beyond what I intended in the outset. Let me call

your attention to Brownson's Review, for July, 1853, where you will find

all this power, and even more, claimed for the Pope, over temporal

sovereigns and their subjects, the world over! This _Review_ is the

acknowledged organ of _Archbishop Hughes_, the head and front of the

Catholic Church in North America.

You state that our Declaration of Independence absolved from every

possible obligation to the Pope in temporal matters. Your language is:

"The moment it was read and proclaimed from old Independence

Hall in Philadelphia, obedience in temporal matters, if it ever

existed, ceased for ever, as to every native-born son in

America."

You further add that the Constitution of the United States set aside all

temporal power of the Pope in this country, and that if any doubts

remain, the finishing touch is given by the following oath of

naturalization, taken by our naturalized citizens:

"I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of

the United States, and that I do _absolutely and entirely_

renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign

prince, potentate, or state, or sovereignty _whatever_."

Sir, do you suppose that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers,"

whom you have the impudence to address, are all fools? Do you suppose

they are men of no reading or information? If they know any thing, they

certainly know that the oath of naturalization they, the Catholics,

take, weighs no more with them than a feather. A Catholic can evade the

force of any oath, by a _mental reservation_. Here is what Sanchez says,

the very highest Catholic authority, whose teaching, including this

interpretation of oaths, has been endorsed by the Council of Trent:

"It is lawful to use _ambiguous terms_ to give the impression a

different sense from that which you understand yourself. A

person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing,

though in fact he has, by saying to himself it was not done on

a certain day, or before he was born, or by concealing any

other similar circumstances; which gives another meaning to it.

This is extremely convenient, and always very just, when

necessary to your health, honor, or prosperity."

In addition to this, let me tell you, if you never before knew the fact,

that Judge Gaston, a distinguished Jurist, and a gentleman of excellent

character, though a rigid Roman Catholic, of North Carolina, was

appointed to a seat upon the Supreme Bench of that State. The

Constitution of that State, unlike those of almost all other States,

requires every Judge to take an oath, among other things, that HE

BELIEVES IN THE TRUTH OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION. Mr. Gaston asked time

to think over the matter--he repaired to the Archbishop at Baltimore,

doubtless obtained a dispensation--wrote back to Raleigh from there,

that he would take the oath--returned, and in due time solemnly swore

that _he believed in the truth of the Protestant Religion_. He died in

Raleigh, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court--but lived and died a

Roman Catholic!

During the past month, in this city, W. G. McAdoo, the Attorney General

for this Judicial Circuit, had some Irish Catholics brought before the

Grand Jury, to testify in cases of unlawful gaming and the retailing of

ardent spirits. The Clerk swore them on a common English Testament, and

they returned to the Jury room, and testified that they knew of no

cases! The Attorney for the Commonwealth then procured the _Catholic

Douay Bible_, with a large _Cross_ upon its outside, swore them upon

this--sent them in, and they _disgorged_, telling of various cases, and

enabling the Jury to find bills against even some of their own folks! An

oath, then, is nothing with strict Roman Catholics, who believe their

Priests can absolve them from the obligations of any and all oaths. For

notwithstanding your denial of the fact, it is notoriously true, that

the members of the Catholic Church believe their Priesthood to exercise,

by Divine right, the power to fix and determine their eternal destiny.

Nay, every Roman Catholic in the known world is under the absolute

control of the Catholic Priesthood, by considerations not only of a

temporal, but an eternal weight. This is what gives their Priesthood

such power and influence in elections; an influence they are using in

every State, against the American party. And it is this faculty of

concentration, this political influence, this power of the Priesthood to

control the Catholic community, and cause a vast multitude of ignorant

foreigners to vote as a _unit_, and thus control the will of the

American people, that has engendered this opposition to the Catholic

Church. It is this aggressive policy and corrupting tendency of the

Romish Church; this organized and concentrated political power of a

distinct class of men; foreign by birth; inferior in intelligence and

virtue to the American people, and not their religion and form of

worship, objectionable as these are known to be, which have called forth

the opposition of the American party to the Catholic Church.

But, sir, you occupy several pages in copying and commenting upon the

several oaths administered to the members of the American party--oaths

which, as you tell us, are revolting in their character, and lead to the

indiscriminate proscription of all foreigners. I meet all your

conjectures and wild speculations in reference to these several oaths

and obligations, by saying, just here, that I have taken them all, and

that they express my sentiments and feelings to the very letter; and I

am willing, for the remainder of my days, to go before an acting Justice

of the Peace, for the county of Knox, and have all three of these oaths

administered every Monday morning, upon the "Holy Bible and Cross."

You have failed, in your zeal to advocate Romanism and oppose the

American party, to tell the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom

you address, that we resort to our oaths and obligations to combat

successfully the most powerful oath-bound organization the world ever

knew. The oath of every _Roman Catholic Bishop_ and _Archbishop_ binds

him to absolute and unquestioned obedience, not only to the present Pope

but to his successors, "canonically coming in," and to "oppose and

persecute" all who do not submit to his authority! The oath of every

_Priest_ binds him to the Church of Rome "as the chief head and matron

above all pretended Churches throughout the whole earth," and to

"further her interests more than his own earthly good." The oath of the

_Jesuit_ binds him to the Pope, as "Christ's Vicar-General," by "all the

saints and hosts of heaven," and to "denounce and disown any allegiance

as due to Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates

or officers." The oath of the _San Fedisti_, a secret Order established

by the Papal government in 1821, binds them to sustain "the Papal altar

and throne, and to exterminate heretics, without pity for the cries of

children, or of men and women." The oath of the _Irish Ribbon Men_, an

Order established by the Papal government, and introduced into this

country by _Bedini_, the Pope's Nuncio, but a few years ago, binds him

"to extirpate all heretics, and all the Protestants, and to walk in

their blood to the knees." Is it not time to take the alarm, Governor,

and to combine to resist all these secret oath-bound associations, which

now threaten us with the loss of all that freemen and Protestant

Christians hold dear on earth?

It is a matter of utter astonishment to find a great political party in

this country, most of whom are native-born Protestants, taking sides

with a foreign Church, whose designs against this country, according to

the avowals of the Duke of Richmond, lately Governor-General of Canada,

are of the most wicked and fearful character! Speaking of this

government, the Duke said in a public address, on our northern border:

"It will be destroyed: it ought not, and will not be permitted

to exist. The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent

wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its

example; and so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon

his throne; and _the sovereigns of Europe are aware of it_, and

they have _determined upon its destruction, and have come to an

understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means

to accomplish it_; and they will eventually succeed, by

SUBVERSION _rather than conquest_. All the low and surplus

population of the different nations of Europe will be carried

into that country. It is and will be a receptacle for the bad

and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted

for soldiers, or to supply the navies; _and the governments of

Europe will favor such a course_. This will create a surplus

and majority of low population, who are so very easily excited;

and they will bring with them their principles, and in nine

cases out of ten adhere to their ancient and former

governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion, and will

transmit them to their posterity; and in many cases propagate

them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and by

the Constitution and laws will be invested with the right of

suffrage. Hence, discord, dissension, anarchy, and civil war

will ensue; and some popular individual will assume the

government, and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe,

the emigrants, and many of the natives, will sustain him. The

Church of Rome has a design upon that country; and it will in

time be the established religion, and will aid in the

destruction of that Republic. _I have conversed with many of

the sovereigns and princes of Europe; and they have unanimously

expressed these opinions relative to the government of the

United States, and their determination to subvert it._"

The monarchs of Europe, says the Duke of Richmond, will aid in sending

us a surplus of "low, excitable, bad, and disaffected men," who will

bring with them their principles, and will adhere to their foreign

notions of government, laws, manners, customs, and religion--and that

religion Catholic; and yet _you_, the "son of a now sainted father," of

Protestant raising, have the brazen effrontery to call upon the

"Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of an American Protestant Church

to aid you, your corrupt party, and the monarchs of Europe, in

destroying both our government and Church!

Sir, it is passing strange that Protestant Christians and their children

should be found side by side with you, Bishop Hughes, Gov. Johnson, and

the thousands of bad men who are seeking to build up a Roman Hierarchy

in this free country of ours! What do you promise the country and

yourselves, if Romanism proves successful in this contest? The history

of the past informs us that Rome has slain 1,000,000 of Albigenses and

Waldenses; 1,500,000 Jews, in Spain; 3,000,000 Moors, in Spain. France

will never forget St. Bartholomew's Night, when 100,000 souls perished

in Paris alone! The blood of Protestants has fertilized the soil of

England, Germany, and Ireland. I mean by this, that enough of Protestant

blood has been shed to _enrich_ all the poor lands of England, Germany,

and Ireland, if it were properly distributed. In all, the authentic

records of the Romish Church show, (and of this she makes her boast,)

that she has put to death SIXTY-EIGHT MILLIONS of human beings, for no

other offence than that of being _Protestants_ in their religious faith!

Average each person slain at four gallons of blood, and medical writers

say a healthy person yields more, and it makes TWO HUNDRED AND

SEVENTY-TWO MILLIONS OF GALLONS!--enough to overflow the banks of the

Mississippi, and destroy all the cotton and sugar plantations in

Mississippi and Louisiana!

But you argue, in your blasphemous publication, that this is no longer a

characteristic of the Romish Hierarchy. Why is it not? Has she ever

changed for the better? When did she ever renounce these doctrines and

practices? Never, no, never! Hers is the same tyrannical system

now--where she has the power--that it always has been, and always must

be, in the very nature of things! It is her boast, and the boast of her

standard authors, that she is always right, and knows no change! And wo

to this land of ours, if ever Rome gets the ascendancy here! Her whole

system is adverse to our Republican institutions, and she hesitates not

to declare it! _Brownson_ says in his Review:

"Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the _lying

world_, and, instead of pleading for our Church at the bar of

the State, _summon the State itself to plead at the bar of the

Church, its divinely constituted judge_."

No wonder, sir, that the American people are aroused! Such bold and

startling avowals are calculated to arouse and unite the somewhat

divided bands of Protestant Christians; to wake up a host of Luthers,

Calvins, Cranmers, and Wesleys; to bind together "the heretics condemned

in a mass." The very latest thing I have seen is the "Pastoral Letter"

of the Bishops of the Province of St. Louis, just issued. That document

explicitly says:

"We maintain the superiority of the _spiritual_ over the

_temporal_ order. We maintain that the temporal ruler is

_bound_ to conform his enactments to the Divine law. We

maintain that the Church is the supreme judge of all questions

concerning faith and morals; and that in the determination of

such question, the _Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ_,

constitutes a tribunal from which there is no appeal; and to

whose award all the children of the Church must yield

obedience."

Now, sir, after this authoritative and official announcement, I don't

want to see any more of your wire-drawn distinctions between spiritual

and temporal allegiance to the Pope. These Bishops say that both are

alike binding. Nor do I want to see any more of your malignant efforts

to fix the _lie_ upon Mr. Wesley, for affirming in Europe, during the

past century, what the Bishops of the United States have announced, in a

Pastoral Address, in the present day!

Pope Pius IX. has, by a special act, made the Virgin Mary the special

patron of these United States; but the Protestants of this country have

also made a decree, and that decree is, that Jesus Christ, and not the

Virgin Mary, shall be the patron of these United States.

And I am happy to have it in my power to inform you, notwithstanding the

influence of your Address, that the "Bishops, Elders, and other

Ministers" of the Methodist Church, both North and South, are ready to

make a common, determined, prayerful effort to save our native land from

the threatened slavery of submission to the decisions of the Council of

Trent, and the equally corrupt conventions of Progressive Democracy!

Assuming what is notoriously _false_--that the Know Nothings are in

favor of all measures fatal to the South, and destructive to the

Constitution--you ask on page 25 of your _infinitely infernal_ Address:

"What if a proposition be pending to repeal the Fugitive Slave

Law--the Kansas and Nebraska law--the rejection of a State

asking admission into the Union, because its constitution may

tolerate slavery?"

You know, sir, that the 12th Plank in the Philadelphia Platform of the

American party is a safer guaranty upon this slavery question, and the

perpetuity of existing laws, than is to be found anywhere in the creeds

of political parties. Here it is in full:

"The American party having arisen upon the ruins, and in spite

of the opposition of the Whig and Democratic parties, can not

be held in any manner responsible for the obnoxious acts or

violated pledges of either; and the systematic agitation of the

slavery question by those parties having elevated sectional

hostility into a positive element of political power, and

brought our institutions into peril, it has therefore become

the imperative duty of the American party to interpose, for the

purpose of giving peace to the country, and perpetuity to the

Union. And as experience has shown it impossible to reconcile

opinions so extreme as those which separate the disputants, and

as there can be no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the

National Council has deemed it the best guaranty of common

justice and of future peace, to abide by and maintain the

existing laws upon the subject of slavery, as a final and

conclusive settlement of that subject in spirit and in

substance.

"And regarding it the highest duty to avow their opinions upon

a subject so important, in distinct and unequivocal terms, it

is hereby declared as the sense of this National Council, that

Congress possesses no power, under the Constitution, to

legislate upon the subject of slavery in the States where it

does or may exist, or to exclude any State from admission into

the Union, because its Constitution does or does not recognize

the institution of slavery as a part of its social system; and

expressly pretermitting any expression of opinion upon the

power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any

Territory, it is the sense of the National Council that

Congress ought not to legislate upon the subject of slavery

within the Territories of the United States, and that any

interference by Congress with slavery as it exists in the

District of Columbia, would be a violation of the spirit and

intention of the compact by which the State of Maryland ceded

the District to the United States, and a breach of the national

faith."

In the "wild hunt" for territory by the progressive Democracy, and their

efforts to settle our Western lands with foreigners who are to a man

Free Soilers and Abolitionists, the South has more to fear than from all

other considerations. What is Gov. Johnson's iniquitous Homestead Bill,

but a bid for foreigners? He proposes to give to the heads of families

one hundred and sixty acres of land, thus _hiring_ all the convicts and

paupers of Europe to come and settle in our Western States and

Territories! Sir, but let your progressive, sublimated,

double-distilled, converging-lines, Johnsonian Democracy bring into this

Union one million of Spanish 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:

"It is now a well-attested fact, that Atchison is a member of

the Superior Order of the Spangled Banner, or Know Nothings,

and that his infernal villainy in Kansas has been carried on

under the protection and patronage of the lodges in Western

Missouri. This is a matter that all men in the North should

understand, that Northern voters may be exceedingly cautious

how they give countenance or support to an Order that, in any

of its phases or localities, is capable of producing such

results. It is further said, that the members of that Kansas

Legislature, now outraging all sense of right and justice by

their devilish enactments, are the chosen men of the affiliated

Know Nothings in Missouri and Kansas, who back then up in

whatever thing they do. Atchison and his gang are the friends

of the Order, and through it and Southern Know Nothing support

they are sure that their efforts to establish a despotism in

the Territory, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet, will

be successful. These facts account for many things heretofore

inexplicable, and they develop the true reason of the hostility

of the border-ruffians to the foreign immigration that would,

under other circumstances, people that vast and fertile country

west of the Missouri."

Thus it appears that a host of _lousy_ foreigners, fresh from the

emigrant ships, in which they are brought over to this country as

_ballast_--having the right to vote conferred upon them by an infamous

_progressive_ Democratic feature in the Kansas Bill, were expected to

get the control of affairs in Kansas. It further appears, however, that

Senator Atchison and his pro-slavery associates supposed that, though

fresh from their farms, and crossing the line of their State into the

new Territory, they too had the right to vote without being

_naturalized_ in Kansas. Hence, in the estimation of this Sag Nicht

organ at Chicago, a great outrage is committed upon Germany, Ireland,

and Italy!

Sir, you need not lay the flattering unction to your soul, that you can

drive the clergy generally from the noble stand they have taken upon

this great question. Nor need you suppose, for one moment, that the

American party are conquered, though defeated in several States in the

recent elections. The party will remain true to its ends. Though it fail

to command office, it cannot fail to exercise large power. Office is not

always strength; but sometimes, nay, frequently, as in the case of the

present Administration, weakness, as time will prove! The aim of the

American party is, by fair party means, to correct a great social evil

and political wrong; and if they cannot do that, to mitigate the evil

and the wrong; if they cannot do that, to prevent its _further

increase_; and if neither can be done, why, then I confess to you, the

party will have failed. But, sir, if such a failure take place, rest

assured that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the Methodist

Church, South, will not help to bring about such a failure! We can

afford to let such minions of party as you are, rave and rant, and

publish their expositions, and issue their warnings to Churches: they

will all serve to swell our ranks. All true American hearts, not chained

to the car of party, or bound down by the cords of plunder, think alike

upon the great questions that have called the American party into

existence. Little do we regard the slanders of the pensioners of party.

Let their speeches and publications teem with wholesale slanders of our

creed: the political jockeyism of these thimble-riggers, as in your own

case, is too apparent!

From Maine to the shores of the Pacific the country is convulsed with

intense excitement upon this subject. Shall Americans govern themselves,

or shall Foreigners, unacquainted with our laws, and brought up under

monarchical governments, rule? Shall those who are temporally and

spiritually subject to a foreign prince be our legislators,

post-masters, foreign ministers, and military leaders, and change our

laws as they are directed by the Pope of Rome? Such results the American

party have set out to prevent. The present excitement will not cease;

true Americans and Protestants will labor and pray until our distracted

country shall be redeemed from the influence of civil and ecclesiastical

tyranny.

Now, Governor, I have noticed all your charges, arguments, and appeals,

but one, and that is the allegation that Methodist clerical Know

Nothings are _conspirators_. Your argument is--and I wish to represent

you correctly--"The offence of conspiracy is not confined to the

prejudicing of a particular individual; it may be to injure public

trade, to affect public health, or to _violate public policy_."

You cite Blackstone's Commentary, and other English Law Books, to

satisfy the Clergy as to the _law of conspiracy_. This done, you

overwhelm them with this sage and logical conclusion:

"The gist of the offence of conspiracy consists in a

confederacy to do an _unlawful act_, and the offence is

complete when the confederacy is made."

I will concede, for the sake of the argument, that this is sound law,

and that yours is a logical deduction. Nay, I will concede more--I grant

that it is an unlawful act for native Americans, and Protestant

Christians, whether ministers or laymen, to resolve, or swear, as we

Know Nothings have all done, that we will not vote for Catholics and

Foreigners for public offices! I take the ground you do, that a man's

vote is not his own, and that it is only to be disposed of by the

leaders of the party with which he may act!

And now, if you and I, both great men, and _Doctors of Law_, are correct

in laying down the law, and the _privilege of voters in this free

country_, what an infamous body of conspirators the Democrats are, and

have always been! For a quarter of a century, they have conspired to

keep the Whigs out of office--have succeeded in doing so most of that

time--and have kept thousands of them who are poor from becoming rich!

More recently, they have conspired with Abolitionists, Free Soilers,

Fourierites, Spiritualists, Roman Catholics, Irish, French, and German

paupers, and all manner of European convicts, to keep the American party

out of office, and have succeeded in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia,

Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and other States--thereby

depriving the Americans of "lots" of money and honors, both of which

they need, and both of which are their _birthrights_!

The "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom you address, in

opposition to the great sin of _conspiracy_, would more cheerfully unite

with you to enforce law and order, and to prosecute offenders, but for

the fact that the _Abolition wing of your party_ once conspired against

them, to deprive their wives, children, widows, and orphans, of their

lawful portion of the great Book Concern in New York, and they were

compelled to punish the conspirators, at great expense, however, in the

District and Supreme Courts of the United States!

But, Sir, upon the subject of _oaths_, you are eloquent, apt in your

quotations of Scripture, and evince great learning in the legal

profession! You charge that "Know Nothingism is both unchristian and

unlawful, because of its _oaths_, which have no Scripture warrant for

their administration!" One of your quotations from the Bible is this:

"Swear not at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne: nor by the

earth, for it is his footstool." Your mind has undergone a great change

upon the subject of _oaths_ and _hard swearing_, since the 21st of

June, 1845, when you delivered your celebrated "Mount Pisgah" speech at

Athens. You then advised the people of the State to administer "horrible

oaths," and to swear by the "_heavens_," aye, "God's throne." But then

you were a Know Nothing. Here is what you say in your _revised_ copy of

that memorable speech:

"Go up with me in imagination and stand for awhile on some

lofty summit of the Rocky Mountains. Let us take one ravishing

view of this broad land of liberty. Turn your face toward the

Gulf of Mexico: what do you behold? Instead of one lone star

faintly shining in the far distant south, a whole galaxy of

stars of the first magnitude are bursting on your vision and

shining with a bright and glorious effulgence. Now turn with me

to the west--the mighty west--where the setting sun dips her

disk in the western ocean. Look away down through the misty

distance to the shores of the Pacific, with all its bays, and

harbors, and rivers. Cast your eyes as far as the Russian

Possessions, in latitude fifty-four degrees and forty minutes.

What a new world lies before you! How many magnificent States

to be the future homes of the sons and daughters of freedom!

But you have not gazed on half this glorious country. Turn now

your face to the east, where the morning sun first shines on

this land of liberty. Away yonder, you see the immortal old

thirteen, who achieved our independence; nearer to us lie the

twelve or fifteen States of the great valley of the

Mississippi, stretching and reposing like so many giants in

their slumbers. O! now I see your heart is full--it can take in

no more. Who now feels like he was a party man, or a southern

man, or a northern man? Who does not feel that he is an

American, and thankful to Heaven that his lot was cast in such

a goodly land? When did mental vision ever rest on such a

scene? Moses, when standing on the top of Mount Pisgah, looking

over on the promised land, gazed not on a scene half so lovely.

O! let us this day _vow_ that whatever else we may do, by

whatever name we may be called, we will never surrender one

square acre of this goodly heritage to the DICTATION of any

king or potentate on earth. SWEAR IT! SWEAR IT! my countrymen,

and let HEAVEN RECORD THE VOW FOR EVER!"

In conclusion, Governor, suffer a few words of advice, and I will bring

this letter, already too long, to a close. You are advanced in years,

nay, you have grown gray in the service of sin, and political intrigues;

and at most you have not long to live. Cease your political aspirations,

and turn your attention to future and eternal things! You have been a

member of our State Legislature; subsequently, a member of Congress; and

more recently the Governor of our State; honors and stations, to say the

least of it, equal to your merits and talents!

As a true "son of a now sainted father," from whom you have been

separated for many years, so demean yourself in future, that you may not

be separated, world without end! Humble yourself before God; confess

your numerous sins; and instead of lecturing God's ministers upon the

subject of party politics, ask them, with tears in your eyes, to pray

for you! Exercise a living faith in Christ, who came down from heaven,

and made upon the cross a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice,

oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world. Thus

obtaining forgiveness, cease your Sunday discussions on political

subjects; attend at the house of God, and set an example to other

ungodly Sag Nichts, and lead a new and different life!

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

W. G. BROWNLOW,

_A Local Methodist Minister._

GOVERNOR JOHNSON AND EDITOR EASTMAN.

On the 9th of October, 1855, and while the Legislature was in session at

Nashville, we delivered a speech to an immense crowd on the Public

Square; which, after certain preliminary remarks, we will give to the

public, just as it was spoken. The reason why the call was made on us to

deliver the speech was, that we had, the previous weeks, delivered the

same, in _substance_, at Shelbyville and Clarksville, and the American

party at Nashville hearing of it, and approving what was said, desired

us to repeat it; and, to be candid, we desired to repeat it there and

then!

Mr. Wise, of Virginia, gained great notoriety, in the spring of 1855, by

his abuse and blackguardism, heaped upon the American party. He was

successful; and Johnson, of Tennessee, whose ambition was to gain a more

infamous notoriety, profiting by the example of Wise, plunged into the

lowest depths of Billingsgate, and piled his vulgar epithets upon the

party _indiscriminately_. Wise, then, like all inventors and

originators, has had numerous _imitators_, and among the most successful

of these are Johnson, of Tennessee; Stephens, of Georgia; and Clingman,

of North Carolina. But as an adept in low Billingsgate slang, coarse

blackguardism, and as a slanderer and maligner of better men than

himself, Johnson has excelled his patron, Wise, and left far in the

shades of the distant caverns of abuse, both Stephens and Clingman!

To prepare the public mind for the degree of severity we used in

reference to the Governor of the State, we will introduce as many as

_five_ different extracts from his speeches, in his late canvass for

Governor, at Murfreesboro' and Manchester; as reported by his partisan

organ, the _Nashville Union_, and his _pliant tool_, its Abolition

editor, _E. G. Eastman_:

"THE DEVIL, HIS SATANIC MAJESTY, THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS, WHO

PRESIDES OVER THE SECRET CONCLAVE HELD IN PANDEMONIUM, MAKES

WAR UPON ALL BRANCHES OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. THE KNOW NOTHINGS

ADVOCATE AND DEFEND NONE, BUT MAKE WAR UPON ONE OF THE

CHURCHES, AND THUS FAR BECOME THE ALLIES OF THE PRINCE OF

DARKNESS."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Murfreesboro'.

"A DENOMINATION LIKE THIS, TO SET UP AS THE GUARDIANS OF THE

RELIGION AND MORALS OF THE COUNTRY! A DENOMINATION BOUND

TOGETHER BY SECRET AND TERRIBLE OATHS: THE FIRST OF WHICH, ON

THE VERY INITIATION, FIXES AND REQUIRES THEM TO CARRY A LIE IN

THEIR MOUTHS."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Murfreesboro'.

"SHOW ME THE DIMENSIONS OF A KNOW NOTHING, AND I WILL SHOW YOU

A HUGE REPTILE, UPON WHOSE NECK THE FOOT OF EVERY HONEST MAN

OUGHT TO BE PLACED."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Manchester.

"THEY ARE LIKE THE HYENA, AND COME FROM THEIR LAIR AFTER

MIDNIGHT TO PREY UPON HUMAN CARCASSES."--[Speech of ANDREW

JOHNSON, at Manchester.

"I WOULD AS SOON BE FOUND IN THE CLAN OF JOHN A. MURRELL AS IN

A KNOW NOTHING COUNCIL."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at

Manchester.

The _blackguard_ and _calumniator_ using this language, was elected by a

majority of two thousand votes: that majority being cast by _Foreigners

and illegal voters_; and consequently, his competitor, COL. GENTRY--than

whom there is not a more talented, patriotic, and honorable gentleman in

Tennessee--was fairly and justly elected. This, then, is the language

used by the Governor of Tennessee, _towards a majority of the legal

voters of the State_! Under these circumstances, we made the speech that

follows, to an immense crowd on the Square: the correspondence preceding

which, will explain itself:

NASHVILLE, Oct. 10th, 1855.

W. G. BROWNLOW, ESQ.:

_Dear Sir_:--The undersigned, having heard your speech on the

Square, last night, respectfully request that you embody the

substance of the same, and publish it in the Knoxville Whig.

The desire to see it in print is very general; and those who

heard it approved its severity, without it were such as were

bitter against the American party.

Your friends,

CHARLES G. SMITH,

JOHN MORRISON,

F. M. BURTON,

ROBT. S. NORTHCUTT,

SAML. DAVIS.

NASHVILLE, Oct. 13th, 1855.

MESSRS. SMITH, MORRISON, AND OTHERS:

_Gentlemen_:--Your note requesting me to publish the substance

of my remarks on the Square, last Tuesday night, has been

received, and I would have replied sooner, but for my absence

at Shelbyville. I have now made the same speech at Clarksville,

Nashville, and Shelbyville; and my only regrets are, that my

engagements prevent me from delivering the same speech at every

point in this State, where Gov. Johnson held me up as the "High

Priest of the Order," and argued therefrom the _want of

respectability_ for the Order. In addition to your request, I

have had verbal applications from many gentlemen to publish my

remarks--gentlemen who have been mild and moderate throughout

their political course. I shall, therefore, comply with your

request and theirs, at my earliest convenience.

I hold that no man's position in life should shield him from

the rebukes he may merit by his bad conduct; and as for the

present Governor of Tennessee, his wholesale abuse of the

American party, towards whose members, without a single

exception, he has indulged in language which ought not to be

tolerated within the precincts of Billingsgate, no epithet is

too low, too degrading, or disgraceful, to pay him back in.

Respectfully, &c.,

W. G. BROWNLOW.

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--The occasion which has called you together to-night,

is the special appointment of our young friend, Mr. Crowe, to whose

eloquence we have all listened with pleasure. I have made no appointment

to speak here; nor have I prompted the loud and long calls made upon me,

this evening, by this large Nashville audience. I shall speak to you;

but not upon the _issues_ of the late canvass, nor upon those of the

approaching canvass of 1856. I will discuss _Andrew Johnson_ and _E. G.

Eastman_; and if they are in the assembly, I hope they will come forward

and take seats on this stand, that I may have the pleasure of looking

them full in the face, as I denounce them in unmeasured terms: which is

my purpose to-night, let the consequences be what they may!

On a memorable night in August, after it was understood that _Andrew

Johnson_ was 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, in a style peculiarly his own--adapted alone to the

foul precincts of Billingsgate--rounding his periods with a diabolical

and infernal _grin_, alone suited to a display of oratory by a land

pirate!

I reported this slanderous speech--not in as offensive style--as it was

delivered; for his _looks_ and _grins_ no man can report on paper. I

also wrote the substance of what he said to Major Donelson, in a letter,

of which I shall have something more to say before I leave this stand.

Just here, I will repeat what the Governor did say, and what I reported

him to have said in my paper. I wish this large audience to hear me

distinctly, and to recollect the points I make; for I shall wind up on

the Governor and his miserable tool, _Eastman_, with a degree of

severity you have not been accustomed to, but which shall be warranted

by the facts in each case.

Gov. Johnson said this new party of self-styled Americans professed to

have organized with a view to purify and reform the old political

parties. A beautiful set, said he, to reform! The Order of Know Nothings

was composed of the worst men in the Whig and Democratic parties. As a

_sample_ of these men, he pointed out _Andrew J. Donelson_, by

name--exclaiming as often as twice, _Who is Andrew J. Donelson?_ He is a

soured, office-seeking, disappointed politician, who has been kicked out

of the Democratic party. To illustrate his views more fully, he told the

crowd to imagine a large gang of _counterfeiters_ out there! and an

equally large gang of _horse-thieves_ out yonder! Take from these two

companies the worst men in their ranks, form a third party of these, and

you have a representation of this Know Nothing party. This was a

beautiful party to propose reform, or to speak of other parties being

corrupt! He was interrupted repeatedly; and I think I may safely say,

among hands, they gave him the d----d lie fifty times! James M. Davis, a

respectable mechanic, asked him if he would say that to Major Donelson's

face? He replied, that he heard the hissing of an adder, or a goose, and

went through with certain stereotyped phrases you have all heard from

his lips. This call upon him by Mr. Davis was not named in my newspaper

report, nor in my letter to Major Donelson. Indeed, I did not anticipate

a denial of his abuse.

Now, fellow-citizens, it was in this connection, as well as in the most

offensive language, that Gov. Johnson introduced the name of Andrew J.

Donelson, repeating it more than once, emphasizing upon it, and

repeating it with scorn and bitterness. This is the report, _in

substance_, I made of his speech through my paper, and in a letter I

addressed to Major Donelson. And to the truth of my report, there are

one hundred respectable gentlemen in Knoxville who will make oath upon

the Holy Bible. There are now a half-dozen respectable gentlemen in this

crowd who were in the street at Knoxville on that occasion, and heard

every word the Governor said, and will sustain me in my account of it.

Among these I will name Messrs. White and Armstrong, members of the

House, Senator Rogers, Col. James C. Luttrell, and Mr. Fleming, the

editor of the Knoxville Register.

Well, gentlemen--and I am proud to have an opportunity of vindicating

myself before so large a Nashville audience as this is--I say Major

Donelson came to Nashville, after receiving intelligence of the abuse of

the Governor, and was seen walking these streets with a _large and

homely stick_ in his hand, looking _grum_, as any gentleman would do

under the circumstances. The friends of Gov. Johnson seeing what would

likely be the result of this affair, asked for, and very properly

obtained that letter, with a view to laying it before their slanderous

and abusive Executive officer, that he might _lie out of what he said_

about an honorable and brave man; and thereby avoid the disgrace of a

cudgelling! Did he lie out of the scrape? He did: aye, he _ingloriously

lied out_ of what he had said--leaving Major Donelson no ground for any

difficulty with him: although the Major had a right to suppose that any

man base enough to make such charges, would have no hesitancy in lying

out of his disreputable and cowardly abuse. I therefore pronounce your

Governor, here upon his own dunghill, an UNMITIGATED LIAR AND

CALUMNIATOR, and a VILLAINOUS COWARD, wanting the _nerve_ to stand up to

his abuse of better men than himself!

But it will be said that the Governor _proves_ me a liar, by a citizen

of Nashville, who was present at Knoxville and heard his speech. That is

so, but I prove both him and his witness liars, by a multitude of

witnesses who were also present, and who are gentlemen of the first

standing. But who is it that testifies that I have lied? It is _E. G.

Eastman_, the editor of the Sag Nicht organ in this city. And who is _E.

G. Eastman_? He is a dirty, lying, and unscrupulous Abolitionist, from

Massachusetts, who once conducted an Abolitionist paper either in that

State, or the State of New Hampshire. He was brought out to this State

to lie for the unscrupulous leaders of his party. He is paid for

_telling_ and _writing_ falsehoods, and would, if the interests of his

party required it, and a consideration were paid him in hand, _swear

lies_ as readily as he would write them down for publication. He is a

poor devil, as void of truth and honor as he has shown himself to be of

courage and resentment. He edits a low, dirty, scurrilous sheet; and,

like his master, Gov. Johnson, never could elevate himself above the

level of a common blackguard. No epithet is too low, too degrading, or

disgraceful to be applied to the members of the American party, by

either of these Billingsgate graduates. Decent men shun coming in

contact with either of them, as they would avoid a night-cart, or other

vehicle of filth. As some fish thrive only in dirty water, so the

Nashville Union and American would not exist a week out of the

atmosphere of slang and vituperation. A fit organ, this, for all who

arrange themselves under the dark piratical flag of Andrew Johnson and

his progressive Democracy. I am the more specific in reference to

_Eastman_, because I understand he is in this assembly!

But, fellow-citizens, I am not yet through with this Knoxville speech of

the Governor. Maj. Donelson visited Knoxville, one month after this

slanderous speech was made against him; he visited there upon the

invitation of the American party, to address a Mass Meeting. I waited

upon Maj. Donelson, upon his arrival, and found him at the house of

Doct. Curry. I told the Major that I was tired of having questions of

veracity between me and Governors and Ex-Governors of Tennessee, and

that I desired that others should state to him what had been said by the

Governor. Accordingly, different gentlemen, citizens of character,

informed him that they were in the crowd and heard Johnson, and that he

did say all that was attributed to him, both in the letter he had

received from me, and in the two Knoxville papers. Consequently, when

Maj. Donelson made his speech next day, he denounced the Governor as a

miserable calumniator, and refuted his villainous charges, in a manner

becoming the occasion, and with a frankness which carried with it a

conviction of its truth, and gave satisfaction to his numerous friends.

And now, gentlemen, I take occasion to state, that there is no longer an

adjourned question of veracity between me and Johnson and Eastman. The

issue is between Johnson and Eastman, on the one hand, and various

respectable gentlemen of Knoxville, on the other hand. Either the

Governor and his man Friday have basely lied, or a number of the

citizens of Knoxville and vicinity, have testified to what is false. I

assert, once more, that the Governor and his dirty Editor have lied out

of the villainous abuse the former heaped upon better men than himself.

And if their friends are willing to see them remain under the charge,

the American party are satisfied with the settlement of the question.

Fellow-citizens, while I am on the stand, I will notice some other

points personal to myself. And before I enter upon these, I will call

your attention to the wholesale abuse of the Governor, of some

thirty-five or forty thousand voters in Tennessee. In his Murfreesboro'

speech, he asserted that "_the Devil, his Satanic Majesty, presides over

all the secret conclaves_" held by the Know Nothings, and that "_they

are the allies of the Prince of Darkness_." I quote from his printed

speeches from memory, but it will be found that I quote correctly. In

that same speech, he asserts that all Know Nothings are "_bound by

terrible oaths to fix and carry a lie in their mouths_!" In his

Manchester speech, I believe it was, he called all members of the new

party "_Hyenas_," and "_huge reptiles, upon whose neck the feet of all

honest men ought to be placed_." And in this same speech he says he

"WOULD AS SOON BE FOUND IN A CLAN OF JOHN A. MURRELL'S MEN, AS IN A KNOW

NOTHING COUNCIL!"

What an imputation upon nearly one half of the legal voters of

Tennessee! He has used the most odious terms his _limited_ knowledge of

the English language would enable him to employ, to deride, defame,

insult, and blackguard every man who has joined the new party, or dares

to act with them in politics. In the plenitude of his bitter and

supercilious arrogance, Andrew Johnson has indulged in language against

the entire American party, which would not be tolerated within the

precincts of Billingsgate, or the lowest fish-market in London. And from

Johnson to Shelby counties, during the entire summer, this low-flung and

ill-bred scoundrel, pursued this same strain of vulgar and disgusting

abuse. And whether speaking of the most enlightened statesman, the

purest patriot, or the most pious clergyman, he pursued the same strain

of abuse. With him, a vile demagogue, whose daily employment is to

administer to the very worst appetites of mankind, no virtue, no honor,

no truth, exists anywhere, but in the breasts of such as are either

corrupt enough or fool enough to follow him, and a few malignant

falsifiers who worship at his shrine. He is a wretched and vile caterer

to the morbid foreign and Catholic appetite of this country. "It is a

dirty bird that fouls its own nest," says the proverb; and it applies to

this man Johnson with as much force as to the dirtiest of the feathered

tribe.

"Where is the wretch, so lost, so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my _own_, MY NATIVE LAND!"

He now disgraces the Executive Chair of this gallant State. Most of

God's creatures, human and brute, have an attachment to "HOME, SWEET

HOME;" but here is a contemptible and selfish demagogue who discards all

such feelings, and would transfer his country and home to strangers and

outlaws, to European paupers and criminals, if he could thereby receive

a temporary election, or receive a pocket-full of money. For such a

wretch I have no sympathy, and no feelings but those of scorn and

contempt, and hence it is that I speak of him in such terms.

On every stump in Tennessee, he held me up as "the High Priest of the

Order," representing Col. Gentry as _my_ candidate. Since I came to

Middle Tennessee, I have been informed that he pointed to the fancied

fact that I was the head of the Order, as an evidence of _its utter want

of respectability_. Turning up his nose, and grinning significantly, he

would inquire, _Who is William G. Brownlow?_

Now, gentlemen, since he makes this issue of _respectability_ with me, I

will accept it. Since he throws down the glove, I will take it up, and I

will show you that he is the last man on God's green earth to call in

question the respectability of other men, or their families! It would be

both cruel and unbecoming in me to speak of what the dishonest and

villainous relatives of Gov. Johnson have done, if he conducted himself

prudently, and did not abuse others with such great profusion. I am not

aware of any relative of mine ever having been hung, sent to the

penitentiary, or being placed in the stocks. I have no doubt that

persons related to me, directly or remotely, have deserved such a fate

long since. There is not a man in this vast assembly who can say, and

tell the truth, that he has no mean kin. Can Gov. Johnson say so?

Rather, can he say he has any other kind? He is a member of a numerous

family of Johnsons, in North Carolina, who are generally THIEVES and

LIARS; and though he is the best one of the family I have ever met with,

I unhesitatingly affirm, to-night, that there are better men than Andrew

Johnson in our Penitentiary! His relatives in the Old North State, have

stood in the Stocks for crimes they have committed. And his _own born

cousin_, Madison Johnson, was hung in Raleigh, for murder and robbery! I

told him of this years ago, in Jonesboro', and he denied it, and put me

to the trouble of procuring the testimony of Gov. John M. Morehead to

prove it! The Governor was petitioned to pardon Madison Johnson, and

declined, as he knew he suffered justly. This explains why this

_scape-gallows_ has been so bitter against Whig and Know Nothing

Governors. They have been so unfeeling, as to suffer his dear relatives

to _pull hemp without foothold_, when a jury of twelve honest men have

said that they deserved death! Is he not one of the last men living to

talk about a want of respectability on the part of any one? Certainly he

is!

Well, gentlemen, Johnson is again the Governor of Tennessee; but if he

could be mortified, he would have the mortification to know that he is

the Governor with a majority of the _legal native votes of the State_

cast in opposition to him. We all committed one capital blunder in the

late canvass, and that alone defeated Gentry, and elected Johnson. We

copied from the Book of Pardons a list of FORTY-SEVEN names of culprits

pardoned out of our State Prison by Johnson--some for 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 among a clan of Murrell men, to being found in a Know Nothing

Council; and in the same breath we assured them that if Gentry was

elected, he would let all such rascals stay in prison as long as the

courts of the country decreed they should. And while thousands of

honorable, high-minded men voted for Johnson, under the lash of party,

or because they were blinded by his glaring demerits, it is not to be

disguised that all the _petit larceny_ and _Penitentiary men_ in the

State voted for him. There never was a time in Tennessee when there were

not five thousand voters who either _had been stealing_, or _intended to

steal_! These would naturally look to where they would find a friend, in

the event of their being overtaken by justice. In the person of Andrew

Johnson, they felt assured of "a friend indeed, because a friend in

_need_." He had publicly told them that he preferred the company of

Murrell men to the society of the most respectable lawyers, doctors,

preachers, farmers, and mechanics in the State, who met in certain

councils. The fact of his turning so many Murrell men out of the State

Prison, and of his having been _raised up in such society_, left no

doubt of the sincerity of his profession!

In conclusion, fellow-citizens, if Gov. Johnson cannot lawfully canvass

the State a _third_ time for the office he now fills, I hope the

Legislature will legalize such a race by a special act, and I propose to

be the candidate against him. I will show the people of the State in his

presence, from the same stand, who are Murrell men, and who are not able

to look honest men in the face!

If I have said any thing to-night offensive to your Governor, or any of

his friends or understrappers in this city, they know where to find me.

When I am not on the streets, I can be found at No. 43, on the lower

floor of Sam Scott's City Hotel, opposite the ladies' parlor. I shall

remain here for the next ten days only, and whatever punishment any one

may wish to inflict upon me, it must be done in that time. I say this,

not because I seek a difficulty, but because I don't intend it shall be

said that I made this speech and took to flight!

I thank you, gentlemen, for the patience with which you have heard me in

a matter personal to myself, and I hope you are prepared to acquit me of

lying in the Donelson case, although Gov. Johnson and Editor Eastman

bear testimony against me. I thank you, and now bid you good night!

* * * * *

We beg leave to add, that in March, 1842, Andrew Johnson laid hold of us

in a speech in Blountville, when we were in Jonesborough, distant twenty

miles. He held up a picture or drawing of us, and accompanied it with

many abusive remarks. In turn, we held him up in the Whig of the 29th of

the same month, and gave his _pedigree_ in full, and with it a

_representation of his cousin Madison Johnson, under the gallows_ in

Raleigh!

The first Monday in April following, Johnson spoke in Jonesborough, and

denied _most solemnly that he ever had a relative by the name of Madison

Johnson--denied that a man of that name had ever been hung in

Raleigh--and asserted that the man hung there in 1841 was by the name of

Scott--a nephew, he said, of General Winfield Scott!_ This bold denial,

made in the presence of a large and anxious crowd, overwhelmed us _for

the time being_, as Johnson was raised in the vicinity of Raleigh, and

had learned his trade there. He was supposed to know, and for the moment

we were branded with falsehood. To aid him in his war upon us, the

"_Jonesborough Sentinel_," Johnson's organ, came out upon us, and

noticed his denial of our charge and his speech, in an article of which

the following is an extract:

"Brownlow said, some time back, that Col. Johnson had a cousin

hung in North Carolina. The Colonel developed the fact the day

he used up or skinned Brownlow alive in Jonesborough, _that

instead of its being his cousin, it was the nephew of Gen.

Winfield Scott_, now a _quasi_ Coon candidate for the

Presidency. Brownlow _is so silent_!"

After this, the Sentinel noticed us again, and this notice drew out

WESTON R. GALES, the then editor of the Raleigh Register, in the

following:

EDITORIAL COMPLIMENTS.

"We find the following editorial in the 'Jonesboro' (Tenn.)

Sentinel,' a Locofoco print, in relation to the editor of the

'Jonesboro Whig:'

"BROWNLOW made an awkward attempt last week to caricature a

person who was hung some years ago in North Carolina, whom he

termed the cousin of Col. JOHNSON. But it turns out to have

been the nephew of Gen. WINFIELD SCOTT, a distinguished Coon

leader. Poor BROWNLOW!--it ought to be his time next. Wonder

how many hen-roosts he robbed last summer?"

"We have nothing to do with whose time it is to be hung next,

nor with the number of hen-roosts robbed, nor by whom robbed,

but we will take occasion to correct the 'Sentinel' as to the

person hung here 'some years ago.'

"In the spring of 1841, a man named MADISON JOHNSON was hung in

this place for the murder of HENRY BEASLEY, but we were not

aware that he was any relation of Col. JOHNSON, if it be meant

thereby Col. R. M. JOHNSON, of Kentucky. He was, however,

connected with A. JOHNSON, the candidate for Congress in the

Jonesboro' District, MADISON and he being first cousins.

"The last man hung in this place by the name of SCOTT, was

MASON SCOTT, in 1820, and if the 'Sentinel' means to reflect

upon the Whig party by saying he was a nephew of Gen. WINFIELD

SCOTT, a 'distinguished Coon leader,' we are willing for him to

indulge in such misstatements.

"IF THE 'SENTINEL' HAD TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO CONSULT MR. A.

JOHNSON ON THE SUBJECT, HE WOULD HAVE SATISFIED HIM OF THE

FACTS, AS HE WAS IN THIS CITY ABOUT THE TIME MADISON WAS

EXECUTED."

It will be seen, that while Johnson was uttering his _solemn but false

denial_ at Jonesborough, he _knew he was lying_, for he was in Raleigh

"_about the time Madison was executed!_"

But we told our friends to hold on, to have patience, and to give us

time, and we would make good our charge. Accordingly, in the same issue

in which we brought out this extract from the Raleigh Register, we

published the following letter from Gov. MOREHEAD, in answer to one we

had written him:

RALEIGH, 24th April, 1843.

[EXECUTIVE OFFICE.]

"DEAR SIR--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours

of the 14th inst., requesting me to inform you what was the

name of the man hung in Raleigh in the spring of 1841.

"His name was MADISON JOHNSON. His case was taken to the

Supreme Court, and you will find it reported, December Term,

1840, vol. 1st, page 354, Iredell's Reports.

"He was hung for the murder of Henry Beasley. A strong effort

was made to procure a pardon for him; but believing his case a

clear murder, I refused to grant it.

"The only man named Scott that was ever convicted of murder at

this place, was Mason Scott, in 1820.

"You will find his case reported in the reports of the Supreme

Court, January Term, 1820, 1st Stark's Reports, page 24.

"I am not aware that any other man named Scott was ever

convicted of a capital offence in this county.

"I have the honor to be

"Your most ob't serv't,

"J. M. MOREHEAD."

"Rev. W. G. BROWNLOW."

In conclusion, after this letter appeared, and Johnson was elected, he

sent an appointment to Raleigh, for a speech--attended there, and

blackguarded and vilified "Morehead and Brownlow" for two hours. He made

the _letter_ of Morehead the pretext for his abuse, but the real cause

was the Governor's refusal to _pardon his cousin_. Johnson was there to

procure his pardon, and brought every appliance to bear within his

power, but the North Carolina Governor was inflexible in the discharge

of his sworn duty! We do not make the point against Johnson that he has

_mean kin_, only so far as it may _offset_ his abuse of others, for who

of us are without mean kinsfolks? But our point is, his _deliberate

lying_ before a Jonesboro' audience!

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

GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S THANKSGIVING DAY.

As the sixth of the present month has been set apart by our Governor, to

be observed as a day of prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God for his

numerous and unmerited mercies conferred upon the people of our State

and nation; and as it is desirable that the different sects shall act in

concert on the occasion, and at least pray "with the understanding,"

that is to say, _appropriately_, we have been at the trouble to prepare

a form of prayer for the occasion. This we do in no irreverend spirit,

but in all candor and sincerity, after this wise:

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, in whom we live, and move, and have our

being: we, thy needy creatures, render thee our humble praises, for thy

preservation of us from the beginning of our lives to this day of public

thanksgiving, and especially for having delivered us from all the

dangers and afflictions of the year about to close. By thy knowledge,

most gracious God, the depths were broken up during the past seed-time

and harvest, and the rains descended: while by night the clouds

distilled the gentle dew, filling our barns with plenty: thus crowning

the year with thy goodness, in the increase of the ground, and the

gathering in of the fruits thereof. And we beseech thee, O most merciful

Father, give us a just sense of this great mercy: such as may appear in

our lives, by an humble, holy, and obedient walking before thee all our

days!

To thy watchful providence, O most merciful God, we are indebted for all

our mercies, and not any works or merit of ours; for many of us entered

into the scramble to elevate to the Executive Chair of the State the

present incumbent, with a perfect knowledge that he had abused thy Son,

JESUS CHRIST, our Lord, on the floor of our State Senate, as a swindler,

advocating unlawful interest: we knew that he had voted in Congress

against offering prayers to thee: we knew that he had opposed the

temperance cause, which is the cause of God and of all mankind: we knew

that he had vilified the Protestant religion, and slandered the

Protestant clergy, defending and eulogizing the corruptions of the

Roman Catholic Church, throughout the length and breadth of our State;

yet such was the force of party ties, O most mighty God, that we went

into the support of our INFIDEL GOVERNOR blind, and, by our zeal in his

behalf, gave the lie to our professions of piety, rendered ourselves

hateful in the eyes of all honest and consistent men, meriting a degree

of punishment we have never received! We do most heartily repent, O

merciful God, for these shameful sins: we humble ourselves in lowest

depths of humility, and ask forgiveness of a God whom we have justly

provoked to anger, and the forgiveness of our insulted brethren, whom we

have wickedly blackguarded, to the great injury of the cause of Christ!

O most merciful God, who art of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, turn

not a deaf ear to our supplications on this day, because the day has

been set apart by a Governor who really does not subscribe to the

Christian religion; does not attend Divine service; who swears

profanely; and has insulted Heaven and outraged the feelings of all

pious Christians, by teaching the blasphemous sentiment that

Christianity is of no higher or holier origin than his Democracy! Have

mercy, our Father and God, upon that portion of this congregation who

have endeavored to find peace to their souls by travelling along the

"converging lines" of a spurious Democracy, in search of the foot of

"Jacob's Ladder," and give them repentance and better minds! And do

thou, O God of pity, show all such, that instead of ascending to heaven

on an imaginary "Ladder," they are chained fast to the Locomotive of

Hell, with the Devil for their Chief Engineer, the Pope of Rome as

Conductor, and an ungodly Governor as Breakman; and that, at more than

railroad speed, they are driving on to where they are to be eternally

punished by Him whom thou hast appointed the Judge of quick and dead,

thy Son JESUS CHRIST, our Lord. Amen!

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

THE FOREIGN SPIRIT ILLUSTRATED.

The following correspondence will explain itself, whilst it will serve

to show the spirit which governs this Bogus Foreign Catholic Democracy:

RICHMOND, April 21, 1856.

REV. AND DEAR SIR:--It cannot be unkind in me, though

personally unknown to you, to address you on a subject in which

our peace as citizens is alike concerned. I see in the

Fincastle Democrat of 18th inst. what purports to be a review

of an article of yours in the Knoxville Whig of 5th inst., in

which I suppose, from the remarks contained in the Democrat, I

have been very, _very_ severely handled by you, for an offence

I never committed. You will allow me to say, sir, that I have

no recollection of ever writing or speaking a disrespectful

word of you in all my life, but, on the contrary, have

frequently spoken approvingly of much you have written. Such

being the fact, you will not be surprised to learn how deeply I

regret that the purest innocence on my part has failed to be a

protection against personal abuse. That you have been misled by

some person, is to my mind very plain, and if, through the

influence of another, you have inflicted a wound upon one that

never harmed you, nor ever designed to harm you, is it not

within the range of a generous nature--of an honest man--to

repair the injury by at once giving up to the injured party the

name of the deceiver, or publish him to the world as authority

for the assault, and let him assume its responsibilities?

In a change of circumstances, I should feel bound, by the honor

of a man, to do that much, and in my present relation to the

case I ask nothing more. It is perhaps due to you to be

informed, that I have not seen your article, nor do I know a

word it contains, and it is due to myself to say that I knew

nothing of the article in the Democrat assailing you, till I

saw it in print some hundred of miles from home, where I have

not yet arrived after an absence of nearly two months. On the

subject of dues, I may add that it is due to the public that

the name of the deceiver be given them. I of course suppose him

to be a man of great personal courage, ready to assume all his

own responsibilities. In conclusion, permit me to say, that any

effort on your part to aid in concealing the hand that uses the

dagger in the dark, will detract largely from the estimate I

have placed upon your character, as a man without hesitation or

fear, when the claims of justice are presented. My address is

Fincastle, Botetourt Co., Va., and I am very respectfully,

S. D. HOPKINS.

* * * * *

KNOXVILLE, May 21st, 1856.

REV. S. D. HOPKINS:

SIR--Through the weakness, mismanagement, and culpable

remissness of the contemptible Jesuit now at the head of the

Post Office Department, and his numerous lackeys--all of whom

you sustain in their politics--a letter written by you one month

ago was received a few days since, while I was absent at a Know

Nothing Convention, aiding my political brethren in placing

before the people of this Congressional District an electoral

candidate, to aid in the great Christian and patriotic work of

overthrowing the corrupt, profligate, unprincipled, Foreign

Catholic Bogus Democratic party, of which _you_ are a member,

and in the service of which you are an editor! But my delay in

replying to your letter shall be atoned for in the _length_ and

_plainness_ of my reply.

It is true, sir, that I published an editorial in my paper, of

some severity against you; but the article was in _reply_ to a

low, cowardly, and abusive editorial against me in the

"Fincastle Democrat," of which you are the editor. And "you will

allow me to say, sir," that at the time this attack was made

upon me in _your_ paper, I never had said a word about you or

your paper in my life, either "good, bad, or indifferent;" and

"if through the influence of another you have inflicted a wound

upon one that never harmed you, is it not within the range of a

generous nature--of an honest man"--to repair the injury by

taking back the article, and apologizing through the same medium

for the injury? If, however, you believe you have not "been

misled by some person," and have done me no more than justice in

that abusive article, hold on to it. Having made oath that the

horse is _fifteen feet high_, allow of no correction!

In all frankness, you must permit me to say, that I believe you

expected to find in the office on your return to Fincastle, a

letter from me demanding your authority for admitting into your

paper such an article against me, who, as you very well knew, up

to that hour had never said one word, publicly or privately,

against you or your paper. I think you concluded to _take the

start of me_, and thus to _forestall_ me, by writing from

Richmond some twenty-four hours before you would arrive at home!

In your paper of the 18th of April, issued only three days

before this letter was written at Richmond, an editorial of half

a column appears, in which _your_ paper styles me a "notorious

blackguard"--a "bullying blackguard"--an "unwanted and lying

man"--who "is mean enough to lie, cheat, or even steal"--a man

"wearing the garb of righteousness to serve the Devil in;" and

in the same article, the case of a Locofoco editor, who was

involved in a shooting scrape on account of his attack upon a

lady, is actually attributed to ME! Although you are a Reverend

Methodist Preacher, and a grave and dignified Steam Doctor,

conducting one of the organs of the Foreign and Anti-American

party in Virginia, you must pardon me for saying, as I now do,

that in calling upon me for my authority for what I had said in

reply to the unmitigated abuse of _your_ paper, you have proven

to my mind, that if you do not possess the cool and collected

impudence of the _Devil_, you are at least possessed of the

lion-headed impudence of an unprincipled Sag Nicht partisan,

hired to do the dirty work of an equally unprincipled and dirty

organization!

But it is due to the history of this controversy that I should

say, this second attack upon me sets forth that you are from

home, and that "the _Junior_ is responsible for the article."

This might be credited, if, on your return home, you had

protested against such abuse, but it seems from your silence to

have met with your heart's approval, and gave "general

satisfaction," at least to _you_! It is true that you were

absent at the time of both these publications, but it does not

follow, as a matter of course, that you were not the veritable

author, and that they did not find their way to the "Democrat"

office at the same time and in the same way that your "Baltimore

Correspondence" got there. The "Junior," as he styles himself,

claims the fraternity; and were it not that he is too well known

in Fincastle for any sane man to believe that _he_ wrote the

articles, he might have the credit (if credit there be attached

to it) of so low, malicious, and lying articles. But he is known

in Fincastle to be a brainless man, and to be incapable of

writing a paragraph on any subject. He is known to have no use

of language, and to be incapable of applying epithets to any

one. So that, if _you_ did not write these articles, they were

manufactured at "Irish Corner," in Fincastle, your "Junior" not

being able to do it, for the reason that he is wholly incapable.

My opinion is, that the articles were manufactured by the "Great

Mogul" of the Anti-American party in your town, and if he will

only avow himself the author, I will make some disclosures upon

him that will make him wish himself back in "Swate Ireland,"

where he "lives, and moves, and has his being;" no disclosures

are necessary--his books, and his person, damn him to

everlasting infamy. He has the filthiest-looking mouth, and the

most offensive breath, of any man in the Valley of Virginia. No

man who knows him will meet him square on the pavement, or place

himself in a position, if it can be avoided, of meeting a breeze

from that great reservoir of all nastiness, his mouth! It is

really a wonder how any human being can LIVE, and emit all the

time a stream of such overwhelming and uninterrupted STENCH! You

must permit me to christen this man as the But-Cut of Original

Sin, and the Upper-crust of all Nastiness!

It may not set well upon your stomach, that being a "Minister of

the Gospel, and having the care of souls," I should seem not to

place implicit confidence in your denial of any participation in

this unprovoked war upon me. I will be candid with you, and

though it is possible for me to be mistaken in my views, still,

if I am, I am honestly deceived. I have no confidence in the

moral honesty and Christian integrity of any Protestant

Preacher, of any denomination, in this country, who openly

arrays himself against the American party, and takes the side of

the Catholics, Foreigners, and self-styled Democrats associated

with them. Nor will I hear one such preach or pray, if I know

him to be such, and can get out of his hearing. The growing

light and improvements of this age forbid that an intelligent

and pious man and minister should identify himself with that

party. And the fiery genius, corrupting tendencies, and

uncompromising intolerance of that party, are rapidly driving

good and true men out of the party.

There never was a time since the division of parties in this

country, when I had so little confidence in what is called the

Democratic party as at present; and as at present organized and

constituted, I believe it to be the most corrupt organization.

It is made up of the odds and ends of all factions and parties

on the continent, and is one of the most anomalous combinations

of fanaticism, idolatry, prostitution, crime, and absurdities

conceivable! The _isms_ composing the party of which you are a

member, are: Abolitionism; Free-soilism; Agrarianism;

Fourieritism; Millerism; Radicalism; Woman's Rightsism; Mobism;

Mormonism; Spiritualism; Locofocoism; Higher-Lawism; Foreign

Pauperism; Anti-Americanism; Roman Catholicism; Deism, and

modern Sag Nichtism! All this tide of fanaticism and error,

originating North of Mason and Dixon's Line, went for Pierce in

the last Presidential contest: they are with that party now,

against the American party; and it is bad company in which to

find a Protestant minister! Yet, miserable Protestants hesitate

not to commend these enemies of the natural rights of man, and

of the Christian religion, as being just as good Christians as

their neighbors!

"Oh! judgment, thou hast fled to brutish beasts; And men have

not their reason!"

But, Doctor, why were you at Baltimore? Why, sir, during the

past year, you and other conscientious Methodists took it into

your heads to arraign a young man who was travelling your

circuit, Mr. Hall, and, for the Church's good, to have him

expelled, whose great sin was that he was a _Know-Nothing_, or

sympathized with the Order! The authorities of the Church, after

a patient hearing of the whole case, pro and con, acquitted the

young man. You followed him up to the Annual Conference, as the

representative of and attorney for Sag Nichtism. The Conference

acquitted the young preacher again, and sent him to an

enlightened circuit in Maryland. This so offended you, and your

patriotic, not to say _pious_ associates, that, for the Church's

good, they resigned their stewardship in the Church, and were

so offended at the course of the Presiding Elder, _Rev. M.

Goheen_, than whom there is not a more modest, unassuming,

conservative Christian gentleman in the Valley of Virginia,

that, at a recent Quarterly Meeting there, they refused to

attend church, or to hear him preach. This is just the spirit

that actuates your party, everywhere.

You demand of me the name or names of such person or persons as

have given me information in reference to you. Reconsider this

demand, if you please, and ask yourself if, under all the

circumstances, it is not a cool piece of impudence. I have

published nothing about you upon the authority of others, but

upon my own authority and responsibility. You _suspect_ some of

your neighbors for writing to me, and hence you make this

demand. It is true, I have friends in Fincastle, and some of

these write to me, and when I publish any thing about you, or

any one of your associates, and give these friends of mine as

authority, I will give you their names, if called upon to do so;

or I will assume the responsibility myself. What I have said in

reply to the wicked, slanderous, and cowardly assault upon me,

in the dirty paper controlled by you, I have said upon my own

responsibilities, as a man, and as a member of the same Church

to which you belong; and whether my "peace as a citizen" is

preserved or destroyed, I am not the man to be intimidated or

driven from my position. My failure to give you the names of any

citizens of your vicinity, who may have written me private

letters, relating to your war upon young Hall, the Circuit

Preacher, "will detract largely from the estimate you have

placed upon my character." This I am sorry to hear, as I do not

wish to fall below the "estimate" placed upon my character in

the two issues of your paper, now before me! This would be

reaching "a lower deep," as the poet classically styles it!

Now, sir, I have a letter from a town in Virginia, not far

distant from Fincastle, written by a gentleman of as "great

personal courage" as you or myself, who states, that a gentleman

who was present at the trial of Rev. Mr. Hall, heard you make

the assertion, on that occasion, that you alone were responsible

for all the editorials that appeared in the "Democrat," and that

the "Junior" partner was not! If you think proper to make an

issue with this gentleman, you can have his name!

I am, Dr. Hopkins, your humble servant,

W. G. BROWNLOW,

_Editor of the Knoxville Whig._

[From the Knoxville Whig.]

TO STEPHEN TRIBBLE.

VILLAINOUS SIR:--Letters from my friends in the West inform me that you

are making a full team in the service of the Devil, Locofocoism, and

crime, in portions of Missouri and Kentucky! You have recently held

forth in Charleston, a pleasant post-village, the capital of Mississippi

county, Missouri, about six miles south-west of the "Father of Waters!"

In that town you undertook to inform the good people, the Circuit Judge

being present, _who I am_, and to demonstrate that I am not entitled to

credit in any thing I say! You claimed to have once lived in East

Tennessee--to know the people and the country--and to have known William

T. Senter and James Y. Crawford, two other Methodist preachers, whose

_pedigrees_ you pretend to give!

Mr. Senter was an able man--a moral and upright man--and a Whig

Representative in Congress, from the District you represented _in the

jail of Sullivan county_, for a long time previous to your being

_branded in the hand and on the cheeks_, for MANSLAUGHTER, the

particulars of which I will remind you of before I close this familiar

letter! Mr. Senter could have gone to Congress longer, but voluntarily

retired. Mr. Crawford was a brother-in-law to Mr. Senter, and was a

preacher of respectable talents, and in good standing in his Church.

They are both in their graves, beyond the reach of your malice, where

the sound of your infamous voice, and the words of your lying tongue,

can never penetrate their ears! But I am still above ground, daily

kicking, and making war upon the Locofoco Paupers and Foreign Catholics,

as well as Native Traitors, with whom you are associated, and with whom

you act in politics. I acknowledge myself to be game for you to hunt

down!

You are now a _Campbellite preacher_ as well as a _Sag Nicht

Missionary_; and the garb of religion you wear, gives a degree of weight

to your falsehoods and slanders, among strangers, that they otherwise

would not have. The idea of "_Stev Tribble_," who ingloriously fled from

this country for crimes he could not meet in open court, being a

preacher, and itinerating through the West, "in search of the lost sheep

of the house of Israel," is so ridiculous, as scarcely to be believed at

all, although there is no doubt but what he has been regularly installed

in Kentucky, and now has the "care of souls."

Why, you unmitigated old villain, your whole career, from your "youth

up," has been one of crime and revolting blackguardism. While a boy and

a young man, where Hoss's school was taught in Washington county, your

vulgar conversation, immoral practices, indecent habits, and

blackguardism, disgusted the entire neighborhood, and rendered you so

odious that no decent family would board you! All the waters of the

far-famed _Jordan_, in the palmiest days of that bold stream, were not

sufficient to wash your sins away! If the Lord Bishop of London were to

_immerse_ you as often as "seventy times seven," in the waters of "bold

Jordan," and in the name of the holy Trinity, you would still remain

what you were when you fled from this country to avoid the extreme

penalty of the law--one of the greatest scoundrels for whom Christ died!

Yourself and half-brother _Havron_ were confined in Blountville Jail,

for the murder of _William Humphreys_, a promising young man, whom you

brutally assaulted and murdered in open daylight in the streets of

Kingsport, in Sullivan county, and without provocation! _You_ were tried

and convicted of _manslaughter_, and branded in the _hand_ and on the

_cheek_. After being branded, you _bit the letters out of your hand_,

and _clawed them out of your face_, but the _scars_ are to be seen in

both. Indeed, I have been written to, to know why these scars are on

your face! I take this method of answering those inquiries; and

publishing them in my "Whig," which has a circulation of 5,000, and our

"Campaigner," which circulates 7,000 copies, I shall be able to

introduce you to as many persons as may have heard you preach my

funeral.

While in the Blountville Jail, with your half-brother, Havron, whose

blow killed Humphreys, after you had weakened him, you caught hold of

the jailor, Montgomery Irvin, and held him in a scuffle, when he entered

the room with your dinner, until Havron made his escape. Havron would

have pulled hemp, had he not escaped; and had our penitentiary system

existed at that time, you would have been sentenced for life! But you

would not have remained there longer than the past summer, as we have a

Governor who pardons out all such men, and has more sympathies for them

than any other Executive Officer in the nation. You have a half-brother

who is a Sag Nicht member of our Legislature, and a great friend and

supporter of our Governor and his foreign associates, and he could have

turned you out and procured for you an office if you had remained. But

then you followed the teachings of "the spirit" of Sag Nichtism, in

leaving between two days, and emigrating to Kentucky, as many precious

souls would never have "heard the word," or had their sin washed away,

but for you!

In an unmentionable and disgraceful enterprise, you became possessed of

a _broken leg_, and were mean enough to abscond without paying the bill

of your physician, Dr. Patton, whose unremitting attention saved you

from your grave, and from the clutches of the Devil, sooner than the old

fellow was prepared for your reception! If you had the honor of a first

class thief, you would pay this medical bill out of the proceeds of the

first public collection you take up, either in Missouri or Kentucky. And

if you suffer it to go unpaid until your infinitely infernal career is

wound up, the Day of Judgment will disclose the manner of your breaking

your leg! If I were you, I would sooner pay this bill now, than to be

asked in the great day how my leg was broken!

Disgraced as you are, unprincipled and villainous, you have gone into

Kentucky, taken upon yourself "holy orders," and married a wife,

imposing most shamefully upon the family into which you married. The

woman you have thus imposed upon, would be justifiable now, in the eyes

of both God and man, in forsaking you and applying for a divorce. And no

court or jury would refuse her application, when made acquainted with

your character.

It is a remarkable fact--one that I desire to call, not so much to your

notice, as to the notice of the public generally--that while all the

members of this Foreign Democratic party are by no means villains,

destitute of principle; yet, all the assassins, cut-throats, thieves,

and hypocrites in the country have crowded into the ranks of that party!

Fawned upon, fostered and pampered by the villainous leaders,

demagogues, and tricksters of the party, who need the services of all

such scavengers, you are encouraged to act with them. These leaders, who

are really no better than you are, _generously_ admit you to a

fellowship, and _courteously_ acknowledge all such abandoned rascals to

be their equals! Such men, to a great extent, now constitute the

free-democracy of the country--they desecrate the ballot-box--disgust

decent men wherever they come in contact with them--blaspheme the name

of God--and swear that they will either rule or ruin the country!

But, Sir, it was said of a certain man in the Scriptures, that he was a

"sinner above all the sinners that dwell in Jerusalem." So it may in

perfect truth be said of you, that you are a scoundrel above all the

scoundrels in the hateful ranks of Sag Nichtism. You deserve, for your

depraved course of life, a greater punishment than you have received or

are likely to receive in this life. The guilt of foul calumny, of the

most black and odious kind, attaches to every sentence uttered by your

lying tongue. Guilt, the offspring of fiend-like malice, shamefully

false, deeply corrupt, and badly matured: perfidy, dishonesty, and rank

poison--hot incense of murder, theft, inhuman spoliation, and deep, dark

forebodings of damnation have been rooted and grounded in your heart,

for lo! these many years! Dark despair, endless death, inexpressible

misery, manifold, and worse than death, follow in the ghastly train of

your crimes, and riot in your corrupt bosom, as with infernal

drunkenness of delight! The record of your deep depravity, of your utter

want of principle, and of your ten thousand villainous exploits, is

_stereotyped_ upon the burning sands of eternity, and stamped on the

imperishable walls of the _rotunda_ of the Devil's Hell, to which you

are driving at railroad speed! In upper East Tennessee, where you are

known, it would disgrace an _Algerine Bandit_ to sit and hear you

pretend to preach! _You_ pretend to preach Christ and him crucified, and

_immerse_ persons in the name of the Trinity! Shrouded in the _sackcloth

and ashes_ of disgrace, enclosed in a _vault_ filled to the brim with

_buried and putrefied venality_, and steeped to the very nose and chin

in crime, how dare you attempt to preach!

I repeat, you vile slanderer of the living and the dead, that, in

justice to the cause of God and of civilization, I will keep spread the

unfurled banner of your infamy on every breeze, and cause it to float in

the atmosphere of every State in this Union, until your very _name_

becomes a mockery and a by-word! And I call upon the people of Kentucky

and Missouri to ring the loud knell of your infamy, from steep to steep,

and from valley to valley, until their swelling sounds are heard in

startling echoes, mingling with the rush of the criminal's torrent, and

the mighty cataract's earthquake-voice!

W. G. BROWNLOW,

_Editor of the Knoxville Whig._

June 7th, 1856.

AN EXPOSE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM.

The following articles, setting forth the DESIGNS and TENDENCY of

Romanism in the United States, appeared in the "KNOXVILLE WHIG" of May

and June, 1856, and will speak for themselves. The writer has opposed

the Papal Hierarchy for twenty years; and in a series of articles, now

filed in a number of the "JONESBOROUGH WHIG," published _sixteen years

ago_, he _predicted_ that the very state of things we are now realizing

would come upon us as soon as the year 1860, and that the party calling

itself by the revered name of _Democrat_, would identify itself with

political Romanism!

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.--NO. I.

The American Party and the Religious Test--The Louisiana

Delegation and the Gallican Catholics--The vote of the

Philadelphia Convention to admit the Louisiana Delegates--The

American Councils in Louisiana--Catholics proper cannot be true

citizens of a Republic.

It is sometimes said by the Anties, that the American party, at their

late Philadelphia Convention, dismissed the Catholic Question from their

platform, and that they admitted into their Council a Catholic

Delegation from Louisiana. We were in that Convention, from the hour of

its opening until its final close, and we deny both statements. The

fifth and tenth sections of the platform adopted at Philadelphia, and

for which we voted, are in the following words, and they express all our

platform says upon that subject:

5th. No person should be selected for political station,

(whether of native or foreign birth,) who recognizes any

allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign

prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the

Federal and State Constitutions (each within its sphere) as

paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State; no

interference with religious faith or worship, and no tests

oaths for office.

The American party was against political Romanism--against all who

acknowledge any allegiance to a foreign Prince, Potentate, or Power; or

who acknowledge any authority on earth, higher and more binding than

the Constitutions of our States, and General Government. And those who

are familiar with the temporal assumptions of Popery, and the political

intrigues of the Order of Jesuits, can have no other feelings than those

of disgust, upon hearing the Locofoco demagogues of the country cry out

against the American party for their opposition to the poor Catholics!

Against Popes confined to _Rome_, we make no war; but against Popes

usurping civil and spiritual authority, in America, we protest most

solemnly, and intend to make war, unrelenting and unceasing war!

The Louisiana Delegation, five in number, were _two_ Methodist--_one_

Old School Presbyterian--one Episcopalian--and the other, Mr. Eustes, a

member of Congress, not a member of any Church. Those gentlemen

presented their credentials for admission, and they were objected to,

because Roman Catholics were admitted into the Order by the Louisiana

State Council. A warm debate ensued, on a motion to admit the

Delegation, on their credentials, which finally prevailed, by yeas 67,

nays 50, many of the members having left for their lodgings, because of

the lateness of the hour, and of their fatigue. _We_ were in favor of

their admission, and so was Mr. Nelson, of East Tennessee, and we both

claim to be _ultra_ Protestant, if the reader please.

The "Catholicism" of Louisiana, we wish it borne in mind--that is the

Gallican wing of the Church--is a very different species of

"Catholicism" from that of our Irish and German Hierarchy taught in this

country, under the training of Archbishop Hughes and Monseigneur Bedini,

the Pope's villainous Nuncio. The French Gallican Church has so little

respect for the Pope of Rome, that when the King of Sardinia was in

Paris, less than twelve months ago, though he was under the interdict of

a Papal Bull of excommunication from Pius IX., the Gallican Archbishops

of Pius, and other Priests associated with them, visited him regularly,

and tendered him unbounded courtesies and honors. The Gallican wing of

the Catholic Church of France is liberal, as well as hostile to the

insulting claims and pretensions of the Pope. But it is diluted still

more with liberality, and with opposition to these claims of the Pope,

among the French Creoles of Louisiana. Most of them, though Roman

Catholics by name, from being educated in the forms of the Roman Church,

have just about as much respect for Rome, and confidence in the Pope, as

we have, and God knows that is very little. They denounce Papal Bulls,

interdicts, and Nuncios. They throw off all temporal and spiritual

allegiance to the Pope--the civil authorities of the United States with

them are supreme--they are American born--and hence, our platform does

not exclude them, and consequently they were admitted at Philadelphia,

or, which is the same, their representatives.

In 1652, under Louis XIV., the Gallican clergy met in Paris, and adopted

the following point: "That the Pope has no power, of _Divine right_, to

interfere with the temporal affairs of independent States." Thus, the

Catholics of Louisiana rejecting the doctrine of the temporal power of

the Pope, are not proscribed by the American party. They constitute a

sound portion of the American party.

Mr. Lathrop, a Presbyterian Elder, and a Delegate from Louisiana, read

to the Convention from the ritual of the subordinate organizations of

the American party of Louisiana, and showed that, while it admitted

those to membership who professed the Roman Catholic religion, IT

REQUIRED OF THEM THE DENIAL OF ALLEGIANCE TO ANY TEMPORAL AUTHORITY NOT

COGNIZABLE IN THE STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; and from each

secured a pledge, UPON OATH, that they would not divulge the secrets of

the Order! He defended the Louisiana Catholics, as being true Americans,

recognizing no civil or spiritual power in their Priests, and resisting

every attempt, whether by a Bishop or Priest, to interfere with the

institutions of our country. He cited cases which had occurred in

Louisiana, of controversies between the Clergy and Laity, for the

control of Church property, and the decisions of courts over which

Gallican Catholic Judges presided, in favor of titles and control

vesting in Trustees, the Laity. He showed that the native Catholics of

Louisiana were the friends of common schools, and the advocates of

popular education. He proclaimed aloud that the native Catholics of his

State recognized no persons as proper depositaries of office, who

acknowledged an allegiance to any person, civil or ecclesiastical,

superior to that of the laws and Constitution of our country. He

proclaimed that the Nuncios of the Pope of Rome hated these Louisiana

Catholics, with a more perfect hatred than they did the "apostle

heretics" called Protestants! This speech was received with unbounded

applause, the question was called, and, as we have before stated, it was

sanctioned, very properly too, by a vote of 67 to 50!

The American party not only advocate religious toleration, but religious

liberty, which is a very different thing. Toleration is not the word in

our vocabulary--it does not express enough, because it implies the right

to _permit_ or _prohibit_. We contend for LIBERTY, the meaning of which

is, that men are not responsible _to each other, to Popes, Bishops, or

Priests_, for their religious opinions or practices, and that

consequently religion is not a subject of toleration.

The Catholics, proper, have taken an oath of allegiance to the Pope of

Rome, a "foreign prince, potentate, and power," and their obligations to

him are higher, more sacred, and more binding, than any obligations

they can take upon them to support the laws and Constitution of this

country. These are the men that we refuse to vote for, or put in office.

They are not and cannot be true Americans. The oaths of the priests bind

them to war upon all Protestant sects, and upon all Republican powers of

Government. These oaths bind them to the foot of the Papal Throne; and

with these oaths upon their souls, they cannot be true citizens of this

Republic without perjury. And if guilty of perjury, the State prison

should be their residence.

In our next, we shall consider this subject more at length, in

connection with the oath of allegiance to our country, and the Catholic

evasion of that oath.

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 2.

Ambiguous terms in swearing--The case of Judge Gaston--Temporal

power of the Pope--Catholic authorities in Europe--The spirit

of the Catholic press in America!

We are told by the Democratic sympathizers with the Catholics, that all

Catholic emigrants to this country take an oath of allegiance to the

United States upon becoming naturalized. Yes, they do, and the oath

after it is taken, has no more weight with them, than has a

regular-built Know Nothing speech.

Here is a paragraph from SANCHEZ, the highest authority in the Catholic

Church, Pope Pius only excepted. This writer, "by authority," shows how

this oath of allegiance is evaded by a mental reservation:

"It is lawful to use ambiguous terms to give the impression a

different sense from that which you understand yourself. A

person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing,

though in fact he has, by saying to himself it was not done on

a certain day, or before he was born, or by any other similar

circumstances, which gives another meaning to it. This is

extremely convenient, and always very just, when necessary to

your health, honor or prosperity."

Here, then, we have it from the highest Catholic authority, that

Catholics are absolved from all allegiance to this government, because

they take the oath of allegiance without committing perjury, by the holy

process of a mental reservation--the use of "ambiguous terms," setting

forth one thing while they swear another! We have no doubt that Chief

Justice TANEY, a devoted Catholic of Baltimore, and now at the head of

the Supreme Court of the United States, took his oath of office

requiring him to support the Constitution, with this same mental

reservation. We have no doubt that those Catholic Judges upon the

Federal Bench in several States in the Union, and those Catholic

Attorney Generals, appointed to office by Mr. Pierce, so understood

their oaths of office, and of allegiance! And the practice of

Post-Master General Campbell, a bigoted Catholic, and a member of the

order of Jesuits, proves that he so understood his oath to support the

Constitution. As true Catholics, they are bound to swear with this

mental reservation, because they could not owe allegiance to a

government of "heretics," such as they believe ours to be. As Catholics,

they are bound to overthrow our Constitution, and aid in the destruction

of our government.

It is a matter of history that when the Legislature of North Carolina

elected Judge GASTON to the Supreme Bench in that State, he hesitated as

to whether he would take the oath or not. And why? He was, although an

able man, and in all the private relations of life a most excellent man,

a decided and devoted Roman Catholic. This is not all. The oath of a

Judge in that State, which is not common in other States, requires the

man taking it to avow his belief in the Protestant religion. Judge

Gaston asked for a few days to consider--he went instantly to Baltimore,

as was believed, to consult the Catholic Bishop, who then resided

there--obtained a dispensation, as was supposed--wrote back that he

would accept the office--returned, was qualified, and to the day of his

death was on the Bench! This affair illustrates Romanism. And what Rome

was, she is, and always will be. Can Rome change? Can the Ethiopian

change his skin, or the leopard his spots?

Here is what Philopater, an approved Catholic authority of the first

grade, says, touching the principle in controversy:

"All theologians and ecclesiastical lawyers affirm that every

Christian government, as soon as it openly abandons the _Romish

faith_, is instantly degraded from all power and dignity: all

the subjects are absolved from the oath of fidelity and

obedience which they have taken, and they may and ought, if

they have the power, to drive such government from every

Christian State, as an apostate, heretic, and deserter from

Jesus Christ. This certain and indubitable decision of all the

most learned men is perfectly conformed to the most apostolic

doctrines."

Our Locofoco advocates of Romanism deny that the Pope lays claim to the

supremacy charged by the American party. On this point, we desire that

the Catholics may speak for themselves. One of their standard writers,

FARRARIS, in his Ecclesiastical Dictionary, a work endorsed by their

Council of Bishops and Cardinals, under the article headed "Pope," uses

this emphatic and expressive language:

"The Pope is of such dignity and highness, that he is not

simply man, but, as it were, God, and the vicar of God. Hence

the Pope is such supreme and sovereign dignity, that, properly

speaking, he is not merely constituted in dignity, but is

rather placed on the very summit of dignities. Hence, also, the

Pope is rather father of fathers, and he alone can use this

name, because he only can be called father of fathers: since he

possesses the primacy over all, is truly greater than all, and

the greatest of all. He is called most holy, because he is

presumed to be such. On account of the excellency of his

supreme dignity, he is called bishop of bishops, ordinary of

ordinaries, universal bishop of the Church, bishop of diocesan,

of the whole world, divine monarch, supreme emperor, and king

of kings."

PETER DENS, of Maynooth College notoriety, whose "Theology" is the

highest Catholic authority known this side of the Vatican at Rome, gives

entire the Bull of Pope Sixtus V. against the King of Navarre and the

Prince of Conde, whom he styles the _sons of wrath_. In this Bull,

issued in the year 1585, he says:

"The authority given to Saint Peter and his successors, by the

immense power of the eternal King, _excels all the power of

earthly kings and princes_. It passeth uncontrollable sentence

upon them all. And if it find any of them resisting God's

obedience, it takes more severe vengeance on them, casting them

down from their thrones, however powerful they may be, and

tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the

ministers of aspiring Lucifer."

Here is what _Daniel O'Connell_ said so late as 1843, and he was a true

Catholic and a true exponent of this faith:

"You should do all in your power to carry out the intentions of

His Holiness the Pope. Where you have the electoral franchise,

give your votes to none but those who will assist you in so

holy a struggle.

"I declare my most unequivocal submission to the Head of the

Church, and to the hierarchy in its different orders. If the

Bishop makes a declaration on this bill, I never would be heard

speaking against it, but would submit at once unequivocally to

that decision. They have only to decide, and I close my mouth:

they have only to determine, and I obey. I wish it to be

understood that _such is the duty of all Catholics_."--_Daniel

O'Connell_, 1843.

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

"A heretic, examined and convicted by the Church, used to be

delivered over to the secular power and punished with death.

Nothing has ever appeared to us more necessary. More than one

hundred thousand persons perished in consequence of the heresy

of Wickliffe; a still greater number for that of John Huss; and

it would not be possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by

Luther; and it is not yet over."--_Paris Univers._

"As for myself, what I regret, I frankly own, is that they did

not burn John Huss sooner, and that they did not likewise burn

Luther; this happened because there was not found some prince

sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against

Protestants."--_Paris Univers._

But here is the Pope himself arguing with the authorities already

quoted:

"The absurd or erroneous doctrines or ravings in defence of

liberty of conscience, is a most pestilential error--a pest, of

all others, most to be dreaded in a State."--_Encyclical Letter

of Pope Pius IX., Aug._ 15, 1852.

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

"Heresy and unbelief are crimes, and in Christian countries,

like Italy and Spain for instance, where all the people are

Catholics, and where the Christian religion is an essential

part of the law of the land, they are punished as other

crimes."--_R. C. Archbishop of St. Louis._

"For our own part, we take this opportunity of expressing our

hearty delight at the suppression of the Protestant chapel at

Rome. This may be thought intolerant, but when, we would ask,

_did we ever profess to be tolerant of Protestantism_, or favor

the doctrine that Protestantism _ought to be tolerated_? On

the contrary, we hate Protestantism--we detest it with our

whole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may

never decrease. We hold it meet that in the Eternal City no

worship repugnant to _God_ should be tolerated, and we are

sincerely glad that the enemies of truth are no longer allowed

to meet together in the capital of the Christian

world."--_Pittsburg Catholic Visitor_, 1848.

"No good government can exist without religion; and there can

be no religion without an _Inquisition_, which is wisely

designed for the promotion and protection of the true

faith."--_Boston Pilot._

"You ask, if he (the Pope) were lord in the land, and you were

in a minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he

do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on

circumstances. If it would _benefit the cause of Catholicism_,

he would tolerate you--if expedient, he would imprison

you--banish you--possibly, _hang you_--but be assured of one

thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the

_'glorious principles' of civil and religious

liberty._"--_Rambler._

"Protestantism of every form has not and never can have any

rights where Catholicity is triumphant."--_Brownson's Quarterly

Review._

"Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the lying

world, and, instead of pleading for our Church at the bar of

the State, _summon the State itself to plead at the bar of the

Church, its divinely constituted judge_."--_Ibid._

"I never think of publishing any thing in regard to the Church

without submitting my articles to the Bishop for inspection,

approval, and endorsement."--_Ibid._

In view of the foregoing, and other facts and arguments which we will

hereafter present, we cannot be mistaken in our views of Roman

Catholicism. We cannot tamely surrender our dearest rights as

Protestants, without a struggle. We cannot cry peace, peace, when there

is no peace!

"Protestantism, of every kind, Catholicity inserts in her

catalogue of moral sins; she endures it when and where she

must; but she hates it, and directs all her energies to effect

its destruction."--_St. Louis Shepherd of the Valley._

"Religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by

every man to choose his religion, is one of the most wretched

delusions ever foisted on this age by the father of

deceit."--_The Rambler_, 1853.

"The Church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when

and where she must, but she hates it, and directs all her

energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an immense

numerical majority in this country, religious freedom is at an

end. So say our enemies. So say we."--_Shepherd of the Valley._

"The liberty of heresy and unbelief is not a right.... All the

rights the sects have, or can have, are derived from the State,

and rest on expediency. As they have, in their character of

sects hostile to the true religion, no rights under the law of

nature or the law of God, they are neither wronged nor deprived

of liberty, if the State refuses to grant them any rights at

all."--_Brownson's Review, Oct., 1853_, p. 456.

"The sorriest sight to us is a Catholic throwing up his cap,

and shouting, 'All hail, Democracy!'"--_Ibid, October, 1852_,

pp. 554-8.

"We think the 'masses' were never less happy, less respectable,

and less respected, than they have been since the reformation,

and particularly within the last fifty or one hundred years,

since Lord Brougham caught the mania of teaching them to read

and communicate the disease to a large proportion of the

English nation; of which, in spite of all our talk, we are

often the servile imitators."--_Shepherd of the Valley, Oct.

22, 1853._

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 3.

The Catholic Church supreme over all authorities--Meddling in

Political Contests--Brownson's Review and the Boston Pilot

reflecting the sentiments of that Church--Protestants

advocating Romanism--The Nashville Union in 1835.

The Anti-American, Foreign-loving, Catholic admirers of the Locofoco

school of politics, everywhere seek to frighten native Protestant

citizens with the bugbear cry of religious proscription. But let

Americans and Protestants watch with increased vigilance both the Roman

and Locofoco Jesuits around them. To call the damnable and accursed

system of political intrigue practised for past centuries by the Roman

Church by the term _Religion_, is a solemn mockery of the hallowed word.

Religion teaches love and obedience to God, and the legally constituted

authorities of the country. Romanism teaches fear of and obedience to a

crowned potentate called the Pope, and opposition to all Protestant

governments, as worthy to be cast down to hell! The one tends to free

and ennoble the soul: the other to enslave and debauch every faculty of

man's nature which likens him to the Almighty! The one is republican:

the other is barbaric, and at war with every principle of free

government!

The American party does oppose and denounce Romanism _as a political

system at war_ with American institutions; and we here ask candid men to

weigh the evidence we shall adduce to sustain this charge. We shall

quote none other than Roman Catholic authority--the organs of

Romanism--so as out of their own mouths to condemn them. Brownson's

Review is the accredited organ of Romanism in the United States. He

ostentatiously parades the names of the Archbishops and Bishops on the

cover of his Review, to give it the stamp of authority, and asserts in

the work:

"I NEVER THINK OF PUBLISHING ANY THING IN REGARD TO THE CHURCH

WITHOUT SUBMITTING MY ARTICLES TO THE BISHOP FOR INSPECTION,

APPROVAL, AND ENDORSEMENT."

Let us then look to his pages for an exposition of the doctrines of his

Church. In the January number for 1853, he says:

"For every Catholic at least, the Church is the supreme judge

of the extent and limits of her power. She can be judged by no

one; and this of itself implies her absolute supremacy, and

that the temporal order must receive its laws from her."

The uniform practice of the Church of Rome has been, and still is, to

assert her power--not in _words_, but in _deeds_--to GIVE OR TAKE AWAY

CROWNS--to depose ungodly rulers, and to absolve their subjects from

their "horrible" OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE!

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

"The Church is supreme, and you have no power except what you

hold in subordination to her, either in spirituals or in

temporals.... You no more have political than ecclesiastical

independence. The Church alone, under God, is independent, and

she defines both your powers and hers."

"They have heard it said from their youth up that the Church

has nothing to do with politics; that she has received no

mission in regard to the political order."

"In opposing the nonjuring bishops and priests, they believed

they were only asserting their national rights as men, or as

the State, and were merely resisting the unwarrantable

assumption of the spiritual power. If they had been distinctly

taught that the political authority is always subordinate to

the spiritual, and had grown up in the doctrine that the nation

is not competent to define, in relation to the ecclesiastical

power, its own rights--that the Church defines both its powers

and her own, and that though the nation may be, and ought to

be, independent in relation to other nations, it has, and can

have, no independence in the face of the Church, the kingdom of

God on earth: they would have seen at a glance that support of

the civil authority against the spiritual, no matter in what

manner, was the renunciation of their faith as Catholics, and

the actual or virtual assertion of the supremacy of the

temporal power."

In the same number, page 301, he says:

"She (the Church) has the right to judge who has, or has not,

according to the law of God, the right to reign: whether the

prince has, by his infidelity, his misdeeds, his tyranny and

oppression, forfeited his trust, and lost his right to the

allegiance of his subjects; and therefore whether they are

still held to their allegiance, or are released from it by the

law of God. If she have the right to judge, she has the right

to pronounce judgment, and order its execution: therefore to

pronounce sentence of deposition upon the prince who has

forfeited his right to reign, and to declare his subjects

absolved from their allegiance to him, and free to elect

themselves a new sovereign."

We might multiply authorities of this kind on this point, to an almost

indefinite extent, from the debate between Bishop Hughes and Mr.

Breckenridge, and the controversy between Hughes and Erastus Brooks, but

it is wholly unnecessary.

As early as 1844, the Catholics took their stand as a body in the arena

of political strife; and the illustrious CLAY and the virtuous

FRELINGHUYSEN were the victims of their particular hostility. Mr.

Frelinghuysen was the President of the Board of Foreign Missions, and

this was made the _excuse_ for the bitter animosity of the Catholic

press, and of the clergy and membership of the Catholic sect, against

Mr. Clay. Brownson, in his July number for 1844, in the very heat of the

contest, thus assailed Mr. Clay:

"He is ambitious, but short-sighted. He is abashed by no

inconsistency, disturbed by no contradiction, and can defend,

with a firm countenance, without the least misgiving, what

everybody but himself sees to be a political fallacy or logical

absurdity.... He is no more disturbed by being convinced of

moral insensibility, than intellectual absurdity.... A man of

rare abilities, but apparently void of both moral and

intellectual conscience.... He is, therefore, a man whom no

power under that of the Almighty can restrain; he must needs be

the most dangerous man to be placed at the head of affairs it

is possible to conceive."

The Boston Pilot, another Catholic organ, published under the eye of the

Bishop, discloses _the same plot_, in its issue for the 31st of October,

1844, only six days before the election! Here is what this organ said:

"We say to all men in the United States, entitled to be

naturalized, become citizens while you can--let nothing delay

you for an hour--let no hindrance, short of mortal disease,

banish you from the ballot-box. To those who are citizens, we

say, vote your principles, whatever they may be--never desert

them--do not be wheedled or terrified--but vote quietly, and

unobtrusively. Leave to others the noisy warfare of words. Let

your opinions be proved by your deliberate and determined

action. We recommend you to no party; we condemn no candidate

but one, and he is Theodore Frelinghuysen. We have nothing to

say to him as a Whig--we have nothing to say to Mr. Clay or any

other Whig, as such--but to the President of the American Board

of Foreign Missions, the friend and patron of the Kirks and

Cones, we have much to say. We hate his intolerance--we dislike

his associates--and shudder at the blackness and bitterness of

that school of sectarians to which he belongs, and amongst whom

he is regarded as an authority."

Protestants! do you hear that? Old Line Whigs! do you hear that? If so,

do you think that Americans are warring upon civil and religious

liberty, when they take an oath that they will rebuke such infamous

sentiments? These appeals of Brownson, Hughes, and the Pilot, had the

effect to defeat the Clay ticket in New York, and that State lost him

his election. The Catholics were all at the polls, and voted for Polk

and Dallas. On the 9th of November, 1844, Frelinghuysen wrote to Mr.

Clay as follows:

"More than 3,000, it is confidently said, have been naturalized

in this city (New York) alone since the first of October. It is

an alarming fact that this foreign vote has decided the great

questions of American policy, and contracted a nation's

gratitude."

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

avowal:

"Heretofore we have taken our politics from one or another of

the parties which divide the country, and have suffered the

enemies of our religion to impose their political doctrine upon

us; but it is time for us to begin to teach the country itself

those moral and political doctrines which flow from the

teachings of our own Church. We are at home here, wherever we

may have been born; this is our country, and as it is to become

THOROUGHLY CATHOLIC, we have a deeper interest in public

affairs than any other of our citizens. The sects are only for

a day; the Church for ever."

When Gen. Cass made his speech in the Senate, in 1852, in favor of free

worship and the rights of conscience for Americans abroad, reflecting on

the Catholics by name, Brownson came out in his October number, and

said:

"We are glad to see Gen. Cass laid on the shelf, for we can

never support a man who turns radical in his old age."

In the same number, Brownson continues:

"The sorriest sight to us is a Catholic throwing up his cap and

shouting, 'All hail, Democracy!'"

This too at the very time he was supporting the Democratic party in the

Presidential contest! He would sooner have heard the cry, "All hail,

Catholicism!" and he was only using Democracy as an instrument to

advance his primary wish!

We offer no comments on the foregoing extracts, of our own, but leave

every reader to judge for himself. The price of liberty is eternal

vigilance. We apply the remark to religious as well as civil liberty.

All we ask of the people is to be vigilant. Do not support men at the

ballot-box who are in league with these enemies of our Republic, and of

the Protestant religion!

Behold the enemy is at our gates! A foreign priest has been lecturing

here in Knoxville, within the last ten days, avowing sentiments similar

to these, and claiming that this country would ultimately become a

Catholic country! The crisis is approaching! Rouse up, Americans, and

hasten to your country's salvation! Not a moment is to be lost! GOD AND

OUR COUNTRY, must be the watchword of every Christian and patriot, of

every political party in the land. America expects us all to do our

duty!

And is there no cause for alarm?

Eighteen months ago, a Protestant minister, Baptist, Methodist, or

Presbyterian, might expose Romanism, and warn his congregation against

its corrupting influences, for hours at a time--come down out of his

pulpit, and his congregation would, without distinction of party, say,

"Well done, good and faithful servant!"

But let him now dare _allude_ to Romanism--he offends one-half of his

congregation--he is _preaching_ politics--they will hear him no more; or

forsooth, which is more common, they will withhold his support and

starve him out! Are not these signs alarming?

But here in Tennessee, _Protestant_ Tennessee, on the 15th of May,

1855, the _Nashville Daily Union_, the organ of the self-styled

Democratic party, came out at the Capital of the State with this daring

broadside against the Protestant clergy and their religion:

"A Church that can boast of an existence of thirteen

centuries--passing through all the various vicissitudes of her

eventful career unscathed, can certainly show, with all her

atrocious barbarity, many bright spots which may be placed in

favorable contrast with the Protestant Church, with its

thousand and one wrangling sects. Men are beginning to see

through the transparent gauze that veils this Know-Nothing

movement. They are beginning to ask 'What has Protestantism

done for the world? What has she done to alleviate and elevate

the down-trodden? Is the race any better off for having

accepted her faith? THESE REVEREND HYPOCRITES--these scribes

and pharisees, are treading on a terrible volcano. They will

find their treasonable schemes and infernal plotting against

the liberties of man tried and condemned by the pure light of

God's own truth and love, which shines and throbs in every

pulsation of humanity's heart. If Protestantism prove recreant

to her high trust, she will have to pass the ordeal of

enlightened public opinion and be consigned to her merited

obscurity.

"Popery, with all its crimes against God and man, adapts itself

to the times and to the circumstances, and thus saves itself

from being absorbed in the mass of conflicting elements."

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 4.

A Catholic Priest the Minister from the Rivas-Walker

Government--Nicaragua, Texas, and Gen. Jackson--Bishop Hughes

and Orestes Brownson--Buchanan bidding for the Catholic

vote--A. H. Stephens, of Georgia--Lord Baltimore and Religious

Toleration.

Three months ago, PARKER H. FRENCH arrived in Washington, as the

Representative of the Walker Government of Nicaragua--an American-born

citizen and a Protestant--but the Government declined to recognize him,

upon the ground that Walker's Government was not established even _de

facto_. Since then, our Government has recognized Walker's Government,

and endorsed his war upon Costa Rica, although the former objection of

our Government lies with as much force against such recognition now as

it did three months ago. That the approach of the Cincinnati Convention,

and the importance of conciliating the "Young American" wing, and the

Filibustering division of the Democratic party, had great influence in

producing this recognition, there can be no sort of doubt. But a still

more palpable reason why this Government gave its sanction to the

Rivas-Walker Government is, that PADRE VIJIL, the second Minister sent

here, is a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, and a shrewd Spaniard--better

understands the influences that prevail at Washington. When we remember

that a Roman Catholic, and a member of the Order of Jesuits, is a member

of Pierce's Cabinet, the Postmaster-General--and when we remember that

Democracy now, without the Catholic-Foreign vote, is almost a nullity in

the United States, we have a clear solution of this preference given the

Spanish priest, PADRE VIJIL, over the American citizen, but a few weeks

afterwards! As a sign of the times, the fact is one worthy of note. It

shows, at least, that when Protestantism cannot prevail with the

Administration of Pierce, Roman Catholicism can; and that hence, when we

proclaim the power of the Pope, even in America, we but utter

demonstrable facts. Romanism is even carrying Democracy from all its old

wayside land-marks. In December, 1836, GEN. JACKSON sent a special

message to the Senate of the United States, in relation to a proposition

to recognize the new Government of Texas, and he gave reasons _against_

it, which are exactly applicable to this Rivas-Walker affair:

"Upon the issue," he says, "of this threatened invasion by

Mexico, the independence of Texas may be considered as

suspended; and were there nothing peculiar in the relative

situation of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgments

of its independence at such a crisis could scarcely be

considered as consistent _with that prudent reserve with which

we have heretofore held ourselves bound to treat all similar

questions_."

The existing Government of Nicaragua is in a far more critical condition

now than that of Texas was in 1836, when Gen. Jackson went on to say:

"It becomes us to beware of a too early movement, as it might

subject us, however unjustly, to the imputation of seeking to

establish the claim of our neighbors to a territory, with a

view to its subsequent acquisition by ourselves. Prudence,

therefore, seems to dictate that we should still stand aloof,

and maintain our present attitude, if not until Mexico itself,

or one of the great foreign powers, shall recognize the

independence of the new Government, at least until the lapse of

time or the course of events shall have proved, beyond cavil or

dispute, the ability of the people of that country to maintain

their separate sovereignty, and to uphold the Government

constituted by them. Neither of the contending parties can

justly complain of this course. By pursuing it, we are but

carrying out the long-established policy of our Government--a

policy which has secured to us respect and influence abroad,

and inspired confidence at home."

But Romanism is rapidly leading Democracy to the Devil! Archbishop

Hughes--the head and front of the Papal Hierarchy in this country--has

openly declared the grand aim and object of the Catholic Church is "TO

MAKE ROME THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!" This same

Archbishop is now engaged in raising an immense fund, for the avowed

purpose of ESTABLISHING A COLLEGE IN ROME, for the education of a high

order of Priests and Jesuits for the United States; the Roman Pontiff

deeming the education of Priests defective if obtained in this land of

liberty! This same Archbishop Hughes has now actively enlisted for the

Presidential contest, for 1856, in order, to use his own language, "TO

BREAK THE SPINAL CORD OF THE AMERICAN PARTY." The Irish Catholic vote is

to be fused with the Black Republicans in the North, to prevent the

success of the Fillmore ticket, and the Irish and German Catholic vote

is to be cast for Democracy in the South and North-West--the Archbishop

stipulating for special legislation for Rome, and for promoting this

mammoth college!

ORESTES BROWNSON, a leading Catholic authority, and the editor of

Archbishop Hughes's organ--one of the most zealous as well as able

advocates of Romanism in America--declares: "THE POPE IS MY INTERPRETER

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!" The Supreme Court at

Washington is subordinate to the Vatican, situated at the foot of one

of the seven hills upon which Rome is built! Through the influence of

the _Jesuit_ who is a member of Pierce's cabinet, the Papal Nuncio, who

was sent from Rome two years ago, clothed with _foreign_ authority, was

received by our government at Washington, and sent around the lakes to

the North-West at government expense; and allowed to adjudicate upon a

secular question AFFECTING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION in the great State

of New York!

Mr. Buchanan, one of the several candidates before the Cincinnati

Convention for the Presidential nomination, said, in a public speech in

Baltimore, just before the meeting of that Convention, _by way of

bidding for the Catholic vote_:

"In the age of religious bigotry and intolerance, Lord

Baltimore was the first legislator who proclaimed the sacred

rights of conscience, and established for the government of his

colony the principle, not merely of toleration, but perfect

religious freedom and equality among all sects of Christians."

Lord Baltimore was a Catholic; and with a view to enlist the same

influence, HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, of Georgia, sent forth a

published speech last summer, from which we make the following extract:

"The Catholic colony of Maryland, organized under the auspices

of Lord Baltimore, was the first to establish the principle of

free toleration in religious worship on this continent.

"The Colony of Maryland afforded protection to _all_ persecuted

sects."

Now, in order to judge of Mr. Buchanan's "_perfect religious freedom and

equality_," and Mr. Stephens's "_principle of free toleration_," let us

examine an Act passed April 21, 1649, when Lord Baltimore was in the

zenith of his power:

"Denying the Holy _Trinity_ is to be punished with _death_, and

confiscation of land and goods to the Lord Proprietary (Lord

Baltimore himself!) Persons using any reproachful words

concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Apostles or

Evangelists, to be fined £5, or in default of payment to be

publicly whipped and _imprisoned, at the pleasure of_ his

Lordship, (Lord Baltimore himself!) or of his

Lieutenant-General." _See Laws of Maryland at large, by T.

Bacon, A. D. 1765._ _16 and 17 Cecilius's Lord Baltimore_.

S. F. STREETER, Esq., of Baltimore, is the author of a work entitled

"_Maryland two hundred years ago_." In this work, at page 26, Mr.

Streeter says:

"The policy of Lord Baltimore, in regard to religious matters

in his colony, has, in some particulars at least, been

misapprehended and therefore misstated. The assertion has long

passed uncontradicted, that toleration was promised to the

colonists in the first conditions of plantation; that the

rights of conscience were recognized in a law passed by the

first assembly held in the colony; and that the principal

officers from the year 1636 or '37, bound themselves by on oath

not to molest on account of his religion any one professing to

believe in Jesus Christ. I can find _no authority_ for _any_ of

these statements. Lord Baltimore's first and earlier conditions

of plantation breathe not a word on the subject of religion: no

act recognizing the principle of toleration was passed in the

first or in any following assembly, until fifteen years after

the first settlement, at which time (1649) a Protestant had

been appointed Governor, and a majority of the Burgesses were

of the same faith; and when, _for the first time_, a clause

involving a promise not to molest any person professing to

believe in Jesus Christ, the words "and particularly a Roman

Catholic," were inserted by the direction of Lord Baltimore in

the official oath."

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

subject, says:

"The proprietary dominion (Lord B.'s) had never known that

hour, (when there was opportunity to persecute.) The Protestant

religion was the established religion of the mother country,

and any effort on the part of the Proprietary (Lord B.) to

oppress its followers would have _drawn down destruction on his

government_. The _great body_ of the colonists were themselves

Protestants, and, by their _number_ and their participation in

the government, they were fully equal to their own protection,

and _too powerful_ for the Proprietaries in the event of an

open collision."

Thus it will be seen that in Maryland, as everywhere else, in all past

ages, so far as toleration is concerned, it was granted _to_

Catholics--never _by_ them.

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 5.

Popish aims at supremacy--Avowals by distinguished

Catholics--The order of Jesuits--Startling disclosures and

authentic references!--The strength of Romanism in the United

States!

The Romish hierarchy aims at supremacy in the Church and the State. It

is nothing more nor less than a great _political_ system, arrogating to

itself the right to sway the spiritual and temporal concerns of men--a

right it claims to have derived from God, and that therefore the Romish

Church is above all, and may rule all. Hence the conspiracy against our

government emanating from the Vatican, and planned by the Pope, his

Cardinals and Bishops, in the late grand council at Rome! They there and

then resolved on affecting the objects of the _Leopold Foundation_,

established in Vienna, May 13, 1829, to support Catholic missionaries in

the United States. Every member of this Society--and its branches are

numerous, being scattered over the whole earth--agrees to offer prayers

daily to _St. Leopold_, and every week to contribute as much as a

_crucifix_. The valley of the Mississippi has been surveyed and mapped

by the Jesuits, under the directions of the Vatican, and Popish

Cardinals in Europe are boasting of the certainty of their subjecting

this land of freedom at no distant day to papal supremacy! Rev. Dr.

JAMES, an eminent clergyman of England, says:

"The Church of Rome has determined to compensate herself for

her losses in the old world, by her conquest in the new."

Hence, too, a Papal editor in Europe conducting a Catholic organ, and

advising vigorous measures for the extension of Papal power, says:

"We must make haste--the moments are precious--America may

become the centre of civilization."

The Rev. Dr. Reze, of Detroit, a priest of distinction, who is now in

custody at Rome, a few years since, writing from Michigan to his master,

the Pope, says:

"We shall see the truth triumph--the temple of idols

overthrown--the seat of falsehood brought to silence--and all

the United States embraced in the same faith of that Catholic

Church, wherein dwell truth and temporal happiness."

A Catholic priest in Indiana told a Protestant minister, an able

Methodist clergyman, in a controversy, "The time will come when

Catholics will make Protestants wade knee-deep in blood in the valley of

the Mississippi!"

Bishop England, one of their master-spirits in this country, in a letter

to the Pope written from Charleston, and which was so good that his

Holiness caused it to be published, said:

"Within thirty years, the Protestant heresy will come to an

end. If we can secure the West and South, we will take care of

New England."

This same dignitary said to his brethren at Vienna in that memorable

letter, by way of advice and encouragement:

"All that is necessary is money and priests, to subjugate the

mock liberties of America."

The Jesuits profess to be a more devoted branch of the Pope's army than

any other order. The Abbe De Pradt, formerly Roman Archbishop at

Malines, calls them "the Pope's zealous militia:" another correctly

calls them "the Pope's body-guard, organized for the express purpose of

defending the Papal See, and undertaking a spiritual crusade against

heretics." Pius VII., in his Bull of August 7, 1814, 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 the same shall be held, taught, and

preached by all who are under me," &c. "I also profess and undoubtedly

receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred

canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of

Trent; and, likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all

things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned,

rejected, and anathematized by the Church."

The Jesuits are more strict, subservient, devoted to the Vatican, than

any other wing of the Catholic Church. In the second volume of the

constitutions of the Jesuits, under the heading of _obedience to

superiors_, is written:

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

"You shall obey him in every thing. Your obedience shall be

boundless in the execution, in the will and understanding. You

shall persuade yourselves that God speaks in his mouth: that

when he orders, God himself orders. You shall execute his

command immediately, with joy and with steadiness."

"You shall be in his hands a dead body, which he will govern,

move, place, displace, according to his will."

Under these teachings, says ARNAULD, a student in a college of Jesuits

stated, on hearing of the implicit obedience of another:

"I would have done still more. Were God to order me, through

the voice of my superior, to put to death father, mother,

children, brothers, and sisters, I would do it with an eye as

tearless and a heart as calm as if I were seated at the banquet

of the Paschal lamb."

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

"As early as 1624, the University of Paris charged them with

being governed by 'secret laws.' In 1649, Palafox, Bishop of

Angelopolis, in his letter to Innocent X., accuses them of

having 'a secret constitution, hidden privileges, and concealed

laws of their own.'"

What will our Democratic Protestant opposers of Know Nothing _secret

lodges_ say to this? What will our Democratic advocates of Popery say to

the principles of such an organization, and to its "horrible oaths?" But

hear the Roman Catholic King of Portugal, in his manifesto to his

Bishops, in 1759, only ninety-seven years ago:

"In order to form the union, the consistency, and the strength

of the society, there should be a government not only

monarchical, but so sovereign, so absolute, so despotic, that

even the Provincials themselves should not have it in their

power, by any act of theirs, to resist or retard the execution

of the orders of the General. By this legislative, inviolable

and despotic power; by the profound devotedness of the subjects

of this company to mysterious laws with which they are not

themselves acquainted; by the blind and passive obedience with

which they are compelled to execute, without hesitation or

reply, whatever their superiors command," &c.

But our Democratic anti-Know Nothings not only object to our having

formerly kept our ritual concealed, but especially to our denial of the

existence of our organization. Let them procure a copy of the secret

instructions of the Jesuits, styled "_Secreta Monita_," and in the

preface they will find these _lovely_ words:

"The greatest care imaginable must be also taken that these

instructions do not fall into the hands of strangers, &c.; if

they should, _let it be positively denied that these are the

principles of the society_," &c.

But again:

"Auquetil, in the fourth volume, page 333, of his History of

France, gives an account of the celebrated case of the

bankruptcy of the Rev. Father Jesuit La Valette, the Jesuit

agent, for three million francs. Their ships had been taken by

the English; the bankers in Marseilles, who had accepted bills

of exchange to the amount of one and a half millions, required

prompt payment. They wrote to De Sacy, the General Procurator

of the Missions; he wrote to the General at Rome, but the

General died at the same time; and before a new General could

be elected, and an order sent to pay the money, the Fathers had

become bankrupt, and suits were instituted. After delay and

manoeuvre on their part, the case came on unexpectedly in

1760. All the Jesuits were accused. They tried to lay the guilt

upon La Valette, but the bankers charged that all the Jesuits

were under the General, and La Valette was only agent. In this

sad condition they proposed to prove, according to their

constitutions, that as a society their body possessed nothing,

that all belonged to each college-house, convent, &c. The

proposal of the Jesuits was accepted. On the 8th of May, 1761,

after trial, the Parliament condemned the General and all the

society to pay bills, costs, damages, &c., which they did

without selling any of their property.

"It was in this evil hour to the Jesuits that their

constitutions, which had been acted upon for two hundred years

in secret, were brought to light. Rules and constitutions maybe

in existence and acted upon, when it would be impossible to

obtain a copy from any one who was sufficiently advanced in the

order to be trusted with a copy."

It will astonish American Protestants to be told how numerous,

influential, and strong the Catholics are in this land of liberty! They

have 7 archbishops, 40 bishops, 1704 priests, 1824 churches, 21

colleges, 37 ecclesiastical institutions for the education of priests

and Jesuits, 117 female academies, all of which are, in reality,

_Convents_. Nuns, priests, and Jesuits are the professors, teachers, and

matrons; and, strange to say, _Protestant_ young ladies are their chief

supporters!

The Romish Hierarchy is far more numerous in _Protestant_ America, than

in any Catholic country on earth. Their strength in America equals what

it is in Ireland, Scotland, and England combined! How extensive is this

religious organization in our land: how subtle! Its ramifications are

all so many _arteries_, which receive their life's blood from the heart

at Rome, and return it there by its regular palpitations! It is now

concentrating its _arteries_ at Washington City, and is promised "aid

and comfort" from the great Democratic party--a party fast becoming the

foe of true liberty, and of the evangelical Protestant faith.

THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 6.

The Oath of a Bishop--Oath of a Priest--Oath of a Jesuit--Oath

of a San Fedisti--Oath of an Irish Ribbon-man--The Romish

Curse!

In this chapter we will exhibit the "_horrible oaths_" of the various

grades of Catholics, from a _Bishop_ down to a _private member_--even to

the "Irish Ribbon-men," thousands of whom swarm the United States. To

these we will add the oath of the "Order of San Fedisti," an infamous

secret society established in Italy, and introduced for the first time

into this country by that prince of murderers, _Bedini_, the Pope's

Nuncio; who was honored with a steamer at the expense of our government,

Pierce at its head, to sail round our northern lakes, organizing these

infamous societies. Last of all, we give the ROMISH CURSE, which is in

full force and power in all Catholic countries, and is even pronounced

publicly in our large cities, upon renegades from the Catholic faith.

These oaths will be found commencing on page 42 of "A Treatise of the

Pope's Supremacy. By REV. ISAAC BARROW, D. D. Second American Edition,

1844." By this author, the Latin is given and then translated. The same,

in part, will be found in the debate between MR. BRECKENRIDGE, of the

Presbyterian Church, and ARCHBISHOP HUGHES, and by the latter publicly

acknowledged to be genuine, before a Baltimore audience who heard the

discussion!

But these particular forms of oaths in question, which reckless

Catholics and unprincipled Democrats deny, were published in England by

Archbishop Usher, whose correctness and reliability is equal to that of

any man. These oaths will be found in a volume entitled "Foxes and

Firebrands," from a collection of papers by Archbishop Usher, and it is

there stated that "it remains on record at Paris, among the Society of

Jesus," and was drawn up in that form to URBAN VIII., in 1642, when he

revived the bull of Pious V., which had slumbered seventy-three years.

These oaths, as published, contain nothing which is not taught by Popes

and Councils, Priests and Jesuits. Examine these _oaths_, and this

_curse_, and answer us the question, Can men taking them, and

subscribing to their doctrines, make citizens of this Republic?

OATH OF THE BISHOPS.

"I, G. N., elect of the church of N., from henceforth will be

_faithful_ and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the

holy Roman Church, and to our lord, the lord N. Pope N., and to

his successors canonically coming in. I will neither advise,

consent, nor do any thing that they may lose life or member, or

that their persons may be seized or hands anywise laid upon

them, or any injuries offered to them, under any pretence

whatsoever. The counsel which they shall intrust me withal by

themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will not knowingly

reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to defend

and keep the Roman Papacy and the royalties of St. Peter,

saving my order against all men. The legate of the Apostolic

see, going and coming, I will honorably treat, and help in his

necessities. The rights, honors, privileges, and authority of

the holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and his aforesaid

successors, I will endeavor to preserve, defend, increase, and

advance. I will not be in any council, action, or treaty, in

which shall be plotted against our said lord and the said Roman

Church, any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their persons,

right, honor, state, or power; and if I shall know any such

thing to be treated or agitated by any whomsoever, I will

hinder it all that I can; and as soon as I can, will signify it

to our said lord, or to some other, by whom it may come to his

knowledge. The rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolic

decrees, ordinances, or disposals, reservations, provisions,

and mandates, I will observe with all my might, and cause by

others. Heretics, Schismatics, and Rebels to our said lord, or

his aforesaid successors, I will to the utmost of my power

persecute and oppose. I will come to a council when I am

called, unless I am hindered by a canonical impediment. I will,

by myself in person, visit the threshold of the Apostles every

three years; and give an account to our lord, and his aforesaid

successors, of all my pastoral office, and of all things

anywise belonging to the state of my church, to the discipline

of my clergy and people, and, lastly, to the salvation of souls

committed to my trust; and will, in like manner, humbly receive

and diligently execute the Apostolic commands. And if I be

detained by a lawful impediment, I will perform all things

aforesaid by a certain messenger hereto specially empowered, a

member of my Chapter or some other in ecclesiastical dignity,

or else having a parsonage; or in default of these, by a priest

of the diocese; or in default of one of the clergy, (of the

diocese,) by some other secular or regular priest of approved

integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things above

mentioned. And such impediment I will make out by lawful

proofs, to be transmitted by the aforesaid messenger to the

Cardinal proponent of the holy Roman Church, in the

Congregation of the Sacred Council. The possessions belonging

to my table, I will neither sell nor give away, mortgage nor

grant anew in fee, nor anywise alienate, no, not even with

consent of the Chapter of my Church, without consulting the

Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make any alienation, I will

thereby incur the penalties contained in a certain Constitution

put forth about this matter.

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

OATH OF THE PRIESTS.

"I, A. B., do acknowledge the ecclesiastical power of his

holiness; and the mother Church of Rome, as the chief head and

matron above all pretended churches throughout the whole earth;

and that my zeal shall be for St. Peter and his successors, as

the founder of the true and ancient Catholic faith, against all

heretical kings, princes, states, or powers repugnant to the

same; and although I, A. B., may follow, in case of persecution

or otherwise, to be heretically despised, yet in soul and

conscience I shall hold, aid, and succor the mother Church of

Rome, as the true, ancient, and apostolic Church. I, A. B.,

further do declare not to act or control any matter or thing

prejudicial unto her, in her sacred orders, doctrines, tenets,

or commands, without leave of its supreme power or its

authority, under her appointed; and being so permitted, then to

act and further her interests more than my own earthly good and

earthly pleasure, as she and her Head, his Holiness, and his

successors have, or ought to have, the supremacy over all

kings, princes, estates, or powers whatsoever, either to

deprive them of their crowns, sceptres, powers, privileges,

realms, countries, or governments, or to set up others in lieu

thereof; they dissenting from the mother Church and her

commands."

OATH OF THE JESUITS

"I, A. B., now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed

Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St.

John the Baptist, the holy apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and

all the saints and hosts of heaven, and to you my ghostly

father, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation,

that his Holiness Pope ---- is Christ's Vicar General, and is

the true and only Head of the Catholic or universal Church

throughout the earth; and by the virtue of the keys of binding

and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Saviour Jesus Christ,

he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states,

commonwealths, and governments, all being illegal without his

sacred confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed:

THEREFORE, to the utmost of my power, I shall and will defend

this doctrine, and his Holiness' rights and customs, against

all usurpers of the heretical (or Protestant) authority

whatsoever; especially against the now pretended authority and

Church of England, and all adherents, in regard that they and

she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred mother Church

of Rome, I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to

Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates

or officers, I do further declare the doctrine of the Church of

England, the Calvinists, Huguenots, and of others of the name

Protestants, to be damnable, and that they themselves are

damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do

further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or

any of his Holiness' agents, in any place wherever I shall be,

in England, Scotland, and Ireland, or in any other territory or

kingdom I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the

heretical Protestant's doctrine, and to destroy all their

pretended powers, regal or otherwise. I do further promise and

declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume

any religion heretical, for the propagating of the mother

Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents'

counsels, from time to time, as they intrust me, and not to

divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or

circumstance, whatever, but to execute all that shall be

proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me, by you my

ghostly father, or any of this sacred convent. All which, I, A.

B., do swear, by the blessed Sacrament I am now to receive, to

perform, and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call all the

heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real

intentions to keep this, my oath. In testimony hereof, I take

this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, and

witness the same further with my hand and seal, in the face of

this holy convent this day--An. Dom., etc."

OATH OF THE SAN FEDISTI.

"I, Son of the Holy Faith, No. --, promise and swear to sustain

the altar and the Papal throne, to exterminate heretics,

liberals, and all enemies of the Church, without pity for the

cries of children, or of men and women. So help me God."

OATH OF THE IRISH RIBBON-MEN.

"I, Patrick McKenna, swear by Saints Peter and Paul, and by the

blessed Virgin Mary, to be always faithful to the Society (of

Ribbon-men); to keep and conceal all the secrets, and its words

of order; to be always ready to execute the commands of my

superior officers, and, as far as it shall lie in my power, to

extirpate all heretics, and ALL THE PROTESTANTS, and to walk in

their blood to the knee! May the Virgin Mary and all saints

help me! To-day, the 2d of July, 1852.

"PAT. MCKENNA, _from Tydavenet_."

The following are the curses pronounced by the Papal Church against all

who leave it for any Evangelical Church:

THE ROMISH CURSE.

"By the authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and Holy

Ghost, and the undefiled Virgin Mary, mother and patroness of

our Saviour, and of all celestial virtues, Angels, Archangels,

Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Cherubim, and Seraphim; and of all

the Holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and of all the Apostles and

Evangelists, of the Holy Innocents, who in the sight of the

Holy Lamb are found worthy to sing the new song of the Holy

Martyrs and Holy Confessors, and of all the Holy Virgins, and

of all Saints together with the holy elect of God; may he,

----, be damned. We excommunicate and anathematize him from the

threshold of the Holy Church of God Almighty. We sequester him,

that lie may be tormented, disposed, and be delivered over with

Dathan and Abiram, and with those who say unto the Lord:

'Depart from us, we desire none of thy ways:' as a fire is

quenched with water, so let the light of him be put out for

evermore, unless he shall repent him and make satisfaction.

Amen!

"May the Father, who creates man, curse him! May the Son, who

suffered for us, curse him! May the Holy Ghost, who is poured

out in Baptism, curse him! May the Holy Cross, which Christ,

for our salvation, triumphing over his enemies, ascended, curse

him!

"May the Holy Mary, ever virgin and mother of God, curse him!

May St. Michael, the advocate of the Holy Souls, curse him! May

all the Angels, Principalities, and Powers, and all Heavenly

Armies, curse him! May the glorious band of the Patriarchs and

Prophets curse him!

"May St. John the Precursor, and St. John the Baptist, and St.

Peter, and St. Paul, and St. Andrew, and all other of Christ's

Apostles together, curse him! And may all the rest of the

Disciples and Evangelists, who, by their preaching converted

the universe, and the holy and wonderful company of Martyrs and

Confessors, who by their works are found pleasing to God

Almighty, curse him! May the holy choir of the Holy Virgins,

who for the honor of Christ have despised the things of the

world, damn him! May all the saints from the beginning of the

world to everlasting ages, who are found to be beloved of God,

damn him!

"May he be damned wherever he be, whether in the house, or in

the alley, or in the water, or in the church! May he be cursed

in living and dying!

"May he be cursed in eating and drinking, in being hungry, in

being thirsty, in fasting, and sleeping, in slumbering, and in

sitting, in living, in working, in resting, and * * * and in

blood-letting.

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

"May he be cursed inwardly and outwardly! May he be cursed in

his hair; cursed be he in his brains, and in his vertex, in his

temples, in his eyebrows, in his cheeks, in his jaw-bones, in

his nostrils, in his teeth and grinders, in his lips, in his

shoulders, in his arms, in his fingers!

"May he be damned in his mouth, in his breast, in his heart,

and purtenances, down to the very stomach!

"May he be cursed in his reins and his groins; in his thighs,

in his genitals, and in his hips, and in his knees, his legs,

and his feet, and toe-nails!

"May he be cursed in all his joints, and articulation of the

members; from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet

may there be no soundness!

"May the Son of the living God, with all the glory of His

Majesty, curse him! And may heaven, with all the powers that

move therein, rise up against him, and curse and damn him;

unless he repent and make satisfaction! Amen! So be it. Be it

so. Amen!"

Now, we ask all candid men whose eyes have not been blinded by the dust

of Popery and Democracy, can a Bishop or Priest, a Jesuit or Catholic,

with these oaths upon their souls, be true American citizens? Not

without the guilt of perjury, as black as the altar of a Roman

Confessional! And if guilty of such perjury, the penitentiary should be

their canonical residence for life! Strange to say, however, the Chief

Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, is a Roman Catholic! Gen.

Pierce's Postmaster-General, James Campbell, is both a Roman Catholic,

and a member of the Order of Jesuits, having taken this very oath! Roman

Catholics are now on the Federal Bench in the United States: Roman

Catholics fill the offices of Attorneys-general; Roman Catholics

represent this Government abroad; and Roman Catholics fill post-offices,

land-offices, and a variety of offices at home, out of which Protestants

were driven by Pierce's Administration, to make room for them!

LETTER FROM THOMAS A. R. NELSON, ESQ.

This gentleman, an able lawyer of East Tennessee, a member of the

Presbyterian Church, and a member of the American party, was nominated

an Elector for the State of Tennessee at large, by the American State

Convention at Nashville, in February last. Though an ardent American--a

great friend of _Mr. Fillmore_--and a member of the late Philadelphia

Convention, and aided in the nomination of _Maj. Donelson_, he has been

reluctantly compelled to decline the position of Elector. Under date of

May 30, 1856, he addressed a letter of nine columns, of great force and

ability, to _Messrs. A. W. Johnson, Robert C. Foster, 3d., John H.

Callender, William N. Bilbo, Sam'l. Pritchett, and E. D. Farnsworth,

State Executive Committee of the American Party, Nashville, Tennessee_,

declining the position. Although we regret his inability to serve, as do

the whole party in this State, yet, if his letter could be placed in the

hands of every voter in the State, we would be willing to risk the

contest without further discussion. Such is our estimate of this

document. For the benefit of "Old Line Whigs," and such Democrats as are

disposed to excuse and apologise for Romanism, we give the four

concluding columns of this letter. The five preceding columns are mainly

occupied with an outline and defence of the action of the Philadelphia

Nominating Convention, and a discussion of the slavery

question--questions we had discussed in this work before this document

came to hand. Mr. Nelson concludes thus:

"The Foreigners and Catholics were directly appealed to in the

Presidential elections of 1848 and 1852. Who does not remember

that, immediately preceding the election in 1844, fraudulent

naturalization papers were manufactured in New York? Who has

forgotten the Plaquemines fraud in Louisiana? Who has not heard

of the abuse of Mr. Frelinghuysen for no other cause than that

he was the President of the American Bible Society?

"But, without dwelling upon other illustrations, look to the

Democratic platform of 1852, and read the 8th section of the

third resolution, which is in the following words:

"'That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the

Declaration of Independence and sanctioned in the Constitution,

which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the

oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles

in the Democratic faith, and every attempt to abridge the

present privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil

among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept

the alien and sedition laws from our statute books.'

"During the last election in Tennessee, it was often said by

Democrats that they were just as much opposed to the

immigration of foreign criminals and paupers as members of the

American party, but would not attach themselves to the latter

because of their objections to its organization. But the

Democratic Platform of 1852 contains no exception against

criminals and paupers. The naturalization laws have, in

practice, been found inadequate to their exclusion, and the

platform, in effect, avows unqualified adherence to them

without _abridgement_ or modification.

"These laws are, in substance, declared to have '_ever been

cardinal principles_ in the Democratic faith.' By its own

avowal, the Democratic party is responsible for giving

encouragement to the whole policy of foreign immigration. If

that policy has flooded the country with criminals and paupers;

if it has produced riots and bloodshed in our large cities; if

it has endangered the religious as well as the civil liberty of

Protestants; if it has swelled the ranks of Abolition and

fanned the flame of Agitation--the Democratic party, by its own

avowal, is amenable at the bar of public opinion for these

astounding and deplorable results. Reckless of consequences, it

has persevered in a system hazardous to the stability of our

institutions, because that system has annually swelled the

number of its adherents, and increased the chances of its

perpetual ascendency.

"Without adverting to the census tables, or repeating those

familiar facts connected with the statistics of immigration

which have been so extensively published, it is sufficient to

observe that, under this continued patronage of the Democratic

party, the immigration of foreigners has increased from a few

thousands, twenty years ago, to nearly half a million in 1854.

"But the Democratic party cannot justly claim the exclusive

honor of projecting or carrying out the system. More than

twenty years ago, the Duke of Richmond declared, in substance,

that he had conversed with most of the sovereigns and princes

of Europe; that they were jealous of the influence of our

republican institutions upon their own Government; that they

did not expect to conquer us as a nation, but designed the

subversion of our Government by the introduction of the low and

surplus population of Europe among us; that 'discord,

dissension, anarchy, and civil war would ensue, and some

popular individual would assume the government and restore

order, and the sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of

the natives, would sustain him.' He also said, in speaking of

the United States, that 'the Church of Rome has a design upon

that country, and it will, in time, be the established

religion, and will aid in the destruction of that republic.'

"These statements of the Duke of Richmond are abundantly

corroborated by other declarations, as well as the most

undeniable facts which have occurred since their promulgation.

"I have in my possession, among various others, two small books

published by 'the American and Foreign Christian Union,' 156

Chambers street, New York, the one entitled 'Foreign

Conspiracy,' the other, 'Startling Facts,' both of which, as I

infer from their contents, were written in the year 1834, long

before the American party had an existence. The work entitled

'Foreign Conspiracy' is composed of a series of articles

originally published, over the signature of Brutus, in the New

York Observer. They now appear with the name of the author,

SAMUEL F. B. MORSE. His object in writing the work was to

arouse public attention to the efforts then being made in

Europe to propagate the Catholic religion in the United States,

and to show its danger to our republican institutions. He

traces the origin of the Leopold Foundation in Austria, under

the especial patronage of the Emperor at Vienna on the 12th

May, 1829, and shows that one of its leading objects was 'to

promote the greater activity of Catholic missions in America.'

"The letter of Prince _Metternich_ to Bishop Fenwich, of

Cincinnati, under date, Vienna, April 27, 1830, is set out at

length; and, in that letter, the Prince informs the Bishop,

among other things, that the Emperor 'allows his people to

contribute to the support of the Catholic Church in America.'

Numerous quotations are made from the letters of Foreign

Bishops in the United States to their patrons at home, and,

among the rest, on page 85, is the following statement, made by

one of them, in regard to the people of the United States: 'We

entreat all European Christians to unite in prayer to God for

the conversion of these unhappy heathen and obstinate

heretics.' But, forbearing to multiply quotations from this

little work, admirable in most of its positions, my main

object, in citing it, was to make the following extract, from

page 15 of the preface, taken by the author from the lectures

of the celebrated Frederick Schlegel, delivered at Vienna in

1828, where that distinguished foreigner says, 'The true

nursery of all these destructive principles, the revolutionary

school for France and the rest of Europe, has been North

America. Thence the evil has spread over many other lands,

either by national contagion or by arbitrary communication;'

and also the following quotation, from page 118 of Mr. Morse's

book: 'Austria, one of the Holy Alliance of sovereigns, leagued

against the liberties of the world, has the superintendence _of

the operations of Popery in this country_.'

"In the tract entitled 'Startling Facts for American

Protestants,' written in the year 1834, by REV. HERMAN NORTON,

Corresponding Secretary of the American Protestant Society,

from pages 27 to 39, an account is given of a London pamphlet

entitled 'New Plan of Emigration,' the production of a Roman

Catholic gentleman, a London Banker; in which a project for

occupying the North Western States with the Roman Catholic

population of Europe, is unfolded, together with _a map of the

country_, and, among other things, it is said, on page 29: 'The

first settlements should be made in those fertile prairie

districts situated on the southern sides of the Canadian lakes,

_where slavery is unknown_. On page 28, the objects of this

society, as set forth in this pamphlet, are stated to be,

"'1. To provide the means for colonizing the surplus Roman

Catholic population of Europe in our Western States.

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

articles of British manufacture.

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

country._'

"The census tables will show that, since these plans were set

on foot, in England and in Europe, to break down our

government, there has been an astonishing increase in the

foreign immigration to this country. Great as it was prior to

the Revolutions in Europe in 1848, it has been amazingly

augmented since that time. Millions of foreign money have been

collected in Europe and expended since the organization of the

society for the propagation of the faith, at Lyons in France,

about the year 1822, in the United States. While an Austrian

Emperor has had the charge, in a good degree, of the

propagation of the Catholic religion in the United States, the

public authorities in various parts of Europe have defrayed the

expenses of their criminals and paupers to this country, as was

clearly shown by Congressional investigations.

"What do these facts prove? Why, that the declaration of the

Duke of Richmond, that the crowned heads of Europe intended to

subvert our government, was true. What more do they prove? Why,

that the effort to establish the Catholic religion in this

country has, for more than twenty years, been conducted with

steady perseverance, until the Catholics, who, in 1850, were

more numerous, as the census compendium shows, than any one

denomination of Methodists, are now no doubt stronger than all

the Methodists put together, and stronger than any other

denomination of Protestants.

"While these publications have been before the American people

for more than twenty years, Democratic leaders have received,

with open arms, the swarms of foreigners who have settled upon

our shores. What care _they_ for the slavery question, when

they have seen this foreign immigration, according to the plan

concerted in England, settling in the non-slaveholding States,

and every year increasing the Abolition power? What care they

for the Protestant religion, if the Catholics can only give

them the numerical strength at the ballot-box? What regard have

_they_ for the preservation of our liberties, when European

despots are seeking to undermine them, if those despots only

send such myrmidons as will shout hosannas to Democracy and

drive from the polls peaceful American citizens who oppose

them? Is the preservation of the Union a matter of any

consequence to them? Do they not in vision behold its scattered

fragments and contemplate new confederacies, with hosts of new

offices and millions of spoil?

"Can any one doubt that the Democratic party is in league with

all the dangerous elements that have disturbed and are

continuing to disturb our once peaceful and happy country, and

that they stickle at nothing when votes are at stake?

"Look to their conduct in running Mr. Polk as a tariff man in

the North, and an anti-tariff man in the South! Look to the two

lives of Cass. Look to their equivocal position as to slavery

and the Union. Look to their appeals to foreigners and

Catholics by name in the elections of 1844 and 1852, and

probably in 1848. Look to their alliance with Free Germans and

Fourierites, Free Soilers and Secessionists. And, above all,

look to the miserable cant with which they raise the hue and

cry of persecution in favor of the Catholics, and, indirectly,

deny to Protestant ministers the right to make war upon a huge

corporation, calling itself a church, dealing in human souls,

reeking with the blood of martyrs, and begrimed with more than

ten centuries of oppression.

"No wonder that they have vilified and denounced the American

party with every term of opprobrium that our vocabulary can

furnish. No wonder they talk of dark lanterns and secret oaths

and midnight assemblies. No wonder that they strive to frighten

their followers with the notion that the American party is a

raw-head and bloody bones, which should be shunned and avoided.

For, if honest men of that party will only take the trouble to

shake off the control of their leaders: to think, examine, to

read, reflect, and act for themselves, there are thousands of

Democrats in the South who would scorn, like the American

party, an alliance with Abolitionists, and there are tens of

thousands of Protestant Union-loving Democrats everywhere, who

have only confided in, to be deceived and betrayed by, their

leaders, and, if they discover, as it is hoped they will, that

they have brought them to the crumbling verge of an awful

precipice, they have patriotism enough and Protestantism enough

to break away from them rather than make the awful plunge.

"I regret that I am admonished by the length to which I have

extended this communication, that I cannot now discuss the

Catholic question, as I had hoped to do at the outset, and I

shall present only a few disjointed remarks in connection with

it.

"The American party does not seek to impose any religious test

such as prevailed in the reign of Charles II., when two

thousand Non-conformist ministers were driven from their

pulpits, or such, as in the same reign, was imposed upon Roman

Catholics and continued from 1673 to 1828. The American party

does not propose that any religious test, of any kind, shall be

imposed by law, upon any person whatever, but it does seek to

organize a public sentiment on the Catholic question, just in

the same mode that, in times past, parties have sought to

organize public sentiment upon the tariff question--the bank

question--the internal improvement question--the temperance

question, and every other question which has been the subject

of difference. If it is lawful to say, I will not vote for you

because you are a Whig, it is equally lawful to say--I will not

vote for you because you are a foreigner. If it is lawful to

say, I will not vote for you because you are a Democrat, it is

equally lawful to say, I will not vote for you because you are

a Catholic.

"Neither does the American party propose, in the slightest

degree, to interfere with any of the rights secured to Roman

Catholics, in common with others, by the Constitution. If they

choose to worship a great DOLL as the Virgin Mary--to burn tall

wax-candles in daylight--to pray to God in an unknown

tongue--to believe that a simple wafer is the actual body, and

common wine the very blood of our Saviour--to enforce the

celibacy of the clergy--to worship the host--to believe that

old toe-nails and pieces of wood are precious relics--to

prevent their people from reading the Bible--to refuse to send

their children to Protestant schools--to retain the

confessional and the nunnery--to pin their faith to

unauthenticated traditions--to assert that theirs is the only

true Church, and to perpetrate a thousand ridiculous

mummeries--the members of the American party with one accord

will say, molest them not, disturb them not, trouble them not;

the religious privileges of this country are as free to them as

they are to us, and we will not, by law or by violence,

interrupt or interfere with them in the slightest degree. But

knowing that the Catholic Church was for a thousand years

allied to the State; that it claimed dominion, in temporal as

well as spiritual affairs, over the kings of the earth; that it

regards the Pope as the Vicegerent of the Almighty; that he

wears the tiara as the symbol of his power in heaven, earth,

and hell; that Romanists treat all other professions as

heretics; that its Archbishops, Bishops and Priests are sworn

to persecute all who differ with them; that the persecuting

spirit of that Church has been displayed, for centuries, in the

most odious acts of cruelty as well as the most despotic

tyranny that ever cursed the earth; that fire and faggot,

confiscation and torture have been its favorite weapons; that

no age, or sex or condition has been exempt from its inhuman

butcheries and demoniac lusts; that it exterminated the

Albigenses and Waldenses; that it caused the gutters of Paris

to run with human blood on St. Bartholomew's day; that it

lighted the fires of Smithfield; that through the

instrumentality of Tyrconnel and Catholic and Irish Rappadees,

it perpetrated the inhuman atrocities of the Irish Massacres;

that, it drove the Huguenots from France, and the Puritans from

England; that it has delighted in the chains and dungeons of

the Inquisition, and shouted, with fiendish exultation, at the

cries and groans of the victims in the _auto da fe_; that no

republican government has ever flourished under its sway; that

it regards ignorance as the mother of devotion, and denies the

obligation of an oath; that it gave rise to the Order of

Jesuits, the most detestable sect that the earth has ever seen;

that, in the midst of the blaze of the nineteenth century, it

has burned the Bible in America and imprisoned men and women in

Europe for no other offence than that of reading it; that,

abusing the freedom of the press and speech secured in the

United States, it unblushingly avows that all Protestantism is

heresy--that it is a crime--and punished in _Christian

countries like Spain and Italy_ as a crime; that it has

banished the Bible from Protestant schools, when under its

control; that it has intermeddled in political elections, and

is struggling for political power; that it wears a mask and

claims to be harmless in this country for present effect,

although it has never renounced one of its dogmas in any

authoritative mode; that it is typified, in the Bible, as the

Man of Sin and the Great Whore of Babylon; that it comes to us

as an angel of light, but is allied with the Prince of

Darkness: knowing all these things, and believing that the

Roman Catholic Church, now that it is covered with the broad

wings of Modern Democracy, partakes of its meat and is pampered

by its patronage, is, infinitely, the most dangerous political

power with which the people of the United States have ever been

compelled to grapple, the American party invites all who love

national liberty more than Democracy; who prefer civil and

religious freedom to the spoils of office; who revere the

memory of Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin; of Cranmer, Latimer, and

Ridley; of the seven Bishops; of Fox; of the Puritan fathers;

of Wesley and Hall; of the Reformers and Protestants of every

name, and, more than all, of our revolutionary ancestors, to

burst the fetters of party and come to the rescue of their

bleeding country, bleeding at every pore from wounds inflicted

by Democratic hands, amidst the jeers of European despots, the

shouts of foreigners in our midst, and the taunts and sneers of

Catholics and Jesuits all around us!

"Let not Protestant ministers be intimidated by the impudent

assaults of a venal press, or the fierce denunciations of

infuriated politicians, from doing their whole duty in the

pulpit and at the polls. No Presbyterian has ever denied to a

Methodist the right to question his religious faith, and no

Methodist will dispute the right of other denominations to

impugn his creed. Methodists have assailed the Presbyterian

doctrine of election. Presbyterians, in turn, have assailed

their ideas of perfection and falling from grace. Both have

controverted the Baptists' views of immersion, and all have

denied the Episcopalians' doctrine of _apostolic succession_.

These and many other points of difference have, from the

foundation of our government, often been the subjects of

earnest, protracted, and excited discussion; but when did any

American Protestant ever deny to another American Protestant

the constitutional right to differ with him in opinion, and to

express that difference through the press, in the pulpit, or

any other constitutional mode? Yet, it has been reserved for

Democratic presses to attempt, for electioneering purposes, to

curb the free spirit of Protestant ministers: to denounce them

as "REVEREND HYPOCRITES;" and, when beholding at home and

abroad, on the land and on the sea, among Christians and

Pagans, in the halls of legislation, in churches and schools,

in free speech, and in a free press, and in ten thousand other

forms, the magnificent and glorious results of the Reformation,

to ask, with impudent assurance, 'WHAT HAS PROTESTANTISM DONE

FOR THE WORLD?' Not satisfied with the storm of execration

which such an infamous interrogatory produced, the Nashville

Union and American, the leading Democratic paper in Tennessee,

in a very abusive article entitled '_What has it

accomplished?_' under date of April 26, 1856, thus speaks,

among other things, of what he styles 'the Know Nothing

Organization:'

"'_It has done more than this: it has gone into the Church and_

CONVERTED THE PULPIT INTO A POLITICAL ROSTRUM--_it has turned

the attention of the ministry from_ THE PEACEFUL PATHS OF

CHRISTIANITY TO THE ARENA OF POLITICAL TURMOIL--_it has pulled

down the banner of the Cross, and placed in its stead_ THE RED

FLAG OF INTOLERANCE AND PROSCRIPTION.'

"While Protestant ministers, in the enjoyment of the rights

secured to them by the Constitution, have, as before stated,

often engaged in controversies with each other as to their

differences in matters of Church government and speculative

faith, they have, with one accord, from the foundation of the

government, preached and published their views against the

Roman Catholic Church--which arrogates a superiority over them

all, and stigmatizes them as sects--long before the American

party ever had an existence. But because, in the course of

events, it has become necessary for politicians to inquire what

effect an acknowledgment of the temporal supremacy of the Pope

may have upon our free institutions, the Democratic party--if

it is to be judged of by its organ--would gag the Protestant

clergy, deny to them a right which they have always exercised,

and, if they dare to oppose the colossal strides of Rome,

denounce them as having converted the pulpit into a _political

rostrum_,' and as having raised '_the red flag of Intolerance

and Proscription_.'

"It is not for me to prescribe, nor do I desire to dictate the

duty of Protestant ministers; but if, in the combined efforts

which the Catholics have been making under the patronage of

European despots and noblemen, and the encouragement of

Democratic demagogues in our own country, they see that this

tremendous corporation has planted its footsteps in all our

large cities--is possessing itself of the North-West and the

Mississippi valley--and is encircling them, as it were, with a

wall of fire: if they see that the newspapers and periodicals

of that corporation have published doctrines in this free

country which they would scarcely avow in the Roman Catholic

countries of Europe: if, in one word, they believe that they

are to be persecuted and exterminated by Catholics, or take

care of themselves before it is too late--then Protestant

ministers, agreeing as they do in all great doctrines, and

differing only as to those which are not absolutely essential,

will cease to disagree among themselves, at least until after

they avert a common danger, and will rally as a band of

brethren to resist, in such mode as they may deem proper, the

encroachments and the insults of Rome, and all her satellites

and allies.

"If I do not greatly err in the estimate which I place upon the

Protestant clergymen of America, the Democratic party and the

Catholics will discover, sooner or later, that the same spirit

which caused the Protestant fathers to brave the perils of the

BOOT and the STAKE: to stand, without flinching, before such

miscreant judges as _Jeffreys_ and _Scroggs_: to yield two

thousand pulpits and look beggary and starvation in the face,

rather than compromise with conscience; and, above all, to risk

the untried dangers of the ocean and settle among savages--will

nobly animate their descendants, and they will act in a manner

worthy of themselves and of the great cause which is intrusted

to their keeping.

"Never was a more unfounded charge made against any party than

that of _proscription_ against the American party. It is only

the political feature--the allegiance to the Pope of

Rome--which we have felt called upon especially to oppose:

leaving it to Protestant ministers to expose, if they choose,

the absurdity of Catholic theological tenets.

"It is a historical fact that the Romish clergy of France in

1682, under the lead of Louis XIV., made a declaration that

'Kings and sovereigns are not subject to any ecclesiastical

power by the order of God in temporal things, and their

subjects cannot be released from the obedience which they owe

them, nor absolved from their oath of allegiance.' The doctrine

of this declaration is called indifferently 'the Gallican, or

the French, or the Cis-Alpine doctrine. That of the Court of

Rome is called the Italian, or trans-Alpine doctrine."

"Under the solemn assurance of the Louisiana delegation that

the native Catholics of Louisiana do not acknowledge the

temporal supremacy of the Pope, they were admitted to

representation in the American Council and Convention, and this

fact abundantly proves that there is no desire to _persecute_

Catholics for their religion, but only a determination to

resist their political doctrine, which, although denied by Mr.

Chandler in Congress, has been incontrovertibly established by

the history of that Church for ages, the avowals of Mr.

Brownson, the rebuke of Mr. Chandler by the Dublin Tablet, and

other overwhelming proofs.

"In concluding this letter, it would, perhaps, be proper to

dwell upon the claims of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson to the

support of the American people of all parties; but their

characters are so well known, and I have already so extended my

remarks, that I deem it unnecessary to observe any thing more

than that Mr. Fillmore, by the faithful discharge of his duty,

won the most cordial approbation of his political enemies as

well as political friends, and had the confidence of the whole

country when he retired from office, and has done nothing since

to destroy it; while Maj. Donelson, as our Minister to Texas,

to Prussia, and to Denmark, sustained the dignity of our

country and acquitted himself with honor--denounced the

unhallowed proceedings of the Southern Convention--struggled

manfully, as the Democratic editor of the Washington Union, in

behalf of the Compromise, and never withdrew from it until May,

1852, when, so far as I understand his course from his public

acts, being unwilling to 'blow hot and cold' on the slavery

question, and to aid the Democratic party in wearing a Northern

and a Southern face, he indignantly retired from it, and

subsequently attached himself to the American party in the hope

that it could carry on his most cherished object--the

preservation of the Union.

"The object of selecting an old-line Whig and an old-line

Democrat, was to nail to the counter the charge that the

American party is the Whig party in disguise, and to induce, if

possible, conservative men of both the old parties to unite and

rescue the country from Democratic misrule.

"Hundreds, thousands of Democrats in Tennessee, acting upon

their own impulses and without concert with their leaders,

attached themselves to the American party, but under the abuse

of the leaders withdrew from it. Although, personally, I have

no claims upon the Democracy, and have been always opposed to

that party, yet I would respectfully observe that first

impressions are often the best, and if such Democrats will take

the trouble faithfully and honestly to examine the questions of

the day for themselves, uninfluenced by the dictation of party

leaders on either side, they will, doubtless, find many and

cogent reasons to return to their first love.

"But to such of the old-line Whigs as have not already gone

over to the Democratic party, I do feel that I have the right

through this or any other medium to address a few words. It is

well known that I have been a Whig from my boyhood, and until I

attached myself to the American party about twelve months ago;

and that, in some form or other, I have labored in behalf of

the Whig cause from my youth up--in good report and evil

report, in prosperity and in adversity, and without fee or

reward. And, with great deference to the opinions of others, I

would inquire what has any old-line Whig to gain, either for

his country or himself, by listening to the seductive

flatteries of Democracy, as he looks upon the dismembered

fragments of the Whig party, or sits, like Marius, amid the

ruins of Carthage? What party is it that has brought about the

desolation you behold? To whose strategy was it owing that the

once impregnable city was betrayed and surrounded, and its

lofty battlements levelled with the dust? What foul coalition

circumvented you, and whose pestilential breath is now

whispering in your ear? Has that party against which you have

fought for twenty years--which you have regarded as essentially

corrupt and dangerous to the Union--all at once, and by some

magical and unknown process, been cleansed of its impurities,

and does it stand before you clothed in a white and spotless

robe? What are some of the reasons why you opposed it?

"It denounced proscription for opinion's sake before it came

into power, but kept the guillotine in continual motion

afterwards. It rebuked any interference with the freedom of

elections, and then denied its doctrine, and sought in

countless ways to control them. It charged the administration

of John Quincy Adams with reckless extravagance, and has

expended as much, or nearly as much, of the public treasure in

one year as he did in the course of his administration. It was

favorable to _a_ bank, a judicious tariff, and internal

improvements by the general government, but has crushed beneath

its iron heel the whole American system. It promised a gold and

silver currency, and told the farmers that they and their wives

should have 'long silken purses, through the interstices of

which the yellow gold would shine and glitter,' but has given

us instead more than thirteen hundred State bonds, with a

capital of more than three hundred millions. It has united the

purse and the sword by means of its odious Sub-Treasury. It

trampled beneath its feet the broad seal of the State of New

Jersey, and encouraged Dorr's rebellion.

"It annexed Texas and California, and has strengthened the

Abolition power. It sustains the frequent use of the veto, and

under the name of Democracy delights in the exercise of

monarchical prerogative. It proclaimed in 1844 and 1845, that

not a thimblefull of blood would be shed by any war growing out

of the annexation of Texas, when that war sacrificed thousands

of lives, and has cost us millions in money and land. It

boasted, in regard to the Oregon question, that we must have

'54° 40´ or fight,' but swallowed its own words, and in later

times has attempted to retrieve its courage by the sublime and

magnificent bombardment of Greytown! It ordered General Taylor

into the heart of the Mexican country with a feeble force, and

when his victories had won the grateful plaudits of his

countrymen, it had the unparalleled meanness, while he was

still fighting our battles, to censure the capitulation of

Monterey. It had the baseness to call General Scott from the

head of a victorious army, and to attempt to disgrace him in

the eyes of his own country and the world. It denounced Judge

White as a renegade, General Harrison as a coward, Mr. Clay as

a blackguard, and General Scott as a fool. And, without

repeating what has been already urged in regard to its attitude

upon the slavery question and the other topics that have been

discussed, I submit to the old-line Whigs that there is no

principle which the Democratic party sincerely holds in common

with them, and that they should unite with us in the effort to

man the ship of State with officers and men devoted to the

Constitution and true to the Union, in the hope that it may be

rescued from the whirlpools and breakers among which it has

been so recklessly conducted.

"Having expressed myself with the independence which should

characterize a freeman, I cannot expect that a party which has

dealt in the most unmitigated denunciation of wiser and better

men than myself, will permit my observations to pass with

impunity, but I shall be amply compensated for their abuse if

abler tongues and pens will improve upon these hurried remarks,

and teach our Democratic traducers that they cannot continue,

without just retaliation, their unjustifiable assaults upon the

American party.

"Yours respectfully,

"THOS. A. R. NELSON."

PROSCRIBING FOREIGNERS--FOREIGN IMMIGRATION--FOREIGN PAUPERS AND

CRIMINALS--FOREIGNERS ELECTED GEN. PIERCE--OPINIONS OF GREAT MEN.

The issue which most disturbs the Sag-Nicht Foreign Catholic Locofoco

Dry-rot _patriots_, of the present day, in connection with the

principles of the American party, is their _proscription_ of

foreign-born citizens. If the reader will turn back to the Philadelphia

Platform, and consult the 3d, 4th, 5th, and 9th sections of that

instrument, it will be seen that the American party really proscribe

only those who are proscribed by the _Constitution of the United

States_, and the laws defining the rights of foreign-born citizens. The

American party demand the enactment of laws upon this subject more

_definite_, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

The only _positive_ work which the Constitution does, in regard to

foreigners, is to _proscribe_. It contains but five clauses touching the

subject: four of these are PROHIBITORY, and the other is simply

_permissive_. There is no guaranteeing clause whatever. We must be

pardoned for recalling the very language of the Constitution--for in

this _progressive_ age, our "Young American" generation is fast losing

sight of the plainest features of that document: which, with

Fillibustering, Fire-eating agitators, is _Old Fogyism_! Let the

Constitution speak for itself:

Section 5, Article II. of the Constitution says: "No person, except a

natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of

the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of

President." That is proscription.