NUMBER 3. On the 22d of April, 1840, _Garret D. Wall_, a flaming

Democratic Senator in Congress, reported certain amendments to a

Bankrupt Law, from a minority of the Committee; which were referred to

the Senate's select Committee, and reported by Mr. Wall, and passed--21

to 19--and sent to the House.

NUMBER 4. In the Senate, July 23, 1841, _Mr. Nicholson_, a Democratic

Senator from Tennessee, delivered an able speech in favor of a uniform

system of Bankruptcy, and moved to amend the bill then pending, by

inserting "BANKS AND OTHER CORPORATIONS;" which motion was lost by a

vote of 34 to 16.

NUMBER 5. That great light of Democracy, _Col. Richard M. Johnson_, late

Vice-President of the United States, wrote and spoke in favor of a

General Bankrupt Law. In a letter of his, now before us, dated

Washington, January 18, 1841, he says, speaking of such a law: "_My

opinion is that it will redound to the honor of our country._"

But we will do Mr. Buchanan justice, by stating that he said he would

vote _against_ the Bankrupt Law of 1840, because he did not like its

features. When Mr. Webster spoke in favor of the law, and of the

character of the _petitioners_, many of whom presented their petitions

through Mr. Buchanan, the latter spoke on the 24th of February, 1840;

and, to satisfy Mr. Webster and others that he was not opposed to the

_principle_ in former days, stated, "_He came to the other House of

Congress, many years since_, A FRIEND OF A BANKRUPT LAW. The subject was

before the House when he entered the body twenty years ago." He added,

"He was _open to conviction_, and might change his purpose!"

Thus, it will be seen that Mr. Buchanan, in this, as in every thing

else, _was on both sides_! And how does it look in a Presidential

candidate, to have supported a _General Bankrupt Law_ for the relief of

_rich, extravagant, and aristocratic_ gentlemen, and then to turn round

and advocate "ten cents per day" for poor folks and laboring men? It

will look rather bad; but, then, Sag Nicht Democracy can go any thing!

This old "ten cents per day" champion of Democracy advocated, in so many

words, the reduction of all paper money prices to the real Cuba standard

of solid money! We take extracts from his speech, which will be found in

the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, page 135:

"In Germany, where the currency is purely metallic, and the

cost of every thing is REDUCED to a hard money standard, a

piece of broadcloth can be manufactured for fifty dollars; the

manufacture of which in our country, from the expansion of

paper currency, would cost one hundred dollars. What is the

consequence? The foreign French and German manufacturer imports

this cloth into our country, and sells it for a hundred. Does

not every person perceive that the redundancy of our currency

is equal to a premium of one hundred per cent. in favor of the

manufacturer?"

"No tariff of protection, unless it amounted to prohibition,

could counteract this advantage in favor of foreign

manufactures. I would to heaven that I could arouse the

attention of every manufacturer of the nation to this important

subject."

"What is the reason that, with all these advantages, and with

the protective duties which our laws afford to the domestic

manufacturer of cotton, we cannot obtain exclusive possession

of the home market, and successfully contend for the markets of

the world? It is simply because we manufacture at the nominal

prices of our inflated currency, and are compelled to sell at

the real prices of other nations. REDUCE OUR NOMINAL STANDARD

OF PRICES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, and you cover our country with

blessings and benefits."

* * * * *

"The comparative LOW PRICES of France and Germany have afforded

such a stimulus to their manufactures, that they are now

rapidly extending themselves, and would obtain possession, in

no small degree, even of the English home market, IF IT WERE

NOT FOR THEIR PROTECTING DUTIES. While British manufactures are

now languishing, those of the continent are springing into a

healthy and vigorous existence."

How will the _Free Trade Democracy_ of the South relish these

"protecting duties" of an old Federal politician? They are about as

consistent in their support of the Cincinnati nominee as "Clay Whigs"

are, when they know that Buchanan was the only man living who had it in

his power to do Clay justice, in reference to the "bargain and intrigue"

calumny, and obstinately refused!

CLAY AND BUCHANAN.

In 1825, Mr. Buchanan, then a member of the House, entered the room of

Mr. Clay, who was at the time in company with his only messmate, Hon. R.

P. Letcher, also a member of the House, and since Governor of Kentucky.

Buchanan introduced the subject of the approaching Presidential

election, Letcher witnessing what was said; and after that, when Mr.

Clay was hotly assailed with the charge of "bargain, intrigue, and

corruption," notified Mr. Buchanan of his intention to publish the

conversation, but was induced, by the _earnest entreaties of Buchanan_,

to forbear. And Mr. Clay died with a letter in his possession, from

Buchanan, which, if published, as it should be, would place Buchanan

without the pale of Democracy, and disgrace him in the eyes of all

honorable men. _That_ letter, too, would explain why Gen. Jackson had no

confidence in him, and was opposed to his taking a seat in Polk's

cabinet. Let it come!

_Keep it before the People_, That it was the vote of James Buchanan

which, in the Senate, in 1832, secured the passage of the "Black

Tariff," so offensive to the "Free Trade" Democracy of Tennessee, South

Carolina, and other Southern States, and which Gov. JONES threw up to

Col. Polk with so much effect in their race of 1843!

_Keep it before the People_, That the Cincinnati Platform unblushingly

affirms that "the Constitution does not confer upon the Federal

government authority to assume the debts of the several States,

contracted for local internal improvements, or for other State

purposes;" while the Democratic members of Congress annually violate

this principle by voting away hundreds of acres of public lands to the

States, for purposes of railroads and other improvements.

_Keep it before the People_, That the same Platform hypocritically

asserts, that "it is the duty of every branch of our Government to

enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public

affairs;" when the expenditures of Pierce's administration are TWENTY

MILLIONS PER ANNUM over that of MILLARD FILLMORE!

_Keep it before the People_, That the 8th of the series in this Platform

declares, that "the attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming

citizens and owners of soil amongst us ought to be resisted with the

same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute

book:" and then the hypocritical builders of the platform turned about

and nominated James Buchanan, who commenced public life as the advocate

of the "alien and sedition laws," and sustained, in and out of Congress,

the Federal party, who passed these laws.

_Keep it before the People_, That the Cincinnati Platform, which prates

so loudly about the privilege of becoming "owners of the soil," and

which rebukes all efforts to amend our naturalization laws as oppressive

to foreigners, nominated a man for the Presidency who spoke publicly in

this language: "Above all, we ought to drive from our shores foreign

influence, which has been in every age the curse of republics!"

_Keep it before the People_, That this Cincinnati Platform pledges

itself to the "Acts known as the Compromise Measures," and then resolves

"to resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the

agitation of slavery;" while the second best nags before the Convention

were Douglass and Pierce, who brought forward the bill repealing the

Missouri Compromise line, and opening up anew the slavery agitation,

while Pierce signed the bill and adopted it as an Administration

measure!

_Keep it before the People_, That this same Platform asserts, as an

indispensable article of the Democratic faith, that "the proceeds of the

public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects

specified in the Constitution;" and yet a majority of the Democracy, in

one branch of Congress, unhesitatingly voted for a bill introduced by

Robert M. T. Hunter, a leader of "the most straitest sect" of Democratic

Pharisees, which proposed to give away the whole body of the public

lands to squatters, at the nominal price of ninepence an acre, and at

five years' credit!

_Keep it before the People_, That this same platform deprecates a policy

which legislates for the few at the expense of the many; yet its

builders nominated a man for the Presidency who has avowed himself on

the floor of the Senate in favor of reducing the wages of poor white men

to the Cuban standard of TEN CENTS per day!

_Keep it before the People_, That this Cincinnati Platform utterly fails

to come up to that high Southern standard, which the country looked for

from a party so lavish of promises, and that it has deliberately and

completely shirked the slavery issue, the only apology for which is

found in their having nominated an old anti-slavery Federalist.

_Keep it before the People_, That JAMES BUCHANAN was opposed to the war

of 1812, but is in favor of the next war--while a Federalist he was

conservative in his views, but is now square upon a Filibustering

Platform--his nomination, an overture to the Sumner Wing of Democracy,

is the very nomination for the Nullifiers, Fire-eaters, and Disunionists

of the South--that while we cry North, shout South, every faction is

united.

THE CINCINNATI VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.

_John C. Breckenridge_, of Kentucky, is now the Democratic candidate for

the Vice Presidency; and in our devotion to the _head_ of the ticket, we

do not wish to neglect the _tail_. Mr. Breckenridge is a good speaker,

and is about as good a selection as his party could make. He has not

been long enough in public life to attain any experience as a statesman,

nor has he been guilty of any great indiscretion in his short

Congressional career. He will be unable to carry Kentucky for his party,

though he has some elements of strength. Standing out in violent

opposition to his relatives upon the _Know Nothing_ issues, he will be

acceptable to all Foreigners, and the Catholics in particular! Being on

the very best of terms with _Cassius M. Clay_, and voting with the

Emancipationists of Kentucky, he will be rather acceptable to the

Anti-Slavery men than otherwise! He was a zealous supporter of the bill

in Congress appropriating a million or two dollars to works of Internal

Improvement, which was _vetoed_ by Pierce. That bill provided $50,000

for the improvement of the Kentucky River, to which he urged an

amendment insisting on $150,000. This will give him strength with the

Democracy of the North and North-West, who advocated the doctrine of

Internal Improvements by the General Government!

On May 20th, 1856, the _Charleston Mercury_ came out advising the South

as to the selection of candidates, which advice, if adhered to, would

prove ruinous alike to Buchanan and Breckenridge. A brief extract from

that article is in these words:

"A man unsound on Slavery, Free Trade, and Internal

Improvements, or whose opinions are shrouded in treacherous

ambiguity--such a man, be he Black Republican or Democrat, is

unworthy of her support. To vote for either, is to give away

her influence, to be used against her. It is to stultify

principle, and be the instrument of her own undoing."

This doctrine would get very much in the way of such men as _Toombs and

Stephens_, of Georgia, and other Anti-Internal Improvement Democrats,

but they can excuse Breckenridge on the ground that he acquiesced in the

veto of Pierce, and was possibly only trying to make a little capital at

home, which is common with Democracy. Besides, Mr. Breckenridge being

raised a _Clay Whig_, and representing the Ashland District as a

Democrat, should be allowed to pass over the _Jordan_ of Democracy by

degrees!

His name can be used advantageously in this contest in another respect.

While Mr. Buchanan was Mr. Clay's most vindictive enemy, traducer, and

calumniator, Mr. Breckenridge can be held up to the Clay Whigs, as

having announced to the House of Representatives the death of Mr. Clay,

in language and sentiments branding Buchanan as a malignant slanderer,

without mentioning his name, by the character he gave to Clay! Closing

his eulogy upon Mr. Clay in these words, Mr. Breckenridge evidently

looked with the eye of prophecy at the slanders of Buchanan, the

recollection of which would "cluster" around his grave:--

"Every memorial of such a man will possess a meaning and value

to his countrymen. His tomb will be a hallowed spot. Great

memories will cluster there, and his countrymen as they visit

it may well exclaim:

"Such graves as his are pilgrim shrines--

Shrines to no creed or code confined;

The Delphian vales, the Palestines,

The Meccas of the mind."

If we mistake not, this young Breckenridge is the nephew of the Rev.

John Breckenridge, formerly of Baltimore, and pastor of the Presbyterian

Church. If so, he is the nephew of the Rev. Robert Breckenridge, the

talented and staunch advocate of the American party. The venerable uncle

of this young man, whilst pastor of the Church in Baltimore, was a most

formidable opponent of the Roman Catholic religion, and is the man who

conducted the debate with Archbishop Hughes, in 1836, which we now have

before us, in a large volume of 550 pages. Of course _Bishop Hughes_

will require the young man to repudiate his uncle's views and charges in

opposition to the Papal religion; and this, we should think, he will do

for the sake of the Catholic vote in America!

From the Knoxville Whig of June 14, 1856.

PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY--ITS LEGITIMATE FRUITS.

The following important document we take from the National

Intelligencer, of January 22, 1851. It was signed and published by

gentlemen irrespective of parties--FORTY-FOUR Senators and

Representatives in Congress. It will be a _curiosity_ to those of our

readers who may have forgotten its well-timed and patriotic pledges. How

unfortunate it has been for the country, and especially the public

tranquillity, that the determination and counsels of these men were, in

an evil hour, departed from, and flagrantly violated by the demagogues

of the self-styled Democratic party! To the violation of this solemn

pledge by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise line, and the reöpening

of the Slavery agitation by the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska

bill, intended to elevate that miserable little demagogue, _Stephen A.

Douglass_, to the Presidency, we are indebted for all the scenes of

bloodshed in Kansas, to the angry slavery discussions in Congress, and

the disgraceful scenes of riot being almost daily enacted there!

Several copies of the following Declaration were circulated in Congress,

and obtained a number of signatures in both halls; but no other list was

ever published, that we know of, besides this, which, it will be seen,

was headed by the illustrious HENRY CLAY:

"The undersigned, members of the thirty-first Congress of the

United States, believing that a renewal of sectional

controversy upon the subject of slavery would be both dangerous

to the Union and destructive of its objects; and seeing no mode

by which such controversy can be avoided, except by a strict

adherence to the settlement thereof effected by the Compromise

Acts passed at the last session of Congress, do hereby declare

their intention to maintain the said settlement inviolate, and

to resist all attempts to repeal or alter the acts aforesaid,

unless by the general consent of the friends of the measure,

and to remedy such evils, if any, as time and experience may

develop. And, for the purpose of making this resolution

effective, they further declare that they will not support for

the office of President, Vice-President, Senator, or

Representative in Congress, or as a member of a State

Legislature, any man, of whatever party, who is not known to be

opposed to the disturbance of the settlement aforesaid, and to

the renewal, in any form, of agitation upon the subject of

slavery.

"Henry Clay,

C. S. Morehead,

Robt. L. Rose,

W. C. Dawson,

Thos. J. Rusk,

Jere. Clemens,

James Cooper,

Thos. C. Pratt,

Wm. M. Gwin,

Samuel A. Elliot,

David Outlaw,

O. H. Williams,

J. Philips Phoenix,

A. M. Schemerhorn,

Jno. R. Thurman,

D. A. Bokee,

Geo. R. Andrews,

W. P. Mangum,

Jeremiah Morton,

R. I. Bowie,

E. C. Cabell,

Alex. Evans,

Howell Cobb,

H. S. Foote,

Wm. Duer,

Jas. Brooks,

A. H. Stephens,

R. Toombs,

M. P. Gentry,

H. W. Hilliard,

F. E. McLean,

A. G. Watkins,

H. A. Bullard,

T. S. Haywood,

A. H. Shephard,

Daniel Breck,

Jas. L. Johnson,

J. B. Thompson,

J. M. Anderson,

John B. Kerr,

J. P. Caldwell,

Ed. Deberry,

H. Marshall,

Allen F. Owen."

The _rowdyism_ and _treachery_ of Democracy never intended to abide by

this pledge--and hence their "disturbance of the settlement aforesaid,"

by opening up anew this villainous "agitation upon the subject of

slavery." This violation of a solemn pledge has introduced into Kansas

civil war, caused bloodshed, the shooting down of men in cold blood, and

overrun that country with contending parties, called "_Friends of

Freedom_" and "_Border Ruffians_," armed with Sharpe's rifles, Colt's

revolvers, bowie-knives, and clubs, mixed with Bibles!

All this really affords an illustration of the domineering insolence of

Democratic Abolitionism--an element in our Federal Government which will

stop at no extremity of violence, in order to subdue the people of the

Slave States, and force them into a miserable subservience to its

fanatical dominion. And it is worthy of note, that the shooting of

Sheriff Jones and others in Kansas, occurred immediately after the

arrival of the _New Haven Emigrant Rifle Company_! This, too, calls to

mind forcibly the very delectable _conversational speechifying_ that

took place at the New Haven Rifle Meeting, among the pious villains who

figured most conspicuously. As it is short, we give it entire:

Rev. Mr. Dutton (pastor of the church.)--One of the deacons of

this church, Mr. Harvey Hall, is going out with the company to

Kansas, and I, as his pastor, desire to present him a Bible and

a Sharpe's rifle. (Great applause.)

E. P. Pie.--I will give one.

Stephen D. Purdee.--I will give one for myself, and also

another one for my wife.

Mr. Beecher.--I like to see that--it is a bold stroke both

right and left. (Great laughter.)

Charles Ives.--Put me down for three.

Thomas R. Trowbridge.--Put me down for four. (Continued

laughter.) Dr. J. I. Howe.--I will subscribe for one.

A gentleman said that Miss Mary Dutton would give one.

Dr. Stephen G. Hubbard.--One.

Mr. Beecher here stated that if twenty-five could be raised on

the spot, he would pledge twenty-five more from the church at

Plymouth--fifty being a sufficient number for the whole supply.

(Clapping of hands all over the house.)

Prof. Silliman now left Mr. Beecher to speak for the bid, and

sat down to enjoy the occasion.

Mr. Killem.--I give one.

Mr. Beecher.--_Killem_--that's a significant name in connection

with a good Sharpe's rifle. (Laughter.)

After this, this clerical vagabond, Beecher, blessed the weapons, and

encouraged the party to go forth and "do or die" in the sublime "cause

of nigger freedom!" In all human probability, sweet Mary Dutton's rifle

may have sped the ball that pierced the side of Sheriff Jones, the

officer of the law, while in the honest discharge of a sworn duty!

Subsequent murders, where pro-slavery men were shot down with these

rifles, we attribute to the _omen_ that Beecher found in his name

"_Killem_"--it is a significant name in connection with Sharpe's rifle.

The real assassins shoot down their men, and with their _rifles_ and

_Bibles_ flee; but _she_ who unfrocked herself by furnishing a rifle,

and _he_ who gave and blessed the weapon of death, are here to accept

the thanks of their admirers and partisans. Let sweet Mary and her

_beloved_ pastor be crowned with wreaths of deadly night-shade, and

consigned to one cell in Sing Sing prison!

But the success of Ruffianism in Kansas, in the hands of those vile

Abolition Democrats, has emboldened members of the same party to

introduce it in the Federal Capital. But the other day, MR. SUMNER, of

Massachusetts, made, in his place in the U. S. Senate, one of the most

incendiary and inflammatory speeches ever uttered on the floor of either

House of Congress! The vocabulary of Billingsgate was exhausted in

denouncing all who dared to justify the institution of slavery--using,

over and over again, such terms as "hireling, picked from the drunken

spew of an uneasy civilization in the form of men," &c. The language

made use of was disgraceful to the vile Abolitionist himself, and to the

Senate, of which he never ought to have been a member. There was no

limit to the personal abuse in which the villainous Senator indulged, no

restraint to the vile epithets coined in his insane head; and the very

natural consequence was, a personal chastisement of Mr. Sumner, in the

Senate chamber, by Mr. Brooks, a Representative from South Carolina, and

a relative of Judge Butler, the gentleman abused in his absence, which,

for its severity, never was equalled in Washington. Mr. Sumner was the

aggressor, because he poured out the vials of his wrath upon not only

Judge Butler, a distinguished Senator, but upon the whole State of South

Carolina.

We do not justify the selection of a _time_ and _place_ by _Mr. Brooks_,

for punishing this Massachusetts Abolitionist; but we should despise the

son of South Carolina who could hear his native State arraigned in such

temper and language, without feeling intensely, and _manifesting_ that

feeling at a proper time and place. Indeed, it would be strange if a

South Carolinian did not resent the arrogant, insulting, and

contemptuous tone which Mr. Sumner saw fit to indulge in towards South

Carolina in general, and her Senator in particular! We know Judge

Butler--we have seen him on the Bench, in the discharge of the duties of

a Circuit-Judge--we have seen and heard him in the Senate Chamber, where

he has served for years, with credit to himself and honor to his State.

He is an accomplished man, and a most amiable and honorable gentleman.

His character is unblemished; he stands deservedly high; he is a

gentleman of urbane and courteous demeanor, and is beloved, esteemed,

and respected, by all _gentlemen_ who know him or associate with him.

Besides, he is an old man, gray-haired, and palsied; and, whether

present or absent, deserved to be treated as a gentleman.

Northern men may not expect to vilify the South in this way, without

having to atone for it. Men who profess to belong to the peace party,

ought not to employ language that will provoke a fight, and then shield

themselves behind their non-resistant defences. They voluntarily put

themselves upon the platform of _resistance_--they pass insults, and

they must submit to the consequences. We have just finished the perusal

of a case in Æsop's Fables, exactly in point. It is the case of a

_trumpeter_ taken prisoner in battle. He claimed exemption from the

common fate of prisoners of war, in ancient times, on the ground that he

carried no weapons, and was, in fact, a non-combatant, belonging to the

peace party! "Non-combatant, the Devil!" exclaimed the opposing party,

pointing to his trumpet, as preparations were being made to put him to

death, "Why, Sir, you hold in your hands the very instrument which

incites our foes to tenfold furies against us!"

But this fight between the parties has to come, and it should begin at

Washington, and if not in the halls of Congress, at least in the

_streets_ of the Federal city. Let the battle be fought there, and not

in _Kansas_, and let it fall upon the villainous agitators of the

Slavery question, and the _Democratic_ disturbers of the Compromises of

the Constitution. Let it come _now_, that it may be fought out and

settled, and not left to _posterity_, to curse and crush the rising

generation!

Mr. Brooks is a Democrat, and an anti-Know Nothing. Mr. Sumner is a

Democrat--was elected by the votes of the Democrats, over that noble and

dignified Whig, Mr. Winthrop, and his election was hailed throughout the

Union as a Democratic triumph!

Massachusetts, irrespective of parties, seems to have taken great

offence at this occurrence, and to have held indignation meetings, and

was to have had _Legislative_ action upon the subject. We tell

Massachusetts that she is alone to blame, for sending such a man to the

United States Senate. There was a great debate in the Senate twenty-five

years ago, in which Daniel Webster and Gov. Hayne met each other and

grappled like giants, as they were. The State of South Carolina, in that

day, though represented by an able, patriotic, and great man, came off

_second best_. The Senator from Massachusetts, of that day, was an able

statesman, a Constitutional lawyer of unsurpassed abilities, and,

withal, a cautious gentleman, and rose above the low blackguardism of a

Sumner and a Wilson. When _taunted_ by the Senator from South Carolina

with _Federalism_, and opposition to some of the features of the War of

1812, the great Webster presented Massachusetts before the Senate and

the Union, in such a manner that men of all sections bowed down and

worshipped her. Standing erect with the flash of his eagle eye, he

exclaimed, "There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker

Hill"--let them testify to the loyalty of Massachusetts to this glorious

Union! Not only did Mr. Webster come out of that controversy with South

Carolina with the admiration of every man in the country, but with the

respect and admiration of Calhoun, Hayne, McDuffie, and all the

high-toned statesmen of the South. And why? Because he was not a Sumner,

a Wilson, or an _Abolition Blackguard_. Times have changed--a different

man takes the place of a Webster, with only the memory of an insulting

speech and a broken head! Let Massachusetts send men to the United

States Senate who can and will demean themselves like gentlemen, and

gentlemen from the South will appreciate them, while they differ

honestly with them on great questions.

What wonderful _progress_ Democracy is making in the country! _First_,

Democracy quarrelled and jowered over the election of a Speaker two

months, and finally, by the introduction of the _Plurality Rule_, caused

Banks, a Black Republican, to be elected. And as if determined to atone

for this wear of time and money, they have brought about a series of

fights, which, before they are disposed of, will cost the government

half a million of dollars!

_First_ then, William Smith, an ex-Governor of the State of Virginia,

and member of the House of Representatives, assailed and beat the editor

of the _Evening Star_, in December last, in the street.

_Second_, Albert Rusk, a member of the House of Representatives from

Arkansas, assailed and beat the editor of the New York _Tribune_ in the

grounds of the capitol, immediately after leaving the House of

Representatives.

_Third_, Philip T. Herbert, of Alabama, a member of Congress from

California, shot down and killed an Irish Catholic waiter at Willard's,

and is now under bonds to appear before the Court and await his trial

for such crime as they may adjudge him to have committed.

_Fourth_, Preston S. Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives

from South Carolina, assails and beats unmercifully a Senator from

Massachusetts, when occupying his seat in the Senate of the United

States.

_Fifth_, Mr. Bright knocked down the doorkeeper, for an inconsiderable

offence. Here, then, we have five breaches of the peace in five months,

by Democrats upon Democrats, although the "Boston Pilot," a Catholic

organ, falsely charges that some of the parties making these assaults

are "Know Nothings." We congratulate the Democratic party upon the

progress of its leading members! They are sinking by swift descent into

barbarism, and bringing the country to ruin. And in keeping with all

this, they have tried to nominate for the Vice-Presidency a man who

openly proposed in Congress the repeal of our neutrality laws, so as to

bring a general fight!

It will not do to say that _Sumner_ is not of the Democratic party,

because he is a regular-built Free-Soiler and Black Republican: the

Washington _Union_ settled this point in 1852, when it uttered these

memorable words:

"The Free-soil Democratic leaders of the North are a regular

portion of the Democratic party, and General Pierce, if

elected, will make no distinction between them and the rest of

the Democracy in the distribution of official patronage, and in

the selection of agents for administering the government."

The rules of the Senate forbid personalities in debate, and it was the

sworn duty of its Locofoco President, Mr. Bright, to have called Mr.

Sumner to order for his abuse of Judge Butler. But as far back as thirty

years ago, under the auspices of JOHN C. CALHOUN as presiding officer, a

decision was made to the effect that the presiding officer of the Senate

was neither bound nor had he the power to call Senators to order! That

power, according to his decision, belonged wholly to the Senate

itself----thus delivering over the minority of that body to "the tender

mercies" of the majority! The object of Mr. CALHOUN at the time was to

play into the hands of a combination which had been formed to break down

the Administration of John Quincy Adams, and to cripple Henry Clay. The

instrument used was the sarcastic, irritating, and personal rhetoric of

John Randolph, then a member of the Senate. To this end, Randolph was

suffered to deliver in the Senate a long succession of tirades,

disgraceful to the Senate, abusive of New England and of Henry Clay.

Here is a specimen of Randolph's abuse, which led to a duel between him

and Mr. Clay:

"This man, (mankind, I crave pardon,) this worm, (little

animals, forgive the insult,) was raised to a higher life than

he was born to, for he was raised to the society of

blackguards. Some fortune--kind to him, cruel to us--has tossed

him to the Secretaryship of State. Contempt has the property of

descending, but stops far short of him. She would die before

she would reach him: he dwells below her fall. I would hate

him, if I did not despise him. It is not WHAT he is, but WHERE

he is, that puts my thoughts into action. The alphabet which

writes the name of Thersites, blackguard, squalidity, refuses

her letters for him. That mind which thinks on what it cannot

express, can scarcely think on him. An hyperbole for MEANNESS

would be an ellipsis for CLAY."

This was pleasing to Mr. Calhoun and the dominant party in the Senate,

and his decision which tolerated it never was questioned by any

authoritative precedent, until MILLARD FILLMORE was elected

Vice-President. With characteristic independence, he determined that a

precedent so unreasonable and absurd should not be binding on him as the

presiding officer of the Senate. He therefore, on assuming the duties of

his office, delivered an address to the Senate, in which he informed

that body that he considered it his sworn duty to preserve decorum, and

would _reverse_ the rule which had so long prevailed, that Senators were

not to be called to order for words spoken in debate! The Senate ordered

this address to be entered at large on their journals, as an evidence of

their endorsement of its doctrines; and there it is now, recorded

evidence of the patriotism, high sense of decorum, and senatorial

dignity of that great and good man, MILLARD FILLMORE.

STRENGTH OF PARTIES IN TENNESSEE.

OFFICIAL VOTES OF THE STATE.

The following tables exhibit the official vote of Tennessee for

President in 1852, for Governor in 1853, and for Governor in 1855, as

compared at the capital of the State, and will be valuable as a table

for reference. In the last contest, when the _Know Nothing issues_ were

fully made, causing all the _latent blackguardism in the Democratic

ranks to be fully developed_, it will be seen that _Andrew Johnson_

received 67,499 votes, and _Meredith P. Gentry_ 65,342, leaving Johnson

a majority of 2,157, a falling off of 104 votes from his majority over

_Maj. Henry_ two years before that. It will also be perceived that the

vote of the State at this last election is an increase of 8,260 over the

vote two years previous. Of this increase, _Col. Gentry_ gets 4,182, his

vote exceeding _Maj. Henry's_ by that much, while Johnson's increase

upon his own vote two years previous was 4,078.

It is a moderate calculation to say that Johnson received at least two

thousand _foreign and illegal votes_; while we are within bounds when we

say that at least 5,000 old-line Whigs refused to vote for _Col.

Gentry_--demonstrating beyond all doubt that a majority of the legal

voters of the State were opposed to Johnson and his party.

In the contest now being waged, _Fillmore and Donelson_ will carry the

State by a majority ranging from _three_ to _five_ thousand votes,

despite the low Billingsgate slang and vile blackguardism that may be

heaped upon them and their supporters. And as this calculation is made

in _June_, five months in advance of the election, we must ask those

into whose hands this work shall fall without the limits of Tennessee,

to bear it in mind, and when they get the returns in November, to give

us credit for our sagacity or our want of sagacity!

The contest will be fierce and bitter, exceeding any former political

battle witnessed in the State. If the orators and editors of the

self-styled Democratic party have not greatly reformed in the space of

one year, but little argument will be adduced, but little gentlemanly

courtesy manifested; and instead of facts, figures and arguments, bitter

invective, low blackguardism, and Billingsgate abuse of secret

organizations, dark lanterns, and Protestant clergymen, will be the

order of the day. In this _congenial_ work, all the conglomeration of

ignorant men, foreign paupers, and fag-ends and factions, styling

themselves _Democrats_, will engage!

But to the official vote of the State:

_Popular Vote of Tennessee--Official._

EAST TENNESSEE.

1852. 1853. 1855.

Counties. Scott. Pierce. Henry. Johnson. Gentry. Johnson.

Anderson 602 267 648 379 772 333

Bledsoe 464 209 469 303 404 361

Blount 827 566 1146 734 1069 789

Bradley 547 778 562 1085 644 1021

Campbell 313 251 356 445 507 383

Carter 585 139 721 294 768 238

Claiborne 503 519 620 707 756 744

Cooke 743 196 867 383 929 422

Grainger 852 477 998 767 1327 621

Greene 780 1301 902 1915 989 1985

Hawkins 778 831 805 1180 887 1158

Hamilton 774 648 786 972 966 1044

Hancock 241 336 221 532 264 589

Jefferson 1168 307 1396 639 1697 444

Johnson 365 93 392 184 400 215

Knox 1863 565 2279 770 2560 695

McMinn 796 866 799 965 909 953

Meigs 141 442 118 561 97 588

Marion 453 292 476 357 554 468

Monroe 805 847 739 900 851 1005

Morgan 240 222 229 260 219 358

Polk 272 470 249 527 385 676

Rhea 300 307 270 358 298 415

Roane 820 678 912 755 1002 769

Sevier 621 80 824 133 964 120

Scott 199 127 186 182 121 259

Sullivan 260 1114 361 1407 601 1403

Washington 565 853 967 1069 847 1338

------ ------ ------ ------

19,298 18,763 21,787 19,394

MIDDLE TENNESSEE.

Counties. Scott. Pierce. Henry. Johnson. Gentry. Johnson.

Bedford 1390 1356 1359 1257 1630 1293

Cannon 453 727 445 803 458 859

Coffee 205 722 274 824 294 880

Davidson 2617 2058 2597 1963 3132 1783

De Kalb 559 588 632 610 560 738

Dickson 323 607 357 743 388 745

Fentress 153 411 166 504 129 616

Franklin 330 1133 356 1224 394 1302

Giles 1303 1447 1301 1468 1312 1439

Grundy 44 327 58 374 22 425

Hardin 643 808 671 827 745 775

Hickman 241 839 263 812 223 1053

Humphreys 263 471 341 501 354 543

Jackson 1170 803 1154 995 1122 1131

Lawrence 547 583 523 731 524 845

Lewis 43 186 66 182 34 243

Lincoln 606 2297 617 2322 402 2521

Maury 1324 1799 1238 1731 1444 1793

Montgomery 1260 993 1309 1004 1502 881

Marshall 666 1340 671 1282 678 1310

Macon 617 374 553 341 540 424

Overton 345 1039 431 1282 290 1528

Robertson 1013 769 1183 763 1256 804

Rutherford 1495 1313 1407 1243 1435 1288

Smith 1742 520 1735 546 1572 644

Stewart 533 725 479 718 563 785

Sumner 825 1563 806 1425 780 1740

Van Buren 107 165 110 205 90 228

Warren 344 922 402 1093 393 1153

Wayne 666 380 709 430 687 535

White 949 518 974 634 978 694

Williamson 1583 763 1502 710 1621 688

Wilson 2248 923 2241 995 2290 937

------ ------ ------ ------

26,930 30,550 27,842 32,623

WEST TENNESSEE.

Counties. Scott. Pierce. Henry. Johnson. Gentry. Johnson.

Benton 340 485 393 465 475 453

Carroll 1498 649 1469 663 1567 694

Decatur 400 315 408 285 353 429

Dyer 508 411 476 373 442 483

Fayette 1006 1034 1011 1006 1151 940

Gibson 1570 901 1514 1024 1618 1213

Hardeman 717 1024 651 1025 619 1123

Henderson 1193 511 1301 593 1230 734

Henry 899 1516 891 1496 871 1738

Haywood 790 732 726 785 803 762

Lauderdale 330 277 319 252 354 297

McNairy 921 872 1016 984 915 1059

Madison 1426 819 1261 795 1448 788

Obion 431 644 547 792 407 865

Perry 325 314 387 329 320 450

Shelby 1824 1628 1545 1435 1831 1477

Tipton 357 565 284 527 424 566

Weakley 783 1149 733 1279 885 1411

------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------

58,802 57,123 14,932 14,108 15,713 15,482

57,123

------

Scott's

majority, 1,679

East Tennessee, 19,298 18,763 21,787 19,394

Middle Tennessee, 26,930 30,550 27,842 32,623

------ ------ ------ ------

61,160 63,421 65,342 67,499

61,160 65,342

------ ------

Johnson's majority 2,261 2,157

_Fillmore and Donelson Electoral Ticket._

As a matter of reference, and that none may mistake the American Ticket

on the day of the election, we give it as agreed upon and matured by our

party:

FOR THE STATE.

HON. NEILL S. BROWN, of Davidson.

HORACE MAYNARD, of Knox.

FOR THE DISTRICTS.

1st District--N. G. TAYLOR, of Carter.

2d " MOSES WHITE, of Knox.

3d " REESE B. BRABSON, of Hamilton.

4th " W. P. HICKERSON, of Coffee.

5th " ROBERT HATTON, of Wilson.

6th " W. H. WISENER, of Bedford.

7th " C. C. CROWE, of Giles.

8th " J. M. QUARLES, of Montgomery.

9th " ISAAC R. HAWKINS, of Carroll.

10th " JOSEPH R. MOSBY, of Fayette.

This is an able ticket, and greatly superior to the opposing ticket, as

our readers will bear us witness when they hear the parties in debate.

Most of these gentlemen have consented to serve on the ticket at great

personal sacrifices; and like their chief, Mr. FILLMORE, they have

undertaken to serve their party and country "without waiting to inquire

of its prospects of success or defeat." And all the reward they seek is

to be able to conduct the struggle to a victorious consummation in

Tennessee, and this we feel confident they will do. The battle in

Tennessee will be hotly contested, but it is by no means doubtful.

Tennessee for the last twenty years, and in five preceding presidential

contests, has refused to range herself under the black banner of

Locofocoism; and now that that banner is doubly infamous by being raised

and cheered by Catholics, foreigners, and paupers of every clime, it is

fair to presume she will spurn the flag!

THE BLACK REPUBLICAN NOMINEES.

The Black Republican Party, in their recent Convention at Philadelphia,

have nominated JOHN CHARLES FREMONT, of California, for the Presidency,

and Ex-Senator WILLIAM L. DAYTON, of New Jersey, for the Vice

Presidency!

This man Fremont is no statesman--has no experience in political

life--has not the first qualification for this eminent and responsible

station--and his nomination has not been made upon any plausible pretext

whatever. He is an Engineer by profession--once penetrated with his

companions to the Pacific coast, across the Rocky Mountains--is the

son-in-law of _Tom Benton_--is a Free Trade Locofoco, and an avowed Free

Soiler.

The following letter addressed by Fremont to the great Tabernacle

Abolition meeting in New York, last spring, is full and explicit, and

defines his position on the slavery question:

"NEW YORK, April 29, 1856.

"GENTLEMEN: I have to thank you for the honor of an invitation

to a meeting this evening at the Broadway Tabernacle, and

regret that other engagements have interfered to prevent my

being present.

"I heartily concur in all movements which have for their object

'to repair the mischiefs arising from the violation of good

faith in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.' I am opposed

to slavery in the abstract and upon principle, sustained and

made habitual by long-settled convictions.

"While I feel inflexible in the belief that it ought not to be

interfered with where it exists under the shield of State

sovereignty, I am as inflexibly opposed to its extension on

this continent beyond its present limits.

"With the assurance of regard for yourselves,

"I am very respectfully yours,

"J. C. FREMONT."

"Messrs. J. D. Morgan and others."

In addition to this, Fremont is the representative of _aggression_: he

is a _Filibuster_, and the exponent of a civilization above all

constitutions, and all laws. The fact that Seward, Chase, Giddings, and

such men--able anti-slavery men, and experienced politicians, were

passed over, is proof that they were not governed by _principle_, but

seek to shift the issue, and to make it personal and sectional. Take

into the account, moreover, the fact that Dayton, a man of moderate

talents, is a sort of _Protective Tariff Locofoco_, the advocate of

Foreign Pauper labor, and the largest liberty for _Catholics_, and it

gives to the ticket a considerable degree of interest.

The leading men in the Convention were reckless and unprincipled

demagogues, of the Locofoco school of politics, including the British

Free Trade policy, Filibusterism, etc., whose only aim is place and

plunder. Their Free-soil principles, outside of their radical purposes,

are scarcely skin deep!

By many well-informed men, no doubts are entertained now, that the

nomination of Fremont and Dayton has been the result of an intrigue

between Seward and Archbishop Hughes; and from a resolution of their

platform, as reported by the Committee on Resolutions, we attach credit

to this inference. It will bring the Buchanan party at the North to

terms, as they are likely to be the only sufferers from this ticket. It

will be managed in future alone with an eye to the _aid_ of Buchanan!

We take the following notice of Fremont from the Charleston (S. C.)

Standard, and consider it every way reliable:

"Mr. Fremont will be destined to play a distinguished part in

the drama, and his history and character therefore will,

doubtless, become subjects of considerable importance. He is

generally regarded as a native of Charleston, but of this we

have occasion to doubt. Many gentlemen here, who knew him in

early life, concur in saying that he was born in Savannah. Up

to within a short time prior to his birth, his mother was a

resident of Norfolk, in Virginia, and it is generally asserted

that his parents resided in Savannah before they became settled

in Charleston; however this may have been, it is at least

conceded that he first came into notice in this city. His

prospects here were not particularly promising, but he

attracted the attention of some philanthropic gentlemen, who

provided the means for his entrance and instruction in the

Charleston College. His progress there was not remarkable, and

when his class graduated he was not considered entitled to a

diploma. He was afterwards recommended as a proper person to

take charge of the night-school of the Apprentices' Library

Association; but, though his attainments were sufficient, and

his address particularly acceptable to the Directors of that

Institution, he was not as attentive as he might have been, and

the school fell through. He afterwards procured, through Mr.

Poinsett, a situation as instructor of junior officers on board

a vessel of war bound to the Pacific, and in this condition is

said to have acquitted himself well. He afterwards acquired

some knowledge of civil engineering, and filling unimportant

positions in connection with one and another public work, was

at length brought to notice and distinction by his connection

with Mr. Nicholet in his Survey of the Mississippi Valley, and

from that marched steadily on to the Rocky Mountains, and a

renown that has placed his name before the country.

"From the records of his early life, it would seem that he had

talent, and was quite addicted to naval reading, but was

wayward, and if not indolent, was inefficient in the tasks

undertaken at the instance of other people, and up to the time

of his entrance upon his duties as instructor in the naval

school, had hardly made up his mind whether he would be a man

of character or a blackguard. He was fond of dress, however,

and the records of the court still show that he wore a suit of

clothes which he was afterwards compelled to declare on oath

his inability to pay for, in order to avoid inconvenient

restrictions upon his personal liberty; but chance gave a

proper direction to his abilities; he had the latent energy of

character to act up to his opportunities, and he has really

presented a career which any one might regard with

satisfaction. It is certainly to be regretted that he should

lend himself to the uses of a party so reckless and subversive,

not only of the Union but of the rights of that section to

which, if capable of sentiments of patriotism, he might be

supposed to feel attachment; but the prospect of the Presidency

would be a sore trial to the probity of most men, and we find

nothing in the antecedents of Mr. Fremont to cause a feeling of

disappointment that he should yield to the allurements of

power.

"He is commended for his attentions to his mother, and they

were certainly exemplary. She was poor, and after he determined

to behave himself and work like a man, he made her as entirely

comfortable as there was the reason to believe his

circumstances permitted."

POSTSCRIPT.--Mr. Fremont turns out to be a Roman Catholic, and to have

been raised one, and this explains the readiness of Bishop Hughes to

abandon Buchanan, and go over to Fremont. It also explains why it is

that so many _German Catholic papers_ are coming out for Fremont, in the

large cities, and in the North-Western States.

In 1850, Fremont held a seat in the United States Senate, for the space

of about three months, and during that time sought to introduce a

Catholic Priest to open their services with prayers, and was successful

to some extent. He also attended service at the Catholic Church. The

_Washington Star_, of the 19th June, 1856, gives the following

exposition of facts, in reference to Fremont and his religion:

"A SORT OF A CATHOLIC.--We take it for granted that among the

informal pledges extracted by delegations in George Law's

Convention, from Col. Fremont, there was not one against the

Catholic Church; insomuch as, up to the recent birth of his

aspirations for the Presidency, he always passed in Washington

for a good enough outside Roman Catholic; that being the Church

in which he was reared. He was married in this city, it will be

remembered, by Father Van Horseigh, a clergyman of his

Church--not of that of his wife's family."

The Republicans sought to incorporate into their platform a plank in

opposition to the _Religious Proscription_ of the American party, so as

to suit the taste of Romanists generally; but Thaddeus Stevens, who

knows Pennsylvania as well as any man living, implored them not to do

so, and stated that such a course, with Fremont as their nominee, would

lose them Pennsylvania by 50,000 votes!

It turns out, however, that Fremont, as the anti-American,

anti-Protestant candidate, with Mr. Dayton on the ticket, equally

anti-American, and devoted to Romanism, will sweep the Catholic vote in

the United States. Catholics may favor Buchanan in such Southern States

as do not run a Fremont ticket, but in all the Northern and

North-Western States, the Fremont ticket will ruin the Buchanan ticket.

This question, taken in connection with the Slavery issue, and the

Filibustering issue, narrows the contest down to one between Fillmore

and Fremont. Buchanan is defeated, and the Southern fire-eaters see and

feel it! The _Atlanta_ (Ga.) _Intelligencer_ comes out and states, that

if Buchanan can't be elected, it prefers Fremont to Fillmore! And the

South Carolina and Mississippi Disunionists openly avow, that they wish

this to be the last contest of the kind. They are for Buchanan or

Fremont, over Fillmore, because they believe the election of either will

have the glorious effect to bring about a dissolution of the Union! In

the same breath they admit that Fillmore will labor to perpetuate the

Union, and that his election will have the effect to prolong its

existence a few brief years!

Southern men, and Northern men, Union men, and national, conservative

men, of all parties, can now see _where_ we are driving to, and _who_

they should support for the Presidency. Let them guard against these

demons of Popery--these incarnate fiends of the Free Soil faith--these

fanatics of a sectional cast--these slimy vultures of Secession--these

bogus Democrats--and these infinitely infernal traitors to the

Constitution and the Union!

"Col. Fremont was educated in and graduated from St. Mary's

College, in Baltimore, a Roman Catholic Institution. He was

brought up in the Catholic Faith, and is a Catholic. He married

a daughter of Col. Benton. Miss Benton was a Presbyterian. They

were married by a clergyman of that denomination; but a

Catholic priest made a fuss about it as being null, void, and

heretical, and the ceremony was re-performed by him!"--_Auburn

American._

The _American_ might have added, that Fremont is the son of a _Catholic

Frenchman_, the son of a _Catholic mother_, and was reared under

Catholic influence. Nay, Fremont educates his children at the Roman

Catholic Institution at Georgetown, in the District of Columbia! The

placing of such a candidate before the public, seems especially designed

to defy public sentiment, and mock the Protestant American feeling of

the country! We had expected the Catholics, with Bishop Hughes at their

head, in a few years more, to come out openly, and run a Catholic for

the Presidency, but we had not supposed them bold enough to attempt it

in 1856. To show beyond all doubt that the nomination of Fremont was the

result of a coalition between Seward and Hughes, more in reference to

the _Catholic question_ than the _Slavery issue_, we present the record

of Fremont in the United States Senate--his _ultra-Pro-Slavery

course_--his voting against justice to the Colonization Society, and

_seven hundred and fifty_ captured slaves--his opposition to the

abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia!

HE IS EXTREME SOUTHERN AND PRO-SLAVERY.

John C. Fremont held a seat in the United States Senate, in 1850, for

the space of a few months. During that time he made no speeches; indeed,

he has scarcely ever been known to utter any sentiments, or sanction any

opinions. Yet his votes, as a member of the Senate, did make for him a

record; and it is this record that will stare him in the face as long as

he lives--a record in direct conflict with his present professions and

position before the country:

LOOK AT IT!--JOHN C. FREMONT'S STATESMANSHIP.

[From the Congressional Globe--Vol. 21, part 2d, p. 1803, etc.]

"IN SENATE OF UNITED STATES, Sept. 11, 1850.

"Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, called up the bill for the relief

of the American Colonization Society. The slaves that were

recaptured on the barque Pons were turned over to the

Colonization Society, by the authority of the United States,

sent to Liberia, and there kept at the expense of the society

for one or two years. Most of them were children of twelve,

fifteen, and sixteen years of age. The society thinks that the

expense of feeding, clothing, and educating these people, which

was thus devolved on them by the action of the Government,

ought to be repaid them. It was certainly an expense incurred

by the society, through the action of the Government in

throwing these young negroes upon them for maintenance, instead

of taking them, as the Government was bound to do by law, and

providing for them. That is the nature of the claim. They

simply ask that so much shall be paid them as the society, from

its own experience, pays in reference to its own emigrants. The

claim was reported upon favorably two years ago. A similar

report has again been made; and as the necessities of the

society require that they should have the money, I hope, said

Mr. U., the Senate will consent to take up the bill. The Senate

agreed to take up the bill, and proceeded to consider it as in

Committee of the Whole.

"Mr. Turney asked for the reading of the report of the

Committee.

"The Secretary read the report accordingly. It sets forth that

a liberal construction of the act of Congress of March 3d,

1819, would require that the Government should provide for the

support of these recaptured Africans, for a reasonable time

after they had been landed in Liberia, and that it is beneath

the dignity of the Government to devolve this duty upon the

society. The petition of the executive committee of the society

which the Committee incorporated in their report, states that

on the 16th of December, 1845, the United States Ship Yorktown,

Commodore Bell, landed at Monrovia, in Liberia, from the slaver

Pons, seven hundred and fifty recaptured Africans, in a naked,

starving, and dying condition, all of them excepting twenty-one

being under the age of twenty-one. The United States made no

provision for their support after they were landed....

"The services of providing for the destitute negroes were not

required to be performed by the society under their

constitution, but the alternative was to leave these recaptured

Africans to starve and die, and the society therefore

cheerfully took charge of them, relying upon the Government of

the United States to refund the cost to them."

The question was discussed at length as to whether the United States

would pay these just and legal demands; and on the vote being taken for

the engrossment of the bill to a third reading, Mr. Fremont's name is

found recorded in the negative--as follows:

"YEAS--Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Chase, Clayton, Davis of

Mass., DAYTON, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglass, Ewing,

Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Pearce, Pratt,

Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales,

Walker, Whitcomb, and Winthrop--29.

"NAYS--Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Benton, Butler, Dawson,

Dickinson, Downs, FREMONT, Hunter, King, Mason, Rusk,

Sebastian, Soule, Turner, and Yulee--16."

LOOK AGAIN!--On the 18th day of September, 1850, the bill to prevent

persons from enticing away slaves from the District of Columbia was

under consideration, and John P. Hale "moved that it be committed to the

Committee on the District of Columbia, with instructions _to so amend it

as to_ ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." On the vote being

taken, FREMONT'S name was recorded in the NEGATIVE. (See Cong. Globe,

31st Congress, part 2, p. 1859.)

Such is Mr. Fremont's _record of Statesmanship_. It shows his nomination

by the "_Republicans_" to have been a hollow mockery--"a dishonest

farce,"--an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

We shall hereafter pursue the record of this "remarkable man."

Bishop Hughes and Wm. H. Seward have been, for years, intimate personal

and political friends. It is a part of the political history of New

York, that Seward is alone indebted to Hughes for his reelection to the

United States Senate. They are both now united in the support of

Fremont, and they procured his nomination over Judge McLean, a pure and

patriotic man--for many years a _Methodist Class-Leader_, and an officer

of a _Protestant Bible Society_.

The coalition between Hughes, Seward and Fremont, is complete, and the

evidence of the foul coalition and conspiracy will appear in full, in a

few days, but not in time for us to get it into this work. We are right

glad of it, as it narrows the contest down to one between Fillmore and

Fremont, and especially at the North.

In some of the Northern States, it is now conclusive that a _Buchanan_

ticket will not be run, while in every Northern State where such a

ticket is run, it will be with no hope of success! Hughes and Seward

will induce several States to drop Buchanan, and unite on Fremont, by

_bargaining_ with them, and obligating themselves to give the Democracy

half of the spoils. Already several _Southern_ Democratic papers are

saying, that if they can't elect Buchanan, they prefer Fremont to

Fillmore! This ought to open the eyes of all true patriots.

OLD LINE WHIGS, AND THE MOTIVES GOVERNING SOME OF THEM!

In this free country of ours, gentlemen have a right to support any

Presidential or other ticket they may choose to support; and where they

are governed by pure motives in differing from a majority of their

neighbors and old political associates, no one has a right to complain.

Some few gentlemen, known as "Old Line Whigs," will not come into the

support of the American ticket, but will even support the Democratic

ticket; and do it from an honest (though mistaken) belief that they can

most effectually serve the interests of the country by this course. With

such, we shall be the last man to raise a quarrel--claiming the right to

do as we please in matters of the sort. But there are some men in the

ranks of the enemy now, who are governed by very different motives; and

as these are quoted against the American party, or, as their refusal to

act with the party is a matter of _boasting_ in the Democratic ranks, it

is due to the cause of truth, and of the country, that they should be

understood, that their efforts may be _appreciated_.

Without intending to be tedious, we name JAMES C. JONES, of Tennessee,

as at the head of the list of _Old Liners_, whose devotion to the

_South_, and love of _liberty_, prevent him from supporting Fillmore and

Donelson. This is the veriest _stuff_ in the political world! Gov. Jones

cannot excuse the matter of his opposition to Millard Fillmore upon the

grounds he rests the case, in his Circular addressed to his

constituents. The true secret of the matter must come to light, that old

Whigs and new Whigs, Americans and Democrats, may appreciate his

motives.

Last fall, at the Fair in Jackson, in West Tennessee, in the house and

at the bedside of ANDREW GUTHRIE, on being inquired of as to his future

course, the Governor became very much excited, and roundly asserted,

that if the American party nominated _Fillmore_, he should go against

him. ==> _Because Fillmore, in his appointment of persons to office in

Tennessee, did not consult him, but in many cases appointed his personal

enemies!_ Mark, he did not pause to inquire _who_ might be the opposing

candidate to Mr. Fillmore. He was not then, as he is not now, governed

by any _principle_ in the matter, but by _passion_. He is _against Mr.

Fillmore_, under all circumstances, no matter who may oppose him! And

why? Because Mr. Fillmore did not suffer him to put his numerous _active

friends_ into fat offices under the General Government; to many of whom

he had made pledges while he was struggling for a seat in the United

States Senate--where he ought never to have gone, and where the better

portion of those who aided in his election now regret having sent him!

But it is true, Fillmore and his Cabinet did refuse the extravagant

demands made for office by the Governor; and in no single instance did

they appoint men to office from Tennessee without consultation with

BELL, GENTRY, and WILLIAMS; all three of whom were offensive to _Jones_.

They had proven themselves to be worthy of consultation; the Governor

had not! This accounts, moreover, for the efforts of Jones at Baltimore

to defeat the nomination of Fillmore, and to procure the nomination of

Scott--efforts which, unfortunately for the country, were but too

successful!

When the American party was organized in Tennessee, JONES had no

objection to the creed, and would have fallen into the ranks, but then

he beheld _Gentry_ and _Brownlow_ in the party--men whom he despised

above all others. He tried to prevent the nomination of Gentry for

Governor by letter-writing, and by seeking to get up a _Whig_

Convention. Failing in these schemes, he threw himself into the arena,

and _secretly_ damaged Gentry all he could, and played into the hands of

Johnson, who was only elected by a majority of some _two thousand

votes_!

We are not informed as to the course Gov. Jones will pursue in this

contest, further than this, he will go against Fillmore. We predict that

he will support Buchanan. _Pride of character_ may keep him from it--if

he have any of that commodity left, after his five years' residence at

Washington! The platform upon which Buchanan has been placed by the

Cincinnati Convention, is a reiteration of violent and undying hostility

to every measure of public policy that was advocated by HENRY CLAY and

the Old Whig party. Jones still _professes_ an equally undying devotion

to Clay and his principles. Moreover, Jones has, on every stump in

Tennessee, held up Buchanan as a _rank old Federalist_, a Pennsylvania

_Abolitionist_, and as the _wicked traducer_, _violent calumniator_, and

_malignant persecutor_ of Henry Clay--even attributing his promotion to

the Secretaryship of State, by Mr. Polk, to his _infamous agency_ in

fastening upon Mr. Clay the foul charge of "bargain, intrigue, and

corruption." We confess that we are at a loss to see how Jones can fall

into the support of Buchanan. The _nomination_ of the man is a direct

insult to Old Clay Whigs!

ALBERT G. WATKINS, the Representative in Congress from the First

Congressional District of Tennessee, has gone over to Democracy, placing

his change upon the ground of his _great concern for the South_! We take

it that he will support Buchanan without hesitancy. This would place

Watkins before the country in his true colors, and reflect the likeness

of the man with _daguerreotype_ accuracy!! With such a platform, and

such a candidate on it, Watkins would have the appearance of a man

walking in one direction, with his head turned completely around, and

his face looking the other way! The incongruity of the platform, and the

peculiar reputation of Buchanan for political inconsistency, are alike

adapted to the history and incidents of Watkins's late canvass for

Congress! The plain truth is, that the man so completely destroyed

himself, and was so ruinously exposed by his competitor, COL. TAYLOR,

whom he beat only some two hundred votes, (and that by means that make

his seat in Congress one of _thorns_,) that he could but go over to

Locofocoism. And although he has, in former days, held up Buchanan on

the stump as an old Federalist, and as the reviler and persecutor of

Henry Clay, he can advocate him now with a better grace than he can look

his Know Nothing constituents in the face! We cannot say of this man as

Pope said of Craggs:

"Broke no promise, served no private end,

Gained no title, and who lost no friend."

WILLIAM G. SWAN, of Knoxville, is next on the list of "Old Line Whigs"

who have gone over to the Foreign Catholic Democratic party, and of

whose conversion the Democrats at a distance boast. Here they do not

brag; but on the other hand, some of the leaders, whose names we can

supply, authorize us to state that they do not want him, and will not

receive him. This man was twice beaten for the Legislature in this

county--never elected by the people to any position outside of

Knoxville--and became soured at the Whig party. He went for _Johnson and

Sag Nichtism_ last summer, and his loss is not regretted by the American

party in this county.

But JOHN H. CROZIER, of Knoxville, has gone over to "Old Buck" and his

admirers; and this is claimed as a change! This little man, _supremely

selfish_, was turned out of Congress five years ago, by JOSIAH M.

ANDERSON, with the people at his back, for _taking too much mileage_, by

several hundred dollars per session, for four years! He afterwards

desired the Whig party to run him for Governor; but they were not

willing to undertake the _load_. He became soured, and last summer paid

a visit to some of the counties below, to avoid, as was believed, voting

for Gentry for Governor, and Sneed for Congress. He was formerly very

bitter in his opposition to Democracy; and on many a stump has he

denounced _Buchanan_, and all others concerned in the "bargain and

intrigue" slander of Clay, besides holding up "Buck" as a Blue-light

Federalist! At a recent Buchanan Ratification meeting in Knoxville, he

made a bitter speech against the American party!

These two men, Swan and Crozier, were active in getting up an

organization against us, in 1849, by heading a company which purchased

the "_Register Establishment_," of this city, at the head of which they

placed one _john miller m'kee_, behind whom they and others concealed

themselves and wrote violent and abusive articles, through a controversy

of two years. Driving the whole of them to the wall, as we did, in the

controversy, they determined to _mob and tear down our office_; and with

a view to this, those concerned deposited their _guns_, and other

"implements of husbandry," in the law office jointly occupied by these

two men, who have operated as _twin brothers_ for several years--each

sympathizing with the other in his political defeats! Those concerned

were deterred from this contemplated and well-arranged assault upon our

office, by COL. LUTTRELL, the Comptroller of the State, and other

gentlemen of nerve, arming themselves with shot-guns, pistols, and

hatchets, and taking their stand at our office!

Nothing daunted by this defeat, these _gallant_ lawyers, and

_generous_--not to say _brave_--opponents betook themselves to the

county of Anderson, in this Judicial Circuit, and with great difficulty

got up an indictment against us, under an old statute, forgotten by

gentlemen of the bar, for _advertising a Baltimore lottery scheme_; when

they themselves, and their relatives, were dealing in the _Art Union

lottery_ in this city! They were most signally defeated in that

indictment; and, together with the two Williamses, brothers-in-law of

Crozier, sought to drive the business men of the place, and others, from

advertising in our paper, or subscribing for it. Failing in this, they

sought to prevent us from getting the Government advertising under

Fillmore's administration; and in this they failed, though this is the

ground of their hostility to Fillmore and his Cabinet, as well as to

John Bell, M. P. Gentry, and C. H. Williams.

The _Register_ fell through--was sold under the hammer for _twenty-two

hundred dollars_--McKee ran away--and the company have had about FIVE

THOUSAND DOLLARS to pay for him, which hurts prodigiously! Our WHIG has

steadily increased in favor with the people, and its circulation is now

THE RISE OF FIVE THOUSAND--being the largest circulation that any

political or other journal ever attained in East Tennessee! Indeed, no

political weekly in Tennessee now has, or ever did have, a circulation

equal to "BROWNLOW'S KNOXVILLE WHIG."

A young man calling himself _Luther Patterson_, has been conducting a

foreign Sag Nicht sheet at Kingston, called the "Gazetteer," and which

has gone by the board for the want of patronage. This little eight by

ten sheet has been editorially, and by means of anonymous

communications, assaulting the writer of this work, and the editor of

the _Register_, MR. FLEMING. Patterson paid a recent visit to this

place; at which time Fleming met with him on the street, and publicly

chastised him, applying the toe of a stiff boot to the _west end_ of his

person, with some force. Patterson turned about and boasted in his paper

that he had the best of the fight. Our paper and Fleming's corrected

this false version of the affair, and gave the facts; whereupon

Patterson sued out a writ in the Circuit Court for Fleming, for damages

done to his person in said rencontre, laying his damages at $5,000!

Shortly after this he instituted a civil action against the publishers

of the paper we edit, and another against us for the article we wrote

against him; and these suits are now pending.

These two _gallant_ attorneys, as we are informed, are employed as

counsel by Patterson--a young man who has no visible means of paying

lawyers, but the _eagerness_ of these gentlemen to get after us would

lead them to "work for nothing and find themselves." In addition to

their several civil suits against several of us, they have sent their

man before the Grand Jury of Knox county, and made a presentment against

us for having _out-wrote_ their Sag Nicht editor! The object of these

suits against the editors and publishers of the American papers here, is

to _gag_ them, or to check their influence in this contest. But they

have mistaken their men. Like other vipers, they will find, before these

matters end, that they bite a file--a file of good _American_ steel, and

tempered to that degree of hardness that all their malignity, intense

and active as it is known to be, will not be able to prevail against it!

When we came to this city of Knoxville, in 1849, we sold our office at

Jonesborough, at private sale, to pay a _security debt_, and purchased a

new press and materials on a credit. These we sent on to the care of

WILLIAMS & CO., the brothers-in-law of Crozier, who kept about the only

commission and forwarding house in Knoxville. We were detained at

Jonesborough four weeks by close confinement to our bed; and our

materials arriving here, these "Old Line Whigs," who had always

professed friendship toward us, refused to give them house-room; and had

not JAMES W. NELSON and others stepped forward and paid the charges, and

procured a house for them, the steamboat captain would have sold them

out for the carriage!

These _magnanimous_ gentlemen, members of the learned profession of the

law, next contrived, through certain influences they brought to bear,

to turn us out of the only office we could rent in the city, and thus

they drove us _without the limits of the Corporation_, and compelled us

to erect a temporary office upon our own lot, which we had bought on a

credit. They were now at the end of their row. One was a candidate for

Congress, the other for a seat in the Legislature. We pitched into both,

and they were both defeated; but we do not claim that it was through our

influence. Like Cardinal Wolsey, however, they both had to bid

"farewell, a long farewell, to all their greatness." From the pinnacle

of Congressional and Legislative honors, they have been precipitated to

the shades of private life, and to political obscurity. Their chief

ambition now is, to play "fantastic tricks" in courts of justice, and

before grand jurors, in the way of annoying those they have neither the

_manliness_ nor _courage_ to call to an account upon their own hooks!

The established usage of _gentlemen_, when offended by a newspaper

editor, is to exact personal satisfaction. To acknowledge that you are

personally aggrieved, and then to retort in tricks behind the offender's

back, or words behind your privileges at the Bar, is to acknowledge that

one is either a _fool_ or a _coward_--perhaps both. A chief object in

this crusade against us is to gag us during this campaign, and kill us

off from the stump and the press; but they have certainly studied our

character to but little purpose. And whatever line of policy their

prompters and associates of the Locofoco school may urge upon them, let

them be assured that they cannot muzzle criticism of their personal or

political delinquencies. It is a sacred duty to unmask the _renegade_,

to expose the _traitor_, and to hold up the _demagogue_ to public

reprobation. That duty will be performed freely and fearlessly, by the

author of this work, come weal or come woe. If these two "Knights of the

Rueful Countenance" kill and eat a dozen Know Nothings, we know one

member of the Order they will not affright into silence. For their

cowardly assaults and their officious intermeddlings they may bare their

backs to the lash. We will be with them to the bitter end, and will only

forsake them in the _Gethsemane_ of their retreat!

Had we come here with press and type, in 1849, and agreed to be

controlled by these men and their particular friends, we could have been

_the_ man for the times. Had we stooped to flirt and coquette and fawn

and dance around these men, we could have had their endorsement, their

influence, and their money, to any reasonable extent. But we neither

sought their friendship, nor coveted their adulations. We claim to have

been made of such inflexible materials, as not readily to go through the

transmutations necessary to secure the kind regards of these men. We are

no office-seeker, and desire no reward beyond the consciousness of

having performed our duty, and of having served our country to the best

of our ability.

We take this occasion to repeat what we have heretofore said in our

journal, that nearly every prominent man in the country, calling himself

an "Old Line Whig," and now opposed to Fillmore and Donelson, is

influenced by personal grievances, or a desire to get office--matters

with which the people have not the slightest concern. Their opposition

to the American ticket proceeds from personal hostility, either to the

candidates, some of the electoral candidates, or certain prominent

advocates of the ticket, and from no less unworthy motives. Of course

there are exceptions to this rule.

The idea of an Old Clay Whig supporting the Buchanan ticket is both

absurd and ridiculous. To say nothing of the foul and malignant charge

of "bargain, intrigue, and corruption," Buchanan labored to fasten upon

Clay, the Platform upon which the Cincinnati Convention has placed

Buchanan repudiates every principle Clay contended for, and held as

sacred to the day of his death. On the contrary, the American party has

not ignored one political tenet held by the Whig party, but has added

new ones; none of which are at war with the creed of Clay, or the

Constitution of our country! To make short work of a long story, no man

who ever was a _true Whig_, and acted with that party _from principle_,

can consistently go over to the _bogus_ Democracy of this day, and vote

for Buchanan and Breckenridge!

Talk about a Clay Whig turning Sag Nicht! What an idea! What principle

does this Foreign Democratic party hold, that an Old Line Whig, or a

conservative man, North or South, does not disapprove? What principles

have they ever held, the evil effects of which are not now standing out

in bold relief as a monument of their shame, and to which they have

added the unpardonable sin of making war upon NATIVE AMERICAN

PROTESTANTS?

In conclusion, the reader will please allow a few remarks PERSONAL to

the writer, and he is done--leaving the public to make their own

comments, and their own disposition of both this book and its author.

Our life has been a public life--our cause a public cause. We have our

faults, as most men have; and we have committed some errors, as most men

have. Our few acts of goodness and virtue, if any, we leave others to

hunt up; our faults are subjects of criticism, and are viewed with a

_jaundiced eye_ by our opponents. Through a course of _eighteen years_

of editorial invective, (whether right or wrong,) we claim to have been

actuated by none other than the best of motives. We have never been

prompted by ambition, malice, or a desire to make money. Our voice,

which has echoed over many hills and through many valleys, has never

been heard in extenuation of guilt; has never been heard to plead the

cause of the gambler, the swearer, the drunkard, the robber, or the

assassin. Wherever vice has lifted its "seven heads and ten

horns"--wherever fraud has showed its thieving hand--wherever gambling

has displayed its rotten heart--wherever demagogues have sought to

impose on the honest people--there have we tried to be conspicuous; not

as their aider and abettor, but as their scourge, their accuser, and

their unrelenting foe. And among this class of men are our most bitter

foes. What friends we have are to be found at the fireside of

virtue--among sober, sedate, and thinking men, and among the brave and

honorable. We have never been the slave or sycophant of any man or

party, as our immense band of subscribers, numbering thousands, will

bear us witness.

And now, AMERICANS, while we look forward to the future with pleasing

anticipations--while we rejoice in prospect of the final triumph of

wisdom, of reason, and of virtue, over audacious ignorance, palpable

corruption, canting hypocrisy, and caballing Democracy--God forbid that

we should indulge the vain idea that we have nothing to do! Let every

friend of American rights and Protestant liberties take a bold, a

decided stand, vowing most solemnly that he will have no fellowship at

the ballot-box with the friends of that unpitying monster, a DEMOCRATIC

PAPAL HIERARCHY! Be active, be vigilant, and persevering, and the day is

ultimately ours!

"Strike till the last armed foe expires;

Strike for your altars and your fires;

Strike for the green graves of your sires,

God, and your native land!"

TO STEPHEN TRIBBLE--LETTER No. 2.

SIR:--On the night of the 9th of June, 1856, you held forth in the

Court-House in Charleston, Mo., taking myself, _Rev. Josiah McCrary_,

the Methodist stationed preacher of that town, and Methodists generally,

for your text. It would seem that the _touch_ I gave you, and a letter

of mine read before a large congregation in Charleston, on Sabbath

evening, June 8th, _have fully developed all the latent blackguardism of

your early training and corrupt nature_! I will now place the record of

your _infamy_ before the world in such a permanent form, and circulate

it so extensively, that your low Billingsgate and vile blackguardism can

never harm any man or sect. I will make such a showing of you that no

persons of refined feelings or of any pride of character will hear you

preach or entertain you in future! I will remind many readers of the

showing up of your infamous character and conduct, by the editor of the

Louisville Journal, ten or twelve years ago, and of the exposure of your

villainous conduct by the _Rev. Mr. McNutt_, of Kentucky, through the

Nashville Advocate, some eight or nine years ago.

I will only add the following article from my paper of the 21st June,

1856, as it completes your record, so far as Tennessee is concerned. I

will only add, that you were driven out of McMinn County in East

Tennessee, where you were preaching, lying, and drinking whiskey, years

ago. There and then, too, the records of the Sullivan County affair,

certified to by the Clerk, were produced against you! But to the article

from my late paper:

STEPHEN TRIBBLE AGAIN.

This old hypocrite and scoundrel has been denying in the pulpit that he

was ever convicted of manslaughter or branded! It turns out, also, that

the old villain once joined the American party in West Tennessee! And

last, but not least, it seems that he was turned out of both the

Methodist and Presbyterian Churches before he became a Campbellite

preacher. A pretty disciple to be abusing honest men! But to the law and

to the testimony:

"ROANE COUNTY, June 3d, 1856.

"SIR:--In your issue of the 14th of May, you notice _Stephen

Tribble_, and ask for information concerning him. He came to

the lower end of Roane county from one of the upper counties of

East Tennessee, and passed himself for an Arian preacher. I

objected to his preaching in a meeting-house, and came near

getting myself into a scrape. About that time a gentleman came

from our upper country, and said he had seen his father apply

the branding-iron to Tribble, and the smoke rose ten feet high!

I then began to play on a harp of one string against him, and

that was _a tribble_, whereupon he left between two days for

Kentucky! He was once expelled from the Methodist Church, and

afterwards he was expelled from the Presbyterian Church. If

Tribble disputes what I say, all I ask is a chance to prove it.

I live ten miles south of Kingston, near Barnardsville. Yours

truly,

"JOHN BLAIR."

* * * * *

"PARIS, TENN., June 6th, 1856.

"DEAR SIR:--I see in a late issue of yours that you are after a

Reverend wolf, Stephen Tribble. I am personally acquainted with

him, as I lived in Sullivan county when he was in the

Blountville jail. I have heard him preach here, and deny from

the stand ever having been in jail, when he and I had talked

the whole matter over the day before. He is now about

forty-eight years of age--has a scar on his cheek. He preached

here monthly in 1846, and here it was that he joined the

American party. He now resides either in Graves or Fulton

county, Kentucky. One of his brothers told me last week that he

now preaches at one point in Kentucky, and the rest of his time

in Missouri. One of their preachers told me that he gets drunk

and cuts up largely. Yours, with respect,

"A. J. HICKS."

To the foregoing letters we add a certified copy of the records of the

Circuit Court of Sullivan county, and after this we shall leave this

_old clerical debauchee_ to preach for such Sag Nichts as may feel

edified by his ministry:

"MONDAY, Sept. 24, 1827.

"State of Tennessee, First Circuit, Sullivan County Court: met

according to adjournment. Present, Honorable Samuel Powell,

Judge, &c."

"FRIDAY, Sept. 28, 1827.

"STATE _vs._ STEPHEN TRIBBLE AND JOHN TRIBBLE.

"In this cause, the jury having retired yesterday to consider

of their verdict, under the care of an officer, and the same

jury, to wit: James Steele, Wm. Morgan, Joshua Miller, John

Thomas, Wm. Hashman, John Wassum, Thomas Brown, Stephen B.

Cawood, John K. Arnold, Thomas Fain, William Hughes, and

William H. Biggs, returning to the bar, do say, they find the

defendants not guilty of the murder, but they find them guilty

of manslaughter as charged in the bill of indictment. Whereupon

the defendants moved the Court for a rule to show cause why a

new trial should be had, which rule is granted, and on argument

said rule is discharged. It is therefore considered by the

Court that for such offence the said defendants be imprisoned

for the term of four calendar months: that they be branded with

the letter M in the brawn of the thumbs of their left hands on

to-morrow morning, and that they pay the costs of this suit or

remain in custody until the same is paid."

* * * * *

"STATE OF TENNESSEE, SULLIVAN COUNTY.

"I, Jno. W. Cox, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Sullivan County, do

hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and perfect copy of

the final judgment in the case of State _vs._ Stephen Tribble and John

Tribble, as appears of record in my office.

"Given under my hand at this office, the 10th of June, 1856.

"Jno. W. Cox, Clerk,

"By A. J. Cox, Dep. Clerk."

In conclusion, _Stephen_, I take my leave of you now, having introduced

you to the 5,000 subscribers to the Whig, the 7,500 subscribers to our

campaign paper, and the _tens of thousands of readers_ of this book--a

work which will exist and be referred to when I am in my grave, and you

are in the hot embraces of the Devil! You will at least agree with me

that _that_ was an evil hour for you when you travelled out of your way

to assail me before a strange audience in Missouri.

I am, &c.,

W. G. BROWNLOW.

Knoxville, June 23d, 1856.

A SERMON ON SLAVERY.

Delivered by the undersigned in Temperance Hall in Knoxville,

on Sabbath, 8th of June, 1856, to a large and attentive

audience, composed of citizens and strangers--some from the

North and some from the South--occupying one hour and a quarter

in the delivery. It is published as it was delivered, without

an omission or an alteration. Respectfully, &c.,

W. G. BROWNLOW.

TEXT.--"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their

own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his

doctrine be not blasphemed."--1 Tim. vi. 1.

Whoever reflects upon the nature of man, will find him to be almost

entirely the creature of circumstances: his habits and sentiments are,

in a great measure, the growth of adventitious circumstances and causes;

hence the endless variety and condition of our species. That race of men

in our country known as Abolitionists, Free-soilers, or Black

Republicans, look upon any deviation from the constant round in which

_they_ have been spinning out the thread of their existence as a

departure from nature's great system; and, from a known principle of our

nature, the first impulse of these fanatics is to condemn. It is thus

that the man born and matured in a free State looks upon slavery as

unnatural and horrible, and in violation of every law of justice or

humanity! And it is not uncommon to hear bigots of this character, in

their churches at the North, imploring the Divine wrath to shower down

the consuming fires of heaven on that great Sodom and Gomorrah of the

New World, all that section of country south of Mason and Dixon's line,

where this unjust practice prevails.

When an unprejudiced and candid mind examines into the past condition of

our race, and learns the fact which history develops, as the inquirer

will, that a majority of mankind were _slaves_, he will be driven to the

melancholy reflection, that the world, when first peopled by God

himself, was not a world of freemen, but of _slaves_!

Slavery was really established and sanctioned by Divine authority among

even God's chosen people, the favored children of Israel. Abraham, the

founder of this interesting nation, and the chosen servant of the Most

High, was the owner of more slaves than any cotton-planter in South

Carolina or Mississippi. That magnificent shrine, the gorgeous temple of

Solomon, commenced and completed under the pious promptings of religion

and ancient Free-Masonry, was reared alone by the hands of slaves!

Egypt's venerable and enduring pyramids were reared by the hands of

slaves! Involuntary servitude, reduced to a science, existed in ancient

Assyria and Babylon. The ten tribes of Israel were carried off to

Assyria by Shalmanezer, and the two strong tribes of Judah were

subsequently carried in triumph by Nebuchadnezzar to end their days in

Babylon as slaves, and to labor to adorn the city. Ancient Phoenicia

and Carthage were literally overrun with slavery, because the slave

population outnumbered the free and the owners of slaves! The Greeks and

Trojans, at the siege of Troy, were attended with large numbers of their

slaves. Athens, and Sparta, and Thebes--indeed, the whole Grecian and

Roman worlds--had more slaves than freemen. And in those ages which

succeeded the extinction of the Roman empire in the West, slaves were

the most numerous class. Even in the days of civilization and Christian

light which revolutionized governments, laboring serfs and abject slaves

were distributed throughout Eastern Europe, and a portion of Western

Asia--conclusively showing that slavery existed over these boundless

regions. In China, the worst forms of slavery have existed since its

earliest history. And when we turn to Africa, we find slavery, in all

its most horrid forms, existing throughout its whole extent, the slaves

outnumbering the freemen at least three to one. Looking, then, to the

whole world, we may with confidence assert, that slavery in its worst

forms subdues by far the largest portion of the human race!

Now, the inquiry is, how has slavery risen and thus spread over our

whole earth? We answer, by the _laws of war_, _the state of property_,

_the feebleness of governments_, the thirst for _bargain and sale_, the

_increase of crime_, and last, but not least, _by and with the consent

and approbation of Deity_!

These remarks may suffice by way of an introduction, and they will serve

to indicate the course we intend to pursue, if the announcement of the

text has not already done that. _Let as many servants as are under the

yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor_, &c. The word here

rendered _servants_ means SLAVES, converted to the Christian faith; and

the word rendered _yoke_ signifies the _state of slavery_ in which

Christ and the apostles found the world involved when the Christian

Church was first organized. By the word rendered _masters_ we are to

understand the heathen masters of those Christianized slaves. Even

these, in such circumstances, and under such domination, are commanded

to treat their masters with all honor and respect, that the name of God,

by which they were called, and the doctrine of God, to wit,

Christianity, which they had professed, might not be blasphemed, might

not be evil spoken of in consequence of their improper conduct. Civil

rights are never abolished by any communication from God's Spirit; and

those fiery bigots at the North who propose to abolish the institution

of slavery in this country are not following the dictates of God's

Spirit or law. The civil state in which a man was before his conversion,

is not altered by that conversion; nor does the grace of God absolve him

from any claims which the State, his neighbor, or lawful owner may have

had on him. All these outward things continue unaltered: hence, if a man

be under the sentence of death for murder, and God see fit to convert

him, he is not released from suffering the extreme penalty of the law!

The Church of Christ, when originally constituted, claimed no right, _as

an ecclesiastical organization_, to interfere in any way with the civil

government. This was the principle upon which the Church was founded, as

announced by its immortal Head. When Christ was doomed by a cruel Roman

law to its most ignominious condemnation, he did not so much as resist

it, because _it was law_, nor did he complain of it as oppressive.

"Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called

Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?...

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom

were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should

not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from

hence.... To this end was I born, and for this cause came I

into the world, that I should bear witness unto the

truth."--John xviii. 33-37.

When Christ came into the world on the business of his mission, he found

the Jewish people subject to the dominion of the Roman kingdom; and in

no instance did he counsel the Jews to rebellion, or incite them to

throw off the Roman yoke, as do the vagabond philanthropists of the

North in reference to the existing laws of the United States upon the

subject of slavery. Christ was, by lineal descent, "THE KING OF THE

JEWS," but he did not assert his temporal power, but actually refused to

be crowned in that right.

Under the Roman law, human liberty was held by no more certain tenure

than the whim of the sovereign power, protected by no definite

constitution. Slavery constituted the most powerful and essential

element of the government, and that slavery was of the most cruel

character, and gave to the master absolute discretion over the lives of

the slaves. Notwithstanding all this, Christ did not make war upon the

existing government, nor denounce the rulers for conferring such powers,

although he looked upon cruel legislation in the light in which the

character of his mission required. And although the _Church itself_ was

not what it should have been, in no instance did Christ ever denounce

_that_. The only denunciations the Saviour ever uttered, were those

against the doctors and lawyers, ministers and expounders of the Jewish

code of ecclesiastical law.

But allow us to present the case of the Apostle Paul, as proof more

palpable and overwhelming, on this very point. He had been falsely

accused, cruelly imprisoned, and tyrannically arraigned; and that, too,

before a licentious governor, an unjust and dissipated ruler, and an

unprincipled infidel. The Roman law in force at the time arrested the

freedom of speech, denied the rights of conscience, and even forbade the

free expression of opinion in all matters conflicting with the

provisions of the laws of the Roman government. In his defence before

Felix, Paul never so much as speaks of Roman law, though well acquainted

with it, but "he reasoned of _righteousness_, and _temperance_, and the

_judgment to come_." Here was a suitable occasion to condemn the

regulations and to question the authority of the villainous statutes of

Rome; but instead of this, Paul plead his rights _under_ the unjust

regulations of the law. He charged Felix with _official_ delinquency,

with _personal_ crime, and, as a _man_, he held him up to public scorn,

and threatened him with the vengeance of God! He appealed _to the law_,

and justified himself _by the law_. He claimed the rights of a "_Roman

citizen_"--demanded the protection due to a Roman citizen--and he

scorned to find fault with the law, cruel and unjust as he knew it to

be. And the consequence was, that the licentious infidel who ruled,

"_trembled_."

The views we have here presented are not at all new, but have been

uniformly acted upon by evangelical Christians, in all ages of the

world. Since the days of St. Paul and Simon Peter, no reformer has

appeared who was more violent than that good and great man, MARTIN

LUTHER. JOHN CALVIN possessed a revolutionary spirit--he fought every

thing he believed to be wrong--he was unyielding in his disposition, and

unmitigated in his severity. Yet neither of these great men ever made

war upon the existing laws of their respective countries. JOHN WESLEY

was the great reformer of the past century--he reformed the whole

ecclesiastical machinery of the modern Church of Christ; and his

doctrines, and manner of conducting revivals, are leading elements of

American Christianity. But Mr. Wesley never made war upon the English

government, under which he lived and died. On the other hand, it is a

matter of serious complaint among sectarians not friendly to the spread

of Methodism, that Wesley wrote elaborately against the war of the

Revolution. He was devoted to law and order, and he deemed it a

religious duty to oppose all resistance to existing laws. In his

troubles at Savannah, Georgia, like Paul before the licentious

governor, he appealed _to the law_, and sought by every means in his

power to be tried _under_ the law, asking only the privilege of being

heard in his own defence! And it was, in all the instances we have

mentioned, "_that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed_,"

to quote the expressive language of the text, that existing laws have

been adhered to by the propagators of gospel truth.

The essential principles of the great moral law delivered to Moses by

God himself, are set forth in what is called the tenth commandment, in

the 20th chapter of Exodus: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,

thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his _man-servant_, nor his

_maid servant_, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy

neighbor's." Now, the only true interpretation of this portion of the

Word of God is, that the species of property mentioned are _lawful_, and

that all men are forbid to disturb others in the lawful enjoyment of

their property. "Man-servants and maid-servants" are distinctly

_consecrated as property_, and guaranteed to man for his exclusive

benefit--proof irresistible that slavery was thus ordained by God

himself. We have seen learned dissertations from the pens of

Abolitionists, saying, that the term "servant," and not "slave," is used

here. To this we reply, that both the Hebrew and Greek words translated

"servant," mean also "slave," and are more frequently used in this sense

than in the former. Besides, the Hebrew Scriptures teach us, that God

especially authorized his peculiar people to _purchase_ "BONDMEN FOR

EVER;" and if to be in _bondage for ever_ does not constitute _slavery_,

we yield the point.

The visionary notions of piety and philanthropy entertained by many men

at the North, lead them to resist the _Fugitive Slave Law_ of this

government, and even to _violate the tenth commandment_, by stealing our

"men-servants and maid-servants," and running them into what they call

free territory. Nay, the _villainous piety_ of some leads them to

contribute _Sharpe's Rifles_ and _Holy Bibles_, to send the

_uncircumcised Philistines_ of New England into Kansas and Nebraska, to

shoot down the Christian owners of slaves, and then to perform religious

ceremonies over their dead bodies! Clergymen lay aside their Bibles at

the North, and females, as in the case of that model beauty, _Harriet

Beecher Stowe_, unsex themselves to carry on this horrid and slanderous

warfare against slaveholders of the South! And English travellers,

steeped to the nose and chin in prejudices against this government and

our institutions, have written books upon the subject. The Halls,

Hamiltons, Trollopes, and Miss Martineaus, _et ed omne genus_, all have

misrepresented us! These English writers all denounce slavery, and

eulogize _Democracy_; as if an Englishman could be a Democrat, in the

modern, vulgar sense of the term, and be a consistent man!

But we do not propose, in this brief discourse, to enter into any

defence of the African slave trade. Although the evils of it are greatly

exaggerated, its evils and cruelties, its barbarities, are not justified

by the most ultra slaveholders of this age. The vile traffic was

abolished by the United States, even before the British Parliament

prohibited it. All the powers in the world have subsequently prohibited

this trade--some of the more influential and powerful of them declaring

it _piracy_, and covering the African seas with armed vessels to prevent

it!

This trade, which seems so shocking to the feelings of mankind, dates

its origin as far back as the year 1442. Antony Gonzales, a Portuguese

mariner, while exploring the coast of Africa, was the first to steal

some _Moors_, and was subsequently forced by Prince Henry of Portugal to

carry them back to Africa. In the year 1502, the Spaniards began to

steal negroes, and employ them in the mines of Hispaniola, Cuba, and

Jamaica. In 1517, the Emperor Charles V. granted a _patent_ to certain

privileged persons, _to steal exclusively_ a supply of 4,000 negroes

annually, for these islands!

African slaves were first imported into America in 1620, a century after

their introduction into the West Indies. The first cargo, of twenty

Africans, by a Dutch vessel, was brought up the James River, into

Virginia, and sold out as slaves. England then being the most commercial

of European nations, engrossed the trade; and from 1680 to 1780, there

were imported into the British Possessions alone, TWO MILLIONS OF

SLAVES--making an average annual importation of more than 20,000! And

the annual importation into America has transcended 50,000! The States

of this Union, north of Mason and Dixon's Line, commonly called the New

England States, were never, to any great extent, _slaveholding_; their

virtuous and pious minds were chiefly exercised in _slave-stealing_ and

_slave-selling_! To Old England our New England States owe their

knowledge of the art of slave-stealing; and to New England these

Southern States are wholly indebted for their slaves. They stole the

African from his native land, and sold him into bondage for the sake of

gain. They kept but few of their captives among themselves, because it

was not profitable to use negro labor in the cold and sterile regions of

New England. And when they enacted laws in the New England States

abolishing slavery, they brought their negroes into the South and sold

them before their laws could go into operation! This is the true history

of slavery in New England. They stole and sold property which it was not

profitable to keep, and for which they now refuse all warranty. And

what few American ships are in the trade now, at the peril of piracy,

are New England ships.

The pious and religious portion of New England Abolitionists, we take

it, are the better portion, and in these we have no sort of confidence.

Take, for example, the case of that great man, and powerful pulpit

orator, STEPHEN OLIN, who came into Georgia, and was introduced into the

ministry by BISHOP ANDREW and his friends, and by this means married a

lady owning a number of slaves. He sold them all for the money, pocketed

the money, and returned to his congenial North; and when BISHOP ANDREW

was arraigned before the General Conference of 1844, because he had

married a widow lady owning a few slaves, this man OLIN appeared on the

floor, and spoke and voted against the Bishop! Dr. Olin had washed his

hands of the sin of slavery--had his money out at interest--and he was

ready to plead for the rights of the poor African! May we not exclaim,

"Lord, what is man?"

We are acquainted with many of the leading Abolitionists of the North

connected with the Methodist Church; and although we suppose they are

about as good as the Abolitionists of other denominations we have no

confidence in them. The most of them would enter their fine churches on

the Sabbath, preach for hours against the sin of slavery, shed their

tears over the oppressions of the "servile progeny of Ham," in these

Southern States; and on the next day, in a purely business transaction,

behind a counter, or in the settlement of an account, cheat a Southern

slave out of the _pewter_ that ornaments the head of his cane!

There is much in the political papers of the country calculated, if not

intended, to fan a flame of intense warfare upon the subject of slavery,

which can result in no possible good to any one. Those politicians who

are exciting the whole country, and fanning society into a livid

consuming flame, particularly at the North, have no sympathies for the

black man, and care nothing for his comfort. They only seek their own

glory. This political disquiet and commotion is giving birth to new and

loftier schemes of agitation and disunion, among the vile Abolitionists

of the country, and to bold and hazardous enterprises in the States and

Territories. And many of our Southern altars smoke with the vile incense

of Abolitionism. We have scores of Abolitionists in the South, in

disguise--designing men--some filling our pulpits--some occupying high

positions in our colleges--some editing political and religious

papers--some selling goods--and some following one calling and some

another, who, though among us, are not of us, Southern men may rest

assured!

We endorse, without reserve, that much-abused sentiment of a

distinguished South Carolina statesmen, now no more, that "slavery is

the corner-stone of our republican edifice;" while we repudiate, as

ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded, but nowhere-accredited dogma of

MR. JEFFERSON, that "all men are born equal." God never intended to make

the _butcher_ a judge, nor the _baker_ a president, but to protect them

according to their claims as butcher and baker. Pope has beautifully

expressed this sentiment, where he has said:

"Order is heaven's first law, and this confessed,

_Some are_, and _must be_, greater than the rest."

We have gone among the free negroes at the North--we have visited their

miserable dwellings in Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and other points;

and, in every instance, we have found them more miserable and destitute,

as a whole, than the slave population of the South. In our Southern

States, where negroes have been set at liberty, in nine cases out of ten

their conditions have been made worse; while the most wretched,

indolent, immoral, and dishonest class of persons to be found in the

Southern States, are _free persons of color_.

The freedom of negroes in even the Northern States, is, in all respects,

only an empty name. The citizen negro does not vote, and takes good care

not to do so. The law does not interdict him this privilege, but if he

attempt to avail himself of the privilege, he is apprehensive of

"apostolic blows and kicks," which the pious Abolitionists will

administer to him. All the social advantages, all the respectable

employments, all the honors, and even the pleasures of life, are denied

the free negroes of the North, by citizens full of sympathy for the

down-trodden African! The negro cannot get into an omnibus, cannot enter

a bar-room frequented by whites, nor a church, nor a theatre; nor can he

enter the cabin of a steamboat, in one of the Northern rivers or lakes,

or enter a first class passenger car on one of their railroads. They are

not suffered to enter a stage-coach with whites, but are forced upon the

deck, whether it shall rain or shine--whether it be hot or cold.

Industry is closed to them, and they are forced to live as _servants_ in

hotels, or adopt the professions of barber, or boot-black, or open

oysters in saloons, or sell villainous liquors to the lower classes of

German and Irish emigrants, who throng our large cities and towns. The

negroes even have their _own streets_, and their own low-down kennels;

they have their hospitals, their churches, their cars, upon which are

written in large letters, "FOR COLORED PEOPLE!" Finally, they are forced

to have their own _grave-yards_--the _yellow_ remains of Northern

Abolitionists, and pious white men, refusing to mingle with the

bleeching bones of the dead negro! While, in the South, they crowd the

galleries and back seats in our churches, travel in our passenger cars,

and even _loan their money_ to our white men at interest! Such is an

outline of the contrast between free negroes at the North, and slaves at

the South.

Let us turn again to the Holy Scriptures, and see whether or not they

sustain or condemn the institution of slavery. The opposers of slavery

profess to be governed alone by the teachings of the Bible, in their war

upon this institution. It is vain to look to Christ or any of his

apostles to justify the blasphemous perversions of the word of God,

continually paraded before the world by these graceless agitators.

Although slavery in its most revolting forms was everywhere visible

around them, no visionary notions of piety or schemes of philanthropy

ever tempted either Christ or one of his apostles to gainsay the LAW,

even to mitigate the cruel severity of the slavery system then existing.

On the contrary, finding slavery _established by law_, as well as an

_inevitable and necessary consequence_, growing out of the condition of

human society, their efforts were to sustain the institution. Hence, St.

Paul actually apprehended a "_fugitive slave_," and sent him back to his

lawful owner and earthly master!

Having already appealed to the authority of the Old Testament

Scriptures, we turn to that of the New, where we learn that slavery

existed in the earliest days of the Christian Church, and that both

_masters_ and _slaves_ were members of the same Christian congregations.

Slavery was an institution of the State in the Roman Empire, as it is in

the Southern States of this confederacy, and the apostles did not feel

at liberty to denounce it, if, indeed, they felt the least opposition to

it--a thing we deny.

But, before we appeal to the irresistible authority of the New

Testament, we will submit a few only of a great many passages from the

Old Testament--not having quoted as extensively as may have been deemed

necessary:

"And he said, I _am_ Abraham's servant."--GEN. xxiv. 34.

"And there was of the house of Saul a _servant_, whose name was

Ziba; and when they had called him unto David, the king said

unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, _Thy servant is he_."--2

SAM. ix. 2.

"Then the king called to Ziba, Saul's _servant_, and said unto

him, I have given unto thy _master's_ son all that pertained to

Saul, and to all his house."--Verse 9th.

"Thou, therefore, and thy sons, and thy _servants_, shall till

the land for him, and thou shalt bring in _the fruits_, that

thy _master's_ son may have food to eat, &c. Now Ziba had

fifteen sons and TWENTY SERVANTS."--Verse 10th.

"I got me _servants_ and maidens, and had _servants born in my

house_; also, I had great possessions of great and small

cattle, above all that were in Jerusalem before me."--ECCLES.

ii. 7.

"And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? And she

said, I flee from the face of my _mistress_ Sarai."--GEN. xvi.

8.

"And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, _Return to thy

mistress_, and submit thyself to her hands."--Verse 9th.

The only comments we have to offer upon these passages are, first, one

individual acknowledges himself the owner of twenty slaves! Another was

raising slaves, and having them born in his house!! And last, but not

least, the angel of God ordered the fugitive slave to return to her

lawful owner!! High authority, this, for apprehending runaway slaves!

In reference to bad servants, we read in Prov. xxix. 19:

"A servant will not be corrected by _words_; for though he

understand, he will not answer."

The Scriptures look to the correction of servants, and really enjoin it,

as they do in the case of children. We esteem it the duty of Christian

masters to feed and clothe well, and in cases of disobedience to _whip

well_.

In the book of Joel, iii. 8, the _slave trade_ is recognized as of

Divine authority:

"And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the land of

the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans,

to a people far off; FOR THE LORD HATH SPOKEN IT!"

"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

Art thou called, being _a servant_? Care not for it; but if

thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called

in the Lord, being _a servant_, is the Lord's freeman; likewise

also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant."--1

Cor. vii. 20-22.

"_Servants_, be obedient to them that are your _masters

according to the flesh_, with fear and trembling, in singleness

of your heart, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service, as

men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of

God from the heart. With good-will doing service, as to the

Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any

man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be

bond or free. And, _ye masters_, do the same things unto them,

forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in

heaven: neither is there respect of persons with him."--Eph.

vi. 5-9.

"_Servants_, obey in all things your _masters according to the

flesh_: not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in

singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatsoever ye do, do it

heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men: knowing that of the

Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye

serve the Lord Christ."--Col. iii. 22-25.

"_Masters_, give unto _your servants_ that which is just and

equal: knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."--Col. iv.

1.

"Let as many _servants as are under the yoke_ count their _own

masters_ worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his

doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have _believing

masters_, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;

but rather do them service, because they are faithful and

beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and

exhort."--1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.

"Exhort _servants_ to be obedient unto their _own masters_, and

to please them well in all things; not answering again; not

purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn

the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things."--Titus ii. 9,

10.

"_Servants_, be subject to _your masters_ with all fear; not

only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this

is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure

grief, suffering wrongfully."--1 Peter ii. 18, 19.

We have but a single word of comment to offer upon these passages of

Scripture. The original words used by the Greek writers, both sacred and

profane, to express slave; the most abject condition of slavery; to

express the absolute owner of a slave, and the absolute control of a

slave, are the strongest that the language affords, and are used in the

passages here quoted. If the apostles understood the common use of

words, and desired to convey these ideas, and to recognize the relations

of master and servant, they would, naturally enough, employ the very

words used. To say that they did not know the primary meaning and _usus

loquendi_ of the original words, is paying them a compliment we wish not

to participate in! And to show that we are not singular in our views of

the meaning expressed in the passages quoted, showing that they express

in the one case slaves, and in the other masters or owners, actually

holding them as property, under the sanction of the laws of the State,

we quote from the following authorities:

That great commentator, Dr. ADAM CLARKE, on 1 Cor. vii. 21, says:

"Art thou converted to Christ while thou art a slave--the

property of another person, and bought with his money? _Care

not for it._"

The learned Dr. Neander, in his work entitled "Planting and Training of

the Church," in referring to _Onesimus_, mentioned in the epistle to

Philemon, says of him:

"It does not appear to be surprising that a _runaway slave_

should betake himself at once to Rome."

To the foregoing might be added other authorities of equal weight and

importance.

It is a well-known historical fact, that slaveholders were admitted into

the APOSTOLIC CHURCHES; nor would this assumed position of the advocates

of slavery be at all denied by any intelligent and well-read men at the

North, but for the fact that they think such an admission would decide

the question against abolitionists. We have given much attention to this

subject within ten years past, and we feel no sort of delicacy in

expressing our views and convictions, as revolting as they may be to

Northern men and Free-soilers, even among us. We believe that the

primitive Christians held slaves in bondage, and that the apostles

favored slavery, by admitting slaveholders into the Church, and by

promoting them to official stations in the Church. And why do we believe

all this? Because we are sustained in these positions by uninterrupted

historical testimony!

Well, for the information of abolitionists and other anti-slavery men

dispersed throughout the South, we assume that the fact of the apostles

admitting into Church fellowship slaveholders, and promoting them to

positions of honor and trust, shows that the simple relation of master

and slave was no bar to Church-membership. Masters and slaves, in the

days of the apostles, were admitted into the Church as brethren: they

partook in common of the benefits of the Church: they held to the same

religious principles: they squared their lives by the same rule of

conduct: acknowledged the same obligations one to another; and

worshipped at the same altar. This was true of the first and succeeding

centuries, when the relations of master and slave, and the practice of

the Church in reference thereto, were very much like they are in the

Southern States of our Union at present. But to the proof that

slaveholders were admitted into the apostolic Churches:

1. Historians all agree that slavery existed, and was general throughout

the Roman empire, at the time the apostolic Churches were instituted. We

have at our command the authorities to prove this, but to quote from

them would swell this discourse beyond what we have intended. We will

cite the authorities only; and anti-slavery men who deny our position

can examine our authorities. See Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman

Empire," vol. i. See "Inquiry into Roman Slavery, by Wm. Blair,"

Edinburgh edition of 1833. See vol. iv. of "Lardner's Works," page 213.

See vol. i. of "Dr. Robertson's Works," London edition. Other

authorities might be given, but these are sufficient, as they show that

slavery was a civil institution of the State; that the Roman laws

regarded slaves as _property_, at the disposal of their masters; that

these slaves, whether white or colored, had no civil existence or

rights, and contended for none; and that there were _three slaves to one

citizen_--showing something of a similarity between the Roman empire and

our Southern States! Gibbon says that slavery existed in "every province

and every family," and that they were bought and sold according to their

capacities for usefulness, and the demand for laborers--selling at

hundreds of dollars, and from that down to the price of a beast of

burden! Now, it is notorious that the gospel made considerable progress

among the citizens of the Roman empire; and, as nearly every family

owned slaves, it is certain that slaveholders were converted and

admitted into the Church. It will not do to say that the poor, including

the slaves, were alone converted to God, because the apostles make

frequent allusions to the receiving into the Church of intelligent,

learned, and opulent persons. The learned DR. MOSHEIM, in his Church

History, vol. i., relating to the _first three centuries_, settles this

question most effectually. He says:

"The apostles, in their writings, prescribe rules for the

conduct of the rich as well as the poor, for _masters_ as well

as _servants_--a convincing proof that among the members of the

Church planted by them were to be found persons of opulence

and masters of families. St. Paul and St. Peter admonished

Christian women not to study the adorning of themselves with

pearls, with gold and silver, or costly array. 1 Tim. ii. 9: 1

Peter iii. 3. It is, therefore, plain that there must have been

women possessed of wealth adequate to the purchase of bodily

ornaments of great price. From 1 Tim. vi. 20, and Col. ii. 8,

it is manifest that among the first converts to Christianity

there were men of learning and philosophers; for, if the wise

and the learned had unanimously rejected the Christian

religion, what occasion could there have been for this caution?

1 Cor. i. 26 unquestionably carries with it the plainest

intimation that persons of rank or power were not wholly

wanting in that assembly. Indeed, lists of the names of various

illustrious persons who embraced Christianity, in its weak and

infantile state, are given by Blondel, p. 235 de Episcopis et

Presbyteris: also by Wetstein, in his Preface to Origen's Dia.

Con. Mar., p. 13."

A few reflections, by way of concluding, and we are through with our

discourse, already extended beyond the limits we had prescribed:

_First._--There is not a single passage in the New Testament, nor a

single act in the records of the Church, during her early history, for

even centuries, containing any direct, professed, or intended

denunciation of slavery. But the apostles found the institution

existing, under the authority and sanction of law; and, in their labors

among the people, masters and slaves bowed at the same altar, communed

at the some table, and were taken into the Church together; while they

exhorted the one to treat the other as became the gospel, and the other

to obedience and honesty, that their religious professions might not be

evil spoken of!

_Secondly._--The early Church not only admitted the existence of

slavery, but in various ways, by her teachings and discipline, expressed

her approbation of it, enforcing the observance of certain Fugitive

Slave Laws which had been enacted by the State. And, in the various acts

of the Church, from the times of the apostles downward through several

centuries, she enacted laws and adopted regulations touching the duties

of masters and slaves, _as such_. This, in our humble judgment, amounts

to a justification and defence of the institution of slavery.

_Thirdly._--Our investigations of this subject have led us regularly,

gradually, certainly, to the conclusion that God intended the relation

of master and slave to exist. Hence, when God opened the way for the

organization of the Church, the apostles and first teachers of

Christianity found slavery _incorporated with every department of

society_; and, in the adoption of rules for the government of the

members of the Church, they provided for the rights of owners, and the

wants of slaves.

_Fourthly._--Slavery, in the age of the apostles, had so penetrated

society, and was so intimately interwoven with it, that a religion

preaching freedom to the slave would have arrayed against it the civil

authorities, armed against itself the whole power of the State, and

destroyed the usefulness of its preachers. St. Paul knew this, and did

not assail the institution of slavery, but labored to get both masters

and slaves to heaven, as all ministers should do in our day.

_Fifthly._--Slavery having existed ever since the first organization of

the Church, the Scriptures clearly teach that it will exist even to the

end of time. Rev. vi. 12-17 points to "The Day of Judgment," "The Last

Day," "The Great Day," and the condition of the human race at that time,

as well as the classes of persons to be judged, rewarded, and punished!

A portion of this text reads, "And the kings of the earth, and the great

men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and

every BONDMAN, and every FREEMAN," etc., will be there; evidently

implying that slavery will exist, and that the relations of master and

slave will be recognized, to the end of time!