LETTER OP AN ADOPTED CATHOLIC, ADURESSED TO THE I'EESIDENT OF THE KENTUCKY DEMOCRATIC ASSOCIATION OF WASHINTON CITY. ' ON Temporal allegiance to the Pope, omd the relations of the Catholic Church and Catholics, both native and adjopted) to the system of domestic slavery and its agitation in ihe United States. t.—,— ^ The' 3psech of Hon. W. R. Smith, of Alabama, delivered in the House of Representatives January 15, 1855, “cn. thx. American parly and its miss^np reviewed. Sir: I desire to address this letter to you, and in advance I will ask your pardon for any trespass 1 may commit upon your time or patience. The subject of this Communication is one of popular consideration, and one about which much has already been said, and will be said again, by a por tion of the people of this republic who are pleased to style themselves “ Ameri- Cff/As,” but who are better known a.s Know-Nothings ! n'lie exclusive and exceedingly proscriptive doctrines of this organization have met the with- ering rebuke and stoutest opposition of the Democratic and a most respectable portion of the old Whig party united, upon the lofty principles of democratic liberty, as set forth in the constitu- tion of the United States, and as illustrated by the lives and principles of Washington, Jeffer- con, ivladison, and Andrew Jackson, and also by those other noble patriots and statesmen, Clay and Webster, as well as Cass, Douglas, Buchanan, Breckinridge, and a host of others of all parties, who still survive as instruments in the handsof Providence to save the country from destruction and desolation. In this contest^ffor the civil and religious rights of all the people alike, the great orators and statesmen have had to fight a double though a common enemy—the purely Knovr- Nothing party, on the one hand, and the Black Republican or Abolition parf»y on the other. This latter division is known by various names, such as “ FreescdlersP “ An'i-JTe^ braska 1/sienP &.C. &c But it matters very little by what names they style themselves; they are all, or nearly all, Know-Nothings, and opposed to granting the adopted Citizens and the Catholics their ancient privileges and the rights of conscience as guarantied by the Constitution and laws of the United States. It is true Senator Seward is not a Know-Nothing, and it is equally true tha; Horace Greeley ds/ilores rather than opposes the proscriptive and unconstitutional principles of the oigahization. But it should be remembered, and ought never to be forgotten, that it is the “ higher law doeirine ” of those men, which sets aside the Constitution of the country, that has introduced all the mischief in politics, a,nd infidelity to the paramount and fundamental laws of the country. But why does the great organ of the Black Republicans deido>e Know-Nothing ism ? Because he says, ‘‘ thousands of .the adopted citizens will be kept off from the Republican parly who nvokt hlkenris^ he rtlv’d u./wn-’’ against the South in the approaching and momentous struggle for their constitutional rights and the pre.servation of the Union. This is only a trick of tlie far-seeing Senator from New York and his organ the Trihu.ne, to catch the adopted citizens of the N'-rth in their Abolition nets. Thei^e m«n are only exceptions to the vast and entire mass of this party in. the North. To shqw that they are nearly all Know-Nothing.s, we have only to lo<-k at their speeches and votes in the Plouse of Representatives on the “ Wa-kirigti.n mnnirtpai e e v;u biup by which the rights of ihe foi eign-born citizen might be secured to him, and bis rightto vote under the Constitution protected. When the fina. vote upon that measure was taken, nearly tveiy one oi' the Biack Republicans voted against it ; thus proving tliat they are ail Kuow-Nu hings. If any oth r evidence were wanting, the proceedings and charaeier of the recent Philadelphia Convendon were i-.uffic ent In thatconvention they gavetheirfirst prefer- ence toN. P. Ranks a < candidate for Pi esid nt; and were he iteerneu es available as their necessi- ties requii ed 1 efore the people, he would have been the ran. This political ad ventU' er is at once an ultra bia< k Republican anJ an uncompromising Know-Nothing. Last year, in the House of Rep- resentatives, ne delivered the most unscrupulous speech against foreigners and Cattiolics. Lewis D, Campbell, of Ohio, his sup'-rior in both these respects, is the great Preesoiler and Black Re- publican of iho West! Mr. Fremont, who received the riominatioo of the Convention, not long ^«ince gaVe his entire adhesion to the Know-Nothing par'v ; and Mr. Dayton, the candi'iaie for Vice PreS' dent, has been .president, it i-s said, of a Kiiov^-Nothing council in his own city. 2 Johnston, who has been put on with Fremont by the bolters, is the veriest Know-NothiHg and yet, notwithstanding these facts, which are notorious to the whole countcy, they resolve in their platform of principles that “ they ivill guarantee liberty of conscience and equality of rig'lm among citizens,'' and invite the adopted citizens and the Catholics, whom they have proscribed, and abused, and vilified, to co-operate with them ! How much fjrther could audacity and hy- pocrisy go than this? No farther ! no farther ! Rather than co-6perate with such men as Camp- bell of Ohio, Banks of Massachusetts, and the “ Sharpe Rifle ” fraternity in Congress, Wilson, and that sort of men, whom 1 know to be Know-Nothings, I would suffer pillory. With these remarks, sir, I shall proceed to the examination of the points I propose to discuss. You are aware that I am a foreigner, by birth and a Catholic by profession. In my humble per- sonj therefore, are illustrated and embodied all the elements of mischief to this country ; all the crushing, withering evils to which American liberty is exppsed, and from which it must inevita- bly suffer. It is eonfiidently alleged that myself and every Catholic not born in the United States are emissaries of the f^ope, and therefore enemies to this country ; that we owe an al- legiance to him higher and above the Constitution ; that his claims upon us are paramount, nay, superior to every other earthly consideration ; and that no other obligation can relieve us, and no power can absolve u? from the arrogant pretensions of the Roman Pontiff. In short, they say, we owb him the highest temporal as well-as spiritual obedience. Native born Catho- lics are, however, excepted from the force of these accusations, upon the plea that they owe bo temporal allegiance to the head of the Church. ’Tis true, indeed,*they do not ; but it is equally true that no Catholic does, except those who are citizens of the Papal States in Italy ; and this is due from them only as f^ealty to the Constitution is due from the citizens of the United States, and allegiance to the Crown is due from the citizens of the British Empire. One allegiance, therefore, is due from ev&ty Catholic, and but one ; and it matters not where he may have been born, whether in Asia or Africa, in Europe or in America, he owes this spiritual and no other allegiance to the acknowledged head of the'Catholic Church. I demur, therefore, to this indict- ment, and I protest against its specifications. As one of the accused I shall plead not guilty, and 1 shall assume to speak for all those joined with me in the bill. Sir,! have the fullest confi- dence, and I experience all the consolations that appertain to that confidence, that I will be able to convince even our accusers that great injustice itas been done us, and that instead of our re- ligious faith being calculated to divide or weaken our allegiance to this country, and our loyalty to the Constitution and all the institutions of this Republic, it challenges our obedience, and claims for them all our cordial and enthusiastic support •, nor does locality with us, whether it be North or South, or East or West, create any new claim or alienate one old affection. Ifc have no church North and no church South ; no Synod and no Conference of ours excommuni- cates the Christian citizen and declares him unworthy of Christian communion and Christian fellow- ship because ne owns a slave The Catholics of Massachusetts and of Maine, who own no slaves, extend the hand of fellowship as christi.ans and citizens to the Catholics of Virginia and the Carolinas, of Kentucky and of Rouisiana, who may have their hundreds. Our faith embraces in i,ts (Jiaritable scope every person and ail the institutions of our common country. Our Priests pre- sent no memorial to Congress “in the name ofAlmighty God," and advocate no treason to the laws aiid no murder of the citizen on the Lord’s day. Our latty everywhere try to be at once good citizens and moderate Christians ! We are no fanatics ; we are no Abolitionists ; and we have no sympathy for any men who are arrayed against the laws of Congress and who are laboring to overthrow the Government of the United States. The Catholic who would array himself against the laws or any section of this country, having equal rights under a common Constitu- tion, would be guilty of double treason ; treason to his country and treason to his religion. These are my views, and the.se only become the enfranchised citizen and the Catholic. With these remarks, sir, 1 shall proceed to examine some of the grave charges urged against us by the Know-Nothing orators and presses, both at the North and at the South. As Know- Nothiqgism in tiie Northern States is now Black Republicanism pretty much, I shall take no notice of it there, and v/dl content myself with the views of “ South .Americans." That I may not be mistaken, and that I may manifest a decent respect for the assertions and opinions of their greatest orators and oracles, I will quote from the sfeech of the Hon. Mr. Smith of Ala- • bama, delivered in the United States Plouse of Representatives, January 15, 1855, and entitled The American Partv and its Mission ” I have selected this speech because it is the boldest I have seen, and because it is said to be the ablest. It has been preserved from merited oblivion, and is now advertised for sale in large numbers as an admirable document for the canvass for President and Vice President of the United States. Sir, I will here presume to say, that Judge Smith entered upon this speech with a mind deeply prejudiced, rt of Parliament in 1793.) Who were the friends of liberty, and the faithful allies of the revolutionary fathers beyond the sea? Catholics! all Catholics, and none but Catho- lics ! 1 do not asciibe the favor or the opposition given by the world in this war of universal liberty, to the religious opinions of the people—not at all! I would neither suspect nor accuse any one on account of his religion—my own best friends are Protestants, and for them I would suffer and do anything ! But when 1 am accused upon this point, for the sake of truth and justice, I sha.l vindicate the integrity of history! Catholic France furnished thirteen thousand troops. She furnished fifty ships of the line, besides frigates. When we had no money, or a depreciated currency, she advanced in loans seven millions of dollars. Nor was this all ; she despatched ships lad|n.with provisions and military stores to our famishing army, including two hundred pieces of artillery, four thousand tents, and clothing for thirty thousand men ! Nor yet was this ail ; she acknowledged our independence, and in 1778 made the fir^t treaty with us, wherein she pledged her friendship and her aid! The siege of Yorktown, the closing, crowning triumph of an eight years’ war for freedom, beheld Washington and Lafayette, the native Protestant and the foreign Catholic, side by side glorying in a common victory ! We had no aids from the Protestant countries of Europe—the enemy received them all ; every government, from Norway and Sweden dov/n, sided with the king; and Hanover alone furnished 1,700 mercenary troops to supp!^ the place of Catholics, whom “Lord Howe could not rely upon” in the struggle for freedom. Everybody re- members the famous Hessians ! So much for the first charge of Mr.^mith. The next charge is, that Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Pope. And in this behef all bigots, as well as Mr. Smith, consider the fatal tendencies of our faith to lie. But Catholics do not believe in the infallibility of the Pope; it is no part of the Catholic religion ; no intelligent man can believe it, and no one can maintain the assertion ! 1 could, if it were necessary and justifiable, here present volumes of evidence against the charge. I will, however, give one authority, and but one, which is entitled to the highest respect, as well for his great learning as for his acknowledged piety—and that is Archbishop Kenrick. In his work on the Supremacy of the Apostolic See, (pages 222, 223,) he says — “ In pronouncing judgment, he does not give expression to a private opinion, or follow his own conjectures ; but he takes for his rule the public and genera! faith and traditions of the Church as gained from the Scriptures, the Fathers, and other documents ; imploring the gui- dance of the Divine Spirit, and using all human means for ascertainirig the facts of Revelation.” These judgments, upon doctrinal "points, are received as the highest human authority on all questions of religious faith ! The learned Archbishop says, further: • “The personal fallibility of the Pope in his private capacity, writin? or speaking, is freely admitted by the most ardent advocates of Papal oferogatives. His official infallibility, in the circumstancv,.s just mentioned, is strongly sffirraed, although the French clei^y, in 1682, con- tended that his judgment might be amended.” So much for the infallibility of the Pope, and the dangers to American liberty arising from it !' While upon this point, I will quote from the reverend Dr. Nevin, an eminent and enlightened Divine of the Presbyterian Church. He says : “ For ourselves, we say it plainly, we believe the acknowledgment of the Pope’s spiritual primacy is just as little at war w^th American liberties as the acknowledgment of any like pri- macy in either of the Presbyterian general assemblies, o? in the American Episcopate, or in the private judgment, simply, of any true-blooded Puritan Independent.” ' As to the remark that the Church considers sovereignty coming from God, I admit it, but not in the subtle and unjust sense of the gentleman. We iread in the Scriptures of the “ God of JS'ations.’’' It is believed by the Church, and so Catholics are taught to believe, that all good, just, and legitimate governments receive the sanction and approval of Heaven. -This is what De Maister means by sovereignty! I believe in this sovereignly ; so does every rational man ; and I would be sorry if Mr. Smith did not! Despotisms and tyrannies never found favor with th^ Church, and I am not aware of any Catholic advocate for such s-ystems ! The remark that “ this is the origin ofthe idea and phrase, ‘ the King can do no wrong,’ ” is not just, and is not sustai' ed in the books as of Catholic paternity. That maxim of monarchists and despots originated with a man named Firmer, in the reign of James I, “and it became the badge of Tories and High Churchmen! It was gravely maintained that the Supreme Being regarded hereditary monarchy as opposed to all other governments with peculiar favor.” (See Macaulay, vol. 1, page 66.) The same historian says, (page 67 of the same volume:) “In the Middle Ages the doctrkie of indefeasiljle hereditary right would have been regarded heretical ; for it was altogether^incompatible with the Church of Rome.” A Protestant historian declares, therefore, that it originated with an Englishman, Firmer byname ; was the badge of the Tories and High Churchmen in England, and that it was not in favor, but was incompatible with the Catholic f'hurch ! The ^‘important subject,"'^ as contained in the above paragraph, 1 have shown to be unfounded from beginning to end. The whole speech is madelof ^ch material, and, could your patience endure it, I could^sift it so that nothing would remain ! As to the assertions that Popes have absolved subjects from the allegiance due to their rulers, I shall only say, what every reader of history knows to be true, that the Popes always pro- tected the people, as far as they could, against the tyranny and rapacity of bad kings. In the 5 early ages, and while yetgovernn’.ents were unsettled, and the rights of sovereigns and subjects not clearly defined, as a mutual protection against each other, the^ agreed upon the conditions of empire and of obedience, and made the Pope the arbiter, who held the covenant between the parties. The people pledged that, so long as their kings might rule in justice and mercy, so long they would be loyal and true to their allegiance ; but, upon a forfeiture of this compact, solemnly made, they would have a right to renounce them; and that, if they coniinued their system of oppi'essibn and robbery, the Pope might excommunicate them ! The Popes did it ; and it v/as right they should. They were compelled to do it. The Papes had no authority pf their own ; the]?- never claimed any ; they executed a judg- ment mutually agreed upon by the kings and their subjects ; they only pronounced the sentence which the parties themselves had fixed, and on^y within the territory or em- pire of the contracting parties. The Popes were a sort of judges within the realm, and their jurisdiction extended not beyond ! T*his humane interference on the part of the Pontiffs has been commended by many and eminent Protestant philosophers and divines. Every one knows that every people have a right to renounce unjust and unlawful rulers. The revolu- tionary fa hers and the people of the colonies renounced King Geo^e, and took up arms against him, and fought him eight years, and whipped him, and set up a govern'rnent of their own. No one pretends that«this was wrong; on the contrary, the achievement will descend, to the erld of time, as the grandest in the history of the world, it is a principle laid down by all writers on government, that when the compact is broken upon which sovereignly rests, the original rights of the people may be resumed. Men may oppose their unjust rulers upon the great principle of nature, “which makes it base for a man to suffer when he ought to act ; which, tending to preserve the original designations of Providence, spurns at the arrogant dis- tinctions of man, and vindicates the independent qualities of his race!” The Popes, 1 repeat, only pronounctd the sentence, and neither Crowns nor Royalty could avert it, or buy out the law ; it was administered without favor or affection ! The Catholic Church, go far as the in- culcation of the principles of morality and public order might claim her attention, has been opposed to revolutions and civil war, only when absolutely necessary. It has always given its aid and support to every good government ; it fortifies the subject in liis allegiance, and requires him to be a good citizen. This cannot be denied. And* should the evil day ever come upon this country when the North shall array herself against the South, or the South against the North, this great conservative principle of the Catholic Church will be exerted in arresting civil war, in promoting peace, and in defending the Union and the constitution ! To show how loyal Catholics have always been, we have only to look into English history, and there we will find a full refutation of all that is urged against them on this point. While the British government has practised that system that the Know-nothing party and Abolitionists desire to establish here—that is, to enslave foreign-born ciiizens and free ike slave%—still they have been most true and most loyal to the Crown. Not because they do not hate that cruel government most heartily, but because of the various and controlling cii«Cumstances that sustain them in op- pression and attach them to the sovereign. An exhibition of loyalty occurred during the aisas- trous reign of Gtueen Elizabeth that ought to. protect the Catholic forever from suspicion of disloyalty. That cruel and austere princess persecuted her subjects because they were Catho- lics, yet they were true to her because she was their sovereign, though her legitimacy as queen was doubted—nay, denied—-by many. During the long and doubtful struggle between Eliza- beth and Philip, the Catholic King’of Spain, the fidelity of the English Catholics was suspected in such a contest. “Confiscations took place daily, the prisons were filled, and hundreds were led to execution, yet, nevertheless, they were true loan unworthy queen ! They displayed no less patriotism than their more favored countrymen. • The peers armed their tenants and de- pendents in the service of the queen. Some of the gemlemen equipped vessels, and gave the command to Protestants ; and many solicited permission to fight in the ranks as privates against the common enemy.” (Lingard’s England, vol. 8, p. 200 ; Stowe, p. 746 ; Harleian, pp. 11, 61.) “Not one man appeared to favor the Spaniards; the very papists themselves being no less unwilling than the rest to see the country subject to the ordinary cruelties found in strangers. The Viscount Montague, with himself and son and grandson, pr«sented himself before the queen at the head of two hundred horse that he had raised for the defence of her person ; they dec'ared the r readiness to fight till death m her cause against all enemies, were they kings, or priests, or Pope, or any other potentate whatsoever.” (Osborn, pp. 15, 17, 28, 46.') Such, sir, was Catholic allegiance in the reign of Q.ueen Elizabeth. If Catholics were found true to a cruel government in the times of persecution, the people of this country need not ap- prehend much from their disloyalty or want of patriotism ! I am, I repeat, a foreigner by birth and a Catholic by an honest conviction. I owe no alle- giance to any prince, Pope, or potentate, inconsistent with the fullest allegiance'^to the consti- tution of my adopted country ; and were the Pope to come as an invader, I would oppose him as I would any other Usurper. The laws of nature and of nations, the laws of the church itself, and every principle of my manhood, would urge me to resist him and defend my country airi her institutions. There is no law or us^ige or precept on earth that will question this para- mount' duty. These, sir, are rny views, and these I am sure would be the views of every adopted Catholic in the United States! With these remarks in reference to temporal supremacy and Catholic allegiance to the Pope, iiiaflswer to the charges contained in the speech of'Mr. Smith, and repeated by the orators and 6 presides of the Know-nothing; and Abolition parties generally, T shall proceed to show the rela- tions of the Catholic Church and Catholics to the vexed, and at this time alarming, question of slavery. I desire to do this for two reasons: First. To show the country the Christian views taken by the Church of this relat on since the dawn of Christianity ; and, in the second place, to show all Catholics, whether native or adopted, that, as good and conscientious mem- bers of the Church throughout the United States, they cannot give aid or comfort or counte- nance or support to that class of men who aspire to high places upon the agitation of slavery, and an overthrow of one section of a common country, because they hold a species of property which is lawful, and which has been in the country for nearly three hundred years, and which, moreover, is secured to them by that constitution that secures us all our liberties and our exist- ence as a great and glorious country ! Without entering into detail, I shall simply state that it was held by the ancient fathers of the Church, and it is still the unanimous opinion of Catholic^lic that the world has ever beheld shall be sacrificed to the fanaticism of the Abolition party and its leaders? Without proceeding further, I desire to give in this connexion a few authorities in the Church, both from the holy fathers and canons, (which are the laws by which the Church and all its members are governed,) in reference to the system of slavery. St. Augustine informs us that the “ condition of slavery is justly regarded as imposed upon the sinner ; sin, not nature, introduced the word.” St. Ambrose says : “There would be no slavery to-day, had there been no drunkeness.” St. John Chrysostom says : ' “ Behold brethren born of one mother ; sin makes one of them a servant, and, taking away his liberty, lays him under subjection.” Bishop England says; “ Catholic divines are agreed, that the origin of slavery, as of all other infirmities and afilic- lions, is to be found in sin.” Pope Gelasius I, in his letters against the conduct of the Pelagians, (a sort of abolition and outlaw party of his time,) states “slavery to have been the consequence of sin, and to have been established by human law.” St. Augustine again says : “That the peace and good order of society, as well as religious dutij, demand that the whole- some laws of the State regulating the conduct of slaves should be conscientiously observed.” Bishop England says: “ Slavery is regarded by that Church of which the Pope is the presiding officer, not to be in- compatible with natural law ; to be the result of sin by Divine dispensation ; to have been established by human legislation, and, when the dominion of the slave is justly acquired, to be lawful, not only in the sight of human tribunals, but also in the eye of Heaven.” In addition to all this, there is a positive and unchangeable law of the Church which would forbid any conscientious Catholic being an Abolitionist. The third canon of the Council of Rome, held in the year 500, declares — “If any one, under the pretence of piety, teaches a slave to despise his master, and to #vith- draw from his service, and not to serve his master with good will and all respect, let him be anathema !” “ The phrase let him be anathema,^' says Bishop England, “is never appended to any decree which does not contain the expression of unchangeable doctrine respecting belief or morality, and indicates that the doctrine has been revealed by God.” And now, sir, to close the authorities of the Church upon the subject of slavery, I desire to show that every Catholic is bound by a canon law to support the fugitive slave law of 1850, as well as the principles of the Kansas and Nebraska bill of Judge Douglas, which the Abolition- i.sts and Black Republicans condemn so much. By a canon of Pope Leo ill, in the year 800, it is enacted : — “ Wheresoever within the bounds of Italy either the runaway slave of the king, or of the Church, or of any other man shall be found by his master, he shall be restored, without any bar or prescri,)tion of years.” Here, we see, is Si fugitive slave lavj nearly eleven hundred years old, just like our own, and just and honest in all its requirements under our constitution and happy form of government. The Church has given an old precedent, to be sure ; but with us Catholics it is as new and bind- ing to-day as though enacted yesterday ! Sumner and all the Abolition and Black Republican fanatics say this law is from the author of all evil ; that it is a compact with Hell ; that it ought not to be obeyed, and must be repealed, though the Union and the constitution, and everything worth living for should go to destruction. But, sir, in this terrible assault upon the established institutions of the country, and the rights of the Southern States under the constitution, the Catholic portion of i he people will be a reliable ally against the mongrel and Vandal invader, with his united cohorts of Abolitionists'and Know- nothings. The adopted citizens and the Catholics will gratefully remember and cordially return the favors they have received from the noble men of the South who have defended them and secured their liberties from this same common enemy. They will — 1 know they will ! By every consideration of religion and love of lav/, they will dt> it! By the memories of the past and the hopes of the future, they will do it! Need I tell you that from my very soul I hate this party and their principles? What are they? They propose to, rob the man who owitfl a slave of his property, and his equal rights in a territory purchased by common bipod 8 coviimon tn^asure ; and another part of the people of that which is still dearer, if possible-^ their ch.ir.icter, thi ir m mho^T,! their liberties, their inalienable natura.1 rights, patented by the Alm'ghfy, locattd on the Ainerican continent, and secured by the American constitution. And what are their reasons for doing this ? They say the slave ougfd to be free, and the free man ought to he a slave! We will, they say, enslave the free white man twenty-one years, and teach h'rn frredom ; and the Afri(ian slave we will at once enfranchise. And this they say is intense t^mericanism! Good God ! and is this the liberty of Washington, of JefFersoO) of Franklin, and the natricis of the revolution .? Are these the principles for which they fought^ and iai ored, and died > Are these the principles of Andrew Jackson, and the men of the second war of independetict? Wo; this was not their Americanism! The Americanism of the Know* nothing Aboli’ion [iarty is English Toryism. Alacaule^y, the great British historian and states- man, says; “ Ma.'y politician ' of our time are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident pi;oposi* tion, that no people ought to be free until they are (it for freedom. The maxim is worthy the fool in the old story, who would not go into the water until he had learned to swim. If men are to v/ait for liberty till they become wise and good in slavery, tliey may indeed wait for- ever.” Twenty-one’ years of slavery to the honest and worthy emigrant cannot make him a better or a safer rnan"