YFEOM THE BOSTON POST.]

J

THE

WHIG

CHARGE OF INTOLERANCE

AGAINST TH

NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRACY

AND

GEN. FRANKLIN PIERCE

BOSTON:

BEALS, GREENE & CO.

185 2 .



lp€C

,
\

I



THE WHIG CHARGE
OP

RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
AGAINST

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEMOCRACY AND

GENERAL FRANKLIN PIERCE.

The course of the unscrupulous demagogues
who have dragged the sect element into the

residential arena is not merely to be regretted,

ut to be deplored. In American political con-

tests the searching questions ought to be ever, as

to a candidate, “/s he honest ? is he capable ? is he

FAITHFUL TO THE CONSTITUTION 1 ” while an

approach to any thing like the popery cry of the

British tory party, or an appeal to a sect as such,

ought to be severely denounced as violative of

the spirit of our institutions. But what is termed

“The Catholic Charge” against the New
Hampshire democracy and General Pierce has

been made; and in spite of refutation and of

recantation, it has been reiterated with additional

layers of falsehood. Dishonest documents, full

of misrepresentation and of wanton calumny,

have been systematically and widely circulated.

In this state of things, simple justice to the

democratic candidate and cause requires that

facts should be as widely spread as Scott col-

porteurs are scattering fiction; for such is the

plainness and conclusiveness of the record, that

whenever truth overtakes the lie, it will brand
those who continue to circulate the charge with

the disgrace due to calumniators.

This charge, when first made, Avas regarded

as so absurd and silly, so contemptible and false,

as to be unworthy of a formal refutation. The

respectable portion of the whig press recanted it,

and emphatically disclaimed it. Thus the Re-

public, of June 9, 18.52, — the Scott organ at
Washington,— had the following recantation : —
“The allegation that the course of Mr. Pierce in the late

New Hampshire convention is open to any just exception
on the ground of his manifesting any religious intolerance
is utterly unfounded. We have referred to the proceedings

qf the convention, and find nothing that indicates any other
sentiment than one entirely in harmony with religious free-
dom. Mr. Pierce was o: posed to the recognition of any po-
litical differences among the various sects of Christians

;
and

Aye shall he much surprised to learn that he has at any
time, in the convention or out of it, exhibited any bigotry or
intolerance on points of faith or conscience.”

Here this charge is pronounced to be “ utter-

ly unfounded.” And yet this same charge has
been put into new shape, and renewed, and the

Scott press is circulating it just as though no por-

tion of it had ever stood on the confessional. It

Avill be the object of this paper to show how con-

clusively the record Avill sustain the Republic’s

admission of the “ utterly unfounded ” char-
acter of this charge. The facts show a disregard

of truth, justice, and honesty in those who

make it, unequalled in the annals of political

Avarfare.

The charge is that General Pierce is not in

favor of the abolition of the religious test that

disgraces the Constitution of New Hampshire^;
that, in a convention called to revise this Con-

stitution, he opposed a proposition to strike out

the clauses' that constitute this test : and hence is

an enemy to what is termed “ Catholic Eman-
cipation ” in New Hampshire, and hostile to
Catholic interests. It is further alleged that the

democratic party have had it in their power, for

years, to abolish this test, inasmuch as they have

been in a majority, but would not do it
;
and

hence they are responsible for its continuance.

It is further represented that the democratic

party of this State have been generally opposed

to an abolition of this test. On these grounds
Catholics are appealed to, as Catholic^ to take

sides against the election of General Pierce for

the presidency.

The Religious Test and Amendments

to the Constitution.

The Constitution of New Hampshire, adopted
in 1784, contained the provision that persons, to

be eligible to certain offices, “ must be of the

Protestant Religion.” A tradition says that this
provision Avas inserted to repel a taunt which

was common after the French alliance, that there
was to be an alliance, also, with the French reli-

gion, and an establishment of it in this country.

The 1784 Constitution reipiin'd a tAvo thir^

vote of the people to alter it. The injustice and

impolicy of retaining this test became so mani-

fest, that the Convention of 1791, Avhich sub-

mitted the present Constitution to the people,



voted to erase ii, and a majority of the people
concurred with the Convention

;
but as there

was not quite a tioo thirds majority, the provision
remained. The main work of this Convention
was ratified

;
and during the year 1792, the pres-

ent Constitution was adopted, which has not
been altered since.

The clauses in this Constitution which do in-
jury to a class of citizens by branding them as
dangerous or disloyal, and which, therefore, are
so disgraceful to it, are in the provisions naming
the qualifications for certain offices. That re-
specting Senators is, “No person shall be capable
of being elected a Senator who is not of the
Protestant religion.” The same thing is repeated
as to the Representatives and the Governor;
and it is provided that the qualifications for
Councillors shall be the same as those for Sen-
ators. The sixth article of the Bill of Rights,
also, has a clause empowering the legislature to
authorize towns and other corporations to make
adequate provision “ for the support and main-
tenance of public Protestant teachers of piety,
religion, and morality

;

” though the same article
justly provides, that no person of any one partic-
ular religious sect or denomination shall ever be
compelled to pay towards the support of the teacher
or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or denomina-
tion. The test qualification only applies to the
offices of Governor, Councillors, and members
of the legislature. As to all these officers there
is also a property qualification equally contrary
to sound politics.

^

The following method is prescribed for amend-
ing the Constitution. Every seven years the
people, in legal meetings duly warned, are to de-
termine whether they will call a convention to
revise the Constitution. If the next general
court after the voting, on examining the returns,
finds that a majority have declared for a revision,
it is made its duty to call a convention, where all
amendments must first be passed upon. It is,
however, provided that “ no alterations shall be
made in this Constitution before the same shall be
laid before the towns and incorporated places, and
approved.

by TWO THIRDS of the qualified
voterspresent, and voting on the subject^
From^ this statement it is seen, 1. That it is a

sheer misrepresentation to term this test a /aw of
the State, as though it could be altered at the will
of a majority. Thbse who talk about its being a
disgrace to the statute book, as though it were a
law, talk at random. Had this been the case, the
Democratic party would have repealed it long

2. It is a part of the Constitution, to alter
which require certain forms to be gone through
with, and amendments require to be ratified by
a two thirds vote. This majority the Democrats
never had. 3. The assertion often seen that
Catholics are excluded from all offices in New
Hampshire, is not correct. Thev may, like other
citizens, be judges, sheriffs, hold^town offices, or,
indeed, hold any office but that of Governor,
Councillors, and members of the legislature;
and as to the latter, the test has been a dead letter
jor half a century.

The Democratic Party and Amend-
ments to the Constitution.

the tests, has been open, uniform, and persever^mg in opposition to them. It has, through its
organs, denounced them as grossly violative of the
rights of the eitizen, and as a disgrace to the
btate

;
and it has labored, on septennial occasions

to procure a convention to mature a revision of
the Constitution, and, avowedly, to abolish the
religious and property tests.

instance, was agitated in
1844. To show the spirit of the New Hampshire
Democraey, we select the following from the
New Hampshire Patriot of October 17, 1844
which paper was at that time, and is now, the
leading organ of the N. H. Democracy. The
article is headed, “ Revision of the Constitution.'^
Ihe following are extracts from it;

“ We speak the universal sense of the democratic partv
when we denounce the provisions alluded to, (the reliirious
and property tests,) as violative, grossly and deeplv, of the

pm are asserted
in the Bill of Rights. That declaratoiy instrument main
tains in the broadest terms, the most radical doctrines of
man s equality. Nowhere else can we find the essential
doctrines of equal rights more fully stated. Yet our (State)
constitution contains provisions requiring that a man to
hold certain offices, must possess a stated amount of prop-
erty, and be of a particular religious belief Now such
ODIOUS REQUIREMENTS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON ANT
PRINCIPL-E OF JUSTICE, REASON, OR COMMON SENSE. Oil
the contrary, they stand out in glaring inconsistency with
the whole scope of the Bill of Rights and tlie Constitution
While the right of suffrage, the right of eZcctin <r to every
office, IS free, broad, and untrammelled in New Hampshire,
uie light of being elected to certain offices is bein" restricted
by the most invidious requirements. Hypocritical, cantin*r
professions of a certain form of religious belief is required
while an honest avowal of other views is accompanied by
civil disabilities.”

^ ^

^ ^ ^ He %
“ We earnestly appeal to all true friends of reform, to

inake a united and strong effort to accomplish the great
object. A more favorable opportunity can never occur.
Bvety democrat owes it to himself, to his principles, to the
credit of the State, as well as to his abused fellow-men, to
aid heartily and energetically in purging from what is called
the charter of our liberties the disgrace of provisions mafc*
mg one class inferior to others/’

It is stated that every democratic journal in.
the state took equally earnest ground in favor of
a revision of the constitution.

While the press was thus bold in denouncing
the tests, and strong in advocating a conventioiq
the leading politicians were equally earnest.
The Patriot of October 31, 1844, for instance,
contains an account of a meeting, and a report
of a speech made by Judge Woodbury, at Salis-
bury, Oct. 21, 1844. Judge Woodbury said :

“ This is no time for lukewarmness or neutrality on other
accounts. You liave a State question, as to the amend-
ment of your own constitution, to be settled on the same
occasion, and involving some similar questions. On thaL
likewise, show tlie world that you are a sovereign people,
and can and will abolish all odious tests and obsolete
PROVISIONS Ufa monopolizing tendency. Of what use are
sound tlieories without sound practice ? And wliy are you
endowed with the lion heart and eagle eye, but to dare to
do all wh'ch doth become men, to shield and perpetuate
your rights ? ”



5

General Pierce followed Judge Woodbury at

this meeting, and made one of his strong and

impassioned appeals in favor of the same action.

But let contemporary accounts state the truth.

The Patriot, (Oct. 31, 1844,) in an article

urging the necessity of a revision says: “We
appeal to the friends of revision in every town

to exert themselves to get the friends of the

measure to vote upon the question. It should be

made, as it is, one of the great objects of the

town meeting. Hon. Messrs. Woodbury and

Pierce both made urgent appeals to the demo-

crats at their meeting at Salisbury, to use earnest

and strong efforts to get a full vote in favor of

revision. We believe we can say with
TRUTH THAT THERE IS NOT AN INTELLIGENT

MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY WHO IS

NOT IN FAVOR OF A REVISION. If a united

effort is made, the measure can be easily carried.”

The same paper eontains notices for meetings

at other towns, at which General Pierce was an-

nounced to speak. •

But the democratic party have also spoken

against these tests, and in favor of their abolition,

through their conventions. Of these we select

the action of only two, one a county and the

other a state organization. The former was one

of which General Pierce was a member. It w'as

the Democratic Merrimack County Association,

held in Concord, January 8, 1845. The follow-

ing proceedings took place :—
“ On motion of Mr. Stanley, of Hopkinton, a committee

of seven was raised to prepare and report resolutions, con-

sisting of Messrs. Pierce of Concord, Simonds of Warren,

Cates of Northfield, Fowler of Pembroke, Page of Brad-

ford, and George of Salisbury.”
* * * * *

“ The committee on resolutions reported the following,

which were^ accepted.”
* * * * *

“Resolved, That we UNQUALIFIEDLY REPU-
DIATE ALL RELIGIOUS AND PROPERTY TESTS AS CONNECT-
ED WITH QUALIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, and sincere-
ly regret that the constitution of New Hampshire recog-
nizes any qualifications as essential except those of patriot-

ism, ability, and moral worth.”

The Democratic State Convention, held Oct.

18, 1849, unanimously adopted the following

resolution :—
“ Resolved, That we are in favor of a revision and amend-

ment of our Stat Constitution, to such an extent at least as

leHl free it from religious tests, property qualifica-

tions, and all other illiberal and anti-republican features^*

Such has been the varied and uniform action

of the democratic party in reference to these

tests and their abolition ! Such is the record

that makes answer to the eharge that this party

has opposed the abolition of this test ! This

charge, in the language of the Republic, is “ ut-

terly unfounded.^' It is stupidly false.

The Whig Party and Amendments to

the Constitution.

Is it possible for the whig party to present

such a record as this 1 Did its press universally

denounce this test ? Did its leading men advo-

cate its abolition before large gatherings of tho

people ? Have its county or state conventions

ever passed resolutions against it, and in favor

of a convention to abolish it ?

While the demoeratic press were thus manful-

ly advoeating a revision, the whig press up to

1850 were in opposition to it. Every whig

journal in 1844, for instance, opposed calling a

convention. In this year the federal files abound

with artieles AGAINST calling a convention.
A few are selected as samples of their lan-
guage.

The Nashua Telegraph said; “We do not
think it worth while to incur the expense of a

convention, and run the risk of improving it [the

Constitution] at present.” The Keene Sentinel

admitted that its political friends had opposed a

convention three times within ten years, as they

wTre unwilling to submit the revision of the

Constitution, for trifling practical defects, to such

men ” as then controlled the State.
The Exeter News Letter advised the people to

“let well enough alone;” that if a convention

was called, “ they would probably mar the Con-

stitution in two instances where they mended it

in one
;

” that it “ would be as likely to do hurt

as good
;

” that the Constitution w^as imperfect,

“ but we are not at all certain that it is so bad as

it wmuld be likely to be made by any assembly

that would now be convened to revise it.”

The New Hampshire Statesman said the bulk
of the people were “ satisfied with the Constitu-

tion as it is
;

” that if it was revised, “ some very

obnoxious features ” would be incorporated into

it, and that “ this eonsideration, in conneetion

with the cost of the convention, and the necessity

of the publication of an entire new code of laws,

will cause the people to be exceedingly cautious

in their vote ” upon the question.

These are well known as among the oldest

and most influential of the federal papers in the

State, and the remarks quoted are but samples

of what was said by the whole of them against the

calling a convention to revise the Constitution.

The Convention of 1850, and the

Keligious Test.

Notwithstanding the appeals of the united

democratic press, no convention to revise the

constitution was called until 1850, This is as-

cribed to three causes
;

first, such opposition to

the measure as we have described by the federal

or whig press and whig leaders
;

second, that

from the circumstance of the property test and

religious test having been inoperative for thirty

years, they had come to be regarded as of no prac-

tical importance; third, this made the voters,

generally, inattentive to voting on this question,

as the vote on it was always taken near the close

of the town meetings, when the majority had re-

tired. But in 1850 a strong effort being made

to obtain a convention, and mainly to remove

from the constitution these tests, it prevailed,

and a convention was called.



r

« November, and
a .

^ number of the prominent
democratic politicians of the State. Gen. Pierce
was a deletrntc fiom the town of Concord and

Se orisT ’to 6
lishe/fm i""®

"-ere pub-

Palriof « ,V,r''
Hampshire

Patnot, and the reports contained m this journal
of November 14 and November 21,1850 are

for
^^l^owing statements’ and

for the oiiginals of the speeches.
On the l ull, ill committee of the whole, Mr

a»are that there

S arHc J p™<’iple involved in the
bm

to the word “Protestant
;

”

but as that term was also introduced into the

office i
fot holding

aetcircd till the subsequent articles should^me under (onsidcration
;

and he therefore
moved to strike out the word “ Protestant," and

tm'ib!! c”,"*’
t;o'>sideration of his amendment

pi toe otuer subjects should be brought under

hTlfrf'T'“'’’
‘'“arftod that he

Sc ci ,1? i‘ ™ "'hich occurs

“Pro^r„rf
*'’<= support of

raliiv ” As “r’'*"'®
P;®‘y. religion and mo-

^^e^dments were to be pro-
posed to this article, Judge Woodbury withdrew

deliberations,
the san^e day., is the following record : “ Mr.

Concord proposed to Judge
KENEW- his motion TO STRIKE

AV^«
l"«OTESTANT, AND THE WORDWAS STRICKEN OUT.”

On the ne^t day, Nov. 12, the Bill of Rio^hts
Various amind

6

We quote these speeches as published in the

by th ^.bsoribldS

on .acconm of t “f
I*’'' members,on account of its rejiorts of the proceedino-s_!

i^iemg the only paper which reported them in

From tke ‘‘ Daily (.V. K) Patriot’^ of J^ovemUr 14, 1850.
committee of the whole.

religious tests, was tien
striking out all

following remarks : -

the ProtesLt E^ffn 17k ina v7t 7

ments had been proposed, mostly var^in^'l" toverbal form
;
when Gen. Pierce said -1

would be to strike out^tll fh
eighth line, to the vw7 ' n7’ ,7 i

‘re igion,’ in the

sert instead ^ f
^'^’entieth line, and in-

ne<^lected IH u
~

^ "^ver be overlooked or

a^d'rnc‘ota^lvi7e'’Zt'™^^^
that in^stitutiorf.- nf-r r

' ®‘^P®^*eoce having demonstrated

person of an,j „o mnicolor nutims“^a”if^TuiZ’’ II

'v""«
'

they win find

bee??eS"'!!‘'®i had

L re/foSur i ® f reCMmcnAu^ t/iat
MckmZ,, /

Propertu qmlijication besmctcen Jtom the tonshtnUon. The renort wus
referred to the Committee of the Whole Onthe next clay, the 13th, the subject w.?s taken

?^oldl
ol the Whole, and Judeo

Woodbury aiul (Itm.PiERoE advocated the pro-

Le “d effee-

world how easily l-'w« 7 another illustration to the
jectiouable, can bVch7g7lnTrecS7d

of our blessed Union NoffSt thY I „
interest

'"&n a mtli
noi irmoYSglaiiTy

mrnsmm
wMci;'‘LrbYrSuYfo.;‘r':'' "

i<>

cmUYo'

SSiMnYraemiirSlnn'tff

EtifPP?SS«^
ces, we h7 an^T^S^vVl"”''® circumstan-
do justice to HI t 71 ""P‘'«''‘;

the opportunitv to

fluei.re‘'„7 p‘ri!,'; ^rrSittl-alf fS'-li"'

ifpsiiiiEi
msmmmss
of " vermife,

”
‘ tO|)nWioan priiicj.les

.nok.^'rr.ngSs\sscoi;s;rir^



7

protecting liberty, equality, conscience, property, and

liie, rather than t.. give most of these, or to establish any

particular set of religious opinions. This is not that re-

ligion is a minor coniern, and not in some view the great-

est for an immortal being, but rather that religion is a con-

cern between God and man, and seldom to be interfered

with by govenmieiits. Such intolerant interference has

caused oceans of blood to flow, and millions to perish at

the stake, and was one of the great causes which expelled

our fathers to a wilderness and the mercy of savage foes.

The republican government afterwards established here

eliould, if true to republican principles, shield all in their

religious tenets while conducting peacefully, and protect

all in their pursuits and worship, however different, while

acting as good citizens, or it becomes suicidal, and, like

despotism, persecutes differences of opinions, and intro-

duces the grossest irregularities.

How does the question stand on the principles of our bill
of rights.?

It is forced to admit that each sect should enjoy, and it

does now enjoy here, the privilege to hold property. If to

hold that, why not protect it by laws which each helps to

make.? It concedes to each sect the right to sue for injuries

to character, for injuries to children and wife, and to wor-

ship God in freedom. Why not, then, let them aid in legis-
lating to protect all these .? You hold out the husk, but

withdraw the kernel. You allow fire-arms, but neither

gunpowder nor lead to load them and make them effective.

In the bill of rights you pledge also to all sects equality,

but afterwards by this test you make all but Prote.stants

unequal. You will promise entire freedom of conscience

to all, and treat it in the fourth article as so high a privilege

as not to be in any way unalienable, and yet you leave

others than Protestants defenceless as to it by disfranchis-

ing them from filling offices to secure it by legislation.

It is contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and

of the veiy first article in your bill of rights, declaring all

men equal. You do not thus give to all men equal priv-

ileges. It is also in the teeth of the same bill of rights to

say one .sect shall not be subordinate to another, and still

disfranchise one, or let one hold offices forbidden to others.

It is likewise contrary to all sound experience and reason

to say, as we do, that Catholics may vote, but not be voted

for
;
and that they may be well competent for one duty and

not the other. So it is inconsistent to say, as we do, that

they may be jurors or judges, yet not legislators— or agree,
as we do in'the Constitutii)n of the Union, that Catholics
may be fit and safe fur members of Congress, senators,
cabinet officers, yea, presidents, and yet denounce them as

unfit and unsafe at home to represent one hundred and fifty

polls in one of our small towmships. It is in truth much

like the great grievance which led to our revolution — tax-
ation without rep eseiitation. All other than Protestant

sects are virtually deprived of representation, as they are

made ineligible to the legislature. Tlieir opinions and

wishes are unheard there, from themselves. They are

branded. They are driven forth, as with the mark of Cain,

for servitude and ignominy.

Why not as well explicitly say— and not do it covertly
— that none but Pr. testants are fit for a republic .? Why
not say that Catholic Maryland i.s unfit.? Catholic Hun-

gary.? Catholic Ireland? Catholic France.? Why halt
at half-way measures.? Why not say it is a mere creed in
religious faith, ;uid not the mind, tieart, morals, which ren-

ders men suitable for self-government .? or that we establish

government for the firmer alone, and not to secure liberty,

character, property, and life.?

Indeed this test debars man from what we allow to the
degraded African, as he is eligible here to hold office as well

as to vote. It seems often to have been overlooked, like-

wise, that these tests are restraints or chains on those who
make them, as well as on others. The Protestant himself

cannot now vote here for a Catholic any more than a Cath-
olic vote for one, though the candidate maybe on all hands
confessedly the best qualified man for State representative,
senator, or govertior.

If urged that the power to make such tests in constitutions
exists, it is no (more) argument for the moral and political

right to do it, than it is, because we have the naked power,
that we have also the moral and political right to unite
Church and State, create an inquisition, or, having stripped

other sects of the privileges to hold office, to go further, and

rob them of equal rights to earth, air, fire, and water, and

the same hopes and means for happiness both in time and

eternity. One profession alone in business might, on a

like ground, be admitted to sit in the legislature— such as
merchants or lawyers. While the present test continues,

it is with an ill grace we can call other countries bigoted,

wlio, like England, have emancipated the Catholics, and

made contributions for their education. All the former

fears as to their numbers or political principles have now

become groundless. In most Catholic countries Jesuitism

is banished, and the inquisition abolished, and the Pope

himself has become quite a reformer and republican, and

Catholics generally are not believed in morals or the re-

ligious sentiment to be behind the age or the true standard

for public liberty. What other sect shall throw at them the

first stone .? What one vindicate the present exclusion, and

not admit that if other than Protestant sects had a majority

here, these last should not also be stripped of power .? and

that our ancestors’ complaints of penalties and disfranchise-

ments were ill founded .? It is doing what we have always
censured in others. The error is, that this exclusion con-

cedes, in principle, that religion is to be regulated by a ma-

jority rather than the sincere conviction and conscience of

each individual
;
or that only certain sects are moral and

intelligent enough to exercise political power, which is fal-

lacious and false under our forms of free schools and uni-

versal education
;
or that reason and providence cannot

uidiold correct principles without our feeble aid and our

proscriptions
;
and that Deity or his adorable Son need per-

secution of some sects to sustain and render triumphant

pure religion. So if it be insisted that one denomina-

tion must be better and more trustworthy than the rest—
which may as well be done even among Protestants— why
not trust to that one alone and proscribe all the rest, though

Protestant? Which shall be that special favorite.?

which one profession shall, under a like system, rule .?

What sect do Sidney, or Locke, or Jefferson, or Madison

think fit to be trusted with legislative power.? How is this,
too, in our neighboring republics .? Do they thus ostracize
a part .? On the contrary', they had the experience of the
revolution to aid them— by the Catholic Carrolls and La-
fayettes— being moral and brave as the most Puritanical

—

and many others of that creed have fought side by side with

us since at Chippewa and Bridgewater, and under the walls

of Mexico, and shown that their creed is not deserving

proscription. In short, without going further into the

question now, it seems to my mind not only unjust to
other sects, but not reputable to us as a people, or to the age

in which we live, to retain this test longer.

Mr. Parker, of Nashua, followed Judge Wood-

bury, and stated that, in the committee who

made the report, there was entire unanimity on

this question. At the same time the subject relative

to property qualifications was taken up, when

Judge Woodbury advocated it, and concluded

his remarks in the following language :—
“ Without fatiguing the Convention with more

on this occasion, I would only add that consid-

erations like these have led to the abolition of

such tests in many other of our sister States,

and in the constitution of the United States,

and, in my view, require us to imitate their wise
example.”

General Pierce followed Judge Woodbury;

and the following outline of what he said on

this day (Nov. 13) a^eared in the Patriot ; we

quote from the New Hampshire Patriot and State

Gazette of Nov. 21, 1850. It will be remembered

that Judge Woodbury had just delivered., at this

sitting, both of the above-named speeches, the

sentiments of which General Pierce indorses,

and he brands the religious test as a stig

MA UPON THE STATE AT HOME AND ABROAD.
“ Mr. Pierce, of Concord, said that he could

concur heartily in all that the gentleman from

Portsmouth had uttered, except his last remark

It was quite obvious that, so far from having taxed



8

the patience of the committee, his speeches upon
both the great subjects embraced in the resolu-
tions under consideration had been listened to
With unqualified gratification. Not because he
threw the weight of his high character and the
power of his arguments into the scale on the
side of right in a case where there was hesitancy
—-where the judgment of members was not defi-
nitely formed— where there was a shade of doubt
as to the result

;
but because it was desirable

that the grounds on which we proceed in matters
of such grave import should be stated, as they
had been, V,nth singular force of reasoning and
beauty of illustration. It was also a service well
rendered, not less in vindication of the past than
the present. The motives of the fathers of the
present constitution and of the people in 1792
had been placed in their true light. So much
was due to them. It was also due to this con-
vention and the people whom they represent, and
due to the reputation of the State abroad, that it
be well understood that both of the provisions— the
religious test and the property qualification— had
rS”

® at least as long as the chairman
[Mr. Sawyer] had participated to any extent in the
councils of the State. They had been practicallu
inoperativefrom Mr. Pis earliest recollection. The
chairrnan would remember that many years ago,
at a time of high party excitement, it was su«--
gested that a member of the House of Represen-
tatives occupied his seat without the requisite
property qualifications. But two objections at
o^ce occurred to any action upon the subject;
the first was that investigation and action, in-
stead of rejecting one member, might probably
vacate twenty seats; the second was, that no
member could probably be found to move in a
matter so utterly repugnant to public sentiment.

I he religious test in the constitution had undeni-
ably been a stigma upon the State at home and
abroad. It had been repeatedly named to him, and
cmce at least in a foreign land, as unworthy of the
intelligent and liberal spirit of our countrymen. Al-
though he had at times felt keenly the reproach, he
had uniformly referred, as he had no doubt other
gentlemen had done, to other parts of the constitution
as illustrating the true andfree spirit of ourfathers,
md to these as, at least for many years, a blank.
Ihe great question of religious toleration was
practically settled, and settled in a manner never
to be reversed while we retain our present form
or government, more than thirty years ao-o I'he
provisions now claiming the attention of the commu-

te could hardly be said to involve an open question.
They had been the subject of discussion in every
lyceum, every academy, debating club, every
town

;
and there was perhaps no subject upon

which public opinion and public feeling were so
uniform and decisive. The substance— if sub-
stance they ever had— having long since passed
away, he rejoiced that the proper occasion had at
length arrived to dispense with the form.”
The resolutions abolishing the religious and

property tests were unanimously agreed to in
committee of the whole, and the committee then
rose and reported them to the convention. The

question was taken on them at once. The yeas
and nays were not ordered, because the members
were so nearly unanimous that it was thought
unnecessary to consume, in taking them, the
time of the convention. The result of the con-
vention, so far as the religious test was con-
cerned, was most gratifying. 1 . Those clauses
ot the constitution requiring that the Governor,
GouncillorSjSenators and Representatives should
be or the Protestant religion,” were stricken
OUT

;
and, 2, The word “Protestant” was strick-

en out of the Bill of Rights. Only seven mem-
bers vmed against striking out the Religious
lest. The striking out of these offensive clauses
rnade a constitution that would effectually estab-
lish RELIGIOUS FREEDOM in New Hampshire.
It now required a two thirds vote on the part
of the people to secure the adoption of this com
stitution.

Chang’es of the New Constitution.

To account for what followed it is necessary
to take into consideration the changes made
in the old constitution in the amendments pro-
posed by the convention. These were far more
numerous, and also radical and important, than
the people had expected. They related to the
judiciary, the basis of representation, the elec-
tion of various officers, the abolition of the
council, the manner of making future amend-
ments, and to other matters. In fact the con-
vention proposed almost an entirely new consti-
tution. An article in the New Hampshire Patriot
of December, 1850, presented the followino- sy-
nopsis of the amendments :— ** ^

Our readers are doubtless somewhat anxious
to learn what has been done, and in what shape
our constitution will come from the hands of the
convention. We can safely assure them that it
will b6 so chtinged that they will not recognizo it
as an old acquaintance. Scarcely a feature of it
remains unaltered. But we presume nobody
will care how much it is altered, provided the
alterations are really improvements— provided
it is made better by the revision. It is for the
people^ to decide for themselves whether it is so
when it shall be laid before them for their ap-
proval or rejection. In the mean time we wSl
briefly recapitulate, for their information, the
most important alterations which have been
made.

“ In the first place, every thing in the Bill of
Rights and Constitution which prescribes par-
ticular religious professions, or the possession of
property as a qualification for any office, has
been stricken out. Every citizen of the requisite
age, be he Jew, Mahometan, or Catholic, or whether
he is poor or rich, is eligible to any office. This is
RIGHT, AND NINETY-NINE IN EVERY HUNDRED
OF THE VOTERS OF THE StATE WILL PROBA-
BLY APPROVE OF IT. Other amendments have
been made to the Bill of Rights, of less impor-
tance.”

That this is not an overstatement will be



9

readily seen by quoting the list of
questions on

which the sense of the voters was to be
taken.

This list was as follows ;

—

“ Question 1st. Do you approve of the Jiill

of Eights as amended by the Convention
1

“ 2d. Do you approve of a House of Repre-

sentatives, to be constituted and chosen as
pro-

vided in the amended Constitution ?

“3d. Do vou approve of a Senate, to be con-

stituted and chosen as provided in the
amended

Constitution ?

“ 4th. Do vou approve of the provisions adopt-

ed by the Convention, on the subject of
Govern-

or and Lieutenant Governor ?

“5th. Do you approve of the biennial elec-

tion of Governor, Lieutenant Governor,
and Le-

gislature, and of biennial sessions ot the Legis-

lature, as adopted by the Convention ?

“ 6th. Do you approve of the amendments

proposed by the Convention in relation to the

election and appointment of County Judges,

Judges of Probate, and other public officers,
and

their tenure of office 'i

“ 7th. Do you approve of the amendments

proposed relating to Trial Justices and Courts,

and their jurisdiction ?

“ 8th. Do you approve of the abolition of the

religious test and property qualification, as pro-

posed in the amended Constitution ?

“ 9th. Do you approve of the mode of making

future amendments of the Constitution, as pro-

posed in the amended Constitution^

“ 10th. Do you approve of the amendment

providing that the Judges of the Supreme Court

and the Attorney General shall be elected by the

people, and the tenure of their office ?

“11th. Do you approve of the amendment

requiring the election of a Superintendent of

Public Instruction, as provided in the amended

Constitution ?

“12th. Do you approve of the amendment

requiring the election of Commissioner of Agri-

culture, as provided in the amended Constitu-

tion ?

“ 13th. Do you approve of the amendment

provided in the amended Constitution, for decid-

ing all elections by a plurality vote 1

“ 14th. Do you approve of the amendment

abolishing the Council 1

“15th. Do you approve of the other altera-

tions and amendments, as made in the amended

Constitution ?
”

These questions, better than any lengthened

lescription, will indicate the wide line of attack

which the new constitution presented, and to

nhis there was to be added the great expense of

oe convention, occasioned by the length to

vhich its deliberations were necessarily pro-

longed. Now. a very large proportion of the

members consisted of democrats, while their

party, alsq. were in a majority in the State
;

and

with this fact in view, two methods lay open to the

adroit leaders and able press of their political op-

ponents. One was to ignore all party, to discuss

the amendments on their merits, and in the spirit

of some of their candid delegates in the conven-

tion, advocate their adoption ; or to
endeavor

to turn this wide innovation from the old
paths,

and this uncommon expense to party account, by

holding the democratic party responsible
for

them all, and thus making of thern a sort
of

weaver’s beam to overturn and demolish the long-

hated democratic ascendency in the
Granite

State. Which course was adopted
'? Was it the

patriotic course, or was it the factious course

Did the whig leaders and presses seek to
do

honor to the commonwealth, or to do a benefit to

their party ? Let the record answer.

The New Constitution and the Whigs.

Here there was, for the first time, a constitu-

tion presented to the people of New Hampshire

free from offensive distinctions— which, in fact,
placed all denominations on an equal footing

—
which guarantied to one sect no special privilege

— which, in a word, was in harmony with the
great religious freedom principle. In what

spirit did those leading whigs and whig organs,

which give tone to the public opinion^ of its party,

receive this constitution ? On this point the

plain record will best answer the question.

Up to 1850, the federal press had opposed call-

ing a convention to revise the constitution.

After it was called, and while the subjects already

enumei'ated were under discussion, and especially

the subject of the basis of representation,
the

federal papers threatened that if the plan pro-

posed should be adopted by the convention, they

would oppose all amendments ivliich might be sub-

mitted to the people ! Now, to show this impor-

tant FACT, and also to show the difficulty and

struggle which the democratic party had to

meet°all through this effort to get the tests

abolished, we quote the following extract from

the New Hampshire Statesman, (whig) and the

reply of the N. H. Patriot, (democratic) to it, of

October 31, 1850 ;
—

“In revising the constitution we have in-

dulged the hope that we might get a reduction of

the present too large House ; and we can tell the

opposition in advance, that if there is not a reduc

tion in the House, and the officers as many as

possible, and we are in favor of all of them being

made elective by the people, that the new consti-

tution shall have our humble efforts to work out

its rejection by the people.”— N. H, Statesman.
“ The above is worthy of notice as exhibiting

the sincerity of the Statesman’s
advocacy of a

revision of the constitution. It declares
in sub-

stance that if all tlie amendments which it de-

sires are not made, it will endeavor to prevent the

adoption of any that may be made. That is, it

desires (for instance) ten amendments; and if tb

convention makes but nine of them, it will labo.

for the rejection of those because it
cannot get

the tenth also ! This is the real dog-in-the-manger

gpii-it __ such a spirit as would prevent all
reform

everywhere. It is not at all probable— it is
hard'iy possible— that every alteration desired by
each person constituting two thirds of

the voterf



10

of the State, can be made
;
for it is not probable

that so many persons exactly agree in every par-

ticular in which amendments are desired. There-

fore if this spirit is to govern our people, no

amendments to the constitution can ever be made.

And this, we have no doubt, is just what is desired
by the Statesman junto. They have always here-

tofore opposed the calling of a convention, and

would have done so last spring if they had not

thought they could make more political capital

by favoring it. But novr, having aided in calling

a convention, they intend to prevent any altera-

tion of the constitution, on the contemptible plea

that they cannot get all they want
;
and having

thus defeated the whole object of the convention,

they will turn rountl and hold the democrats re-

sponsible for the expense of it.
“ Now, unless the people of this State are as

senseless as the Statesman appears to think them,

this game cannot be made to work. All men of
sense, honor, and principle, will repudiate it with

scorn and contempt. Every intelligent man must
see that, in a matter of this kind, every one can-

not have every tiling exactly his own way. It is

the very spirit of despotism "that insists upon that,

and no man who is governed by such a temper is
fit to live under a republican government. The

people of this State entertain no such sentiments,

and will look with indignation upon those who
utter them. The only sensible course is for us to
adopt all that we like in the amendments pro-

posed by the convention, and reject what we dis-

like. And such, we have no doubt, will be the
course of all sensible men. If they want certain

alterations, and the convention makes but half of

them, they y/ill adopt them, notwithstanding they

cannot get the other half desired.”

The New Hampshire Patriot of Dec. 19, 1850,
has the following article :—

“ The Statesman is trying to frighten the mem-
bers of the convention into undoing what they

have done upon the subject of representation. It

Uweatens that the lohigs will cause the rejection of all

the amendments that may be made to the constitution,
if the convention adopts the amendment in rela-

tion to representation proposed by Mr. Lane. So

it seems that, after all its talk about mixing up

party with the revision of the constitution, the

Statesman is determined to make a party issue upon

the adoption of the most important amendment pro-

posed. Perhaps it can carry its party with it in

so doing, but we very much doubt "it. It calls
upon the whig delegates to issue an address to the

people, if that amendment is adopted, and it has half
a dozen editorials upon the subject, all treating it as

a party matter. This certainly looks very singu-

lar, but we cannot believe that its political friends

in the convention are acting in this spirit. We
hope and believe that they are actuated by higher

motives than mere party considerations. We do
not believe that the democrats who favor that
proposition arc governed by party feeling in the

matter; for it is very evident that, so h\r as their

party interests are concerned, they can do better

than to adopt this plan. But if this course on

part of the Statesman indicates the feelings

and views of its political friends in the conven-

tion, and if it can bring its party to adopt it
views, it is evident that nothing can be done uper.

this subject that will be approved by two thuds ofth

people. But we hope that it is not so.”

Now, the proposition here objected to wa.‘
adopted. To show how the constitution was
received, and the attacks made on it on its prom-
ulgation, we quote the following from a seriet
of articles m the leading whig organ of New
Hampshire. These were written ' by a whig
MEMBER of the CONVENTION. The following is
from the Statesman of Feb. 21, 1851 ;—

“ The 8th question relates to the religious andprop-
erty tests. The provision requiring certain officers
to be of the Protestant religion, has never operated to

the prejudice of any thus far, and there is no injus-
tice in retaining it, as all Catholics who have came,
have come in the face of the provision, and if Prot^
esiants wish to continue the disability, they have an

equitable right so to do. It is, therefore, a question

of expediency and courtesy, whether it be abolished
or reta ined. I have less fears of any disastrous re-
sults than many. Ihave no sinister reasons ferr flat-
tering the Catholics, and shall be satisfied with the

disposition of this amendment, even if rejected. The
property test has been a very great eyesore to

many— not many, however, except professed pol-
iticians, who have not found their business suffi-
ciently lucrative to afford them the needful. It is
one evidence of a man’s fitness to manage the
concerns of others, that he has well conducted

his own. And in this country any well-conducted
business will give a man the requisite amount
before he ought to leave it for the business of

others
;
cases of misfortune, of course, excepted.

The State never has suffered for the want of the
talents of those excluded from office by the prop-

erty tests. It is desirable, to ray mind at least,

that our public officers should have an interest

e'ther in the soil or some other permanent prop*-

erty, that when they tax others, they may tax
themselves, and others also in turn may tax them.
My notion is that, if it is the ‘ province of prop-
erty to be taxed,’ those who own it should have
an ascendant voice in taxing it. It is represented

as grovelling to make wealth a test of fitness for
office, and furnishes a theme for declamation for

some, ‘ac? captandum vulgus,^ which shows some-

times a weakness in great men. We have a
right to the whole of a man’s character, to judge

of his fitness for office
;
and one who cannot, or

will not, accumulate the small pittance required to

make him eligible, had better be suffered to re-

main in a private station, lest his want of ability,

or will, should be as conspicuous and disastrom in

public as in private life. Universal suffrage is

enjoyed by the citizens of this State, and if we

adopt universal eligibility to office, oppressed

woman may soon hope to obtain her rjghts, as well as

indolent m.an. 1 think very many of our old-fash-

ioned men ivill regret the abolition of both the reli-

gious and property tests. • L. B. S.”

This will serve to show the spirit in which the

constitution was met. Here whiggery declares

that there is no injustice in the test. Nor



11

was this all. The demoerats were severely at-

tacked on the score of this convention, as the

contemporary records abundantly show, and mat-

ters unconnected with the constitution were

brought in to prejudice the minds of the people

against it.

The Vote in March, 1851.

The vote on the amendments, or more accu-

rately on the new draught of a constitution, was

taken at the annual March meeting, and at a

time peculiarly unfavorable, from the number of

subjects that were mixed with this question, for

an expression of the deliberate judgment of the

people. The local difficulty as to Mr. Atwood—
the hot discussions about the fugitive slave law,

and the resolutions of the convention relative to

the compromise measures— the number and im-
portance of the changes— the expense of the
convention— were all occupying the minds of the
people; and these subjects constituted fertile

means for the federal press to array against the

results of the convention the prejudices or fears

of the people. The success of the latter caused

the whole of the amendments to be rejected to-

gether
;
for the votes for them all were printed on

one piece of paper. The following will serve to

indicate the political character of the votes ; —
Sixty-nine towns gave majorities in favor of the

amendment abolishing the religious test ; of

which forty-five., at the same time, gave pluralities

for the democratic candidate for Governor, while

only thirteen of them gave pluralities for the fede-

ral candidate
;
and thirty-four gave clear majori-

ties for the democrats over all others, while only

nine gave majorities for the federal candidate.

To show clearly and conclusively how much
the political attacks of the whigs had to do with

this rejective vote, it will be quite sufficient to

quote a few short paragraphs from their leading

journal. The vote was taken at the March

meeting, and on the 21st the Statesman

(whig) had the following article:—
“the new constitution.

“We can only say at the present time that the
new constitution has been entirely lost. The

result is as we feared it would be. We repeatedly
told such papers as the Newport Argus, Cheshire

Republican, and others, that the course pursued by

them would certainly lose the instrument. The loco-

focos made it a party matter; party drill was

applied to the members of the convention. A
system of representation was passed in relation

to the house and senate that no whig or fair-

minded man of an}^ party could approve, and
the result is, that the whole instrument is re-

jected. So much for the management of the
clique. Forty thousand dollars of the people’s

money were frittered away, by the management
of a few people who undertake to do all the
thinking and all the voting for the people. Let

the people open their eyes and see the result.”

On the 28th the Statesman had also the fol-
lowing :—

“rejection of the new constitution.

“ It is a matter of deep regret that all the amend

ments proposed to the constitution of this State

by thef' convention which was so long in session

here last November, December, and January,

have been rejected by the voters of the State

and yet we are not much surprised at the result.

We knew the convention was exceedingly unpopular
with the people, and that thousands of the freemen

of the State would accept nothing that was therein

proposed. A few bitter partisan leaders had ren-
dered the convention odious by giving it a par-

tisan character. It even was made to indorse the

Fugitive Slave Law. The members took great

pains to cause to be published their ages, occu-

pations, where born, &c. &c., as though posterity

would feel a deep interest in whatever related to

them. Alas, how little will most of them de-

sire to have it known that they were members of

i\xQ political convention of 1850, elected to revise

the constitution of this State.”

The fact is, the federal and abolition press

had prejudiced the public mind against the doings

of the Convention ; they had proclaimed their deter-

mination in advance to oppose the whole, if one

OBJECTIONABLE PROPOSITION SSIIOULD BE

AGREED UPON
;
that proposition ivas agreed upon,

and the whole was rejected. If, instead of this op-

position, the whig leaders and whig press had

come out in favor of the constitution, tlie

TESTS W^OULD HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED.

Whig Opposition to a Second Submis-

sion of the Test Amendment.

The convention, in ’April, 1851, reassembled

in Concord to receive the verdict of the people

upon its doings. On the first day of the session
various propositions for amendments to be sub-

mitted were offered for consideration, by Mr.

Smith, of Henniker, and Mr. Pierce, of Dover.

On these propositions, and on the conyention, and

on the future course of the whigs, the Statesman

(whig) made the following comment : —
''‘The Constitutional Convention. This notable

body assembled at the State House on Wednes-

day afternoon last, at 3 o’clock. Prayer was

offered by Mr. Eichardson, of Hanover. The

Secretary read the proceedings of the last day

of the Convention’s prior session. Mr. Smith,

of Henniker, offered some amendments for the

consideration of the Convention, abolishing the

property qualifications and religious test, and

providing for a new mode of calling future con-

ventions. Mr. Pierce, of Dover, offered some

resolutions, abolishing the property qualijicatiom

and religious tests, providing for an enlargement

of the Senate to twenty-four members, to be

chosen in single districts
;
a new wuxy of obtain-

ing future amendments— these to be voted upou
the 21st day of May next, by the jieople, and the
votes to be returned to the Legislature. Gov.

Steele was in favor of sending out but throe

questions,— those relating to the property quali*
fication, the religious test, and to future amend



12

merits. The proposition of Mr. Smith and

Pierce were both referred to the Committee upon

the Judiciary Department, and the Convention

adjourned to meet
_

the next morning at nine

o’clock.

“ We hope the whigs will have nothing
TO DO WITH THIS MATTER. We should like to

see a resolution for future amendments passed^ and

then to see that bo'dij adjourn loithout day. Gov.

Steele, in his objections to the resolutions of Mr.

Pierce, at once foreshadowed his feelings, as we

believe, and the feelings of the party. We hope
THE WHIGS WILL have nothing to do in relieving

the locofocos of the odium that so justly

attaches to them in this matter. If they

send out any thing more than the one relating tofu-

ture amendments we would suggest the sending out

of Gen. Pierce's Compromise Resolutions, which

were, we presume, inadvertently passed over at the

convention's prior session."

This will show how strongly party lines had

been drawn, and show the views of the two par-

ties as to amendments at this stage. The whigs,

as a party, were urged to have nothing to do

with additional measures, at that time, to strike

out the test ; and a large portion of the members

were in favor of adjourning without submitting

further propositions to the people. Judge Wood-

bury and General Pierce were strongly opposed

to this policy. The following, from the contem-

'jorary report in the New Hampshire Patriot,
will show the argument that was used. Mr.

Chamberlain here named is a leading whig,

and was the whig candidate for Governor.
“ Mr. Chamberlain, of Keene, moved that the

resolutions be indefinitely postponed, and advo-

cated, in a speech of some length, the retention of the

religious test and the property qualification in the

constitution.

“ Pending the question, remarks were made in

favor of th^e passage of the resolutions of the

committee, by Messrs. Smith, of Henniker, and

Bell, of Guilford, and by Mr. Eastman; of Con-

way, in opposition.

“ Mr. Wiggins, of Dover, moved that the whole

subject be laid on the table. Negatived.

“ Mr. Chamberlain again addressed the conven-

tion in favor of his motion of indefinite jiost-

ponement.

“Judge Woodbury, the chairman of the com-

mittee on the judiciary, then rose and requested

the attention of the convention for a few minutes.'

“ He said that the report which had devolved
on him to present as to those three amendments

related chiefly to the form of them, leaving to the

convention to decide alone on the merits of each,

and the propriety of giving to the people another

opportunity to act on them before another long term

of seven years' delay came round. These last mat-

ters were now under consideration
;
and though

thinking that, as a member of the committee, he

had no authority to report on them, yet he had

no hesitation in stating his earnest conviction in

favor both of the propriety of these amendments,

and of the submission of them again at ihUs time to

fJte people.

“ That striking out the Protestant test was right
on every sound principle of toleration and equal

rights, he had endeavored to show fully at the
last session of this convention, when this proposi-
tion was adopted almost unanimously. Notwith-

standing, then, what has so unexpectedly fallen

from the gentleman from Keene,
(
Chamberlain,) in

favor of this test, it cannot be that a majority of

the people of New Hampshire, distracted by no
other issue or excitement, but acting on this ques-

tion singly, could sanction such an opinion. They
did not sanction it even sixty years ago

;
but a

decided majority then voted against the Protestant

test, and tlie reason why it has since disfigured
the constitution, is that the majority then lacked

a few votes of being two thirds, — that ratio being
required to make an amendment,— the question
then, as now, being on striking out this same test.

And', he asked, have we, in reality and deliber-

ately, travelled backwards ? Are we now, in
truth, despite of free schools here, a powerful

press, and the progress of free principles the

world over, in greater darkness, and more bigot-

ed 1 He, for one, did not believe it. Far more

probable was it that a sort of snap judgment, as

lawyers might call it, had been obtained in sup-

port of these tests in the hurry, excitement, and

intermingling of other business in the late elec-

tion. He did not believe the majority of the
people of this State were deliberately hostile to

the equal rights of an upright citizen, because

that citizen trusted in a different religious creed.

But he had said so much at the last session on

this subject, and to which he referred for other

reasons, it was not necessary, on this occasion, to

say more against the continuance of such a per-

secuting and illiberal test."

Mr. Chamberlain claims, in his very recent

letter, dated Keene, July, 1852, and addressed

“ To the Editors of the Boston Post," that he op-

posed this movement for other reasons than be-

cause he was in favor of abolishing the tests. He
says that he had voted to abolish them at the

polls. In this opposition to the measure of

Judge Woodbury and General Pierce, he was

joined by leading whigs in the convention, such

as Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Stevens, formerly
whig candidates for governor; Mr. Kelly, Uni-

ted States Pension Agent; Mr. Walker, late

delegate to the whig convention, and other prom-

inent whigs.

Through the influence of Judge Woodbury

and General Pierce, the majority of the Conven-

tion were prevailed on to try the question again,

and the following is the amendment, as to the

religious test, which they succeeded in getting

submitted to the people at this session of the

convention ;—
Resolved, That no belief in the doctrines of

any particular religious sect shall be required as

a test for holding office, or be entitled to any

preference whatever, under the constitution.

And this amendment shall be effected by striking

from it, in part 2, section 14, the words, “shall

be of the Protestant religion
;

” and from sec-

tion 29, the words, “ who is not of the Protestant



13

religion
:

» and from section 42, the
words, and

unliss he shall be of the
Protestant religion-

and in the bill of rights,
article 6, the woid

?he New Hampshire Patriot reinarks
:
“ Every

democratic paper in New Hampshire
advocated

the adoption of this
amendment. The i^esult

was just what was anticipated.
In the bustle

and excitement of a most
fiercely contested elec

tion, with the prejudice
excited against con-

vention by the opposition
press, but ^out a

third part of the voters
acted upon them , aM

they were again rejected.
No man of candor

and intelligence will
contend that this was

deliberate expression of
the sentiments o\th

people of the State upon this
question of religious

toleration. Those sentiments
were expressed

thirty years ago, when the
Toleration Act was

passed— an act whose spirit is m direct ojiposi-
tion to this test.

Every body admits that no

expression of their sentiments
upon the merits

of the question under
consideration has yet been

obtained. The vote in most
towns was taken

at the close of an exciting
political contest, after

the principal business
of interest to the mass ot

voters had been done, and the
larger portion of

them had left for their homes
: and it is a libel

upon the people of New Hampshire
to represent

this as a deliberate
expression of their views

upon the great question of religious
freedom and

equality.” When the vote was taken the
second

time, last March, 77 towns
gave majorities in

favor of abolishing this test ;
54 of them, at the

same time, gave pluralities for
the democratic

candidate for Governor, and only
23 of them

gave pluralities for the federal
candidate and 4

of them gave clear majorities
for the democratic

candidate, while only 13 of them gave
majorities

for the federal candidate.

Gosport,

Middleton,

Hooksett,

Hancock,

Hollis,

Litchfield,

Lyndeborough,

New Boston,
Chesterfield,

Gilsum,

Stoddard,

Swanzey,

Westmoreland,

Acworth,
,

Newport,

Plainfield,

Unity,

Sunapee,

Danbury,

Enfield,

Hanover,

Lisbon,

Plymouth,

Warren,

Waterville,

Weptworth,

Bartlett,

Carroll,

Colebrook,

Dalton,

Erroll,

Jefferson,

Northumberland,

Stratford,

Stewartstown,

8 —
42 35

126 29

113 35

111 1

25 2

53 10

132 6

26 7

46 34

61 4

88 40

87 81

77 24

146 80

24 1

60 33

109 36

68 48

59 21

39 18

85 52

55 19

25 6

84 9

66 17

22 —
16 9

37 32

23 3

31 17

58 —
86 —
61 5

2331 754

13 4

83 3S

133 122

125 73

157 155

60 36

115 93

178 124

165 141

87 63

145 83

250 136

148 94

149 109

248 202

168 152

164 45

162 , 27

95 71

192 79

202 180

170 117

140 119

177 35

7 3

187 58

139 10

51 7

113 59

66 44

29 5

103 44

53 45

96 14

109 19

4858 2917

WHIG TOWNS VOTING AGAINST THE
ABOLITION

OF THE KEI.IGIOUS TEST, WITH
THEIR VOTES

FOR GOVERNOR.

Vote of the Towns.

One method adopted by the opposition
press

to prove that the democratic
party was less favor-

able than their opponents to
abolishing this test,

has been to array the vote of a
number of strong

democratic towns which voted against
its abQU-

tion, in contrast with a number of
whig towns

which gave majorities in favor of
abolishing it.

As an offset to that, we present the
following

tables
;

first, of strong democratic towns
which

gave majorities in favor of
abolishing^ the test

;

and second, strong whig towns
which voted

against its abolition — taking the vote of 1852 in
both cases. The first two columns give the

vote for

and against abolishing the test, the third
is the vote

for the democratic candidate for
Governor, and

the fourth the opposition vote for
Governor ;

DEMOCRATIC TOWNS VOTING FOR ABOLISHING

THE RELIGIOUS TEST, WITH THEIR VOTES

FOR GOVERNOR.

towns.
ON THE

Yea.

TEST.

Nay.

FOR GOVERNOR.

Dem. Others.

Raymond,

Epping,

South Hampton,

38

95

42

25

15

137

163

79

78

157

24

TOWNS.

Brentwood,

Candia,

Auburn,

Chester,

Danville,

Derry,

Hampton Ealls,

Londonderry,

Poplin,

Windham,

Madbury,

Rochester,

Rollinsford,

New Hampton,
Sandwich,

Tamworth,

Boseawen.

New London,
Amherst,

Bedford,

Erancestown,

Weare,

Hinsdale,

Nelson,

ON THE TEST. FOR GOVERNOR.

Yea. Nay. Dem. Others.

42 64 121

31 83 169 212

1 17 83 89

7 112 133 169

11 74 66 77

17 59 160 239

7 30 55 79

36 120 135 215

9 71 54 74

7 95 47 127

45 48 65

44 179 218 311

14 28 47 201

11 163 141 157

28 172 219 283

37^ 138 105 210

23 197 150 249

46 70 87 136

15 49 104 192

9 127 147 217

48 67 91 159

47 148 226 278

7 109 76 148

31 46 23 126



14

Rindge, 1 91 41 182

Holdemess, 24 227 186 218

Bristol, 21 33 69 137

532 2592 2938 4671

The Democratic Party not Responsible

for the Continuance of the Test.

Authentic and contemporary record shows con-

clusively and undeniably that democratic orators,

the democratic press, and county and state dem-

ocratic conventions, have been arrayed against

-the odious religious test
;
and yet, the attempt is

still made to hold the democratic party and

General Pierce responsible for the continuance

of it in the constitution ! It is charged, in one

of the most bold and reckless, one of the most

mean and dishonest, electioneering documents

that ever disgraced the American press, that, as

VOTES rOK GOVERNOR OF NEW

1793

Elected.

Josiah Bartlett^ 7,388

7,8291794 John T. Gilman^

1795 John T. Gilman^ 9,340

1796 John T. Gilman, 7,809

1797 Jonn T. Gilman, 9,625
.

1798 John T. Gilman, 9,397

1799 John T. Gilman, 10,138

1800 John T. Gilman, 10,362

1801 John T. Gilman, 10,898

1802 John T. Gilman, 10,377

1803 John T. Gilman, 12,263

1804 John T. Gilman, 12,216

1805 Jo|in Langdon,

John Langdon,

16,097

1806 15,277

1807 John Langdon, 13,912

1808 John Langdon, 12,641

1809 Jeremiah Smith, 15.610

1810 John Langdon,

John Langdon,

16,325

1811 17,522

1812 William Plumer, 15,492

[No choice. Mr. Plumer

1813 John T. Gilman, 18,107

1814 John T. Gilman, 19,695

1815 John T. Gilman, 18,357

1816 Williom Plumer, 20,338

1817 William Plumer, 19,088

1818 William Plumer, 18,674

1819 Samuel Bell, 13,751

1820 Samuel Bell, 22,212

1821 Samuel Bell, 22.582

1822 Samuel Bell, 22,934

1823 Levi Woodbury,

David L. Morrill,

16,985

1824 14,899

[No choice. Mr. Morrill

1825 David L. Morrill, 29,166

1826 ' David L. Morrill, 17,578

1827 Benjamin Pierce, 23,695

1828 John Bell, 21,149

1829 Benjamin Pierce, 22,615

1830 Matthew Harvey, 23,214

1831 Samuel Dinsmoor, 23.503

1832 Samuel Dinsmoor, 24,167

every seventh year the people had to vote

whether they would have the constitution altered

or not, therefore, every seventh year since 1792,

the Pierces ” had the power to change it, as they,

it is alleged, influenced the course of the democrat-

ic party
;
but they would not do it. It may be

well to present additional facts: 1st, as to the

democratic party, and 2d, as to General Pierce.

The quotation already made from the consti-
tution show^s that it requires a TWO THIRDS
VOTE to alter this instrument. Now the
charge is that the democrats, every seven years

since 1792, had the power to change it!! We
cannot more conclusively demonstrate the enor-

mity of this charge— the full extent of the im-
position made on the public in circulating it—
than by quoting the votes for Governor of New
Hampshire since 1792. We have put the federal
governors and candidates in italics. The fol-

lowing are such as we have at hand :—

HAMPSHIRE FROM 1793 TO 1852.
Scat.

John Langdon, 1,306 1,160

2,641

100

2,966

1,198

Oliver Peabody, 1,189 1,677

1,590

Timothy Walker, 6,039 361

Timothy Walker, 5.249 492

John Langdon, 8,753 36

John Langdon, 9,011 43

John Langdon,

John T. Gilman,

12^066

12,287

5,298

2,949

2,258

John Langdon, 15,241 132

Jeremiah Smith, 15,166 84

Jeremiah Smith, 14,477 65

John T. Gilman, 15,613 887

elected by the legislature.]

William Plumer, 17,410 212

William Plumer, 18,794 53

William Plumer, 17,779 38

James Sheafe, 17.994 76

James Sheafe, 12,029

Jeremiah Mason, 3,607 651

Jeremiah Mason, 6,8.50 , .5,941

William Hale, 8,660 1,844

2.559

1,866

1,046

Samuel Dinsmoor, 12,718 240

Levi Woodbury, 11,741 3,708

elected by the legislature.]

563

Benjamin Pierce,

David L. Morrill,

12,287 386

2.529 1,187

Benjamin Pierce. 18,672 76

John Bell, 19.583 48

Timothy Upham,

Ichahod Bartlett,

19.040

18,681

187

110

Ichabod Bartlett, 14,920 146



15

Elected.

1833 Samuel Dinsraoor, 28,277 A. Livermore^ 3,945 1,240

1834 William Badger, 28,542 1,681

1835 William Badger, 25,767 Joseph Healy, 14,875 308

1836 Isaac Hill, . 24,904 6,021

1837 Isaac Hill, 22,361 1,171

1838 Isaac Hill, 28,697 James Wilson, Jr., 25,676 198

1839 John Page, 30,518 James Wilson, 23,928 155

1840 John Page, 29,541 Enos Stevens, 20,716 562

1841 John Page, 29,116 E?ios Stevens, 21,230 1,363

1842
' Henry Hubbard, 26,831 Enos Stevens, 12,234

John H. White, ab. 5,859

Daniel Hoit, ab. 2,812 358

1843 Henry Hubbard, 23,050 Anthony Colby, 12,551

John H. White, ab. 5,493

Daniel Hoit, ab. 3,402 83

1844 John H. Steele, 25,986 Anthony Colby, 14,750

Daniel Hoit, ab. .5,579

John H. White, ab. 1,988 201

1845 John H. Steele, 23,406 Anthony Colby, 15,579

Daniel Hoit, ab. 5,786 994

1846 Jared W. Williams, 26,740 Anthony Colby, 17,707
N. S. Berry, ab. 10,379 368

[Anthony Colby elected by the legislature.]

1847 Jared W. Williams, 30,806 Anthony Colby, 21,109

N. S. Berry, ab. 8,531

1848 Jared W. Williams, 32,245 N. S. Berry, ab. 28,829 54

1849 Samuel Dinsmoor, 29,087 Levi Chamberlain, 18,312 468

N. S. Berry & scat.. 7,081

1850 Samuel Dinsmoor, 30,751 N. S. Berry, ab. 18,512

N. S. Berry, 6,472 54

1851 Samuel Dinsmoor, 21,425 Thomas E. Sawyer, 18,458

John Atwood, ab. 12,049 179

1852 Noah Martin, 30,807 Thomas E. Sawyer, 19,8.50
-

John Atwood, ab. 9,479 269

[William Plumer was first chosen by democrats, but afterAvards was supported by whigs.

David L. Morrill was first supported by democrats.]

Now, test the statements as to the power of the

democratic party to alter the Constitution every

seven years with these figures^ and see what havoc

the latter make with the charge. 1. In 1792,

when the present Constitution was adopted, the

federalists were in power. 2, At the close of the

first septennial period, 1799, they were also in

power. 3. It was not until 1805 that, under the

lead of the noble John Lang-don, the revolution-

ary patriot and friend of Jefferson, they first

got into power, but lost it in 1809. 4. In the

third septennial period (1813) the federalists,

with J. T. Gilman, Avere again in poAver. 5. In

the fourth period (1820) the federalists were in

power, and continued several years. 6. In the

fifth period the democrats succeeded in electing

Benjamin Pierce, the father of Franklin Pierce,

but Avere defeated the next year, 1828. 7. It

was not until the sixth septennial period that

the democratic party gained the permanent as-

cendency! ! So much for this assertion as to this

power of the democratic party, even though it

required a simple majoritg vote to alter the Con-

stitution ! We have not been able to find all
the votes

;
but it is an undeniable fact that the

democratic party, in a contest, never had a two

thirds majority. Take the vote Avhen the amend-

ments of 1850 Avere voted on. The total vote

was 60,405
j
a two thirds vote would have been

40,270
;

but the democratic vote was 30,807

!

This is the truth of figures. It brands the at-

tempt to make the democratic party, as a party,

responsible for the continuance of the test in the

constitution, as either stupidly ignorant or wil-

fully false. It is both insulting and infamous, to

impose such wanton lies and downright cheating

on any class of citizens.

General Pierce and Eeligions Tests.

Having disposed of the charge as against the

democratic party of New Hampshire, it remains
to ansAver it as against General Pierce. It is al-

leged that he favored the retention of the test in

the New Hampshire Constitution ! That he, at
least, is responsible for its continuance, inasmuch

as he has exercised a great and controlling in-

fluence over the democratic party of this state !

!

That hence he is opposed to Catholic emancipa-

tion ! ! Though it Avere quite a sufficient answer

to this charge, to adduce the action of the demo-

cratic party as to this test— the scathing lan-
guage of its press, and the strong votes of its

conventions— yet, to further demonstrate the
wanton injustice done to a generous and liberal

minded statesman, and the gross infamy of the

accusation, we propose to trace his course in re-

gard to this test with some degree ofparticularity.



16

It is a fact that can he established, as clearly

as any fact can be, that whenever General Pierce

has had occasion to act in relation to the test,

whether by speech, pen, or vote, it has been

against it. He has uniformly denounced it as

a stigma on the state. And whenever the ques-

tion of revising the constitution has been agi-

tated, he has, avowedly for the purpose of doing

away with the odious property and religious

tests, advoeated the measure. His efforts to

abolish the test have not been made in a corner

;

they have been open, manly, and persevering,

and are matters of contemporary record.

His labors in the canvass of 1844, already al-

luded to, were untiring. He not only spoke at

Salisbury, in company with Judge Woodbury,

but the same number of the Patriot that noticed

his speech in that town, announces him as a

.

speaker at other meetings. General Pieree in his

olitieal career, has not done himself justice : for

is political arguments, and even his speeehes on

matters of legislation, have been left mostly to

take care of themselves. Henee it is that no full

report appears of so many of them. The canvass

on this occasion was spirited, and organized

efforts were made by the demoeratic leaders to

carry the question in favor of a revision, at the

polls. The democratic tickets for the use of the

whole State were printed, as usual, at the Patriot

office; and all were in favor of a convention, and

no others were printed for the use of democrats.

This was done by the advice of General Pierce.

As soon as this became known, the federal papers

raised a terrible outcry against this course, de-

nouncing it as, dictation, calling upon the people

to rebuke this attempt to influence and coerce

their votes by the Concord “ clique.” They cor-

rectly attributed this matter to General Pierce,

whom they characterized as a “ dictator.”
This circumstance shows how zealous General

Pierce was in action, as well as in s-peech, on this

test question. The same promptness and energy

appeared subsequently. He heartily approved of

the course pursued by the democratic journals,

in denouncing this test
;
he is seen in the Merri-

mac county convention, already quoted, bringing

in a resolution, denouncing this test
;
he approved

of the action of the democratic convention of

1849, in their resolution against it, and is seen

on the floor, when president of the convention

of 1850, speaking in favor of the abolition of it.

The mere skeleton of that able speeeh, in the

reporter’s words, only is given. A description
from one who heard it, represents it to have been

exceedingly eloquent and able, and to have been

strong and impassioned. This was no more than

his daily conversation. “I am a neighbor of
General Pieree,”— a letter dated Coneord, Aug.
6

,
1852, states, — “and can state, without fear of

contradiction, that he has never written or spoken

upon this subject, (and few men have written or

spoken more,) but to denounce in the strongest

terms, that provision in our constitution, adopted

in the last century. He has always urged an

amendment striking out that provision.”

The next action of General Pierce, which it

may be well to notice, was his speech in the dem-

ocratic caucus, in Concord, on the evening pre-
ceding the day when the proposed amendments
to the constitution were to be voted on. One
who heard him, states as follows: “General
Pierce came into the caucus, and made an elo-
quent speech upon the religious test question,
urging every democrat to come forward the next
day, and deposit his ballot in favor of abolishing
the test. No one who was present can soon for-
get his enthusiastic appeal to the democrats, to

rally on that vote. He then expressed his de-
termination to address his fellow citizens on this
subject, the next day in town meeting.”

On the next day, on Saturday, the citizens of
Concord voted on the question of accepting a
city charter, and on amendments of the constitu-
tion. The voting on the charter question,— Hon.
N. B. Baker, the moderator of this meeting,
says in an interesting letter,— “ was concluded at
a much earlier hour than was expected at the
opening of the meeting, on Saturday morning.

When General Pierce came into the town hall, in
the afternoon, three fourths of the votes given in

this town on the ‘ test ’ question, had been cast

His disappointment was evident. He asked the
consent of his fellow citizens to address them

upon the proposed amendments, and particularly

upon the ‘ test ’ amendment. This request was

granted, I think, by a unanimous vote, when he
proceeded in a speech which, for impassioned

eloquence and power, could scarcely be surpassed.
“ I cannot, of course, report his speech word

for word, but the points in his argument I well

recollect.

“
‘ Can it he possible,’ said he, ‘ that the people

of New Hampshire will vote to retain a feature
in its fundamental law, engrafted there, under

peculiar circumstances, repugnant to the plainest

ideas of justice and equality, repugnant to the

whole scope and tenor of the constitution, upon

which it stands as a fungus, dead, to be sure, but

still there, a blot and deformity, obnoxious in the

last degree to the spirit of the age in which we

live 1 How can we say that our land is the asy-
lum of the oppressed of other countries, when

we fail to extend over them the shield of equal

rights, and say to them. There is the panoply

under which, so far as the dearest and most sa-

cred of all rights, is concerned, you may shelter

yourselves ? I love and revere the faith of my
Protestant fathers

;
but does not Martin Lawler,

and his countrymen now near me, and who have

this day exercised the rights of freemen, revere

and cling to the faith of their fathers ? Are you

to tell them that they can vote for you, but are

to be excluded from the privilege of being voted

for? that while you tax them to tnaintain your

government, they shall not be eligible to posi-

tions that control taxation ? Shame upon such

a provision, while we boast of equal rights. I

hope this provision of our constitution receives

the deliberate reprobation of every man now in

this hall. But if I am mistaken in this, it is

due to the honor of the State, it is due to the

plainest dictates of justice, that whoever may

favor this test, should state the reasons upon

which he relies. For one, I never think of it



without a deep sense of regret, and, I may add,

of humiliation for my native State.”

Again, on the reassembling of the convention

in April, it was General Pierce and Judge Wood-

bury who succeeded in putting the amendments

again before the people, as we have already

stated.

So open, bold, and persistent has been the

course of General Pierce on this question, that

no one in New Hampshire, Avho has regard for

his reputation, can stand a moment on such

charges as demagogues make, in order to influ-

ence voters, where those reside who do not know

the facts of this case. One of the writers in the

Concord Statesman, (whig,) who is laboring hard

(June 19, 18.52,) to exculpate his whig brethren

from the charge of having opposed the abolition

of the test, says ;

“ I intended, but omitted to smj, that I did not

understand General Pierce to favor the retaining of

that illiberedfeature in the constitution, for I knew
HE WAS OPPOSED TO IT, AND HAD SPOKEN

AGAINST IT.”

Again, in the same article, it is said

;

“ It is due to General Pierce to say, that very near

the close of the voting upon that question in toion

meeting, he came in and urged all to vote in the

affirmative upon the test question:’’

There is quite enough in the article from which

these are taken, to show that the case was so

clear against him, that even the unscrupulous au-

thor of a dishonorable article judged it best, for

his own side, to mete out this piece of bare justice

to General Pierce. So '''• utterly unfoundedf \\x
the language of the Washington Eepulilic, (whig,)

is the charge.

But while at home, the political enemies of

General Pierce feel obliged to recant even an in-

timation of personal injustice done to him, his

Catholic fellow citizens, irrespective of party, do

not feel disposed to see a wanton and “ mali-

cious MISREPRESENTATION OP THE MAN,” with-
out rendering him that meed of justice which

truth Avarrants. Here is a full and beautiful

Catholic testimonial from the Homestead, signed

by Catholic citizens of Concord, and attested by

the respected Catholic pastor :—

Concord, N. H., Aug. 13, 1852.

To pJoHN White, Esq., Jlilwauhie, Wisconsin.
Dear Sir: — Understanding that an impres-

sion has obtained in Wisconsin to a considerable

extent, and especially among that portion of your
people that are Catholics, that General Franklin

Pierce, of this State, Avas unfriendly to Catholics,

as a religious sect, and that an attempt has been

made to hold him responsible for the odious reli-
gious test contained in the Constitution of this

State : the undersigned, Catholic citizens of Con-

cord, deem it our duty to say, that the Catholics
of this State, and of New England, and espe-
cially that portion of them that are of his politi-

cal opinions, entertain for him the highest respect

as a politician and a man. Especially do they

feel under great obligations to him for l)is power-

ful efforts in the convention, to expunge that

odious “ test ” from the Constitution of Neiv

Hampshire, and for his efforts before the people,

to have the amendment to the constitution adopt-

ed, Avhich provided for striking out the religioua

test.

Any impression of the kind indicated, does
General Pierce great injustice, and we regret that

for partisan purposes he has been thus misrepre-

sented. We send this to you, not for electioneer-
ing or partisan purposes, but as a simple act of

justice to one of the strongest opponents the

odious “test” has in Ncav Hampshire, and to

one of the most liberal and tolerant of its citi

zens.

We have been present in several meetings, and
at the last toAvn meeting, Avhen this proposed

amendment aa'us submitted to the people, and

have heard General Pierce address the people, in

favor of abolishing this “ test,” and any repre-

sentation that he is opposed to striking out that

“ test,” or that he has not exerted liimsclf to

have that “ test ” abolished, must proceed either

from profound ignorance, or malicious misrepre-

sentation of the man, his character and course,

in relation to this “ test ” question.

(Signed)

Christopher Hart,

Thomas McGrath,

Michael Darning,

Martin Lawler,

James Hart,

'William Connolly,

Thomas Mumford,

Thomas Murphey,

Eicharcl Wheelehan,

James Leahey,

Timothy Lynch,

Charles 0. Bryan,

OAA’^en Garland,

Martin Casey,

John Thompson,

John Murphey,

Thomas Thompson,

SdAvard Sullivan,

John Geenty,

Patrick Summers,

Michael McCabe,

D. Flynn,

Thomas Clark,

Patrick Mehan,

Luke Benson,

John Gallagher,

William Sheehan,

Michael hlurphy,

Barnard McDonald,

Barnard Callence,

John Lynch,

Barney Halpin,

Philip Halpin,

James McCone,

Eichard Lunird,

Patrick McCone.

I, the undersigned. Catholic pastor of Man-

chester and Concord, N. H., certify tliat the above

signed gentlemen are citizens of Concord, and

knoAV them to be citizens of good standing, and

Catholics
;
and, moreover, 1 fully concur with

the sentiments expressed in their statement of

facts, relative to the course of General Pierce.

(Signed)

WILLIAM McDonald,
Catholic Pastor.

May, 16, 1852.

That document speaks for itself. Wo can Avell
understand Iioav Martin Lawler, and honest

hearted men, Avho have seen General Pierce’s

efforts in this cause, and Avho heard his declara-

tion in tOAvn meeting: “I love and rea^ere
THE FAITH OF MY PrOTESTANT FATHERS

;
RUT

DOES NOT Martin Laavler and iiis country-
men NOAV NEAR ME, AND AVHO HAVE THIS DAY
EXERCISED THE RIGHTS OF FREEAIEN, REVERE

AND CLING TO THE FAITH OF THEIR FATHERS '?



18

Are you to tell them that they can tote
rOE YOU, BUT ARE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE
PRIVILEGE OF BEING VOTED FOR ? ”— We Can
understand how such men could not rest easy,

given the lie to this base charge,
and branded its authors, its circulators, and the
demagogues who have the meanness to use it, as
wanton calumniators, Avho are plaving the detes-
table game of falsehood and deceit! They are
guilty of stabbing the fair fame of an honest
and liberal minded statesman.

The Whig Charge in Whig Language.
Such are the facts which the records present,

as to the action of the Democratic Party and
^ Pierce, in relation to the religious

test, that the doubt may well arise, whether such
a charge as we have stated ever has been made;

bnM
authority pretends to

the democratic party or General
Pieice responsible for the continuance of the ex-

possibly, we may not have
manufactured it, in order to refute it 1 In order

'T “ from the
r^ ft Bdlletih, printed at New Oe-
a^d tn; ?fl-

Louisiana,
and the oBicial journal for publishing the United

Graham
ticxcet at the head of its columns. The paner of

}]' headed “ fe/!,

AnTS
Hampshire- General

mXl: ^ “f ‘he charge it
^ »

-u^

^9^inst the democratic party ;
^ frequently shown, by irrefragable

testimony, that the democratic party in ^New

anclJ'offh? ""r
responsible for the continu-

tnZf A
exclusion test in her consti-

tution. Any time within the last quarter of a
century, they could have blotted it out; and
whenever appealed to to do so, have uniformly re-
sponded unbivorably, by an overwhelmino- nef>-t

At the Tn
absolutely powerless’

fbJ the p
"

.f candidate

wluVL f ^ conclusive as to

There
^^^^^1 responsibility attaches.

There can be no mistake about it. It belono-s
exclusively to the democratic party, and they
mi^t and shall shoulder their own bantlino- ”

^

There is the libellous charge! Look” at its
grossness! Now nobody will deny that it re-

out thi,s exclusive test. Of course to have had

in

nm- V m fiT" i"^a“
the democratic

paity must have had the ability to have com-
manded this tivo thirds vote. But this thev have

voted
the

voted on, as an instance, (see p. 1.5,) and the
democrats wanted ten thousand votes of
being in a two thirds majority

!

Again
;
those hard arguments, figures, (see p

L>,j show how far the assertion is from being

true, that Ihe whips have been, and are notv, so

•Whv I-,’;" .7?’ “'•WuteV po/verllss.”hy, within this period there have been two fed-
eral governors, John Bell and Anthonv Colby*

democratic majorit/ was but
28 2

,
in i 84o, but 1600

;
and in 1846

,
the oppo-

lil

'

”
/^c^eeded

! f How much does this look

a V t 'O blot out, atany^time, the exclusion test?
abominable statements as these

whn n,l u thosewho utter such charges ?
The same whig organ, in the same reckless

IfieiS’-

^be charge against General

“We are among those who believe that Gene-
ral Iierces influence is almost absolute, with
the democratic party of his own State

;
therefore,

are corn meed, that he took no active steps in

Jnecl'h f

removal of the test. He made a
speech of about five minutes in length, in the
State ConvenHon against it. and that is all he

0 . He did not go forth amongst the people
and argue with them. He did not even talk to
h^ own town and country people— he made no
effort among his own neighbors, for both the
town and county of his residence voted in favor
of intolerance by the largest sort of majorities.
Ihese are indisputable facts, and, when calmly
considered, closely investigated, speak volumes.^’

Ibis charge, when ‘^closely investigated

f

docs
speak volumes ! Take it by piecemeal, applv
to It the touchstone of truth, and then say what
sort of volumes these are.

1. “ He,” General Pierce, it is said, “ took no
active steps m favor of the removal of the test.”
i^et the simple record answer this. ‘Was it not
an active step to canvass the State in 1844, in fa-
^or of a convention ? Was it not an active step
(seep. 16,) to procure the printing of votes in
that c;anvass

?
_

Was it not an active step to ob-
tain the organized voice of a county convention,
(see p. 5,) in favor of the removal? These
steps w^ere active ones, we take it, and they show
flow much of truth there is in this assertion.

2. “ A// he did do” was to riiake about a
fve minutes'’ ” .speech ! His convention speech was
long, elaborate, but only an outline is given •

but the record proves conclusively that this was
not all he did !

3. “ He did not go forth amongst the people and
argue with themf He did go forth and argue.
He argued by speech and pen years before ”the
18.50 convention, and after it, too. He aro-ued
frorn town to town in 1844

;
he argued, and”suc-

cessfully too, to induce the Merrimack conven-
tion in 1845 to declare against the test. Some
lying demagogue has deceived the Commercial
Bulletin !

fie did not even talk to his own town ana
county people.” Shame on such statements ! We
pre.t^ume the Commercial Bulletin, out of regard
to Its own reputation, would rather state truth
than downright falsehood

;
and to show the

giossness of the deception that has been passed



19

on it, we refer to the documents contained in this

paper proving; that General Pierce did talk to his

own people. There (p. 17) is the admission of

the fact by a Avhig; there (p. 16) is the testi-

mony of those who heard this speech; and there

(p. 16) is a sketch of the noble words he spoke !

It is not then true— there is not a shade of
truth in it— that General Pierce took no active
steps in favor of a removal of the test. The as-

sertion is a monstrous piece of injustice to an

honorable and hi^h minded man
;
and its circu-

lation is a disg;i'ace to the American Press. Ver-

ily the utter falsity of this charge does “ speak

volumes ”
;
and it ought to tingle Avith shame the

cheeks of those who still continue to utter it.

Bishop Hughes and Hew Hampshire.

Again, it is alleged that General Pierce AA’-as

born in New Hampshire and has liA^ed there all
his days

;
and that inasmuch as this State has

not repealed the test clause, that he ought to be

defeated in order to make her repeal it ! Is such

an argument as this Avorth a refutation ? Has it

come to this— admitting Ncav Hampshire to be
ever so intolerant a place to be born in — that a
man is to be punished on account of his birth
place ? Is this an argument to be addressed to

Americans or to men imbued with American
principles 1 Who cannot see that the principle
of such proscription would be fatal to every

champion of political or religious liberty ! What
can be more radically intolerant than this idea ?

What more impolitic and unjust ? This is ask-
ing the people, in this case, to proscribe one of

the most sincere and influential friends of reli-

gious freedom there is in America. Is it to be

tolerated that such a man is to be punished on
account of his birth place 1 What a miserable
argument this !

But while New Hampshire is justly accused in
being at war Avith the spirit of the age in retain-

ing this test, let justice be done her. Those who

haAm raised this hue and cry against her are not

Catholics. HoAA^ever much it may be a stigma on
her theoreticallg.^ yet theg knoAV that, in fact, this

test' exclusion has been practically inoperative.

Noav, has there been found in as wide a political

drag-net as ever Avas hauled, a single instance

where any one has been refused a seat in either ex-

ecutive or legislative branch of its government on

account of his having been a Catholic ? It has

been with this disqualification as it has been Avith

the property disqualification. Once it was sug-

gested, Geticral Pierce says in his speech, that,

as to this point, a member AA^as not qualified

;

but investigation might have vacated twenty

seats, and the matter was dropped. Just so in-

operative has been the Catholic test. The ques-

tion as to it never is asked. No man nor party
could stand an hour before public opinion even in

New Hamqjshire that would unseat a representa-
tive of the people on account of his religion.

Catholics well know this. Hence it is not Cath-
olics Avho have so recently set up the business

of abusing New Hampshire, but others of other

sects, or those Avhose Catholicism is of the Jonah’s

gourd cast. No loud and sudden outcry has been

raised by Catholics. Their feelings and views

are expressed by one who has a right to speak

for them; Ave mean the eminent Archbishop

Hughes. His Avorcls are : “ The disqual-
ifying CLAUSE IS, I SUPPOSE, A DEAD
LETTER

;
the Catholics of Neav Hamp-

shire MUST BE VERY FEAV. On THE AVHOLE,

I HAVE NO DOUBT BUT THAT THE LIBERAD

ITY OF THE COUNTRY AT LARGE HAS IMBUED

THE PEOPLE OF NeAV HAMPSHIRE WITH THE

KINDEST FEELINGS TOWARDS EVEN ROMAN
Catholics.” This remark is as discriminating

as it is just. It was in this spirit that Judge

Woodbury, a New Hampshire man, on a recent
interesting occasion, gave an opinion in favor of

the legality of the charter of the Catholic College.

But this is not all the justice that Bishop

Hughes renders to Neav Hampshire. In his
“ Catholic Chapter in the History of the

United States,” after quoting this admirable

provision in the Constitution of the United States,

“ Congress shall make no laaa^ on the sub-

ject OF religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof,” the Bishop says:
— “It

must be also said to her (Nev/- Hampshire)

credit, that sub aalvs one of the three

States who suggested to the framers of
the Constitution the a"ery clause avhich

I HAVE CITED, AND WHICH GUARANTIES
TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THIS WIDELY
EXTENDED UNION THE PERFECT AND
PERPETUAL EQUALITY OF RELIGIOUS
RIGHTS, AND FREEDOM OF CONSCI
ENCE. It is only to be regretted that after having

performed.^ at so early a period., the function of in-

dex., pointing out at the cross-ivays the true path in

ivhich her thirty sisters are now advancing peacefully

and prosperously, she should have continued station^

ary., and he found the last to practise what she had

been among the first to preach.'^ Widely different

language this from the Avholesale abuse that Scott

partisans, for partisan purposes, are pouring out

upon the hardy and industrious sons of the Gran-

ite State— the land of Stark and McClary, of
Weare and Langdon, of Woodbury and Webster.

The Democratic Party and Eeligions

Freedom.

In every point of view, this charge of intoler-

ance is absurd, unjust, and disgraceful. The

politicians who make it knoAv its dishonesty.

They know that the charge they bring against

General Pieree is ''utterly unfounded:'' They

knoAv that it has not a particle of truth to sub^

stantiate it. They know that he has opposed the

exclusion clause out and out. They know that no

man living is more opposed to it
;
for it is not less

contrary to the liberality of his sentiments than

it is to the generosity of his nature. And yet for

party purposes they continue to circulate it, in the

hope thereby to injure his chances of success.

Shame on the base fraud !

And tliis fraud is perpetrated, too, in the



vain hope of thereby prostrating the Democratic

party, whose foundation stone is that of equal

AND EXACT JUSTICE TO ALL MEN AND ALL SECTS.

It was in the spirit of this sentiment that Jef-

Ihrson, the author of the Religious Freedom
Declaration of Virginia, was elevated to tlie

Presidential chair; that the noble opposition was

made to the alien and sedition laws
;
and in it

that the Democratic party ever advocate equality

of political rights. It is on the broad foundation

of religious freedom which, in the words of Bishop

Hughes, New Hampshire was one of the States
to suggest, that democratic Presidents plant them-

selves. When did one of tliem ever ask what
religion a person wnas of who was proposed for

an office ? Let the fact that the good and learned

civilian, Roger B. Taney, a devoted Catholic,
is now, by the appointment of a Democratic Pres-

ident. adorning the place of Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court, give the answer to this question.

And it is not too strong to write, that the very
suggestion that Franklin Pierce would act in

a spirit of religious intolerance in making ap-

pointments— that he would ask -wlnat religion an
American citizen professed— Avould be a libel
on his reputation.

All that the friends of General Pierce need ask

is, that truth may find its way in the track of

FALSEHOOD, and the base charge, instead of in-

juring him^ will recoil with fearful effect on his

<iJanderers.

The Catlioh'e SarAt-lnieiit in relation to

the Whig Charge of Intolerance

against General Pierce.

The object of the Scott politicians in making

the charge of intolerance, at this time, against

General Pierce, is to obtain the Catholic vote. It

is an appeal to a sect in religion, to get its

members to vote a certain way in politics
;

it

is an appeal made to Catholics as distinguished

from their fellow citizens, in order to excite

their prejudices against the democratic candidate

and the democratic party
;

and this too, is at-

tempted to be supported by as bold, reckless,

dishonest falsifying of history as the annals of

politics can furnish. It is an interesting ques-

tion as to how this appeal, so insulting to the

intelligence, the patriotism and the Americanism

of Catholics, is received by them ? What is the ef-

fect which this unparalleled electioneering exper-

iment is producing on those to whom it is made 1
Perhaps there is no better way to answer this

question than by referring to the Catholic press

;

and it is for this purpose that the following ex-

tracts are made from Catholic journals, which

speak for themselves.

THE BOSTON PILOT

ofJuly 3, 1 8.52, has the following, entitled Frank-

lin Pierce :

—

“ We have already adverted to a calumny indus-
triously circulated by unscrupulous politicians,

to the effect that Gen. Pierce was opposed to the

amendment of the constitution of New Hamp-
shire securing equal rights to the Catholics of

that State. For- the benefit of our readers, demo-
crats and whigs, we will expose whatever trick
we find resorted to for the sake of catching the
“ Irish vote,” as it is called. We, in common
with several of our contemporaries, contradicted

this story.

“ Gen. Pierce was president of the convention,
called in 1850, for the revision of the constitu-

tion. The late Judge Woodbury made a speech
which we published a year ago. Gen. Pierce
left the chair, and supported the position of
Judge Woodbury. We elsewhere publish by
v/ay of advertisement, a long account of the

proceedings of the New Hampshire convention.
“ So that matter is set at rest. The convention

numbered about 260 members
;
only seven voted

in the negative. Yet when the doings of the
convention came before the people, at their town
meeting, they rejected all the proposed amend-
ments, and gave against that which concerned
Catholics a very large m.ajority. The conven-
tion, in fact, was unpopular. It met again in
April, 1851. Notwithstanding the popular vote

against the amendments, Judge Woodbury and
General Pierce succeeded in persuading the mem-
bers to submit once more an amendment to the
constitution, abolishing the anti-Catholic tests.

This came before the people, and they, for the
second time, and in despite of the influence of

Woodbury, Pierce, and other leaders, again re-
jected the proposed amendment by a decisive
vote. And so the matter rests now.

“ Our readers will perceive that Gen. Pierce was,
luckily, on the right side. If v/e hear of any

lies circulated about Gen. Scott, we will as freely
expose them.”

The Pilot of July 24, 1852. also, has the fol-
lowing, entitled Gen. Pierce. The Religious
Test :—
“We had given, as we supposed, sufficient evi-

dence that Gen. Pierce, inasmuch as he did all in

his power to cause the repeal of the article in

the New Hampshire constitution Avitli reference
to Catholics, is not at all responsible for the ac-

tion of the people of New Hampshire in refusing
to amend it. We observe, liowcvcr, in some of
the Scott journals a disposition to make the

most of this matter, and to excite Catholics

against Pierce. No use, gentlemen, no use. The
Catholic voters will go to the polls, not as Cath-

olics, but as American citizens. They will not

suffer appeals to he made to them which single

them out from the rest of the community, and

ask their suffrages for tliis man because he is
friendly to the Catholics, or against that man,

because he is opposed to them. We care not
whether a candidate he or he not friendly to us.

“ The general government can make no law re-

specting religious concerns. The question is,—
does the candidate uphold American principles ?

Is he a freesoiler, a radical, an interventionist,

a manifest destiny man ? — Then we will not vote
for him. Is he a conservative republican ? Then

he is the man.

“ We dislike to see this religious question



21

raised, as it is, on both sides. And our only-

object in alluding to it has beeij, to set the mat-

ter before our readers in its true light.— Neither
the whig nor the democratic party is friendly to

us. Catlmlics.

“ The partisan papers opposed to Pierce now

admit that be did make a speech against the

odious clause in the constitution. But they say

that his speech proves nothing, because he made

Oidy one in favor of New biampshire Catholic

cinaucipation, and because, while the democratic

party controlled that State, Gen. Pierce con-

trolled the party, and his influence was sufficient

to make any measure pass. Therefore, they con-

clude, I'.e is responsible for the failure of the

amendment.
“ This would be true enough, if Gen. Pierce, the

leader of the party in New Hampshire, really

controlled its votes. But every one knows that

although the influence of a party leader, partic-

ularly if he be as honorable and talented a man

as Gen. Pierce, is great among his men, yet it is

not omnipotent. He can persuade them to ap-

prove measures which are in general accordance

with their notions, even although they may be

slightly or incidentally distasteful to a great

riumber of the party. But he cannot drive them,

and he can very rarely persuade them to agree,

for a moment, to a course which is quite incon-

sistent with their habits of thought settled by

time, confirmed by prejudice, and maintained by

passion. This is the predicament in which Gen.

Pierce is placed.

“ He strove vigorously and honestly, not once,
but twice, to amend this stupid clause. And the
people twice refused to amend it. His influence,

great with them generally, was here uselessly

exerted.”

THE AMERICAN CELT,

Printed at Buffalo, of July 23, 1852, publishes

the following ;— General Pierce and the
Catholic Test.

“ We publish with pleasure the following note
from one of the most respectable Catholic citi-

zens in Bostou ;—
Boston, June 19, 1852.

T. D. McGee, Esq.

Dear sir : I presume it is wholly unnecessary

for me to call your attention to the fact of the

federal press having already made, as it were, a

simultaneous attack upon Gen. Franklin Pierce,

charging him with favoring the retention of the

Catholic disabilities clause in the Constitution of

the State of New Hampshire, Being a constant
and shrewd observer of passing events, you cannot

be ignorant of this truth. You know equally

well that the charge is as groundless and false

as the heart and head that conceived so base a

slander. Gen. Pierce was one of the two generous

spirits that conceived the idea, introduced into

the legislature the resolutions in favor of, and

succeeded in calling the late convention in that

State for the express purpose of eradicating the

odious religious test and property qualification

clauses from that instrument. The late respect-

ed Judge Woodbury, -who, together with Gen.

Pierce, did more than all others to call the at-

tention of the people to this subject, and who so

eloquently, with his voice and pen, advocated

the disinthralment of his Catholic fellow-citizens,

has been called by the will of God to his last

account. Requiescat in pace. Gen. Pierce stood

shoulder to shoulder with the Judge, advocating

and endorsing all that was said or done in be-

half of the glorious cause of equal rights— this
is uow history— and as the bigots and wily
politicians can make no show by charging him

with sinister motives in the bold and manly

course thus pursued, there then being no earthly

prospect of his ever again coming before the

people for their suffrages, they stifle all scruples,

and basely charge him with opposing the reform

so desirable in the constitution of that otherwise

glorious old State. What, then, is the duty of

Catholics who know that Gen. Pierce has freely

and unreservedly advocated their rights ? Shall

they not endeavor to place him in his true po-

sition., by spreading broadcast the truth ? or shall

they by their silence, now that his labor in their

behalf has been done, permit his enemies thus to

stigmatize him ? Never ! no, never let it be said

with truth that Catholics are ungrateful, where

an honest purpose is exhibited in their behalf.

Catholics, true and devoted at heart, can never

be ungrateful, nor can they well afford to be—
their enemies are numerous and ever watchful

for their discomfiture; while their true friends

outside of the church, are seldom, indeed too

seldom, to be found. Let us see to it, then, that

this matter is placed in its true light, so far as we

are able to do so. This is all that Gen. Pierce

can desire, or we as Catholics wish.

A Sincere Catholic.
“ In publishing the above letter, we, of coarse,

are not to be considered as in any way inter-

fering in the usual questions at issue between

whigs and democrats.

—

Editor American Celt.'’’

The same Journal, of July 31, 1852, contains

the following ;—
“ The Louisville Journal (whig) of the 22d

July, credits an extract from a Washington letter

signed ‘ Catliolicus,’ (arguing that Gen. Pierce

ought to be opposed because New Hampshire
retains the penal test) to ‘ the American Celt, a

democratic paper of Buffalo.’ The Journal will

be good enough to observe the definition of the

character of this paper upon the first page. It

is there intended to be ‘ Devoted to Catholic In-

terests and the service of the Irish in America.’

Beyond that it has no other vocation, and if a

passage which favors the Journal's candidates,

or their opponents’, finds its way through our

types to the world, it is only on the principle of
‘ fair play,’ and ‘ hearing both sides.’ We are
always ready to allow correspondents, in reason-

able and temperate terms, to state their dissent

from our editorial opinions. But we repeat that

we do not agree with those who hold Mr. Pierce

responsible for a remnant of colonial bigotry,

enacted before he was born, and which, more than

any man living, he has endeavored to remove from

the constitution of his State.

“We would as soon think of holding Arch-



22

Bishop Cullen responsible for Lord John Kus-

sell’s Durham letter, or the late Stockport riot.

Dr. Cullen lives under the Penal law and the

Proclamation so highly obnoxious to Catholics

in Ireland and England, but having done all in

his power to resist the injustice, what folly it

would be to hold him responsible for it ! This

is our conclusion, and so far as the Celt may be

foirly quoted at all in the case, it is only on this

side— the side of Truth and Justice, as we con-
ceive it to be.”

The same journal, August 21, 1852, says :—
The Catholic press, as far as we know, have

unanimously declined to take sides in the present

Presidential contest. With equal unanimity they

have interposed their veto upon a Bill of Indict-

ment prefeiTed on religious grounds, against one

candidate, by the partisans of the other. This

they were bound in conscience and honor to do.

The indictment was laid in their name^ and main-

tained nominally on their account^ so that for them

10 be silent, would be making themselves parties

to a gross injustice, perpetrated by unauthorized

journals, in the falsely assumed name of the

Catholic community. Mr, Pierce’s speech in the

Concord Convention, in June, 1850, and his con-

sistent action in his own state, (it is detailed at
Sengtii in the last Boston Pilot,) entitle him to

this justice at our hands. If the Evening Journal

and its allies had not laid the impeachment against

liiin, they may be sure the Catholic press would not
liave brought forward, so fully, the real facts of a

case, which is ours as well as his. So long as they

use falsehood and misrepresentation, in the name
of the Catholics, they cannot expect us to give the

tacit sanction of our silence to such a base elec-

tioneering artifice.”

THE NEW YORK TRUTH TELLER,

A leading Catholic journal of New York City,
says:— •
“Mr. Pierce, it is universally conceded, pos-

sesses all the requisite qualifications to adminis-

ter the alFairs of government with credit and

ability. We are assured by those who have
known him long and well, that a more liberal,
high toned, true republican does not live. On
the question of the ‘ Catholic test,’ which has

ever been a bone of contention in New Hamp-
shire, Mr. Pierce has been faithfully and zeal-

ously arrayed in just opposition to the stain upon

the laws of that State, and although unsuccess-

ful in his efforts to have it expunged, he is never-

theless fully entitled to the gratitude of every

liberal mind for his exertions in the matter.”

THE IRISH AMERICAN,

Aug. 21, 1852, has the following remarks:—
“ In national matters difference of creed is never

thouglit of. If religious exclusion or persecution

for conscience sake be practised in any executive

department— the anny or navy, &c.— it is trea-
son against the principles of the general govern-

ment, and should be punished as it deserves.

Therefore, the idea of taking exception to a Pres-

idential candidate because he happen to be born

in a ‘bigoted State’ is the purest nonsense.

Suppose for argument sake, that Franklin Pierce

were an arrant bigot and an anti-Catliolic (which

we believe he is not) \iadare not, if elected Presi-

dent, show or practise his bigotry. This Mr. Kob-

inson and the Whig party well know
;
and yet they

play the ‘ Catholic ’ card— their knave of trumps
— for a half million Irish American votes.

“ But each separate State has its OAvn Legisla-

ture, its Constitution, and its Government
;
and

when New Hampshire was framing its Constitu-
tion it admitted the black spot of senseless bigot-

ry into its framework, which excluded Homan
Catholics from certain offices. Very well

;
sev-

eral attempts were made to expunge this black
spot, to wipe out this scandal from the New
Hampshire Constitution. Mr. Robinson con-

tends that Mr. Pierce did not act as warmly and

strongly in favor of this removal as he should

have done
;
and that, therefore, Roman Catho-

lics should not vote for him. He asserts that the
Democratic party in the State were able to ex-

punge the blot, but did not
;
and that, therefore,

the Democratic party do not deserve the votes

of Roman Catholics. This is the whole gist of
his position.

“ But it appears from the correspondence wa
publish to-day, and from other sources of infor

mation, that Franklin Pierce used every means

in his power to effectuate this object ; and that

the charge made against him, on this head, must

fall to the ground.^’’

THE CATHOLIC MIRROR,

Of June 23, 1852, printed in Baltimore, in

publishing the speeches of Judge Woodbury and

General Pierce, on the religious test question,

accompanies them with the following remarks,

entitled. General Pierce and the Relig-
ious Test :—
“We give below a report of the proceedings

of the convention, for the revision of the consti-

tution of New Hampshire. This report unequiv-
ocally proves that General Pierce exerted his

influence to have the “ Religious Test ” stricken

out from the constitution of his native State.

The charge of supporting the continuance of the

offensive clause, has been brought against General

Pierce, not from a love of Catholics, but by a set

of politicians, who care but little Avhat slander

they retail, provided it gains votes for the party.

We publish this record to show that the cause of
Catholicity must not be dragged into the politi-

cal arena, to prevent men from giving him their
support on that ground. Were Ave to decline

publishing this proof, we Avould be aiding the

false charge. The Wirror has no political pref-

erences
;
hence, it cannot, by its silence, sanction

a falsehood of the nature of the one noAV under

consideration.”

In the same number of the same paper, Ave find

the folloAving :—
“ General Pierce. — We haA^e seen a letter

from General Pierce, Avritten to a gentleman of

this city, in Avhich he speaks of the charge brought

against him, of aiding the retention of the ‘ re-

ligious test,’ in the constitution of New Hamp-
shire. We have been permitted to make the fol-
loAving extract in reference to that charge. He says;



23

“
‘ No charge could be more groundless than

this— my course, from the first mopaent I en-
tered public life, has been directly the opposite

of that alleged. If the falsehood has not already

received its appropriate brand, it will in due sea-

son.’
”

Finally, as a clincher to all this contemptible

appeal of the unscrupulous demagogues, as to

General Pierce’s being opposed to Catholic inter-

ests, his being obnoxious to Catholic voters, and

their electioneering experiment upon Catholics,

in the hope to get their votes, by disseminating

the grossest falsehood, we extract the following

scathing article from the

NEW YORK FREEMAN’S JOURNAL AND
CATHOLIC REGISTER,

of August 7, 1852, entitled The Catholic
Vote.

“•The anxious and ridiculous manoeuvres of

some of the partisan papers, to catch Catholic

votes for their respective candidates, would be a

subject for indignation, were they not so absurdly

impotent. As it is, they afford us only an occa-

sion for mirth. To see the hirelings of the party
press racking their weak brains, in an effort to

direct a body of men who are guided by princi-

ples which the hirelings cannot understand, and

who are, to say the very least, as intelligent and

as independent voters as those of any other reli-

gion in this land, is a droll and an amusing spec-

tacle. If we thought that there were among

Catholics any class, or any considerable or avail-

able number, who are so blind, so ignorant, or

stupid, as to be led by the worthless fellows who,

in some of the papers, write nonsense of one or

of the other, of the presidential candidates, set-

ting forth his pretended claims upon Catholics, as

distinguished from their fellow eitizens, we would

blush for men so entirely unworthy of the church
to which they belong. But, as it is, we are well

aware that the entire and only effect of these

newspaper writers, who sign themselves Catho-
lies, so far as they produce any influence at all,

is to disgust those whom they seek to win, and
to cause them to look with contempt and aver-

sion at once on the knaves who thus insult them,
and on the papers that publish in their columns,

(if they do not in their own offices manufacture,)
such inane and dishonest letters of pretended

Catholics. If there w^ere any question pending,

either as to principles or as to men, that required

a word to be said to Catholics, as distinguished from

other citizens, there are vigilant organs of Catho-

lic opinion and sentiment, that would be very

quick to speak out. Or if any Catholic, possessing
enough of character as a Catholic, or enough of
brains as a man, to be entitled to speak to his

fellow Catholics, should choose to write in polit-

ical party papers on such a subject, it is certain

he would either sign his own name to his articles,
or would seek for an endorser of his standing,

some one known as a Catholic, and not the
faithless, truthless slanderers and deceivers that

conduct the papers wherein these dishonest ap-

peals are chiefly published. When intelligent

Catholics see such letters as we refer to, they well
understand from them one of two things

;
either

that the writers are Protestants, who labor under
the delusion of supposing that Catholics have no

common sense to see through such artifices, or
that they are Catholic underlings of Protestant

employers, who know that what they write will
be looked at with contempt by Catholics, but who
pretend to their more gullible employers, that

they are doing service worthy of a recompense.”

These extracts from independent Catholic

journals, who are not partisan in politics, pretty
fully answer the question put at the commence-

ment of this portion of this paper. The Catho-
lics, as a body, scout this sectarian appeal, and

pour on its authors that scorn and contempt

they so richly deserve.

Recapitulation.

We have presented, from authorities that can*
not be successfully impugned, as they consist

mostly of contemporary records, facts as to

the action of the democracy of New Hampshire
and of General Pierce, in relation to the exclu-

sion tests in the constitution of this state. The
whig charge, in its modified shape, and in whig

language, in relation to the former, is, that it

is “a/oae responsible'' for its continuance; that

this “ odious responsibility
"

belongs exclusively

to the democratic party
;

and, as to General

Pierce, that he “ took no active steps in favor of its

removal^' It is submitted, these indisputable

FACTS make nothing less than Waterloo havoc

with these whig allegations. At the samo
time another order offacts shows as conclusively

the responsibility that attaches to the whigs of

New Hampshire for their course in relation to
revisions of the constitution. These facts prove —

-

That the exclusion clauses in the New Hamp-
shire constitution were put into it in 1784, be-

fore parties had formed, and wei’e retained in

it in 1792, when the federal or whig party was

in power
;
and that to expunge them it requires

that a convention be called, and that a vote of

two thirds of the people should accept the amend-

ments it proposes, while it is made a duty of tho

people to vote on the question of calling a con •

vention every seven years

:

That the democratic journals have de-

nounced these exclusion clauses as contrary to eve-

ry principle of reason, justice, and common
sense

;
and constantly advocated a revision of

the constitution

:

That the leading democratic politicians

have taken the same course in their political

speeches
;
and instances are specified where they

have, in political meetings, gone from town to

town advocating a convention

;

That Democratic County and State Con-
ventions have, in formal resolutions, unquali

FiEDLY repudiated THESE CLAUSES, and de-

clared IN favor of a revision of the Constitution .

and these resolutions are quoted :

That so united was thought to be democratia

public opinion against them, and so thoroughly



24

was it in favor of a revision of the Constitution,
that its leading organ, the N. H. Patriot, Oct.

17, 1844, declared that the universal sense
OP THE Democratic party was against
THEM

;
and asserted, Oct. 31, 1844, that it could

say, WITH TRUTH, THERE WAS NOTONE INTEL-
LIGENT MEMBER OP THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
WHO WAS NOT IN PAVOR OP A REVISION OP
THE constitution:

^

That in the Convention of 1850, called to re-
vise the Constitution, Judge Woodbury and Gen-
eral Pierce made speeches against this test: and
in a second session, after the amendments had
been rejected, that they succeeded in getting the
question submitted, together with another ques-
tion, to the people

:

That in all these movements General Pierce
actively participated: that in the canvass of 1844
he went from town to town urging a revision of
the Constitution, and that year was denounced
BY THE Whigs because he advised all the Demo-
cratic votes to be printed in favor of a call for a
Convention

: that in 1845, he, with others, in a
Democratic convention, reported a resolution,
which passed, repudiating the test: that in
1850 he labored in the Convention, in both ses-
sions, to repeal it : that in the caucus of the Dem-
ocrats, at Concord, and in town meeting in Con-
cord, he made speeches in favor of blotting out the
test : that he has uniformly, by pen and speech,
denounced it as a stigma on the State:

^

That the Whig assertion, that the Democrat-
ic party could every seven years have repealed
this test ^'for the last sixty years^' or “ at any time
the last quarter ofa century,^' is an enormous false-
hood

;
for facts show that it was not until the

sixth septennial period, or 1829, that the Demo-
crats got a permanent mcybj’fty ascendency: that
within twenty-five years there have been two
Whig Governors: that in 1838 their maioritv
was but 2800, in 1843 but 1600, and in 1846
^g'vvere IN A minority, and that, in a contest,
they never have piad the two
thirds vote required to alter the Constitution

;

and that, at the only period when amend-
ments to the Constitution have been voted on
since 1792, that is, on the amendments of 1850,

THE Democratic party lacked ten th-6i
SAND VOTES OF HAVING TWO THIRDS :
That whig editorials during the canvass ol

1844, previous to the convention of 1850, durino
the sittings of the first session of that convention
and at its second session— all which are quoted
3.nd the d<it6s of whicli arG given— either were in
OPPOSITION to the call of a convention, or threat-
ened that if amendments approved by them wei^
not adopted, opposition would be made to all
AMENDMENTS, or cndcavored to array the preju-
dices of the people against the convention and
Its amendments, on the ground that of its forty
THOUSAND DOLLARS EXPENSE, and, forsooth, be-
cause the convention chose to pass a series op
COMPROMISE RESOLUTIONS INTRODUCED BY
General Pierce. There is the language of the
whig editorials, and it speaks for itself. All this
shows CONCLUSIVELY that while the democratic
party, in all the various ways it could, was de-
nouncincj the tests, and urging a convention, thQ Whig
party was endeavoring to turn democratic action
to PARTY account. There is the record, and its
force cannot be avoided. The inference is a just
and a fair one— had the whig organs foro'ot
party, the tests would have been abolished !

Such is the conclusiveness with which the dem-
ocratic party and General Pierce can be vindi-
cated from this charge of intolerance, and such is
the position of the party that makes this charge!
But, setting all this aside, is it too much to invoke
the candid and the patriotic, of all parties, to
brand this business as di.sgraceful to those who
engage in it

;
and to denounce this special appeal

to a sect in religion, in order to get its
MEMBERS TO VOTE A CERTAIN WAY IN POLITICS,
as a gross violation of the spirit of our institu-

tions, and a wanton insult alike to the intelligence
and patriotism of American citizens ? This
desperate and unparalleled electioneering experi-
ment, for many reasons, deserves a disgraceful
defeat.

Again we ask : As truth makes its way in
the track of falsehood, will not the base
charge, instead of injuring General Pierce or

the democratie party, recoil with fearful effect on
those who utter it %

t