A LETTER
TO
HON. N. G. FOSTER,
Candidate for Congress in the 7th Congressional District of Ga.
In reply to a Speech delivered
BY HIM
against the Democratic Party, and in favor of the
doctrines of the Know-Nothings,
ijs eatonton,
ON THURSDAY, 16th AUGUST, 1855,
BY J. A. TURNER.
"A majority of them, [foreigners,] has acted with the Democratic Party so
called, whose general policy has been opposition to the Maine Liquor Law,
and subservience to slavery—National Era.
"The honest, patient and industrious German readily unites with our peo¬
ple always ready to fly to the standard of his adopted country, or of its
laws, when called by the duties of patriotism. The gay, the versatile, the
philosophic Frenchman incorporates himself without difficulty into our
society. But of all foreigners, none amalgamate themselves so quickly with
our people, as the natives of the Emerald Isle."—Henry Clay.
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust."—Constitution United States.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."—lb.
"No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on ac¬
count of his religious principle."—Constitution of Georgia.
When Mr. Jefferson died he desired that no eulogy should be engraved on
the marble which should cover him but the words "Here lies the author of the
Declaration of Independence and of the act for establishing religious freedom
in Virginia."
federal union power press,
milledgeville, ga.
1855.
EMORY UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
A LETTER
TO
HON. N. G. FOSTER,
Candidate for Congress in the 7th Congressional District op Ga.
In reply to a Speech delivered
BY HIM
against the democratic party, and in favor of thb
doctrines of the know-nothings,
IN EATONTON,
ON THURSDAY, 16th AUGUST, 1855,
BY J. A. TURNER.
"A majority of them, [foreigners,] has acted with the Democratic Party bo
called, whose general policy has been opposition to the Maine Liquor Law,
and subservience to slavery—National Era.
"The honest, patient and industrious German readily unites with our peo¬
ple always ready to fly to the standard of his adopted country, or of its
laws, when called by the .duties of patriotism. The gay, the versatile, the
philosophic Frenchman incorporates himself without difficulty into our
society. But of all foreigners, none amalgamate themselves so quickly with
our people as the natives of the Emerald Isle."—Henry Clay.
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust."—Constitution United States.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."—lb.
"No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on ac¬
count of his religious principle."—Constitution of Georgia.
When Mr. Jefferson died he desired that no eulogy should be engraved on
the marble which should cover him but the words "Here lies the author of the
Declaration of Independence and of the act for establishing religious freedom
in Virginia."
federal union power press,
milledgeville, ga.
1855.
EATONTON, Aug. 18, 1855.
Hon. N. G. Foster:
Dear Sir:— *
When you delivered your speech in this place on the
16th inst., in favor of the views of the Know-Nothings, I was
an attentive listener and an honest inquirer alter truth. I
was determined that if you could demonstrate the necessity
for such a party as that whose tenets you hold, I would re¬
nounce my allegiance to the Democratic party, and join yours.
Your fail ure to support your positions was most signal, and,
to those who differ with you, most triumphant. And yet I
must confess that, as is usual with you, when determined to
make out your case, you evinced much plausibility—far more
ingenuity, I apprehend, than ingenuousness. I am forced
to this conclusion because I would not pay your mind so
poor a compliment as to believe that you are really, in some
of the positions you assumed, convinced by your own ar¬
gument. Those positions, I take it, were more the effect of
volition than of reason. Your will, 1 have no doubt, said "Let
there be conviction," and there was conviction—in your
own mind.
Your speech, being a plausible one, was calculated to mis¬
lead. Believing, as I do, that your doctrines involve a war
upon the principles of the Declaration of Independence, of
the State and Federal Constitutions, of a republican form of
government, and therefore of civil and religious liberty, you
will not be surprised at my pointing out the fallacies with
which you entertained the people of Putnam County on the
occasion to which I refer. I have long since declared war
against error in whatever shape it may present itself. Ican-
not suffer it to cross over into my baliwick in its most perni¬
cious form—that of religious intolerance, without breaking a
lance with it. I know this to be the most formidable shape
in which it could be presented, and the hardest to combat.
But no true knight ever turned bis back upon an enem}r, be¬
cause it was a powerful one. Religious toleration is the
corner stone of our political edifice. You can't destroy that
without pulling down the whole superstructure. My fore¬
fathers have delivered to me the constitution pure and in¬
tact. I should feel remiss in my duty if I did not lend my
feeble aid in handing down this boon to those who are to
come after me. What I say to you shall therefore be utter¬
ed in a spirit of candor, but not by any means, I hope, in
discourtesy. And if I should misstate any of your positions,
4
it will not be intentionally done, but through mistake; and I
will gladly correct, over my own name, any injustice I may
unwittingly do you. And I appear over my own name,
now, because I prefer an open field, and a lair fight.
The first position that you assumed was that the two old
parties had become corrupt, and unable to administer the
government. You then went on to say a good many things
good, bad and indifferent in themselves, to show that the old
Whig and Democratic parties were bad affairs, and as they
were, in your view, unable to administer the government,
therefore a necessity for some party which was able to
do so, and hence your Know-Nothing organization. What
you said about the old Whig party I am very willing to ad¬
mit, for we Democrats have all along contended that that
party was not ibe properorganization to administer the govern¬
ment, and with very slight exceptions the opponents of'Dem-
ocracy have generally, since the foundation of the govern¬
ment, been relieved of the burden of attending to that duty.
And this I am constrained to believe is the reason that the
same old foe of the Democracy, under another name, now
wages such a relentless warfare against the party which has
kept it out of power. Had you succeeded in electing Gen¬
eral Scott President in 1852, and the Whig party had gotten
and held control of the government, I think it altogether im¬
probable, my dear Colonel, that you would now be deliver¬
ing the funeral oration of your old party, and saying all man¬
ner of bad things against the <Jead.
You were a Scott Elector three years ago, and I do not
recollect that you then declared the Whig party incapable
of administering the government. On the contrary, my re¬
collection is that you then pronounced it just the idea—noth¬
ing like the Whig party. And as I have already said, could
you have induced the people at that time to adopt your
views, we would now hear nothing from you about what a
bad thing the old Whig party was. But you failed to convince
us of the correctness ofyour position three years ago, and I am
of the opinion that you will fail again to indu ce the people of
Georgia to go with you in 1855.
I am at a loss to know how you can consi stently say that
the Whig party was corrupt, recollecting what you told us
when you were a Scott Elector. Mr. Stephens pronounced
your party effete, and the great Webster said it was dead.
But you, and Scott, and Seward held different opinions. And
if the Whig party, three years ago, was such a glorious
thing, what has occurred, since then, to render it so corrupt
and odious? It is generally supposed that affliction has a
5
tendency to purify and refine. Had your old party gained
power when you were striving to elect Scott, and had it been
pampered in the halls of legislation, and grown fat on the
pap from the public treasury, then I might be prepared to
admit that your old Whig party, which you prouoounced so
pure three years ago, had incontinently become, within that
short space of lime, quite wicked and corrupt. But. I atrial
a loss to know how it should lose all its excellence du¬
ring the season of adversity through which it has passed.
But the truth is, it was just as the Democrats told you in
1852: It was just as Mr. Stephens and Mr, Webster told
you, at that time: The Whig party was then, even, in its
death agony. And hence lean very readily admit that part
of your proposition which pronounces the Whig party inca¬
pable of administering the government. It is what your op¬
ponents have told you all your life. And hence I must con¬
gratulate you that you have at last opened your mind to re¬
ceive light. The ouly difficulty is now that you see too
much. You think you see that the Democratic party, as
well as the Whig, is corrupt, and incapable of administering
the government. Hence you take it upon yourself to pro¬
nounce the funeral of m}'- party as well as yours. You can be
relieved of that trouble. The"Democratic party is not dead,
nor even sleepeth. It is in the hands of its friends, and is
doing very well—was never better. Hence that charity
which induces you to oflvr your services in attending to
its sanitary condition, can be more profitably laid out at
home.
In your efforts to make out the Democratic party in as bad
a condition as the Whig, you remind me of a man whose house
lias caught fire and burned down, and who approaches his
neighbor and tells him that his own building must also beset
on flames, so that they two may be able to condole together,
and set out anew, and with an even start in the world. Your
talk amounts to about this: You say to Democrats, "Come,
now, the old Whig party is destroyed. Let us also demol¬
ish the Democratic party, and all take stock in the Know-
Nothing concern." I must reply, "Not so fast, ne':ghbor !
The Democratic party has administered this government for
nearly half a century. Under this administration a great
Empire has sprung up, almost as if by magic, and by the
blessing of God, it will not disband to please its opponents."
You first asked us, Colonel—you and your friends—to dis¬
band and join the Know-Nothing party. That was when
your Northern brethren, seizing upon the unpopularity of
Democrats in that section, on account ofhaving done the South
6
justice, were sweeping every thing like an avalanche before
them. It was then that your parly, "lowering in its pride of
place," haughtily demanded the surrender of ihe Democratic
fortress, South as well as Norlh. But when Virginia inter¬
posed the barrier of a majority often thousand patriotic bo¬
soms between the fiery billows of this new fanaticism, and the
South and Henry A. Wise placed his heel upon the neck of this
vaunting •'Sam" who had trodden down every thing in his
course, it was then that we heard of the "Columbus move¬
ment." your party tired o(party, ceased its roaring, began to
coo as quietly as a sucking dove, and did not any longer demand
a surrender to Know-Nothingism, but entreated a union of the
Democracy with a movement of the "peo^e." Failing in
this ruse, you now renew your attack upon the Sebastopol of
Democracy, and endeavor to take by storm what you failed
to take by stratagem. I predict that "not yet taken" will
for some time head the dispatches from those who have com¬
passed Democracy round about.
Asa proofof the unsoundness of Democracy, and its inabil¬
ity toadminister the government, you cite the administration
of .General Pierce, especially his appointing policy. Now,
while it is very well known that I have never considered a
portion of the appointments ofGen. Pierce, as "wise, liberal
and just," and while party orthodoxy does not require me to
consider them so. yet I have no hesitancy in saying that the
President was actuated by the purest motives, and governed
by the most honest, and best judgment ofhimself and others,
in making those obnoxious appointments. But this was
merely a personal matter between himself and members of
the party who elected him. Some who have been Free-
Soilers he has appointed to office it is true. But I defy
you or any other man, to point out a single instance in which
he has been faithless to the Constitution, or has suffered any
one of his appointees to be so, with impunity. You know
that President Pierce has been just and faith ful to theconsti-
tutional guarantees which give safety and protection to the
South. And you know very well that for being so, the hordes
of abolitionism at the North have united with your Know-
Nothing brethren in that section to strike down his adminis¬
tration. And while you are denouncing that administration
in the South, your brother Know-Nothings, Hale, Durkee.
Trumbull and Wilson give back the echo from the land of
Free-Soilism. And your brother Theodore Parker in the
use of a very bold figure of speech to express his approval of
the principles of you«f party, and his opposition to the policy
of the President, says that "Know-Nothingism has clenched in
7
a single fist, the whole anti-slavery feeling of the North, and
smote it with stunning strength in the face of the pro-slavery
administration of President Pierce."
But aside from the mistaken policy i» making some of his
appointments, what fault have you to find with Gen. Pierce?
What fault have you to find wiih even his chief appointments?
In forming his cabinet, he called around him men from the
North, South, East and West—men who are in favor of a
continuance of this Union based upon the Constitution, and
who are objects of special hatred to the abolitionists, the
worst enemies the country has. Three of these men are
Southern slave-holders, while Mason, Jackson and formerly
Soule, all Southern men, represented us at three of the most
important Courts of Europe. Judge Campbell, an ultra
Stales Rights man, has been appointed by the Executive to
one of the highest judicial stations. And who will complain
of the President, for sending Buchanan to the Court of St.
James, or Dodge to the Court ot Madrid? Do you with
your brother in the bonds of Know-Nothingism, Rayner of
North Carolina, denounce the President for signing the Ne¬
braska and Kansas bill? Do you pronounce that act which
took off the badge of degradation from the South—an act
passed in conformity with the Compromise measures of 1850,
which you and I so much lauded—an "an outrage upon-the
North?" Do you blame President Pierce for ordering the
enforcement of the fugitive slave law at the point of the bayo¬
net during the Burns riot?—when your Know-Nothing broth¬
er, Theodore Parker, instigated the mob to take away the
life of Batchelder?—that naturalized Irishman who shed
the last drop of his heart's blood to secure the rights of your
section, while you were pieparing to trample upon his
grave ?
Do you find fault with the President for vetoing those bills
'designed to plunder the public treasur}7, in conformity with
the principles which have always been held by Southern re¬
publicans? Do you blame Gen. Pierce for putting down the
armed bands of Filibusters who sought to leave our shores
in violation of treaty stipulations? Have you forgotten that
Governor Troup, the political oracle of Georgia, has said that
"the present is in truth, the least exceptional of all the ad¬
ministrations we have ever had, Gen. Washington's, and Mr.
Jefferson's, and Mr. Polk's not excepted?" I hope you will
see that you must give some other example than Pierce's ad¬
ministration, to prove that the Democratic party cannot ad¬
minister the government.
After you had proven, no doubt to your own satisfaction,
8
that the Democratic party, as well as the Whig party, was
unsound and disbanded, you next set out to show that the
Know-Nothing organization was a very pure party. Now,
1 ask, how can this be so? You admit, of course, that 3'our
new party is made up mostly of the material of the old Whig
party. The members of that organization mainly go to
make up what you mis-call the "American party." How
can you construct a sound organization out of rotten material?
When did you discover that the whole, made up of
parts identical in their nature, is different in the concrete
from what it was in its component parts? It will not do to
say that your organization in the North has gained a consid¬
erable number ofFree-SoiI Democrats: For these, being the
unsound members of one party, will remain unsound when
they attach themselves to a new organization. 1 must say,
in general terms, then, that according to your own showing,
it is impossible for the Know-Nothing organization to be a
pure party.
But you seek to demonstrate'its purity in spite of yourself.
Let us see how you doit. You very truly say that one ele¬
ment of impurity in the two old parties, was the slavery is¬
sue. You say that the Know-Nothings have purged them¬
selves of that impurity, and (hat in this regard they stand far
superior to the old Whig and Democratic parties. Admitting,
for the sake of argument, that the Know-Nothing party is a na¬
tional one, and is not two separate and distinct sectional wings,
so tar as the slavery issue is concerned, let us compare the tim¬
bers in your so-called national platform, which bear upon this
question, with those touching the same issue in the national
Democratic and Whig platforms, and I think you will be, or
ought to be, forced to admit that your Know-Nothing plat¬
form is not only not purer than, but not so pure as the plat-
forms of the two old parties on the "paramount question of
the day." In Corollary 2d, of article 4ih of your platform,"
you speak of a "tender and sacred regard for those acts of
Statesmanship which are to be contradistinguished from acts
of ordinary legislation, by the fact of their being of I he na¬
ture of compacts or agreements; and so to be considered a
fixed and settled national policy." In this I understand you
to be pandering to that abolition influence at the North which
called the Missouri restriction a "compact," and which ac¬
cuses the South of a violation of faith in its repeal, it being
also denounced by one of your leading Know-Nothings -South
as "an outrage upon the North."
But again: In your 6th article you declare yourself in
favor of the repeal by Congress of the Nebraska and Kan-
9
sas bills. For one of your principles in that article is "the
repeal, without retro-active operation, of all acts of Con¬
gress making grants oflancl to unnaturalized foreigners, and
allowing them to vote in the Territories." Now the Nebras¬
ka and Kansas bills contain the provisions whose re¬
peal }rou seek, and hence you are in favor of the repeal of
these acts.
In the 12th article of your platform, you speak of the "ob¬
noxious acts and violated pledges of the Whig and Demo¬
cratic parties"—evidently adopting the epithets bestowed by
abolitionists upon the fugitive slave law, and the repeal of
the Missouri degradation.
You also speak, in the 3rd article, of "the maintenance of
these United States as the paramount political good"—
paramount, I suppose you mean, even to the existence of
slavery.
Speaking of the question of slavery, you also farther say,
in the 12th article:—
"And regarding it their highest duty to avow tlieir opinions up¬
on a subject so important, in distinct and unequivocal terms, it
is hereby declared the sense of this National Council, that Con¬
gress possesses no power under the Constitution to legislate upon
the subject of slavery in the States where it does or may exist,
or to exclude any State from admission into the Union because
its Constitution does or does not recognize the institution of sla¬
very as a part of its social system; and expressly pretermiting
any expression of opinion upon the power of Congress to estab¬
lish or prohibit slavery in any Territory, it is the sense of the Na¬
tional Council that Congress ought net to legislate upon the sub¬
ject of slavery within the Territories of the United States, and
that any interference by Congress with slavery as it exists in the
District of Columbia, would be a violation of the spirit and inten¬
tion of the compact by which the State of Maryland ceded
the District to the United States, and a breach of the national
faith."
Such is the record of your National Know-Nothing party
on the subject of slavery. The Democratic and Whig
Baltimore Platforms of 1852, read thus on the subject of
slavery:—
DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL PLATFORM.
"9. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to in¬
terfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several
States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of
everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by
the constitution; and that the efforts of Abolitionists and all others
made to induce Congress to interfere with the question of slavery,
or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead
10
to tlie most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that*all
such, efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happi¬
ness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of
the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of
our political institutions.
Resolved, That the foregoing proposition covers and was in¬
tended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitated in Con¬
gress, and therefore the Democratic party of the Union, standing
upon this national platform, will abide by and adhere to the
faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures,
settled by the last Congress—the act for the reclaiming of fugi¬
tives from service or labor included^ which act, being designed to
carry out an express provision of the constitution, cannot with fi¬
delity thereto, be repealed or changed so as to destroy or impair its
efficiency.
Resolved, Thgit the Democratic party will resist all attempts at
renewing in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery
question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be
made.
WHIG NATIONAL PLATFORM.
8. The series of acts ofthe 31st Congress, commonly known as
the Compromise adjustment, (the act for the recovery of fugitives
from labor included,) are received and acquiesced in by the Whigs
of the United States as a final settlement, in principle and sub¬
stance, of the subjects to which they relate; and so far as these acts
are concerned, we will maintain them, and insist on their strict
enforcement, until time and experience shall demonstrate the ne¬
cessity of legislation to guard against the evasion of the laws on
the one hand, and the abuse of their powers on the other—not
impairing their present efficiency to carry out the requirements of
the constitution; and we deprecate all further agitation of the
questions thus settled, as dangerous to our peace, and will dis¬
countenance all efforts to continue or renew such agitation, when¬
ever, wherever, or however made—and we Tfcill lhaintain this
settlement as essential to the nationality of the Whig party, and
the integrity of the Union."
So you see that while your Know-Nothing platform
stands pledged to the repeal ofthe Nebraska and Kansas
acts, intimates that they involve "violated pledges," refers
to the fugitive slave law as an "obnoxious act," and declares
theUnion the "paramount political good"—paramount even
to the existence of slavery—the old Whig and Democratic
platforms are obnoxious to no such charges. One of them at
least, instead of pandering to the abolitionists, openly de¬
nounces them, while both, instead of intimating that the fur
gitive slave law is an "obnoxious act," seeking to shirk the
responsibility ofits passage, come boldly up to the mark, de¬
clare it is based upon the Constitution, and declare their in¬
tention to faithfully carry it into execution. I advise you Col.
11
to think again, before 3*011 declare your Know-Nothing plat¬
form superior to that ol the old Whigs or Democrats on the
subject of slavery.
But admitting for the sake of argument that your nation¬
al platform is all you claim for it on the subject of slavery,
who have you got to help you carry it into execution? You
boast of having purged yourselves of free-soilism at Phila¬
delphia. But in doing so you actually cut off more Know
Notnings than remained in the Order after the cutting oft'
took place. I get my statistics from the New York Humid,
one of your organs. It gave a list of the number of Know-
Nothirjgs in all the States at the time the national council met.
The number of Know Nothings in the States which adopted
the platform was 677,911. The number in the States which
seceded was 697,366—majority in favor of the seceders
19,455. So you will see that if the Know Nothings have a
national party at all, it is at the North, where your majority
lies. I have known operations in surgery to take place by
which an arm or a leg was cut off, and the. body survived
and became healthy. But you Know Nothings present the
first instance of a limb's cutting off the body, and then claim¬
ing to be the body itself. It is impossible. The body of the
Know Nothing party is at the North. The severed member
alone is at the South, and it cannot retain iis vitality. Die
and putrefy it must and will. We are commanded that if
our right arm offend us, to cut it off and cast it from us. If
our right eye offend us, we are commanded to pluck it out,
and cast it from us. But in your case your right, arm has
cut off its body,, and cast it from it. Your right eye has
plucked its body off from it, and cast it away. You need
not therefore claim any thing on this score. For neither the
right arm, nor the right eye can accomplish anything with¬
out the body.
You boast a great deal of having purged your party of
free-soilism at Philadelphia. It does not appear that you
are not now in fellowship with the lodges of the North which
seceded on the slavery issue alone. On the contrary, from
the nature of your organization, it is altogether probable that
you still hold communion with these seceding lodges. Each
subordinate Council, according to your constitution, holds
its^owers by "dispensation" from the National Council, and
there is constant intercommunication and fellowship kept
up between the National Council and each subordinate
Council, and through the National Council between all of
the subordinate Councils. Now will you deny in the speech¬
es you are making in this District, that there is still affilia-
12
tion and fellowship kept up between the Southern councils
and Northern seceding lodges? Tell us whether the Nation¬
al Council has ever taken away from the seceding lodges
the "dispensations" under which they hold their powers.
And let us know whether, when your national Councils as¬
sembles in February next, you intend to admit to the privil¬
eges of membership delegates from the seceding Councils.
I doubt not but that you will.
But, my dear sir, your course towards Northern Demo¬
crats who have been faithful to the South deserves the deep¬
est reprobation. You know that your Northern Know-Not h-
ing brethren have banded together to hunt down to their
political graves those 44 Northern Democrats in the House,
and those 14 in the Senate who united to give us the Nebras¬
ka-Kansas bill. Not only is it so with the seceders fromjhe
Philadelphia4Convention, but it is so with the few who re¬
mained in convemion with you. And you know that there
has not been, and probably will not be, elected from the
Northern States, one single Know-Nothing who will vote
for the admisston of Kansas as a slave State. Yet your par¬
ty professes to stand upon the Georgia Platform, and you
studiously keep from the knowledge of those whose votes
you seek, these important facts. Nay more, you keep from
their knowledge the fact that for the last fifteen years North¬
ern Democrats have been votingvwith the South against
Northern Whigs, abolitionists, and those free-sojl Democrats,
who have now fused to make up the Know-Nothing party
North, in every instance where the slavery question has come
up in Congress. You studiously suppress the votes upon
this question, and I know from personal conversation with
members of your Order that the the rank and file believe
that the Know-Nothing Party North is as sound upon slave¬
ry as the Democratic Party in that section, and that as many
Know-Nothings from beyond Mason and Dixon's line will
vote for the admission of a Slave State as there are Demo¬
crats. It is thus you keep out light and knowledge from the
cavernous recesses of Know-Nothingi-sm, and it is thus the
leaders of your party are carrying on the warfare against
Northern Democrats which must, if persisted in successfully,
precipitate the'contingencies upon which hang the safety of
this glorious old Union. There is a weight of responsibility
hanging around the leaders of the Know-Nothing party
South, which it is appalling to contemplate. And the peo¬
ple of the 7th Congressional District are alive to the respon¬
sibility you incur in occupying the position which you do.
But a large number of these Nebraska Democrats whom
13
I have mentioned, have been defeated by the Know-Noth¬
ings. And when this fact is pressed home to you you usk, with
much apparent sincerity, if the old Whig party North, was
not strong enough to defeat such sound Democrats in the
beginning, how is the present Know-Nothing party able to
defeat them? And thus you seek to relieve youi Northern
brethren partially, if not entirely of the odium which attach¬
es to them for defeating the friends of the South, and to throw
a part of the blame upon the Northern Democrats. By this
kind of quibbling you seek to involve the question of North¬
ern Democratic soundness in still greater darkness, and still
more to deceive the Southern people. I have already ad¬
mitted, and the Democratic party South, admits that some
of the Free-soil Democrats have joined your proscriptive Or¬
der to strike down the friends of the South. But this does
not alter the fact that a very large majority of those who de¬
feated the Nebraska Democrats are those who have all along
opposed them, and who, aided by abolitionists and a few
recruits from the ranks of freesoil Democracy, nave brought
about this lamentable result. It does not relieve Northern
Know-Nothings of the responsibility ol killing off the South's
friends, and it does not relieve your Southern members of
the damning sin of aiding and abetting in the crime. For if
you would agree to lay aside your proscriptive tests and
horrid oaths, and would not thrust them in the teeth of South¬
ern Democrats, who desire Southern unity, but would join
with them or suffer them to oin with you as one man in back¬
ing our Northern friends, we could present a moral force
which would enable the Northern National Democracy to set
its heel in triumph upon the combined forces of Abolitionism*
Know-Notfjingism and treacherous Democrats.
You professed great love for the Hard Shell Democrats of
New York, and held out the idea that they would join your
Order. You profess a. love for them which I really feel. But
I am afraid you affect to love them, simply because you hope
they will go into opposition to the object of your hatred, the
Democratic party. If this be not so, why do you not hold
out your love for Cass, Douglass, Bright, Buchanan, Dallas*
Richardson, Dodge, Shields and a host of others, equally as
friendly to the South as Dickinson and Bronson? I am grati¬
fied in having evidence to induce me to believe that your
calculations upon the Hard Shells of New York will fail you.
1 have before me an editorial of the National Democrat, one of,
the Hard Organs, rejoicing over the deteat of Know Nothing-
ism in the Southern States, winding up thus; "The National
Democracy furnishes the only sate and true rallying poiflt.
14
To your tents, O Israel!" And this same paper, and the Al¬
bany Argus, another Hard organ, have both endorsed the
Milledgeville Democratic platform.*
I conclude, my dear Colonel, from the foregoing array of
iacts and arguments, that your position about your parly's
being so very pure on the slavery question—much purer
than the Democratic party—is all a Know Nothing imagining.
The next element of impurity which you asserted was tb
be found in the Whig and Democratic parties, and which
was purged out of your party, was tha foreign vole. In most
of what you said about the question of foreign immigration
you and Judge Baxter confined yourselves pretty closely to
the letter of Col. Clemens and the speech of Mr. "ZollicofFer.
So it was in your disquisitions upon Catholicism. But I
will not anticipate.
You repeated some strictures from Clemens's letter about
the admission of Father Matthew and Louis Kossuth to
privileged seats in the Senate, in some of which I agree with
you and the Colonel. Fortunately the Southern»peopie did
not join in the worship of these two foreigners with as much
avidity as did the Northerners. I was proud to see it. And
while I was prepared to do honor to Mr. Matthew for his
good intentions in promoting the cause of temperance, and
to Kossuth for his sufferings in the cause of freedom, yet I
saw no teason for the American people to make fools of
themselves, on account of the Irishman and Hungarian.—
Yet I expected nothing else, for it had been done before on
account of Charles Dickens, and it has been done on account
of Jenny Lind, Ole Bull, Durham bulls, Berkshire hogs,
and Shanghai chickens. And it was done equally with
these latter folk as with Matthew and Kossuth, though neith¬
er Dickens, Jenny, the bulls nor the chickens, had those vast
Dumbers of voters at their service which so much disturb the
visions of my friend. There seems to have "been a rage for
everything foreign, beyond the.Potomac, without reference
to the number of votes it would bring in to those who took
stock in ihe excitement. It extended equally to the "great
Magyar," and the fowls from the sea-port town of China.
Now there has been a collapse in the bubble, and wittf the
excitable Yankees there is an accelerated travelling to the
other extreme. Louis Kossuth and Shanghai chickens have
both bad their day. Those who went crazy in their favor
may now go crazy against them. But those of us who main¬
tained our perpendicularity in reference to human being and
*Since the above was in print, the Hard Shells of New York have passeu
resolutions against the K. N's. What will the poor fellows do now?
15
fowl, mi'st he permitted still to keep the occipital apex up¬
permost.
I am very willing to admit, sir, that there are some things
which need correction in reference to the question of immi¬
gration. But I am not willing to goto the extreme of say¬
ing that a loreign born citizen shall never hold office, and
that we will make a degraded class of foreigners who come
here, by refusing them the rights of citizenship. It is bet¬
ter, il they come among us at all—and I believe you do not
propose to exclude them entirely—to afford them, every facili¬
ty tor assimilating themselves to our people and our institu¬
tions and not to keep them as a distinct class, a body of
foreigners in the very heart of our nation. If any state feels
itself aggrieved by the introduction oftoo many foreigners
within her borders, let. her apply the remedy. It is perfect¬
ly competent for her to do so. Geoigia now has a law
upon her statute book against the introduction of paupers
and criminals. There is no use in burdening federal legisla¬
tion with such things as fall within the scope of those mat¬
ters which may be attended to by the States. And one ob¬
jection that 1 have to your Philadelphia Platform is that it is
too federal m its character, taking away too much from the
States and giving too much to the general government. And
suffer me to say, before I go farther, that if there are any re¬
forms needed in reference to these things of immigration and
naturalization, the Democratic parly—as I differ with you
touching its capacity—is perfectly competent to find out
what is wanted and to apply the remedy. This it will do, at
all times v\ hen there is a necessity for it.
You object very much to Congress having paid the liquoc
bill of Louis Kossuth, and his other expenses in Washington
citv. Well, I agree with you in this too. But the mischief
of it <s that M. P. Gentry your late Know-Nothiug candidate
for governer in Tennessee, if my memory serves me rightly,
and various other Know-Nothings, voted for the appropria¬
tion to pav the "Magyar Chief's" expenses and damned the
expense at that.
You complain that Gen. Scott—even Gen. Scott—the hero
of Lundy's Lane—the man who marched the American le¬
gions into 'he Halls of the Montezumas, should have been
captivated by the "rich Irish brogue" and "sweet German
accent," And though General Scott declared himself satis¬
fied with the present naturalization laws, with a single
change, giving rights of citizenship to all those who have
served one year in the army or navy of the United States,
yet vou could see nothing improper in all this when you were
a Scott elecjlor in IS52.
16
Permit me to correct an important error which you repeat
from some of the Know-Nothing papers. You assert that in
Wisconsin, the only State whose judiciary has declared the
fugitive slave law unconstitutional, there is a majority of for¬
eign born citizens. This is not so. By reference to the Cen¬
sus of 1850, you will find that the foreign born citizens ot
Wisconsin number 110,477, while those born in the State
and in the L'nited States number 194,099—leaving a major¬
ity in favor of native born citizens of 83,622. The total pop¬
ulation of Wisconsin is, in round numbers, 300,000. At the
session of the Philadelphia Council, your party claimed
32,000 members in that State. Allowing one fifth of the
population to be voters, there are in Wisconsin 60,000 vo¬
ters, a majority of them being Know-Nothings. This shows
very conclusively what party is in power in that Slate, and
who are responsible tor the fugitive slave law's being adjudi¬
cated unconstitutional. At the same time, my friend, recol¬
lect that in Massachusetts and Vermont, in both of which
States the fugitive slave law has been nullified, the Know-
Nothings are largely in the majority.
I have before me a letter written by a lady to the People's
Journal, Pennsylvania, in which she complains that the "-im¬
mense Germau and Irish population have always acted as a
unit in favor of slavery." The National Era, commenting
upon the letter, says that "a majority" of this foreign popula¬
tion in Wisconsin "has acted with the Democratic party, so
called, whose general policy has been opposition to the Maine
liquor law and subservience to slavery." Kvery one knows
that foreigners have always voted with the Democratic par¬
ty ; and you dare not deny, Colonel, that the Democratic
party North is more friendly to slavery than any other party
in that section. Do you oppose foreigners becanse they vo¬
ted against your old party?
And again : In the six Northwestern States, Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan, where you com¬
plain of so much foreign population, we got in favor of the
Nebraska-Kansas bill 13 votes, a majority of one of those
cast, from those States, on that bill, while from the six New
England States, where Know-Nothings abound, we got only
three votes in favor ot the bill. These statistics do not seem to
show that the naturalized citizens are such terrible abolition¬
ists after all, do they, Colonel ?
You assert that the foreign immigration gives us four new
members of Congress every year, and complain that it is so.
Do you offer us any remedy for it ? None whatever. For
you do not propose to cut off immigration entirely. You
17
merely propose to extend the naturalization laws* This, it is
true, would keep foreigners from voting. But it would'not
cut off any of the four members of Congress you mention, for
representation is based on actual population, and not upon a
given number of voters. Henc§ when they come, the sooner
you make them citizens, and let therri feel that .they have an
interest in the government, and may participate in its ben¬
efits, as well as bear its burdens, th'e better for the peace and
quiet«ofthe country. And as to giving foreigners land*, of
which you and Judge Baxter complained so much, it is cer¬
tainly better to make our foreign born citizens an agricultural
people than to coop them, up in the cities. There is less
danger to the country in this course than in any other. I
fear'no immigrant whatever who will take his axe upon his
shoulder, go 'ihto the woods,, fell the-forest, and till the soil.
There is something promotive of industry, sobriety and pa¬
triotism-*— loyality to one's fiative or adopted country—in tbe
cultivation of mother earth. It is only when foreign'immi¬
gration has no lapd to settle upon that we may expect it to
become datigerous to the country.
We, have seen'that^t is best, if foreigners come to this coun¬
try, to make good citizens, of them as soon as possible. Your
plan of changing the natuValizatioh law's will, not do. Is "it
best, wow, to cut off-foreign immigration entirely?*' For the
present, I answer, unhesitatingly, it is not. I ^o\ibt whether
it~6ver will, be. Criminals a^d* paupers, a§ a matter of
co«urs^, must be"kept aftray. But the man who comes from
Europe bringing capital In his purse, br labor in. his sinews,'
is certainly an acquisition to, the'wealth, power and prosper¬
ity of tbiscountry. This is a doctrine well understood with
all'political'economists.* The -nations of Europe" know aqd
feel these things when they see wealth and^pOpulation pour¬
ing into this country from their shores. But a few days ago
the Hon. John .'Bright, a member of the'British House of
Commons, contrasting his own country with ours, said, ''The
United, States "is precisely thfe country." w^ichf is ru nning wtth
us the race of power and greatness. Its population will, I
believe, at the rieit Census, exceed the population of the
United Kingdom. In its manufactures-and general indus¬
try, it is far the inost formidable rival tharfthe great manufac¬
turers of this country now have to contend with. It has, I
suppose, ten stealers for one to this coyntry. Its magnifi¬
cent steamshj'ps.have crossed the ^lantic-in a"shorter time
than the steamships ef %tnis country. The finest, vessels
which are this^moment performing the- voyage between
i$ngl£tnd and the Australian colonies, have been built irrthe
2
18
United States. Therefore in ship-building indastrj the Uni¬
ted States not only compete with, but in some respects ex¬
ceed, this country. * * * * * The people of the Uni¬
ted States are our people, and there are few families in Eng¬
land which have not friends or relations connected with, or
settled in, that country. The inducements for men to re¬
main at home, and their attachment to the place of their
birth are necessarily, to some extent, weakened by the facil¬
ity with which they can now travel almost round the world in
the.course of a few weeks. Do you believe that when the
capital of the greatest banking bouse in Lombard-street can
be transferred to the United States on a sipall piece of paper, in
one post, that the imposition of <£75,000,000 of taxation over
and'above the taxation of an equal population in the United
States^ will not have the effect of transferring capital from
this country to the United States, and if capital, then trade,
population, and all that forms the bone and sinew of this
great Empife?"
So you see, "my dear Colonel, that the Statesmen of Europe
dread the loss of population, capital, &c., whifch form*the
bone and sinew of "their Empires. What fs their los§ is our
gain. But going,back a littler What*is it that gives such a
country as ours power? I answer, population. And who
are they^ho are bo rapidly aiding to Increase our popula¬
tion, and ''consequently our power? Foreigners. Who
helped "us to achieve our independence ? Foreigners. Who
helped to plant our colb'rsih the capital of Mexico ? Foreign¬
ers. Who.help to drive the spindles in mir factories? For¬
eigners. Who help to subdue the forest and bring the earth
into cultivation.^ "Foreigners. W*ho aid' in sinking qur
shafts arfd working our mines ? Foreigners. • Who' light the
Furnaces of our steamships, help to man our men-of-war arid
our merchant-men? Foreigners.
The great.Henry Clay, the "old man eloquent" of the
West, believed that theire was no difficulty in foreign popu¬
lation assimilating itself to native born, and becoming one in
the bonds of loyality to their government.. In his great
speech in reply to Mr. Hayne of S. Carolina, -in defence of
the "American system," delivered in the Senate of the Uni¬
ted States,,Feb. £d, 3rd and 6th,, 1832, he holds this lan¬
guage :
"The honpst, patient /ind industrious German readily "unites
with our people, Establishes himself upon some cf£ our fat lands,
fillscapacious barns, and enjoys in tranquility the\ abundant'fruits
■v^hicH his cUlige^ce gathers around him always ready to fly to 'the
standard of Iris adopted country or its laws, when .called by
19
the duty of patriotism. The gay, the versatile, the philosoph-
ical^ Frenchman, accommodating himsolf cheerfully to all the vi¬
cissitudes of life, incorporates himself without difficulty into our
society. But of all foreigners, none amalgamate themselves so
quickly with our people as the "natives of the Emerald Isle." Iii
some of the visions that have passed through my imagination, I
have supposed that Ireland was originally a part and parcel of
this continent, and that by some extraordinary convulsion of na¬
ture, it was torn from America, and drifting across the ocean, it was
placed in the unfortunate vicinity of Great Britain. The same
open-heartedness, the same generous hospitality, the same care¬
less and uncalculating indifference about human life, character¬
ize the inhabitants of both countries. Kentucky has been some¬
times called the Ireland of America; and I have no doubt that if
the Gurrent of emigration were reversed, and set from America up¬
on the shores of Europe, instead of being from Europe to Ameri¬
ca, every American emigrant to Ireland would there find as every
Irish emigrant here finds, a hearty welcome and. a happy home."
And what has immigration done for this country ? Ac¬
cording to actual calculations, based upon the Census of
1850, it is -made certain that if additions to this country by
foreign population had'been cut off in 1790, the population
in 1850 would have been just what it actually was in 1820:
That is, immigration has put usjust thirty years in advance
of what would have been our natural growth without foreign
population. In 1820,, our population was, in round numr
bers, 9,000,000. In 1850, our population was 23,000,000.
Without foreign immigration then, instead of being now, as
we are, one of the great powers of the world, our flag com¬
manding respect wherever the breeze swells its ample tolds,
we should be accounted a fourth or fifth rate power,, and our
weakest enemy might insult us to our teeth.
But there is another aspect in which this question may be
viewed. "The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof."
The Earth is designed by God for the whole of Earth's popu¬
lation. The teeming millions of the human family who
dwell upon this globe must have a home and derive a sus¬
tenance from the bosom of their, mother earth. It is a law of
nature, written so plainly that he who runs may read it. It
cannot be violated without rupriing counter to Heaven's la.w.
The God of Heaven has impressed upon .immigration certain
laws which are as uniform in theft operations as those which
wheel the planets in their orbits.
''•Westward the star* of empire takes its way." We have
seen that population is an important element of Empires,
Kingdoms and Republics. The tide of emigration has al¬
ways flowed Westward, and will probably continue to do so,
20
so long as the earth shall last. It irtfs been the case-uniformly
from the earliest period to* the present time. Colonies came
from the East—from .Egypt and Phoenicia—and conquering
the rude inhabitants-oK the Grecian Slates, gave them letters
and laws;- Then again ' the Eastern States sent their
colonies westward, subdued 1 he- inhabitants of Itajy, and
planted the Roman Empire, which became mistress of the
world. The tide ofemigration sull' flowed westward, and
the Gauls and the early Britops acknowledged the sway of
the Roman sceptrfc. Thgn came from the East—rfrom Ger¬
many—'the Anglo-Saxon—nature'js pripc'e of the human rape
—and blending his stream-of immigration with the one from
imperialRome, and broth grafting their scions-'upon the har¬
dy stock of the rude Britons, the British Empire sprung up,
and in its confines sung Milton—Sha)<s-peare gave out inspi¬
ration—Pitt shook the nations with his-eloquence—and Wel-
ling ton parried with his shield the greatest, thjjnder-bolt of
war that ever mad'e the earth trembha.
In 1492, three little? vessels started frqm the bar ofSaltes in
front of the towtvof Huelva in Spain,, cpmma,ni!ed by a poor
Genoese sailor, in search-o,f a Western land. Comparative¬
ly-speaking, it would now seem almost as safe a calculation
fo 'expect a feather , to bnw£'the stoj.ms of t)ie Atlantic, and
reach the Qpposiie-shore, as to expect such rickety concerns
as were these little .crafty iot escape a watery grave. But
they did ride safely the angry billows-^-for the hand of God
directed the storm-—and a new world burst u'po'n the eyes of
the astonished people of Eu^pe. It was then tl^ai thetideof
eriii^ration continued Westward, and the Re^ubjic of \¥ash-
ington is the result—the land that has chained the Jight^ing
of heayen-— the land whose people have been thrijled hy the
words of Henry and- Randolph—the land which is the crtadle
of liberty—the land which gave birth tp,.and whose bosom
now holds the ashes of. Clay, Calhoun and Webster.
Now, nsry'dear Sir, you must adroit .that the hand of God is
in this whole matter of peopling Western territories with im¬
migrants from the East. Empire after empire has arisen Ctpon
the swelling waves of immigration, rolling from East to West,
ahd each guccessiv.e one,-from the Raman Empire forward,
has borne with it fhe'Bible and. the Christian religion. As
Roman arms- gave an impetus to that rejigion„ so Amer¬
ica, made powerful by all the elements of Erfipire, Inciting
populatioil from the-East, Is to give laws^ancT government,
founded upon the Bible, to the whole world." Those/wjio
woulcl restrain this* population frqm the* Eas^ „woukl do* well
to examine -and see if the hand of God Is not in it, and bfe-
21
ware well, '-lease haply they may bs found fighting against
God." o o o
lam of Lhe opinion that you cannot change the laws which
govern Earth's.migratory population. iTou cannot roll back
the tide of immigration whicfh has set in from the old world.
You may conduct it into a propper channel, but if you go to
damming up the current, ii will, in spite of any thing you can
oppose to its progress, overleap the barrier, and like the
stream which has been for a while. stopped in its flow,
rush more madly forward, and sweep every thing that
is useful and lovely be lor,e it. If foreign immigration is kept
out of our country, it would, in the course of time, become a
question whether the crowned heads of Europe would not be
driven to the necessity of forming a '"'holy alliance" to people
this continent by tbe force of arms with their surplus popu¬
lation. This would be in accordance with the experience of
the past. , And. even if this were not .the case, if the dense
population of Europe is kept within- the narrow confines of
their present limits,-such convulsions would rend the Eastern
continents would shake our own country to its centre, cut
off a market, for pur cotton, and break down our trade and
commerce. ..In obedience to the law of nature, we had bet-
te.r trade with our European brethren than to tight them.
We. had better tak,e the surplus population of the East, set
them to clearing ..our woods,and cultivating our soil, making
them citizens .and friends, than tp ruh the risk of their be¬
coming bands of reckless pirates," infesting' our coasts, break¬
ing down our commerce, and seizing by force of .arms upon
our cultivated so.il and.blooming fields.
This you will say is looking far into futurity. It hecomes
us so to do. And you have set the example—you and your
friend Baxter—for you have depicted the wrongs.which;we
shall do posterity by allowing our Western lands to become
tbe freehold.of strangers., You think that if this foreign im¬
migration is allowed to go on, the time will come when our
children will not hav;e land whereon to settle- Well, if a
regular increase of population goes on, with tlhe same number
of births compared with the number of deaths that there is
now, I admit that the time will come, theoretically speaking,
when qur children will not have land on which t® settle.
And by the same kind of reasoningjt may be shown that in
the course of time there will hot be enough land to afford
nourishment for the whole of Earth's population. Take,the
regular-ipcrease of the human family at the rates which are
kjnown from the census of various countries to exist, and I
iiay, theoretically speaking, the time willcome when the p©p-
22
ulalion of the world will become so great that t-he Earth can¬
not produce food enough to feed them. But this is only the¬
oretically so. It will never be so in practice. Let us- look
to the past for light to guide our feet in this matter. Accord¬
ing to the generally received version of the Mosaic account
of the creation, this world has been in existence about six
thousand years. Suppose that Adam, knowing the exact
number of square miles contained upon the Earth's surface,
and the number of persons each square mile was capable of
supporting, and being acquainted with the rate per cent of
increase in his family, had' sat down and made a calculation
of the length of time it would take his descendants to people
the whole world, would he not have become very uneasy on
account of the lack of plantations for his posterity, long, long
before his prophetic eye had reached A. D. 1855 ? Most as¬
suredly he woulcl.
I have taken the vulgar construction of the Mosaic "day"
in the above proposition. But suppose we now take the
scientific version of the "six days" of Moses in which the
world was created. Geology makes each one of those 'days'
mean an indefinite period of time, extending through a lapse
of many thousand years. In the neighborhood of New Or¬
leans was not lpng since found a skeleton, buried at a dis¬
tance beneath the Earth's surface, to attain which would
have required the deposites of fifty or sixty-thousand years.
Suppose then that the world, instead of being six thousand
years, is a half million, o,r a millipn years old, do younot
suppose that thousands upon thousands of years ago, it
would, according to the statistics and theory you employ,
have reached that density of population which it would have
been incapable of supporting ?
But I do not plant myself upon the scientific version of
the "days" of Moses. It is not necessary lor the purposes ©f
this argilment. Just take the world at 6000 years of age,
and this is amply sufficient to defeat the vain theories of those
chimerical philosophers w-ho indulge in visions of gloom
about posterity's not having land enough. If posterity should
not have land enough, it will be no fault of ours,-bqt will be
a matter in the hands of a wise Providence.
Nations and.peoples have their day* ancj lhen die out as do
individuals. The aborigines of America must have been
here thousands of years-before Columbus ever planted the
cross upon cis-Atlantic sgil. And then there have been dis¬
covered on this continent mounds and cities, and tombs,
which marked the existence df a civilized people here, long
before the wild wheop of the red man startled the deer in the
23
forest, whose roots pierced ibe loam of the dynasty of Kings
that built the cities which now only point to oblivion.
Should our own country and the balance of the world be¬
come too densely settled for the soil to support its inhabi¬
tants, the most densely settled portions wifl probably be
swept away by means of the plague, or some other scourge,
and go to the charnel house of nations, to make room for oth¬
er peoples who survive them.
But it is not for me to offer theories as to what will occur
when the population of the earth reaches its utmost theoreti¬
cal density. That matter is not in our hands, but in the
hands of One who doeth all things aright. But this I do know,
that this earth is made tor all its inhabitants, and vain will
be the effort of rmn to prevent population from regulating
itself. You may let it flow oh in the channel which" nature
has made for it, and it will glide smoothly with nothing
more than an occasional ripple to indicate its motion, or you
may attempt to stop it in its course and make a mighty, rush¬
ing torrent where there should be only a smoothly flowing
stream. Let nature take its course. The curse of the
world is that men have too often set themselves up to im¬
prove upon the legislation of Providence. Nature will suffer
you to pass ancillary statutes, but she will allow of no high¬
er law than her own-. Kings and tyrants, and those who
consider themselves wise men, have too long set themselves
up as legislators to regulate the affUirs of the world. Hence
we have had restrictions upon commerce, restrictions upon
morals, upon religion, and now we must have unnatural res¬
trictions upon population and immigration. And the, excuse
is, it is done for the benefit of mankind. With this idea "in
the heads of rulers mankind have been governed too much.
"The best government is that which governs feast." There
is a class of merr who are always attempting 'to supply by
legislation what they consider, in their vain imaginings, de¬
fects in the laws of God. Hence, the Know-NothingSj think¬
ing that Providence has not made such provision for the
earth's population and for posterity as should have been
made, arrogate to themsetoes a "fixing up of the matter" in'
r manner which would surprise even nature herself. Those
men who are in favor of governing and legislating so much
because they can improve upon nature, are those who, in the
convention which framed this government, sought there to
throw too stringent restrictions around foreign immigration.
They are those who passed the alien and sedition laws. In
those days they were called Federalists. They are those
who in England are called Tories* a'nd who esteem it an'in-
24
estimable privilege to perseteute<^ath©Tics, the -doin-gof whteb
I will consider by^and -by. They -are those*-who, at another
time and in another locality,'are caltedi Knowr-Nobhings, but
who prostitute *the name of "American" to their Jvile party
purposes, and who denounce as Foreignersand as-"in al¬
liance with Catholics," allthose who oppose their narrow.and
fanatical views. • n .
I have but one thing more to add and then "I shall leave
this b^nch of the s,ubj<?<?t.« -Let us revert onc£ more to the
idea that foreigners w91 take-away all the land iron? cur
posterity. There js now in the Amepean Union land enough
to'maintain a population - of fifteen hundred millibns of in¬
habitants, allowing the population to be of the same" densi?
ty with that of Belgium. Now this is sevefal hundred mil¬
lions more than all the inhabitants that the worid' contains.
The earth has been, at the lowest calculation, about 6000
years accumulating from all sources this population,-includ¬
ing that of the U'nited* States. Nc*w the question is if it has
taken the*whole earth ,6000-years to accufnulatfi a population
of* one thousend'millions, how'Jong will it take the United
Slate§ alone to accumulate a population of fifteen |>uh4red
millions, so \h^liij&steritif will have no la'nd on which to set^
tlerV • ■
The third element okimpurity of which you say your par¬
ty elea-nsed ^tself,."is Roman Catholicism. ' This br'fngs us to
the most odioijs feature, of Know-Nothingism—its religious
proscription and intolerance. Is it not astonishing that
the" middle of the-19th century, when the light of the gospel-
has beeyistreaming from Calvary's brow for mote'that eigh¬
teen hundred years, here in these United States of Ampe/icay
a'government,the key stone of vfhose arch is religious liberty;
there should Ke found a set" of men who are- persecuting*a*
sect on account of their-religious belief.Tt is strange, pass»
ing Strange! * ^ - . .
'But yon deny the soft impeachment. You say you do not
proscribe Catholics. And tHite had been told me *sb often" by
numbers of your>order, iti this county and else whe.re,'that »I
was prep^redlo believe you were grfl really willing and anx¬
ious to abandon, jour religious intolerance. Imagine my sur¬
prise; then, when Judge Baxter got up and Hi ad e a speech
one hour anct a half in length, one hour of whieh was devoted
to a tirade Against the* Catholic religioti, ioterlardfed' with
those raw head-rand-blood y-bt^nes disquisitions which areve^y-'
well calculated *to frigjhten old wdtnen -arid vch.il.dren, but
which I really thought ho .sensible ^man cpuld*entert^ij>, and
devoting only one hal&hour to" all other questions* foreign
25
immigration, the "paramount question," and all. Bnt I am
not surprised that Know-Nothings should seek to avoid the
slave question in their discussions, and that they should con¬
jure up all sorts of phantoms, ghosts and hobgoblins, to
drown in the terrors of papacy the goadings of a conscience
that forever tells them they are aiding to murder the friends
of the South in cold blood, and with her friends the South
herself.
But let us return to the proposition that you do not pros¬
cribe Catholics. It seems 1 was mistaken in supposing that
you wished to abandon your original sentiments in this re¬
gard. I take you, then, upon your platforms. You are
sworn, in the first place, to vote against Roman Catholics.
This I call proscribing a man on account of his religion.
Suppose I were to endeavor to get Presbyterians and Metho¬
dists to vote against you, because you are a Baptist, would
you not Cry out "religious proscription ?" I incline to the
opinion, Colonel, that you would. But it would be my bull
goring your ox then, and perhaps, like the lawyer in the spell¬
ing-book, this would give you a moral obliquity of vision
which would prevent you from seeing matters exactly as
they were.
But you might answer that the Baptist religion, being a
more correct religion lhanjhe Catholic, it would be persecu¬
tion to vote against Baptists, but no persecution to vote
against Catholics. I could agree with you in the former part
of the proposition as to the superiority,of the Baptist faith,
but could not see with you as to the latter-part. If this kind
of reasoning held good, I might prove by it, if I were so dispos¬
ed, that it would be no proscription to vote against Methodists
on account of their religion. For I might hold—(I do not
though, for I hold-nothing about it, being perfectly tolerant
towards all religions, Jewish, Mohammedan, Christian and
Pagan, with all their divisions and subdivisions)—fori might
hold, for the sake of argument, that the Methodist faith was
a worse religion, than the Baptist. And the inevitable con¬
clusion would be, according to your hypothetical reasoning,
that it would be no proscription to vote against Methodists.
But neither of us is to assume to judge of other men's reli-
o-ion. For while we might think their's was a bad religion,
and on that account vole against thorn, they might think ours
was a bad religion and Vote against us. And thus none of
us would ever "get to Congress." The correct doctrine is
this—that this is a free country, and every man has a right
to enjoy any religion he pleases, and no one should vote
against him on that account. Least o'f all should there be
26
secret, oath-bound political associations to proscribe him on
account of his religious belief. This is the voice of reason—
it is the voice of enlightenment—it is the voice of charity
which suffereth all things—it is the voice of our form of gov¬
ernment—the voice of our constitutions—of our statute law
—of the Bible—of Christianity—of truth—it is the voice of
God. Will you hear it ?
I have said that if I were to attempt to induce people to
vote against you for being a Baptist, you would cry "reli¬
gious persecution." Consistency might prevent you from
doing so, now, seeing that I have as much right to vote
against you foi being a Baptist as you have to vote against
another man for being a Catholic. But you would have
raised this cry three years ago, when you were a Scott elec¬
tor—(you see I bring up this Scott elector business at every
turn—don't you wish I would let it rest?)—you would have
raised this cry three years ago, when you were a Scott elec¬
tor, if I had then assaulted you for your religion,. For then
you might have done so consistently, not then having taken
the proscriptive position, or oath which you since have.
And by the way, though no Jew, I must "thank myself for
the word Scott" for thereby hangs a reminiscence. In
1852, all the Whig orators, throughout the la'nd, denounced
Franklin Pierce, because there was an anti-Catholic clause
in the constitution of New Hampshire, though he had made
every effout in his power to have this restriction abolished.
The Louisville Journal, a Whig print then and a Know-Noth-
one now, thought Pierce ought not to b,e elected, simply be¬
cause he lived in New Hampshire, a State, it is said, '/whose
constitution is at war with the fundamental principles of re¬
ligious liberty and republicanism."- At another time, it
spoke of the anti-Catholic clause in the New Hampshire con¬
stitution as the "most infamous system of religious intolerance
and bigotry ever sqen in this country; At still another time,
it denounced New Hampshire as a "State base enough and
bigoted enough to tolerate a religious4est in the 19th centu¬
ry," and said it' was Gen. Pierce's duty to relieve her'of that
religious test which was a "disgrace that caused her to be re¬
garded with scorn by every liberal minded man in the United
States and in the world." And this was the cry of the Whig
party throughout the Union. Anti-Catholicism was religious
proscription then, and met with denunciation open mouthed
and foul, at the hands of your party. Now, however, you
have found out that a religious test is no proscription at alL
You may answer that the religious test to<which your par¬
ty so much objected is incorporated into a State, constitution.,
27
whUe you only propose a religious test in voting. You '''only
vote against Catholics. The principle is the same in leak¬
ing a religious test in "only voting" that it is in incorporating
that test into a constitution. Constitutions and laws, under
free governments, are hut an expression of public opinion put
upon record. What difference does it make whether your
party expresses its opinion by changing the constitution, or
by "only voting?" If it is proper to put down Catholics by
"only voting" it is proper to put them down by constitutions
and by laws. And the American poeple may rely upon it,
that if the Know-Nothings can only succeed in obtaining the
ascendency, they will not confine their views to "only vo¬
ting," bux will incorporate them in the constitutions and
laws pf the country, and strike out from our whole govern¬
mental polity all those guarantees of religious freedom which
where so wisely placed there by our fathers. And then
farewell to American liberty and American greatness. The
glory will have departed from Israiel. Establish a test
against the Catholics, and then any demagogue will be ready
to seize ifppn the unpopularity of any other sect, and wield
the prejudices of its enemies to have a test established against
that sect also, as demagogues are now wielding Protestant
prejudices for their selfish schemes. And so a war of reli-
lig.ions is to spring up, and 1 will not pursue the theme fur¬
ther. Its history will be written in blood.
But let us revert once more to your having been a Scott
elector. It is understood, I believe, that this brave old Gen¬
eral's family—his wife and (laughers—are Catholics, and
that his sympathies are with the tenets of that denomination.
According to the rules sf your organization, he could not be¬
come a member of your order, nor could you support him
for office. And has it come to this, that Gen. Scott has
fallen so low in the opinion of "Americansthat he could not
get the vote even of a Know-Nothing ? Yet, three years ago,
you considered it of the utmost importance that he should be
elected President of these United States. Him whom you
regarded a short time ago as the greatest man living perhaps,
you must now look upon as an unsafei depository of office,
and an enemy to his country. And that, too, without the
least "variableness or shadow of turning" on the part of
Gen. Scott.
But you say, ''I have a perfect right to vole against Catho¬
lics, if I desire it. There is nothing in the constitution pro¬
hibiting a man from voting as he pleases. You who wish to
keep, me from voting against Catholics, on account of their
creed, would prevent me from voting as I please. And to
28
vole as I please, is not unconstitutional." This is the ster-
eotyped answer given by all Know-Nothings to those who
ch arge them with religious proscription.
<bl have a perfect right to vote against Catholics, if I desire
it." Well, so you have friend, in one sense. And so you
have a perfect right, in the same sense, to vote for men who
declare themselves in favor of changing the form of this gov¬
ernment into that of an absolute monarchy. But though you
have the right to do so, you would be voting for an unconsti¬
tutional principle, ing.sm.ucb as it would be contrary to the
whole essence of our government, constitution and laws. So
you taave a right to vote against Catholics, if you choose, but
it would be voting for an unconstitutional principle, inasmuch
as that also, is contrary to the whole essence of our govern¬
ment, .constitution and laws.
"To vote if I please against Catholics, is not .unconstitu¬
tional." It is not unconstitutional in that sense which would
make it a violation of the constitution that would be punish¬
able by impeachment, or by any other direct means.. But in
one sense it is unconstitutional, in.that it is contrary to,the
genius and spirit of the constitution. You may go for annan-
constitutional principle in a perfectly constitutional or legal
way. For instance, a member of Congress may vote lor any
measure prohibited by the constitution. And yet it would
be contrary to the principles of that instrument for him to do
so, though he possesses the constitutional power to vote as he
pleases. The Know,-Nothings cannot -get rid by quibbling of
the odium of being a very unconstitutional set of folks.
You say that to vote against Catholics on account of their
religion is no more unconstitutional, and no more proscriptive
than for a petty jury of Putnam county; to find a man guilty
for having two wives, and lor the Judge to sentencejiim to
the Penitentiary for the crime of bigamy, provided bigamy
was a part of his religion. You say that a colony of .Mor¬
mons might come and settle in this county, and if the< Solicit
tor-General should proceed to indict them for the-crime of
polygamy* they might plead that they were proscribed for
religion's sake, inasmuch as their religian allowed.thern tp
have as many wives as they pleased. And this yo.u consid¬
er a parallel case to your proscription of Catholics* Do you
really think so, Colonel, or did you think by thus confusing
things to blind and dteceive»ycrur auditors? In, either event,
I am very sorry indeed, and my concern waxeth exceeding¬
ly great. The two cases are not parallel. They are as di¬
verse as the poles. . ,
The law against polygamy is founded upon the universal-
29
ly received opinion among christian nations, which is based
npon the New Testament, that no man should have more
than one wife, and no woman more than one husband. This
principle is recognized alike among Catholics and Protest¬
ants. And in all Catholic, as well as Protestant countries,
polygamy is not only forbidden by the eclesiastical, but by
the civil law. This is one of the matters which so nearly
affects society, for whose protection governments are insti¬
tuted, that it is ranked amongst matters that concern the
State, as well as the Church. So of some other things forbid¬
den in the New Testament, and of a portion of those forbid¬
den in the decalogue. Take the two commandments, Thou
shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, and the observance of
those two laws are of such great concern to society, that gov¬
ernment steps forward and says to the Church, that it shall
not have exclusive jurisdiction over these matters, but the
secular arm shall be interposed for their prevehtion. At the
same time, however, civil government does not claim for it¬
self exclusive jurisdiction over violations of the two com¬
mandments quoted. It only claims concurrent, though par¬
amount jurisdiction, in connection with the Church. But in
the two commandments against falsehood and covetousness,
the State claims no jurisdiction whatever, but leaves their
violation to the Church and to men's religion and conscience.
For tho' the avoidance of falsehood and covetousness are of im¬
mense importance to society; still, as compared with murder
and theft, they sink into comparative insignificance: I mean
when tested by the laws which govern society, and not those
which govern morals. Another reason that civil government
does not assume jurisdiction of falsehood and covetousness
is on account of the difficulty there would be in convicting a
man of either. For they both, and especially covetousness,
being more the acts of the mind than of actual physical' per¬
formance, it would be impossible to adopt any law, or exe¬
cution of law, in which general justice could be done.
Hence, did civil government think it of as much importance
to society to suppress falsehood and covetousness by penal
law, as to keep down murder and theft by the same means,
it would find it impossible to do so, on account of the difficul¬
ties of controling men's thoughts and speech. When false¬
hood is enlarged into perjury, then it is punished by the State,
because the difficulty stated does not exist. s
Hence you see that if a man should attempt to commit
murder or theft, under cloak of a convenient religion, which
he had adopted for this purpose, and then should claim*ex¬
emption from punishment on account of the religious free-
30
dom guaranteed him by the constitution, he would be estop¬
ped by being told that as regards the offence committed by
hiru, civil government and her laws had assumed paramount
jurisdiction, and that his act was one which the State had
taken out of the hands of the Church. And this reasoning
applies precisely to the crime of polygamy. Should the
Mormon to which you refer, then, be indicted in Putnam
county for the crime of baviug several wives, and he should
plead his religion, ar^d the clauses for religious freedom in
the State and federal constitutions in bar of the penalty of the
law, he: would be met with the answer that polygamy was
not a matter belonging exclusively to religion—that it was a
matter which so nearly regarded the well-being of society
that civil government in all christian countries, Catholic and
Protestant, had "time whereof the memory of man runneth
not to the contrary," taken it in its own hands, and denounced
a penalty against it—that the constitutions were adopted in
view of these facts—that Georgia had passed her law, (which
he had violated) in accordance with the principles here sta¬
ted, long before he became a Mormon for the sake of hav¬
ing his wives—that it was not a matter of religion alone, and
therefore he could not escape the Penitentiary by falling back
upon the constitutions which guarantee religious freedom.
These would be the principles upon which $n enlightened
judge would base his decision when the Mormon made his
plea before him, and thus would the uxorious specimen of
humanity, your argument in his behalf having failed, expiate
his violation of the statute in the Penitentiary, the dignity of
Georgia law be maintained, and the great principle of relig¬
ious toleration remain unscathed by the lilipution armory of
sophistry and quibbling. Matters that are purely in the con¬
sciences of men, are matters for the Church and religion.
Matters that by direct physical act concern society, are mat¬
ters for the interposition of civil law. You may say that
this latter principle is applicable to the Catholic religion.
This I shall presently come to consider.
But you endeavored to illustrate your position that you
were not proscribing Catholics on account of their religion,
by referring to the Abolitionists and the 3000 New England
clergymen, (a most unfortunate allusion for you, inasmuch as
they are nearly all Know-Nothings) who anathematized the
United States Senate for passing the Nebraska 'bill. You
said that abolition had become a part of the religion of the
fanatics of the North, and to vote against an Abolitionist
would be, according to Democratic logic, to proscribe a'man
on account of his religion. Now, in the first place, I do not
31
admit your premises, because abolition has never been incor -
porated into any religious creed that I am aware of, though I
am perfectly willing to admit that it has, to a great degree,
gotten hold of the religious prejudices of many of the people
of the North. It is also true that a great many Abolitionists,
Garrison among the number, I believe, acknowledge no reli¬
gion at all, rejecting the Bible, because it does not condemn
slavery. But admit that abolition has been regularly can¬
onized as an article of faith in .he creed of each and every
one of the cohtemptible pack of Northern ecclesiastics and
churchmen, who have "stolen the livery of the court of heav¬
en to serve the devil in"—admit that this is their whole,
sole, and only religion—or what they choose to call their re¬
ligion—-and it would be no religious intolerance to vote
against them—no more than it would be religious intolerance
for me to knock down the thief who would tell me it was a
part of his religion to steal a hen off of my roost. And why ?
Because the institutiou of slavery was admitted to be a law¬
ful institution by that very constitution which elsewhere for¬
bids a religious test, lon£ before the God-defying and socie¬
ty-destroying abolitionist ever thought of making the negro-
mania an article of his religious creed, or of allowing it to take
bold of his religious prejudices, even. The religious freedom
clauses of the constitution do not allow men to make crime,
or the destruction of other people's property, a part of their
religion, in order th'at they may escape the hangman's rope,
by pleading their pretended religion.
So you see, Colonel, that though there is some plausibility'
and some ingenuity about your illustrations, they cannot stand
the test of analysis or of logic. They are mere quibblings,
the veriest subterfuges, and you can no more fetter truth in
their meshes than you can bind the lion in threads of gos-
araer.
You dwelt a good deal upon the idea that your party "only
vote" against Catholics, and contend that this is not proscribing
them, and that it is not unconstitutional. I think I have shown
that this is both proscriptive and unconstitutional, or at least
contrary to the genius and spirit of the constitution. But
"only voting" against Catholics is not allyou do. By your oath
of the second degree, your are sworn that when you have the
power you will turn out of office all Catholics. Persons who
have the disposal of office in their gift, are generally sworn
to support the constitution of the United States. And yet,
in the very clause of the constitution which requires this oath
and immediately succeeding it, is the provision that "no re
ligious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
32
office or public trust under the United States." And the
constitution of Georgia provides that no "person shall be de¬
nied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of
his religious principle.''' Now should your candidate for
Governor be elected, he will have to take an oath to support
both of these clauses. At the same time he is already sworn
to violate them. Now this, is not, you must admit, ' only vo¬
ting" against Catholics. If "only voting" against this sect,
does nothing but violate the spirit of the constitution, turning
them out of office violates the plain letter of that instrument.
And it is done under such aggravated circumstances too,
that were I a member of the Legislature or o I Congress, and
the Governor or the President should begin to ply the guillo¬
tine of religious intolerance, regarding his Know-Nothing
oath as of more binding torce than his oath to support the
constitution, I should consider it a sacred duty I owed my
country, to move lor the impeachment of the offending Gov¬
ernor or President, who had degraded his executive func¬
tions to the vile purpose of religious intolerance and bigotry.
And 1 impeach, you, now, before the bar of public opinion for
holding such principles, and taking s'uch'oaths as would com¬
pel you, provided you held executive office, to violate the
constitution in a most flagrant and outrageous manner.
You do not proscrbe Catholics! Oh! no, not by any means;
and your party does not persecute them. You "only vote"
against them and "turn them out of office.'! Ifyou had the
power, you would turn Chief Justice Taney out of office—
the man who was appointed to the highest judicial office in
the Union by Geqeral Jackson; and after hi$ life haa been
spent in the service of the country, you would not even suffer
him to hold the office of Constable, or glean from the sham¬
bles of the lowest judicial tribunal the contemptible fees oTa
bailiff. And why? Simply because, in following out the
honest convictions of a mind to which you would trust the
adjudication of every right the South has, ^nd upon whose
honesty, according to your creed, depends our section's sal¬
vation, he is constrained to be a Catholic. Yet this is not re¬
ligious proscription. And again: Take General Scott,, the
rnan whom you wished elected President a few years ago—
him who conquered Mexico for us—him whom the nations
regard as one of the ablest, if not the ablest General in the
world—-him whom Congress has made'Lieutenant-General,
(a rank never conferred upon any other man save the fath¬
er of his country,) with a handsome salary to support him
in his old age, atid you and.your party would strip him of
the privilege of being a corporal. Nay, you would not even
aiiuw iuin ilit- per diem pi it unco of a militia drummer, tho'
his daily bread and that of his wife and daughters depen¬
ded upon the few coppers tossed him by the government for
his menial services in whipping dogs or plying drum-sticks.-
And why.'' Because he and his family belong to that ter¬
rible Catholic denomination. But this is not proscription
though. It it is not, tell us in God's name, what untold hor¬
rors, and what unheard of cruelties are necessary fojr the
stony heart, and stolid head ot Know-Nothingism, to recog¬
nize in them religious proscription? f •
But Judge Baxter told us that when the constitution said
no religious test should be required of a person holding office,
it simply meant that no religion should be established by
law. To say this indicates sheer ignorance of theiobvious
import and plain letter of that instrument, or a disposition to
wilfully obscure and pervert its provisions. If j.udge Bax¬
ter be correct why are there two different clause's in the con¬
stitution, one in one place providing against a religious tes;
and another in,another place, providing against at) establish¬
ment of religion? Why .these two different clauses, if they
both mean the same filing ? It is useless to argue the
issjue.
But when your party is beaten down upon their vi¬
olation of the constitution In establishing a religious test,
you say in effect, "plague take the Catholics, they ought to
be put down any how—they all vote one way as their priests
dictate—they are governed by Arqh-Bishop Hughes and
Wm. H. Seward-—they owe civil allegiance to the Pope—
they are going to overturn the liberties of *this country—wt
don't vote against their religion but their politics—rememhe.;
St. Bartholomew's massacre—they are a mean set of folk-
and we intend to put them down any how!"
Ah ! yefe, friends; and this is the secret of the whole mat¬
ter—you intend to "put them down any how." Delenda est
Carthago. Religious prejudice is aroused, and it requires
the blood of some victim. -The lamb has muddied the
stream, though the wolf drinks its waters far above him.—
Well, if you are bound to "put down" Catholics, and will use
nothing but the Bible, the free press, the pulpit, common
schools and general information among the people, allowing
these things to have their gradual and steady but certain influ¬
ence, then I bid you God speed in your undertaking. For priest¬
craft, and religious fetters upon the human mind have no
charms for me. Bu t if, in professing to strike off these fet¬
ters, yau only transfer them to other points,jaod piake fhe
rivets more firm than they were before, calling in the arm of
• o ,
l
government to prevent men from being Catholics or any--
ihing else they may choose to be, then 1 am against you to
the death. And I cannot but express my surprise that you
show so little confidence in your Bible and the institutions
of this country, as to be afraid that a beggarly Italian
Monk, who is kept upon the papal throne by the courtesy of
French bayonets—who is the miserable puppet of Louis
Napoleon, (a roue in luck) and whom we have about as much
cause to fear as we have to fear the vermin-eaten lazzaroni
who infest the streets of the "eternal city,'" should over¬
throw the liberties of this country. You are certainly afraid
he will enslave America, else why make such a to-do about
the Catholics owing him civil allegiance?—*athing they deny,
as we shall presently see.
But before we go into the discussion of Catholic allegi¬
ance, suffer me to admit, for the sake of argument, every
thing you say about the sect which you hate. Admit that
they do owe civil allegiance to the Pope, and that this is a
political element in their creed, which is the element you
profess to war against. Just let me ask you if Washington,
and Jefferson, and Madison, and the other founders of our
government did not know as mnch about these matters as
you do? Am lto be told that such men as formed our gov¬
ernment—"for. there were giants in those days"—such men
as were Know-Somethings, were not as well acquainted
with the history and creed of the Catholic Church, as the
universal brotherhood of Ignorami and Stulti, who bear the
very appropriate cognomen of Know-No things? Will you
contend that our primitive statesmen, whose minds were
matured in the storms of the Revolution, and which gained
knowledge and strength thereby, even as the oak gains
strength by being rocked in the blasts of the tornado, were
not as capable of judging of the effects of the Catholic re¬
ligion upon the liberty of their country, as is the mind of Ned
Buntline which has mouldered away in the damps of a
State's-Prison cell, or of any other Yankee who stands by
his counter with his quill behind his ear by day, and then
lies down at night to nurse his prejudices, and devise some
plan to put down Catholics and foreigners, because, for¬
sooth, they don't go to his bigoted little meeting-house
on Sundays and help call down curses on the head
of the slaveholder?—or because they vote with the Demo¬
cratic partyi against allowing him, by way of a tariff, a pre¬
mium "upon -his osnaburgs?—or because they sell Un-ware
cheaper than Jonathan's avarice will allow him (o doit?-r-or
because their labor is cheaper than thai of native-born New
En glanders? Which, I say, were the better calculated to
judge of the effects of the Catholic religion being tolerated
in this country, the statesmen of the revolution, or the minds
of the present sages of New England and its vicinage,
crazed as they are with all the isms from the heights of
spiritualism down to the depths of Know-Nothingism? For
myself, I had rather trust Franklin and Jefferson, than John
P. Hale and Theadore Parker.
When our fathers were going to form this government
they went together in convention with a full knowledge of
the history and creed of the Catholic church. Admit every¬
thing you say of the papists to be true—admit their civil
allegiance to the Pope—their desire to re-establish the inqui¬
sition—their wish to re-enact the scenes of St. Bartholomew
—their disposition to overturn republican government—ad¬
mit everv slander that has dropped from the accommodating
tongue of Know-Nothingism to be true concerning the Cath¬
olics, and they were just as true, and more so—since Cath¬
olicism improves with the spirit of the age—when our gov¬
ernment was first formed, than they are now. And yet the
framers of the constitution, with all the terrors of Catholicism
before their eyes, agreed to tolerate it with all other relig¬
ions, and inserted a provision in the constitution to that ef¬
fect. Nay, the Roman Catholics were represented in the
convention which framed the Constitution—their blood had
uiingled with Protestant blood in the defence of American
liberty, with Protestants they had "pledged their lives, their
fortunes and their saered honor," in the defence of a com¬
mon freedom; and then both parties got together, and made
an eternal league that then, henceforward and forever, there
should be religious freedom in these United States of Ameri¬
ca. Now, the Protestant posterity of the framers of the con¬
stitution, are disposed to break faith with the descendants of
the Catholics, and yet "we Protestants" talk about Catholics
"not keeping faith ! "
But you may say that our fathers did wrong to tolerate the
Catholic religion. You do say it in effect, and you endorse
it in so many words—totidcm verbis. For under the same cov¬
er, with which are your letter of acceptance, the letter of
Clemens, and the speech of ZollicofFer—a very foreign name
bv the way—which the Know-Nothings are endorsing by
circulating so much, and whose sophistries and erroneous
statictics," you and Judge Baxter used so extensively,
is a letter from John Wesley, in which he says Cath¬
olics "ought not to be tolerated in any country, Protestant,
Mohammedan or Pagan." This sentiment is endorsed and
::r>
adopted as their own by the Know-Nothings. But you don't
call this proscription though. Hence the Know-Nothings as¬
sume the distinct ground that the founders of this govern¬
ment committed an error in tolerating the Catholic religion,
and they appeal from the'decision of those who framed our
Constitution, to another tribunal. I object to the tribunal to
which they appeal, having appellate jurisdiction. In all mat¬
ters of appeal, it jg in accordance with the laws and customs
of this country, to go from a lower to a higher tribunal, to
go from a pettit jury to a grandjury, from an inferior court
to a superior one. But here you wish to go from a grandju¬
ry to a petty one, and not only one that is petty, but one that
ispettytissimus—-petty in the lowest degree. You go from the
convention which framed our constitution, made up of giants
of intellect, to the secret councils of a Know-Nothing lodge,
(oh! what a fall my countrymen,) where Hale, and Wilson,
and Parker, and abolitionists of that ilk may sit ddwn and
abuse Washington, and denominate our constitution accurs¬
ed, because both he and it tolerated Catholicism, as they have
denounced anathemas against both Washington and the con¬
stitution because they both tolerate slavery. And hence that
Know-Nothing resolution in Massachusetts, which says,
•'Resolved, That there can exist no real hostility to Catholi¬
cism which does not embrace slavery, its natural co-worker
in opposition to freedom and republican institutions."
Some distance back I laid down these propositions:—
"Matters that are purely in the consciences of men, are mat¬
ters for the church and religion. Matters that by direct
physical act concern society are matters for the interposition
of civil law." And I promised to answer the assertion
which might be made, that this latter principle is applica¬
ble to the Catholic religion. This I have done in showing
that the founders of the government, knowing such a prin¬
ciple to be applicable to the Roman religion, (admitting it
for the sake of argument,) nevertheless did not see fit to pro¬
scribe it bylaw. I have shown that the Catholic religion, at the
time of the foundation of our constitution, was a living, ac¬
tive religion, with its political element, inquisition, and past
persecutions all upon its head, that the founders of our gov¬
ernment knew of them all, that it was represented in the
convention which framed our constitution, and that in full
view of all th^se things it was declared to be one of the ele¬
mentary principles ot our government that there should be
no proscription of this terrible Catholic religion. Our fathers
agreed to recognize it with all its faults, political element
and all. And so far as it was destructive of society, they
determined to trust that element of destruction to the correc¬
tive force of our institutions, believing, in the language pt
Mr. Jefferson, that "error can never be dangerous where
reason is left free to combat it." Catholicism, then, has a
vested right in the constilution, which you cannot destroy
without destroying the constitution itself".
But do you tell me that reason has combatted the Catho¬
lic religion in vain, and that our fathers were short-sighted
in the view they took of it? Do you tell me that you have
lost confidence in the Bible, in free discussion, in free
schools, in a free press, and in general information among
the people? Do you tell me that our institutions have prov¬
en a failure, and you wish to remodel our constitution, and
establish a test oath here in republican America, a thing that
was abandoned in monarchical England a quarter of a cen¬
tury ago, in spite of the opposition of the Tory party in that
country? If so, come out and make the issue boldly and dis¬
tinctly before the people, and make the experiment fully,
how far the Know-Nothing party can ride the hobby of fa¬
naticism and prejudice in its "wild hunt after office."
But the charges which are brought against the Catholics
are most of them untrue. It is untrue that they owe civil al¬
legiance to tke Pope of Rome, that they are ,seeking to over¬
turn the liberties of this government, that they wish to es¬
tablish an inquisition in this country. ' I have admitted all
these things for the sake of argument, because I could ad¬
mit them all and then batter down the fortress of Know-Noth-
ism. You may have ihe vantage ground in every fight-
have conceded every thing you charge against the Catho¬
lics—an(J then you will be made to bite the dust in every
battle. I repeat it though, that most of the obnoxious charg¬
es brought against the Catholics are untrue. They say it
themselves, and I say it for them. These charges are the
legitimate offspring of ignorance and prejudice, and are
rocked in the cradle of fanaticism by designing demagogues
who intend to use them for the purpose of wielding religious
prejudice and sectarian rancor, to. the building up of a party
which shall give them office. I do not intend to apply this
to you, for I believe you are honest in the positions you hold.
But to those persons at the North who originated the Know-
Nothing party to hunt down Catholics and foreigners because
they will not join in a crusade against slavery, I do apply
it in all its length, breadth, height and depth. And I add, it
is strange that any southern man mil join in the attacks and
organizations of Northern fanatics against the friends of our
Institutions.
1 have said I believe von are honest in thinking Catholics
"ought not ro he tolerated by any Government, Protestant,
Mohammedan or Pagan." In reference to this matter, X
commend to vou the principles of our revolutionary sires.
And since you think proper to call in the secular arm in mat¬
ters of religion, I will call up to yeur mind a historical remin¬
iscence-
More than eighteen hundred years ago, in the humble and
obscure little province of Nazareth, was born in a manger, of
the wife of a carpenter, an infant child. Escaping with his
life through many privations and persecutions, at the age of
thi/ty he entered upon the duties of his ministry, teaching a
new, a purer and a holier religion in opposition to the bigoted
dogmas of the Jewish grandees and nobles. Calling
around the standard of his new faith all those who groaned
beneath the yoke of civil and religious despotism, as he
brought "peace on earth and good will to men," he selected
poor fishermen and despised publicans as the instruments
for propagating the religion which he taught. Though he
was accused by Ihose who followed him with the ferocity of
fiends on account of his religion, of a disposition to overturn
the foundations of society, he still went on the even tenor of
his way, preaching glad tidings of salvation. The Jewish
people, who were expecting some great temporal leader to
deliver them from the Roman yoke, flocked around him and
would have made him king. He told them that his kingdom
was a spiritual and not a secular one. And when tempted
to know whether he acknowledged the Roman government,
he said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and unto God the things that are God's." At another time
he paid the tax that was imposed upon him by his temporul
rulers; and when a certain man, for the purpose of obtaining
place in the Earthly Kingdom which he supposed was about
to be set up, approached him, who, he thought, would wear
the Jewish crown, and offered to follow him withersoever he
went, he received this answer, "The foxes have holes and
the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not
where to lay his head." In all this he gave his followers to un¬
derstand that his religion needed not lor its advancement the
secular arm, but that there was a total divorcement between
it and the temporal power. And when the woman of Sama¬
ria called upon him to decide which religious sect was right,
the Jews or Samaritans, and whether it were proper to wor¬
ship at Jerusalem or on Mount Gerizim, he then fcjjok it upon
himself to show that creeds were nothing sectS^iji&m and
nothing—that, it mattered not whether person belonged to a
39
ihe Jewish or Samaritan denomination. He took especial
pains lo strike a blow at religious intolerance, and with a
philosophy worthy oi a God, said to the woman of Samaria,
"The hour cotxieth and now is when the true worshippers
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. For the Fath¬
er seeketh such to worship him. God is a spirit, and they
that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth."
No wonder that such religion as this consumed the intolerant
religion of the Jews as fire consumes the stubble, and that
it swept every thing like bigotry and intolerance before it.
But the wicked Jews, who knew nothing of religious free¬
dom, condemned the Nazarene to die on the cross, because
they asserted his religion was destructive of their government
and aimed at assuming the reins of secular power in its own
hands. They crucified him on Calvary, because they dif¬
fered with him in religion. But his blood became the seed
of the Church, and his religion, still spurning the arm of sec¬
ular power, became the religion of the Caesars, and is now
the religion of the most powerful and enlightened nations on
the earth. Commending the example of the Nazarene and
his apostles to the consideration of all opponents of religious
freedom, I subscribe myself.
Most respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
J. A. TURNER.