Chapter XIV: Section 8: , Article I., says: "Congress shall have power to establish a (4)

"A SORT OF A CATHOLIC.--We take it for granted that among the
informal pledges extracted by delegations in George Law's
Convention, from Col. Fremont, there was not one against the
Catholic Church; insomuch as, up to the recent birth of his
aspirations for the Presidency, he always passed in Washington
for a good enough outside Roman Catholic; that being the Church
in which he was reared. He was married in this city, it will be
remembered, by Father Van Horseigh, a clergyman of his
Church--not of that of his wife's family."

The Republicans sought to incorporate into their platform a plank in opposition to the _Religious Proscription_ of the American party, so as to suit the taste of Romanists generally; but Thaddeus Stevens, who knows Pennsylvania as well as any man living, implored them not to do so, and stated that such a course, with Fremont as their nominee, would lose them Pennsylvania by 50,000 votes!

It turns out, however, that Fremont, as the anti-American, anti-Protestant candidate, with Mr. Dayton on the ticket, equally anti-American, and devoted to Romanism, will sweep the Catholic vote in the United States. Catholics may favor Buchanan in such Southern States as do not run a Fremont ticket, but in all the Northern and North-Western States, the Fremont ticket will ruin the Buchanan ticket.

This question, taken in connection with the Slavery issue, and the Filibustering issue, narrows the contest down to one between Fillmore and Fremont. Buchanan is defeated, and the Southern fire-eaters see and feel it! The _Atlanta_ (Ga.) _Intelligencer_ comes out and states, that if Buchanan can't be elected, it prefers Fremont to Fillmore! And the South Carolina and Mississippi Disunionists openly avow, that they wish this to be the last contest of the kind. They are for Buchanan or Fremont, over Fillmore, because they believe the election of either will have the glorious effect to bring about a dissolution of the Union! In the same breath they admit that Fillmore will labor to perpetuate the Union, and that his election will have the effect to prolong its existence a few brief years!

Southern men, and Northern men, Union men, and national, conservative men, of all parties, can now see _where_ we are driving to, and _who_ they should support for the Presidency. Let them guard against these demons of Popery--these incarnate fiends of the Free Soil faith--these fanatics of a sectional cast--these slimy vultures of Secession--these bogus Democrats--and these infinitely infernal traitors to the Constitution and the Union!

"Col. Fremont was educated in and graduated from St. Mary's
College, in Baltimore, a Roman Catholic Institution. He was
brought up in the Catholic Faith, and is a Catholic. He married
a daughter of Col. Benton. Miss Benton was a Presbyterian. They
were married by a clergyman of that denomination; but a
Catholic priest made a fuss about it as being null, void, and
heretical, and the ceremony was re-performed by him!"--_Auburn
American._

The _American_ might have added, that Fremont is the son of a _Catholic Frenchman_, the son of a _Catholic mother_, and was reared under Catholic influence. Nay, Fremont educates his children at the Roman Catholic Institution at Georgetown, in the District of Columbia! The placing of such a candidate before the public, seems especially designed to defy public sentiment, and mock the Protestant American feeling of the country! We had expected the Catholics, with Bishop Hughes at their head, in a few years more, to come out openly, and run a Catholic for the Presidency, but we had not supposed them bold enough to attempt it in 1856. To show beyond all doubt that the nomination of Fremont was the result of a coalition between Seward and Hughes, more in reference to the _Catholic question_ than the _Slavery issue_, we present the record of Fremont in the United States Senate--his _ultra-Pro-Slavery course_--his voting against justice to the Colonization Society, and _seven hundred and fifty_ captured slaves--his opposition to the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia!

HE IS EXTREME SOUTHERN AND PRO-SLAVERY.

John C. Fremont held a seat in the United States Senate, in 1850, for the space of a few months. During that time he made no speeches; indeed, he has scarcely ever been known to utter any sentiments, or sanction any opinions. Yet his votes, as a member of the Senate, did make for him a record; and it is this record that will stare him in the face as long as he lives--a record in direct conflict with his present professions and position before the country:

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

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

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

"Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, called up the bill for the relief
of the American Colonization Society. The slaves that were
recaptured on the barque Pons were turned over to the
Colonization Society, by the authority of the United States,
sent to Liberia, and there kept at the expense of the society
for one or two years. Most of them were children of twelve,
fifteen, and sixteen years of age. The society thinks that the
expense of feeding, clothing, and educating these people, which
was thus devolved on them by the action of the Government,
ought to be repaid them. It was certainly an expense incurred
by the society, through the action of the Government in
throwing these young negroes upon them for maintenance, instead
of taking them, as the Government was bound to do by law, and
providing for them. That is the nature of the claim. They
simply ask that so much shall be paid them as the society, from
its own experience, pays in reference to its own emigrants. The
claim was reported upon favorably two years ago. A similar
report has again been made; and as the necessities of the
society require that they should have the money, I hope, said
Mr. U., the Senate will consent to take up the bill. The Senate
agreed to take up the bill, and proceeded to consider it as in
Committee of the Whole.

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

"The Secretary read the report accordingly. It sets forth that
a liberal construction of the act of Congress of March 3d,
1819, would require that the Government should provide for the
support of these recaptured Africans, for a reasonable time
after they had been landed in Liberia, and that it is beneath
the dignity of the Government to devolve this duty upon the
society. The petition of the executive committee of the society
which the Committee incorporated in their report, states that
on the 16th of December, 1845, the United States Ship Yorktown,
Commodore Bell, landed at Monrovia, in Liberia, from the slaver
Pons, seven hundred and fifty recaptured Africans, in a naked,
starving, and dying condition, all of them excepting twenty-one
being under the age of twenty-one. The United States made no
provision for their support after they were landed....

"The services of providing for the destitute negroes were not
required to be performed by the society under their
constitution, but the alternative was to leave these recaptured
Africans to starve and die, and the society therefore
cheerfully took charge of them, relying upon the Government of
the United States to refund the cost to them."

The question was discussed at length as to whether the United States would pay these just and legal demands; and on the vote being taken for the engrossment of the bill to a third reading, Mr. Fremont's name is found recorded in the negative--as follows:

"YEAS--Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Chase, Clayton, Davis of
Mass., DAYTON, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglass, Ewing,
Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Pearce, Pratt,
Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales,
Walker, Whitcomb, and Winthrop--29.

"NAYS--Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Benton, Butler, Dawson,
Dickinson, Downs, FREMONT, Hunter, King, Mason, Rusk,
Sebastian, Soule, Turner, and Yulee--16."

LOOK AGAIN!--On the 18th day of September, 1850, the bill to prevent persons from enticing away slaves from the District of Columbia was under consideration, and John P. Hale "moved that it be committed to the Committee on the District of Columbia, with instructions _to so amend it as to_ ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." On the vote being taken, FREMONT'S name was recorded in the NEGATIVE. (See Cong. Globe, 31st Congress, part 2, p. 1859.)

Such is Mr. Fremont's _record of Statesmanship_. It shows his nomination by the "_Republicans_" to have been a hollow mockery--"a dishonest farce,"--an insult to the intelligence of the American people.

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

Bishop Hughes and Wm. H. Seward have been, for years, intimate personal and political friends. It is a part of the political history of New York, that Seward is alone indebted to Hughes for his reelection to the United States Senate. They are both now united in the support of Fremont, and they procured his nomination over Judge McLean, a pure and patriotic man--for many years a _Methodist Class-Leader_, and an officer of a _Protestant Bible Society_.

The coalition between Hughes, Seward and Fremont, is complete, and the evidence of the foul coalition and conspiracy will appear in full, in a few days, but not in time for us to get it into this work. We are right glad of it, as it narrows the contest down to one between Fillmore and Fremont, and especially at the North.

In some of the Northern States, it is now conclusive that a _Buchanan_ ticket will not be run, while in every Northern State where such a ticket is run, it will be with no hope of success! Hughes and Seward will induce several States to drop Buchanan, and unite on Fremont, by _bargaining_ with them, and obligating themselves to give the Democracy half of the spoils. Already several _Southern_ Democratic papers are saying, that if they can't elect Buchanan, they prefer Fremont to Fillmore! This ought to open the eyes of all true patriots.

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

In this free country of ours, gentlemen have a right to support any Presidential or other ticket they may choose to support; and where they are governed by pure motives in differing from a majority of their neighbors and old political associates, no one has a right to complain.

Some few gentlemen, known as "Old Line Whigs," will not come into the support of the American ticket, but will even support the Democratic ticket; and do it from an honest (though mistaken) belief that they can most effectually serve the interests of the country by this course. With such, we shall be the last man to raise a quarrel--claiming the right to do as we please in matters of the sort. But there are some men in the ranks of the enemy now, who are governed by very different motives; and as these are quoted against the American party, or, as their refusal to act with the party is a matter of _boasting_ in the Democratic ranks, it is due to the cause of truth, and of the country, that they should be understood, that their efforts may be _appreciated_.

Without intending to be tedious, we name JAMES C. JONES, of Tennessee, as at the head of the list of _Old Liners_, whose devotion to the _South_, and love of _liberty_, prevent him from supporting Fillmore and Donelson. This is the veriest _stuff_ in the political world! Gov. Jones cannot excuse the matter of his opposition to Millard Fillmore upon the grounds he rests the case, in his Circular addressed to his constituents. The true secret of the matter must come to light, that old Whigs and new Whigs, Americans and Democrats, may appreciate his motives.

Last fall, at the Fair in Jackson, in West Tennessee, in the house and at the bedside of ANDREW GUTHRIE, on being inquired of as to his future course, the Governor became very much excited, and roundly asserted, that if the American party nominated _Fillmore_, he should go against him. ==> _Because Fillmore, in his appointment of persons to office in Tennessee, did not consult him, but in many cases appointed his personal enemies!_ Mark, he did not pause to inquire _who_ might be the opposing candidate to Mr. Fillmore. He was not then, as he is not now, governed by any _principle_ in the matter, but by _passion_. He is _against Mr. Fillmore_, under all circumstances, no matter who may oppose him! And why? Because Mr. Fillmore did not suffer him to put his numerous _active friends_ into fat offices under the General Government; to many of whom he had made pledges while he was struggling for a seat in the United States Senate--where he ought never to have gone, and where the better portion of those who aided in his election now regret having sent him!

But it is true, Fillmore and his Cabinet did refuse the extravagant demands made for office by the Governor; and in no single instance did they appoint men to office from Tennessee without consultation with BELL, GENTRY, and WILLIAMS; all three of whom were offensive to _Jones_. They had proven themselves to be worthy of consultation; the Governor had not! This accounts, moreover, for the efforts of Jones at Baltimore to defeat the nomination of Fillmore, and to procure the nomination of Scott--efforts which, unfortunately for the country, were but too successful!

When the American party was organized in Tennessee, JONES had no objection to the creed, and would have fallen into the ranks, but then he beheld _Gentry_ and _Brownlow_ in the party--men whom he despised above all others. He tried to prevent the nomination of Gentry for Governor by letter-writing, and by seeking to get up a _Whig_ Convention. Failing in these schemes, he threw himself into the arena, and _secretly_ damaged Gentry all he could, and played into the hands of Johnson, who was only elected by a majority of some _two thousand votes_!

We are not informed as to the course Gov. Jones will pursue in this contest, further than this, he will go against Fillmore. We predict that he will support Buchanan. _Pride of character_ may keep him from it--if he have any of that commodity left, after his five years' residence at Washington! The platform upon which Buchanan has been placed by the Cincinnati Convention, is a reiteration of violent and undying hostility to every measure of public policy that was advocated by HENRY CLAY and the Old Whig party. Jones still _professes_ an equally undying devotion to Clay and his principles. Moreover, Jones has, on every stump in Tennessee, held up Buchanan as a _rank old Federalist_, a Pennsylvania _Abolitionist_, and as the _wicked traducer_, _violent calumniator_, and _malignant persecutor_ of Henry Clay--even attributing his promotion to the Secretaryship of State, by Mr. Polk, to his _infamous agency_ in fastening upon Mr. Clay the foul charge of "bargain, intrigue, and corruption." We confess that we are at a loss to see how Jones can fall into the support of Buchanan. The _nomination_ of the man is a direct insult to Old Clay Whigs!

ALBERT G. WATKINS, the Representative in Congress from the First Congressional District of Tennessee, has gone over to Democracy, placing his change upon the ground of his _great concern for the South_! We take it that he will support Buchanan without hesitancy. This would place Watkins before the country in his true colors, and reflect the likeness of the man with _daguerreotype_ accuracy!! With such a platform, and such a candidate on it, Watkins would have the appearance of a man walking in one direction, with his head turned completely around, and his face looking the other way! The incongruity of the platform, and the peculiar reputation of Buchanan for political inconsistency, are alike adapted to the history and incidents of Watkins's late canvass for Congress! The plain truth is, that the man so completely destroyed himself, and was so ruinously exposed by his competitor, COL. TAYLOR, whom he beat only some two hundred votes, (and that by means that make his seat in Congress one of _thorns_,) that he could but go over to Locofocoism. And although he has, in former days, held up Buchanan on the stump as an old Federalist, and as the reviler and persecutor of Henry Clay, he can advocate him now with a better grace than he can look his Know Nothing constituents in the face! We cannot say of this man as Pope said of Craggs:

"Broke no promise, served no private end,
Gained no title, and who lost no friend."

WILLIAM G. SWAN, of Knoxville, is next on the list of "Old Line Whigs" who have gone over to the Foreign Catholic Democratic party, and of whose conversion the Democrats at a distance boast. Here they do not brag; but on the other hand, some of the leaders, whose names we can supply, authorize us to state that they do not want him, and will not receive him. This man was twice beaten for the Legislature in this county--never elected by the people to any position outside of Knoxville--and became soured at the Whig party. He went for _Johnson and Sag Nichtism_ last summer, and his loss is not regretted by the American party in this county.

But JOHN H. CROZIER, of Knoxville, has gone over to "Old Buck" and his admirers; and this is claimed as a change! This little man, _supremely selfish_, was turned out of Congress five years ago, by JOSIAH M. ANDERSON, with the people at his back, for _taking too much mileage_, by several hundred dollars per session, for four years! He afterwards desired the Whig party to run him for Governor; but they were not willing to undertake the _load_. He became soured, and last summer paid a visit to some of the counties below, to avoid, as was believed, voting for Gentry for Governor, and Sneed for Congress. He was formerly very bitter in his opposition to Democracy; and on many a stump has he denounced _Buchanan_, and all others concerned in the "bargain and intrigue" slander of Clay, besides holding up "Buck" as a Blue-light Federalist! At a recent Buchanan Ratification meeting in Knoxville, he made a bitter speech against the American party!

These two men, Swan and Crozier, were active in getting up an organization against us, in 1849, by heading a company which purchased the "_Register Establishment_," of this city, at the head of which they placed one _john miller m'kee_, behind whom they and others concealed themselves and wrote violent and abusive articles, through a controversy of two years. Driving the whole of them to the wall, as we did, in the controversy, they determined to _mob and tear down our office_; and with a view to this, those concerned deposited their _guns_, and other "implements of husbandry," in the law office jointly occupied by these two men, who have operated as _twin brothers_ for several years--each sympathizing with the other in his political defeats! Those concerned were deterred from this contemplated and well-arranged assault upon our office, by COL. LUTTRELL, the Comptroller of the State, and other gentlemen of nerve, arming themselves with shot-guns, pistols, and hatchets, and taking their stand at our office!

Nothing daunted by this defeat, these _gallant_ lawyers, and _generous_--not to say _brave_--opponents betook themselves to the county of Anderson, in this Judicial Circuit, and with great difficulty got up an indictment against us, under an old statute, forgotten by gentlemen of the bar, for _advertising a Baltimore lottery scheme_; when they themselves, and their relatives, were dealing in the _Art Union lottery_ in this city! They were most signally defeated in that indictment; and, together with the two Williamses, brothers-in-law of Crozier, sought to drive the business men of the place, and others, from advertising in our paper, or subscribing for it. Failing in this, they sought to prevent us from getting the Government advertising under Fillmore's administration; and in this they failed, though this is the ground of their hostility to Fillmore and his Cabinet, as well as to John Bell, M. P. Gentry, and C. H. Williams.

The _Register_ fell through--was sold under the hammer for _twenty-two hundred dollars_--McKee ran away--and the company have had about FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS to pay for him, which hurts prodigiously! Our WHIG has steadily increased in favor with the people, and its circulation is now THE RISE OF FIVE THOUSAND--being the largest circulation that any political or other journal ever attained in East Tennessee! Indeed, no political weekly in Tennessee now has, or ever did have, a circulation equal to "BROWNLOW'S KNOXVILLE WHIG."

A young man calling himself _Luther Patterson_, has been conducting a foreign Sag Nicht sheet at Kingston, called the "Gazetteer," and which has gone by the board for the want of patronage. This little eight by ten sheet has been editorially, and by means of anonymous communications, assaulting the writer of this work, and the editor of the _Register_, MR. FLEMING. Patterson paid a recent visit to this place; at which time Fleming met with him on the street, and publicly chastised him, applying the toe of a stiff boot to the _west end_ of his person, with some force. Patterson turned about and boasted in his paper that he had the best of the fight. Our paper and Fleming's corrected this false version of the affair, and gave the facts; whereupon Patterson sued out a writ in the Circuit Court for Fleming, for damages done to his person in said rencontre, laying his damages at $5,000! Shortly after this he instituted a civil action against the publishers of the paper we edit, and another against us for the article we wrote against him; and these suits are now pending.

These two _gallant_ attorneys, as we are informed, are employed as counsel by Patterson--a young man who has no visible means of paying lawyers, but the _eagerness_ of these gentlemen to get after us would lead them to "work for nothing and find themselves." In addition to their several civil suits against several of us, they have sent their man before the Grand Jury of Knox county, and made a presentment against us for having _out-wrote_ their Sag Nicht editor! The object of these suits against the editors and publishers of the American papers here, is to _gag_ them, or to check their influence in this contest. But they have mistaken their men. Like other vipers, they will find, before these matters end, that they bite a file--a file of good _American_ steel, and tempered to that degree of hardness that all their malignity, intense and active as it is known to be, will not be able to prevail against it!

When we came to this city of Knoxville, in 1849, we sold our office at Jonesborough, at private sale, to pay a _security debt_, and purchased a new press and materials on a credit. These we sent on to the care of WILLIAMS & CO., the brothers-in-law of Crozier, who kept about the only commission and forwarding house in Knoxville. We were detained at Jonesborough four weeks by close confinement to our bed; and our materials arriving here, these "Old Line Whigs," who had always professed friendship toward us, refused to give them house-room; and had not JAMES W. NELSON and others stepped forward and paid the charges, and procured a house for them, the steamboat captain would have sold them out for the carriage!

These _magnanimous_ gentlemen, members of the learned profession of the law, next contrived, through certain influences they brought to bear, to turn us out of the only office we could rent in the city, and thus they drove us _without the limits of the Corporation_, and compelled us to erect a temporary office upon our own lot, which we had bought on a credit. They were now at the end of their row. One was a candidate for Congress, the other for a seat in the Legislature. We pitched into both, and they were both defeated; but we do not claim that it was through our influence. Like Cardinal Wolsey, however, they both had to bid "farewell, a long farewell, to all their greatness." From the pinnacle of Congressional and Legislative honors, they have been precipitated to the shades of private life, and to political obscurity. Their chief ambition now is, to play "fantastic tricks" in courts of justice, and before grand jurors, in the way of annoying those they have neither the _manliness_ nor _courage_ to call to an account upon their own hooks!

The established usage of _gentlemen_, when offended by a newspaper editor, is to exact personal satisfaction. To acknowledge that you are personally aggrieved, and then to retort in tricks behind the offender's back, or words behind your privileges at the Bar, is to acknowledge that one is either a _fool_ or a _coward_--perhaps both. A chief object in this crusade against us is to gag us during this campaign, and kill us off from the stump and the press; but they have certainly studied our character to but little purpose. And whatever line of policy their prompters and associates of the Locofoco school may urge upon them, let them be assured that they cannot muzzle criticism of their personal or political delinquencies. It is a sacred duty to unmask the _renegade_, to expose the _traitor_, and to hold up the _demagogue_ to public reprobation. That duty will be performed freely and fearlessly, by the author of this work, come weal or come woe. If these two "Knights of the Rueful Countenance" kill and eat a dozen Know Nothings, we know one member of the Order they will not affright into silence. For their cowardly assaults and their officious intermeddlings they may bare their backs to the lash. We will be with them to the bitter end, and will only forsake them in the _Gethsemane_ of their retreat!

Had we come here with press and type, in 1849, and agreed to be controlled by these men and their particular friends, we could have been _the_ man for the times. Had we stooped to flirt and coquette and fawn and dance around these men, we could have had their endorsement, their influence, and their money, to any reasonable extent. But we neither sought their friendship, nor coveted their adulations. We claim to have been made of such inflexible materials, as not readily to go through the transmutations necessary to secure the kind regards of these men. We are no office-seeker, and desire no reward beyond the consciousness of having performed our duty, and of having served our country to the best of our ability.

We take this occasion to repeat what we have heretofore said in our journal, that nearly every prominent man in the country, calling himself an "Old Line Whig," and now opposed to Fillmore and Donelson, is influenced by personal grievances, or a desire to get office--matters with which the people have not the slightest concern. Their opposition to the American ticket proceeds from personal hostility, either to the candidates, some of the electoral candidates, or certain prominent advocates of the ticket, and from no less unworthy motives. Of course there are exceptions to this rule.

The idea of an Old Clay Whig supporting the Buchanan ticket is both absurd and ridiculous. To say nothing of the foul and malignant charge of "bargain, intrigue, and corruption," Buchanan labored to fasten upon Clay, the Platform upon which the Cincinnati Convention has placed Buchanan repudiates every principle Clay contended for, and held as sacred to the day of his death. On the contrary, the American party has not ignored one political tenet held by the Whig party, but has added new ones; none of which are at war with the creed of Clay, or the Constitution of our country! To make short work of a long story, no man who ever was a _true Whig_, and acted with that party _from principle_, can consistently go over to the _bogus_ Democracy of this day, and vote for Buchanan and Breckenridge!

Talk about a Clay Whig turning Sag Nicht! What an idea! What principle does this Foreign Democratic party hold, that an Old Line Whig, or a conservative man, North or South, does not disapprove? What principles have they ever held, the evil effects of which are not now standing out in bold relief as a monument of their shame, and to which they have added the unpardonable sin of making war upon NATIVE AMERICAN PROTESTANTS?

In conclusion, the reader will please allow a few remarks PERSONAL to the writer, and he is done--leaving the public to make their own comments, and their own disposition of both this book and its author. Our life has been a public life--our cause a public cause. We have our faults, as most men have; and we have committed some errors, as most men have. Our few acts of goodness and virtue, if any, we leave others to hunt up; our faults are subjects of criticism, and are viewed with a _jaundiced eye_ by our opponents. Through a course of _eighteen years_ of editorial invective, (whether right or wrong,) we claim to have been actuated by none other than the best of motives. We have never been prompted by ambition, malice, or a desire to make money. Our voice, which has echoed over many hills and through many valleys, has never been heard in extenuation of guilt; has never been heard to plead the cause of the gambler, the swearer, the drunkard, the robber, or the assassin. Wherever vice has lifted its "seven heads and ten horns"--wherever fraud has showed its thieving hand--wherever gambling has displayed its rotten heart--wherever demagogues have sought to impose on the honest people--there have we tried to be conspicuous; not as their aider and abettor, but as their scourge, their accuser, and their unrelenting foe. And among this class of men are our most bitter foes. What friends we have are to be found at the fireside of virtue--among sober, sedate, and thinking men, and among the brave and honorable. We have never been the slave or sycophant of any man or party, as our immense band of subscribers, numbering thousands, will bear us witness.

And now, AMERICANS, while we look forward to the future with pleasing anticipations--while we rejoice in prospect of the final triumph of wisdom, of reason, and of virtue, over audacious ignorance, palpable corruption, canting hypocrisy, and caballing Democracy--God forbid that we should indulge the vain idea that we have nothing to do! Let every friend of American rights and Protestant liberties take a bold, a decided stand, vowing most solemnly that he will have no fellowship at the ballot-box with the friends of that unpitying monster, a DEMOCRATIC PAPAL HIERARCHY! Be active, be vigilant, and persevering, and the day is ultimately ours!

"Strike till the last armed foe expires;
Strike for your altars and your fires;
Strike for the green graves of your sires,
God, and your native land!"

TO STEPHEN TRIBBLE--LETTER No. 2.

SIR:--On the night of the 9th of June, 1856, you held forth in the Court-House in Charleston, Mo., taking myself, _Rev. Josiah McCrary_, the Methodist stationed preacher of that town, and Methodists generally, for your text. It would seem that the _touch_ I gave you, and a letter of mine read before a large congregation in Charleston, on Sabbath evening, June 8th, _have fully developed all the latent blackguardism of your early training and corrupt nature_! I will now place the record of your _infamy_ before the world in such a permanent form, and circulate it so extensively, that your low Billingsgate and vile blackguardism can never harm any man or sect. I will make such a showing of you that no persons of refined feelings or of any pride of character will hear you preach or entertain you in future! I will remind many readers of the showing up of your infamous character and conduct, by the editor of the Louisville Journal, ten or twelve years ago, and of the exposure of your villainous conduct by the _Rev. Mr. McNutt_, of Kentucky, through the Nashville Advocate, some eight or nine years ago.

I will only add the following article from my paper of the 21st June, 1856, as it completes your record, so far as Tennessee is concerned. I will only add, that you were driven out of McMinn County in East Tennessee, where you were preaching, lying, and drinking whiskey, years ago. There and then, too, the records of the Sullivan County affair, certified to by the Clerk, were produced against you! But to the article from my late paper:

STEPHEN TRIBBLE AGAIN.

This old hypocrite and scoundrel has been denying in the pulpit that he was ever convicted of manslaughter or branded! It turns out, also, that the old villain once joined the American party in West Tennessee! And last, but not least, it seems that he was turned out of both the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches before he became a Campbellite preacher. A pretty disciple to be abusing honest men! But to the law and to the testimony:

"ROANE COUNTY, June 3d, 1856.

"SIR:--In your issue of the 14th of May, you notice _Stephen
Tribble_, and ask for information concerning him. He came to
the lower end of Roane county from one of the upper counties of
East Tennessee, and passed himself for an Arian preacher. I
objected to his preaching in a meeting-house, and came near
getting myself into a scrape. About that time a gentleman came
from our upper country, and said he had seen his father apply
the branding-iron to Tribble, and the smoke rose ten feet high!
I then began to play on a harp of one string against him, and
that was _a tribble_, whereupon he left between two days for
Kentucky! He was once expelled from the Methodist Church, and
afterwards he was expelled from the Presbyterian Church. If
Tribble disputes what I say, all I ask is a chance to prove it.
I live ten miles south of Kingston, near Barnardsville. Yours
truly,

"JOHN BLAIR."

* * * * *

"PARIS, TENN., June 6th, 1856.

"DEAR SIR:--I see in a late issue of yours that you are after a
Reverend wolf, Stephen Tribble. I am personally acquainted with
him, as I lived in Sullivan county when he was in the
Blountville jail. I have heard him preach here, and deny from
the stand ever having been in jail, when he and I had talked
the whole matter over the day before. He is now about
forty-eight years of age--has a scar on his cheek. He preached
here monthly in 1846, and here it was that he joined the
American party. He now resides either in Graves or Fulton
county, Kentucky. One of his brothers told me last week that he
now preaches at one point in Kentucky, and the rest of his time
in Missouri. One of their preachers told me that he gets drunk
and cuts up largely. Yours, with respect,

"A. J. HICKS."

To the foregoing letters we add a certified copy of the records of the Circuit Court of Sullivan county, and after this we shall leave this _old clerical debauchee_ to preach for such Sag Nichts as may feel edified by his ministry:

"MONDAY, Sept. 24, 1827.

"State of Tennessee, First Circuit, Sullivan County Court: met
according to adjournment. Present, Honorable Samuel Powell,
Judge, &c."

"FRIDAY, Sept. 28, 1827.

"STATE _vs._ STEPHEN TRIBBLE AND JOHN TRIBBLE.

"In this cause, the jury having retired yesterday to consider
of their verdict, under the care of an officer, and the same
jury, to wit: James Steele, Wm. Morgan, Joshua Miller, John
Thomas, Wm. Hashman, John Wassum, Thomas Brown, Stephen B.
Cawood, John K. Arnold, Thomas Fain, William Hughes, and
William H. Biggs, returning to the bar, do say, they find the
defendants not guilty of the murder, but they find them guilty
of manslaughter as charged in the bill of indictment. Whereupon
the defendants moved the Court for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should be had, which rule is granted, and on argument
said rule is discharged. It is therefore considered by the
Court that for such offence the said defendants be imprisoned
for the term of four calendar months: that they be branded with
the letter M in the brawn of the thumbs of their left hands on
to-morrow morning, and that they pay the costs of this suit or
remain in custody until the same is paid."

* * * * *

"STATE OF TENNESSEE, SULLIVAN COUNTY.

"I, Jno. W. Cox, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Sullivan County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and perfect copy of the final judgment in the case of State _vs._ Stephen Tribble and John Tribble, as appears of record in my office.

"Given under my hand at this office, the 10th of June, 1856.

"Jno. W. Cox, Clerk,

"By A. J. Cox, Dep. Clerk."

In conclusion, _Stephen_, I take my leave of you now, having introduced you to the 5,000 subscribers to the Whig, the 7,500 subscribers to our campaign paper, and the _tens of thousands of readers_ of this book--a work which will exist and be referred to when I am in my grave, and you are in the hot embraces of the Devil! You will at least agree with me that _that_ was an evil hour for you when you travelled out of your way to assail me before a strange audience in Missouri.

I am, &c.,

W. G. BROWNLOW.

Knoxville, June 23d, 1856.

A SERMON ON SLAVERY.

Delivered by the undersigned in Temperance Hall in Knoxville,
on Sabbath, 8th of June, 1856, to a large and attentive
audience, composed of citizens and strangers--some from the
North and some from the South--occupying one hour and a quarter
in the delivery. It is published as it was delivered, without
an omission or an alteration. Respectfully, &c.,

W. G. BROWNLOW.

TEXT.--"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their
own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed."--1 Tim. vi. 1.

Whoever reflects upon the nature of man, will find him to be almost entirely the creature of circumstances: his habits and sentiments are, in a great measure, the growth of adventitious circumstances and causes; hence the endless variety and condition of our species. That race of men in our country known as Abolitionists, Free-soilers, or Black Republicans, look upon any deviation from the constant round in which _they_ have been spinning out the thread of their existence as a departure from nature's great system; and, from a known principle of our nature, the first impulse of these fanatics is to condemn. It is thus that the man born and matured in a free State looks upon slavery as unnatural and horrible, and in violation of every law of justice or humanity! And it is not uncommon to hear bigots of this character, in their churches at the North, imploring the Divine wrath to shower down the consuming fires of heaven on that great Sodom and Gomorrah of the New World, all that section of country south of Mason and Dixon's line, where this unjust practice prevails.

When an unprejudiced and candid mind examines into the past condition of our race, and learns the fact which history develops, as the inquirer will, that a majority of mankind were _slaves_, he will be driven to the melancholy reflection, that the world, when first peopled by God himself, was not a world of freemen, but of _slaves_!

Slavery was really established and sanctioned by Divine authority among even God's chosen people, the favored children of Israel. Abraham, the founder of this interesting nation, and the chosen servant of the Most High, was the owner of more slaves than any cotton-planter in South Carolina or Mississippi. That magnificent shrine, the gorgeous temple of Solomon, commenced and completed under the pious promptings of religion and ancient Free-Masonry, was reared alone by the hands of slaves! Egypt's venerable and enduring pyramids were reared by the hands of slaves! Involuntary servitude, reduced to a science, existed in ancient Assyria and Babylon. The ten tribes of Israel were carried off to Assyria by Shalmanezer, and the two strong tribes of Judah were subsequently carried in triumph by Nebuchadnezzar to end their days in Babylon as slaves, and to labor to adorn the city. Ancient Phoenicia and Carthage were literally overrun with slavery, because the slave population outnumbered the free and the owners of slaves! The Greeks and Trojans, at the siege of Troy, were attended with large numbers of their slaves. Athens, and Sparta, and Thebes--indeed, the whole Grecian and Roman worlds--had more slaves than freemen. And in those ages which succeeded the extinction of the Roman empire in the West, slaves were the most numerous class. Even in the days of civilization and Christian light which revolutionized governments, laboring serfs and abject slaves were distributed throughout Eastern Europe, and a portion of Western Asia--conclusively showing that slavery existed over these boundless regions. In China, the worst forms of slavery have existed since its earliest history. And when we turn to Africa, we find slavery, in all its most horrid forms, existing throughout its whole extent, the slaves outnumbering the freemen at least three to one. Looking, then, to the whole world, we may with confidence assert, that slavery in its worst forms subdues by far the largest portion of the human race!

Now, the inquiry is, how has slavery risen and thus spread over our whole earth? We answer, by the _laws of war_, _the state of property_, _the feebleness of governments_, the thirst for _bargain and sale_, the _increase of crime_, and last, but not least, _by and with the consent and approbation of Deity_!

These remarks may suffice by way of an introduction, and they will serve to indicate the course we intend to pursue, if the announcement of the text has not already done that. _Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor_, &c. The word here rendered _servants_ means SLAVES, converted to the Christian faith; and the word rendered _yoke_ signifies the _state of slavery_ in which Christ and the apostles found the world involved when the Christian Church was first organized. By the word rendered _masters_ we are to understand the heathen masters of those Christianized slaves. Even these, in such circumstances, and under such domination, are commanded to treat their masters with all honor and respect, that the name of God, by which they were called, and the doctrine of God, to wit, Christianity, which they had professed, might not be blasphemed, might not be evil spoken of in consequence of their improper conduct. Civil rights are never abolished by any communication from God's Spirit; and those fiery bigots at the North who propose to abolish the institution of slavery in this country are not following the dictates of God's Spirit or law. The civil state in which a man was before his conversion, is not altered by that conversion; nor does the grace of God absolve him from any claims which the State, his neighbor, or lawful owner may have had on him. All these outward things continue unaltered: hence, if a man be under the sentence of death for murder, and God see fit to convert him, he is not released from suffering the extreme penalty of the law!

The Church of Christ, when originally constituted, claimed no right, _as an ecclesiastical organization_, to interfere in any way with the civil government. This was the principle upon which the Church was founded, as announced by its immortal Head. When Christ was doomed by a cruel Roman law to its most ignominious condemnation, he did not so much as resist it, because _it was law_, nor did he complain of it as oppressive.

"Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called
Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?...
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should
not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from
hence.... To this end was I born, and for this cause came I
into the world, that I should bear witness unto the
truth."--John xviii. 33-37.

When Christ came into the world on the business of his mission, he found the Jewish people subject to the dominion of the Roman kingdom; and in no instance did he counsel the Jews to rebellion, or incite them to throw off the Roman yoke, as do the vagabond philanthropists of the North in reference to the existing laws of the United States upon the subject of slavery. Christ was, by lineal descent, "THE KING OF THE JEWS," but he did not assert his temporal power, but actually refused to be crowned in that right.

Under the Roman law, human liberty was held by no more certain tenure than the whim of the sovereign power, protected by no definite constitution. Slavery constituted the most powerful and essential element of the government, and that slavery was of the most cruel character, and gave to the master absolute discretion over the lives of the slaves. Notwithstanding all this, Christ did not make war upon the existing government, nor denounce the rulers for conferring such powers, although he looked upon cruel legislation in the light in which the character of his mission required. And although the _Church itself_ was not what it should have been, in no instance did Christ ever denounce _that_. The only denunciations the Saviour ever uttered, were those against the doctors and lawyers, ministers and expounders of the Jewish code of ecclesiastical law.

But allow us to present the case of the Apostle Paul, as proof more palpable and overwhelming, on this very point. He had been falsely accused, cruelly imprisoned, and tyrannically arraigned; and that, too, before a licentious governor, an unjust and dissipated ruler, and an unprincipled infidel. The Roman law in force at the time arrested the freedom of speech, denied the rights of conscience, and even forbade the free expression of opinion in all matters conflicting with the provisions of the laws of the Roman government. In his defence before Felix, Paul never so much as speaks of Roman law, though well acquainted with it, but "he reasoned of _righteousness_, and _temperance_, and the _judgment to come_." Here was a suitable occasion to condemn the regulations and to question the authority of the villainous statutes of Rome; but instead of this, Paul plead his rights _under_ the unjust regulations of the law. He charged Felix with _official_ delinquency, with _personal_ crime, and, as a _man_, he held him up to public scorn, and threatened him with the vengeance of God! He appealed _to the law_, and justified himself _by the law_. He claimed the rights of a "_Roman citizen_"--demanded the protection due to a Roman citizen--and he scorned to find fault with the law, cruel and unjust as he knew it to be. And the consequence was, that the licentious infidel who ruled, "_trembled_."

The views we have here presented are not at all new, but have been uniformly acted upon by evangelical Christians, in all ages of the world. Since the days of St. Paul and Simon Peter, no reformer has appeared who was more violent than that good and great man, MARTIN LUTHER. JOHN CALVIN possessed a revolutionary spirit--he fought every thing he believed to be wrong--he was unyielding in his disposition, and unmitigated in his severity. Yet neither of these great men ever made war upon the existing laws of their respective countries. JOHN WESLEY was the great reformer of the past century--he reformed the whole ecclesiastical machinery of the modern Church of Christ; and his doctrines, and manner of conducting revivals, are leading elements of American Christianity. But Mr. Wesley never made war upon the English government, under which he lived and died. On the other hand, it is a matter of serious complaint among sectarians not friendly to the spread of Methodism, that Wesley wrote elaborately against the war of the Revolution. He was devoted to law and order, and he deemed it a religious duty to oppose all resistance to existing laws. In his troubles at Savannah, Georgia, like Paul before the licentious governor, he appealed _to the law_, and sought by every means in his power to be tried _under_ the law, asking only the privilege of being heard in his own defence! And it was, in all the instances we have mentioned, "_that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed_," to quote the expressive language of the text, that existing laws have been adhered to by the propagators of gospel truth.

The essential principles of the great moral law delivered to Moses by God himself, are set forth in what is called the tenth commandment, in the 20th chapter of Exodus: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his _man-servant_, nor his _maid servant_, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's." Now, the only true interpretation of this portion of the Word of God is, that the species of property mentioned are _lawful_, and that all men are forbid to disturb others in the lawful enjoyment of their property. "Man-servants and maid-servants" are distinctly _consecrated as property_, and guaranteed to man for his exclusive benefit--proof irresistible that slavery was thus ordained by God himself. We have seen learned dissertations from the pens of Abolitionists, saying, that the term "servant," and not "slave," is used here. To this we reply, that both the Hebrew and Greek words translated "servant," mean also "slave," and are more frequently used in this sense than in the former. Besides, the Hebrew Scriptures teach us, that God especially authorized his peculiar people to _purchase_ "BONDMEN FOR EVER;" and if to be in _bondage for ever_ does not constitute _slavery_, we yield the point.

The visionary notions of piety and philanthropy entertained by many men at the North, lead them to resist the _Fugitive Slave Law_ of this government, and even to _violate the tenth commandment_, by stealing our "men-servants and maid-servants," and running them into what they call free territory. Nay, the _villainous piety_ of some leads them to contribute _Sharpe's Rifles_ and _Holy Bibles_, to send the _uncircumcised Philistines_ of New England into Kansas and Nebraska, to shoot down the Christian owners of slaves, and then to perform religious ceremonies over their dead bodies! Clergymen lay aside their Bibles at the North, and females, as in the case of that model beauty, _Harriet Beecher Stowe_, unsex themselves to carry on this horrid and slanderous warfare against slaveholders of the South! And English travellers, steeped to the nose and chin in prejudices against this government and our institutions, have written books upon the subject. The Halls, Hamiltons, Trollopes, and Miss Martineaus, _et ed omne genus_, all have misrepresented us! These English writers all denounce slavery, and eulogize _Democracy_; as if an Englishman could be a Democrat, in the modern, vulgar sense of the term, and be a consistent man!

But we do not propose, in this brief discourse, to enter into any defence of the African slave trade. Although the evils of it are greatly exaggerated, its evils and cruelties, its barbarities, are not justified by the most ultra slaveholders of this age. The vile traffic was abolished by the United States, even before the British Parliament prohibited it. All the powers in the world have subsequently prohibited this trade--some of the more influential and powerful of them declaring it _piracy_, and covering the African seas with armed vessels to prevent it!

This trade, which seems so shocking to the feelings of mankind, dates its origin as far back as the year 1442. Antony Gonzales, a Portuguese mariner, while exploring the coast of Africa, was the first to steal some _Moors_, and was subsequently forced by Prince Henry of Portugal to carry them back to Africa. In the year 1502, the Spaniards began to steal negroes, and employ them in the mines of Hispaniola, Cuba, and Jamaica. In 1517, the Emperor Charles V. granted a _patent_ to certain privileged persons, _to steal exclusively_ a supply of 4,000 negroes annually, for these islands!