Chapter II: Preface (1)

For the last twenty-five years, the writer of this work has employed much of his time in the reading and study of the controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants. And those who have been subscribers to the paper he has edited and published for the LAST SEVENTEEN YEARS, will bear him witness that he has kept up a fierce and unceasing fire against that dangerous and immoral _Corporation_, claiming the right to be called the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. This he has done, and still continues to do, because he believes firmly that the system of Popery, as taught in the standards of the Church of Rome, as enforced by her Bishops and Priests, and as believed and practised by the great body of Romanists, both in Europe and America, is at war with the true religion taught in the Bible, and is injurious to the public and private morals of the civilized world; and, if unchecked, will overturn the civil and religious liberties of the United States. Such, he believes, is its tendency and the design of its leaders.

Popery is deceitful in its character; and the design of this brief work is, in part, to drag it forward into the light of the middle of the nineteenth century, to strip the flimsy vizor off its face, and to bring it, with all its abuses, corruptions, and hypocritical Protestant advocates, before the bar of enlightened public opinion, for judgment in the case. Roman Catholics misrepresent their own creed, their Church, and its corrupt institutions. The most revolting, wicked, and immoral features of their _holy and immutable system_, are kept out of sight by its corrupt Clergy, and Jesuitical teachers; while, with a purpose to _deceive_, a _Protestant sense_ is attached to most of their doctrines and peculiarities. By this vile means, they designedly _misrepresent themselves_, and impose on the public, by inducing charitable and uninformed persons to believe that they are not as profligate as they are represented to be. This game has been played with a bold hand in _Knoxville_, for the last twelve months, and it is being played in every city and town in the South and West, where Romanism is being planted. One object, then, of this _epitomized_ work, setting forth the boastings, threats, and disclosures of leading Catholic organs and Bishops, as to their real principles and designs upon this country, suffered to go forth in their more excited moments, or unguarded hours, is, to spread before the people, in a cheap form, true Popery, and to strip it of its _Protestant garb_, which it has for the time being assumed.

An additional reason for bringing out this publication, at this particular time, is, to expose a corrupt bargain entered into by the leaders of the Catholic Church, and the leaders of a corrupt and designing political party, falsely called the Democratic party. One of the most alarming "signs of the times" is, that while Protestant ministers, of different persuasions, only two brief years ago, could preach with power and eloquence against the dogmas and corrupting tendencies of _Romanism_, and pass out of the doors of their churches, receiving the compliments and extravagant praises of their entire congregations, let one of them now dare to hold up this Corporation as a dangerous foreign enemy--let him warn his charge against the influence of Popery, or but only designate the Catholic Hierarchy as the "man of sin" described in the Scriptures, and one half of his congregation are grossly insulted: they charge him with meddling in politics; and, by way of resentment, they will either not hear him again, or they will starve him out, by refusing to contribute to his support!

The hypocritical and profligate portion of the Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Episcopal membership in this country, are not so much misled by Popery, as they are influenced by _party politics_, and are in love with the _loose moral code_ of Romanism. It lays no restraints on their lusts, and gives a loose rein to all their unsanctified passions and desires. Backslidden, unconverted, or unprincipled members of Protestant Churches, find in Popery a _sympathizing irreligion_, adapted to their vicious lives; and hence they fall in with its disgusting superstitions and insulting claims. They are, therefore, ensnared with the delusions of Popery, of _choice_. In other words, Popery is a system of mere human policy; altogether of Foreign origin; Foreign in its support; importing Foreign vassals and paupers by multiplied thousands; and sending into every State and Territory in this Union, a most baneful Foreign and anti-Republican influence. Its old _goutified_, immoral, and drunken Pope, his Bishops and Priests, are _politicians_; men of the world, earthly, sensual, and devilish, and mere men of pleasure. Associated with them for the purpose, in great State and National contests, of securing the Catholic vote, are the worst class of American politicians, designing demagogues, selfish office-seekers, and bad men, calling themselves _Democrats_ and "Old-Line Whigs!" These politicians know that Popery, as a system, is in the hands of a Foreign despotism, precisely what the Koran is in the hands of the Grand Turk and his partisans. But corrupt and ambitious politicians in this country, are willing to act the part of traitors to our laws and Constitution, for the sake of profitable offices; and they are willing to sacrifice the Protestant Religion, on the ancient and profligate altar at Rome, if they may but rise to distinction on its ruins!

The great Democratic party of this country, which has degenerated into a _Semi-Papal Organization_, for the base purposes of power and plunder, now fully partakes of the intolerant spirit of Rome, and is acting it out in all the departments of our State and General Governments. What Romanism has been to the Old World, this Papal and Anti-American organization seeks and promises to be to this country. What is Popery in Roman Catholic Europe? It is as intolerant in politics as in religion: it taxes and oppresses the subjects and citizens of every country; it interdicts nations; dethrones governors, chief magistrates, and kings; dissolves civil governments; suspends commerce; annuls civil laws; and, to gratify its unsanctified lust of ambition, it has overrun whole nations with bloodshed, and thrown them into confusion. So it is with this "_Bogus_" Democracy: it wages a war of extermination against the freedom of the press, and against the liberty of speech, the rights of human conscience, and the liberties of man: hence its indiscriminate proscription of all who dare to unite with the AMERICAN PARTY, or openly espouse their cause. Popery aims at universal power over the bodies and souls of all men; and history proclaims that its weapons have been dungeons, racks, chains, fire, and sword! The _bastard_ Democracy of the present age has united with the Prelates, Priests, Monks, and Nuns of Romanism, and is daily affiliating with hundreds of thousands of the very off-scourings of the European Catholic population--stimulating them to deeds of violence, and to the shedding of blood! To-day, they sustain a _Baker_ in the foul murder of a _Poole_, in New York, because he was a member of the so-called Know-Nothing party, which had just routed, in an election, this Foreign Locofoco party! To-morrow, we find this same vile party, its editors and orators, sustaining a Foreign Catholic Mob in Louisville, Ky.; and the members of the same party, in surrounding States, exulting over the murder of Protestant Americans! And in the next breath, as it were, we find these sons of Belial, falsely called _Democrats_, after reaching the power they lusted after in Philadelphia, sending up shouts over the lawless deeds of a Foreign Catholic riot, which made the ears of every American citizen to tingle!

Under the guidance of an ALL-WISE PROVIDENCE, the Protector of our Republic, and of the Protestant Religion, it is in the power of the free and independent voters of these United States to cause this enemy's long "_arm to be clean dried up, and his right eye to be utterly darkened_," by elevating to the two first offices within the gift of the world, MILLARD FILLMORE and ANDREW J. DONELSON!

I am, candid Reader, your fellow-citizen,

W. G. BROWNLOW.

KNOXVILLE, July, 1856.

AMERICANISM CONTRASTED

WITH

Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

The Creed of the American Party--The Platform misrepresented by
Mr. Watkins--Official Vote on the adoption of the new
Platform--What the Abolitionists and Democrats say of the
Platform--Seceders from the Nominating Convention, and their
Address.

Lord Byron, just as the war of Greece approached, said: "It is not one man, nor a million, but the _spirit of liberty_ which must be spread;" and, carrying out the same bold idea of liberty, he continues, "It is time to act;" or, in the language of the Know Nothing salutation, "It is time for work;" for "what signifies _self_, if a single spark of that genius of liberty worthy of the past, can be bequeathed unquenchably to the future?" In the language of a fair poetess:

--"Our country is a whole,
Of which we all are parts; nor should a citizen
Regard his interests as distinct from hers:
No hopes or fears should touch his patriot soul,
But what affects her honor or her shame."

The civilization--the nationality--the institutions, civil and religious--and the mission of the United States, are all eminently American. Mental light and personal independence, constitutional union, national supremacy, submission to law and rules of order, homogeneous population, and instinctive patriotism, are all vital elements of American liberty, nationality, and upward and onward progress. Foreign immigration, foreign Catholic influence, and sectional factions nourished by them--and breeding demagogues in the name of _Democracy_, by a prostitution of the elective franchise--have already corrupted our nationality, degraded our councils, both State and National, weakened the bonds of union, disturbed our country's peace, and awakened apprehensions of insecurity and _progressive deterioration_, threatening ultimate ruin! To rescue and restore American institutions--to maintain American nationality, and to secure American birthrights, is the mission and the sole purpose of the AMERICAN PARTY--composed of conservative, patriotic, Protestant, Union-loving, native-born citizens of every section, and of every Christian denomination--self-sacrificing patriots, who prefer their country, and the religion of their fathers, and of the Bible, to a factious name, a plundering political organization, and an infamous Papal hierarchy!

The paramount and ultimate object of our AMERICAN ORGANIZATION is to save and exalt the Union, and to preserve and perpetuate the rights and blessings of the Protestant religion. We contend that American principles should mould American policy; that American mind should rule American destiny; that all sectional parties, such as a party _North_, or a party _South_, should be renounced; that all sectional agitations, such as are kept up by Abolitionists, Free Soilers, and Black Republicans, should be resisted; that Congress should never agitate the subject of domestic slavery, in any form or for any purpose, but leave it where the Constitution fixes it; that as the destiny of the country depends on the mind of the country, intelligence should rule; that the ballot-box should be purified, and corrupt Romanism and foreign influence checked; that any allegiance "to any foreign prince, potentate, or power"--to any power, regal or pontifical, should be rebuked as the most fatal canker of the germ of American independence; that every citizen should be encouraged to exercise freely his own conscience; and that the popular mind should be enlightened, and the popular heart rectified, by proper and universal Christian education. This is the essence of the American creed; and when methodized into a Political Decalogue, it constitutes the _Ten Commandments_ of the American party.

In this connection, and at this point, we will give the much-abused Platform of the American party, adopted at the session of the National Council, February 21, 1856. Examine the Platform, and answer to your conscience the question: What true American head can disapprove--what pure American heart can revolt? Can men taking their stand on this Platform be the enemies of civil and religious liberties? Can either civil or religious liberties rest secure on any other grounds? And must not those "Bogus" Democrats and Anti-Americans, therefore, who wage war against this citadel of American birthrights, act as enemies to the Federal Constitution, enemies to the Union, to the mental independence of American citizens--enemies to the Protestant religion, and enemies, consequently, "to civil and religious liberty?"

PLATFORM OF THE AMERICAN PARTY.

1st. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being for his
protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful
Revolutionary struggle, and hitherto manifested to us, their
descendants, in the preservation of the liberties, the
independence, and the union of these States.

2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of
our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of
American Independence.

3d. _Americans must rule America_, and to this end,
_native_-born citizens should be selected for all State,
Federal, and municipal offices, or government employment, in
preference to all others: nevertheless,

4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily
abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born
citizens; but,

5th. No person should be selected for political station,
(whether of native or foreign birth,) who recognizes any
allegiance or obligation of any description, to any foreign
prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the
Federal and State constitutions (each within its sphere) as
paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.

6th. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the
reserved rights of the several States, and the cultivation of
harmony and fraternal good-will between the citizens of the
several States; and to this end, non-interference by Congress
with questions appertaining solely to the individual States,
and non-intervention by each State with the affairs of any
other State.

7th. The recognition of the right of the native-born and
naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing
in any Territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws,
and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own
mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal
Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union
whenever they have the requisite population for one
Representative in Congress. _Provided always_, that none but
those who are citizens of the United States, under the
constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence
in any such Territory, ought to participate in the formation of
the constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said
Territory or State.

8th. An enforcement of the principle that no State or Territory
ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the
right of suffrage, or of holding political office.

9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued
residence of twenty-one years, of all not hereinbefore provided
for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and
excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from
landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested
rights of foreigners.

10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State: no
interference with religious faith or worship, and no test-oaths
for office.

11th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged
abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public
expenditures.

12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws
constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or
shall be declared null and void by competent judicial
authority.

13th. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the
present administration in the general management of our
national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing
"Americans" (by designation) and conservatives in principle,
from office, and placing foreigners and ultraists in their
places: as shown in a truckling subserviency to the stronger,
and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward the weaker powers:
as shown in reöpening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise: as shown in granting to unnaturalized
foreigners the right of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska: as
shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas and Nebraska
question: as shown in the corruptions which pervade some of the
departments of the government: as shown in disgracing
meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice; and as
shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations.

14th. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the
disastrous consequences otherwise resulting therefrom, we would
build up the "American party" upon the principles hereinbefore
stated.

15th. That each State Council shall have authority to amend
their several constitutions, so as to abolish the several
degrees, and institute a pledge of honor, instead of other
obligations, for fellowship and admission into the party.

16th. A free and open discussion of all political principles
embraced in our platform.

The HON. MR. WATKINS, a renegade from the American ranks, in East Tennessee, delivered a speech in Congress on the 6th of May, 1856; which speech we find reported in the _Washington Union_--a speech which betrays an utter ignorance of the point he undertook to discuss. It is due to _his betrayed constituents_ that we should expose his ignorance, and the blundering fallacy of his attempts to justify his turning _Locofoco Cataline Judas Sag-Nicht_! He says, as reported by his political organ-grinder:

"But, sir, the platform recently adopted by the Philadelphia
Convention cannot receive my approbation. I cannot support Mr.
Fillmore, or any other distinguished Whig, upon that platform.
The only solitary plank in the Philadelphia platform of June,
1855, was the twelfth section--that section which denied to
Congress the right to interfere with slavery in the
Territories, declaring the doctrine of non-intervention, and of
popular sovereignty in the Territories. But, sir, that plank in
the platform was stricken out by the convention recently held,
and the sixth resolution of the platform then adopted
substituted in its place. And what does that resolution
endorse? Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution
of the Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right
of Congress to interfere upon the subject of slavery in the
sixth resolution of the Philadelphia platform? Certainly not."

In lieu of the _June_ platform, we have this _February_ platform. The June platform contained _no such denial to Congress_, as is here alleged by Mr. Watkins, of the right to interfere with slavery in the Territories! And it is marvellous, indeed, that a grave Member of Congress should undertake to discuss Platforms, which he had either never read, or the purport of which, if he had ever read them, he had either wholly forgotten, or lacked the sense to comprehend! The twelfth section of the June Platform says:

"And expressly _pretermitting any expression of opinion_ upon
the power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any
Territory, it is the sense of this National Council, that
Congress OUGHT NOT to legislate upon the subject of slavery
within the Territories of the United States."

Thus, instead of _denying_ to Congress the right to interfere with slavery in the Territories, as erroneously and recklessly charged by this new-born Democrat, all opinion on that subject was "_expressly pretermitted_" in the June Platform! Mr. Watkins was in such a hurry to join the Forney, Pierce, and Catholic Democracy, that he did not stop to examine even the Platform which most disgusted him! But this is not the worst blunder which he committed in that speech. He turned to the new Platform, and asked, with an air of triumph:

"Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution of the
(new) Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right
of Congress to interfere with the subject of slavery in the
sixth resolution of the (new) Philadelphia platform?"

And he answers, "_Certainly not!_" The ignorant man, it would seem, only read as far as to the sixth section of the new Platform; and even _that_ section contains a direct affirmative answer to his question; which, in order to place the American party in a false position, he answers, "_Certainly not!_"

Now, we ask such as may have noticed his _misrepresentations_, to read a _little further on_, at least to the end of the 7th section of this new Platform, and see where it leaves Mr. Watkins! Turn back to the 7th section, and it will be seen that this section, instead of "_pretermitting any opinion_" on the question, announces the doctrine that the citizens of the United States permanently residing in the Territories, have a "_right_" to frame their Constitution and laws, and to regulate their domestic affairs in their own mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal Constitution!

The _New York Evening Post_, a Pierce and foreign Democratic organ, thus alludes to the action of the Convention which nominated FILLMORE and DONELSON:--

"The 12th section of the June Platform, it is true, had been
abrogated; BUT IT HAD BEEN REPLACED BY ANOTHER, MEANING
PRECISELY THE SAME THING!"

The _Cincinnati Gazette_, an Abolition, Anti-American Foreign sheet, came out in opposition to the American nominees, in its issue of Feb. 29th, 1856, on account of the _Pro-slavery_ character of the new Platform. The Gazette says:--

"We are glad that the action of the Convention _proved so
decided as to leave no doubt as to the character of the
Platform_. THE LATTER IS CLEARLY AND DECIDEDLY PRO-SLAVERY AND
NEBRASKA, _and in this respect corresponds precisely with the_
PRINCIPLES OF THE PIERCE DEMOCRACY! _Fillmore and Donelson_ are
therefore presented to the American people as candidates for
the Presidency and Vice Presidency, ON A THOROUGH AND DECIDED
NEBRASKA PRO-SLAVERY PLATFORM, and the citizens of Northern
States are asked to vote for them!"

The _New York Tribune_, whose editor was a prominent member of the Pittsburgh Black Republican Convention, and who is violent in his opposition to FILLMORE and DONELSON, says:

"The object of the Know Nothings has dwindled down to this--TO
DEFEAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! That is to say, this is the object
of those who have managed the Philadelphia Convention, and
nominated Mr. Fillmore. I have diligently inquired for a member
who voted for _Banks_ for Speaker, and now supports _Fillmore_;
but up to this time--more than three days after the
nomination--I have not heard of one. That sort must be scarce!"

The following is the OFFICIAL vote on the adoption of the new Platform by the National Council, which met four days previous to the Nominating Convention:

NEW HAMPSHIRE--_Nays_--Messrs. Colby and Emery.

MASSACHUSETTS--_Yeas_--Messrs. Ely, Weith, Brewster, Robinson,
and Arnold. _Nays_--Messrs. Richmond, Wheelwright, Temple,
Thurston, Sumner, Allen, Sawin, and Hawkes.

CONNECTICUT--_Nays_--Messrs. Sperry, Dunbar, Peck, Booth,
Holley, and Perkins.

RHODE ISLAND--_Yeas_--Messrs. Chase and Knight. _Nays_--Messrs.
Simons and Nightingale.

NEW YORK--_Yeas_--Messrs. Walker, Oakley, Morgan, Woodward,
Reynolds, Chester, Owens, Sanders, Whiston, Nichols, Van Dusen,
Westbrook, Parsons, Picket, Campbell, Lowell, Sammons, Oakes,
Seymour, Squire, Cooper, Burr, Bennett, Marvine, Midler,
Stephens, Johnson, Wetmore, Hammond, and S. Seymour. _Nay_--Mr.
Barker.

DELAWARE--_Yeas_--Messrs. Clement and Smithers.

MARYLAND--_Yeas_--Messrs. Codet, Alexander, Winchester,
Stephens, and Wilmot. _Nays_--Messrs. Purnell, Ricaud, Pinkney,
and Kramer.

VIRGINIA--_Nays_--Messrs. Bolling, McHugh, Cochran, Boteler,
Preston, and Maupin.

FLORIDA--_Yea_--Mr. Call.

NEW JERSEY--_Yeas_--Messrs. Deshler, Weeks, Lyon, and
McClellan.

PENNSYLVANIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Freeman, Nelclede, Gossler,
Smith, Gillinham, Hammond, Wood, Gilford, Pyle, Farrand, and
Williamson. _Nays_--Messrs. Johnson, Sewell, Jones, Parker,
Heistand, Kase, Kinkaid, Coffee, Carlisle, Crovode, Edie,
Sewell, and Power.

LOUISIANA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Lathrop and Elam. _Nays_--Messrs.
Harman and Hardy.

CALIFORNIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Wood and Stanley.

ARKANSAS--_Yea_--Mr. Logan. _Nay_--Mr. Fowler.

TENNESSEE--_Yeas_--Messrs. Brownlow, Bankhead, Zollicoffer,
Burton, Campbell, Donelson, Harris, Bilbo, and Beloat.
_Nays_--Messrs. Nelson, Reedy, and Picket.

KENTUCKY--_Yeas_--Messrs. Stowers, Campbell, Raphael, Todd,
Clay, Goodloe, and Bartlett. _Nays_--Messrs. Shanklin, Jones,
Carpenter, Gist, and Underwood.

OHIO--_Yeas_--Messrs. White, Nash, Simpson, and Lippett.
_Nays_--Messrs. Gabriel, Olds, Ford, Barker, Potter, Stanbaugh,
Rodgers, Spooner, Hodges, Kyle, Lees, Swigart, Allison,
Fishback, Thomas, Corwine, Chapman, Ayres, and Johnson.

INDIANA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Sheets and Phelps. _Nay_--Mr.
Meredith.

MISSOURI--_Yeas_--Messrs. Edward, Fletcher, and Hockaday.
_Nay_--Mr. Breckenridge.

MICHIGAN--_Yea_--Mr. Wood.

WISCONSIN--_Yeas_--Messrs. Lockwood, Cook, Chandler, and
Gillies.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Ellis and Evans.

ILLINOIS--_Yeas_--Messrs. Danenhower and Allen. _Nays_--Messrs.
Jennings and Gear.

IOWA--_Nays_--Messrs. Webster and Thorrington.

_Yeas_--108. _Nays_--77.

We will close this chapter by giving the delegates who seceded from the Nominating Convention, with the Address published by them on the occasion. That recession was a more inconsiderable affair than has been represented by the foreign party of this country. The author of this work was the Chairman of the large Committee on Credentials, and reported TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SEVEN delegates, which report was received without opposition, as to numbers. Of these, _forty-two_ only seceded, viz.: 13 out of 28 from Ohio; _one_ of two from New Hampshire; 6--all--from Connecticut; 2 out of 13 from Massachusetts; _one_ out of 3 from Illinois; 7 out of 27 from Pennsylvania; _one_ out of 4 from Rhode Island; 5--all--from Michigan; 5--all--from Wisconsin; _one_--all--from Iowa; 42 out of 277--not a _sixth_, and but little over a _seventh_ of the whole!

ADDRESS.

The seceders or "bolters" made the following address, to which they appended their States and names. What they say of the _Louisiana_ delegates, we have explained in another portion of this work:

"The undersigned, delegates to the nominating Convention now in
session at Philadelphia, find themselves compelled to dissent
from the principles avowed by that body; and holding opinions,
as they do, that the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, as
demanded by a majority of the whole people, is a redress of an
undeniable wrong, and the execution of it, in spirit at least,
indispensable to the repose of the country, they have regarded
the refusal of that Convention to recognize the well-defined
opinion of the country, and of the Americans of the free
States, upon this question, as a denial of their rights and a
rebuke to their sentiments; and they hold that the admission
into the National Council and nominating Convention, of
delegates from Louisiana, representing a Roman Catholic
Constituency, absolved every true American from all obligations
to sustain the action of either of the said bodies.

"They have therefore withdrawn from the nominating Convention,
refusing to participate in the proposed nomination, and now
address themselves to the Americans of the country, and
especially of the States they represent, to justify and approve
of their action; and to the end that a nomination conforming to
the overruling sentiment of the country in the great issue may
be regularly and auspiciously made, the undersigned propose to
the Americans in all the States to assemble in their several
State organizations, and elect delegates to a Convention to
meet in the city of New York, on Thursday, the 12th day of June
next, for the purpose of nominating candidates for President
and Vice President of the United States."

OHIO--Thos. H. Ford, J. H. Baker, B. S. Kyle, W. H. C.
Mitchell, E. T. Sturtevant, O. T. Fishback, Jacob Ebbert, Wm.
B. Allison, H. C. Hodges, L. H. Olds, W. B. Chapman, Thos.
McYees, Charles Nichols.

NEW HAMPSHIRE--Anthony Colby.

CONNECTICUT--Lucius G. Peck, Jas. E. Dunham, Hezekiah Griswold,
Austin Baldwin, Edmund Perkins, David Booth.

MASSACHUSETTS--Wild. S. Thurston, Z. R. Pangborn.

ILLINOIS--Henry S. Jennings.

PENNSYLVANIA--Wm. F. Johnston, S. C. Kase, R. M. Riddle, T. J.
Coffey, John Williamson, J. Harrison, S. Ewell.

RHODE ISLAND--E. J. Nightingale.

MICHIGAN--S. T. Lyon, W. Fuller, W. S. Wood, P. P. Meddler, J.
Hamilton.

WISCONSIN--D. A. Gillis, John Lockwood, Robt. Chandler, G.
Burdick, C. W. Cook.

IOWA--L. H. Webster.

THE ELECTION OF BANKS--THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

One of the issues in the Presidential contest now going on, is the _slavery question_. A. O. P. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, of the Washington Union, who canvassed this State in opposition to Scott, and shed his _crocodile_ tears before every crowd he addressed, because so good a man as Fillmore, who had stood firm for the _rights of the South_, had been set aside by an ungrateful Convention at Baltimore, to give place to Scott, the favorite of _Seward_--this miserable hypocrite, we say, now comes out and says, "Fillmore's abolitionism will suit the North."

The Central Democratic Committee for East Tennessee, in a call for a District Convention at Clinton, in May last, through the _Knoxville Standard_, conclude said call in this language:

"The time has again arrived when the national Democracy must
rally to their country's call and preserve the Constitution as
it is in its purity, and perpetuate the union of the States
from the rain which the _Black Republican Party of the North_,
aided by THEIR KNOW-NOTHING ALLIES OF THE SOUTH, would bring
upon them. By order of the

"CENTRAL COMMITTEE."

The _Sag-Nicht Convention_ held at Somerville, on Thursday the 8th of May, and which selected D. M. Currin as their Electoral candidate, adopted the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That we have been appointed by the Democracy of
this Electoral District to organize to fight, in the coming
Presidential election, the BLACK REPUBLICANS AND KNOW-NOTHINGS.
_Resolved_, That we _can_ beat them, and we _will_ do it.
_Resolved_, That we will cordially receive the _co-operation of
all Old-Line Whigs_ who will assist us in carrying out these
resolutions."

Now, the charge is here made that the Know-Nothings of the South are the allies of the Black Republicans of the North. This is the impression intended to be made, first by these _concealed calumniators_ at Knoxville, and afterwards by the _open and avowed slanderers_ of the same party at Somerville! With such _wholesale lying_ as is displayed in both of these cases, we have but little patience: we only give their language, to show their recklessness in making such an issue. And although this Foreign party claim to be the guardians of Southern interests, we propose to show, before we conclude this chapter, that they are themselves the "allies of the Black Republicans of the North," and are giving them more "aid and comfort" than all the other parties in the country!

FRANCIS P. BLAIR, former editor of Gen. Jackson's organ at Washington, was the President of the Black Republican Convention at Pittsburg, in February last! _John M. Niles_; Democratic Senator in Congress, was President of the Black Republican Convention held in Connecticut! In the Pittsburg Convention, over which Blair presided, PRESTON KING, ABIJAH MANN, DAVID WILMOT, and JACOB BRINKERHOFF, Old-Line Democrats, figured conspicuously.

For two long and cold winter months, the Democrats, both North and South, voted for _Richardson_, of Illinois, for Speaker, a violent _anti-slavery man_, whose speeches _against_ slavery, and in _favor_ of Abolitionism, were matters of record in the Congressional Globe, and were delivered on the floor of Congress so late as 1850! The _immortal_ 75 Democrats did not cease to vote for this man _Richardson_, until GEN. ZOLLICOFFER, of Tennessee, read his speeches upon him, in the presence of his friends!

On the 2d of February, SAMUEL A. SMITH, of Tennessee, a Democratic Representative in Congress, _renewed_ his motion to adopt the PLURALITY RULE. His proposition, which it was evident would elect _Banks_, was carried by Black Republican votes, who went for it in a body. This would still not have elected _Banks_, but for the fact that the following _Democrats_ voted for the odious plurality rule: _Clingman_, _Herbert_, _Hickman_, _Jewett_, _Kelley_, _Barclay_, _Bayard_, _Wells_, _Williams_, and SAMUEL A. SMITH! Mr. Clarke was the only American who voted for the odious rule!

MR. CARLILE, a national American, of Virginia, before the vote was taken upon this plurality rule, offered the following substitute for it:

"_Resolved_, That the HON. WM. AIKEN, a Representative from the
State of South Carolina, be, and he is hereby declared Speaker
of the Thirty-Fourth Congress."

GOV. AIKEN is a sound Southern Democrat--never was any thing else--but COL. SMITH _objected_, and demanded the _previous question_, which cut off MR. CARLILE'S resolution, and which was to prevent its adoption! The candidate of the Democratic party, at that time, MR. ORR, immediately _withdrew in favor of_ GOV. AIKEN, upon the introduction of MR. CARLILE'S resolution; and to _prevent Aiken's election_, SAMUEL A. SMITH cut off said resolution by a call of the previous question!

Banks was elected by _one_ vote, and this could not be accomplished until SEVEN DEMOCRATS got _behind the bar_, and refused to vote at all! These were HICKMAN, PARKER, and BARCLAY, of Pennsylvania; CRAIG, of North Carolina; TAYLOR, of Louisiana; RICHARDSON, of Illinois; and SEWARD, of Georgia! Any _two_ of these _Southern_ Democrats could have made AIKEN Speaker, but they did not want him--they knew Banks to be a _Democrat_, if he were a Black Republican--and to elect him, they believed would give them the strength of that odious party in the coming contest.

We have before us the _Washington Union_ of Sept. 27th, 1853, giving, editorially, a glowing account of the Massachusetts Democratic State Convention, reporting the speech of Nathaniel P. Banks, of Waltham, concluding that report in these words:

"Mr. Banks emphatically and decidedly, on his own part, and on
that of the _Democrats of Massachusetts_, disclaimed the truth
of the rumors in certain newspapers that an arrangement had
been entered into with another political party in the
Commonwealth concerning the distribution of State offices. It
was his and this Convention's and all true Democrats' desire,
belief, and determination, that Henry W. Bishop should be
elected governor of Massachusetts, and that the other
Democratic State officers should also be elected. He was not
afraid of defeat, and less afraid of _Whig success_, which, to
judge by its recent effects, was simply equivalent to a defeat.
[Applause.]"

It may be said, and doubtless will be, that _Banks_ has allied himself with the Republicans. But Banks says he has _always been a Democrat_, and that he was _nominated as a Democrat in his district_. And certain it is, that he was elected Speaker by DEMOCRATS, under the _compulsion_ of an odious plurality rule, and the _gag_ of the previous question!

It will be said, and said truthfully too, that SIX AMERICANS FROM THE NORTH voted for MR. FULLER, of Pennsylvania. So they did; and in doing so, they voted for a sound national and conservative man. But did this justify _Southern_ Democrats in _dodging_ the question, and thereby electing a Black Republican Speaker? Gov. Aiken was the candidate of the _seven_ Democrats--he was not the candidate of the _six_ Americans! Democracy, moreover, had refused to vote for an American under any circumstances, and had, on the first day of the meeting of Congress, passed a resolution insulting the whole American party, in caucus! We would have seen them banished to the farthest verge of astronomical imagination, before we would have voted for any man that favored that insulting resolution!

In 1847, by a _unanimous vote_, both branches of the Legislature of New Hampshire adopted resolutions denunciatory of the institution of slavery, and approving of the Wilmot Proviso. These resolutions were reported to the House, by the Representative from Hillsboro, the native town of _Gen. Pierce_, and were in the _handwriting_ of Pierce!

On the 2d of October, 1847, the Democratic Soft-Shells, who are now the supporters of Pierce's administration, and fill the offices he has to dispose of in New York, held a State Convention, and declared their "_uncompromising hostility to slavery_" in a string of resolutions they adopted and ordered to be published.

On the 16th of February, 1848, a Democratic State Convention for New York convened at Utica, to appoint Delegates to the National Convention to nominate candidates for President and Vice President, at which a string of anti-Southern resolutions were adopted, denouncing "_slavery_ or _involuntary servitude_," as repugnant to the genius of Republicanism.

On the 18th of July, 1848, the Democratic Soft-Shells held a mass-meeting in the park of New York, and, by way of making perfect their organization against General Cass, declared, by resolutions, their "_uncompromising hostility to slavery or involuntary servitude!_"

On the 13th of September, 1848, a Democratic mass-meeting convened at Buffalo, in New York, and, in a general Abolition jubilee, adopted resolutions condemning and denouncing the institution of slavery!

In 1852, while the contest was going on between Pierce and Scott, the _Washington Union_ said, editorially:

"THE FREE-SOIL DEMOCRATIC LEADERS OF THE NORTH, ARE A REGULAR
PORTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY; AND GENERAL PIERCE, IF
ELECTED, WILL MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM AND THE REST OF
THE DEMOCRACY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICIAL PATRONAGE, AND IN
THE SELECTION OF AGENTS FOR ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT!"

The Black Republicans recently held a meeting in New York, at which _Benjamin F. Butler_, of "pious memory," and Van Buren Swartwout notoriety, presided! On his right hand sat, as Vice President of the meeting, _Moses H. Grinnell_, one of the Democratic "pipe-layers" of 1840, whom this Van Buren Attorney-General Butler made efforts to send to the State prison! Another Vice President, gravely looking on, and arranged in dignified grandeur upon the stand, was John W. Edmonds, ex-"blanket contractor" in a large swindle, and a practical spiritual-rapper! A third and last Vice President was the notorious _Dr. Townsend_, the sarsaparilla man, who has not yet wound up his controversy with a man of the same name, as to who is the greatest rascal in the way of manufacturing this medicine!

Among the other officers, secretaries, and prominent men in the meeting, was _C. A. Dana_, of the Tribune office, a _Fourierist_, who, at a public meeting on a former occasion, toasted "Horace Greeley, Charles Fourier, and Jesus Christ!" Prominent in the meeting was _C. A. Stetson_, of the Astor House, an _Amalgamationist_. Henry J. Raymond, the Abolition editor of the Times, and _Rudolph Garrigue_, a noisy German Abolitionist, looked and acted as though they believed the salvation of the Union depended upon the success of the Republicans! A fellow who made frequent motions, an Irishman by the name of _McMorrow_, had served an apprenticeship of twelve months in the State prison, for breaking open a store after night! The principal speaker, who spoke for two hours on the subject of slavery, was the notorious _Bingham_, an itinerant Abolitionist from Ohio. It was a queer medley of men, parties, principles, and characters--two-thirds of all the active partisans in the meeting having held offices in the ranks of Democracy! And still, that party boasts of its Northern wing being sound upon the slavery question.

And here is the resolution of the 8th of January _Democratic_ Convention in Ohio, appointing delegates to the Cincinnati Pow-wow:

"_Resolved_, That the people of Ohio now, as they have always
done, look upon slavery as an evil, and unfavorable to the
development of the spirit and practical benefits of free
institutions; and that, entertaining these sentiments, they
will at all times feel it to be their duty to use all power
clearly given by the terms of the national compact, to prevent
its increase, to mitigate, _and finally eradicate the evil_."

To show, just here, where Tennessee Democrats stand upon the infamous Wilmot Proviso question, we give the following extract from a recent number of the _Nashville Patriot_:

JAMES K. POLK,

who, in 1847, approved the Oregon bill, which contained this
odious and unconstitutional clause: next in order is

CAVE JOHNSON,

now President of the Bank of Tennessee, who voted for the same
bill which Mr. Polk sanctioned: next we have

AARON V. BROWN,

an aspirant before the Cincinnati Convention, who did likewise:
then comes

JULIUS W. BLACKWELL,

a star whose light has been quenched in obscurity, but who
voted with his colleagues for the Oregon bill in '47: next in
the procession of Southern men "dangerous to the South" is

BARCLAY MARTIN,

President Pierce's U. S. Mail Agent, who cast a similar vote:
following him we have

LUCIEN B. CHASE,

author of the History of the Polk Administration, at present a
resident of New York city, but at the time he exhibited himself
as "a dangerous man to the South," a representative in Congress
from this State: he is succeeded by

FRED. P. STANTON,

for ten years a Democratic Congressman from the Memphis
district: he voted for the Oregon bill, with the Wilmot
Proviso annexed: behind him in the march is

ALVAN CULLOM,

a Democratic Congressman, who has squatted on the _other_ side
of one of his native mountains in the fourth district, and been
quiescent for some years: he was one of the Tennessee
"dangerous men:" he voted twice for the Wilmot Proviso: in the
same category is

GEORGE W. JONES,

in the language of another, the "goose which cackles at the
door of the Treasury vault:" notorious as a Southern supporter
of the Squatter Sovereignty doctrine, with two votes on record
in favor of the Wilmot Proviso. He may be reckoned as _very_
"dangerous to the South:" last, but not least in this dread
array of "dangerous men," is

ANDREW JOHNSON,

the present Governor of Tennessee, and Cincinnati aspirant: he
voted _three_ times for the Wilmot Proviso, and so doubtful are
his doctrines on the slavery question, that many slaveholding
members of his own party regard him as _extremely_ "dangerous
to the South."

By the way, in 1842, this same _Gov. Johnson_ was a Senator in our State Legislature, and introduced the following _Abolition_ resolutions, commonly called his _White Basis System_:

"_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee_,
That the basis to be observed in laying the State off into
Congressional districts shall be the voting population, WITHOUT
ANY REGARD TO THREE-FIFTHS OF THE NEGRO POPULATION.

"_Resolved_, That the 120,083 qualified voters shall be divided
by eleven, and that each eleventh of the 120,083 of qualified
voters shall be entitled to elect one member in the Congress of
the United States, or so near as may be practicable without a
division of counties."

The position of Gov. Johnson is this: he wishes the State entitled to her slave representation _as a State_, but _in her own borders_ the representative districts are to be made according to her white population! In other words, he desires the State to retain her _ten_ Congressmen, representing both her white and slave population, but wishes them appointed throughout the State without regard to the slave population: so that the county containing ten thousand white inhabitants, and double that number of slaves, should be entitled to no more representation than the county containing _ten_ thousand white inhabitants and no slaves!

We heard Johnson last summer, in his debate with Gentry, in Campbell county, contend that the county of Campbell should have the same representation in Congress as the county of Shelby, which he stated had FIFTEEN THOUSAND NEGROES! He appealed to the prejudices and passions of the poor--inquired of the hard working-men of that county how they liked to see their wives and daughters _offset_, in enumerating the strength of the county, by the "_greasy negro wenches of Shelby, Davidson, Fayette, Sumner and Rutherford counties_." He made a real, stirring abolition appeal to the poor, and non-slaveholding portion of the crowd, which was in the proportion of _ten to one_ of that county, to array them against the rich, and especially against the owners of large numbers of slaves. He told them that these Negro wenches belonged to the lordly slaveholders of Middle and West Tennessee, and that as our Constitution now is, these wenches were placed on an _equality_ with the fair daughters and virtuous wives of laboring men. On this ground he advocated his infamous amendment to the Constitution, which would incorporate his "White Basis" scheme!

This is a rank Abolition measure, and fraught with more danger to the South than any thing proposed by the whole brood of Abolitionists, Free Soilers, and Black Republicans at the North. Already the South is weak enough, and not at all able to vote with the North in our National Legislature. The effect of this scheme is to deprive the South of one-third of her strength in Congress. Not only is this the effect, but it is the design of the mover. We hold that Johnson is a Free Soiler, and has been for years. It is stated by his Northern Democratic friends, that when he quit Congress, he came home to run for Governor--with a determination, if defeated, to remove to some of the Northwestern States, and take a new start! Had he been defeated by Maj. Henry in 1853, he would now be a Black Republican in one of the Free States, running for office! And yet the propagator of this infamous Abolition doctrine of a "White Basis" representation--this demagogue who arrays the poor against slaveholders, is the man for the ultra guardians of the slave interests of the South! A man who would not own negroes when he could, but loaned his money out at interest, and left his wife and daughters to do their own work--a man who is at heart and in his doctrines a rank Free Soiler--a man who has only remained in the South to _experiment_ upon office-seeking! This is the man that Georgia, Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, and Carolinas, rejoiced to see elected Governor of a Southern slave State!

It was seeing the position of Johnson on this question that induced the "_Democratic Herald_" in Ohio, in June, 1855, thus to notice our race for Governor:

"TENNESSEE.--An animated contest is going on in this good old
Democratic State for Governor, and the largest crowds flock to
hear the candidates that ever attended political meetings since
the Hero of New Orleans used to address the masses in person.
The present incumbent, Andrew Johnson, is the Democratic
candidate, and a _Mr. Gentry_, a _pro-slavery_ renegade from
the Federal Whig ranks, is the opposing candidate, brought out
by a Know Nothing conclave. This man is on the stump abusing
the Catholics, and denouncing them for their tyranny, while he
openly advocates the _slavery doctrines of Southern Niggerdom_!
On the other hand, his competitor, Gov. Johnson, well and
favorably known to our leading Democrats of Ohio, HAS NO
SYMPATHIES WITH SLAVERY, and is the advocate of such amendments
to the Federal Constitution as will give all power to the
people, and EFFECTUALLY PUT DOWN THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY!"

Now, this showing up of Democracy, on the Slavery question, may look _shabby_ to many ultra Southern men, and it may induce them to charge that the Democratic party are _inconsistent_. We defend them against the charge of _inconsistency_, and maintain that what would be called _inconsistency_ here, is nothing but _Democracy_. For instance, A. O. P. Q. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, the editor of the great official organ of Democracy at Washington, said, editorially, and "by authority," so late as 1855:

"IT IS NO PART OF THE CREED OF A DEMOCRAT, AS SUCH, TO ADVOCATE
OR OPPOSE THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY. HE MAY DO THE ONE OR THE
OTHER, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN, AND NOT
OFFEND AGAINST HIS DEMOCRATIC FEALTY!"

Precisely so! A man may advocate the _abolition_ of slavery where it exists; he may, as a Black Republican, arm himself with Sharpe's rifle, and go into Kansas, and shoot down pro-slavery men, and still be a consistent Democrat, if he vote for the party, and stand by the nominees of the party conventions! Hence, all the factions at home and from abroad--all religions--all the ends and odds of God's creation are now associated together, and are battling in the same unholy cause, in the name of _Democracy_!

And further to exhibit the inconsistency of this Democratic and Foreign party, it will be recollected that, in 1844, they nominated SILAS WRIGHT, of New York, for Vice-President, to run on the ticket with COL. POLK--a position he declined, because he would not agree to be _second best_ on the ticket. In a letter to JAMES H. TITUS, ESQ., bearing date April 15, 1847, MR. WRIGHT says:

"If the question had been propounded to me at any period of my
public life, Shall the arms of the Union be employed to
conquer, or the money of the Union be used to purchase
Territory now constitutionally free, for the purpose of
planting Slavery upon it, I should have answered, No! And this
answer to this question is the Wilmot Proviso, as I understand
it. _I am surprised that any one should suppose me capable of
entertaining any other opinion, or giving any other answer as
to such a proposition._"

Now, if SILAS WRIGHT, one of the great "Northern lights" of Democracy, held these sentiments in 1847, what must they have been in 1844, when that party sought to elevate him to the second office within the gift of the nation? But we are just reminded of what is said in "the law and the prophets," that is to say, "_It is no part of the creed of a Democrat_, AS SUCH, _to advocate or oppose the extension of slavery!_" What a party!

[From the Knoxville Whig for Sept. 22, 1855.]

TO REV. A. B. LONGSTREET,

PROFESSOR OF METHODISM, ROMANISM, AND LOCOFOCOISM.

REVEREND SIR:--I see a _pastoral address_ of yours, to "Methodist Know-Nothing Preachers," going the rounds of the Locofoco Foreign Sag Nicht papers of the South, occupying from four to six columns, according to the dimensions of the papers copying. I have waded through your learned address, and find it to be one of more ponderous magnitude than the Report made to the British House of Commons, by Lord North, on a subject of far greater interest! And as I am one of the class of men you address, notwithstanding your great advantage over me in point of age and experience; and as no one has made a _formal_ response to your _pious warnings_, it will not be deemed insolent in me to take you up.

My first acquaintance with you was in 1847, at an Annual Meeting of the Georgia Conference, held in Madison; and although the impressions made upon my mind by you, on that occasion, were any thing but favorable to you, as a man, still, I am capable, as I believe, of doing you justice. I supposed you then to be the rise of sixty years, certainly in your _dotage_ and among the _vainest_ old gentlemen I had ever met with. You obtained leave, as I understand, by your own seeking, to deliver a lecture to the Conference, upon the subject of _correctly reading and pronouncing the Scriptures_. I was in attendance, and listened to you with all the attention and impartiality I was capable of exercising. I thought it a little _presumptuous_ for any one man to assume to teach more than one hundred able ministers how to read and pronounce the inspired writings; and the more so, when I knew that several of the number were presidents and professors in different male and female colleges, and that many others of them were graduates of the best literary institutions in the South. Still, my apology for you was, that you was a vain old gentleman, and that to listen to you, respectfully, was to obey the Divine teaching of one who has taught us to "bear the infirmities of the weak." Your _samples_, both of reading and pronunciation, were amusing and novel to me. And so far as I could gather the prevailing sentiment, it was, that to adopt your style would render the reading of the Scriptures perfectly ridiculous.

In your address to "Methodist Know-Nothing Preachers," I discover that you are still the man you were at Madison, in 1847: you have a great deal to say about _yourself_, and make free use of the personal pronoun I! _I_ advise--_I_ believe--_I_ am satisfied--_I_ will not agree--_I_ warn and caution--_I_ fear, or _I_ apprehend, etc. To parse the different sentences in your partisan harangue syntactically, little else is necessary but to understand the _first person singular_, and to repeat the rule as often as it occurs: a peculiarity which characterizes every paragraph in your labored address. Beside, the frequent use of the pronouns _I_, _me_, _my_, _mine_, etc., too frequently occur to be worth estimating. And it will be seen, upon examination, that not merely the verbiage, but the sentiment, is thus egotistic throughout, exhibiting a degree of arrogance and self-importance, only to be met with in a _Clerical Locofoco_, used by bad men for ignoble purposes. To carry out the idea of your _vanity_, you say in the winding up of your address:

"And now, brethren, have _I_ or Mr. Wesley hit upon one good
reason why you should not have joined the Know-Nothings? If
either of _us_ have, then _I_ beseech you to come from among
them. If _we_ have not, there is yet another in reserve which,
if it does not prevail will show--or prove to my satisfaction
at least--that if _an angel from heaven_ were to denounce your
order, you would cleave to it still."

Any other man but yourself would, from considerations of _modesty_, have given JOHN WESLEY the preference, in this connection, and come in as _second best_. But no, you are _first in place_, and, in your own estimation, in _importance_ likewise, as a religious teacher.

I have no doubt you consider yourself a much greater man than John Wesley ever was; and in proof of this, I need only cite what you have said in reference to Mr. Wesley's opposition to Romanism:

"Even good old John Wesley caught the spirit of the times, and
wrote that letter, from which it appears he thought if the
Catholics got into power, they would abuse Protestants. What
abuse they could have heaped on them, greater than they heaped
on Catholics, short of cutting their throats, I cannot
conceive."

The only superior you acknowledge is CARDINAL WISEMAN, a bigoted Roman Catholic, and you seem to knock under to him quite reluctantly, and not without informing the public that you have been a laborious student for forty years, and "_a profound thinker_." Here is your praise:

"I have been a pretty severe student for near forty years, and
a laborious, if not _profound thinker_ for a long time; but
when I compare myself in intellectual stature with that man, I
shrink in my own estimation to the insignificance of a mite."