Chapter VIII: Preface (7)

"It is a historical fact that the Romish clergy of France in
1682, under the lead of Louis XIV., made a declaration that
'Kings and sovereigns are not subject to any ecclesiastical
power by the order of God in temporal things, and their
subjects cannot be released from the obedience which they owe
them, nor absolved from their oath of allegiance.' The doctrine
of this declaration is called indifferently 'the Gallican, or
the French, or the Cis-Alpine doctrine. That of the Court of
Rome is called the Italian, or trans-Alpine doctrine."

"Under the solemn assurance of the Louisiana delegation that
the native Catholics of Louisiana do not acknowledge the
temporal supremacy of the Pope, they were admitted to
representation in the American Council and Convention, and this
fact abundantly proves that there is no desire to _persecute_
Catholics for their religion, but only a determination to
resist their political doctrine, which, although denied by Mr.
Chandler in Congress, has been incontrovertibly established by
the history of that Church for ages, the avowals of Mr.
Brownson, the rebuke of Mr. Chandler by the Dublin Tablet, and
other overwhelming proofs.

"In concluding this letter, it would, perhaps, be proper to
dwell upon the claims of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson to the
support of the American people of all parties; but their
characters are so well known, and I have already so extended my
remarks, that I deem it unnecessary to observe any thing more
than that Mr. Fillmore, by the faithful discharge of his duty,
won the most cordial approbation of his political enemies as
well as political friends, and had the confidence of the whole
country when he retired from office, and has done nothing since
to destroy it; while Maj. Donelson, as our Minister to Texas,
to Prussia, and to Denmark, sustained the dignity of our
country and acquitted himself with honor--denounced the
unhallowed proceedings of the Southern Convention--struggled
manfully, as the Democratic editor of the Washington Union, in
behalf of the Compromise, and never withdrew from it until May,
1852, when, so far as I understand his course from his public
acts, being unwilling to 'blow hot and cold' on the slavery
question, and to aid the Democratic party in wearing a Northern
and a Southern face, he indignantly retired from it, and
subsequently attached himself to the American party in the hope
that it could carry on his most cherished object--the
preservation of the Union.

"The object of selecting an old-line Whig and an old-line
Democrat, was to nail to the counter the charge that the
American party is the Whig party in disguise, and to induce, if
possible, conservative men of both the old parties to unite and
rescue the country from Democratic misrule.

"Hundreds, thousands of Democrats in Tennessee, acting upon
their own impulses and without concert with their leaders,
attached themselves to the American party, but under the abuse
of the leaders withdrew from it. Although, personally, I have
no claims upon the Democracy, and have been always opposed to
that party, yet I would respectfully observe that first
impressions are often the best, and if such Democrats will take
the trouble faithfully and honestly to examine the questions of
the day for themselves, uninfluenced by the dictation of party
leaders on either side, they will, doubtless, find many and
cogent reasons to return to their first love.

"But to such of the old-line Whigs as have not already gone
over to the Democratic party, I do feel that I have the right
through this or any other medium to address a few words. It is
well known that I have been a Whig from my boyhood, and until I
attached myself to the American party about twelve months ago;
and that, in some form or other, I have labored in behalf of
the Whig cause from my youth up--in good report and evil
report, in prosperity and in adversity, and without fee or
reward. And, with great deference to the opinions of others, I
would inquire what has any old-line Whig to gain, either for
his country or himself, by listening to the seductive
flatteries of Democracy, as he looks upon the dismembered
fragments of the Whig party, or sits, like Marius, amid the
ruins of Carthage? What party is it that has brought about the
desolation you behold? To whose strategy was it owing that the
once impregnable city was betrayed and surrounded, and its
lofty battlements levelled with the dust? What foul coalition
circumvented you, and whose pestilential breath is now
whispering in your ear? Has that party against which you have
fought for twenty years--which you have regarded as essentially
corrupt and dangerous to the Union--all at once, and by some
magical and unknown process, been cleansed of its impurities,
and does it stand before you clothed in a white and spotless
robe? What are some of the reasons why you opposed it?

"It denounced proscription for opinion's sake before it came
into power, but kept the guillotine in continual motion
afterwards. It rebuked any interference with the freedom of
elections, and then denied its doctrine, and sought in
countless ways to control them. It charged the administration
of John Quincy Adams with reckless extravagance, and has
expended as much, or nearly as much, of the public treasure in
one year as he did in the course of his administration. It was
favorable to _a_ bank, a judicious tariff, and internal
improvements by the general government, but has crushed beneath
its iron heel the whole American system. It promised a gold and
silver currency, and told the farmers that they and their wives
should have 'long silken purses, through the interstices of
which the yellow gold would shine and glitter,' but has given
us instead more than thirteen hundred State bonds, with a
capital of more than three hundred millions. It has united the
purse and the sword by means of its odious Sub-Treasury. It
trampled beneath its feet the broad seal of the State of New
Jersey, and encouraged Dorr's rebellion.

"It annexed Texas and California, and has strengthened the
Abolition power. It sustains the frequent use of the veto, and
under the name of Democracy delights in the exercise of
monarchical prerogative. It proclaimed in 1844 and 1845, that
not a thimblefull of blood would be shed by any war growing out
of the annexation of Texas, when that war sacrificed thousands
of lives, and has cost us millions in money and land. It
boasted, in regard to the Oregon question, that we must have
'54° 40´ or fight,' but swallowed its own words, and in later
times has attempted to retrieve its courage by the sublime and
magnificent bombardment of Greytown! It ordered General Taylor
into the heart of the Mexican country with a feeble force, and
when his victories had won the grateful plaudits of his
countrymen, it had the unparalleled meanness, while he was
still fighting our battles, to censure the capitulation of
Monterey. It had the baseness to call General Scott from the
head of a victorious army, and to attempt to disgrace him in
the eyes of his own country and the world. It denounced Judge
White as a renegade, General Harrison as a coward, Mr. Clay as
a blackguard, and General Scott as a fool. And, without
repeating what has been already urged in regard to its attitude
upon the slavery question and the other topics that have been
discussed, I submit to the old-line Whigs that there is no
principle which the Democratic party sincerely holds in common
with them, and that they should unite with us in the effort to
man the ship of State with officers and men devoted to the
Constitution and true to the Union, in the hope that it may be
rescued from the whirlpools and breakers among which it has
been so recklessly conducted.

"Having expressed myself with the independence which should
characterize a freeman, I cannot expect that a party which has
dealt in the most unmitigated denunciation of wiser and better
men than myself, will permit my observations to pass with
impunity, but I shall be amply compensated for their abuse if
abler tongues and pens will improve upon these hurried remarks,
and teach our Democratic traducers that they cannot continue,
without just retaliation, their unjustifiable assaults upon the
American party.

"Yours respectfully,

"THOS. A. R. NELSON."

PROSCRIBING FOREIGNERS--FOREIGN IMMIGRATION--FOREIGN PAUPERS AND CRIMINALS--FOREIGNERS ELECTED GEN. PIERCE--OPINIONS OF GREAT MEN.

The issue which most disturbs the Sag-Nicht Foreign Catholic Locofoco Dry-rot _patriots_, of the present day, in connection with the principles of the American party, is their _proscription_ of foreign-born citizens. If the reader will turn back to the Philadelphia Platform, and consult the 3d, 4th, 5th, and 9th sections of that instrument, it will be seen that the American party really proscribe only those who are proscribed by the _Constitution of the United States_, and the laws defining the rights of foreign-born citizens. The American party demand the enactment of laws upon this subject more _definite_, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

The only _positive_ work which the Constitution does, in regard to foreigners, is to _proscribe_. It contains but five clauses touching the subject: four of these are PROHIBITORY, and the other is simply _permissive_. There is no guaranteeing clause whatever. We must be pardoned for recalling the very language of the Constitution--for in this _progressive_ age, our "Young American" generation is fast losing sight of the plainest features of that document: which, with Fillibustering, Fire-eating agitators, is _Old Fogyism_! Let the Constitution speak for itself: