Chapter XXII: Explanations (10)

Is the Presbyterian Church to be made responsible for New York municipal defalcations because connection with them is charged on the Presbyterian, Mayor Hall? Is the Methodist Church answerable for Tammany frauds because Tweed is a Methodist? Let us suppose for a moment a man so devoid of all sense and decency as to compile a narrative of crimes and outrages perpetrated by people known to be Methodists, beginning years back with the well-known (Avery-Cornell) seduction and murder case in which a Methodist minister was the criminal, and coming down past the scandalous publication by Methodist printers of the infamous book of Maria Monk, to the late horrible story, in a Western city, of torture through long years of an unoffending child by its unnatural Methodist parents, to the shameful 724 malversations of a religious Book Concern, to the gigantic thefts in our city administration, to the Drew complication of the Erie abomination, which shines by its absence in all the late _Harper_ chronicles; and, having completed his catalogue, to present and denounce these crimes as the legitimate result of the teachings of the Methodist Church. It would be waste of words to point out the false reasoning, the injustice, the malice of such a performance. For, however Christian sects may differ on doctrinal points, and whatever may be alleged as to the extent of their theological errors, none of them deliberately teach immorality, and all inculcate the precepts of the decalogue.

What, then, shall be thought of a journal which, week after week, loudly and persistently, not only accuses the Catholic Church in the persons of her ministers of teaching the most flagrant immorality, but seeks--coupling with this grave charge the imputation of striving to create civil discord--by every artifice of rhetoric, by every device of exaggeration, by every appeal of gross caricature, to arouse the wildest passions and the fiercest bigotry? The journal in question labors to stir up, and it does stir up, bad blood and hot strife among hitherto peaceful neighbors.

The charge is a serious one, and we make it knowingly. Instances and illustrations in its support may be found in nearly all the numbers of the _Weekly_ for years past.

For its anti-Catholic operations, the _Journal_ is used as a sort of tender to the heavy transport, the _Monthly_, which frequently gives its readers long, elaborate, and malicious articles, made up mainly of exploded calumnies, threadbare anti-Popery rhetoric of the school of Brownlee and the early Know-Nothings, and the extraordinary lucubrations of a contributor whom we can only describe as Harper’s comic historian. This singular writer undertakes to demonstrate, for instance, that the Apostle of Ireland was not a Catholic missionary at all, but in religious faith a sort of Old-School Presbyterian, who went about distributing Bibles among the “savage Irish,” making strong “anti-Popery” speeches, and delivering lectures on popular education to the serfs of his day!

Absurd as these articles are from a literary point of view, they are yet full of inflammable material, and play as recklessly with fire as the more brutal incentives of the _Weekly_. For it must be borne in mind that most of these direct appeals to religious bigotry are intended not so much for home consumption as for their effect upon the general rural mind, and that their evident purpose is to arouse another Know-Nothing revival throughout the country.

There are, unfortunately, too many people thoughtless enough, or, perhaps, wicked enough, to respond to these incentives--people so far forgetting themselves as to imagine that their own religion, or something which they imagine stands for it, must be the state church in America, and that it is free to them to persecute and outlaw the professors of a faith which, in their ignorance, they despise and hate.

But we are satisfied that, on the other hand, there is too much intelligence, moderation, forbearance, and patriotism among American citizens to permit the success of schemes aimed at once against liberty of conscience, the peace of society, and the true freedom of our institutions.

And among these citizens we rank--by no means the last--the

CATHOLICS OF THE UNITED STATES. 725

We can only qualify as impertinent the coolness with which these scribes of the Messrs. Harper talk about “receiving” Catholics “hospitably into this free Protestant land.” When and how were these gentlemen constituted the dispensers of the hospitalities of this free country? When and how did this country become a “Protestant land”? At what period of the history of America were Catholics strangers here?

Under somewhat similar provocation, the great Montalembert, from the tribune in the Chamber of Peers, told certain Frenchmen: “We are the sons of the Crusaders, and we fear not the progeny of Voltaire.” And we, Catholics of the United States, say to these gentlemen who seek to inaugurate another Know-Nothing campaign, that here in America we are neither strangers nor new-comers of yesterday.

We came in the caravels of Columbus, we came with the Cartiers and the La Salles, the Brébœufs and the Jogues, the Joliets and the Marquettes, with the men whose blood of martyrdom moistened the soil of New York, with the men whose bones had mingled with the savannas of the South and the prairies of the West long before Plymouth Rock was heard of. We came--not with the Hessians of George--but with the army of Rochambeau and the fleet of De Grasse, with the arms of Catholic France and the gold of Catholic Spain, to aid our American struggle for liberty. The largest fortune risked in signing our Declaration of Independence was a Catholic fortune. As Catholics, we have proved our devotion to our country in three wars. The ranks of our army and the ships of our navy are full of our people, and if, at this moment, you undertake to blot the names of Catholic officers from naval and army registers, you will be compelled to deface entire pages. We are of all the walks of life, from the humblest to the highest, pursuing our legitimate business, and fulfilling our duties as citizens, fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers. We have schools, seminaries, and colleges successfully active, increasing in number and usefulness, and only not entirely filled with Catholic pupils because of the great number of youths sent to them by non-Catholic parents. We are merchants, bankers, editors, clerks, mechanics, artists, farmers, lawyers, physicians, legislators, and laborers. We fill professors’ chairs and seats on the judicial bench. We have among us thousands of cultivated men and refined and elegant women, the peers of any in the land. We are, as a body, good and law-abiding citizens. We respect ourselves. We mean to be respected. And we protest against the bigoted and senseless denunciation and caricature of our faith in the pretended exposure of fictitious plots against the institutions and liberties of our country.

There exists evidently, among the Know-Nothing writers referred to, some faint appreciation of these facts, and, with labored display of politeness, they seek to turn the difficulty by reference to “respectable citizens,” appeals to “intelligent Romanists” (thus designating us, in their clumsy courtesy, by a nickname), and such declarations as “we do not in any just sense accuse all adherents of that church of hostility to our institutions” (“_our_ institutions!”) We distinctly decline to accept any such qualification or apology. So far as our religion is concerned, we are all, lettered and unlettered, rich and poor, on a footing of perfect equality. The lady in the 726 parlor and the servant in her kitchen abide by the same religious observances, the rich banker and his poorest clerk hold precisely the same faith, and the wealthy merchant and his drayman out there in the street, kneel at the same altar. We are aware that all this is “horridly ungenteel,” but it is an old habit of our people. Eighteen hundred years ago and more, we were assured that the poor we have always. And we have them. They never leave us, and are not likely to. Poor-houses came in with the Reformation, and then poverty first became disgraceful. For poverty, and, yet more, for the shame of poverty, the needy and wretched cannot enter elegant Protestant conventicles.

And now that we have seen the nature and complexion of the attempted revival of Know-Nothing violence, it may be asked, Who are the men who promote it, creating prejudice, fostering bigotry, inflaming religious rancor, arraying neighbor against neighbor, and endangering the peace of the community? Have they a special mission from on high? Are their scribes inspired writers? Or, perchance, are the antecedents of those publishers and proprietors such as to have established a character for pure patriotism and disinterested virtue so pre-eminently superior as to authorize them to set themselves up the self-constituted guardians of American liberty and evangelical Christianity?

We propose to examine these questions in the light of the printed record of the responsible proprietors of the _Journal of Civilization_. To that printed record we shall strictly confine ourselves. And in taking the first step toward the fulfilment of our duty, we regret that circumstances will compel the revelation of some

AWFUL DISCLOSURES.

The excitement and violent denunciation of Catholicity produced many years ago by the publication of an infamous book said to have been written by one Maria Monk are still remembered among us, as well as the thorough exposure of its utter falsehood, made by Colonel Stone of New York, and other Protestant gentlemen.

The book was entitled _The Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk_, and from its title-page purported to be published by _Howe and Bates_. Howe and Bates! Who were Howe and Bates? There was none to make reply. For neither to the book trade nor in the flesh were “Howe and Bates” ever known of mortal man.

As to the character of the book in question, we are further enlightened by the author of a work entitled “_Protestant Jesuitism_, by a Protestant,” published by the Harpers in 1838. At page 34 of the book, Maria Monk’s work is described as “one of the most arrant fictions that was ever palmed upon the community,” and the author adds: “The people of this land--and it is the common attribute of human nature--love excitement, and unfortunately there are those who know how to produce it, and profit by it.” Unfortunate, indeed, it is that there are those who stand ready to profit by foul slander and malignant falsehood concerning their neighbor. Unfortunate, indeed, that men can be found who, for the sake of a few dollars, could consent to spread, broadcast upon the world, printed vilification and outrage of noble, pure-minded women, who, solely for the love of God and out of their own abundant charity, devote their lives to alleviating the sufferings of the needy, the afflicted, and the sick. Who are they who profited by it? If we can obtain a satisfactory 727 answer to that question, we may probably be far on the way toward solving the mystery which hovers over the existence of “Howe and Bates.”

Maria Monk’s disclosures were not all made in the book published by that somewhat nebulous firm. The most “awful” of all her “awful disclosures” were made in the dignified form of a bill in equity which she filed against her publishers, who, by their own admissions and declarations, turn out to be not “Howe and Bates,” who from this moment for ever disappear from view, but Messrs. James, John, Joseph W., and Fletcher Harper.

The bill filed for discovery and account against the defendants as booksellers and publishers by Maria Monk, a minor, through her next friend, shows that complainant was authoress of a work which she had copyrighted and stereotyped, and that said stereotype plates were paid for by her with money belonging to her, and that she was liable for any balance unpaid; that after the copyright had been so taken out, the said plates got into the possession of the defendants, and that they had published the work under the title of “_Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk_, as exhibited in a narrative of her sufferings during a residence of five years as a novice, and two years as a black nun, in the Hôtel Dieu at Montreal.” Further, that she was a minor, was entirely unacquainted with the modes of doing business, that she believed that persons professing to be her friends had made some bargains for her in relation to said work, that this was known to the defendants, and yet they pretended to take out another copyright of the same work in the District of Massachusetts, and published a large number of impressions from the plates, and issued the book; and that they had large profits in their hands which belonged to the complainant.

Prayer that the said James, John, Joseph W., and Fletcher Harper make full statement, etc., and deliver over all sums of money and property, with account of sales and amount received for same.

We have had occasion to see that the proprietors of the _Journal of Civilization_ are fiercely patriotic. And they were so, long before that civilizing journal was founded. Their first impulse on receiving a copy of this latest “awful disclosure” by Maria Monk was an impulse of patriotism, of indignation that a foreigner should presume to expect copyright protection in the United States. Thrice is he armed who has statutory law, patriotism, and an act of Congress upon which to fall back, and the defendants, in such panoply as that, straightway filed a demurrer.[147] Maria Monk’s copyright was first issued and had precedence of seniority, but respondents demurred, first and principally, on the ground that “the complainant did not show herself to be a citizen entitled to take out a copyright.” The demurrer also set up other matters in avoidance.

In deciding the case, the Vice-Chancellor closed the delivery of his opinion by saying: “It [the bill] does not show any privity of contract or dealing between the parties; no agreement expressed or implied by which the defendants can be held to account to the complainant for the profits of the work. It rather shows that, by fraud 728 or wrong, the defendants obtained possession of the stereotype plates, and, altering the title of the book to that of _Awful Disclosures_, etc., published it in defiance of her rights. If she has sustained loss by such conduct of the defendants, she must persuade a jury to give her compensation in a verdict of damages against them, when, perhaps, the merits of her _Awful Disclosures_ and _Nunnery Unveiled, and the motives of those who have promoted and prompted the_ publication, will duly be considered.”

Demurrer sustained, and bill dismissed at costs of complainant.

All of which, and more, may be found in _Edwards’s Chancery Reports_, vol. iii., p. 109.

PAST AND PRESENT.

Within the past twelve years, a new generation of readers has grown up in the United States--a generation far outnumbering its predecessor, and the circulation of the journal published by the Harper Brothers has increased immensely. The great body of its readers of to-day are profoundly impressed with a sense of its unvarying and undying patriotism, and it probably never occurs to the soldier who, when a mere boy, shouldered his musket in defence of the Union, that his now furiously patriotic _Harper’s Weekly_ was originally, and as long as it was found to pay, the advocate of secession and the apologist of slavery. How sadly true this is, we propose to show by presenting the results of our examination into

THE JOURNAL IN THE HOUR OF TRIAL.

On opening the volume of the _Weekly_ for the year 1861, we felt quite confident of finding an admirably executed full-length picture of the then President-elect of the United States, and confess to some disappointment when, instead thereof, occupying the entire first page, we discover portraits of “The Georgia Delegation in Congress,” followed by sketches highly laudatory of the seven gentlemen composing the delegation. The same number makes calm and commentless record of “The South Carolina Proclamation of Independence,” and the spread of secession through the South.

_January 12, 1861._--Under the heading “The Great Southern Movement,” the publishers “beg to draw attention to the following list of illustrations of the _Pending Revolution_,” such unseemly words as rebellion and treachery being left to the unprincipled Abolition papers of that day. In the same number we have “The Revolution at Charleston” in cuts of “Anderson at Sumter” and “The Charleston Militia taking Fort Pickens”--thus making a nice balance. Doubtless the Lincoln portrait will come in our next number.

Why, what are these? Portraits and laudatory notices of Governor Pickens, Honorable Judge McGrath, and “Rev. Dr. Bachman, who asked a blessing on the Secession Ordinance,” the signing of which, according to the fervid account cited from a Charleston paper, was a scene “profoundly grand and impressive”; there were “patriarchs in age--the dignitaries of the land--the high-priests of the church of Christ--reverend statesmen--and wise judges of the law”--in the midst of whom “the President advanced with the consecrated parchment”--which holy document was the ordinance of secession. We continue turning leaf after leaf with but slight edification--Skating Park--Old Fashions--Humors of the Day--Rarey the Horse Tamer--Love Story--etc. 729 Pleasant reading for people sitting over a volcano.

_January 26_ gives us “The Prayer at Sumter,” a drop of mournful comfort. Then an editorial, “WANTED, A CAPITAL.” It opens impressively: “_Some practical people, viewing the dissolution of the Union as a fixed fact_,[148] and assuming that all or nearly all the Border States will go with their Southern slave sisters, are already casting about in search of a new capital.” The vigorous patriotism of this idea is strengthened by a sweet allegory, in a column of small type, entitled “John Ardens and James Placens.” You see the delicate joke in the mild Latin? Ardens is a fiery fellow, who absurdly insists on having what he is entitled to. Placens is a gentleman, a practical philosopher, who very sensibly submits to any imposition on pocket or principle for the sake of peace. The placid moral is, “In things indifferent yield rather than quarrel.” Logically enough, two pages further on we have “The Firing on the Star of the West,” as a mere passing incident of the day. Meantime Fort Sumter does heavy duty on the illustrated pages, and is served up without intermission, from sea, from land, by day, by night, _en barbette_, _en côtelette_, and in every other conceivable way.

_February 2, 1861._--Another grand page of portraits--not of Lincoln and Seward, but of “The Seceding Mississippi Delegation in Congress,” followed by a page in small type of fulsome praise of the seven members--Jefferson Davis, Brown, Barksdale, Lamar, R. Davis, Singleton, and McRae. With the praise we also have copious and labored arguments for slavery and secession, thus: “Personally, Senator Davis is the Bayard of Congress, _sans peur et sans reproche_; a finished scholar; a high-minded gentleman; a devoted father; a true friend. He is emphatically one of those ‘born to command,’ and is doubtless _destined to occupy a high position either in the Southern Confederacy or in the United States_.” On which we would merely remark that as to the non-fulfilment of this prophecy there has been some disappointment in the first-named country, and great dissatisfaction in the second. This Mississippi article closes with the assurance from one of the seven that slavery is not only national, but “a universal institution of God and man, nature and Christianity, earth and heaven--having its origin in the law of God, sustained by the Bible, sustained by Christianity,” etc., etc.

We continue turning the leaves. And now that we have had quite enough of “the Seceding Delegations,” we naturally hope that room may be found for a portrait of the President-elect. At page 76 we come to “Portrait of the South Carolina Minister of War,” which is not the object of our search.

_February 9._--What, again? “THE SECEDING ALABAMA DELEGATION IN CONGRESS.” A full-page of portraits of nine gentlemen who do not look at all amiable. Following this comes the regulation two and a half columns of praise in small type, interspersed with extracts from their speeches. Of one of these delegates--a party by the name of Curry--we are assured that

“Nature has endowed him with a mind so active that he can
apparently discover, by a glance so rapid as to seem intuition,
those truths which common capacities struggle hard to comprehend,
while his genius enables him to enforce by argument, and his
accomplishments to illustrate, those topics upon which he 730
addresses the House.”

Naturally enough follows, on page 88, a View of the City of Montgomery, showing the state-house where “THE CONGRESS OF THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY MEETS.”

_February 16, 1861._--Concerning so-called stay-laws passed in the South, which were at the time generally understood to mean practical repudiation of mercantile debts due to the North, hark how sweetly sings the Northern secession siren with elaborate Harp accompaniment: “We trust that our Southern friends will believe that we have no partisan purpose in view if we direct their attention to the fatal consequences of the stay-laws, etc., etc. For many years our Southern States have enjoyed first-rate credit, both at the North and abroad. Southern obligations have always been preferred in New York to obligations from the East or West.... Southern men have been considered here as good under all circumstances. Their honor has been relied on to any extent. _Houses which would not trust Western or Eastern dealers a hundred dollars have been delighted to give credits of thousands to Southerners._ The simple reason was that people have had an undying faith in the honor of the Southern people--a firm conviction that under no circumstances would they seek to evade payment of their debts.” And here the siren’s song is broken by a gush of tears--“Is this faith, is this conviction to be demolished now by the passage of stay-laws?” Then follow the perennial “View of Sumter,” double-page Paris fashions, etc., until we reach (p. 109) Views of the “Mint and the New Custom House,” New Orleans, “of which the United States have had only a brief occupancy”--“both of which have been seized by the state authorities.” There is no comment on this “seizure” by the state authorities, but more than three months afterward we shall find “civilization” waking up in wrath and fulminating thus: “All that the rebels of New Orleans wanted when they stole the mint was to be let alone.” In this same number (p. 112) we have the sneering caricature of the calamity of the country which at the time afforded the enemies of the American Union exquisite delight and “prolonged shouts of laughter.” It is entitled “_The Crippled American Eagle, the Cock, and the Lion_.” To the eagle, dilapidated, lame, and on crutches: “LION.--Why, Brother Jonathan, you don’t look so fierce as you used. How about the Monroe Doctrine now? COCK.--Yes, my good Jonathan, what you tink of PRIVATEERING under de present circumstance?”

At last, in the number of February 23, we reach portraits of “President and Vice-President”--what? surely we must be mistaken! No--the print is very clear in its large capitals--“Of the Southern Confederacy.” And very good portraits they are, too, but not of the President and Vice-President we were expecting to see. The number of March 2 gives us a full-page woodcut of “The President-elect Addressing the People.” The “people” are represented by twenty-six hats and the scanty outlines of eleven men, but in compensation we have a thrilling view of two gigantic lamp-posts, and, in exaggerated disproportion, the pillars of the balcony over the centre of whose summit appears the upper half of a small, lean figure supposed to be that of A. Lincoln. This is somewhat disappointing, but, by way of consolation, the next page enlightens us on the subject of patriotism: “This subject of patriotism is in a fair way of being more thoroughly 731 ventilated than it ever was before. Everybody appears to admit that patriotism is a virtue, and that a man should love his country. But the question arises at every corner, What is our country?” The topic is illustrated by watery hypotheses from Smith, Jones, and Thomson, and the editor adds some strong milk to the water with--“Can he claim the title of patriot if he loves his state only, and confesses no obligation to the rest of the confederacy?”

For men who have progressed far enough in constitutional law and patriotism to call the Union a confederacy we have strong hopes. Further on, under heading, “The Southern Confederacy,” we are advised that “the President has nominated”--so and so--“to his cabinet.” Then follows “President Davis’s Inaugural”--not the President we are looking for. Then come “Snake Stories,” “Aunt Maria,” “The Mazed Fiddler,” “Romance by Lever”--pleasant reading for perilous times--until, at last, our search is ended, our patience rewarded, and at page 144, in the number of March 2, 1861, we have a full-length portrait of Abraham Lincoln, President-elect of the United States. It is

A REMARKABLE PICTURE.

It is indeed a picture so remarkable that we would advise every American who voted for Mr. Lincoln, every American who, whether he voted for or against him, yet credited him with the reputation of being at least a decent person, and every man, of whatever nationality, who considered him not positively a degraded loafer--we would advise all such, if they can find a copy of _Harper’s Weekly: A Journal of Civilization_, of March 2, 1861, to contemplate and study that picture, and then form their opinion of the Christianity and the patriotism of the men who, at that crisis of the country’s fate, and in that dangerous hour of feverish excitement and political passion, could, in cold blood, spread such a firebrand sketch broadcast through the land. We further commend this counsel more especially to those present readers and approvers of the _Journal of Civilization_ who cherish the memory of a murdered President whom they remember as at least blameless in life, pure in character, kind of heart, charitable in impulse, and noble in patriotism.

We will endeavor to describe the drawing. Mr. Lincoln is represented, in a room at the Astor House, standing, or rather staggering, under the influence of liquor, with a just emptied glass in his hand. He is surrounded by four boon companions, two of them with drunken leer and Bardolphian noses; a third in the background looks vacantly on with expression of maudlin stupidity; while the fourth, like the rest, glass in hand, stands at the open window, and--partially sobered by the shock--gazes at a passing funeral procession. On the moving hearse, accompanied by mourners and decked with solemn black plumes, are inscribed the words:

UNION,

CONSTITUTION.

Under this work of art--a wretched, scratchy woodcut--we read:

OUR PRESIDENTIAL MERRYMAN.

“The Presidential party was engaged in a lively exchange of wit
and humor. The President-elect was the merriest among the merry
and kept those around him in a continual roar.”--_Daily
Paper._

Now, let it be borne in mind that this very suggestive piece of malice 732 was published just on the eve of Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration at Washington, whose atmosphere was black with lowering clouds of rebellion, where threats were rife that he would never take his seat in the Presidential chair, and where men’s minds were already warped and inflamed by misrepresentations and falsehoods concerning him, the belief in which by a large portion of the community would seriously blunt any sharp opprobrium of murder, and soften down assassination to the meritorious taking off of an unworthy drunken demagogue. If the conductors of this organ of “civilization” are capable of giving the greatest publicity to a horrible caricature on such a subject, and at a moment fraught with such dreadful contingencies, need there be any room for surprise that they do not stickle at far worse when the subjects of their defamation are “only Catholics”?

ANOTHER PICTURE.

But we have not yet done with this number of March 2. It was the strongest bid of the journal for Southern favor and patronage. On the same page with the cut we have described is another, a more elaborate, more artistic, and better executed picture. Scene: Interior of a church--pews full of worshippers--minister officiating--administration of the sacrament. At the chancel railing kneels George Washington. With one hand, the clergyman standing in the sanctuary holds away the cup from the would-be communicant, and with the other contemptuously waves him off. The Father of his Country makes a gesture of indignant remonstrance, while the minister’s assistant with a long stick points to a tablet in the wall, on which are engraved the words:

THE HIGHER LAW.

NO COMMUNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.

Is the reader edified? There is more to come. The officiating minister is Henry Ward Beecher--an unmistakable portrait. His assistant is John Brown--an excellent likeness--and the pointer he uses is one of the well-known “Harper’s Ferry Pikes.” Under the engraving we read:

NO COMMUNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.

“Stand aside, you Old Sinner! We are holier than thou.”

Will the members of Plymouth Church in Brooklyn, who now see the efforts of the journal to misrepresent Catholics in doctrine and in morals, please read these efforts by the light of this George Washington picture?

We also commend careful examination, of this picture to the friends and admirers of Mr. Beecher. Let them ask themselves this question: Would the men who, for the sake of a little larger circulation, do not hesitate to caricature their own Protestant co-religionists--would these men, we say, be reasonably expected to be very scrupulous in the vilification of those whose Catholic faith they detest?

And for similar reasons, we commend consideration of both these pictures to all readers of a _Journal of Civilization_ which, week after week, by innuendo, assertion, falsehood, and caricature, strives to awaken the lowest prejudices of religious intolerance, the vilest 733 passions of religious bigotry, and the sweeping persecution of American citizens who choose to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience.

We see that, in 1861, the proprietors of the _Journal of Civilization_ held sentiments looked upon in this latitude as rebel and pro-slavery. We freely admit that they had a perfect right so to do, accepting, of course, the legal and social consequences flowing from such holding. Open to them to assume the social and moral superiority of Southern gentlemen over Northern traders. Free to them to vaunt Southern honor at the expense of Northern honesty. But surely they might advocate, as they did, with all the eloquence of their editorials and all the influence of their wide circulation, the dissolution of the Union and the strong reprobation of anti-slavery sentiment, without insinuating that Eastern and Western merchants are swindlers, without calumniating Mr. Lincoln, and without vilifying Mr. Beecher?

The journal’s proprietors were perfectly well aware how grossly Mr. Lincoln was misrepresented, and how utterly he was misunderstood in the South. To what extent sectional bitterness was intensified against him was shown by the free application of the epithet “gorilla.” Under these circumstances, was it--we will not say considerate--but was it honest, was it fair, to picture him as a drunken clown to men who did not know him, and were all too ready to believe it? Was it respectful, was it decent, to caricature the President-elect to those who did know him, as celebrating in drunken orgies the death of the Constitution and the funeral of the Union?

Henry Ward Beecher was looked upon in the South as the ardent apostle of an Abolition evangel which taught servile insurrection and midnight murder--not an enviable reputation surely. But was it fair, was it honest, to give shape, body, and unnatural proportions to this belief by picturing him as insulting the Father of his Country, aided by John Brown as his henchman, armed with a Harper’s Ferry spear?

And so we reach the journal’s issue of March 9, 1861, but have thus far found no portrait of President either elect or _de facto_, except as a drunken clown (Mr. Merryman). We learn, however, by way of explanation, that he is a sectional President! A long editorial of this number is headed RECONSTRUCTION, and contains such vigorous Union sentiment as this:

“Granted--if you will, for the sake of argument--that the
Southern rebellion against the election of a sectional President
is treason, and liable to punishment--is it wise, is it prudent,
is it possible to punish it?”

Again:

“It would undoubtedly be a very mischievous undertaking to keep
half a dozen states in the Union against the deliberate wishes of
their people. Whatever popular feeling--roused to frenzy by the
seizure of forts, arsenals, revenue cutters, and mints--might
prompt on the spur of the moment, _there can be no question but
the enterprise of holding the Union together by force would
ultimately prove futile_. IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF OUR INSTITUTIONS!”

An interesting number, this of March 9, with a fine portrait of “General David E. Twiggs, late of the United States Army,” a whole-page view of “Inauguration of President Jefferson Davis of the Southern Confederacy,” and an article explanatory of the same.

No “sectional President here,” and the inauguration is described as 734 “solemn and impressive.”

At page 160 (March 9) we have a cartoon of four vulgar caricatures, entitled collectively “The Flight of Abraham” (as reported by a Modern Daily Paper), and separately: (1.) THE ALARM.--A gaunt figure sits upright in bed with nightcap on. A lantern is held in at the open door, from which come the words: “Run, Abe, for your life, the Blood Tubs are after you!!!” (2.) THE COUNCIL.--General Sumner, with a pair of large cavalry boots in one hand, and in the other a handkerchief which he holds to his eyes, weeping vociferously--boo-o-o, stands near “Abe”; on the other side is Mrs. Lincoln in dowdy dishabille, crying bitterly, “Do go!” (3.) THE SPECIAL TRAIN.--” He wore a Scotch plaid cap and a very long military cloak, so that he was entirely unrecognizable”--an ignoble picture. (4.) THE OLD COMPLAINT.--Lincoln presents himself to the astonished Buchanan dissolved with fright, while Seward whispers to Buchanan, “Only a little attack of ager, your excellency.”

Editorial correspondence at page 162 gives us the valuable information that “Senator Wigfall is a finished orator--probably the most charming in the senate,” and that he is “the exact opposite of Chandler and Wilkinson”--“very unpleasant speakers to listen to.” Senator Mason, we are told, “with all his faults is perhaps the nearest approach in the present senate to the beau ideal of a senator.” At page 168 (March 16) we have a large cut representing “The Inauguration of Abraham Lincoln _as_ President of the United States,” and we cannot help contrasting the phraseology of this announcement with a previous one: “Inauguration of President Jefferson Davis of the Southern Confederacy.”

And so we progress to April 27, 1861, page 258, where we find President Lincoln’s Proclamation of April 15 thus announced: “War is declared. President Lincoln’s proclamation, which we publish above, is an absolute proclamation of war against the Gulf States.” Better late than never, we at last, after long, weary waiting, find in this number, page 268, the long-looked-for “Portrait of the President,” accompanied by a biographical sketch of Mr. Lincoln. It was really high time that the readers of the _Civilization_ should be told something of their President nearly two months after he had assumed the reins of government. To make everything pleasant and impartial, however, the opposite page gives us the copy of a full-length photograph of General Beauregard. Having paid your money, choice is optional.

We have thus seen with what persistence and industry the _Journal_, during the long, critical months of the beginning of that eventful year 1861, was the ardent panegyrist of everything Southern, the stern rebuker and enemy of anti-slavery, the mocker and caricaturist of Northern Union sentiment, and the contemptuous sneerer at Abraham Lincoln. But all this fine talk about principle and lofty assumption of stern virtue was a mere question of circulation, and the sympathy of the _Journal_ went with its pecuniary benefit, so far and no farther.

The immutability of its principles was subject to be disturbed by just such considerations as those which carried conviction to the understanding of Hans Breitman, and which he so admirably explained in his great political speech:

“Dese ish de brinciples I holts,
And dose in vitch I run:
Dey ish fixed firm and immutaple
Ash te course of de ‘ternal sun:

Boot if you ton’t abbrove of dem-- 735
Blease nodice vot I say--
I shall only be too happy
To alder dem right afay.”[149]

From an editorial leader of May 25, we hear that the _Weekly_ is in receipt of abusive and threatening letters from various persons in the Southern States, the cause assigned for which rude conduct is “the statement in _our editorial of March 4_, to the effect that civil war between the _Free States on one side and the Slave States on the other_ will inevitably, sooner or later, become a war of emancipation,” etc., etc. The reader may notice here that the expression, “Free States on one side and the Slave States on the other,” just as clearly and forcibly puts forth the doctrine of state sovereignty and the right of secession, as does the title of Alexander Stephens’s late work, which, in the smallest of nut-shells, gives the same doctrine in the few words, _The War between the States_. But what is of as great importance is that the contingent danger of emancipation was not presented by the journal at so early a date as _March 4_. There is no such editorial of March 4, there is no editorial of any kind of March 4, and, moreover, there was no number of _Harper’s Weekly_ published on that date. The editorial referred to appeared _May 4_. And here we would frankly say that we are quite willing to accept this March 4 for May 4 as the result of mistake, oversight, or careless proof-reading.

With the abusive and threatening letters came advices that “In Tennessee vigilance committees forbid its (_Harper’s_) being sold.” “In Louisiana, the governor prohibits its distribution through the post-office.” And now, the Harpers, like Macbeth, have heard enough, and, seized with the frenzy of patriotism, thunder after this fashion:

“As for _Harper’s Weekly_, it will continue, _as heretofore_, to support the government of the United States,[150] the stars and stripes,[151] and the indivisible union[152] of thirty-four states.

“We know no other course[153] consistent with the duty of citizens, Christians, and honest men. If any subscriber to this journal expects us to give our aid or countenance to rebellion[154] against the government, he will be disappointed. If any man buys this journal expecting to find us apologize for treason,[155] robbery, rebellion, piracy, or murder, he will be disappointed. That is not our line of business. The proprietors of _Harper’s Weekly_ would rather stop this journal to-morrow than publish a line in it which would hereafter cause their children to blush for the patriotism or the manhood of their parents.”

This sharp change of sentiment, this sudden right-about face, may be 736 best illustrated by the notes we have appended and by the utterances of the _Journal_ before and after certain occurrences.

BEFORE. AFTER.

_Editorial (leader) March _Editorial (leader) May 18,
30, 1861, entitled “The Two 1861._
Constitutions.”_
“Mr. Jefferson Davis,
“The Constitution of the Ex-Senator from Mississippi,
Southern Confederacy has has transmitted to the
been published. It is a copy select council of rebels at
of the original Constitution Montgomery a document which
of the United States, with he calls ‘A Message.’ It is
some variations. The a most ingenious and
principal variations plausible statement of their
are”--nineteen of these are case. Mr. Jefferson Davis is
then described, and the renowned for having made the
article concludes: “We have most specious argument on
thus enumerated the record in justification of
principal alterations in the Mississippi repudiation. He
Constitution effected by the has not forgotten his
Congress at Montgomery. cunning. His ‘Message’ would
_Most of them would receive almost persuade us--if we
the hearty support of the would forget facts and
people of the North. But law--that rebellion is
comment is superfluous._” right, and the maintenance
of government and the
enforcement of law a
barefaced usurpation.”

_Editorial (leader) April _Editorial (leader) June 8,
20, 1861._ 1861._

It begins by stating that “The rebellion in this country
Virginia affirms “the right has not half the excuse that
of a state to secede from the Sepoys had. The Indian
the Union at will,” and that soldiers were at least
Missouri and Kentucky standing upon their own soil
“declare that, in the event and opposing a foreign race
of forcible measures by the which had vanquished them by
general government to resist arms. It was a blind stroke
the dismemberment of the for the independence of their
Union, they will take sides nationality. But the Davis
with the seceded states.” rebellion is the resistance of
a faction of citizens against
“It seems questionable,” the government of all; and the
continues the _Weekly_, liberty for which they claim
“whether the continued that they are fighting means
alliance of these states, on baldly and only the liberty of
these conditions, is an holding other people in
unmixed gain. If this Union slavery.”[156]
of ours is a confederacy of
states which is liable to be
dissolved at the will of any
of the states, and if no
power rests with the general
government to enforce its
laws, it would seem that we
have been laboring under a
delusion these eighty years
in supposing that we were a
nation, and the fact would
appear to be that,” etc.,
etc., etc.

_Editorial “Better than _Editorial May 18, 1861,
Dollars,” April 20, 1861._ headed “In Memoriam.”_

Portrait of the typical “They have led us by the nose,
Northern man in contrast and kicked us, and laughed at
with the typical Southern us, and scorned us in their
man, in which the first is very souls as cravens and
described as mean, tuppeny tinkers. They have
avaricious, and swelled, and swaggered, and
unprincipled. “Cotton Pork sworn, and lorded it in
is a Northern man, mostly Washington and at the North,
from New England, though as if they were peculiarly
often transplanted to New _gentlemen_[157] because they
York, and doing well in our have lived by the labor of
climate. Some varieties of wretched men and women whom
his genius have been tried they did not pay--whom they
at the South, but they don’t sell to pay their debts, and
thrive there. They can’t stand whipped and maimed savagely at 737
so much sun.” their pleasure. They have
snorted superciliously about
“At the South--an odd their rights, while they
region--dollars are well deprived four millions of
thought of, to be sure, but human beings of all rights
still they don’t govern.... It whatsoever, and have sought to
seems ridiculous, but people gain such control of the
talk and think much more about general government that they
honor at the South than about might override altogether the
dollars.” state laws which protect the
equal rights of men. They have
Cotton Pork, we are told, “is aimed to destroy the
_for his country if dollars beneficent, popular system
are on his country’s side, which peacefully and patiently
otherwise he crawls on his and lawfully was working out
belly to lick the feet of the the great problem of
enemy who offers him civilization; and while they
dollars_.” have been digging about the
foundations of the temple to
“Strange how differently they make sure of its downfall,
talk down South! They spend no they have loftily replied to
energy in denouncing civil our inquiries, ‘We only want
war. They do not want to to be let alone.’”
fight. _They seek peace._ But
if it comes, they will make no
wry faces. It will cost them
much, but they utter no such
philanthropic shrieks as
proceed from the mouth of
Cotton Pork. They seem to
think that there are things
worse than fighting in this
world, and better than
dollars. An odd people, surely.”

We trust that the Southern gentleman and Cotton Pork, Esq., “a Northern man,” are pleased with their respective portraits.

We have long and patiently borne with the insults and aspersions upon our faith and conduct as Catholics persisted in for years by _Harper’s Weekly_. Trusting that better counsels would prevail, and unwilling to add by controversy a single spark to the fire already kindled, we have deferred from day to day, and from month to month, saying what we might at any time have said.

Fully aware of the by no means reputable “anti-Popery” antecedents of its proprietors, of their palpably governing motive, and of the speculation they saw at the bottom of the movement, we might, so far as we were personally concerned, have looked upon the malicious movement as not meriting serious attention.

But we are also aware to how great an extent the prestige of the wealth and commercial standing of a large publishing-house, the widespread circulation of their periodicals, and most especially their noisy and incessant proclamation of a patriotism claimed as at once unvarying, inflexible, unselfish, and devoted, had misled or blinded the general public, ignorant of their real precedents, and we have, therefore, found it our duty to enlighten as well our own readers as those of the _Weekly_ as to the real state of the case.

In so doing, we wish to call attention to the fact that we have here confined ourselves to the information furnished by public judicial decisions, and to their own record as published by themselves.

Finally, we most earnestly, and in the spirit of charity, urge these gentlemen to devote themselves to their plain, and what they may make their noble, duty as journalists. Let them be advised for their own good to cease fanning the flame of a hateful bigotry, and to pursue in the future such a course as may induce right-minded men to look upon their title-page illustration as indeed the flambeau of civilization, and not the torch of the incendiary.

[147] Demurrer is thus defined: “A stop or pause by a party
to an action for the judgment of the court on the question,
whether, assuming the truth of the matter alleged by the
opposite party, it is sufficient in law to sustain the
action, and hence whether the party resting is bound to
answer or proceed further.”

[148] In passages here quoted from _Harper’s Weekly_, the
italics are ours.

[149] We give this passage not only because we think it apt,
but also to vindicate the witty Hans from the inept
aspersions of the _Harper’s_ critic, who deliberately reaches
the solemn opinion that “in Hans Breitman there is nothing
funny but the grotesque dress. Translate his poetry into
English, and it is, with here and there a solitary
exception, the baldest of all commonplaces.”

[150] “Wanted, a Capital.”

[151] “The Crippled American Eagle.”

[152] “There can be no question but the enterprise of
holding the Union together by force would ultimately prove
futile. _It would be in violation of the principle of our
institutions._”--_Harper’s Weekly, editorial leader of
March 9, 1861._

“If the Union is really injurious to them (our Southern
friends), heaven forbid that we should insist on preserving
it.”--_Harper’s Weekly_, 1861, p. 146.

[153] “Most of them” (“alterations in the Constitution
_effected by the Congress at Montgomery_”) “would receive
the hearty support of the people of the North.”--_Harper’s
Weekly, March 30, 1861._

“Some practical people, viewing the dissolution of the Union
as a fixed fact.”--_Weekly, Jan. 26, 1861._

[154] “Is it wise, is it prudent, is it possible to punish
it?”--_Harper’s Weekly_, p. 146, 1861.

[155] “He [Jeff. Davis] is emphatically one of those ‘born
to command,’ and is doubtless destined to occupy a high
position, either in the Southern Confederacy or in the
United States.”--_Weekly, Feb. 2, 1861._

[156] “Stand aside, you Old Sinner! We are holier than
thou!”--OUR COMMENT.

[157] So italicized in the article.

----------

THE HOUSE OF YORKE. 738