Newspaper Page Text
6
AN APPEAL TO GOD FEARING DEMOCRA TS
The Golden Age publishes the following ar
ticle from the National Prohibition Head
quarters, not because we endorse all its con
clusions, but because it contains many whole
some suggestions for “’cleaning up” the dom
inant party in the South. We still believe
that a “prohibition democracy” is the hope
of our States, if not of the Nation —that
it is easier to take charge of machinery already
at work than it is to manufacture new ma
chinery—but still the author of the following
article puts the matter in such a forceful way
as to make “mighty interesting reading.”—
Editor.
SPEAK to you as a minister of the
Gospel, to men who bear the name
of Christ. You and I call our
selves sons of God. This is a
high profession. Men have a
right to expect much of us. Our
divine Lord appointed us to be
“the light of the world,” “the
salt of the earth.” He demands
-■ 11 ■
gwiMm mii '
■ ■
that we separate ourselves from the sous of
Belial (11. Cor. 6:14-17) and live as “children
of light.” But some one may ask, “Why do
you address Democrats especially?” In the
interest of truth and for several reasons:
1. lam a Southern man and our Southland
is almost solidly Democratic. Most of my
friends, of those who know me and to whom
I can hope to appeal effectively, are Southern,
hence largely Democratic in sentiment. I
speak with great emphasis to my own people.
2. The South has a more homogeneous cit
izenship; at the North they are from the ends
of the earth.
3. I trust that I may be excused for say
ing that our Southern ideals are higher. We
believe more generally in the Bible and in
Protestant Christianity. We should there
fore, stand for the highest, noblest, most truly
American type of civilization.
4. It devolves largely on us of the South
to save our national ideals from destruction by
the hordes of imported ignorance, infidelity
and superstition. There are a number of high
type foreigners, but still the bulk of our real
problems are imported problems.
My appeal is : That you stop and consid
er. You remember God once said, “My peo
ple are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
Prejudice is a sad blindness. We often
hear a voter say “I never scratched the tick
et in my life.” And yet this man is going
to judgment. He professes to love God, who
has appointed him to let his light shine before
men, and still he owns a blind, thoughtless
allegiance to a political party that gives no
recognition to God and which is largely dom
inated by the power of evil. Let us see
Where the Democratic Party Fails.
1. This Democratic party shows no ac
knowledgment of, shows no allegiance to, con
fesses no dependence on God.
Are we a nation of infidels that God should
have no place in our political platform? We
prohibitionists reverently confess our depend
ence on almighty God, as the “source of all
law and authority.” Is a party that will not
do this worthy the support of a Christian? I
think not.
2. The Democratic party has no word of
condemnation of the Mormon heirarchy, that
foid, loathsome nest of putrid polygamy.
The Prohibition party clearly condemns plu
ral marriage. Should a God-fearing man
give his ballot to a party that will not de
nounce this un-American evil, this enemy of
a pure home, called the “Mohammedanism of
the West?”
3. The Democratic party makes no effort
L. L, Pickett Calls Upon Southern Democrats to Break Old Party Shackles,
The Golden Age for October 31, 1912.
to deal with the divorce evil. In some
States eighteen or twenty divorces are is
sued to every hundred marriages. In certain
cities the ratio is still larger. Prohibitionists
demand “uniform divorce laws” in all of the
States, so that the evil can be grappled na
tionally. As it is now, a man and woman may
leave the State in which they are married,
reside a few months in another, secure a di
vorce on the most trivial grounds, marry other
persons, and go into States, under whose laws
they could not get a divorce, and live as man
and wife. Are you willing to give your ballot
support to a party that will not even) speak a
work of condemnation against such an evil?
4. The, white slave traffic. This is one of
the most brutal, revolting, devilish sins known
to civilized nations. The Prohibition party
condemns it strongly, the Democratic party
lifts not a pen against it, although more than
80,000 young women are annually sold into the
most inhuman bondage, a bondage cruel, cor
rupting, debauching, Satanic. Is a political
organization worthy of respect, not to say sup
port, of a conscientious man, when it will take
no cognizance of such a villianous and diabolic
agency of murder and lust —an evil which de
stroys character, tramples on innocence, be
draggles pure womanhood and sows death and
hell broadcast in the land? Can you longer
cast a ballot in the name of a party that allows
this hell-spawned iniquity to go unreproved?
Surely not.
> « ww
REV. L. L. PICKETT.
5. You believe in the Sabbath. It is being
destroyed by the spirit of greed and pleasure
seeking. It is fundamental to a Christian civ
power’s grip on the nation’s throat? Let us
look at a few things. Who destroyed the
Prohibition laws of Iowa? Did not the Dem
ocrats? Who wiped out the statewide Prohibi
tion law of Alabama? Did not the Democratic
governor, Emmett O’Neal? Who came near
to destroying the fifty-eight-year-old Prohibi
tion law of Maine? Did not the Democratic
governor, F. W. Plaisted? Who stumped
Texas for the brewers and was chiefly respon
sible for defeating statewide Prohibition there
ilization. But, it is going, or well nigh gone.
The Democratic party says no word for the
day, makes no protest against its spoiliation.
Does it represent your conscientious convic
tions as a man who fears God and believes in
old-fashioned righteousness? The Prohibition
party demands the preservation and recogni
tion of one day of rest in the seven. Is not
this right? Can a party demand your allegi
ance that refuses to do this?
A Consistent Liquor Record.
Has the Democratic party, nationally, ever
done a thing or said a thing to break the rum
in 1911.? Was it not Oscar Colquitt, a man
who has come to be known as “Budweiser”
Colquitt?” ( Who was responsible that no leg
islation of a temperance character got before
the House of Representatives in the Sixty-Sec
ond Session, but that all such bills should be
smothered in a committee? Was it not the
Democratic Speaker of the House, Champ
Clark? Whose state, while he was governor,,
and under his influence had a license clause
inserted in a new constitution? Was it not
the Democratic governor of Ohio, Judson Har
mon? Who stumped his State against state
wide constitutional prohibition? Was it not
Oscar Underwood, Democratic leader in the
House from Alabama?
Then, again, so worthy of special mention
in this connection, who was it, when a govern
or of his State, called the legislature in special
session to secure a county option law under
which, when created, seventy-two counties
were voted “dry” came out as the whisky can
didate for governor, and by the aid of the rum
mies was elected and succeeded in restoring the
saloons to all the'“dry” counties? Was it not
Tom Marshall, of Indiana, the present candi
date for Vice-Presidency of the Nation? Un
der his leadership in Indiana, the saloons were
restored to the seventy-two dry counties auto
matically by law, not by vote of the people,
and the “option“ was changed from county to
township. Today, fathers and mothers weep
over their boys going to hell through the sa
loons, that Tom Marshall, the whiskey lawyer,
the liquor candidate for Vice-Presidency, re
stored to Indiana.
Likewise the Democratic candidate for Pres
ident, Woodrow Wilson, while a sober man
himself, has done nothing to encourage the vote
of any man who believes in the prohibition of
the liquor traffic.
He has many pleasing traits, but he has'
distinctly stated that he does not believe the
issue of (liquor-license) and no (liquor-license)
to be a proper subject for political treatment,,
even in a State, and he carefully refrains from
showing any friendship for Prohibition.
Many have written him, asking him specifi
cally, his position upon national prohibition,,
state prohibition or even the enactment of the
laws to stop the interstate nullification of local
prohibition law, and he invariably sidesteps,
answering by enclosing a letter, in which he de
clares, “I am in favor of local option?” Very
frequently this enclosure has no reference to
the questions asked.
Therefore, the man who believes that the
liquor question is an issue, and a pressing issue,
is not justified in voting for Mr. Wilson.
But, by the way, ought we not to bear in
mind that the Democratic national platform,
years ago plainly declared, “We are opposed
to sumptuary laws.” Why did they say this?
At the dictation of the rummies, of course.
Then, whose platform was it, the Christian
man’s or the brewers? Why, the brewer’s of
course. Then, how can you, a Christian, vote
a rummy’s ticket?
“Come Out From Among Them.”
Who said that? God. Will you do it?
Finally, notice some national leaders in the
Democratic party and take a view of its
latest .national convention. Behold Tom Tag
gart, a one-time national chairman. He is a
noted gambler and resort-keeper of Indiana.
The State is said to have at one time confis
cated a carload of gambling apparatus becuse
of the lawlessness of his operations. What
about Norman E. Mack, late chairman, a noto
rious denizen of Buffalo, N. Y. Roger Sullivan,
(Continued on Page 7.)