Newspaper Page Text
Obe 3eßWsonian
Vol. 14, No. 13
THE ROMAN BISHOP AND THE OLD SOLDIERS.
r
Mr. Lucian Lamar Knight Again Misrepresents the Confederate Vets.
IN his card of March 15, in the Atlanta Con
-5 Mr. Knight pays a glowing
tribute to Col. James R. Randall, whom he
calls “a star of the very first magnitude in
Our poetic heavens.”
I was a friend to Col. Randall and gave
him, in 1901, an admiring mention in my
Story of the Old Plantation: he wrote
a grateful acknowledgement and attributed
his Baltimore Reception—tendered to him
Soon afterward—to my reproaching his
Maryland people for having neglected him.
But Mr. Knight is in error when he says
that Col. Randall composed the music for
‘‘Maryland, my Maryland.”
Just as “Home Sweet Home” makes a uni
versal appeal through its sentiment and its
melody,, so does Col. Randall’s poem: but
John Howard Payne did not compose the
music of “Home Sweet Home,” and Col. Ran
dall did not compose that of “Maryland, my
Maryland.”
Mr. Knight says, “But the author of this
renowned air w’as a Catholic.”
As the air is of European origin, the au
thor may have been a Catholic, but not Col.
Randall.
It is a very old serenade-song, heard on
moonlight nights on German lakes, long be
fore James R. Randall was born.
The Columbia, S, G, u State" Goes Out of Its Way to
Insult Protestants and Eulogize Romanism
IN the capital of South Carolina, a publish
* ing company whose President is Mr. A. E.
Gonzales issues a paper, daily and semi
weekly, named The State.
Such a title no doubt originally signified
that the publishers wished to be known as
peculiarly representative of South Carolina.
In a recent number of The State appears
tin editorial tribute to a Roman Catholic priest
who has come into South Carolina to take
charge of papal propaganda and proselyting.
This priest, William T. Russell, has been
Wearing with great pride and pomp the for
eign title of Monsignor, not known except to
the “nobility” of the foreign potentate of
Whom Russell is the sworn subject.
The State did not content itself with a news
notice of Russell’s coming from Washington
City to Columbia, but went very much out
Os its way to mention the fact editorially;
welcomed him as a valuable acquisition to
South Carolina; eulogized his character, and
pis work in the national capital; and ex
pressed the fervent hope that Russell’s labors
for the Italian pope might be crowned with
Success in South Carolina.
Protestant minister, Rev. F. G. Whit
lock, was surprised that a supposedly Pro
testant and patriotic'paper should publish an
Thomson, Ga,, Thursday, April 5, 1917
But what is the Compiler of our Colonial
Records working himself up about?
Why does he evade the issue, and misrep
resent a group of old soldiers who fought as
hard as those that wrote poetry?
Nobody has denied that Father Ryan com
posed several good minor poems; nobody is
inclined to depreciate James R. Randall; but
his output was quite small, while that of Paid
H. Hayne, Sidney Lanier, Dr. Prank Tick
nor and Henry Timrod was quite large.
Let me once more state the position of the
Macon Vets, as they themselves stated it in
their respectful letter of protest to the
Daughters.
That letter was published in the Macon
Evening News r and has been twice reprinted
in The Jeffersonian. Therefore no excuse
exists for misunderstanding the facts.
The Vets objected to the selection of Bishop
Keiley, not because he is a Catholic, but be
cause of his disloyal course in enforcing in
this State the foreign laics of his church,
ichen those laws are in conflict with the laws
of Georgia.
Is that plain to you, Mr. Knight?
Pray tell us whether our laws are to be
trampled upon by the oath-bound subject of a
foreign potentate?
Pray tell us whether our laws are to be
editorial of that kind, and wrote a letter of
protest which The State published.
But in the same issue of the paper the Edi
tor printed a still more offensive article, in
sulting to the Protestant clergyman, and ab
solutely popish in its defense ot Roman Cath
olicism.
The Editors say that while they print Pas
tor Whitlock’s letter, they take no pleasure in
it, and that they do not know what denomina
tion he belongs to, and “prefer not to know.”
The Editors say that they do not believe
that Pastor Whitlock wrote the truth, and
thank Heaven that they have no sympathy
with him.
• The Editors then say that “there is no an
cient church that should be judged by the
partial record of its members or its clergy”—a
sentence which can have no other meaning
than that the ancient Roman church should
not be condemned for the crimes, the vices,
an.d the massacres committed by its popes, its
cardinals, its bishops, its monks, and its
priests.
The Editors of this very amazing State
then says—
To our mind, and it is a conclusion from ob
servation and experience, Roman Catholic and
Protestant are much alike in their dealings with
their fellow men and The State at least gladly ac-
trampled upon by the oath-bound subject of a
foreign potentate?
It is not a question of who wrote the “Con
quered Banner,” and “Maryland, my Mary
land;” nor is it a question of having friends
among the Catholics whom we want to meet
in Heaven.
Mr. Knight says that Heaven will not be
Heaven to him, unless he meets his Catholic
friends there.
Well, that’s all right; but while we ar?
here on earth we want Mr. Knight’s Catholic
friends to respect our laws, and not lift
against us the pope’s Hag of rebellion.
In 1908— and not before — the infamous Ne
temere decree was introduced into Georgia,
and used to blight the homes and the lives
of Protestant women whose marriages were
perfectly legal under Georgia laws.
We did not change our Protestant attitude
in 1908: why did the Catholics change theirs?
Did James R. Randall tell his Protestant
friends that their wives were concubines?
Did Father Ryan do so?
No: they did not.
Pope Leo XIII. published that Catholic
doctrine, just as Pius IX. had done; but the
Protestants did not then know it, and very
few Catholics did.
(continued on page three.)
cepts as of equal and genuine truth the confes
sions of both of humble loyalty to the Master that
both profess to serve and follow.
One incident, or it may be an accident, we can
not forbear to mention. It is that never has there
come to The State, so far as the writer is aware,
or under his eye while connected witn any news
paper, a letter from a Roman Catholic assailing
a Protestant church in terms akin to those em
ployed by our correspondent. It seems that a
lesson of restraint even some of the Protestant
clergy might learn from ‘ Rome.”
The assertion that no Catholic has written
to The State, denouncing the laws, the cus
toms, and the records of Protestant churches,
is best answered by saying, that those churches
are not assailable, cither in their laws, their
customs, or their records.
If the Catholics could show that the lauw
of Protestantism declare for intolerance, and
class the murder of non-conformists as meri
torious, they would most assuredly do so.
If the Catholics could show that the fixed,
permanent laws of Prostestantism make for
complete overthrow of democratic principles
and republican forms of government, they
would lose not one day in doing it.
If the Catholics could show that the Pro
testant churches have inner secrets, held by
oath-bound secret societies, and make it
a settled policy, to lure immature young peo-
Price, Five Gents