Funding for the digitization of this title was provided by R.J. Taylor, Jr. Foundation.
About The banner of the South. (Augusta, Ga.) 1868-1870 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 20, 1869)
Ii w jth the desired success, wince 1 Z IS century, the Church of the Do dwindled away to nothing, and n? r ;; thiß period no traces of it are to be ,r’ Dr. l ord garbles Mosheim to 1 ““hig purpose. We place the extracts in • and invite a visit to the l] Dr. Ford desired that his £ ' r * Jet 5 the Baptists, should be satisfied r 'p h n U t seeking farther, that Gregory f'iVd in his attempts to bring back to !;! olie fold of the one Shepherd the L ‘\ >ie b o dy of the Donatiste ; but the . r V extract shows that Gregory did L] v what Dr. Ford desires the Bap ' f/ ru believe he failed to accomplish. \, v let us inquire who were these Do , ti4s that this very fair writer would h , iVe ns believe were Baptists. If Dr. r,, r d quotes Mosheim for his purposes. },o cannot have any objection to our use „! the same learned author. We will t crarble; nor will we stop in the mid* ; j] eo f ;l sentence. “The doctrine of the Ponatists was conformable to that of the Church, as even their adversaries con- n or were their lives less exemplary than those of other Christian societies, if we except the enormous conduct of the circaincelliones, which the greatest part of the sect regarded with the utmost detes tation and abhorrence." What then were the doctrines of the Chut eh ? Confession of wins to the I’riest; purgatory; prayers to the Saints; the real presence of Christ in the Euchar ist ; and all the other errors of Rome. And where did all those errors of the xorle* ladtj come from ? from whence the Baptists did not come—the Apostles. We have thus followed Dr. Ford in his meanderings through the earlier cen turies, and must confess that we have not yet found an answer to the question "where did the Baptists come from V Cedric. [For the Banner of the South,} THE HIGHLANDS OF LOUISIANA. NUMBER TWO. Banner of the South : Forty miles from New Orleans, on the line of the great railroad that leads northwest, and of which Gen. Gen. G. T. Beauregard is the energetic President, commences the highland region of Louis iana a land of gentle hills, covered with tall noble pines, a land of rapid clear streams, bordered with rich, loamy bot toms, and covered with the magnolia, oak, hickory, ash, and other grand forest trees. Gushing springs of purest water abound. Dense cane-brakes afford Win ter pasture to the cattle, whilst the tall grasses of the glades supply abundance of nourishment in the Summer months. I iiese lands produce cotton, cane, corn, vegetables, peaches, plums, apples, and other fruits; while the strawberry and grape seem to be in their most favorite latitude, and produce immense crops. Peas, sweet potatoes, and pea-nuts tlour isb ; rice is also raised in considerable quantities. Thousands of the wealthy citizens of New Orleans selected loca tions ail along the railroad for many raiPs, for summer resorts, and put up ex tensive and handsome improvements, and introduced the rarest fruits and shrubs. Bat the war brought poverty to the nio.v of them and these places are now to Im.' bought for a mere trifle, Improve m r.ts that cost thousands of dollars can now be bad for hundreds. Lands with i-unaii clearings and rough improvements ct 8-ao per acre, and wild lands at P one to one and a half. Catholic Oburchs are at all the chief stations. Louisiana. PROSELYTIZING AT PUBLIC EXPENSE Hie Irish Citizen has an article with dm above title, from which, as being pertinent to a matter of general interest although reference is made to local text ' >olvs we take the concluding portion : Like the one department of modern In story. Evidently, it has two sides to ; r< an< * n V lst be looked at from one of tWo opposite points of view. If children taught the story on the Protestant !| i . .lud.only on that side, they must in- S0 t nslbl y ill ‘bibe the idea that retrogressive, ignorant, treacherous, and nnu has been mainly Catholic; and that ..:; a r: or “as been done to enlighten man y": ’ 0 establish a noble tolerance in re ‘‘gru! and a rational liberty in Govern- S ' | S ,f lell - v d,,e to the Reformers. ' 11 ' , re ? «> to»f?fct are taught to their own forefathers, and their .vi'f' : T e ' B , IOD .' Wl ‘‘ ch brou S llt forth such ,h nt Is it reasonable that Catholic •j“'f sl,onW be expected to tolerate llr . |, V lla ve before us, for example, a text '-b'l,, whose use is compulsory in all the Doc.’S , >f New York. It is prepared by .‘, o ’’rcester, of Massachusetts, who ‘Y‘Y’” be ‘ leve * a voluminous lexicogra •• t purports to give a popular his toU Greece and Rome, of France Eugland, and the United States. Take a sample or two : In the history of France, Dr. Worces ter, you may be sure, does not omit to make a great outety over the Revocation ot the Edict of Nantes, which put an end . toleration ot ' Protestant worship. Miy this barbarous act," he says, “all the Reformed Churches were destroyed, their Ministers banished, and every individual was outlawed, or compelled to renounce his religion. They were hunted like wild beasts, and very great numbers were put to death." It is very true, and very sad; but when we turn to the Doctor’s History of England, under the same date, he omits or forgets to tell us that in the British dominions at that time, and for one hundred years before, all Catholic worship was forbidden by law, under severe penalties; that their Priests were banished; that every individual was out lawed, or compelled" to renounce his reli gion; that they were hunted like beasts, and great numbers put to death, etc. BAy does he omit or forget this ? In his account of Queen Mary’s reign, the Reverend Doctor dwells with horror on the “Martyrs burned at Smithfield,” Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley, and the rest. But when he comes to the next reign, that of Elizabeth, the great champion of Pro testantism, he cannot indeed get over re vealing that she was somewhat harsh in her usage ot those who did not agree with her in religion; she did, he says, perse cute both Catholics and Puritans. Why not say out, manfully, as in the other case, that she racked, burned, hanged, emboweled, great multitudes of Catholics, and a goodly number of Protestants, of the sect called “Brownists," who were ex actly the “Congregationalists" of the United States. Why not tell us that the Kev. Henry Ward Beecher, if he had lived in England in that day, would soon have been in ashes, and his ashes scatter ed on all the winds ? The learned Doctor does not seem to have learned, in the course of his reading, that, during the reign of Elizabeth, at least twice as many persons suffered death for their religion in the kingdoms as during the reign of Mary; and that they were usually put to the cruelest tortures. He never heard, for example, of a Catholic Archbishop of Cashel—because of his being Archbishop of Cashel, and for nothing else—had his legs fixed in tin boots containing oil; that the oil was then boiled with the legs in it, until the flesh parted from tee bones; and that the Bishop was shortly" afterwards hanged. Nor that holy Priests were sometimes massacred, alfin one hatlv, for being Priests and persisting in saying Mass despite the Act of Uniformity.” IT he did not know these things, he ought to have read books before writing history. II he did know them, he has dishonestly suppressed them for an obvious purpose. But he has not only suppressed the truth—lie has stated what is not the truth. For example, in his eulogium on the government of Oliver Cromwell, he says distinctly that Cromwell “granted religious toleration.” Now, he either knew, or did not know, that during the whole time of Cromwell’s rule, the Catho lics were rigorously deprived of “tolera tion," and that if they ventured to cele brate their worship, it was in very secret places, lest their throats should be cut incontinently. Still more impudent—if that be possi ble—is the Doctor’s cool statement con cerning the reign of King William the Third. He says “religious toleration was granted. ’ Os course, he means to exclude—as English law then excluded Catholics , for who would tolerate Catho lics ! All the penal laws already in ex itfcnce against Catholic worship, con tinued in force during the reign of King William, and were grievously aggravated by new enactments. But the" learned historian, we suppose, was not aware of these things. James 11, says this queer historian, employed his reign in attempts to estab lish the Catholic religion and despotic power. As how ? He endeavored to use his dispensing power to exempt Catholics from penalties and disabilities; he did not attempt to impose anv pen alties and disabilities upon Protestants, and did not otherwise attempt to “estab lish the Catholic religion” than by trying to place C atholics on the same footing with Protestants. It seems he committed seven Bishops to the lower because they refused to read “a declaration suspending’ the laws against Popery. Whv should they not have been committed to the Tower ? They had no legal right to re fuse ; still less a moral right to resist a measure of simple justice and humanity. It is in vain you will look in this com pilation for the slightest hint that, ali the time, from the “glorious Revolution” until late in the reign of the Third George, Catholics were eternally “hunted lfke wild beasts,” and their Priests transported in batches to Barbadoes under penalty of death if they returned. Moreover in "the Doctor’s accounts of the lamentable period of intolerance both in France and in Eng land, against Protestants on the one side, against Catholics on the other, he never alludes to the fact that all remnants of intolerance passed away in France, and people of all religions were placed on a level of perfect equality full forty years before the Catholics were emancipated in England—or rather were pretended to bo emancipated, for they are not emancipated yet. We might point out many similar passages in this book, carefully contrived with the one single object of making the Catholic religion odious, and of suppress ing or falsifying what tells on the other side. But there is no space. THE NEW MOVEMENT- Fourth Letter of Goo. Henry A. Wise. Richmond, Va, Jan. 18. 1869. . Fear Sir —l come now to consider, with critical accuracy, the actings and doings of the “meeting of citizens from different portions of the State, convened at Richmond on the 31st of December 1868." The meeting in its inception, its con ference, its resolves and its proceedings, is alike novel and unique. One of its members was the most “prominent" of all the “prominent gentlemen” He was placed in the chair; he explained the objects of the meeting, but did not publish “the circumstances and the manner in which it originated;" he was made chairman ofthe “committee of eight” charged to deliberate and report in regard to “suitable business” for the consideration ofthe meeting, and appoin ted the other seven members thereof, besides himself; he submitted their report he was then appointed chairman of “the committe of nine," to visit Washington on the mission ordered by the meeting and appointed the other members, besides himself, on that committee also; and his report was unanimously approved. What is that report? 1. It discloses the fact that “prominent gentlemen” assembled in Richmond “upon invitation of some of their own numbers." 2. That, assembled on their own invita tion, their purpose was to confer with themselves “in regard to the present imperilled condition ofthe Commonwealth." 3. By way ot protestation they utter, for themselves, and for the people of V irginia, too, their unchanged convic tions “that the freedmen of the Southern States, in their present uneducated con dition, are not prepared for the intelli gent exercise of the elective franchise, and for the performance of other duties connected with public affairs, and are, therefore, unsafe depositaries of political power." 4. “Yet.," these prominent gentlemen,” speaking for themselves and for a majori ty ofthe people of Virginia, declare that they, and a majority of the people of Virginia “are prepared to surrender their opposition to its incorporation into her fundamental law.'’ (The resolution won’t bear parsing, but by “its" it can mean nothing else but negro suffrage.) 5. That this contrast of “convictions," unchanged, with “preparation" suddenly disclosed, if not suddenly formed, is tounded on three resons: 1. The verdict of public opinion in favor of (negroes) “being allowed to exercise the right of suffrage, as expressed iu the recent elections." -• The olive branch “offering on the altar of peace." 3. “Lniversal suffrage for universal am nesty.” Such is the analysis of the first resolu tion, mixed of the morality of Sir Augus tus Tomlinson, and of the blundering diplomacy of Sir Patrick O’Plenipo! 11. The second resolution is to earry the foregoing moral and political philoso phy into effect: 1. It appoints “the committee of nine/ not to go back on their constitu ents, for they had none,—not to appeal to the people of Virginia, whom they believe to have an opinion of the unfit ness offreedrrien for suffrage or for office, and whom they believe to be pre pared with themselves to surrender their opposition to “negro suffrage and negro eligibility to office ’ both being incorpora ted into Virginia’s State constitution— but to go to Washington to obtain— -Ist. The permanent restoration of union and harmony. 2d. There to collect public sentiment. 3d To make known to the Congress of the United States the sentiments declared in the resolutions of “prominent gentlemen.” 4th To exercise their own unlimited discretion in the use of any ways and means they (the nine) may think proper to carry out the resolutions. sth “To obtain from that body (Con gress) such legislation concerning the organic law of Virginia as the Congress tii its wisdom may deem expedient and best under all the circumstances. 6th. The delegation of nine to fill vacancies in their own body, and to en large their number in their own discretion. 111. After ordering and empowering the delegation of nine with these plenary powers, to go immediately to Washington, to work diligently and discreetly, for foity days and nights, to carry out the ends and purposes of these resolutions of prominent gentlemen," and after doing all beforehand tor their accomplishment —then, and not until after then, it is recommended to the people of Virginia, by primary meetings, to appoint delegates to a popular convention to be held in Richmond, on Wednesday, the 10th February, 1860. Ist. To receive the report of the committee or delegation of nine. 2d’ “To adopt such other measures as may be deemed expedient to promote the objects expressed in the resolutions and proceedings of the meeting of Decmber 31st, 1868," These resolutions and proceedings thus accurately described aud analyzed, are signed by twenty-eight “prominent gentlemen." How many have been added to the delegation of nine, since their arrival at Washington, we are not informed. If it be the nine formed of the twenty-eight, there are in all but twenty-eight still, who have committed themselves to this new political “move inent,” which showed itself in a night, and which we must be excused for crdling at least an oligarchy!—May God grant that instead of nine only, it may not prove thirty-nine stripes “well laid on" the back of this poor old Commmonwealth and her suffering people! To state thesj resolutions and proceed ings is to comment upon them. “ihe circumstances under which, and the manner in which,, “prominent geutle men ’ met here in December, are the only blanks about which we have no inlormation This we know, that they were not called by the people, or by the press, or by any public primary meetings, but they came, as they tell us, privately invited by one another of themselves. And it the “present imperilled condition ot the Commonwealth" had concerned themselves alone, their self-constitution, self-appointment, self-conference, self action before consulting any one or saying “by your leave" to the people aud to their comrades equally concerned with themselves, would have been an affair, however selfish, which concerned themselves alone. But it was about the Commonwealth and her perils, involving the rights ot whole races and generations, the rights and wrongs, the sufferings and the relief of all the citizens of Virginia; her pride, her honor, and her relations to other States, and the feelinge of friends abroad who look anxiously to the exam* pie which she willl set of fortitude and long suffering for civil liberty unimpair ed, of firmness unshaken, of pride un abashed, of honor untarnished; or, of black shame and white slavery engen dered by timidity at Richmond °and tyranny at Washington! If “prominent gentlemen" had expressed opinions merely, or put forth suggestions only, and had submitted them to ali, after fair and full notice, for general discus sion and deliberation, they would have done only what they had the undoubted right to do, and what they were free to teel it their duty to do. Never was there a more anxious period of inquiry among the people “what shall we do to be saved? Any suggestions from these “prominent gentlemen" would have been thankfully received, if not approved; they would have been heard, if not concurred with in their views; their comrades, and especially those disfranchised, would have gladly conferred with them, for they would then have had the opportunity at least of protecting against the betrayal of such weakness as to say we are prepared to make the surrender for a price now proposed, not to us, but by prominent gentlemen,” to Congress We might, if we had been called to confer, heve asked them the question: What are the Commonwealth’s perils at the present time? Are there any perils more imminent than the two: Ist. The dictation, by Congress, of elective franchise and of the qualifica tion of voters to the State; and, 2d. Disfranchisement of whites and eiifranchLsi ment of blacks, without con viction of the first, of crime, and witeout any fitness or education, of the last, for suffrage, or for office Might we not reasonably, and perhaps successfully, have urged upon them, that though Con gress might outlaw rebels, and impose penalties tor crimes against the United States, and make disfranchisement a part of punishment, yet Congress cannot, by its legislation, make those voters who are not allowed to vote under the existing State constitution? Congress might throw rebels, unconvicted ones even, off from the ballot-box, or eve* exile them to the Dry Tortugss; but it eannot, under the constitution of the 'nited States, as it stands even with its rtcenth amendment in it, create other 125? or electors, than the State con- If(Ym Q a 0Ws > as it exists at present. disframU?’ 68 ma / enfranchise, as well as then On 1Se ’ e * ec * ors of the States, well as S j ma ke the State as the l> “mi 6 f e f * aws * an< * may make •anv tioUov l e l eCtlon kick or against 5 1 hey, State or federal, as its omnipo tence may dictate. ™ „,A n A !„ hus - f P«h»ps, if all had been allowed to confer, discussion might have T ZT d ," 8i T> a nd “prominent gentlemen might have been persuaded not to push us into the fearful certainty of both perils--first, to surrender opposi tion to the incorporation of negro suff rage and negro eligibility to office, into the fundamental law of Virginia; and second to yield the organic law of Virgin ia to the legislation of Congress, as “its wisdom may deem best." We might have awakened them to the fact that they were bringing on us the very worst evils and perils of which the State is in danger, We might have implored them not to give us up to both perils for a worthless consideration— “universal am nesty!’ We would have convinced prominent gentlemen" that some of us, disfranchised, were sincere in desiring to be excepted from the terms of such a bargain for such a price; that we could not consent to be enfranchised at the expense of asking Congress to legislate the organic law of V irginia, in violation of the constitution of the United States, and in derogation of our rights of self government. We might have urged that the question is not one of expediency, but of moral law and felf-respect—not of reconstructing legislation, but of constitu tional law. We might have presented their own views ot negro suffrage and negro eligibility to office, in contrast with their surrender of both to the legislation of Congress. We might have argued upon the fact whether any verdict of public opinion in favor of negro suffrage has been expressed or even muttered by the recent elections None has been rendered and none could be by the Presidential election, if that is the elec tion meant. V e could have beseco ied them not to avow the monstrous heresy that a majority of electoral votes for the office of President could change constitu tional law as to the elective franchise and the qualification of voters. And, we might have arrayed against the Presiden tial election the frequent decisions of the people of the Northern States against Negro equality at the polls and in office, Aye, we might have appealed feelingly to “prominent gentlemen," in behalf of our “white men” friends in the Northern States, not to set an example of surren der to the black fl ig to hinder their struggles in their States against the at tempt to introduce, into their State Con stitutions, the features of Negro suffrage and Negro eligibility. We might have urged upon them that the olive branch offering which they bore to the altar of peace with our enemies, would certainly be a Dragon’s tooth of blind dissension and wrathful difference among ourselves and our friends at home and abroad. And if “prominent gentlemen" had proved obdurate, we might, perhaps, have prevailed on them to give up all, but not to offer to sell, our liberty and constitutional rights. Again, we might, possibly, have prevailed on them to refer any differences between them and ourselves to the people of Virginia before we decided to go ourselves or send a delegation of nine to Washington at all; and if they would not consent to have primary meetings before they acted, we might at least have prevailed on them not to venture to announce the opinions and convictions of the majority of the people, before taking their “sweet voices” to determine which way a ma jority inclines. And, then even, if a majority was found against a minority, even of fellow sufferers and comrades, we might still have hopefully appealed to such a body of “prominent gentlemen” as these, to aid in protecting a minority against what a minority at least deems outrage, wrong, and pollution. We might have urged that whilst they might possibly insure the “permanent rest na tion of union and harmony” with black republicans and those whom they but recently called scallawags, that they might cause disunion and bitter feud with and among those whom on the othur hand, they have until the 31st December last, acted as fellow confede rates during the war, and as fellow conservatives since the war and during “the recent elections.” We might have promised them that if they organized an agency to collect public sentiment for surrender, someone would be found o contend manfully and to the bitter end against any more compromise, and would most unchangeably resist a total aban 5
