Newspaper Page Text
100
THE COUNTttYM A*N .
TURNWOLD, GA., MARCH 24, 1863.
Amusing Canine Flagellations and Ento
mological Investigations.
Mr. Wilkes published a bad picture in
his Educational Journal, and I, having a
proper pride about the artistic standing of
the South, criticised the picture, plainly
and candidly, but kindly, without saying
one woid that was personal. Thereupon
Mr. Wilkes virtually charged me with false
hood, and envy, and drew a picture of a
bull-fice, whose original I showed to be
himself, and then seized the pnppj', and
lashed him most unmercifully. Billy’s re
joinder to the article I wrote, shows him to
be in a penitent mood, and disposed to lick
the hand that smote him, but, at the same
time, he evinces a great disposition to bite,
under cover of his penitence. When you
go to brush away a wasp, of course it will
try to sting you. When you go to crush
an adder, it tries to fasten its fangs upon
you. When you go to kill $ skunk, of
course it will do as skunks do. And when
you go to lash a puppy, he will tiy to bite
you. But wasps must be brushed away,
adders must be crushed, skunks must he
killed, and puppies must be lashed. Pub
lic security and decency require it.
Mr. Wilkes seen.s to be a fawning sup
pliant for the honor of a second thrashing
at my hands. I will not deny him the fa
vor, though I do fear the example wi'l
have an unfavorable influence upon him,
and lie will be vain enough to claim too
much attention.
To gratify his spirit of malignity and re
venge— (that spirit so exceedingly becom
ing in a Christian minister)—Mr. Wilkes
repeats his cry of “infidelity ’’ against The'
Countryman—a cry which, coming from
the source it does, has the same effect tip-
on the object at which it is aimed that the
yelp of the snarling cur has upon the
proud king the of forest.
In the first place, Mr. Wilkes has lately
shown himself too much of an adept in tin-
art of falsehood, for his testimony against
The Countryman to he worth anything.
In the next place, it is he who is the infi
del,'and not The Countryman—for he has
shown himself false and unfaithful to his
God—false to his profession—false to re
ligion—false to honor—false to truth, and
false to every instinct of a gentleman. It
is men who are guilty, like Mr. Wilkes,
who oftenest raise the cry of “infidelity.”
It is to hide their own deformity in this re
gard, that they raise their demoniac yell,
like those thieves and assassins who cry, j
“Stop thief,” in order that they may steal
and stab under cover of the confusion they
create.
Those who charge me with infidelity
will not find me a cringing, trembling sup
pliant, begging them,'in deprecating tones,
to withdraw their charge. On the con
trary, their falsehoods shall be hurled back
in their teeth, and those money-changers
who seek to make God’s bouse a den of
thieves, shall be scourged out with whips
and scorpions from the temple which their
unholy presence pollutes and desecrates.
I repeat it, it is Mr. Wilkes who is the in
fidel, because he is false to God, false to
religion, and false to truth.
The infidel preacher who presides over
the editorial department of the Education
al Journal, goes into another long explan
ation about his “new copperplate engrav
ings” “cast expressly ” for the Journal,
tells us again how much “our worthy as
sociate editress” “admired” them—(it is
well that one person admires them)—tells
us now that his pictures are “ miscellane
ous ” and “ fancy,” and gives us to under
stand that they will represent one thing as
well is another—in which latter 1 agree
with him. They “can as well represent
a terrible charge in battle, or the storinine
of a fort in 1862, as in 1877, or in 1812.”
Fully as well—there can be no doubt about
that. They ought to be able to represent
a “terrible charge,” for they are terrible
pictures. And if they have been used for
this purpose in 1812 and 1862, they can he
passed down to future generations to be
used again in 1877.
1 was at first disposed to regard Mr.
Wilkes, in the matter of his pictures, as
the victim of a yankee sell. He was
either made a victim by some swindling
Yankee, or he must, be convicted of false
hood No. 1, in all he has said about his
pictures.
In my other article, I convicted him of
falsehood No. 2, from his own record. For
whereas he first declared that I “reproved”
Ins correspondent “ Titania,” “kindly,” lie
afterwards asserted that I “handled her
with severity.”
Mr. Wilkes—(I call him Mr., because I
won’t claim brotherhood with an infidel)—
Mr. Wilkes says that I “assailed him with
a torrent of ridicule, and tried to stir up
against him the prejudices of the South
against the North.” In this he has refer
ence to my critique upon his 1st picture.
And this is falsehood No. 3, for there is
not a word of ridicule in the article refer
red to, nor was he assailed at all, and no
j effort was made to stir up prejudice,any way.
Mr. Wilkes refers td matters which a
gentleman would consider private. Mr.
Wilkes, though, does not consider them
private. *
If I were disposed, like him, to lug be
fore the public, matters which the instincts
of every gentleman teach him should re
main private, I might possibly make out
some very unamiable cases against him: for
what man is there, who is void of offence ?
1 have no disposition, though, to engage,
like him, in the dirty work of a
scavenger. In what I have said heretofore,
I have confined myself to the record made,
or suggested by him since he commenced
this quarrel by malignant personal attacks,
with a virulence, mendacity, and vindict
iveness which one would expect from a
cross bet ween a hyena and a fiend,hut which
a “minister of the gospel of peace" should
not indulge in. Let him beware how he
opens records which might make him smart
worse than anything which has yet fallen
from my pen.
He speaks of mailing me money for The
^Countryman, at his own expense. Now,
my recollection is, that he has sent me one
or two subscriptions—possibly fora young
lad} , or ladies,of his “university,” and I did
not know he wasat any expense. I supposed
that, the subscriber or subscribers paid pos
tage. If not, however, and be will make
out bis bill, I will refund him (though not
my business to do so) tho enormous “ex
pense” he has incurred.
Mr. Wilkes says he has on hand a “lot
of Turner’s Poems,” which he has been
selling for me without commission, &c.—
In 1868, I believe I did semi Mr. Wilkes
a dozen copies of Turner’s Poems, and ir.y
:ecollec*ion is that I asked him to put them
in the. hands ot some book-seller in his
town for sale. I am confident that I pro
posed to give the seller 50 per cent, com
mission, whoever he might be. I never
ask anyone to work foi me for nothing. It
is possibly 1 may have asked Mr. Wilkes
himself to sell the book. If so, 1 am as
tonished a f myself. I should never have
done so, nor do 1 believe that 1 did do so.
But here, too, if Mr. Wilkes will accept
pay for bis trouble,I will gladly pay him,not
only the 50 per cent, which I offered eve
ryone for selling my poems, but more still.
Mr. Wilkes says that when he left Put
nam county, lie put his accounts in my
hands for collection. Having just come
to the bar, at that time, I of course took
them. But my recollection 1s, that I did
not make anything by the operation. The
only particular thing I remember about