Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-05-10


Virginia We behold with surprlze ana gfat-
3D. the tolerant institutions of Lord Baltimore,
the Catholic, and of VIM. Penn, the Ouaker-
We behold with modification our own Constr
tuition of ITS, establishing the Pfoiestant as
the religion of the State and rejecting the Catho
| lie and the Jew. as political outlaws. We are
filed with amazement and regret, on reading
the colonial statute of New-Y ork, condemning
the Ponish Priest and Jesuit to perpetual imprls-
onment and even to DEATH With the same SEN
| timents we now look on the original Constltu-
ton of New. York exacting from every natural
| lied foreigner, an Oath, abJurlng all ioreign
Allerance even in matters eccteStasttc0t. Ana,
with deep indignation, we peruse the records OF
that intolerant spirit which but lew years
since. resisted the right Of Hebrew to his seat
in the Legislature of No. Ca. and until wltnlh d
| few wears. condemned the Israelite to pollticai
slavery, in the very City and State founded oy
Lord Baltimore. ...,o .;r
And have these lessons been written IN vain,
with the iron pen of bigotry, and In the piooa
of religious and political martyrs? And IS II
noss;bie that we mean to tread that 1orpluuel
nath in politics which other ages ana countries
and even our own States have trodden, IN the
cause of Church and State In vain, nave VIC
divorced them from each other; IN VAN nave
we declared that ssno religious test shall evefDe
reonired as a qualification TO any office or pub
lie trustn if we are so unwise as to substitute Po-
Iitical Test Oaths "Let us reflect" says mo
mas Jefferson, ssthat having banished from our
land that religious intolerance under Whlch
mankind so long bled and suffered, we nave YET
GAINED little if we countenance pontlcai ~
tolerance, as despotic as wicked and capable
| of as bitter and Dloooy prosecutions in""S'
Addr Mar. 1901.
Does not the history of our own times instruct
ne in the origin oftfre Ordinance, and ofthe Oath
| in the Military Bill? We know, it is not matter
| of opnion or belief; we know that they have
arisen ont of those unhappy political contests,
which led directly to the question OF exclusive
or divided allegiance. Who can doubt that
but for this one difference Of opinion, the Or
dinance as to allegiance, and the Oath in the
Military Bill never would have existed 10 be
leve otherwise, would be doing the deepest in
Justice 10 the clear heads the patriot feelings,
the integrity of purpose of the Convention,
BODY which counted in its ranks, some OF the
best and ablest men OF the State, men among
the most honorable in private life, and long tried
as servants of the public. But the history OF all
countries, and our own among the rest, has de-
imonstrated, that the wise and good have re-
peatedly erred, whilst they blieved themselves
TO be rendering important services, ana 10 De
discharging the highest and hottest duties 10 Goo
and their country. And may not the talented ana
honest men, who sat in that Convention, nave
equally erred, when they legisated, IN the name
of the people, on matter OF opinion, on natteI
".
to the difference of opinion as to divided ale
glance. Have they not unfortunately and er-
roneously assumed that to differ from them on
this question, is to be unrlendly TO the State III
their own good sense, magnanimity and frank
ness do not conceal the Decd may we not be-
hold the precedent among the most dangerous
that republic can witness-the indissoluble
union of partv and State-the perilous principle
that a party is the State-the natural fruits OF
such maxim, that the friend of ruling party
is a patriot its adversary the enemy OF the coun-
try-that political heresy is treason, and the po-
Gtcal schismatic traitor. These lamenlable
consequences can never be feallzeo, uhless Tue
people of our country shall reach lorth lnen'
hand, and pluck, and at OF the loIpiuueh IL ult
Of political Test Oaths.
| have said, that the ackno wledgment OF allie
oiance TO the United States furnished the occa-
sion. and was the cause of the Ordinance ana
Militarp Oath. The ma ority denied that any al
leoiance was due to the United States the mlno-
rity insisting that allegiance was due. Those
commended for an exclusive indivisible allegiance
to be due to the State, these maintained the doc
trine of divided allegiance; but held, that superb
was due to the Union, inferior to the State.
What was this but matter ofoplnlon, aqueStlon OF
political duty, a case of conscience. Let us turn
to the commentator on the laws OF England,
and read an instructive lesson from his pages.
In that memorable chapter which treats of often
and excusing the laws of England against Athe-
lists, Apostates and Heretics, against Jew, Dis
senter and Catholic, Blackstone, has the follow
ing passage: As to Papists, what has been said
of the Protestant Dissenters, would hold equal
ly strong for a general liberation OF them pro-
vided their separation was founded only upon
difference of opinion in religion, and their pri1
ciples did not also ertend to supervision OF the
cipn government. If once they could be brought
to renounce the supremacy of the Pope they
might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments, their
purgatory and aufcuar confession; their wor-
ship of reliques and images; nay even their tran
substantiation. But while they acknowledge a
foreign poaoer superior to the sovereignty Of the
kingdom, they cannot complain ifthe laws of that
kingdom do not treat them upon the footing OF
good subjects How wonderfully parallel are
the cases; except that the Constitution and Go
vernment of the United States are not Jorelgn;
but are those of our own State. With little
alteration, to accommodate it to our own contro-
versy, let us read the language of this apologist
for Test Oath prohibitions against the Roman
ists To the minority in South Carolina the
passage is then directly applicable. "But while
tAey acknowledge the United States superior TO