American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1845-02-11
TUESDAY MORNING, FEB. IL, ls45.

Native Amcrcan,) censures the Democratlc
members of Congress for applying irritating
epthcts to England. At the same time 1t can
lind no language too harsh to use when speak
ng of the former subjects of Great Britain who
havO fled from her tyranny and sworn allegl-
ance to the United States
The above is from the Philadelphia Spirit OF
the Times, and exhibits spirit which We dld
not expect to find in that paper. 1t is full OF
Inaccuracies. In the first place, our paper IS
not Native American-on the contrary, we
have at all times discouraged distinctions be-
tween native and adopted citizens; and INSIST
ed. that the designation American citizen is
sufficiently comprehensive, without the addi-
,ion of Irish, German, French, &c. Nor have
we in Il single line or word which we nave
written, advanced the idea, that none but ma
tives of the country should enjoy Offices. In
the next place, the editor is i'll error in assert
ing that we have particularly singled out dem
ocratic members of Congress for censure. We
nave spoken of the folly and imprudencc OF
andeavoring to provoke war with Great Brl-
tain by unnecessary and uncaled for abuse of
;hat country-but the word democrat or demo-
ratio. does not once occur in the article to
which reference is made. In the third place,
it is not true that we have used harsh express
SONS "when speaking of the former subjects OF
Great Britain, who have fled from her tyranny
and sworn allegiance to the United States.'-
The editor must have paid little attention to
the editorial articles of our paper, or he would
have forborne the publication of the above ar
ticle. We have commented, with severity, on
the practice of European governments in sem
ding their criminals and paupers to this conn-
try to be converted into citizens, and on the
improper interference Of foreigners with our
elections. We have also condemned all dis
tinct political associations amongst adopted CT
items; and what we have said on these sub
iects we shall adhere to under all circumstances.
We have referred in terms of censure, to the
fact, that previous to the late election in New
York, a standard was borne in procession in
scribed "Americans shant rule u.s." And does
the editor of the Spirit of the Times approve
such Standard If he does, he is less Of an
American than we have supposed him to be.
We have endeavored to inspire the people with
an American spirit; and we say, that the adop-
ted citizen should be as anxious for the preva-
lence of this spirit as the native ofthe country.
It must prevail if we would save the country
from destruction. We are not in favor of add
hitting foreigners to the rights of citizenship
before they have been long enough IN the coun-
try to comprehend the duties and responsible
ties which they desire to assume-and we pro-
test against converting our country into 4 Bot
any Bay for Europe; bat is not true, that we
have singled out the subjects OF Great Britain
for special notice.
We have thus shewn that the editor of the
Times IS in error in all the essential points OF
his article, and that the charge of inconsistent
cy which he makes against us is without the
slightest foundation. But in truth, there would
be no inconsistency, had we been guilty of that
with which he charges us-for it does not fol-
low, that because we might be opposed to the
conduct of the former subjects of Great Bri-
tain who had become citizens of the United
States, we must necessarily justify abuse of the
British government, and sanction an effort to
produce causeless war betwe cen the two coun-
tries. The two subjects have no connection
whatever; and we might therefore speak harsh
ly, or even abusively, of adopted citizens, and
yet condemn the language used in Congress to-
wards the government of England, without
Justly subjecting ourselves to the charge of in
consistency. But we have done no such thing,
and hence the rebuke of the editor of the
Times is without justification.
ID