The American patriot., 1855-11-03
The Speech Of Msj. Heron.


gentleman, delivered on Wednesday last, in
the Courthouse, we must say in commence
ment, that it was eloquent, gentlemanly, and
rich intellectual feast 1t was so entirely void
Of the low party slang, and contemplate PAN.
dering to the different elements to be swayed
in political canvass that our admiration for
the man caused us to very much regret that
he was enlisted in SO bad a cause.
If the positions he assumed had been real,
his speech would have been conclusive; but by
his own argument he proved that they were
untenable. The first we heard of his address
he was denying that there was any cause for
alarm iu the late rapid increase in emigration;
he said that the American party had failed to
prove that there was Here was the real issue,
and he only met it by simple denial, without
referring to the vast amount of undeniable
statistical evidence that has been adduced to
sustain the position of the American party.
He not only did not meet it by rebutting
testimony, but by his own assertions sustain
ed it.
He said that the Irish had no sentiments in
common with the Germans, and the Irish and
Germans had no sentiments in common with
the French which is undoubtedly true, and
by parity Of reasoning they can have no SEN
! timeuts in common with Americans.
| If this is the case, is there no danger in the
increase of these discordant elements among
us? In speaking of the injustice of withhold
i ing the offices from them, he urged the princi-
pie that taxation entitled to representation,
consequently they should be rep, esented.
What would this principle result in?
Each nation having nothing in common with
either of the others, must have its own repre-
sentation. We must have our Irish, German
French, Italian, and English representations.
But the principle if good, must go farther;
we have Chinese and free negroes paying
taxes; they too must have their representa-
tions.
| Is this the way that America is to be go
verned? Is this the kind of law making bodies
we ought to elect?
Are we to have German laws to govern the
Germans; Irish laws to govern the Irish; Chi
nese laws for the Chinese; negro laws to 60
vcrn the tax paying negroes, and the same
through the whole category? Or, are we to
have American laws to govern America?
IF there is this lack of attiliaton between
the different races of emigrants that are flock
ing to our shores, let them remain here long
enough governed by Americans making Amer
lean laws, to become Amcricanized We think
the Major in thus conducting his opposition to
the American Party, built his house upon sand,
and the floods came before he got through and
washed it away.
1t was beautiful fabric, and plainly showed
the architect to be a master workman, but un-
fortunately selecting for its position a bad site
The finishing touches Of want of nationality
and religious prescription, will fall alike with
the structure to which they are attached.
For the Major admitted that if there was ne
cessity for the course of the American Party,
he would be with u.s. If so, he certainly
could not attach much Importance to his own
charges of sectionalism and prescription
All that he said on those subjects were mere
assertions, with no attempt at proof, and con.
sequenuy without weight as argument.
There is one thing certain, that our oppo
nents have not only failed to show that oul
principles of Native Americanism are wrong
but that in almost every instance they have
entirely refrained from any attempt to argue
the real issue and where they have attacked
the citadel, have, as in this instance, only
proved that we were right.
Then what should be their course? Is it t.
pass by what is right, and abuse us for oul
defects if we have any; or join with us in tn,
right, and suggest amendment where we err
The Major sisnally failed in answering thu
argument that emigration was increasing thi
representation at the North against the South
He signally failed when he asserted at one tim,
that foreigners did not hold the balance o
: power, for they had been pretty equally di
vided among the two old parties; as a LITTLE
farther on in attempting to show that they
were not abolitonsts, he said they united witt
the Democratic party to elect Polk and Pierce
and he might have gone on to say that at othcl
times they united with the Wing party to cleo
Harrison and Taylor. Were they abolitionist
then, or what were they?
If we had have accidentally entered tn
Courthouse and heard Maj. Hcrron's speech
not knowing who he was we would hav
thought that he was a Know Nothing orator
making very pretty speech for the opposi
Ition, and then to show the Inconsistency Of il
turn in and demosh it.