Weekly Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1853-1861, 1855-05-03


readers for some time past.
From the (Richmond Va Enquirrr
Should Wings Sustain the ' Ameri
can " Party.
A Wing from the formation of the Wing
party to the'present time, the writer may be
permitted to ask, "should Wings sustain the
American party % In order to answer the
question intelligcntly, we must examine the
principles ofthe new order
The American party is not the Wing par
tv it cannot therefore, claim the support of
Wings, because they are Wings. 1t is not
the Democratic party, and cannot, therefore,
claim the support of Democrats, because they
are Democrats. 1t assumes higher ground
and claims the support of both Wings and
Democrats, because it is the American 4"
party. No man can say to me, "you were
a Wing and therefore you must be Know
Nothing" Ifthis were so, the American {"
would be but another name for the Wing
party Hence, we hear it proclaimed, the
Wing party is disbanded. A Wing, am,
therefore, without party, and may ask,
"where shall 90 ?'' | am unwilling to sus-
tain any party without understanding, or
thinking that / understand, theirobjecss and
principles. Let us therefore enquire,
l. What new principles the American par
ty promulgates, and
II. Whether those principles should re-
ceive the support and confidence of the coun-
try.
And. /. What new principles are an
nounced as the basis of this new order? The
Constitution is to be Observed-the Union
preserved-the rights of the States protected;
these, and like truisms, are professed by the
American, as they have been by all parties !;
for no matter what difference may have arisen
in the history of the country between the
several parties, when they came to a pract-
cal application of these axioms, all have alike
agreed in the expression of sacred regard for
the Federal Constitution and the rights of the
States. This party cannot, therefore, claim
to be american" on account of any thing
peculiar in all this. There is nothing dis
tinctive here Where then do we find the
basis foundation Of this new organization
1t is alone in their views in respect to foreign
ers and Roman Catholics. They propose to
exclude foreigners and Roman Catholics from
Office, and to let Americans govern Ameri-
CA 1t may be safely affirmed, | think,
that this is the whole sum and substance of
the principles of the new order. For what
else can Wing or Democrat Join them q? |
ask the question in all seriousness. Read over
their MISUNDERSTANDING and reflect upon
them-this is all. He who unites himself
with the Know-N othings" becomes part
and parcel of a new party, which will ex-
clude from Office all foreigners and all Roman
Catholics.
Having now ascertained the basis of the
American party, the question presents itself
II. Does this basis entitle them to public
confidence anil support The first remark
that strikes us is this Give them the benefit
of all they claim-admit that it is of great
importance that foreigners and RomanistS
should be excluded from office; yet the prin-
/ ciple, Of principle it can be called), extends
only to those l0lO are TO govern the country, and
not hOa0 IL shall be governed. They do not
| claim public countenance and support because
| they prefer to mark out any new policy-in-
troduce any change in public measures-on
the contrary, they invited members fiom all
parties-"ask no questions If you have az
American heart; if you go for the exclusion
of foreigners and Roman Catholics from all
participation in the government, you are meet
/ to become member Of this great American
party The foundation OF the party is there
1 fore, "The men who are to govern" not the
principles by which we are to be governed
A rejecting mind will ask, is it prudent tc
/ Join a party whose great and controlling prin-
ciples is "Men?" principle as changeable as
time and circumstance.
If the Know Nothings were now in power
what would be their policy in relation to the
Tariff, Internal Improvement by the general
government, a Bank of the United States
the Territories, &C.? They boast that they
have members from all parties from the
Democrats, Wings, Freesoilers, &c. They
cannot legislate on Roman Catholics and for
eigners only Is it not reasonable, therefore
to inquire before we join them, what will
I they do with the territories, what with the
rivers, what with the tariff, &c, after they
have settled that " Americans shall govern
themselves ?'' Composed of every variety
and shade of party and opinion, will exclu-
sion of Roman Catholics and. foreigners from
Office, compose and harmonic all conflicting
elements Is the spirit of the new order SC
catholic, that the bank man and the anti
bank man, the Southener and the Freesoiler
| the Protectionist and the Free-trader, will all
meet, and dwell together in unity?' When
storm and dissension arise, shall all be COM
posed by the recollection, that they are band
ed together to exclude foreigners and Roman
Catholics from Office 2 Is it not manifest
/ that there are wanting in this new organiza-
ton those broad ard comprehensive princi-
Piles, upon which alone permanent and ma
tiOnal party can stand
The second remark, is this: The govern
ment has been in successful operation for sew
enty-fve wears, and the principle now sought
- L.. 81 Ioa
deemed necessary by the people. The franz
ers of the Constitution did not declare it nee
essary; for by that instrument the President
alone must be native born American, thereby
declaring foreigners eligible to all other offices.
Has such change taken place in the condi-
/ ton Of the country as to require this amend
ngent TO the Constitution?-for it is virtually
an amendment TO the Constitution. What
does it matter, whether it be written on parch-
ment that no foreigner shall hold office, or be
engraven on the hearts of majority of the
voters of the country, that they shall not?-
The effect is the same.
Admit that the naturalization laws require
amendment, (and that they do, is the opinion
of the writer,) does it, therefore, follow, that
all foreigners shall be ineligib.e?-the good
and bad-the intelligent and the ignorant?-
1t is not proposed to inhibit immigration. We
shall still have the foreigner. Will he be less
dangerous to society after he has reached our
shores, by being forever ineligible to office?
Is it dangerous to hold out to him the pros
pect of preferment as an incentive to virtuous
action? Isitdangerous to liberty that he should
hold office? If so, where is the evidence of the
danger found? We have had foreigners in
office; where and when have they exhibited
anti-American feelings or views? Has it
been in the councils of the nation, or on the
battle feld2 You have seen your Congress
assemble; did it ever occur to you that rep
resentatives, who were foreigners by birth,
would betray your liberties? You have seen
your armies in war; did you tremble for fear
that officers and soldiers of foreign origin,
would turn their backs on your enemies?-
Why then are foreigners to be excluded from
office? The evil complained of by the Amer
lean party cannot be cured by the remedy
proposed. Nothing short of excluding for
| aiUnare from he cOuptrv CON ftlrnich gtrpb a