Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1855-09-26
From the Chronicle & Sentinel.
PRACTICAL FEDERATION.

Mr.. EDITOR having shown IN preVlou
communications, that religious liberty was neve
established in Maryland, proceed to notice tn
assertion often made, that practical tolera.iol
existed in that colony; that ihe principle o
legally liberty was recognized by the people
although it was not INCORPORATED into their laws
If by this, it ia meant thas when opposite par
ties are mutually afraid each other, they de
tennine for the time beiagsto let each othe
alone, with the reserveds l6len:ion of renewing
hos,ililvs as soon as fadent, then perhaps
there NAV be some shadoNbf cluiti to the cove
ted distinction. But if practical toeraliOn
it is meant that one party having all the power
grants to others perfect equality of rights, ther
no such practical toleratia was ever known ir
Maryland. :,
Toleration, implies both the right and the
power, to permit oralloS. Power to permit i'm
plies power to restrain or prohibit. The Ca.ho'
lies in Maryland Ind nossuch power; conse'
ouently they can claim noYIedit in this instance
for liberation. The weak;SSan never tolerate the
strong. The charter of Maryland was thorough.
ly Protestant, and this dePsived the Catholics Of
Of legal power. The Protestant population was
almost or quite all the time largely in the ma,
ority, and thus the .Caiholics had not the physi.
cal power, either to opetmits or prohibit the exer.
rise of the Protestant religion orany other. So
all the grandioquence wshear about the Gle
mency of the Catholics, onthe score of practical
federation in Maryland, isssminently Ridiculous
An instance Of their wonderful magnanimity, in
this behalf, is found in theafact, that on one oc
casion, when the House OF sBnrsesses consisted
of ii members, of whom.8 were Catholics and
Protes.ants, the Catholics permitted the s
protestants to elect Protestant speaker! The
practical federation exhibited in this instance is
fair sample of what was Prac,ised in Maryland
from first to last.
So far as there was any federation at ALL it
was granted to Catholics mot by them. McMa-
hon himself, Lord Baltimore's great friend, speak,
ing of opportunity to perseeate for conscience
sake, says: a'aAs
sThe proprietary dominion, (Lord B.'s) had
never known that hour 5tyben there was oppor-
tunly to persecute) The e3Prolestant religion
was the established religiyn6f mother cuun-
try, and any effort on tho paftof the Proprietary,
(Lord b. to Cypress its followers, would have
drawn down destruc,ioniSh his government.
The.great body oflhe coids sssistsere themselves
Pru,estanls aud by their numbers and their par.
tiripntion in The government, they were fully
equal TO their own protection, and 100 powerful
for the Proprietaries in the event OF an open
collision"
But i, may be said that although the Catholics
had not the power to tolerate, in any proper
sense Of the term they at least showed disposl-
ton, and lived with their Protestant neighbors
in harmony. Even if they did, they are entitled
only TO the credit of those who make virtue
of necessity. But it is not the fact, that there
was harmony between the opposing sects. So
high did their alterations rise, that the Cover
nor, in order to preserve the colony from de-
struction, was obliged to issue Proclamation,
prohibiting "all further disputes on religious sub
iects tending 10 the opening of faction, and the
disturbance of public peace Nor is the Cover
nor entitled 10 any praise for this, for if he had
not done it, the result, as hc belonged to the
weaker party, might have been fatal 10 himself.
Streeter speaking of one of the religious brolls
which occurred after this, in which man named
Lewis was fined for violating this proclamation,
saws: sThis sentence is appealed 10. as an
evidence that federation WAS the established law
Of the colony but to my apprehension pro-
clama,ion to suppress all religious discussions
avowedly 10 preserve the public peace, is one
thing the recognition by law or otherwise of
the iuaenablc right of men to think for them
selves on religious subjects, quite another If
the enforcement OF Gov. Calvert's proclamation
proves tolerance, it will be easy to show that
the Massachusetts authorities, were tolerant in
the same way and on the same principle" (p.3s)
From The case of Lewis above referred to, and
others that will be numed, it is evident that the
proclamation had not the desired effect, and that
the jarring and wraugling of the parties was bul
slightly restrained. On one OCCASION, \ promi-
nent Catholic colonist, Thomas Gerard by name
presuming on the protection of the Government
and forgetting the power Of the Protestunts, at
tempted to prevent congregation Of Proles
tants from public worship, by sezing upon and
forcibly OBTAINING their religious books and the
key of their chapel. The offended parties de-
manded his punishment, nnd the powers in au
thory dared not to refuse compliance.
For many years, there was perpetual war be-
tween the Protestant settlers of Kent Island, ane
Lord BIS government; the resu of which was
that the King of England issued an order te
Lord Baltimore, requiring him to keep the peace
aud let the people Of Kent Island alone. True
the origin of The last named difficulty was sbou
the possession of territory, but even one whoi
not familiar with The spirit of those times, mus
know that the fvud between the parties wa
made none the better, by the fact that one part
was Protestant and the other Catholic. Thei
i.feeiug could not but have been exacerbate
by their deeper and more bitter hostility on tn
subject of religion. In the time Of Charles /
Cromwell and Charles IT,, whatever may hav
been the origin of dispute, it was very certai
before its close, to assume religious cast,
the parties belonged to opposite sects Indeed
this is not unfrequently tho case even at the prt
sent day.
For full account of all these difficulties,