Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1855-07-01

and then begin to annoy them by whole
series of political disabilities, which are
assumed to be essential to defence
against them. Indeed, the inference of
the KNOWN Nothing creed, on both the
issues it has raised, is logical and a
practical blunder from its own premises.
1t assumes in the strongest sense of an
existing fact, not as logical inference
from the Catholic creed, the absolute
incompatibility of the Catholic Church
and the free institutions of this country.
This is IFS premise; its inference is, to
render the individual Catholic ineligible
TO office; the true inference from the
premise as they construe it is, that the
Catholic Church ought not to be toierat-,
ed at all. On the other issue, the pre-
mise is, that the foreign element in our
population is dangerous to the govern
ment; the inference is, the reduction
of a part of the rights of citizen
ship-the ineligibility to office, in the
foreigners already here, and an exten.
sion of the term of naturalization
The true inference is, the prohibition of
all emigration for the future, and the
avoidance of everything that would ex-
asperate the foreign element already in
the midst of us the careful observance
of everything which would tend to
strengthen their attachment to the ins
stitutions of the country. These are
the results which logically issue from the
premises of the Know-Nothing creed, and
which they are logically required TO as
sumo. flslas
But they dare not do it: the measure
they propose to adopt-the exclusion
from office--is ridiculously incomplete as
a practical expedient: it is most impo-
tent and lame conclusion, as logical in
ference. 1t is absolutely necessary, eth
er to cease this political crusade against
large masses of our people, or to make
it effectual to accomplish, not only the
ends it holds in view, but 10 prevent
the incident evils the effort at reform
has created in its progress. Nothing
short of a far more effective diminution
of the common rights of citizenship than
has yet dared to assume the shape of a
public proposition, will meet the ends
which the American party are seeking
to accomplish. 1t is absurd to admit
large classes of men to all the common
rights OF citizenship, except one, and
that by no means the most important
one. If there is a reason why they
should be deprived of one, they should
be deprived of ALL If it is right to al
low them to vote, it is right TO allow
them to be voted for; the one right is
almost, if not altogether, the correiatiye
of the other. Any argument which
would prove a man disqualified for of
fee, would prove him disqualified TO
vote. There may be special reasons
why particular offices, involving the
representation of the national charac.
ter, as well as the national policy,
should be exclusively occupied by ma
tive born citizens but this is very diff
terent in nature, and proceeds upon a
wholly different principle of political
wisdom, from the universal declaration
of ineligbility to all office, among large
masses of citizens. That eligibility at
taches as an incident, or inheres among
the mass of the common rights of citi-
zenship; and it is absurd to admit the
citizenship in general, and deny this
single capacity which it involves. This
principle of action involves the expla-
nation of the difficulty raised by the
writer in the Critic for May, in relation
to the eligibility of the Chinese or Mo-
hammedan. This question will be set
tied by the settlement of previous
question, and that is, whether large
masses of such persons, Pagans and
Polygamists, are to be admitted at all
to the permanent and general partici-
patton in the rights of citizenship in a
Christian country. a.g =
1t IS on this question, the great Nor
mon issue, now ripening for trial, will
be determined in few years. Con-
ceding the issue as determined in the
affirmative, all minor questions, such as
eligibility to office, and proprlety of
voting such persons into Office are set
tied; it is absurd to question the or
dinary propriety of allowing by vote
what is allow able by law. The whole
question, as a general proposition, is
determined by the permanent admission
of large masses of persons in view to
the common rights of citizenship. 1t is
one thing to allow specific privileges to
individual foreigners residing on our
soil, for specific purposes but it is al
together another, to disfranchise in part,
and hy principle designed to be per-
manent, immense masses of men al
ready permanently part of the popu-
lation, aud so recognised. We insist,
therefore, that the whole movement
must retrace its progress, or go for
ward: it is unwise in the extreme to
leave all their power for mischief in
their hands, resulting in part from their
simple existence in the country as
part OF its population, and in part from
the privileges which are still 10 be left
them-and then exasperate them to use
it, by attempting to reduce their full
political equality with citizens of other
birth and religious opinions.
We object, in the last place, and
with deep severity of conviction, to
the princi Piles of organization adopted
by the American or Know-Nothing
party. and to some of the particular
teatupea which they have embodied in
their order. If ever any principle was
at war with the very foundation of the
American ReDuhGc il Is a principle of