Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1856-08-21
Col. Fremon.,s Religion.

Col. Fremons's Religion.
We take from the Cincinnati Gazette, q
letter from Lieut.. Gov. RAYMOND, of New
York, written 10 Mr.. MANSFIELD of Gin.
cinnatf 1t ought to end the controversy
as to Col. FREMosT's religious views. Il
will, at least, with all honest and candid
people:
New YoRk, July ss; 1856.
My Dear Sir:-Yo our favor of the Is.
inst. ought to have been answered long ago
but absence and business must plead nv
excuse. = + s -
| am not surprised to hear that the runors
SO widely circulated concerning Col: Ere
fiont's religion, should have the effect Of
causing some who sympathise thoroughly
with his sentiments in regard to the exten.
sion of slavery, to hesitate about pledging
themselves TO his support: But so far as
these rImors assert or imply that he is q
Roman Catholic, they are without the
slightest foundation in truth.
| presume that from proper motives Of
delicacy and self-respect Col: Fremont will
not publish anything himself on the sub
ject, or take any part, personally; in the
canvass: But he cohverses with the ut
most freedom upon these topics as supon all
others; he has no design or disposition to
practice any concealment of his religious
opinions; and / have no reason to suppose
that he would desire Others to do SO on
his behalf.
Col. Fremont is not now, nor has he ev-
er been, Roman Catholic. His father
dying when he was five years old, he was
educated exclusively in Protestant schools,
and at the age of sixteen, was confirmed, Of
his own motion and sincere conviction, III
the Protestant Episcopal Church, of which
he has continued ever since to be member
Not one of his own children has ever been
sent to Roman Catholic school, though ]
believe an adopted daughter attended for a
short time the Seminary at Georgetown; Of
which the pupils are generally largely
Protestant. This Ought not to be construed
to his prejudice, even by the most jealous
Protestants, is sufficiently shown by the
fact that Mr.. Fillmore sent his own daugh;
ter to a Catholic Seminary at Buffalo fol
the purpose of special mstruction-yet no
one ever inferred from this circumstance
that he himself was not Protestant.
Col Fremoht's marriage was celebrated
by Roman Catholic priest; but this was
in consequence of the difficulty, if not i'm
possibility, of procuring any other clergyman
to perform it. The eefehioty was in pri-
vate room, was very short and simple, and
did not imply any assent on his part, or that
of his wife, to tie doctrine of the Roman
Catholic Church; nor was either of them
required, or requested, on that occasion, TO
give any pledge that their children should
be brought up in that faith: They have
all been baptised and educated in the Pro.
testant Episcopal Church.
The statements which Alderman Fulmer,
ofthis city, is said to have authorized-to
the effect that in March, 1852, he saw Col.
Fremont joining in the religious services of
a Roman Catholic Church at Washington,
and that in subsequent conversation with
him at dinner, at Browns Hotel, Col. Ere
mont declared himself Catholic and be-
liever in the peculiar doctrines of that
Church, are entirely untrue. ...
Col: Fremont was not in the city of
Washington at all during the year of 1852.
He left New York for California in March,
1850. He returned in the steamer George
Law, which reached New York on the 9th
of March. 1852, and remaining in that city
four days, he LEFT or the 10th, in the steam
er, for Europe, and die not return until
June, 1858. I understand that Alderman
Fulmer exhibits a receipt from Browns Ho-
tel, dated March 7th, 1852, for four days
board. This makes it certain that the AL
derman's stay there terminated on the 7th,
and that the alleged conversation must
hare take place previous to that date
But as Col. Fremont did not reach New
York until the 9Th: it is impossible that
he should have been connected with them,
especially as he remained in New York,
and did not visit Washington at all. He
has no recollections of having ever dined
at Browns Hotel until this last winter,
since i84l,Enor of eser having seen Al
derman Fulmer, there or elsewhere:
The Alderman, am informed, is man
Who would not be likely to make such
statements unless he belieted them to be
true. But it is very certain he has fallen
into tefy gross error somehow@prebably
by misteking some other person, with
whom he may have held the Conversation
in question, for Col. Fremont: He owes it
to his own character, as well as 10 justice,
to take steps to confirm, or correct the ae-
curacy Of his recollection in this matter.
You may rely upon the eiitire authen-
ticity of the statements have thus made
in reply to your inquiry of the facts" In
the present state of the public mind, and
in view of the earnest and persevering mis-
representations of the truth, you may think
it desirable that they should be generally
known. If so, you are quite at liberty to
make them public, and to add, that they
are given as the result of conversation with
Col. Fremont himself.
l am, very truly, yours;
HENRY J. RAYMOND.
Washington Gossip.