Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1856-08-14
Col. FrenOnt's Religion.

mond to our fellow citizen, T.. ID. Mansfield I,
ought to put an end 10 the rontroversyfa
oil. Fremont's religious views. 1t will, at
east, with all honest and candid people:
New YORK, July 30, 1856.
My DEAR SIR:-Your favor of the lst
inst, ought to have been answered long ago
but absence and business must plead my
excuse. | am not surprised to hear
the rumors so widely circulated concernin ing
Col. sFremont's religion, should have the
effect of causing some who sympathise
thoroughly with his sentiments in regard to
the extension of slavery, to hesitate about
pIedging themselves to his support. But so
far as these rumors assert or imply that he
is Roman Catholic, they are without the
slightest foundation in truth.
presume that rom proper motives of de-
licacy and self-respect, Col. Fremont will
not publish anything himself on the subject,
or take any part, personlly, in the canvass
But he coDverses with the utmost freedom up
on these topics as upon all others; he has no
desire or disposition to practice any conceal
ment of his religious opinions: and | have
no reason to suppose that he would desire
others to DO SO on his behalf.
Col. Fremont is mol now, nor has he ever
been, Roman Catholic. His father living
when he was five years old, he was educated
exclusively IN Protestant schools, and at the
age Of ofsixteen,was Mfirmed of his own mo-
zion and sincere conviction, in the Protest
ant Episcopal Church. of which he has con-
tirued ever since 10 be a member. Not one
of his own children has ever been sent to a
Roman Catholic school. though believe an
adopted daughter attended for short time
the Seminary at Georgetown, of which the
pupils are generally largely Pro;e slant
That this ought not to be construed to his
prejudice, even BY the most jealous Protes-
tants, is sufficiently shown by the fact that
Mr.. Fillmore sent his own daughter TO a.
Catholic Seminary at Buffalo tor the purpose
of special iLstruction-yet no one ever in
ferred from this circumstance that he him.
self was not a Protestant.
Col. Fremont's marriage was celebrated
by Roman Catholic priest; but this was
in consequence of the difficulty, if not im-
possibility, OF procuring any other clergy
man TO pe-.orm it. The ceremony was in
a private :oom, was very short and simple,
and did not imply any assent on mis- part, or
that of his wiIe, to the doctrine of the Ro-
man Catholic Church, nor was either of
them required. or requested, on that occa
sim, to give any pledge that their children
should be brought up in that faith. They
have all been baptised and educated in the
Protestant Episcopal Church.
The statements which Alderman Fulmer,
Of this City, is said to have authorised-to
the effect that in March, 1852, he saw Col.
Fremont joining in the religious services of
Roman Catholic Church at Washington,
and that in a subsequent conversation with
him at dinner, at Browns Hotel, Col. Fre-
mont declared himself Catholic and te-
lever in the peculiar doctrines Uf that
Church are entirely untrue.
Col. Fremont as not in the city of Wash
lngton at all during the year 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, 1862, and remaining in that city
four days, he left on the 10th, in the steam
er Africa !or Europe, and did not return
until June, 1853, understand that Alder
man Fulmer exhibits a RECEIPT from Browns |
Hotel, dated March 7th, 1862, tor four day IS |
board. This makes it certain that the Al |
derman's stay there terminated on the 7th,
and that the alleged conversation must have
taken 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 recollection
of having ever dined at Browns Hotel until
this last winter, since 184l,-nor of ever
having seen Alderman Fulmer, there or else
where.
The alderman, am informed, is man
who would not be likely to make such state
ments unless he believed :hem to be true.
But it is very certain he has fallen into
very gross error somehuw-probably by mis-
taking 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 to justice, to take steps
to confirm, or correct the accuracy of his re-
collection in this matter
You may rely upon the entire authenticity
ut the statements have thus made in reply
to your inquiry for the "facts." In the pre-
sent state OF the public mind, and in view
pi the earnest and persevering misreprenta-
tons of The truth, you may think it desir
able 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. Frs-
nent himself
l am, very truly, yours,
HENRY J. RAYMOND.
To E. D. MANSFIELD, Esq.