Minnesota Staats-Zeitung. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1858-1877, 1859-09-17
A New Stump Speaker.

are capable threading and understand
ing the English language, we will give
the following masterpiece of the "Still-
water Democrat in original, to show
in what light a Democratic Editor is
viewing Truth, and PHILOSOPHY: The
Democrat, after calling Mr.: Schefer,
in another column Of his sheet, a Red
Republican, an atheist of the deepest
dye, an umc0mpromaislmg Ab0htiomast,
says:
Charles Scheffer, - Banker, - issuer of shin
plasters, who claims that the negro of the
South has not only the right, but it is the moral
duty to murder his master,--who, in spite ofhis
oath of allegiance is always ready to shoulder
the musket for Germany,"-who has been elect
ed one of the leaders of the Repudiation-Know
Nothing - Abolitionist, has departed for the
North to take the stump for the cause in gene
raj, and for his W privat benefit in particular.
We confess, We have an amiable weakness to de-
sire to see Charley on the stump; we can imag-
inc the sensation his "frst appearance" will Gre
ate in the hyperborian regions of St. Cloud and
Monticello. He will be accompanied by the
veteran Ludvigh, who has already passed thro'
all the experiences of a public orator from a coat
of tar and feathers to a hiss. This Ludvigh,
however, seems to have become somewhat timid.
When last here to address a meeting celebrating
the birthday of Thomas Paine, he insisted on his
friends being present to protect him while deliv-
ering his stale rehash of the teachings of eminent
inidel philosophers. This anecdote is an epitome
of the mind that, like Mentor, accompanies the
young Telemachus of the Blacks on his wander
ings in search Of the laurels of the stump. Is
Mrs. Swisshelm to be the Gree of this romantic
pair? They are bound to St. Cloud.
Now, let us examine, without par
ty-zeal, in which we never indulge,
without passion, for which we are
quite too old, let us examine and dis
cuss fairly. the above viperous accusa-
ton towards MI. Charles Scheffer.
Suppose he is a Red Republican,
were not Washington, Jefferson, and
all the great men of the Revolution
in their time Red Republicans, in op-
position to British Monarchy? Yes,
they were; proclaiming human Rights
in opposition of historical Rights, and
the Rights of Princes.
Suppose he is an Atheist-does our
Constitution, does Our liberty of Con-
science exclude Deists or Atheists,
asking that Liberty only for Christians,
of any kind of denomination, and for
orthodox Jews? 1t would certainly
be absurd to interpret that glorious
Instrument, that precious Gift in
suchanarrow-minded and prescribing
spirit.
If you admit hal Luther had a
right to protest against the Pope and
the abuses of the Roman Church if
you think it unjust, and against the
Liberty of Conscience, that in modern
Rome the Catholic Religion is the rul-
ing religion, and Professionalism barely
tolerated, whilst Protestant Govern
ments are not less uni just and oppres-
sive against the Catholic Religion
if you condemn the time of Inquisi-
ton ; if your allow Luther and the
Reformers of those dark times, the
right Of teaching and establishing new
religions if you concede that hun
dreds of Secterians have the same
privilege, how can you dare to draw
a boundary-line and say "you have
a right in our glorious Republic to
believe according to the Holy Bible,
but you are forbid to di;s6eAieve this or
that or-any Dogmaw Would this not
be Despotism, instead of Liberty of
Conscience? Would this not tend to
a modern Inquisition that might be-
gin with jealous arguments, and false
applications, and end with dungeons
AMID: fagots ?-Are you willing to give
Theology free, and lay in letters Free
Inquiry, Philosophy, Geology and all
the sciences of Nature? Will you
allow man to think for himself, and
prescribe him, how to think? Do
you not know that human thought is
the result Of organization, education
and political government? Will you
proclaim free press and free speech,
and still vituperate OF punish man for
using them, without he is infringing
the right or the honor of others? No,
such a Democratic Tyran you can not
be in heart, and still you abuse the
free press, in prescribing a free citizen,
an honest man, a free thinking man?
Why For the only purpose of max
ing political capital out of it, among
orthodox believers.
We, for our part, confess it honest
ly, that we belong to no Church, to no
established Religion, and we would
dispise a man, a citizen of a free Re-
public, wo should deny us his Vote
for the sake of our philosophical views,
not less, than we would dispise our-
selves, for not voting for a man, be-
cause he is a Catholic, a Protestant or
a Jew. Away with prescription in
all shapes, away with pharisaical
words of Liberty, whilst advocating
%tyrannical views and measures!