text
stringlengths 0
6.48M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
package(default_visibility = ["//visibility:public"])
load("@io_bazel_rules_go//go:def.bzl", "go_library", "go_test")
go_library(
name = "go_default_library",
srcs = [
"configuration.go",
"evaluator.go",
"registry.go",
],
importpath = "k8s.io/kubernetes/pkg/quota/v1/generic",
deps = [
"//pkg/quota/v1:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/api/core/v1:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/api/resource:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/labels:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/runtime:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/runtime/schema:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/apiserver/pkg/admission:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/client-go/informers:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/client-go/tools/cache:go_default_library",
],
)
filegroup(
name = "package-srcs",
srcs = glob(["**"]),
tags = ["automanaged"],
visibility = ["//visibility:private"],
)
filegroup(
name = "all-srcs",
srcs = [":package-srcs"],
tags = ["automanaged"],
)
go_test(
name = "go_default_test",
srcs = ["evaluator_test.go"],
embed = [":go_default_library"],
deps = [
"//staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/labels:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/apimachinery/pkg/runtime:go_default_library",
"//staging/src/k8s.io/client-go/tools/cache:go_default_library",
],
)
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
457 U.S. 496 (1982)
PATSY
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
No. 80-1874.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 2, 1982.
Decided June 21, 1982.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
*497 Charles S. Sims argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Bruce J. Ennis, Jr., E. Richard Larson, Steven R. Shapiro, and Joel M. Gora.
Mitchell D. Franks argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Jeffrey H. Klink.[*]
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Fred E. Inbau, Wayne W. Schmidt, and James P. Manak for Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc.; and by John C. Ross, Jr., for the Texas Municipal League et al.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the State of Washington et al. by Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General of Washington, Malachy R. Murphy, Deputy Attorney General, and Thomas R. Bjorgen, Assistant Attorney General, and the Attorneys General for their respective States or jurisdictions as follows: Aviata F. Faalevad of American Samoa, Charles A. Graddick of Alabama, Wilson L. Condon of Alaska, Robert Corbin of Arizona, Michael J. Bowers of Georgia, Tany S. Hong of Hawaii, David H. Leroy of Idaho, Tyrone C. Fahner of Illinois, Linley E. Pearson of Indiana, Robert T. Stephan of Kansas, Steven L. Beshear of Kentucky, William J. Guste, Jr., of Louisiana, Frank J. Kelley of Michigan, Warren R. Spannaus of Minnesota, William A. Allain of Mississippi, John D. Ashcroft of Missouri, Michael T. Greely of Montana, Paul L. Douglas of Nebraska, Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, Gregory H. Smith of New Hampshire, James R. Zazzali of New Jersey, Rufus L. Edmisten of North Carolina, Robert O. Wefald of North Dakota, William J. Brown of Ohio, LeRoy S. Zimmerman of Pennsylvania, Dennis J. Roberts II of Rhode Island, Daniel R. McLeod of South Carolina, Mark White of Texas, David L. Wilkinson of Utah, John J. Easton, Jr., of Vermont, Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., of West Virginia, Bronson C. La Follette of Wisconsin, and Steven F. Freudenthal of Wyoming; and for the National Education Association et al. by Michael H. Gottesman, Robert M. Weinberg, Jeremiah A. Collins, Richard C. Dinkelspiel, William L. Robinson, and Norman J. Chachkin.
*498 JUSTICE MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is a prerequisite to an action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. IV). Petitioner Georgia Patsy filed this action, alleging that her employer, Florida International University (FIU), had denied her employment opportunities solely on the basis of her race and sex. By a divided vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that petitioner was required to exhaust "adequate and appropriate" administrative remedies, and remanded the case to the District Court to consider the adequacy of the administrative procedures. Patsy v. Florida International University, 634 F. 2d 900 (1981) (en banc). We granted certiorari, 454 U. S. 813, and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
I
Petitioner alleges that even though she is well qualified and has received uniformly excellent performance evaluations from her supervisors, she has been rejected for more than 13 positions at FIU.[1] She further claims that FIU has unlawfully filled positions through intentional discrimination on the basis of race and sex. She seeks declaratory and injunctive relief or, in the alternative, damages.[2]
*499 The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted respondent Board of Regents' motion to dismiss because petitioner had not exhausted available administrative remedies. On appeal, a panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Patsy v. Florida International University, 612 F. 2d 946 (1980). The full court then granted respondent's petition for rehearing and vacated the panel decision.
The Court of Appeals reviewed numerous opinions of this Court holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required, and concluded that these cases did not preclude the application of a "flexible" exhaustion rule. 634 F. 2d, at 908. After canvassing the policy arguments in favor of an exhaustion requirement, the Court of Appeals decided that a § 1983 plaintiff could be required to exhaust administrative remedies if the following minimum conditions are met: (1) an orderly system of review or appeal is provided by statute or agency rule; (2) the agency can grant relief more or less commensurate with the claim; (3) relief is available within a reasonable period of time; (4) the procedures are fair, are not unduly burdensome, and are not used to harass or discourage those with legitimate claims; and (5) interim relief is available, in appropriate cases, to prevent irreparable injury and to preserve the plaintiff's rights during the administrative process. Where these minimum standards are met, a court must further consider the particular administrative scheme, the nature of the plaintiff's interest, and the values served by the exhaustion doctrine in order to determine whether exhaustion should be required. Id., at 912-913. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the *500 District Court to determine whether exhaustion would be appropriate in this case.
II
The question whether exhaustion of administrative remedies should ever be required in a § 1983 action has prompted vigorous debate and disagreement. See, e. g., Turner, When Prisoners Sue: A Study of Prisoner Section 1983 Cases in the Federal Courts, 92 Harv. L. Rev. 610 (1979); Note, 8 Ind. L. Rev. 565 (1975); Comment, 41 U. Chi. L. Rev. 537 (1974). Our resolution of this issue, however, is made much easier because we are not writing on a clean slate. This Court has addressed this issue, as well as related issues, on several prior occasions.
Respondent suggests that our prior precedents do not control our decision today, arguing that these cases can be distinguished on their facts or that this Court did not "fully" consider the question whether exhaustion should be required. This contention need not detain us long. Beginning with McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, 671-673 (1963), we have on numerous occasions rejected the argument that a § 1983 action should be dismissed where the plaintiff has not exhausted state administrative remedies. See Barry v. Barchi, 443 U. S. 55, 63, n. 10 (1979); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 574 (1973); Carter v. Stanton, 405 U. S. 669, 671 (1972); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249, 251 (1971); Houghton v. Shafcr, 392 U. S. 639, 640 (1968); King v. Smith, 392 U. S. 309, 312, n. 4 (1968); Damico v. California, 389 U. S. 416 (1967). Cf. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 472-473 (1974) ("When federal claims are premised on [§ 1983] as they are here we have not required exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies, recognizing the paramount role Congress has assigned to the federal courts to protect constitutional rights"). Respondent may be correct in arguing that several of these decisions could have been based on traditional exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine. Nevertheless, this Court has stated *501 categorically that exhaustion is not a prerequisite to an action under § 1983, and we have not deviated from that position in the 19 years since McNeese. Therefore, we do not address the question presented in this case as one of first impression.
III
Respondent argues that we should reconsider these decisions and adopt the Court of Appeals' exhaustion rule, which was based on McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185 (1969). This Court has never announced a definitive formula for determining whether prior decisions should be overruled or reconsidered. However, in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658, 695-701 (1978), we articulated four factors that should be considered. Two of these factors whether the decisions in question misconstrued the meaning of the statute as revealed in its legislative history and whether overruling these decisions would be inconsistent with more recent expressions of congressional intent are particularly relevant to our decision today.[3] Both concern legislative purpose, which is of paramount importance in the exhaustion context because Congress is vested with the power to prescribe the basic procedural scheme under which claims may be heard in federal courts. Of course, courts play an important role in determining the limits of an exhaustion requirement and may impose such a requirement even where Congress has not expressly so provided. However, the initial question whether exhaustion is required should be answered by reference to congressional intent; and a court *502 should not defer the exercise of jurisdiction under a federal statute unless it is consistent with that intent.[4] Therefore, in deciding whether we should reconsider our prior decisions and require exhaustion of state administrative remedies, we look to congressional intent as reflected in the legislative history of the predecessor to § 1983 and in recent congressional activity in this area.
A
In determining whether our prior decisions misconstrued the meaning of § 1983, we begin with a review of the legislative history to § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, the precursor to § 1983.[5] Although we recognize that the 1871 Congress did not expressly contemplate the exhaustion question, we believe that the tenor of the debates over § 1 supports our conclusion that exhaustion of administrative remedies in § 1983 actions should not be judicially imposed.
*503 The Civil Rights Act of 1871, along with the Fourteenth Amendment it was enacted to enforce, were crucial ingredients in the basic alteration of our federal system accomplished during the Reconstruction Era. During that time, the Federal Government was clearly established as a guarantor of the basic federal rights of individuals against incursions by state power. As we recognized in Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U. S. 225, 242 (1972) (quoting Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 346 (1880)), "[t]he very purpose of § 1983 was to interpose the federal courts between the States and the people, as guardians of the people's federal rights to protect the people from unconstitutional action under color of state law, `whether that action be executive, legislative, or judicial.' "
At least three recurring themes in the debates over § 1 cast serious doubt on the suggestion that requiring exhaustion of state administrative remedies would be consistent with the intent of the 1871 Congress. First, in passing § 1, Congress assigned to the federal courts a paramount role in protecting constitutional rights. Representative Dawes expressed this view as follows:
"The first remedy proposed by this bill is a resort to the courts of the United States. Is that a proper place in which to find redress for any such wrongs? If there be power to call into courts of the United States an offender against these rights, privileges, and immunities, and hold him to an account there, either civilly or criminally, for their infringement, I submit to the calm and candid judgment of every member of this House that there is no tribunal so fitted, where equal and exact justice would be more likely to be meted out in temper, in moderation, in severity, if need be, but always according to the law and the fact, as that great tribunal of the Constitution." Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 476 (1871) (hereinafter Globe).
*504 See also id., at 332 (remarks of Rep. Hoar); id., at 375 (remarks of Rep. Lowe); id., at 448-449 (remarks of Rep. Butler); id., at 459 (remarks of Rep. Coburn).[6]
The 1871 Congress intended § 1 to "throw open the doors of the United States courts" to individuals who were threatened with, or who had suffered, the deprivation of constitutional rights, id., at 376 (remarks of Rep. Lowe), and to provide these individuals immediate access to the federal courts notwithstanding any provision of state law to the contrary. For example, Senator Edmunds, who introduced the bill in the Senate, stated in his closing remarks that the bill was similar in principle to an earlier act upheld by this Court in Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539 (1842):
"[T]he Supreme Court decided . . . that it was the solemn duty of Congress under the Constitution to secure to the individual, in spite of the State, or with its aid, as the case might be, precisely the rights that the Constitution gave him, and that there should be no intermediate authority to arrest or oppose the direct performance of this duty by Congress." Globe 692 (emphasis added).
Similarly, Representative Elliott viewed the issue as whether "the Government of the United States [has] the right, under the Constitution, to protect a citizen in the exercise of his vested rights as an American citizen by . . . the assertion of immediate jurisdiction through its courts, without the appeal or agency of the State in which the citizen is domiciled." *505 Id., at 389 (emphasis added). See, e. g., id., at 459 (remarks of Rep. Coburn); id., at 807 (remarks of Rep. Garfield); id., at 609 (remarks of Sen. Pool); Globe App. 141 (remarks of Rep. Shanks).[7]
A second theme in the debates further suggests that the 1871 Congress would not have wanted to impose an exhaustion requirement. A major factor motivating the expansion of federal jurisdiction through §§ 1 and 2 of the bill was the belief of the 1871 Congress that the state authorities had been unable or unwilling to protect the constitutional rights of individuals or to punish those who violated these rights. See, e. g., Globe 321 (remarks of Rep. Stoughton) ("The State authorities and local courts are unable or unwilling to check the evil or punish the criminals"); id., at 374 (remarks of Rep. Lowe) ("the local administrations have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective"); id., at 459 (remarks of Rep. Coburn); id., at 609 (remarks of Sen. Pool); id., at 687 (remarks of Sen. Shurz); id., at 691 (remarks of Sen. Edmunds); Globe App. 185 (remarks of Rep. Platt).[8]*506 Of primary importance to the exhaustion question was the mistrust that the 1871 Congress held for the factfinding processes of state institutions. See, e. g., Globe 320 (testimony of Hon. Thomas Settle, Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court, before the House Judiciary Committee) ("The defect lies not so much with the courts as with the juries"); id., at 394 (remarks of Rep. Rainey); Globe App. 311 (remarks of Rep. Maynard). This Congress believed that federal courts would be less susceptible to local prejudice and to the existing defects in the factfinding processes of the state courts. See, e. g., Globe 322 (remarks of Rep. Stoughton); id., at 459 (remarks of Rep. Coburn).[9] This perceived defect in the States' factfinding processes is particularly relevant to the question of exhaustion of administrative remedies: exhaustion rules are often applied in deference to the superior factfinding ability of the relevant administrative agency. See, e. g., McKart v. United States, 395 U. S., at 192-196.
A third feature of the debates relevant to the exhaustion question is the fact that many legislators interpreted the bill to provide dual or concurrent forums in the state and federal system, enabling the plaintiff to choose the forum in which to seek relief. Cf. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 183 (1961) ("The federal remedy is supplementary to the state remedy, and the latter need not be first sought and refused before the federal one is invoked"). For example, Senator Thurman noted:
"I object to [§ 1], first, because of the centralizing tendency of transferring all mere private suits, as well as *507 the punishment of offenses, from the State into the Federal courts. I do not say that this section gives to the Federal courts exclusive jurisdiction. I do not suppose that it is so understood. It leaves it, I presume, in the option of the person who imagines himself to be injured to sue in the State court or in the Federal court, an option that he who has been the least injured, but who has some malice to gratify, will be the most likely to avail himself of." Globe App. 216.
See also Globe 578, 694-695 (remarks of Sen. Edmunds); id., at 334 (remarks of Rep. Hoar); id., at 514 (remarks of Rep. Farnworth); Globe App. 85 (remarks of Rep. Bingham) ("Admitting that the States have concurrent power to enforce the Constitution of the United States within their respective limits, must we wait for their action?").
This legislative history supports the conclusion that our prior decisions, holding that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to an action under § 1983, did not misperceive the statutory intent: it seems fair to infer that the 1871 Congress did not intend that an individual be compelled in every case to exhaust state administrative remedies before filing an action under § 1 of the Civil Rights Act. We recognize, however, that drawing such a conclusion from this history alone is somewhat precarious: the 1871 Congress was not presented with the question of exhaustion of administrative remedies, nor was it aware of the potential role of state administrative agencies. Therefore, we do not rely exclusively on this legislative history in deciding the question presented here. Congress addressed the question of exhaustion under § 1983 when it recently enacted 42 U. S. C. § 1997e (1976 ed., Supp. IV). The legislative history of § 1997e provides strong evidence of congressional intent on this issue.
B
The Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1997 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV), was enacted primarily *508 to ensure that the United States Attorney General has "legal standing to enforce existing constitutional rights and Federal statutory rights of institutionalized persons." H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 96-897, p. 9 (1980) (Conf. Rep.). In § 1997e, Congress also created a specific, limited exhaustion requirement for adult prisoners bringing actions pursuant to § 1983. Section 1997e and its legislative history demonstrate that Congress understood that exhaustion is not generally required in § 1983 actions, and that it decided to carve out only a narrow exception to this rule. A judicially imposed exhaustion requirement would be inconsistent with Congress' decision to adopt § 1997e and would usurp policy judgments that Congress has reserved for itself.
In considering whether an exhaustion requirement should be incorporated into the bill, Congress clearly expressed its belief that a decision to require exhaustion for certain § 1983 actions would work a change in the law. Witnesses testifying before the Subcommittee that drafted the bill discussed the decisions of this Court holding that exhaustion was not required. See, e. g., Hearings on H. R. 2439 and H. R. 5791 before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1977) (1977 Hearings); id., at 47, 69, 77, 323; Hearings on H. R. 10 before the Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and the Administration of Justice of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., 48 (1979) (1979 Hearings). During these hearings, Representative Kastenmeier, Chairman of this Subcommittee, stated:
"Another thing that I think requires some discussion within the committee, and is a point of argument, . . . is whether there ought to be an exhaustion of remedies requirement.
". . . In fact, I think it has been pointed out that if [we] were to require it, particularly in 1983, that would constitute regression from the current state of the law. It would set the law back, because presently it is clearly *509 held, that is the Supreme Court has held, that in 1983 civil rights suits the litigant need not necessarily fully exhaust State remedies." 1977 Hearings 57-58.
See also id., at 272 (remarks of Rep. Drinan) (Representative Railsback "grounds his bill on doing something which the Supreme Court has consistently refused to do, namely require exhaustion of remedies"); 1979 Hearings 26 (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier) (adopting § 1997e "was resisted as a possible encroachment on civil liberties; that is to say, in the free, unimpeded resort to 1983").
The debates over adopting an exhaustion requirement also reflect this understanding. See, e. g., 124 Cong. Rec. 11988 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Volkmer and Rep. Kastenmeier); id., at 15445 (remarks of Rep. Ertel); id., at 23180 (remarks of Rep. Wiggins) ("it is settled law that an exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required as a precondition of maintaining a 1983 action"); 125 Cong. Rec. 12496 (1979) (remarks of Rep. Butler) ("Under existing law there is no requirement that a complainant first ask the State prison system to help him"). With the understanding that exhaustion generally is not required, Congress decided to adopt the limited exhaustion requirement of § 1997e in order to relieve the burden on the federal courts by diverting certain prisoner petitions back through state and local institutions, and also to encourage the States to develop appropriate grievance procedures. See, e. g., Conf. Rep. 9; 124 Cong. Rec. 11976 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier); id., at 11976, 11983 (remarks of Rep. Railsback); id., at 15442 (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier); id., at 15445 (remarks of Rep. Ertel); id., at 23176 (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier); id., at 23179-23180 (remarks of Rep. Butler); id., at 23180 (remarks of Rep. Ertel). Implicit in this decision is Congress' conclusion that the no-exhaustion rule should be left standing with respect to other § 1983 suits.
A judicially imposed exhaustion requirement would also be inconsistent with the extraordinarily detailed exhaustion *510 scheme embodied in § 1997e. Section 1997e carves out a narrow exception to the general no-exhaustion rule to govern certain prisoner claims, and establishes a procedure to ensure that the administrative remedies are adequate and effective. The exhaustion requirement is expressly limited to § 1983 actions brought by an adult convicted of a crime. 42 U. S. C. § 1997e(a)(1) (1976 ed., Supp. IV).[10] Section 1997e(b)(1) instructs the Attorney General to "promulgate minimum standards for the development and implementation of a plain, speedy, and effective system" of administrative remedies, and § 1997e(b)(2) specifies certain minimum standards that must be included.[11] A court may require exhaustion of administrative remedies only if "the Attorney General has certified or the court has determined that such administrative *511 remedies are in substantial compliance with the minimum acceptable standards promulgated under subsection (b)." § 1997e(a)(2). Before exhaustion may be required, the court must further conclude that it "would be appropriate and in the interests of justice." § 1997e(a)(1).[12] Finally, in those § 1983 actions meeting all the statutory requirements for exhaustion, the district court may not dismiss the case, but may only "continue such case for a period of not to exceed ninety days in order to require exhaustion." Ibid. This detailed scheme is inconsistent with discretion to impose, on an ad hoc basis, a judicially developed exhaustion rule in other cases.
Congress hoped that § 1997e would improve prison conditions by stimulating the development of successful grievance mechanisms. See, e. g., Conf. Rep. 9; H. R. Rep. No. 96-80, p. 4 (1979); 1979 Hearings 4 (remarks of Rep. Railsback); 124 Cong. Rec. 11976 (1978) (remarks of Rep. Railsback); 125 Cong. Rec. 12492 (1979) (remarks of Rep. Drinan); 126 Cong. Rec. 10780 (1980) (remarks of Rep. Kastenmeier). To further this purpose, Congress provided for the deferral of the exercise of federal jurisdiction over certain § 1983 claims only on the condition that the state prisons develop adequate procedures. This purpose would be frustrated by judicial discretion to impose exhaustion generally: the States would have no incentive to adopt grievance *512 procedures capable of certification, because prisoner § 1983 cases could be diverted to state administrative remedies in any event.
In sum, the exhaustion provisions of the Act make sense, and are not superfluous, only if exhaustion could not be required before its enactment and if Congress intended to carve out a narrow exception to this no-exhaustion rule. The legislative history of § 1997e demonstrates that Congress has taken the approach of carving out specific exceptions to the general rule that federal courts cannot require exhaustion under § 1983. It is not our province to alter the balance struck by Congress in establishing the procedural framework for bringing actions under § 1983.
C
Respondent and the Court of Appeals argue that exhaustion of administrative remedies should be required because it would further various policies. They argue that an exhaustion requirement would lessen the perceived burden that § 1983 actions impose on federal courts;[13] would further the goal of comity and improve federal-state relations by postponing federal-court review until after the state administrative agency had passed on the issue;[14] and would enable the agency, which presumably has expertise in the area at issue, to enlighten the federal court's ultimate decision.
*513 As we noted earlier, policy considerations alone cannot justify judicially imposed exhaustion unless exhaustion is consistent with congressional intent. See supra, at 501-502, and n. 4. Furthermore, as the debates over incorporating the exhaustion requirement in § 1997e demonstrate, the relevant policy considerations do not invariably point in one direction, and there is vehement disagreement over the validity of the assumptions underlying many of them.[15] The very difficulty of these policy considerations, and Congress' superior institutional competence to pursue this debate, suggest that legislative not judicial solutions are preferable. Cf. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 317 (1980); Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U. S. 145, 150, 153 (1965).
Beyond the policy issues that must be resolved in deciding whether to require exhaustion, there are equally difficult questions concerning the design and scope of an exhaustion requirement. These questions include how to define those categories of § 1983 claims in which exhaustion might be desirable; *514 how to unify and centralize the standards for judging the kinds of administrative procedures that should be exhausted;[16] what tolling requirements and time limitations should be adopted;[17] what is the res judicata and collateral estoppel effect of particular administrative determinations; what consequences should attach to the failure to comply with procedural requirements of administrative proceedings; and whether federal courts could grant necessary interim injunctive relief and hold the action pending exhaustion, or proceed to judgment without requiring exhaustion even though exhaustion might otherwise be required, where the relevant administrative agency is either powerless or not inclined to grant such interim relief. These and similar questions might be answered swiftly and surely by legislation, but would create costly, remedy-delaying, and court-burdening litigation if answered incrementally by the judiciary in the context of diverse constitutional claims relating to thousands of different state agencies.[18]
*515 The very variety of claims, claimants, and state agencies involved in § 1983 cases argues for congressional consideration of the myriad of policy considerations, and may explain why Congress, in deciding whether to require exhaustion in certain § 1983 actions brought by adult prisoners, carved out such a narrow, detailed exception to the no-exhaustion rule. After full debate and consideration of the various policy arguments, Congress adopted § 1997e, taking the largest class of § 1983 actions and constructing an exhaustion requirement that differs substantially from the McKart-type standard urged by respondent and adopted by the Court of Appeals. See n. 18, supra. It is not for us to say whether Congress will or should create a similar scheme for other categories of § 1983 claims or whether Congress will or should adopt an altogether different exhaustion requirement for nonprisoner § 1983 claims.[19]
*516 IV
Based on the legislative histories of both § 1983 and § 1997e, we conclude that exhaustion of state administrative remedies should not be required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983. We decline to overturn our prior decisions holding that such exhaustion is not required. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE O'CONNOR, with whom JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, concurring.
As discussed in JUSTICE POWELL's dissenting opinion, as well as in the opinion of the court below, considerations of sound policy suggest that a § 1983 plaintiff should be required to exhaust adequate state administrative remedies before filing his complaint. At the very least, prior state administrative *517 proceedings would resolve many claims, thereby decreasing the number of § 1983 actions filed in the federal courts, which are now straining under excessive caseloads. However, for the reasons set forth in the Court's opinion, this Court already has ruled that, in the absence of additional congressional legislation, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required in § 1983 actions. Perhaps Congress' enactment of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1997 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV), which creates a limited exhaustion requirement for prisoners bringing § 1983 suits, will prompt it to reconsider the possibility of requiring exhaustion in the remainder of § 1983 cases. Reluctantly, I concur.
JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in part.
I fully agree with the Court that our frequent and unequivocal statements on exhaustion cannot be explained or distinguished away as the Fifth Circuit attempted to do. For nearly 20 years and on at least 10 occasions, this Court has clearly held that no exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in a § 1983 suit. Ante, at 500. Whether or not this initially was a wise choice, these decisions are stare decisis, and in a statutory case, a particularly strong showing is required that we have misread the relevant statute and its history. I have no difficulty in concluding that on the issue of exhaustion, unlike the question of municipal immunity faced in Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), the Court has not previously misapprehended the meaning of the 1871 debates in rejecting an exhaustion rule in McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668, 671-673 (1963), and adhering to that position ever since. Our precedents and the legislative history are sufficient to support reversal, and I accordingly join the judgment and all but Part III-B of the opinion of the Court.
In Part III-B, the Court unnecessarily and unwisely ventures further to find support where none may be had. The wisdom of a general no-exhaustion rule in § 1983 suits was *518 not at issue when Congress considered and passed the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1997 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV). As JUSTICE POWELL persuasively points out in his dissenting opinion, and as reflected in the title of the Act, congressional attention was narrowly focused on procedures concerning the legal rights of prisoners and other institutionalized persons. Unsurprisingly, the legislation which emerged addressed only the specific problem under investigation; it indicates neither approval of a noexhaustion rule nor an intent to preclude us from reconsidering the issue.
As the Court acknowledges, ante, at 513, the policy arguments cut in both directions. The Court concludes that "the very difficulty of these policy considerations, and Congress' superior institutional competence . . . suggest that legislative not judicial decisions are preferable." To be sure, exhaustion is a statutory issue and the dispositive word on the matter belongs to Congress. It does not follow, however, that, were the issue not foreclosed by earlier decisions, we would be institutionally incompetent to formulate an exhaustion rule. The lack of an exhaustion requirement in § 1983 actions is itself an exception to the general rule, judicially formulated, that exhaustion of administrative remedies is required in a civil action. Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41 (1938); McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185 (1969). Unlike other statutory questions, exhaustion is "a rule of judicial administration," Myers v. Bethlehem Shipping Corp., supra, at 50, and unless Congress directs otherwise, rightfully subject to crafting by judges. Our resolution of this case as governed by stare decisis, reinforced by the legislative history of § 1983, should not be taken as undercutting the general exhaustion principle of long standing. The result today is also fully consistent with our decisions that a defendant in a civil or administrative enforcement proceeding may not enjoin and sidetrack that proceeding by resorting to a § 1983 action in federal court, Huffman *519 v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327 (1977); Trainor v. Hernandez, 431 U. S. 434 (1977); Moore v. Sims, 442 U. S. 415 (1979), and that a federal action should be stayed pending determination of state-law issues central to the constitutional dispute. Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941). On this understanding, I join all but Part III-B of the opinion of the Court.[*]
The statutes at issue in cases recited by JUSTICE POWELL, post, at 522-523, n. 5, presented more equivocal embodiments of state intent. For example, in Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147 (1981) (per curiam), the authorization to sue and be sued was limited to contract actions and, unlike the instant provision, did not extend to "all courts of law and equity." The same is true of the interstate compact involved in Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 U. S. 275 (1959). The decision in Kennecott Copper Corp. v. Tax Comm'n, 327 U. S. 573 (1946), which involved a statute providing for suit in "any court of competent jurisdiction," turned on the incongruity of federal courts' interpreting state tax laws and the fact that "Utah employs explicit language to indicate, in other litigation, its consent to suits in federal courts." Id., at 579.
Thus, while I do not object to the Court's leaving the Eleventh Amendment issue for further consideration by the lower courts at least where, as here, there is no logical priority in resolving Eleventh Amendment immunity before exhaustion I find the issue sufficiently clear to be answered here and now. The statute means what it says.
JUSTICE POWELL, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins as to Part II, dissenting.
The Court holds that the limitations on federal judicial power embodied in the Eleventh Amendment and in the doctrine of sovereign immunity are not jurisdictional. I consider *520 this holding to be a serious departure from established constitutional doctrine.
I dissent also from the Court's rejection of the rule of "flexible" exhaustion of state administrative remedies developed and stated persuasively by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc. In disagreeing with the 17 judges of the Court of Appeals who adopted the flexible exhaustion principle, this Court places mistaken reliance on the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1997 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV). I disagree with both portions of the Court's holding and therefore dissent.
I. The Eleventh Amendment.[1]
A
In this "reverse discrimination" action, petitioner, an employee of the Florida International University, brought suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against the Board of Regents of the State of Florida.[2] She did not name the individual Regents as defendants. She sued for $500,000 in damages, and for injunctive and other equitable relief. See ante, at 498-499, n. 2. The Board filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that petitioner's suit was premature in light of her failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The District Court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss.
*521 On petitioner's appeal, the Board added the bar of the Eleventh Amendment to its defense.[3] It argued that as an instrumentality of the State, the Board could not be subjected to suit in federal court absent a waiver of immunity.[4]*522 And it asserted that there had been no waiver. Although the Board of Regents was created as a body corporate with power "to sue and be sued . . . to plead and be impleaded in all courts of law and equity," Fla. Stat. § 240.205(4)(1) (1981), it is well established that language such as this does not operate to waive the defense of the Eleventh Amendment.[5] In *523 reply, petitioner argued that whether or not the statute creating the Board amounted to a waiver and petitioner believed that it did the Eleventh Amendment simply was irrelevant to the equitable claims she had lodged against the State. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 3-4.
Neither the Court of Appeals panel nor the Court of Appeals en banc addressed the Board's Eleventh Amendment defense. They directed their attention solely to the question of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The panel held that there was no exhaustion requirement in § 1983 suits and remanded to the District Court for consideration of the Board's Eleventh Amendment argument. Patsy v. Florida International University, 612 F. 2d 946 (1980). The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed, holding that § 1983 plaintiffs must exhaust available and reasonable administrative remedies. Patsy v. Florida International University, 634 F. 2d 900 (1981). Again the court did not consider the Board's Eleventh Amendment defense.
The Eleventh Amendment question was raised before this Court, at the first opportunity after the Court of Appeals' decision, in the Board's response to the petition for writ of certiorari. The Board argued, as it had on appeal, that it was an arm of the State and that it had not waived its immunity from suit in federal court.[6] Again petitioner answered that *524 at most the Eleventh Amendment defense would bar her claim for damages. And, even as to this claim, petitioner now argued that the Amendment would not bar damages if the Board could meet the claim out of its "own funds" e. g., from gifts and bequests rather than from the state treasury. These arguments were repeated at oral argument.[7]
B
The Court views the jurisdictional question presented by the Eleventh Amendment as if it were of little or no importance. Its entire discussion of the question is relegated to a conclusory note at the end of the opinion. See ante, at 515-516, n. 19. The Court concedes that the Amendment and the bar of sovereign immunity are "jurisdictional," but only in the sense that the State may raise the claim at any point in the proceedings. The statement is then made that the Amendment is not jurisdictional "in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this Court on its own motion." Ibid.[8] The Court cites to no authority in support of this statement,[9] and *525 it would be surprising if any existed. The reason that the Eleventh Amendment question may be raised at any point in the proceedings is precisely because it places limits on the basic authority of federal courts to entertain suits against a State. The history and text of the Eleventh Amendment, the principle of sovereign immunity exemplified by it, and the well-established precedents of this Court make clear that today's decision misconceives our jurisdiction and the purpose of this Amendment.
A basic principle of our constitutional system is that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Their authority extends only to those matters within the judicial power of the United States as defined by the Constitution. In language that could not be clearer, the Eleventh Amendment removes from the judicial power, as set forth in Art. III, suits "commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States." When an Amendment to the Constitution states in plain language that "the judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend" to suits against a State, from what source does the Court today derive its jurisdiction? The Court's "back-of-the-hand" treatment of this threshold issue offers no answer. Questions of jurisdiction and of the legitimate exercise of power are fundamental in our federal constitutional system.[10]
*526 C
The Eleventh Amendment was adopted as a response to this Court's assumption of original jurisdiction in a suit brought against the State of Georgia. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793). Relying upon express language in Art. III extending the judicial power to controversies between a State and citizens of another State, the Court found that it had jurisdiction. The decision is said to have created a shock throughout the country. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 11 (1890). The Amendment was adopted shortly thereafter, and the Court understood that it had been overruled: " `the amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction, in any case, past or future, in which a State was sued by the citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.' " Ibid.
In light of the history and wording of the Amendment, the Court has viewed the Amendment as placing explicit limits on the judicial power as defined by Art. III. See Nevada v. Hall, 440 U. S. 410, 421 (1979). But more than that, and beyond the express provisions of the Amendment, the Court has recognized that the Amendment stands for a principle of sovereign immunity by which the grant of authority in Art. III itself must be measured.[11] Thus, in Hans v. Louisiana, supra, the Court held that the federal judicial power did not extend to a suit against a nonconsenting State by one of its own citizens. Although the Eleventh Amendment by its terms does not apply to such suits, the Court found that *527 the language of the Amendment was but an illustration of a larger principle: Federal jurisdiction over suits against a State, absent consent, "was not contemplated by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of the United States." Id., at 15.[12] See Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436 (1900).
Similarly, in Ex parte New York, 256 U. S. 490 (1921), the Court found that despite the Eleventh Amendment's specific reference to suits in "law or equity," the principle of sovereign immunity exemplified by the Amendment would not permit the extension of federal admiralty jurisdiction over a nonconsenting State. The Court applied the same approach in Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313 (1934), in which the Court refused to take jurisdiction over a suit against a State by a foreign state. On its face, Art. III provided jurisdiction over suits "between a State . . . and foreign States." Nor did the Eleventh Amendment specifically exempt the States from suit by a foreign state. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that the judicial power of the United States, granted by Art. III, did not extend so far: "We think that Madison correctly interpreted Clause one of § 2 of Article III of the Constitution as making provision for jurisdiction of a suit against a State by a foreign State in the event of the State's consent but not otherwise." Id., at 330.
In this case a resident of the State of Florida has sued a Board exercising a major function of the State's sovereign authority. As prior decisions have held, whether this case is viewed only under the Eleventh Amendment with its *528 explicit limitation on federal jurisdiction or under Art. III, the analysis must be the same. Absent consent, the "judicial power of the United States," as defined by Art. III and the Eleventh Amendment, simply does not extend to suits against one of the States by a citizen of that State:[13]
"That a State may not be sued without its consent is a fundamental rule of jurisprudence having so important a bearing upon the construction of the Constitution of the United States that it has become established by repeated decisions of this court that the entire judicial power granted by the Constitution does not embrace authority to entertain a suit brought by private parties against a State without consent given: not one brought by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of a foreign State, because of the Eleventh Amendment; and not even one brought by its own citizens, because of the fundamental rule of which the Amendment is but an exemplification." Ex parte New York, supra, at 497 (emphasis added).
The Court does not distinguish these unquestioned precedents. They are wholly and inexplicably ignored. Quite *529 simply the Court today disregards controlling decisions and the explicit limitation on federal-court jurisdiction in Art. III and the Eleventh Amendment. The Court does recognize that the Eleventh Amendment is jurisdictional "in the sense" that the State may raise the bar of the Amendment for the first time on appeal. Yet the Court misses the point of this statement. The reason that the bar of the Amendment may be raised at any time as the Court previously has explained is precisely because it is jurisdictional:
"The objection to petitioner's suit as a violation of the Eleventh Amendment was first made and argued . . . in this Court. This was in time, however. The Eleventh Amendment declares a policy and sets forth an explicit limitation on federal judicial power of such compelling force that this Court will consider the issue arising under this Amendment . . . even though urged for the first time in this Court." Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, 323 U. S. 459, 467 (1945).[14]
Despite these precedents, and apparently because of an unexplained anxiety to reach the exhaustion issue decided by the Court of Appeals, this Court remands the issue of its own jurisdiction to the courts below.
D
I believe that the Eleventh Amendment question must be addressed and that the answer could hardly be clearer. This is an action under § 1983.[15] Petitioner seeks relief from the *530 Board of Regents of the State of Florida, a major instrumentality or agency of the State. Petitioner's argument that the statute incorporating the Board should be understood to waive the Eleventh Amendment is foreclosed by numerous decisions of this Court and is unsupported by State law. See, e. g., Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147 (1981); n. 5, supra. Similarly, petitioner's suggestion that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar her equitable claims against the Board must be rejected. The Amendment applies to suits "in law or equity." All suits against an unconsenting State whether for damages or injunctive relief are barred. See Cory v. White, ante, p. 85.[16] Finally, the rule in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), permitting a federal court to order state officials to obey federal law in the future, is simply irrelevant to this case.[17] Petitioner did not sue the members of the Board of *531 Regents. She sued the Board itself, an arm of the State of Florida.
In my view, the Eleventh Amendment and the principle of sovereign immunity exemplified by the Amendment and embodied in Art. III clearly bar the suit in this case. The Court's refusal to address the question of its own jurisdiction violates well-established precedents of this Court as well as the basic premise that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Even had the parties neglected to address the Eleventh Amendment question, it would have been our responsibility to consider it on our own motion. In fact, the question has been fully briefed to the Court of Appeals and *532 raised in this Court. See n. 8, supra. Cf. Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 396, n. 2 (1975). I would dismiss this suit and vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction.
II. Exhaustion of Remedies.
In view of my belief that this case should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, I address the exhaustion question only briefly. Seventeen judges joined in the Court of Appeals' persuasive opinion adopting a rule of "flexible" exhaustion of administrative remedies in § 1983 suits. Other Courts of Appeals have adopted a similar rule. See, e. g., Eisen v. Eastman, 421 F. 2d 560 (CA2 1969); Secret v. Brierton, 584 F. 2d 823 (CA7 1978). The opinion for the en banc court carefully reviewed the exhaustion doctrine in general and as applied to § 1983 actions. It found that the prior decisions of this Court did not clearly decide the question.[18] See Barry v. Barchi, 443 U. S. 55, 63, n. 10 (1979); Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 575, n. 14 (1973). And it concluded that the exhaustion of adequate and appropriate state administrative remedies would promote the achievement of the rights protected by § 1983.
I agree with the Court of Appeals' opinion. The requirement that a § 1983 plaintiff exhaust adequate state administrative remedies was the accepted rule of law until quite recently. See Eisen v. Eastman, supra, at 567. The rule rests on sound considerations. It does not defeat federal-court jurisdiction, it merely defers it.[19] It permits the States *533 to correct violations through their own procedures, and it encourages the establishment of such procedures. It is consistent with the principles of comity that apply whenever federal courts are asked to review state action or supersede state proceedings. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971).
Moreover, and highly relevant to the effective functioning of the overburdened federal court system, the rule conserves and supplements scarce judicial resources. In 1961, the year that Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, was decided, only 270 civil rights actions were begun in the federal district courts. Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, 238 (1961). In 1981, over 30,000 such suits were commenced.[20] Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts 63, 68 (1981). The result of this unprecedented increase in civil rights litigation is a heavy burden on the federal courts to the detriment of all federal-court litigants, including others who assert that their constitutional rights have been infringed.
The Court argues that past decisions of the Court categorically hold that there is no exhaustion requirement in § 1983 suits. But as the Court of Appeals demonstrates, and as the Court recognizes, many of these decisions can be explained as applications of traditional exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. See McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 668 (1963). Other decisions speak to the question in an offhand and conclusory fashion without full briefing and argument. See Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249, 251 (1971) (unargued per curiam); Damico v. California, 389 U. S. 416 (1967) (unargued per curiam). Moreover, a categorical *534 no-exhaustion rule would seem inconsistent with the decision in Younger v. Harris, supra, prescribing abstention when state criminal proceedings are pending. At least where administrative proceedings are pending, Younger would seem to suggest the appropriateness of exhaustion. Cf. Gibson v. Berryhill, supra, at 574-575. Yet the Court today adopts a flat rule without exception.
The Court seeks to support its no-exhaustion rule with indications of congressional intent. Finding nothing directly on point in the history of the Civil Rights Act itself, the Court places primary reliance on the recent Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1997 et seq. (1976 ed., Supp. IV). This legislation was designed to authorize the Attorney General to initiate civil rights actions on behalf of institutionalized persons. § 1997a. The Act also placed certain limits on the existing authority of the Attorney General to intervene in suits begun by institutionalized persons. See § 1997c. In addition, in § 1997e, the Act sets forth an exhaustion requirement but only for § 1983 claims brought by prisoners.
On the basis of the exhaustion provision in § 1997e, and remarks primarily by Representative Kastenmeier, the Court contends that Congress has endorsed a general no-exhaustion rule. The irony in this reasoning should be obvious. A principal concern that prompted the Department of Justice to support, and the Congress to adopt, § 1997e was the vast increase in § 1983 suits brought by state prisoners in federal courts. There has been a year-by-year increase in these suits since the mid-1960's. The increase in fiscal 1981 over fiscal 1980 was some 26%, resulting in a total of 15,639 such suits filed in 1981 as compared with 12, 397 in 1980. The 1981 total constituted over 8.6% of the total federal district court civil docket. Although most of these cases present frivolous claims, many are litigated through the courts of appeals to this Court. The burden on the system fairly can be described as enormous with few, if any, benefits that would not *535 be available in meritorious cases if exhaustion of appropriate state administrative remedies were required prior to any federal-court litigation. It was primarily this problem that prompted enactment of § 1997e.[21]
Moreover, it is clear from the legislative history that Congress simply was not addressing the exhaustion problem in any general fashion. The concern focused on the problem of prisoner petitions. The new Act had a dual purpose in this respect. In addition to requiring prior exhaustion of adequate state remedies, Congress wished to authorize the Attorney General to act when necessary to protect the constitutional rights of prisoners, but at the same time minimize the need for federal action of any kind by requiring prior exhaustion. Both sponsors of the Act in the Senate made this clear. Senator Hatch explained § 1997e as follows:
"In actions relating to alleged violations of the constitutional rights of prisoners, such persons may be required to exhaust internal grievance procedures before the Attorney General can become involved pursuant to [the Act]." 126 Cong. Rec. 3716 (1980) (emphasis added).[22]
Senator Bayh, the author of the Act, described the exhaustion provision in similar terms:
*536 "[I]n the event of a prison inmate's rights being alleged to be violated . . . then before the Justice Department could intervene or initiate suits, the prison inmate or class of inmates would have to pursue all of their administrative remedies within the State law before the Justice Department could intervene under the provisions of [the Act]." Id., at 3970.
In short, in enacting the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act Congress was focusing on the powers of the Attorney General, and the particular question of prisoners' suits, not on the general question of exhaustion in § 1983 actions. Also revealing as to the limited purpose of § 1997e is Congress' consistent refusal to adopt legislation imposing a general no-exhaustion requirement. Thus, for example, in 1979, a bill was introduced into the Senate providing:
"No court of the United States shall stay or dismiss any civil action brought under this Act on the ground that the party bringing such action failed to exhaust the remedies available in the courts or the administrative agencies of any State." S. 1983, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., § 5 (1979).
The bill was never reported out of committee.
The requirement that plaintiffs exhaust available and adequate administrative remedies subject to well-developed exceptions is firmly established in virtually every area of the law. This is dictated in § 1983 actions by common sense, as well as by comity and federalism, where adequate state administrative remedies are available.
If the exhaustion question were properly before us, I would affirm the Court of Appeals.
NOTES
[*] Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Bill Lann Lee, and Eric Schnapper for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.; and by Ellen Josephson and Steven H. Steinglass for the National Legal Aid and Defender Association.
[1] Because this case is here on a motion to dismiss, we accept as true the factual allegations in petitioner's amended complaint. In her initial complaint, petitioner named FIU as the defendant. Relying on Byron v. University of Florida, 403 F. Supp. 49 (ND Fla. 1975), the District Court granted FIU's motion to dismiss, holding that the Board of Regents and not the individual university had the capacity to sue and be sued under Florida law. The District Court granted petitioner leave to amend, and she amended her complaint to name the Board of Regents "on behalf of" FIU.
[2] Petitioner requested the District Court to "[r]equire Defendants to remedy the discrimination practiced upon Plaintiff by promoting her to the next available position consistent with those previously applied for and for which she is qualified or in the alternative, to require the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $500,000 as actual and exemplary damages." Record 47. Petitioner also requested that the District Court "order further equitable and injunctive relief as it deems appropriate and necessary to correct the conditions of discrimination complained of herein." Id., at 48.
[3] The other factors discussed in Monell whether the decisions in question constituted a departure from prior decisions and whether overruling these decisions would frustrate legitimate reliance on their holdings do not support overruling these decisions. McNeese was not a departure from prior decisions this Court had not previously addressed the application of the exhaustion rule to § 1983 actions. Overruling these decisions might injure those § 1983 plaintiffs who had forgone or waived their state administrative remedies in reliance on these decisions.
[4] Congressional intent is important in determining the application of the exhaustion doctrine to cases in which federal administrative remedies are available, as well as to those in which state remedies are available. Of course, exhaustion is required where Congress provides that certain administrative remedies shall be exclusive. See Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U. S. 41 (1938). Even where the statutory requirement of exhaustion is not explicit, courts are guided by congressional intent in determining whether application of the doctrine would be consistent with the statutory scheme. In determining whether exhaustion of federal administrative remedies is required, courts generally focus on the role Congress has assigned to the relevant federal agency, and tailor the exhaustion rule to fit the particular administrative scheme created by Congress. See McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193-195 (1969). With state administrative remedies, the focus is not so much on the role assigned to the state agency, but the role of the state agency becomes important once a court finds that deferring its exercise of jurisdiction is consistent with statutory intent.
[5] Some of the debates relating to § 2, which created certain federal crimes in addition to those defined in § 2 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, 14 Stat. 27, aimed primarily at the Ku Klux Klan, are also relevant to our discussion of § 1.
[6] Opponents of the bill also recognized this purpose and complained that the bill would usurp the States' power, centralize the government, and perhaps ultimately destroy the States. See, e. g., Globe 337, 338 (remarks of Rep. Whitthorne); id., at 352 (remarks of Rep. Beck); id., at 361 (remarks of Rep. Swann); id., at 365 (remarks of Rep. Arthur); id., at 385 (remarks of Rep. Lewis); id., at 429, 431 (remarks of Rep. McHenry); id., at 454 (remarks of Rep. Cox); id., at 510, 511 (remarks of Rep. Eldridge); Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 46 (1871) (remarks of Rep. Kerr) (hereinafter Globe App.); id., at 216 (remarks of Sen. Thurman); id., at 243 (remarks of Sen. Bayard).
[7] Opponents criticized this provision on this very ground. For example, Representative Storm lamented:
"[Section one] does not even give the State courts a chance to try questions, or to show whether they will try the questions that might come before them under the first section of the fourteenth amendment, fairly or not. It takes the whole question away from them in the beginning." Id., at 86.
See also Globe 416 (remarks of Rep. Biggs) ("for the violation of the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizen a civil remedy is to be had by proceedings in the Federal courts, State authorization in the premises to the contrary notwithstanding"); id., at 337 (remarks of Rep. Whitthorne); id., at 373 (remarks of Rep. Archer); Globe App. 216 (remarks of Sen. Thurman).
[8] This view was expressed in the Presidential message urging the passing of corrective legislation. See Globe 244 ("That the power to correct these evils is beyond the control of State authorities I do not doubt") (message of President Grant). The inability of state authorities to protect constitutional rights was also expressed in the findings of the House Judiciary Committee, which had been directed to investigate the situation. See id., at 320. The resolution introduced by Senator Sherman instructing the Senate Judiciary Committee to report a bill expressed a similar view. See Globe App. 210 (state "courts are rendered utterly powerless by organized perjury to punish crime").
[9] Opponents viewed the bill as a declaration of mistrust for state tribunals. See, e. g., Globe 361 (remarks of Rep. Swann); id., at 397 (remarks of Rep. Rice); id., at 454 (remarks of Rep. Cox); Globe App. 216 (remarks of Sen. Thurman). Representative McHenry found particularly offensive the removal of the factfinding function from the local institutions. See Globe 429.
[10] Representative Kastenmeier explains why juveniles were not included in § 1997e:
"I think very candidly we should admit that the first reluctance to resort to this mechanism embodied in [§ 1997e] was resisted as a possible encroachment on civil liberties; that is to say, in the free, unimpeded resort to 1983; because it does deflect 1983 petitions back into temporarily in any event back into the State system. Therefore, to the extent that it is even so viewed, notwithstanding the limited form of [§ 1997e], that it should also extend to juveniles was rejected." 1979 Hearings 26.
[11] Section 1997e(b)(2) states:
"The minimum standards shall provide
"(A) for an advisory role for employees and inmates of any jail, prison, or other correctional institution (at the most decentralized level as is reasonably possible), in the formulation, implementation, and operation of the system;
"(B) specific maximum time limits for written replies to grievances with reasons thereto at each decision level within the system;
"(C) for priority processing of grievances which are of an emergency nature, including matters in which delay would subject the grievant to substantial risk of personal injury or other damages;
"(D) for safeguards to avoid reprisals against any grievant or participant in the resolution of a grievance; and
"(E) for independent review of the disposition of grievances, including alleged reprisals, by a person or other entity not under the direct supervision or direct control of the institution."
[12] The Committee Reports state that Congress did not intend that every § 1983 action brought by an adult prisoner in institutions with appropriate grievance procedures be delayed pending exhaustion:
"It is the intent of the Congress that the court not find such a requirement appropriate in those situations in which the action brought pursuant to [§ 1983] raises issues which cannot, in reasonable probability, be resolved by the grievance resolution system, including cases where imminent danger to life is alleged. Allegations unrelated to conditions of confinement, such as those which center on events outside of the institution, would not appropriately be continued for resolution by the grievance resolution system." Conf. Rep. 15.
See also H. R. Rep. No. 96-80, p. 25 (1979); S. Rep. No. 96-416, p. 34 (1979).
[13] Of course, this burden alone is not sufficient to justify a judicial decision to alter congressionally imposed jurisdiction. See Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U. S. 336, 344 (1976); Steelworkers v. Bouligny, Inc., 382 U. S. 145, 150-151 (1965). In any event, it is by no means clear that judicial discretion to impose an exhaustion requirement in § 1983 actions would lessen the caseload of the federal courts, at least in the short run. See infra, at 513-514, and n. 18.
[14] The application of these federalism principles to actions brought pursuant to § 1983 has prompted criticism by several commentators. See, e. g., Koury, Section 1983 and Civil Comity: Two for the Federalism Seesaw, 25 Loyola L. Rev. 659 (1979); Note, 39 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 838 (1964).
[15] For example, there is serious disagreement over whether judicial or administrative procedures offer § 1983 plaintiffs the swiftest, least costly, and most reliable remedy. See, e. g., 1977 Hearings 263-264; id., at 232-233; Note, 68 Colum. L. Rev. 1201, 1207 (1968). Similarly, there is debate over whether the specialization of federal courts in constitutional law is more important than the specialization of administrative agencies in their areas of expertise, and over whether the symbolic and institutional function of federal courts in defining, legitimizing, and enforcing constitutional claims outweighs the educational function that state and local agencies can serve. See, e. g., Whitman, Constitutional Torts, 79 Mich. L. Rev. 5, 23 (1980); Note, 68 Colum. L. Rev., supra, at 1208. Finally, it is uncertain whether the present "free market" system, under which litigants are free to pursue administrative remedies if they truly appear to be cheaper, more efficient, and more effective, is more likely to induce the creation of adequate remedies than a McKart-type standard under which plaintiffs have no initial choice. See, e. g., Note, 8 Ind. L. Rev. 565 (1975). Cf. 1977 Hearings 21, 34, 51; Hearings on S. 1393 before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., 442 (1977).
[16] Section 1997e resolved this problem by directing the Attorney General to promulgate minimum standards and to establish a procedure by which prison administrative remedies could be reviewed and certified. §§ 1997e(b) and (c). If a procedure has not been certified, the court is directed to compare the procedure with the Attorney General's standards and to continue the case pending exhaustion only if the procedure is in substantial compliance with the standards of the Attorney General. § 1997e(a)(2).
[17] Unless the doctrine that statutes of limitations are not tolled pending exhaustion were overruled, see Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U. S. 478 (1980), a judicially imposed exhaustion requirement might result in the effective repeal of § 1983. Congress avoided this problem in § 1997e by directing the court to merely continue the case for a period not to exceed 90 days.
[18] The initial bill proposing to include an exhaustion requirement in § 1997e provided:
"Relief shall not be granted by a district court in an action brought pursuant to [§ 1983] by an individual involuntarily confined in any State institution. . . , unless it appears that the individual has exhausted such plain, speedy, and efficient State administrative remedy as is available." H. R. 5791, 95th Cong., 1st Sess., § 4 (1977).
Congress declined to adopt this McKart-type standard after witnesses testified that this procedure would bog down the courts in massive procedural litigation thereby frustrating the purpose of relieving the caseloads of the federal courts, that state procedures are often not effective and take too much time, and that the court would have to judge a myriad of state procedures without much guidance. See, e. g., 1977 Hearings 34-35, 51, 164-165, 169-170, 263-264, 323; 1979 Hearings 48-49.
[19] The question was posed from the bench at oral argument whether the Eleventh Amendment might bar this suit on the ground that the Board of Regents is an arm of the State for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. Tr. of Oral Arg. 20. Cf. Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U. S. 781 (1978). Compare Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College, 221 U. S. 636 (1911), with Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147 (1981). The District Court dismissed this action on the pleadings, and no Eleventh Amendment issue had been raised. The Board of Regents first raised this issue in its brief to the original panel on appeal, but did not argue it in its brief on rehearing en banc. Neither the original panel nor the en banc court addressed this issue. Although the State mentioned a possible Eleventh Amendment defense in its response in opposition to the petition for certiorari, it did not brief the issue or press it at oral argument. Indeed, counsel for respondent urged that we affirm the Court of Appeals solely on its exhaustion holding. Tr. of Oral Arg. 24, 27.
We have noted that "the Eleventh Amendment defense sufficiently partakes of the nature of a jurisdictional bar" that it may be raised by the State for the first time on appeal. Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 678 (1974). However, because of the importance of state law in analyzing Eleventh Amendment questions and because the State may, under certain circumstances, waive this defense, we have never held that it is jurisdictional in the sense that it must be raised and decided by this Court on its own motion. Cf. Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 279 (1977). Where, as here, the Board of Regents expressly requested that we address the exhaustion question and not pass on its potential Eleventh Amendment immunity, and, as a consequence, the parties have not briefed the issue, we deem it appropriate to address the issue that was raised and decided below and vigorously pressed in this Court. Nothing in this opinion precludes the Board of Regents from raising its Eleventh Amendment claim on remand. The District Court is in the best position to address in the first instance the competing questions of fact and state law necessary to resolve the Eleventh Amendment issue, and at this stage it has the discretion to permit amendments to the pleadings that might cure any potential Eleventh Amendment problems.
[*] In my view, this case does not present a serious Eleventh Amendment issue. The Florida statute authorizing suits against the Board of Regents, Fla. Stat. § 240.205 (1981), is clear on its face. I see no reason to read a broad waiver to sue and be sued in "all courts of law and equity" as meaning all but federal courts. Nor am I aware of anything in Florida law that suggests a more limited meaning was intended than indicated by the unequivocal terms of the statute. Certainly, none of our cases have gone so far as to hold that federal courts must be expressly mentioned for an effective Eleventh Amendment waiver.
[1] The Eleventh Amendment provides:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
[2] As the Court notes, see ante, at 498, n. 1, petitioner originally named the Florida International University as defendant. Because the Florida International University lacks the capacity to sue or be sued, the District Court found that it was not a proper defendant. Petitioner was permitted to amend her complaint, and she simply substituted the Board of Regents.
In addition to racial discrimination, petitioner also claimed that she had been discriminated against on the basis of her sex.
[3] The Court repeatedly has held that the defense of the Eleventh Amendment may be raised for the first time on appeal. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 678 (1974) ("Eleventh Amendment defense sufficiently partakes of the nature of a jurisdictional bar so that it need not be raised in the trial court").
The Board's brief on appeal was divided into three parts. Part III was devoted to the argument that "the Eleventh Amendment precludes subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff's complaint." Brief for Defendant-Appellee in No. 79-2965 (CA5), p. 17. A lengthy statutory addendum was attached in support of the arguments advanced in this section of the brief. After the case was scheduled for rehearing en banc, the parties filed short i. e., 4- and 10-page supplemental briefs to be considered in addition to the main briefs already submitted to the Court of Appeals. The supplemental briefs did not add to the discussion of the Eleventh Amendment issue. But the question was placed before the Court of Appeals en banc, as it had been placed before the panel, through the thorough discussion in the main briefs.
This Court's explanation for not addressing the Eleventh Amendment issue is that it was not considered below. See ante, at 515-516, n. 19. But contrary to the implication in the Court's explanation, the issue as shown here was urged by the Board and argued here.
[4] The Board of Regents of the Division of Universities of the Department of Education is established by the Florida Education Code as a part of the State University System. Fla. Stat. § 240.2011 (1981). The Board consists of the Commissioner of Education and 12 citizens appointed by the Governor. § 240.207. The Board has general supervisory authority over the State University System. § 240.209. Among its duties are the appointment of university presidents, the review of budget requests of each university in the state system, the preparation of an aggregated budget for the State University System, the development of a master plan, and the establishment of a systemwide personnel classification and pay plan. Ibid.
The Board is an agency of the State of Florida. § 216.011. See Relyea v. State, 385 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. App. 1980). It may claim the defense of sovereign immunity in suits under state law. See ibid.
Numerous Courts of Appeals have held state universities or state Boards of Regents immune from suit in federal court by reason of the Eleventh Amendment. See, e. g., Rutledge v. Arizona Board of Regents, 660 F. 2d 1345, 1349 (CA9 1981); Brennan v. University of Kansas, 451 F. 2d 1287 (CA10 1971); Ronwin v. Shapiro, 657 F. 2d 1071 (CA9 1981).
[5] See, e. g., Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147, 150 (1981); Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm'n, 359 U. S. 275, 276-277 (1959) ("The conclusion that there has been a waiver of immunity will not be lightly inferred. . . . And where a public instrumentality is created with the right `to sue and be sued' that waiver of immunity in the particular setting may be restricted to suits or proceedings of a special character in the state, not the federal courts"); Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 327 U. S. 573 (1946) (language in state statute providing for suit in "any court of competent jurisdiction" will not be understood as a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment); Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, 323 U. S. 459 (1945) (same); Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47, 54 (1944) ("a clear declaration of the state's intention to submit its fiscal problems to other courts than those of its own creation must be found"); Jagnandan v. Giles, 538 F. 2d 1166, 1177 (CA5 1976). Cf. Edelman v. Jordan, supra, at 673 ("In deciding whether a State has waived its constitutional protection under the Eleventh Amendment, we will find waiver only where stated `by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction' "). It is difficult to reconcile the Court's consistent requirement of an express waiver with the approach advocated by JUSTICE WHITE. See ante, at 519, n.
At oral argument here counsel for respondent stated that the Florida Legislature had not waived the Eleventh Amendment and had waived the defense of sovereign immunity "only in selected tort cases." Tr. of Oral Arg. 26. See Bragg v. Board of Public Instruction, 36 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1948) ("The mere fact that the Board of Public Instruction is created as a body corporate with power to sue and be sued does not affect its immunity from tort"); Relyea v. State, supra (Board of Regents retains defense of sovereign immunity); Fla. Stat. § 111.071(1)(b)(4) (1981) (provision for payment by the State of civil rights judgments against state officers including judgments under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) does not waive sovereign immunity "or any other defense or immunity" to such lawsuits). Cf. Long v. Richardson, 525 F. 2d 74, 79 (CA6 1975) (state university's immunity from suit under state law disposes of Eleventh Amendment question).
[6] See Brief in Opposition 23 ("Should this Court grant the writ, the Board respectfully submits that review should be limited to the jurisdictional issues discussed below and this Court should vacate the Fifth Circuit's decision with instructions to dismiss [petitioner's] suit for lack of jurisdiction").
The Court, ante, at 516, n. 19, attaches importance to the statement at oral argument by counsel for the Board that the Board wanted the exhaustion issue decided. This must be viewed, however, in light of the Board's unsuccessful attempt to have this Court first decide the Eleventh Amendment issue. Moreover, a party's request short of a binding waiver cannot relieve this Court of its duty to resolve a jurisdictional question.
[7] Tr. of Oral Arg. 25-28, 40-41. At oral argument, the Board's counsel stated that the Eleventh Amendment question had not been addressed in its main briefs to this Court "because of the grant of certiorari." Id., at 27.
[8] In view of the Board's repeated efforts to raise the Eleventh Amendment question, and its specific request that this Court vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction, see n. 6, supra, it is hardly correct to say that the Court must now raise the question of jurisdiction on its own motion. Cf. Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 396, n. 2 (1975). In any event, "we are obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of federal jurisdiction." Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S. 274, 278 (1977).
[9] The Court cites, with a "compare" signal, to Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, supra, at 279. The Mt. Healthy Court in no way suggested that the Eleventh Amendment and the principle of sovereign immunity embodied in Art. III were less than jurisdictional. Indeed, the Court found it necessary to resolve the Eleventh Amendment question in that case prior to reaching the merits.
On the contrary, the Court consistently has viewed the Amendment as jurisdictional. In Sosna v. Iowa, supra, at 396, n. 2, the Court raised the question of the Eleventh Amendment even though the State had asserted the bar of the Amendment only in its answer to the complaint and had thereafter abandoned this defense. Unlike the Board of Regents in this case, the State of Iowa had not advanced the defense in this Court. Even so, the Sosna Court raised and addressed the question. These precedents are ignored by the Court today.
[10] "Because of their unusual nature, and because it would not simply be wrong but indeed would be an unconstitutional invasion of the powers reserved to the states if the federal courts were to entertain cases not within their jurisdiction, the rule is well settled that the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court must demonstrate that the case is within the competence of that court." C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3522, p. 45 (1975).
[11] "[T]he Eleventh Amendment was introduced to clarify the intent of the Framers concerning the reach of the federal judicial power. . . . The Eleventh Amendment served effectively to reverse the particular holding in Chisholm, and, more generally, to restore the original understanding. . . . Thus, despite the narrowness of the language of the Amendment, its spirit has consistently guided this Court in interpreting the reach of the federal judicial power generally . . . ." Employees v. Missouri Public Health Dept., 411 U. S. 279, 291-292 (1973) (MARSHALL, J., concurring in result).
[12] The Hans Court quoted at some length from the constitutional debates concerning the scope of Art. III. In the eighty-first number of the Federalist, for example, Hamilton sought to dispel the suggestion that Art. III extended federal jurisdiction over suits brought against one of the States: " `It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union.' " As quoted in 134 U. S., at 13 (emphasis in original).
[13] Unlike other limitations on federal jurisdiction, the limitation imposed by the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity may be waived by consent unequivocally expressed. This was the understanding of the doctrine at the time the Constitution was adopted, see n. 11, supra, and the Court has interpreted the "judicial power of the United States" as used in the Eleventh Amendment and Art. III accordingly. But the fact that the State or the United States may consent to federal jurisdiction, does not render the Eleventh Amendment or the doctrine of sovereign immunity embodied in Art. III "quasi" jurisdictional. Quite simply, where there has not been consent, there is no jurisdiction. See United States v. Sherwood, 312 U. S. 584, 586 (1941) ("The United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, . . . and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court's jurisdiction to entertain the suit"); United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U. S. 506, 514 (1940) ("Consent alone gives jurisdiction to adjudge against a sovereign. Absent that consent, the attempted exercise of judicial power is void").
[14] See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S., at 678; Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S., at 396, n. 2; Mt. Healthy City Bd. of Ed. v. Doyle, 429 U. S., at 278. The Court has consistently viewed the Eleventh Amendment question as jurisdictional. See Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, 322 U. S., at 51 ("A state's freedom from litigation was established as a constitutional right through the Eleventh Amendment") (emphasis added); Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313, 320 (1934) (Question is "whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit brought by a foreign State against a State without her consent") (emphasis added).
[15] The States consented to a diminution of their sovereignty by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment. In its exercise of the powers granted to it by § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress may lift the bar of sovereign immunity. See Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U. S. 445 (1976). Thus, if petitioner had brought this suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there would have been no jurisdictional problem. But petitioner did not do so, and the Court has held that Congress has not removed the bar of sovereign immunity in § 1983 actions. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U. S. 332 (1979).
[16] "It would be a novel proposition indeed that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit to enjoin the State itself simply because no money judgment is sought. . . . [T]he Eleventh Amendment by its terms clearly applies to a suit seeking an injunction, a remedy available only from equity." Cory v. White, ante, at 90-91.
[17] Under the theory of Ex parte Young the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officers because when a state officer "comes into conflict with the superior authority of [the] Constitution, . . . he is. . . stripped of his official or representative character." 209 U. S., at 159-160. The rationale of that decision has no application to suits against the State or its agencies. Although an individual official may be viewed as acting on his own and without state authority when acting against federal law, the State or an agency of the State cannot act other than in its official state capacity. Similarly, an action for damages against the State, or an arm of the State, seeks damages that must be paid from the State's own coffers whether the damages come directly from the State's general fund or from some other state fund. See Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, 327 U. S. 573 (1946) (segregated funds of the State Tax Commission are state moneys subject to the Eleventh Amendment).
Moreover, the fact that the Board is a corporate entity under state law does not permit application of the rule in Ex parte Young to the Board itself as if the Board were an official. This Court repeatedly has held the Eleventh Amendment to bar suit against such state corporate agencies. See Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147 (1981); Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Read, supra; Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury of Indiana, 323 U. S. 459 (1945); Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm'n, supra.
Hopkins v. Clemson Agricultural College, 221 U. S. 636 (1911), is not to the contrary. In that case suit was brought against a state college in state court to recover damages caused by the college's construction of a dyke. Although the Court discussed the Eleventh Amendment in some detail, there was simply no Eleventh Amendment question in that case. It was clear before Hopkins that the Eleventh Amendment did not apply to bar review in this Court of any federal question presented in a suit against a State in state court. See Chandler v. Dix, 194 U. S. 590, 592 (1904). Cf. University of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265 (1978). Moreover, the Hopkins Court did not consider the college's activities in that case to be governmental. 221 U. S., at 647. In short, no Eleventh Amendment question was presented to the Court. The opinion in Hopkins has never been cited by this Court for the proposition that the Eleventh Amendment is no bar to suit against a state corporate agency in federal court. See Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., supra; Alabama v. Pugh, 438 U. S. 781 (1978); Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964).
[18] "[I]n all the cases in which the Supreme Court has articulated its no-exhaustion rule, the state administrative remedies were sufficiently inadequate that exhaustion would not have been appropriate in any event." Developments in the Law, Section 1983 and Federalism, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 1133, 1274 (1977).
[19] Cf. Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn. v. McNary, 454 U. S. 100, 136 (1981) (BRENNAN, J., concurring in judgment) (exhaustion requirement in § 1983 cases can be justified by "a somewhat lesser showing . . . where . . . we are concerned not with the displacement of the § 1983 remedy, but with the deferral of federal court consideration pending exhaustion of the state administrative process").
[20] Of the approximately 30,000 civil rights suits filed in fiscal year 1981, 15,639 were filed by state prisoners under § 1983. The remainder involved a variety of civil rights suits. Annual Report of the Director of the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts 63, 68 (1981). See Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527, 554, n. 13 (1981) (POWELL, J., concurring in result).
[21] The exhaustion requirement in § 1997e only becomes effective if the Attorney General or a federal district court determines that the available prison grievance procedures comply with standards set forth in subsection (b) of § 1997e. As of this date, the Department of Justice has not certified the inmate grievance procedures of even a single State.
[22] Senator Hatch offered the same explanation on several other occasions in the course of the debate. See 126 Cong. Rec. 9227 (1980) ("Section 7 would establish specific procedures that would be applicable before the Attorney General could enter into an action in behalf of an imprisoned or incarcerated person. Such person would first have had to fully exhaust all internal grievance mechanisms that existed in the institution in which he was confined"); id., at 10005 ("Section 7(D) further clarifies that the administrative grievance procedures established in section 7 are only for the purposes of requiring prisoners to exhaust internal grievance mechanisms before the Attorney General can litigate on his behalf").
| {
"pile_set_name": "FreeLaw"
} |
REPAIRit: Improving Myocardial Nulling and Ghosting Artifacts of 3D Navigator-Gated Late Gadolinium Enhancement Imaging During Arrhythmia.
Cardiac 3D navigator-gated late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging is important for assessment of left atrial fibrosis, but the image quality is often degraded due to arrhythmia. To investigate a novel 3D LGE sequence with improved myocardial nulling and reduced ghosting artifacts during arrhythmia. Prospective. Arrhythmia patients (n = 14). The proposed technique, REPAIRit (Regrowth Equalization Pulse for Arrhythmias in Inversion Recovery with automatic inversion time calculation), inserts a saturation pulse with a dynamic flip angle into the 3D LGE sequence to minimize arrhythmia-induced signal fluctuations. Using ShMOLLI (shortened modified Look-Locker imaging) to estimate myocardial T1 , REPAIRit automatically calculates the optimal inversion time (TI) based on Bloch equations. REPAIRit LGE and the standard LGE were compared with simulations, phantom imaging, and patient studies. Patient images were assessed quantitatively, based on ghost-to-noise ratio (GNR), blood signal-to-noise ratio (SNRb), myocardial signal-to-noise ratio (SNRm), and blood-to-myocardium contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and qualitatively on a 4-point scale. Patients were subgrouped based on the presence of arrhythmia to assess the image quality difference. The two LGE sequences were compared by Student's t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The two patient-subgroups were compared using Welch's t-test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. In 14 analyzed patients, REPAIRit LGE significantly lowered GNR (1.25 ± 0.41 vs. 1.42 ± 0.42, P = 0.04), reduced SNRm (1.90 ± 0.60 vs. 3.16 ± 1.66, P = 0.01), improved ghosting artifact scores (2.5 ± 0.6 vs. 2.2 ± 0.9, P = 0.03), myocardial nulling scores (2.7 ± 0.5 vs. 2.3 ± 0.7, P = 0.02), and atrial quality scores (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 2.4 ± 0.8, P = 0.03) compared with the standard LGE. Comparing patients with arrhythmia (n = 6) to those without (n = 8) during the scan, the former had lower left ventricular (LV) myocardial T1 s (430 ± 26 msec vs. 469 ± 39 msec, P = 0.06) but similar blood T1 s (318 ± 55 msec vs. 316 ± 27 msec, P = 0.96), and significantly lower blood SNR (5.2 ± 1.8 vs. 9.2 ± 3.0, P = 0.01) and significantly worse image quality (P = 0.01 for REPAIRit and P = 0.03 for standard). REPAIRit improves myocardial nulling and reduces ghosting artifacts of 3D LGE under arrhythmia. 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:688-699. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
The content published in Cureus is the result of clinical experience and/or research by independent individuals or organizations. Cureus is not responsible for the scientific accuracy or reliability of data or conclusions published herein. All content published within Cureus is intended only for educational, research and reference purposes. Additionally, articles published within Cureus should not be deemed a suitable substitute for the advice of a qualified health care professional. Do not disregard or avoid professional medical advice due to content published within Cureus.
Introduction
============
Erythroderma is a cutaneous disorder that manifests with partial to near confluent erythema involving greater than 90% of the body surface area \[[@REF1]\]. It is associated with many underlying etiologies, including psoriasis. Psoriasis is an immune-mediated skin disorder that is most commonly characterized by well-marginated erythematous, scaly plaques \[[@REF2]\]. Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is defined as the presence of a clonal B-cell population in the peripheral blood with an absolute B-lymphocyte count of less than 5 x 10^9^/liter and no evidence of an associated lymphoproliferative disorder; however, it may be a precursor to chronic lymphocytic leukemia \[[@REF3]\]. The case of a 71-year-old man presenting with erythrodermic psoriasis and concurrent monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is described herein.
Case presentation
=================
A 71-year-old man initially presented with a diffuse erythematous, exfoliative, and itchy rash on the scalp and ears concerning for seborrheic dermatitis. The desquamating rash progressed in a cephalocaudal manner with subsequent involvement of the palms, soles, and genitalia. Initial skin biopsy showed spongiotic dermatitis, and the patient was started on sequential treatments of systemic prednisone, cyclosporine, and narrow-band ultraviolet B therapy. Azathioprine was subsequently added due to lack of improvement.
Four months later, the patient underwent coronary artery stenting during which the azathioprine was discontinued. Upon re-initiation of azathioprine, he developed shortness of breath, fever, and worsening of his rash. He was diagnosed with a severe allergic reaction to azathioprine; the respiratory symptoms and fever promptly resolved with systemic corticosteroids.
However, five months after his initial presentation, the patient's pruritic, desquamating, erythematous eruption continued to worsen and soon involved 92% of his body surface area with focal areas of normal, uninvolved skin with surrounding erythema most prominent on the abdomen (Figures [1](#FIG1){ref-type="fig"}-[2](#FIG2){ref-type="fig"}). There were fine scaly plaques on the ears and eyes, and bilateral conjunctival injection and ectropion were seen (Figure [3](#FIG3){ref-type="fig"}). There were no oral findings. The palms were thickened, shiny, and confluently erythematous with desquamation and proximal shedding of the nails (Figure [4](#FIG4){ref-type="fig"}). Lateral and plantar feet demonstrated shedding of large pieces of skin with proximal shedding of the nails (Figure [5](#FIG5){ref-type="fig"}).
{#FIG1}
{#FIG2}
{#FIG3}
{#FIG4}
{#FIG5}
At this time, three punch biopsies were performed, two of which revealed parakeratosis with underlying pallid keratinocytes, subjacent neutrophils forming conical pustules, and a perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate (Figure [6](#FIG6){ref-type="fig"}). These findings were most suggestive of psoriasis. The patient's clinical features and skin pathology were compatible with erythrodermic psoriasis. The third biopsy only showed a sparse superficial perivascular lymphocytic infiltrate.
{#FIG6}
A workup to exclude cutaneous T-cell lymphoma and other paraneoplastic syndromes was also initiated after the condition had been present for six months. T-cell receptor gene rearrangement studies showed no evidence of T-cell clonality; however, peripheral blood flow cytometry revealed a monotypic CD5+, CD19+, CD20+, and CD23+ lambda-restricted B-cell population. Subsequent bone marrow biopsy revealed no morphologic evidence of an underlying lymphoproliferative disorder. Flow cytometry on the bone marrow aspirate identified the same monotypic B-cell population. Computed tomography scan of the patient's neck did not identify any lymphadenopathy. The patient was evaluated by hematology and diagnosed with low count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis.
Correlation of the patient's clinical presentation and pathological findings established the diagnosis of erythrodermic psoriasis in a man with monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis. After discussing the risks and benefits of systemic agents to treat his psoriasis (including methotrexate, retinoids, and biological agents), adalimumab (40 milligrams subcutaneous injection every two weeks) was selected for therapeutic intervention. At the six-week follow-up, the patient demonstrated mild improvement in his erythroderma, pruritus, and associated fatigue. However, these results were not satisfactory and the decision to switch to ustekinumab was made.
Discussion
==========
Erythroderma is a generalized erythema involving more than 90% of the body surface and may be exfoliative, exudative, and involve hair and nail changes \[[@REF1]\]. Intense erythema always precedes desquamation, the latter of which reflects rapid epidermopoiesis. It has several etiologies, including infection, inflammatory skin conditions, malignancy, and systemic drug reactions (Table [1](#TAB1){ref-type="table"}) \[[@REF1], [@REF4]\]. Our patient presented with several of the morphologic features classically seen in pityriasis rubra pilaris, an inflammatory skin disorder that can be causative of erythroderma. Interestingly, the IL12/23 pathway is a potential source for mechanistic overlap between the two seemingly disparate conditions, as IL12/23 blockade can curiously lead to a complete response for pityriasis rubra pilaris and psoriatic patients \[[@REF5]\].
###### Common Etiologies of Erythroderma
^1^This list includes many drugs commonly associated with erythroderma but is not complete.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etiology and causes
Drug reactions^1^
Allopurinol
Amiodarone
Calcium-channel blockers
Cimetidine
Isosorbide dinitrate
Lithium
Omeprazole
Quinidine
St. John\'s Wort
Thiazides
Hematologic dyscrasias and malignancies
Langerhans cell histiocytosis
Lung carcinoma
Lymphoma (Anaplastic large cell lymphoma, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma)
Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis
Mycosis fungoides
Sezary syndrome
Tongue carcinoma
Infections
Dermatophytosis
Human immunodeficiency virus
Scabies
Inflammatory skin and autoimmune disorders
Actinic reticuloid
Atopic dermatitis
Bullous pemphigoid
Contact dermatitis
Dermatomyositis
Erythema toxicum neonatorum
Graft-versus-host disease
Idiopathic hypereosinophilic syndrome
Lichen planus
Pemphigus foliaceus
Psoriasis
Pityriasis rubra pilaris
Sarcoidosis
Seborrheic dermatitis
Systemic lupus erythematous
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pityriasis rubra pilaris is characterized by scaling and thickened patches of red-orange skin that may generalize to the entire body \[[@REF6]\]. As in our patient, individuals with pityriasis rubra pilaris may develop a seborrheic dermatitis-like rash on the scalp that then progresses caudally. The scale on the face and scalp is often fine, while desquamation of the lower extremities is thicker. The erythroderma is often exfoliative and may be pruritic, containing focal areas of uninvolved skin known as "islands of sparing" \[[@REF7]\]. The palms and soles are frequently involved and become orange and hyperkeratotic with thickened nail plates and proximal nail shedding. Ocular changes include ectropion, ulcerative keratitis, and corneal perforation, as well as dry eyes \[[@REF6]-[@REF7]\]. Many of these morphological features were also demonstrated in our patient.
Despite clinical similarities to pityriasis rubra pilaris, our patient's erythroderma was further qualified with microscopic features indicative of erythrodermic psoriasis in a total of two of three skin biopsies. This highlights the necessary role of skin biopsies in an erythrodermic patient to establish the diagnosis with consideration for repeat biopsy as the condition evolves. The initial clinical impression may not always correlate with the pathologic diagnosis, and conversely, only 61% of cases permit blinded diagnosis behind the microscope, emphasizing the importance of clinicopathologic correlation and collaboration with the dermatopathologist \[[@REF4]\].
Psoriasis, which is a chronic autoimmune disorder, is characterized by erythematous scaling plaques with a predilection for regions such as the elbows and knees \[[@REF2]\]. Erythrodermic psoriasis is a relatively rare form of psoriasis but represents a fairly common etiology for erythrodermic phenotypes. Other clinical variants of psoriasis include guttate, plaque-type, and pustular.
Erythrodermic psoriasis is characterized by erythema that is often exfoliative involving greater than 75% of the body surface area. Erythrodermic psoriasis may be accompanied by fever and malaise and is associated with significant morbidity, including increased rates of high-output congestive heart failure and sepsis. The onset is highly variable; it may occur acutely or persist chronically with recurrent relapses. It can serve as an initial presentation or emerge in longstanding disease \[[@REF8]-[@REF9]\].
Classic pathology findings on skin biopsy can help to establish the diagnosis of psoriasis. Typical pathologic changes include epidermal acanthosis, confluent parakeratosis, and uniform club-shaped elongation of the rete ridges with a thin suprapapillary plate. Collections of neutrophils may also be seen in either the lower layers of the epidermis (spongiform pustules of Kogoj), the stratum corneum (Munro's microabscesses), or both \[[@REF2], [@REF9]\].
Various treatments for psoriasis exist, including topical therapies such as glucocorticoids and vitamin D derivatives, ultraviolet light therapy, and systemic agents that target key players in well-defined immune pathways \[[@REF2]\]. Given the increased morbidity in erythrodermic psoriasis, prompt diagnosis and treatment are imperative.
During our patient's initial workup to exclude the Sezary syndrome variant of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (another cause of erythroderma), our patient was discovered to have monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis. Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is characterized by a small, clonal B-cell populations (usually CD5+, CD19+, CD20+, CD23+) detected in the peripheral blood \[[@REF10]\]. Originally identified in 2005 as a lab abnormality seen in otherwise healthy individuals, monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis has gained increasing attention due to its potential to progress to chronic lymphocytic leukemia \[[@REF3]\].
Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis can be classified as low-count or high-count subtypes based on the cut-off of 0.5 x 10^9^ clonal B cells/liter \[[@REF10]\]. This cut-off point is clinically important as high-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis has a much higher association with progression to chronic lymphocytic leukemia. High-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is considered a premalignant syndrome, while low-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis may be related to aging or chronic antigenic stimulation \[[@REF3]\]. Furthermore, patients with low-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis do not have an increased rate of progression to chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
Management of patients with monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is based on the patient's B-cell lymphocyte count. Due to the exceedingly low risk of progression to chronic lymphocytic leukemia in low-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis, patients require no specialized follow-up. Patients with high-count monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis, however, are recommended for annual follow-up with a hematologist to assess clinical progression to chronic lymphocytic leukemia.
While psoriasis may occur in patients with cancer, it is not considered a paraneoplastic disease associated with chronic lymphocytic leukemia or monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis. To the best of our knowledge, an association between monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis and psoriasis has not been previously reported. Our patient was diagnosed with monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis at the time of presentation for erythrodermic psoriasis. Whether this association between psoriasis and monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is bona fide or coincidental remains to be determined. Monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis has been increasingly diagnosed in the past ten years due to advances in flow cytometry and is 100 times more prevalent than chronic lymphocytic leukemia \[[@REF10]\]. As the sensitivity of flow cytometry and the overall age of the general population advance, monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis is likely to be increasingly seen and characterized; therefore, skin or autoimmune associations, as demonstrated in our patient, may be increasingly identified.
Conclusions
===========
The differential diagnosis of erythroderma includes various conditions, and the most important investigation is delving into a past history of cutaneous skin disease. Often times, a past history of psoriasis, eczema, or a drug eruption is the most important clue to the onset of an erythrodermic phenotype. A skin biopsy is essential and may help to better classify the process. Psoriasis can present with erythroderma, and in some patients, the clinical features can mimic those of pityriasis rubra pilaris and vice versa. Monoclonal hematologic disorders have been increasingly diagnosed in the last decade and may be a precursor to chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Individuals with the high-count variant are at an increased risk of progression to a chronic lymphocytic leukemia compared to those with the low-count subtype. Our patient's diagnosis of monoclonal B-cell lymphocytosis occurred concurrently with a severe, new, and atypical development of erythrodermic psoriasis. Whether the two conditions occurred independently as a coincidental event or share a related pathogenesis remains to be established, and additional reports may be helpful to elucidate if a connection between these conditions exists.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Consent was obtained by all participants in this study
| {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Central"
} |
/**
* @license
* Copyright (c) 2017 The Polymer Project Authors. All rights reserved.
* This code may only be used under the BSD style license found at
* http://polymer.github.io/LICENSE.txt
* The complete set of authors may be found at
* http://polymer.github.io/AUTHORS.txt
* The complete set of contributors may be found at
* http://polymer.github.io/CONTRIBUTORS.txt
* Code distributed by Google as part of the polymer project is also
* subject to an additional IP rights grant found at
* http://polymer.github.io/PATENTS.txt
*/
/**
* When using Closure Compiler, JSCompiler_renameProperty(property, object) is
* replaced at compile time by the munged name for object[property]. We cannot
* alias this function, so we have to use a small shim that has the same
* behavior when not compiling.
*/
window.JSCompiler_renameProperty =
(prop, _obj) => prop;
export const defaultConverter = {
toAttribute(value, type) {
switch (type) {
case Boolean:
return value ? '' : null;
case Object:
case Array:
// if the value is `null` or `undefined` pass this through
// to allow removing/no change behavior.
return value == null ? value : JSON.stringify(value);
}
return value;
},
fromAttribute(value, type) {
switch (type) {
case Boolean:
return value !== null;
case Number:
return value === null ? null : Number(value);
case Object:
case Array:
return JSON.parse(value);
}
return value;
}
};
/**
* Change function that returns true if `value` is different from `oldValue`.
* This method is used as the default for a property's `hasChanged` function.
*/
export const notEqual = (value, old) => {
// This ensures (old==NaN, value==NaN) always returns false
return old !== value && (old === old || value === value);
};
const defaultPropertyDeclaration = {
attribute: true,
type: String,
converter: defaultConverter,
reflect: false,
hasChanged: notEqual
};
const microtaskPromise = Promise.resolve(true);
const STATE_HAS_UPDATED = 1;
const STATE_UPDATE_REQUESTED = 1 << 2;
const STATE_IS_REFLECTING_TO_ATTRIBUTE = 1 << 3;
const STATE_IS_REFLECTING_TO_PROPERTY = 1 << 4;
const STATE_HAS_CONNECTED = 1 << 5;
/**
* Base element class which manages element properties and attributes. When
* properties change, the `update` method is asynchronously called. This method
* should be supplied by subclassers to render updates as desired.
*/
export class UpdatingElement extends HTMLElement {
constructor() {
super();
this._updateState = 0;
this._instanceProperties = undefined;
this._updatePromise = microtaskPromise;
this._hasConnectedResolver = undefined;
/**
* Map with keys for any properties that have changed since the last
* update cycle with previous values.
*/
this._changedProperties = new Map();
/**
* Map with keys of properties that should be reflected when updated.
*/
this._reflectingProperties = undefined;
this.initialize();
}
/**
* Returns a list of attributes corresponding to the registered properties.
* @nocollapse
*/
static get observedAttributes() {
// note: piggy backing on this to ensure we're finalized.
this.finalize();
const attributes = [];
// Use forEach so this works even if for/of loops are compiled to for loops
// expecting arrays
this._classProperties.forEach((v, p) => {
const attr = this._attributeNameForProperty(p, v);
if (attr !== undefined) {
this._attributeToPropertyMap.set(attr, p);
attributes.push(attr);
}
});
return attributes;
}
/**
* Ensures the private `_classProperties` property metadata is created.
* In addition to `finalize` this is also called in `createProperty` to
* ensure the `@property` decorator can add property metadata.
*/
/** @nocollapse */
static _ensureClassProperties() {
// ensure private storage for property declarations.
if (!this.hasOwnProperty(JSCompiler_renameProperty('_classProperties', this))) {
this._classProperties = new Map();
// NOTE: Workaround IE11 not supporting Map constructor argument.
const superProperties = Object.getPrototypeOf(this)._classProperties;
if (superProperties !== undefined) {
superProperties.forEach((v, k) => this._classProperties.set(k, v));
}
}
}
/**
* Creates a property accessor on the element prototype if one does not exist.
* The property setter calls the property's `hasChanged` property option
* or uses a strict identity check to determine whether or not to request
* an update.
* @nocollapse
*/
static createProperty(name, options = defaultPropertyDeclaration) {
// Note, since this can be called by the `@property` decorator which
// is called before `finalize`, we ensure storage exists for property
// metadata.
this._ensureClassProperties();
this._classProperties.set(name, options);
// Do not generate an accessor if the prototype already has one, since
// it would be lost otherwise and that would never be the user's intention;
// Instead, we expect users to call `requestUpdate` themselves from
// user-defined accessors. Note that if the super has an accessor we will
// still overwrite it
if (options.noAccessor || this.prototype.hasOwnProperty(name)) {
return;
}
const key = typeof name === 'symbol' ? Symbol() : `__${name}`;
Object.defineProperty(this.prototype, name, {
// tslint:disable-next-line:no-any no symbol in index
get() {
// tslint:disable-next-line:no-any no symbol in index
return this[key];
},
set(value) {
// tslint:disable-next-line:no-any no symbol in index
const oldValue = this[name];
// tslint:disable-next-line:no-any no symbol in index
this[key] = value;
this.requestUpdate(name, oldValue);
},
configurable: true,
enumerable: true
});
}
/**
* Creates property accessors for registered properties and ensures
* any superclasses are also finalized.
* @nocollapse
*/
static finalize() {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(JSCompiler_renameProperty('finalized', this)) &&
this.finalized) {
return;
}
// finalize any superclasses
const superCtor = Object.getPrototypeOf(this);
if (typeof superCtor.finalize === 'function') {
superCtor.finalize();
}
this.finalized = true;
this._ensureClassProperties();
// initialize Map populated in observedAttributes
this._attributeToPropertyMap = new Map();
// make any properties
// Note, only process "own" properties since this element will inherit
// any properties defined on the superClass, and finalization ensures
// the entire prototype chain is finalized.
if (this.hasOwnProperty(JSCompiler_renameProperty('properties', this))) {
const props = this.properties;
// support symbols in properties (IE11 does not support this)
const propKeys = [
...Object.getOwnPropertyNames(props),
...(typeof Object.getOwnPropertySymbols === 'function') ?
Object.getOwnPropertySymbols(props) :
[]
];
// This for/of is ok because propKeys is an array
for (const p of propKeys) {
// note, use of `any` is due to TypeSript lack of support for symbol in
// index types
// tslint:disable-next-line:no-any no symbol in index
this.createProperty(p, props[p]);
}
}
}
/**
* Returns the property name for the given attribute `name`.
* @nocollapse
*/
static _attributeNameForProperty(name, options) {
const attribute = options.attribute;
return attribute === false ?
undefined :
(typeof attribute === 'string' ?
attribute :
(typeof name === 'string' ? name.toLowerCase() : undefined));
}
/**
* Returns true if a property should request an update.
* Called when a property value is set and uses the `hasChanged`
* option for the property if present or a strict identity check.
* @nocollapse
*/
static _valueHasChanged(value, old, hasChanged = notEqual) {
return hasChanged(value, old);
}
/**
* Returns the property value for the given attribute value.
* Called via the `attributeChangedCallback` and uses the property's
* `converter` or `converter.fromAttribute` property option.
* @nocollapse
*/
static _propertyValueFromAttribute(value, options) {
const type = options.type;
const converter = options.converter || defaultConverter;
const fromAttribute = (typeof converter === 'function' ? converter : converter.fromAttribute);
return fromAttribute ? fromAttribute(value, type) : value;
}
/**
* Returns the attribute value for the given property value. If this
* returns undefined, the property will *not* be reflected to an attribute.
* If this returns null, the attribute will be removed, otherwise the
* attribute will be set to the value.
* This uses the property's `reflect` and `type.toAttribute` property options.
* @nocollapse
*/
static _propertyValueToAttribute(value, options) {
if (options.reflect === undefined) {
return;
}
const type = options.type;
const converter = options.converter;
const toAttribute = converter && converter.toAttribute ||
defaultConverter.toAttribute;
return toAttribute(value, type);
}
/**
* Performs element initialization. By default captures any pre-set values for
* registered properties.
*/
initialize() {
this._saveInstanceProperties();
}
/**
* Fixes any properties set on the instance before upgrade time.
* Otherwise these would shadow the accessor and break these properties.
* The properties are stored in a Map which is played back after the
* constructor runs. Note, on very old versions of Safari (<=9) or Chrome
* (<=41), properties created for native platform properties like (`id` or
* `name`) may not have default values set in the element constructor. On
* these browsers native properties appear on instances and therefore their
* default value will overwrite any element default (e.g. if the element sets
* this.id = 'id' in the constructor, the 'id' will become '' since this is
* the native platform default).
*/
_saveInstanceProperties() {
// Use forEach so this works even if for/of loops are compiled to for loops
// expecting arrays
this.constructor
._classProperties.forEach((_v, p) => {
if (this.hasOwnProperty(p)) {
const value = this[p];
delete this[p];
if (!this._instanceProperties) {
this._instanceProperties = new Map();
}
this._instanceProperties.set(p, value);
}
});
}
/**
* Applies previously saved instance properties.
*/
_applyInstanceProperties() {
// Use forEach so this works even if for/of loops are compiled to for loops
// expecting arrays
// tslint:disable-next-line:no-any
this._instanceProperties.forEach((v, p) => this[p] = v);
this._instanceProperties = undefined;
}
connectedCallback() {
this._updateState = this._updateState | STATE_HAS_CONNECTED;
// Ensure connection triggers an update. Updates cannot complete before
// connection and if one is pending connection the `_hasConnectionResolver`
// will exist. If so, resolve it to complete the update, otherwise
// requestUpdate.
if (this._hasConnectedResolver) {
this._hasConnectedResolver();
this._hasConnectedResolver = undefined;
}
else {
this.requestUpdate();
}
}
/**
* Allows for `super.disconnectedCallback()` in extensions while
* reserving the possibility of making non-breaking feature additions
* when disconnecting at some point in the future.
*/
disconnectedCallback() {
}
/**
* Synchronizes property values when attributes change.
*/
attributeChangedCallback(name, old, value) {
if (old !== value) {
this._attributeToProperty(name, value);
}
}
_propertyToAttribute(name, value, options = defaultPropertyDeclaration) {
const ctor = this.constructor;
const attr = ctor._attributeNameForProperty(name, options);
if (attr !== undefined) {
const attrValue = ctor._propertyValueToAttribute(value, options);
// an undefined value does not change the attribute.
if (attrValue === undefined) {
return;
}
// Track if the property is being reflected to avoid
// setting the property again via `attributeChangedCallback`. Note:
// 1. this takes advantage of the fact that the callback is synchronous.
// 2. will behave incorrectly if multiple attributes are in the reaction
// stack at time of calling. However, since we process attributes
// in `update` this should not be possible (or an extreme corner case
// that we'd like to discover).
// mark state reflecting
this._updateState = this._updateState | STATE_IS_REFLECTING_TO_ATTRIBUTE;
if (attrValue == null) {
this.removeAttribute(attr);
}
else {
this.setAttribute(attr, attrValue);
}
// mark state not reflecting
this._updateState = this._updateState & ~STATE_IS_REFLECTING_TO_ATTRIBUTE;
}
}
_attributeToProperty(name, value) {
// Use tracking info to avoid deserializing attribute value if it was
// just set from a property setter.
if (this._updateState & STATE_IS_REFLECTING_TO_ATTRIBUTE) {
return;
}
const ctor = this.constructor;
const propName = ctor._attributeToPropertyMap.get(name);
if (propName !== undefined) {
const options = ctor._classProperties.get(propName) || defaultPropertyDeclaration;
// mark state reflecting
this._updateState = this._updateState | STATE_IS_REFLECTING_TO_PROPERTY;
this[propName] =
// tslint:disable-next-line:no-any
ctor._propertyValueFromAttribute(value, options);
// mark state not reflecting
this._updateState = this._updateState & ~STATE_IS_REFLECTING_TO_PROPERTY;
}
}
/**
* Requests an update which is processed asynchronously. This should
* be called when an element should update based on some state not triggered
* by setting a property. In this case, pass no arguments. It should also be
* called when manually implementing a property setter. In this case, pass the
* property `name` and `oldValue` to ensure that any configured property
* options are honored. Returns the `updateComplete` Promise which is resolved
* when the update completes.
*
* @param name {PropertyKey} (optional) name of requesting property
* @param oldValue {any} (optional) old value of requesting property
* @returns {Promise} A Promise that is resolved when the update completes.
*/
requestUpdate(name, oldValue) {
let shouldRequestUpdate = true;
// if we have a property key, perform property update steps.
if (name !== undefined && !this._changedProperties.has(name)) {
const ctor = this.constructor;
const options = ctor._classProperties.get(name) || defaultPropertyDeclaration;
if (ctor._valueHasChanged(this[name], oldValue, options.hasChanged)) {
// track old value when changing.
this._changedProperties.set(name, oldValue);
// add to reflecting properties set
if (options.reflect === true &&
!(this._updateState & STATE_IS_REFLECTING_TO_PROPERTY)) {
if (this._reflectingProperties === undefined) {
this._reflectingProperties = new Map();
}
this._reflectingProperties.set(name, options);
}
// abort the request if the property should not be considered changed.
}
else {
shouldRequestUpdate = false;
}
}
if (!this._hasRequestedUpdate && shouldRequestUpdate) {
this._enqueueUpdate();
}
return this.updateComplete;
}
/**
* Sets up the element to asynchronously update.
*/
async _enqueueUpdate() {
// Mark state updating...
this._updateState = this._updateState | STATE_UPDATE_REQUESTED;
let resolve;
const previousUpdatePromise = this._updatePromise;
this._updatePromise = new Promise((res) => resolve = res);
// Ensure any previous update has resolved before updating.
// This `await` also ensures that property changes are batched.
await previousUpdatePromise;
// Make sure the element has connected before updating.
if (!this._hasConnected) {
await new Promise((res) => this._hasConnectedResolver = res);
}
// Allow `performUpdate` to be asynchronous to enable scheduling of updates.
const result = this.performUpdate();
// Note, this is to avoid delaying an additional microtask unless we need
// to.
if (result != null &&
typeof result.then === 'function') {
await result;
}
resolve(!this._hasRequestedUpdate);
}
get _hasConnected() {
return (this._updateState & STATE_HAS_CONNECTED);
}
get _hasRequestedUpdate() {
return (this._updateState & STATE_UPDATE_REQUESTED);
}
get hasUpdated() {
return (this._updateState & STATE_HAS_UPDATED);
}
/**
* Performs an element update.
*
* You can override this method to change the timing of updates. For instance,
* to schedule updates to occur just before the next frame:
*
* ```
* protected async performUpdate(): Promise<unknown> {
* await new Promise((resolve) => requestAnimationFrame(() => resolve()));
* super.performUpdate();
* }
* ```
*/
performUpdate() {
// Mixin instance properties once, if they exist.
if (this._instanceProperties) {
this._applyInstanceProperties();
}
if (this.shouldUpdate(this._changedProperties)) {
const changedProperties = this._changedProperties;
this.update(changedProperties);
this._markUpdated();
if (!(this._updateState & STATE_HAS_UPDATED)) {
this._updateState = this._updateState | STATE_HAS_UPDATED;
this.firstUpdated(changedProperties);
}
this.updated(changedProperties);
}
else {
this._markUpdated();
}
}
_markUpdated() {
this._changedProperties = new Map();
this._updateState = this._updateState & ~STATE_UPDATE_REQUESTED;
}
/**
* Returns a Promise that resolves when the element has completed updating.
* The Promise value is a boolean that is `true` if the element completed the
* update without triggering another update. The Promise result is `false` if
* a property was set inside `updated()`. This getter can be implemented to
* await additional state. For example, it is sometimes useful to await a
* rendered element before fulfilling this Promise. To do this, first await
* `super.updateComplete` then any subsequent state.
*
* @returns {Promise} The Promise returns a boolean that indicates if the
* update resolved without triggering another update.
*/
get updateComplete() {
return this._updatePromise;
}
/**
* Controls whether or not `update` should be called when the element requests
* an update. By default, this method always returns `true`, but this can be
* customized to control when to update.
*
* * @param _changedProperties Map of changed properties with old values
*/
shouldUpdate(_changedProperties) {
return true;
}
/**
* Updates the element. This method reflects property values to attributes.
* It can be overridden to render and keep updated element DOM.
* Setting properties inside this method will *not* trigger
* another update.
*
* * @param _changedProperties Map of changed properties with old values
*/
update(_changedProperties) {
if (this._reflectingProperties !== undefined &&
this._reflectingProperties.size > 0) {
// Use forEach so this works even if for/of loops are compiled to for
// loops expecting arrays
this._reflectingProperties.forEach((v, k) => this._propertyToAttribute(k, this[k], v));
this._reflectingProperties = undefined;
}
}
/**
* Invoked whenever the element is updated. Implement to perform
* post-updating tasks via DOM APIs, for example, focusing an element.
*
* Setting properties inside this method will trigger the element to update
* again after this update cycle completes.
*
* * @param _changedProperties Map of changed properties with old values
*/
updated(_changedProperties) {
}
/**
* Invoked when the element is first updated. Implement to perform one time
* work on the element after update.
*
* Setting properties inside this method will trigger the element to update
* again after this update cycle completes.
*
* * @param _changedProperties Map of changed properties with old values
*/
firstUpdated(_changedProperties) {
}
}
/**
* Marks class as having finished creating properties.
*/
UpdatingElement.finalized = true;
//# sourceMappingURL=updating-element.js.map | {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
#ifndef ACE_STREAM_MODULES_CPP
#define ACE_STREAM_MODULES_CPP
#include "ace/Stream_Modules.h"
#include "ace/OS_NS_string.h"
#if !defined (ACE_LACKS_PRAGMA_ONCE)
# pragma once
#endif /* ACE_LACKS_PRAGMA_ONCE */
ACE_BEGIN_VERSIONED_NAMESPACE_DECL
ACE_ALLOC_HOOK_DEFINE(ACE_Stream_Head)
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY>
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::ACE_Stream_Head (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::ACE_Stream_Head");
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY>
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::~ACE_Stream_Head (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::~ACE_Stream_Head");
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> void
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::dump (void) const
{
#if defined (ACE_HAS_DUMP)
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::dump");
#endif /* ACE_HAS_DUMP */
}
// ACE_Module that act as the head and tail of a Stream.
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::open (void *)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::open");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::close (u_long)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::close");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::svc (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::svc");
return -1;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::control (ACE_Message_Block *mb)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::control");
ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg *ioc = (ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg *) mb->rd_ptr ();
ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg::ACE_IO_Cntl_Cmds cmd;
switch (cmd = ioc->cmd ())
{
case ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg::SET_LWM:
case ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg::SET_HWM:
this->water_marks (cmd, *(size_t *) mb->cont ()->rd_ptr ());
ioc->rval (0);
break;
default:
return 0;
}
return ioc->rval ();
}
// Performs canonical flushing at the ACE_Stream Head.
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::canonical_flush (ACE_Message_Block *mb)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::canonical_flush");
char *cp = mb->rd_ptr ();
if (ACE_BIT_ENABLED (*cp, ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHR))
{
this->flush (ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHALL);
ACE_CLR_BITS (*cp, ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHR);
}
if (ACE_BIT_ENABLED (*cp, ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHW))
return this->reply (mb);
else
mb->release ();
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::put (ACE_Message_Block *mb,
ACE_Time_Value *tv)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::put");
int res = 0;
if (mb->msg_type () == ACE_Message_Block::MB_IOCTL
&& (res = this->control (mb)) == -1)
return res;
if (this->is_writer ())
return this->put_next (mb, tv);
else // this->is_reader ()
{
switch (mb->msg_type ())
{
case ACE_Message_Block::MB_FLUSH:
return this->canonical_flush (mb);
default:
break;
}
return this->putq (mb, tv);
}
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::init (int, ACE_TCHAR *[])
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::init");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::info (ACE_TCHAR **strp, size_t length) const
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::info");
const ACE_TCHAR *name = this->name ();
if (*strp == 0 && (*strp = ACE_OS::strdup (name)) == 0)
return -1;
else
ACE_OS::strsncpy (*strp, name, length);
return static_cast<int> (ACE_OS::strlen (name));
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::fini (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Head<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::fini");
return 0;
}
ACE_ALLOC_HOOK_DEFINE(ACE_Stream_Tail)
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY>
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::ACE_Stream_Tail (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::ACE_Stream_Tail");
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY>
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::~ACE_Stream_Tail (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::~ACE_Stream_Tail");
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> void
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::dump (void) const
{
#if defined (ACE_HAS_DUMP)
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::dump");
#endif /* ACE_HAS_DUMP */
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::open (void *)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::open");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::close (u_long)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::close");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::svc (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::svc");
return -1;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::control (ACE_Message_Block *mb)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::control");
ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg *ioc = (ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg *) mb->rd_ptr ();
ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg::ACE_IO_Cntl_Cmds cmd;
switch (cmd = ioc->cmd ())
{
case ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg::SET_LWM:
case ACE_IO_Cntl_Msg::SET_HWM:
{
size_t wm_size = *(size_t *) mb->cont ()->rd_ptr ();
this->water_marks (cmd, wm_size);
this->sibling ()->water_marks (cmd, wm_size);
ioc->rval (0);
break;
}
default:
mb->msg_type (ACE_Message_Block::MB_IOCNAK);
break;
}
return this->reply (mb);
}
// Perform flush algorithm as though we were the driver.
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::canonical_flush (ACE_Message_Block *mb)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::canonical_flush");
char *cp = mb->rd_ptr ();
if (ACE_BIT_ENABLED (*cp, ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHW))
{
this->flush (ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHALL);
ACE_CLR_BITS (*cp, ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHW);
}
if (ACE_BIT_ENABLED (*cp, ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHR))
{
this->sibling ()->flush (ACE_Task_Flags::ACE_FLUSHALL);
return this->reply (mb);
}
else
mb->release ();
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::put (ACE_Message_Block *mb,
ACE_Time_Value *)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::put");
if (this->is_writer ())
{
switch (mb->msg_type ())
{
case ACE_Message_Block::MB_IOCTL:
return this->control (mb);
/* NOTREACHED */
default:
mb->release ();
return 0;
/* NOTREACHED */
}
}
return -1;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::init (int, ACE_TCHAR *[])
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::init");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::info (ACE_TCHAR **strp, size_t length) const
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::info");
const ACE_TCHAR *name = this->name ();
if (*strp == 0 && (*strp = ACE_OS::strdup (name)) == 0)
return -1;
else
ACE_OS::strsncpy (*strp, name, length);
return static_cast<int> (ACE_OS::strlen (name));
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::fini (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Stream_Tail<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::fini");
return 0;
}
ACE_ALLOC_HOOK_DEFINE(ACE_Thru_Task)
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY>
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::ACE_Thru_Task (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::ACE_Thru_Task");
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY>
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::~ACE_Thru_Task (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::~ACE_Thru_Task");
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> void
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::dump (void) const
{
#if defined (ACE_HAS_DUMP)
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::dump");
#endif /* ACE_HAS_DUMP */
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::open (void *)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::open");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::close (u_long)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::close");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::svc (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::svc");
return -1;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::put (ACE_Message_Block *msg,
ACE_Time_Value *tv)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::put");
return this->put_next (msg, tv);
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::init (int, ACE_TCHAR *[])
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::init");
return 0;
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::info (ACE_TCHAR **strp,
size_t length) const
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::info");
const ACE_TCHAR *name = this->name ();
if (*strp == 0 && (*strp = ACE_OS::strdup (name)) == 0)
return -1;
else
ACE_OS::strsncpy (*strp, name, length);
return static_cast<int> (ACE_OS::strlen (name));
}
template <ACE_SYNCH_DECL, class TIME_POLICY> int
ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::fini (void)
{
ACE_TRACE ("ACE_Thru_Task<ACE_SYNCH_USE, TIME_POLICY>::fini");
return 0;
}
ACE_END_VERSIONED_NAMESPACE_DECL
#endif /* ACE_STREAM_MODULES_CPP */
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
Q:
Lock a single sheet per spreadsheet in a folder full of spreadsheets
I work at a university, and have set up 52 spreadsheets for 52 students. Each week, I need to lock a single sheet on each of these 52 spreadsheets. The sheets are all contained in a single folder. Each student's spreadsheet has sheets named '1' through '33' (representing 33 weeks), along with a couple of additional sheets.
I am thinking of having another spreadsheet with a script that lets me lock or unlock a week. On this spreadsheet, I would set it up as follows:
+---+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| | A | B | C |
+---+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 1 | 1 |user1@university.edu |user2@university.edu |
| 2 | Lock | | |
+---+-----------+---------------------+---------------------+
A1 will be where I type which week to lock. In this example, it's week '1'. Row 1, Cells B1 through N1 will contain the email addresses of other university professors who should continue to have editing access. B2 will be where I indicate either "Lock" or "Unlock"
How can I loop through each file in this folder and set the editing permissions? Here is what I am unsuccessfully trying. It is a modification of another script that someone helped me with for the purpose of looping through and editing a specific range in each students' spreadsheet.
var idFolder = 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxZLaXVPZzQ';
var folder = DriveApp.getFolderById(idFolder);
var contents = folder.getFiles();
var file;
var sheet;
var sheets;
var sheetName;
var range;
var strRangeProtect;
var protections;
var protection;
var editors = [???????? Range of B1:N1??????????];
var app = SpreadsheetApp;
var currentweekneedstobedefined = app.getActiveSheet().getRange(1, 1);
var thisweek = currentweekneedstobedefined.getValue();
while(contents.hasNext()) {
file = app.openById(contents.next().getId());
sheets = file.getSheets();
var thisweek = currentweekneedstobedefined;
protections = file.getProtections(app.ProtectionType.SHEET);
protection = protections(thisweek);
protection.addEditor(editors);
protection.removeEditors(protection.getEditors());
if (protection.canDomainEdit()) {
protection.setDomainEdit(false);
So I have made some good progress. Here is where I am as of 10/27.
Issue 1: It now will protect the sheet '1', so that I am the only editor. I was thinking that I can remove everyone else first, and then add back the people in the editors array. However, they don't get added back as I was hoping with the statement protection.addEditors(editors); The error says: Invalid user: "ixxxx@university.edu,nxxxxr@university.edu,sxxxxx0@university.edu,sxxxxx2@university.edu,nxxxxxt@university.edu,gxxxxx4@university.edu,yxxxxxv@university.edu,kxxxxx7@university.edu,emxxxxxs@university.edu,kpxxxxx3@university.edu".
Issue 2: The other issue is that it doesn't loop through all student files. Instead, I noticed the arrays changesheets and editors keep increasing in dimensions. After passing through the while loop a few times, the changesheets array is changesheets[36][36][36] and editors is editors[13][13][13].
function increaseProtection(idFolder, sheetNames) {
var folder = DriveApp.getFolderById(idFolder);
var contents = folder.getFiles();
var file;
var app = SpreadsheetApp;
var currentweekneedstobedefined = app.getActiveSheet().getRange(1, 1);
var thisweek = currentweekneedstobedefined.getValue();
var ss = SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSpreadsheet(); //get spreadsheet
var sheet = ss.getActiveSheet();
var editors = sheet.getRange('B1:N1').getValues(); //get values of B1:N1 as array
while(contents.hasNext()) {
file = app.openById(contents.next().getId());
var fname = file.getName();
var changesheets = file.getSheets();
var thisweeksSheet = file.getSheetByName(thisweek);
var me = Session.getEffectiveUser();
var permissions = thisweeksSheet.getSheetProtection();
var protection = thisweeksSheet.protect().setDescription('Supervisors Only');
protection.addEditor(me);
protection.removeEditors(protection.getEditors());
if (protection.canDomainEdit()) {
protection.setDomainEdit(false);
}
protection.addEditors(editors);
}
}
A:
To get the B1:N1 editor range from the sheet, I'd do something like this.
var ss = SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSpreadsheet(); //get spreadsheet
var sheet = ss.getActiveSheet(); //get sheet
var editors = sheet.getRange('B1:N1').getValues()[0]; //get values of B1:N1 as array
You'll also want to use addEditors rather than addEditor if you're going to pass the array rather than iterating through.
I think this one works but some of the details (like are editors set on the main sheet or on each ss) confuse me a bit.
function myFunction() {
var idFolder = '0B_9l84KvUJBWRXhPd0lLRUN1WWs';
var folder = DriveApp.getFolderById(idFolder);
var contents = folder.getFiles();
var currentWeek = SpreadsheetApp.getActiveSheet().getRange(1, 1).getValue();//get week value from this main control sheet
while(contents.hasNext()) {
var ss = SpreadsheetApp.openById(contents.next().getId());//gets the ss in the folder
var sheet = ss.getSheetByName(currentWeek); //get sheet by week name
var editors = cleanArray(sheet.getRange('B2:N2').getValues()[0]); //get values of B1:N1 as array --- not sure if you set this on the local sheet or the main control one
var protection = sheet.protect().setDescription('no Dana only Zuul');
protection.removeEditors(protection.getEditors());
if (protection.canDomainEdit()) {
protection.setDomainEdit(false);
}
protection.addEditors(editors);
sheet.getRange('A1').setBackground('red'); //just a visual marker to see it went through all the spots
}
}
//cleans empty slots from array http://stackoverflow.com/questions/281264/remove-empty-elements-from-an-array-in-javascript
function cleanArray(actual) {
var newArray = new Array();
for (var i = 0; i < actual.length; i++) {
if (actual[i]) {
newArray.push(actual[i]);
}
}
return newArray;
}
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
Meet the Captain
James A Macdonald (Jimmy) is the captain of “It’s Now Or Never”. He has been fishing commercially for 40+ years and fishing Giant Bluefin Tuna for 20+ years. He have acquired many different techniques and skills required in the hunt and capture of the Giant Bluefin. Techniques in kiting, trolling, live baits, down baits, chumming, and rigging are just some of his valuable assets. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
While gaming equipment provides players with enjoyment, a need exists for alternative gaming equipment in order to maintain or increase player enjoyment. Accordingly, offering a range of different and unique spinning reel games of chance in slot machines can assist in maintaining and increasing player enjoyment. Gaming equipment, such as a slot machine, incorporating an embodiment(s) of the present invention can offer a spinning reel game of chance in which certain symbols are capable of expanding to thereby provide the player with a dynamic visual game appearance. | {
"pile_set_name": "USPTO Backgrounds"
} |
Physical optics modeling of 2D dielectric lenses.
We propose an advanced physical optics formulation for the accurate modeling of dielectric lenses used in quasi-optical systems of millimeter, submillimeter, and infrared wave applications. For comparison, we obtain an exact full-wave solution of a two-dimensional lens problem and use it as a benchmark for testing and validation of asymptotic models being considered. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Hi, If the resistors were in the load circuit when the output blew they will probably be around 1 OHM wire wound. Hamrad should have some 5w devices. if it works, great. it the power is low, these may need to be anything as low as 0.1 Ohm.
Hi, Sorry that never fixed the problem. The next lot to look at are output and driver bias resistors which could burn up in some circumstances.
The values as a rule of thumb will be from 100 ohms up to no more that say 470 at the upper limit. It is not likely that anything higher than that will burn quickly.
I would try 220 ohm half watts and watch carefully when you switch on. Have you checked out your driver transistors? I would........Now!
Its difficult to say with certainty because you can incur distortion etc if you mess too much but give it a try! | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Report a council insurance incident
Due to Monday May 27 being a Bank Holiday, there are some changes to opening times and other Council services. Find out more on the Bank Holiday webpage.
The Insurance Section of the Council handles all of our insurance needs, from arranging cover to providing a claims handling service.
If you have suffered personal injury or property damage which has been caused by operatives working for our refuse contractors you will need to contact environmental services.
We do not deal with claims relating to slips, trips and falls on the public highway. This is the responsibility of Leicestershire County Council. If you have a claim please contact them on 0800 626203 or visit the LCC website.
Public liability claims
Motor claims
Motor claims: If you have suffered vehicle/property damage or personal injury which has involved a council vehicle
Leaseholders
Leaseholders: As a condition of your lease, we take out building insurance cover for your property. An amount is included within your service charge to cover the insurance premium.
Tenants' home contents insurance
Tenants' Home Contents Insurance: If you are a tenant of ours, your home will be insured by us. However, this insurance cover is for the building only and not anything inside it. You are free to find your own insurance but we can offer you a special household contents insurance scheme, only available to Charnwood Borough Council Customers, which you can pay at the same time as your rent.
If you need further details please contact the Housing Operations Business Support Team | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Goldman Sachs said that Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservatives were marginally more likely than Labour to win the most seats in Britain's national election on May 7 and to form the next government. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Things to watch out for while dating
22-Jan-2018 10:46knightthror
Red Flags to Look Out For on Dating Sites According to a Dude For others, however, it can be a life-ruining decision – leaving us penniless, heartbroken and with many more problems heading our way. Red Flags to Look Out For on Dating Sites According to a Dude. Going into this experience, I just wanted to see a man's reaction to the. Unless you're into that sort of thing, but even thenrun they're. Ask a Dude"What Do I Do When The Guy I Met On Tinder Doesn't Look Like His Pics?" Ask a.
How to Spot an Online Dating Not only would it be foolish, but downrht selfish. How to Spot an Online Dating Scammer. Watchout for the catch. "It pointed outthings that are actually happening.
Things to Do and Never Do WhileDating HuffPost However, a husband is responsible to lead his wife in sanctification, as this verse explains with the imagery of Christ and His bride. Pick one thing that strikes you about your date—their hair, shoes, eyes, voice—and point out to them that you appreciate this detail. Watch as.
Things I Learned When I Quit Online Dating Glamour By learning how to spot a scammer, you can protect yourself. But her cell phone seems to be faulty and her old laptop doesn't have a built in camera. I also enjoy toying with these scammers with elaborate stories of wealth, success, and loneliness. There are plenty of things I wish I knew before I started online dating, and. It took a little while, but when I was putting less energy into scoping out prospects. you feel disappointed when you don't see these rewards and you.
My year on - It is easy to see only the positive in the other person and completely nore any warning sns. It would be foolish to date someone and not even consider the possible outcomes. I'd done so many scary things in my life. and you started going out. After a while — OK. You could say that my year on Match was not successful.
Online dating red flags and how to spot them early - Mirror Online Christ’s role and a husband’s role do differ because only Christ alone can truly cleanse us. Watchout for these warning sns before agreeing to take the next. We know that when it comes to online dating, not posting a photo is an.
Relationship Red Flags For Single Moms To WatchOut For. While you do not have to commit to marrying this person rht away, you should realize that any guy-girl relationship you begin has the potential to end in marriage. That is why it is important to consider some warning sns you will look for whiledating someone. If you desire to have a marriage relationship built on Scripture, you will want to marry a man who will be a strong spiritual leader to you and your future family. Your spiritual maturity may result in frustration and leadership struggles if he is not as strong as you in his relationship with God. Ultimately, your spiritual condition is up to you and you alone. Relationship Red Flags For Single Moms To WatchOut For. 0. By Samantha. Be sure to notice the little things. Dating with intention is never more important than when you have a family you are guiding and protecting. 4.
Questions to Ask Before You Date Spotting Discrepancies Reading or Listening Between the Lines Beware Speed Community Q&A Online dating scams are rife. You do not have to be rich and you do not have to be stupid. Questions to Ask Before You. Ever wish you could predict ahead of time whether or not a dating relationship will work out. While you can't.
Texting-While-Dating Rules to And love is the tool scammers use to pry open your bank account and strip you of your assets. She says I'm so handsome (I'm not) and wants to see me in person and hear me. Beware." said he was Roden Miller (actually Jeffrey Miller) as a scammer. He is in the army stationed in Houston Texas but is currently on a peacekeeping mission in Libya but would be returning soon. I refuse to give my number or email and insist on staying on that site. Texting-While-Dating Rules to Simplify Your. minefield of modern dating 1. Texting means different things to. texts asking to hang out.
Relationship Red Flags You Should Never nore SELF You just have to be looking for love, a search that causes you to be more vulnerable than usual. This person doesn't really see you as you—you're a projection of some perfect. When one partner is constantly initiating sex and the other isn't in the mood. that would make their mother want to wash their mouth out with soap. Imagine how they'll handle the b things. Dating, dealbreakers, red flags. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
MORANDI
Everytime We Touch Lyrics
[Verse 1]
Everytime a rise meet
I can always feel your heart beat
Everytime we touch
There can never be too much
I knew there I will love you
And you will love me too
For know until forever
We meant to be together
[Chorus]
When you came and set me free
I was broken and lonely
Baby when you came to me
Love was just a memory
When you came and set me free
I was broken and lonely
Baby when you came to me
Love was just a memory
Just a memory...
[Verse 2]
Can forget the sunset
Baby when we first met
Flying in the red light
I loved you from the first sight
You were beautiful and wild
I was felt like a child
From now until forever
We meant to be together
[Chorus]
When you came and set me free
I was broken and lonely
Baby when you came to me
Love was just a memory
When you came and set me free
I was broken and lonely
Baby when you came to me
Love was just a memory
Just a memory...
When you came and set me free
I was broken and lonely
Baby when you came to me
Love was just a memory
When you came and set me free
I was broken and lonely
Baby when you came to me
Love was just a memory
Just a memory...
Correct these lyrics
Hottest Lyrics with Videos
2fc1f1025a422a57270158a2ce0f1323
check amazon for Everytime We Touch mp3 downloadthese lyrics are submitted by BURKUL4 | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Produced by Bryan Ness, Josephine Paolucci and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This
book was produced from scanned images of public domain
material from the Google Print project.)
[Illustration: REV. W. G. BROWNLOW.]
AMERICANISM CONTRASTED
WITH
Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy,
IN THE LIGHT OF
REASON, HISTORY, AND SCRIPTURE;
IN WHICH
CERTAIN DEMAGOGUES IN TENNESSEE, AND ELSEWHERE, ARE SHOWN UP IN THEIR
TRUE COLORS.
BY
WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW,
EDITOR OF "BROWNLOW'S KNOXVILLE WHIG."
"----Go to your bloody rites again:
Preach--perpetuate damnation in your den;
Then let your altars, ye blasphemers, peal
With thanks to Heaven, that let you loose again,
To practice deeds with torturing fire and steel,
No eye may search, no tongue may challenge or reveal!"
THOMAS CAMPBELL.
Nashville, Tenn.:
PUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR.
1856.
ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1856, by
WILLIAM G. BROWNLOW,
In the Clerk's office of the District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee.
Dedication.
TO THE YOUNG MEN OF AMERICA.
YOUNG GENTLEMEN:--Almighty God has conferred on you the peculiar honor
and the eminent responsibility of preserving and perpetuating the
liberties of this country, both civil and religious. That the American
people are on the eve of an eventful period, will not be doubted by any
sane man, who can discern the "signs of the times." Indeed, it is an
every-day remark, that, as a nation, we are in the midst of a crisis.
If, however, a crisis ever did exist in the affairs of this Nation,
since its independence was first achieved, which called upon the NATIVE
AND LEGAL VOTERS of the country to watch with sleepless vigilance over
their blood-bought liberties, that crisis must be dated in the year of
our Lord, ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY-SIX! The great
Commonwealth of Humanity, in behalf of the momentous interests of Truth,
Liberty, and Religion, calls upon the present generation of YOUNG MEN,
who will have the issues of a coming revolution to meet, to qualify
themselves for the task.
There never was a time known, since the dark days of the Revolution,
when the civil and religious liberties of this country were so much
endangered as at the present time. This danger we are threatened with
from _Foreign influence_, and the rapid strides of _Romanism_, to which
we may add _Native treachery_, connived at, as they are, by certain
leading demagogues of the country, and a powerful and influential
political party, falsely called _Democrats_, who seek the Foreign and
Catholic vote, and are willing to obtain it at the expense of Liberty,
and the sacrifice of the Protestant Religion!
The great criminal of the nineteenth century, the PAPAL HIERARCHY, is
now on trial before the bar of public opinion, having been arraigned by
the AMERICAN PARTY. You are called on to decide, YOUNG MEN, as you wield
the balance of power, whether this Criminal, arraigned for treason
against God, and hostility to the human race, deserves the execrations
of all honest and patriotic men, and avenging judgments of a righteous
God! In order to decide this grave question, YOUNG _Gentlemen of the
Nineteenth Century_, you are to consider the inevitable tendency of the
principles of the Church of Rome--the actual results of these tendencies
as embodied in history--the indictment brought in by the AMERICAN PARTY,
and the testimony of the witnesses. When you have intelligently
considered the part the self-styled _Democratic Party_ has acted in this
infamous drama, you will feel it to be your duty to indict the
corporation claiming the right to be called the Great Democratic Party,
as _accessory_ to the treason, crimes, and infamy, of the aforesaid
Papal Hierarchy!
To you, then, Gentlemen, is this brief work most affectionately
inscribed by
THE AUTHOR.
PREFACE.
For the last twenty-five years, the writer of this work has employed
much of his time in the reading and study of the controversy between
Roman Catholics and Protestants. And those who have been subscribers to
the paper he has edited and published for the LAST SEVENTEEN YEARS, will
bear him witness that he has kept up a fierce and unceasing fire against
that dangerous and immoral _Corporation_, claiming the right to be
called the HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH. This he has done, and still continues
to do, because he believes firmly that the system of Popery, as taught
in the standards of the Church of Rome, as enforced by her Bishops and
Priests, and as believed and practised by the great body of Romanists,
both in Europe and America, is at war with the true religion taught in
the Bible, and is injurious to the public and private morals of the
civilized world; and, if unchecked, will overturn the civil and
religious liberties of the United States. Such, he believes, is its
tendency and the design of its leaders.
Popery is deceitful in its character; and the design of this brief work
is, in part, to drag it forward into the light of the middle of the
nineteenth century, to strip the flimsy vizor off its face, and to bring
it, with all its abuses, corruptions, and hypocritical Protestant
advocates, before the bar of enlightened public opinion, for judgment in
the case. Roman Catholics misrepresent their own creed, their Church,
and its corrupt institutions. The most revolting, wicked, and immoral
features of their _holy and immutable system_, are kept out of sight by
its corrupt Clergy, and Jesuitical teachers; while, with a purpose to
_deceive_, a _Protestant sense_ is attached to most of their doctrines
and peculiarities. By this vile means, they designedly _misrepresent
themselves_, and impose on the public, by inducing charitable and
uninformed persons to believe that they are not as profligate as they
are represented to be. This game has been played with a bold hand in
_Knoxville_, for the last twelve months, and it is being played in every
city and town in the South and West, where Romanism is being planted.
One object, then, of this _epitomized_ work, setting forth the
boastings, threats, and disclosures of leading Catholic organs and
Bishops, as to their real principles and designs upon this country,
suffered to go forth in their more excited moments, or unguarded hours,
is, to spread before the people, in a cheap form, true Popery, and to
strip it of its _Protestant garb_, which it has for the time being
assumed.
An additional reason for bringing out this publication, at this
particular time, is, to expose a corrupt bargain entered into by the
leaders of the Catholic Church, and the leaders of a corrupt and
designing political party, falsely called the Democratic party. One of
the most alarming "signs of the times" is, that while Protestant
ministers, of different persuasions, only two brief years ago, could
preach with power and eloquence against the dogmas and corrupting
tendencies of _Romanism_, and pass out of the doors of their churches,
receiving the compliments and extravagant praises of their entire
congregations, let one of them now dare to hold up this Corporation as a
dangerous foreign enemy--let him warn his charge against the influence
of Popery, or but only designate the Catholic Hierarchy as the "man of
sin" described in the Scriptures, and one half of his congregation are
grossly insulted: they charge him with meddling in politics; and, by way
of resentment, they will either not hear him again, or they will starve
him out, by refusing to contribute to his support!
The hypocritical and profligate portion of the Methodist, Presbyterian,
Baptist, and Episcopal membership in this country, are not so much
misled by Popery, as they are influenced by _party politics_, and are in
love with the _loose moral code_ of Romanism. It lays no restraints on
their lusts, and gives a loose rein to all their unsanctified passions
and desires. Backslidden, unconverted, or unprincipled members of
Protestant Churches, find in Popery a _sympathizing irreligion_, adapted
to their vicious lives; and hence they fall in with its disgusting
superstitions and insulting claims. They are, therefore, ensnared with
the delusions of Popery, of _choice_. In other words, Popery is a
system of mere human policy; altogether of Foreign origin; Foreign in
its support; importing Foreign vassals and paupers by multiplied
thousands; and sending into every State and Territory in this Union, a
most baneful Foreign and anti-Republican influence. Its old _goutified_,
immoral, and drunken Pope, his Bishops and Priests, are _politicians_;
men of the world, earthly, sensual, and devilish, and mere men of
pleasure. Associated with them for the purpose, in great State and
National contests, of securing the Catholic vote, are the worst class of
American politicians, designing demagogues, selfish office-seekers, and
bad men, calling themselves _Democrats_ and "Old-Line Whigs!" These
politicians know that Popery, as a system, is in the hands of a Foreign
despotism, precisely what the Koran is in the hands of the Grand Turk
and his partisans. But corrupt and ambitious politicians in this
country, are willing to act the part of traitors to our laws and
Constitution, for the sake of profitable offices; and they are willing
to sacrifice the Protestant Religion, on the ancient and profligate
altar at Rome, if they may but rise to distinction on its ruins!
The great Democratic party of this country, which has degenerated into a
_Semi-Papal Organization_, for the base purposes of power and plunder,
now fully partakes of the intolerant spirit of Rome, and is acting it
out in all the departments of our State and General Governments. What
Romanism has been to the Old World, this Papal and Anti-American
organization seeks and promises to be to this country. What is Popery in
Roman Catholic Europe? It is as intolerant in politics as in religion:
it taxes and oppresses the subjects and citizens of every country; it
interdicts nations; dethrones governors, chief magistrates, and kings;
dissolves civil governments; suspends commerce; annuls civil laws; and,
to gratify its unsanctified lust of ambition, it has overrun whole
nations with bloodshed, and thrown them into confusion. So it is with
this "_Bogus_" Democracy: it wages a war of extermination against the
freedom of the press, and against the liberty of speech, the rights of
human conscience, and the liberties of man: hence its indiscriminate
proscription of all who dare to unite with the AMERICAN PARTY, or openly
espouse their cause. Popery aims at universal power over the bodies and
souls of all men; and history proclaims that its weapons have been
dungeons, racks, chains, fire, and sword! The _bastard_ Democracy of the
present age has united with the Prelates, Priests, Monks, and Nuns of
Romanism, and is daily affiliating with hundreds of thousands of the
very off-scourings of the European Catholic population--stimulating them
to deeds of violence, and to the shedding of blood! To-day, they sustain
a _Baker_ in the foul murder of a _Poole_, in New York, because he was a
member of the so-called Know-Nothing party, which had just routed, in an
election, this Foreign Locofoco party! To-morrow, we find this same vile
party, its editors and orators, sustaining a Foreign Catholic Mob in
Louisville, Ky.; and the members of the same party, in surrounding
States, exulting over the murder of Protestant Americans! And in the
next breath, as it were, we find these sons of Belial, falsely called
_Democrats_, after reaching the power they lusted after in Philadelphia,
sending up shouts over the lawless deeds of a Foreign Catholic riot,
which made the ears of every American citizen to tingle!
Under the guidance of an ALL-WISE PROVIDENCE, the Protector of our
Republic, and of the Protestant Religion, it is in the power of the free
and independent voters of these United States to cause this enemy's long
"_arm to be clean dried up, and his right eye to be utterly darkened_,"
by elevating to the two first offices within the gift of the world,
MILLARD FILLMORE and ANDREW J. DONELSON!
I am, candid Reader, your fellow-citizen,
W. G. BROWNLOW.
KNOXVILLE, July, 1856.
AMERICANISM CONTRASTED
WITH
Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy.
INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.
The Creed of the American Party--The Platform misrepresented by
Mr. Watkins--Official Vote on the adoption of the new
Platform--What the Abolitionists and Democrats say of the
Platform--Seceders from the Nominating Convention, and their
Address.
Lord Byron, just as the war of Greece approached, said: "It is not one
man, nor a million, but the _spirit of liberty_ which must be spread;"
and, carrying out the same bold idea of liberty, he continues, "It is
time to act;" or, in the language of the Know Nothing salutation, "It is
time for work;" for "what signifies _self_, if a single spark of that
genius of liberty worthy of the past, can be bequeathed unquenchably to
the future?" In the language of a fair poetess:
--"Our country is a whole,
Of which we all are parts; nor should a citizen
Regard his interests as distinct from hers:
No hopes or fears should touch his patriot soul,
But what affects her honor or her shame."
The civilization--the nationality--the institutions, civil and
religious--and the mission of the United States, are all eminently
American. Mental light and personal independence, constitutional union,
national supremacy, submission to law and rules of order, homogeneous
population, and instinctive patriotism, are all vital elements of
American liberty, nationality, and upward and onward progress. Foreign
immigration, foreign Catholic influence, and sectional factions
nourished by them--and breeding demagogues in the name of _Democracy_,
by a prostitution of the elective franchise--have already corrupted our
nationality, degraded our councils, both State and National, weakened
the bonds of union, disturbed our country's peace, and awakened
apprehensions of insecurity and _progressive deterioration_, threatening
ultimate ruin! To rescue and restore American institutions--to maintain
American nationality, and to secure American birthrights, is the mission
and the sole purpose of the AMERICAN PARTY--composed of conservative,
patriotic, Protestant, Union-loving, native-born citizens of every
section, and of every Christian denomination--self-sacrificing patriots,
who prefer their country, and the religion of their fathers, and of the
Bible, to a factious name, a plundering political organization, and an
infamous Papal hierarchy!
The paramount and ultimate object of our AMERICAN ORGANIZATION is to
save and exalt the Union, and to preserve and perpetuate the rights and
blessings of the Protestant religion. We contend that American
principles should mould American policy; that American mind should rule
American destiny; that all sectional parties, such as a party _North_,
or a party _South_, should be renounced; that all sectional agitations,
such as are kept up by Abolitionists, Free Soilers, and Black
Republicans, should be resisted; that Congress should never agitate the
subject of domestic slavery, in any form or for any purpose, but leave
it where the Constitution fixes it; that as the destiny of the country
depends on the mind of the country, intelligence should rule; that the
ballot-box should be purified, and corrupt Romanism and foreign
influence checked; that any allegiance "to any foreign prince,
potentate, or power"--to any power, regal or pontifical, should be
rebuked as the most fatal canker of the germ of American independence;
that every citizen should be encouraged to exercise freely his own
conscience; and that the popular mind should be enlightened, and the
popular heart rectified, by proper and universal Christian education.
This is the essence of the American creed; and when methodized into a
Political Decalogue, it constitutes the _Ten Commandments_ of the
American party.
In this connection, and at this point, we will give the much-abused
Platform of the American party, adopted at the session of the National
Council, February 21, 1856. Examine the Platform, and answer to your
conscience the question: What true American head can disapprove--what
pure American heart can revolt? Can men taking their stand on this
Platform be the enemies of civil and religious liberties? Can either
civil or religious liberties rest secure on any other grounds? And must
not those "Bogus" Democrats and Anti-Americans, therefore, who wage war
against this citadel of American birthrights, act as enemies to the
Federal Constitution, enemies to the Union, to the mental independence
of American citizens--enemies to the Protestant religion, and enemies,
consequently, "to civil and religious liberty?"
PLATFORM OF THE AMERICAN PARTY.
1st. An humble acknowledgment to the Supreme Being for his
protecting care vouchsafed to our fathers in their successful
Revolutionary struggle, and hitherto manifested to us, their
descendants, in the preservation of the liberties, the
independence, and the union of these States.
2d. The perpetuation of the Federal Union, as the palladium of
our civil and religious liberties, and the only sure bulwark of
American Independence.
3d. _Americans must rule America_, and to this end,
_native_-born citizens should be selected for all State,
Federal, and municipal offices, or government employment, in
preference to all others: nevertheless,
4th. Persons born of American parents residing temporarily
abroad, should be entitled to all the rights of native-born
citizens; but,
5th. No person should be selected for political station,
(whether of native or foreign birth,) who recognizes any
allegiance or obligation of any description, to any foreign
prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the
Federal and State constitutions (each within its sphere) as
paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.
6th. The unqualified recognition and maintenance of the
reserved rights of the several States, and the cultivation of
harmony and fraternal good-will between the citizens of the
several States; and to this end, non-interference by Congress
with questions appertaining solely to the individual States,
and non-intervention by each State with the affairs of any
other State.
7th. The recognition of the right of the native-born and
naturalized citizens of the United States, permanently residing
in any Territory thereof, to frame their constitution and laws,
and to regulate their domestic and social affairs in their own
mode, subject only to the provisions of the Federal
Constitution, with the privilege of admission into the Union
whenever they have the requisite population for one
Representative in Congress. _Provided always_, that none but
those who are citizens of the United States, under the
constitution and laws thereof, and who have a fixed residence
in any such Territory, ought to participate in the formation of
the constitution, or in the enactment of laws for said
Territory or State.
8th. An enforcement of the principle that no State or Territory
ought to admit others than citizens of the United States to the
right of suffrage, or of holding political office.
9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a continued
residence of twenty-one years, of all not hereinbefore provided
for, an indispensable requisite for citizenship hereafter, and
excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of crime, from
landing upon our shores; but no interference with the vested
rights of foreigners.
10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State: no
interference with religious faith or worship, and no test-oaths
for office.
11th. Free and thorough investigation into any and all alleged
abuses of public functionaries, and a strict economy in public
expenditures.
12th. The maintenance and enforcement of all laws
constitutionally enacted, until said laws shall be repealed, or
shall be declared null and void by competent judicial
authority.
13th. Opposition to the reckless and unwise policy of the
present administration in the general management of our
national affairs, and more especially as shown in removing
"Americans" (by designation) and conservatives in principle,
from office, and placing foreigners and ultraists in their
places: as shown in a truckling subserviency to the stronger,
and an insolent and cowardly bravado toward the weaker powers:
as shown in reoepening sectional agitation, by the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise: as shown in granting to unnaturalized
foreigners the right of suffrage in Kansas and Nebraska: as
shown in its vacillating course on the Kansas and Nebraska
question: as shown in the corruptions which pervade some of the
departments of the government: as shown in disgracing
meritorious naval officers through prejudice or caprice; and as
shown in the blundering mismanagement of our foreign relations.
14th. Therefore, to remedy existing evils, and prevent the
disastrous consequences otherwise resulting therefrom, we would
build up the "American party" upon the principles hereinbefore
stated.
15th. That each State Council shall have authority to amend
their several constitutions, so as to abolish the several
degrees, and institute a pledge of honor, instead of other
obligations, for fellowship and admission into the party.
16th. A free and open discussion of all political principles
embraced in our platform.
The HON. MR. WATKINS, a renegade from the American ranks, in East
Tennessee, delivered a speech in Congress on the 6th of May, 1856; which
speech we find reported in the _Washington Union_--a speech which
betrays an utter ignorance of the point he undertook to discuss. It is
due to _his betrayed constituents_ that we should expose his ignorance,
and the blundering fallacy of his attempts to justify his turning
_Locofoco Cataline Judas Sag-Nicht_! He says, as reported by his
political organ-grinder:
"But, sir, the platform recently adopted by the Philadelphia
Convention cannot receive my approbation. I cannot support Mr.
Fillmore, or any other distinguished Whig, upon that platform.
The only solitary plank in the Philadelphia platform of June,
1855, was the twelfth section--that section which denied to
Congress the right to interfere with slavery in the
Territories, declaring the doctrine of non-intervention, and of
popular sovereignty in the Territories. But, sir, that plank in
the platform was stricken out by the convention recently held,
and the sixth resolution of the platform then adopted
substituted in its place. And what does that resolution
endorse? Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution
of the Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right
of Congress to interfere upon the subject of slavery in the
sixth resolution of the Philadelphia platform? Certainly not."
In lieu of the _June_ platform, we have this _February_ platform. The
June platform contained _no such denial to Congress_, as is here alleged
by Mr. Watkins, of the right to interfere with slavery in the
Territories! And it is marvellous, indeed, that a grave Member of
Congress should undertake to discuss Platforms, which he had either
never read, or the purport of which, if he had ever read them, he had
either wholly forgotten, or lacked the sense to comprehend! The twelfth
section of the June Platform says:
"And expressly _pretermitting any expression of opinion_ upon
the power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any
Territory, it is the sense of this National Council, that
Congress OUGHT NOT to legislate upon the subject of slavery
within the Territories of the United States."
Thus, instead of _denying_ to Congress the right to interfere with
slavery in the Territories, as erroneously and recklessly charged by
this new-born Democrat, all opinion on that subject was "_expressly
pretermitted_" in the June Platform! Mr. Watkins was in such a hurry to
join the Forney, Pierce, and Catholic Democracy, that he did not stop to
examine even the Platform which most disgusted him! But this is not the
worst blunder which he committed in that speech. He turned to the new
Platform, and asked, with an air of triumph:
"Is there any non-intervention in the sixth resolution of the
(new) Philadelphia platform? Is there any denial of the right
of Congress to interfere with the subject of slavery in the
sixth resolution of the (new) Philadelphia platform?"
And he answers, "_Certainly not!_" The ignorant man, it would seem, only
read as far as to the sixth section of the new Platform; and even _that_
section contains a direct affirmative answer to his question; which, in
order to place the American party in a false position, he answers,
"_Certainly not!_"
Now, we ask such as may have noticed his _misrepresentations_, to read a
_little further on_, at least to the end of the 7th section of this new
Platform, and see where it leaves Mr. Watkins! Turn back to the 7th
section, and it will be seen that this section, instead of
"_pretermitting any opinion_" on the question, announces the doctrine
that the citizens of the United States permanently residing in the
Territories, have a "_right_" to frame their Constitution and laws, and
to regulate their domestic affairs in their own mode, subject only to
the provisions of the Federal Constitution!
The _New York Evening Post_, a Pierce and foreign Democratic organ, thus
alludes to the action of the Convention which nominated FILLMORE and
DONELSON:--
"The 12th section of the June Platform, it is true, had been
abrogated; BUT IT HAD BEEN REPLACED BY ANOTHER, MEANING
PRECISELY THE SAME THING!"
The _Cincinnati Gazette_, an Abolition, Anti-American Foreign sheet,
came out in opposition to the American nominees, in its issue of Feb.
29th, 1856, on account of the _Pro-slavery_ character of the new
Platform. The Gazette says:--
"We are glad that the action of the Convention _proved so
decided as to leave no doubt as to the character of the
Platform_. THE LATTER IS CLEARLY AND DECIDEDLY PRO-SLAVERY AND
NEBRASKA, _and in this respect corresponds precisely with the_
PRINCIPLES OF THE PIERCE DEMOCRACY! _Fillmore and Donelson_ are
therefore presented to the American people as candidates for
the Presidency and Vice Presidency, ON A THOROUGH AND DECIDED
NEBRASKA PRO-SLAVERY PLATFORM, and the citizens of Northern
States are asked to vote for them!"
The _New York Tribune_, whose editor was a prominent member of the
Pittsburgh Black Republican Convention, and who is violent in his
opposition to FILLMORE and DONELSON, says:
"The object of the Know Nothings has dwindled down to this--TO
DEFEAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY! That is to say, this is the object
of those who have managed the Philadelphia Convention, and
nominated Mr. Fillmore. I have diligently inquired for a member
who voted for _Banks_ for Speaker, and now supports _Fillmore_;
but up to this time--more than three days after the
nomination--I have not heard of one. That sort must be scarce!"
The following is the OFFICIAL vote on the adoption of the new Platform
by the National Council, which met four days previous to the Nominating
Convention:
NEW HAMPSHIRE--_Nays_--Messrs. Colby and Emery.
MASSACHUSETTS--_Yeas_--Messrs. Ely, Weith, Brewster, Robinson,
and Arnold. _Nays_--Messrs. Richmond, Wheelwright, Temple,
Thurston, Sumner, Allen, Sawin, and Hawkes.
CONNECTICUT--_Nays_--Messrs. Sperry, Dunbar, Peck, Booth,
Holley, and Perkins.
RHODE ISLAND--_Yeas_--Messrs. Chase and Knight. _Nays_--Messrs.
Simons and Nightingale.
NEW YORK--_Yeas_--Messrs. Walker, Oakley, Morgan, Woodward,
Reynolds, Chester, Owens, Sanders, Whiston, Nichols, Van Dusen,
Westbrook, Parsons, Picket, Campbell, Lowell, Sammons, Oakes,
Seymour, Squire, Cooper, Burr, Bennett, Marvine, Midler,
Stephens, Johnson, Wetmore, Hammond, and S. Seymour. _Nay_--Mr.
Barker.
DELAWARE--_Yeas_--Messrs. Clement and Smithers.
MARYLAND--_Yeas_--Messrs. Codet, Alexander, Winchester,
Stephens, and Wilmot. _Nays_--Messrs. Purnell, Ricaud, Pinkney,
and Kramer.
VIRGINIA--_Nays_--Messrs. Bolling, McHugh, Cochran, Boteler,
Preston, and Maupin.
FLORIDA--_Yea_--Mr. Call.
NEW JERSEY--_Yeas_--Messrs. Deshler, Weeks, Lyon, and
McClellan.
PENNSYLVANIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Freeman, Nelclede, Gossler,
Smith, Gillinham, Hammond, Wood, Gilford, Pyle, Farrand, and
Williamson. _Nays_--Messrs. Johnson, Sewell, Jones, Parker,
Heistand, Kase, Kinkaid, Coffee, Carlisle, Crovode, Edie,
Sewell, and Power.
LOUISIANA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Lathrop and Elam. _Nays_--Messrs.
Harman and Hardy.
CALIFORNIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Wood and Stanley.
ARKANSAS--_Yea_--Mr. Logan. _Nay_--Mr. Fowler.
TENNESSEE--_Yeas_--Messrs. Brownlow, Bankhead, Zollicoffer,
Burton, Campbell, Donelson, Harris, Bilbo, and Beloat.
_Nays_--Messrs. Nelson, Reedy, and Picket.
KENTUCKY--_Yeas_--Messrs. Stowers, Campbell, Raphael, Todd,
Clay, Goodloe, and Bartlett. _Nays_--Messrs. Shanklin, Jones,
Carpenter, Gist, and Underwood.
OHIO--_Yeas_--Messrs. White, Nash, Simpson, and Lippett.
_Nays_--Messrs. Gabriel, Olds, Ford, Barker, Potter, Stanbaugh,
Rodgers, Spooner, Hodges, Kyle, Lees, Swigart, Allison,
Fishback, Thomas, Corwine, Chapman, Ayres, and Johnson.
INDIANA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Sheets and Phelps. _Nay_--Mr.
Meredith.
MISSOURI--_Yeas_--Messrs. Edward, Fletcher, and Hockaday.
_Nay_--Mr. Breckenridge.
MICHIGAN--_Yea_--Mr. Wood.
WISCONSIN--_Yeas_--Messrs. Lockwood, Cook, Chandler, and
Gillies.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA--_Yeas_--Messrs. Ellis and Evans.
ILLINOIS--_Yeas_--Messrs. Danenhower and Allen. _Nays_--Messrs.
Jennings and Gear.
IOWA--_Nays_--Messrs. Webster and Thorrington.
_Yeas_--108. _Nays_--77.
We will close this chapter by giving the delegates who seceded from the
Nominating Convention, with the Address published by them on the
occasion. That recession was a more inconsiderable affair than has been
represented by the foreign party of this country. The author of this
work was the Chairman of the large Committee on Credentials, and
reported TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-SEVEN delegates, which report was
received without opposition, as to numbers. Of these, _forty-two_ only
seceded, viz.: 13 out of 28 from Ohio; _one_ of two from New Hampshire;
6--all--from Connecticut; 2 out of 13 from Massachusetts; _one_ out of 3
from Illinois; 7 out of 27 from Pennsylvania; _one_ out of 4 from Rhode
Island; 5--all--from Michigan; 5--all--from Wisconsin; _one_--all--from
Iowa; 42 out of 277--not a _sixth_, and but little over a _seventh_ of
the whole!
ADDRESS.
The seceders or "bolters" made the following address, to which they
appended their States and names. What they say of the _Louisiana_
delegates, we have explained in another portion of this work:
"The undersigned, delegates to the nominating Convention now in
session at Philadelphia, find themselves compelled to dissent
from the principles avowed by that body; and holding opinions,
as they do, that the restoration of the Missouri Compromise, as
demanded by a majority of the whole people, is a redress of an
undeniable wrong, and the execution of it, in spirit at least,
indispensable to the repose of the country, they have regarded
the refusal of that Convention to recognize the well-defined
opinion of the country, and of the Americans of the free
States, upon this question, as a denial of their rights and a
rebuke to their sentiments; and they hold that the admission
into the National Council and nominating Convention, of
delegates from Louisiana, representing a Roman Catholic
Constituency, absolved every true American from all obligations
to sustain the action of either of the said bodies.
"They have therefore withdrawn from the nominating Convention,
refusing to participate in the proposed nomination, and now
address themselves to the Americans of the country, and
especially of the States they represent, to justify and approve
of their action; and to the end that a nomination conforming to
the overruling sentiment of the country in the great issue may
be regularly and auspiciously made, the undersigned propose to
the Americans in all the States to assemble in their several
State organizations, and elect delegates to a Convention to
meet in the city of New York, on Thursday, the 12th day of June
next, for the purpose of nominating candidates for President
and Vice President of the United States."
OHIO--Thos. H. Ford, J. H. Baker, B. S. Kyle, W. H. C.
Mitchell, E. T. Sturtevant, O. T. Fishback, Jacob Ebbert, Wm.
B. Allison, H. C. Hodges, L. H. Olds, W. B. Chapman, Thos.
McYees, Charles Nichols.
NEW HAMPSHIRE--Anthony Colby.
CONNECTICUT--Lucius G. Peck, Jas. E. Dunham, Hezekiah Griswold,
Austin Baldwin, Edmund Perkins, David Booth.
MASSACHUSETTS--Wild. S. Thurston, Z. R. Pangborn.
ILLINOIS--Henry S. Jennings.
PENNSYLVANIA--Wm. F. Johnston, S. C. Kase, R. M. Riddle, T. J.
Coffey, John Williamson, J. Harrison, S. Ewell.
RHODE ISLAND--E. J. Nightingale.
MICHIGAN--S. T. Lyon, W. Fuller, W. S. Wood, P. P. Meddler, J.
Hamilton.
WISCONSIN--D. A. Gillis, John Lockwood, Robt. Chandler, G.
Burdick, C. W. Cook.
IOWA--L. H. Webster.
THE ELECTION OF BANKS--THE SLAVERY QUESTION.
One of the issues in the Presidential contest now going on, is the
_slavery question_. A. O. P. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, of the Washington
Union, who canvassed this State in opposition to Scott, and shed his
_crocodile_ tears before every crowd he addressed, because so good a man
as Fillmore, who had stood firm for the _rights of the South_, had been
set aside by an ungrateful Convention at Baltimore, to give place to
Scott, the favorite of _Seward_--this miserable hypocrite, we say, now
comes out and says, "Fillmore's abolitionism will suit the North."
The Central Democratic Committee for East Tennessee, in a call for a
District Convention at Clinton, in May last, through the _Knoxville
Standard_, conclude said call in this language:
"The time has again arrived when the national Democracy must
rally to their country's call and preserve the Constitution as
it is in its purity, and perpetuate the union of the States
from the rain which the _Black Republican Party of the North_,
aided by THEIR KNOW-NOTHING ALLIES OF THE SOUTH, would bring
upon them. By order of the
"CENTRAL COMMITTEE."
The _Sag-Nicht Convention_ held at Somerville, on Thursday the 8th of
May, and which selected D. M. Currin as their Electoral candidate,
adopted the following resolution:
"_Resolved_, That we have been appointed by the Democracy of
this Electoral District to organize to fight, in the coming
Presidential election, the BLACK REPUBLICANS AND KNOW-NOTHINGS.
_Resolved_, That we _can_ beat them, and we _will_ do it.
_Resolved_, That we will cordially receive the _co-operation of
all Old-Line Whigs_ who will assist us in carrying out these
resolutions."
Now, the charge is here made that the Know-Nothings of the South are the
allies of the Black Republicans of the North. This is the impression
intended to be made, first by these _concealed calumniators_ at
Knoxville, and afterwards by the _open and avowed slanderers_ of the
same party at Somerville! With such _wholesale lying_ as is displayed in
both of these cases, we have but little patience: we only give their
language, to show their recklessness in making such an issue. And
although this Foreign party claim to be the guardians of Southern
interests, we propose to show, before we conclude this chapter, that
they are themselves the "allies of the Black Republicans of the North,"
and are giving them more "aid and comfort" than all the other parties in
the country!
FRANCIS P. BLAIR, former editor of Gen. Jackson's organ at Washington,
was the President of the Black Republican Convention at Pittsburg, in
February last! _John M. Niles_; Democratic Senator in Congress, was
President of the Black Republican Convention held in Connecticut! In the
Pittsburg Convention, over which Blair presided, PRESTON KING, ABIJAH
MANN, DAVID WILMOT, and JACOB BRINKERHOFF, Old-Line Democrats, figured
conspicuously.
For two long and cold winter months, the Democrats, both North and
South, voted for _Richardson_, of Illinois, for Speaker, a violent
_anti-slavery man_, whose speeches _against_ slavery, and in _favor_ of
Abolitionism, were matters of record in the Congressional Globe, and
were delivered on the floor of Congress so late as 1850! The _immortal_
75 Democrats did not cease to vote for this man _Richardson_, until GEN.
ZOLLICOFFER, of Tennessee, read his speeches upon him, in the presence
of his friends!
On the 2d of February, SAMUEL A. SMITH, of Tennessee, a Democratic
Representative in Congress, _renewed_ his motion to adopt the PLURALITY
RULE. His proposition, which it was evident would elect _Banks_, was
carried by Black Republican votes, who went for it in a body. This would
still not have elected _Banks_, but for the fact that the following
_Democrats_ voted for the odious plurality rule: _Clingman_, _Herbert_,
_Hickman_, _Jewett_, _Kelley_, _Barclay_, _Bayard_, _Wells_, _Williams_,
and SAMUEL A. SMITH! Mr. Clarke was the only American who voted for the
odious rule!
MR. CARLILE, a national American, of Virginia, before the vote was taken
upon this plurality rule, offered the following substitute for it:
"_Resolved_, That the HON. WM. AIKEN, a Representative from the
State of South Carolina, be, and he is hereby declared Speaker
of the Thirty-Fourth Congress."
GOV. AIKEN is a sound Southern Democrat--never was any thing else--but
COL. SMITH _objected_, and demanded the _previous question_, which cut
off MR. CARLILE'S resolution, and which was to prevent its adoption! The
candidate of the Democratic party, at that time, MR. ORR, immediately
_withdrew in favor of_ GOV. AIKEN, upon the introduction of MR.
CARLILE'S resolution; and to _prevent Aiken's election_, SAMUEL A. SMITH
cut off said resolution by a call of the previous question!
Banks was elected by _one_ vote, and this could not be accomplished
until SEVEN DEMOCRATS got _behind the bar_, and refused to vote at all!
These were HICKMAN, PARKER, and BARCLAY, of Pennsylvania; CRAIG, of
North Carolina; TAYLOR, of Louisiana; RICHARDSON, of Illinois; and
SEWARD, of Georgia! Any _two_ of these _Southern_ Democrats could have
made AIKEN Speaker, but they did not want him--they knew Banks to be a
_Democrat_, if he were a Black Republican--and to elect him, they
believed would give them the strength of that odious party in the coming
contest.
We have before us the _Washington Union_ of Sept. 27th, 1853, giving,
editorially, a glowing account of the Massachusetts Democratic State
Convention, reporting the speech of Nathaniel P. Banks, of Waltham,
concluding that report in these words:
"Mr. Banks emphatically and decidedly, on his own part, and on
that of the _Democrats of Massachusetts_, disclaimed the truth
of the rumors in certain newspapers that an arrangement had
been entered into with another political party in the
Commonwealth concerning the distribution of State offices. It
was his and this Convention's and all true Democrats' desire,
belief, and determination, that Henry W. Bishop should be
elected governor of Massachusetts, and that the other
Democratic State officers should also be elected. He was not
afraid of defeat, and less afraid of _Whig success_, which, to
judge by its recent effects, was simply equivalent to a defeat.
[Applause.]"
It may be said, and doubtless will be, that _Banks_ has allied himself
with the Republicans. But Banks says he has _always been a Democrat_,
and that he was _nominated as a Democrat in his district_. And certain
it is, that he was elected Speaker by DEMOCRATS, under the _compulsion_
of an odious plurality rule, and the _gag_ of the previous question!
It will be said, and said truthfully too, that SIX AMERICANS FROM THE
NORTH voted for MR. FULLER, of Pennsylvania. So they did; and in doing
so, they voted for a sound national and conservative man. But did this
justify _Southern_ Democrats in _dodging_ the question, and thereby
electing a Black Republican Speaker? Gov. Aiken was the candidate of the
_seven_ Democrats--he was not the candidate of the _six_ Americans!
Democracy, moreover, had refused to vote for an American under any
circumstances, and had, on the first day of the meeting of Congress,
passed a resolution insulting the whole American party, in caucus! We
would have seen them banished to the farthest verge of astronomical
imagination, before we would have voted for any man that favored that
insulting resolution!
In 1847, by a _unanimous vote_, both branches of the Legislature of New
Hampshire adopted resolutions denunciatory of the institution of
slavery, and approving of the Wilmot Proviso. These resolutions were
reported to the House, by the Representative from Hillsboro, the native
town of _Gen. Pierce_, and were in the _handwriting_ of Pierce!
On the 2d of October, 1847, the Democratic Soft-Shells, who are now the
supporters of Pierce's administration, and fill the offices he has to
dispose of in New York, held a State Convention, and declared their
"_uncompromising hostility to slavery_" in a string of resolutions they
adopted and ordered to be published.
On the 16th of February, 1848, a Democratic State Convention for New
York convened at Utica, to appoint Delegates to the National Convention
to nominate candidates for President and Vice President, at which a
string of anti-Southern resolutions were adopted, denouncing "_slavery_
or _involuntary servitude_," as repugnant to the genius of
Republicanism.
On the 18th of July, 1848, the Democratic Soft-Shells held a
mass-meeting in the park of New York, and, by way of making perfect
their organization against General Cass, declared, by resolutions, their
"_uncompromising hostility to slavery or involuntary servitude!_"
On the 13th of September, 1848, a Democratic mass-meeting convened at
Buffalo, in New York, and, in a general Abolition jubilee, adopted
resolutions condemning and denouncing the institution of slavery!
In 1852, while the contest was going on between Pierce and Scott, the
_Washington Union_ said, editorially:
"THE FREE-SOIL DEMOCRATIC LEADERS OF THE NORTH, ARE A REGULAR
PORTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY; AND GENERAL PIERCE, IF
ELECTED, WILL MAKE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM AND THE REST OF
THE DEMOCRACY IN THE DISTRIBUTION OF OFFICIAL PATRONAGE, AND IN
THE SELECTION OF AGENTS FOR ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT!"
The Black Republicans recently held a meeting in New York, at which
_Benjamin F. Butler_, of "pious memory," and Van Buren Swartwout
notoriety, presided! On his right hand sat, as Vice President of the
meeting, _Moses H. Grinnell_, one of the Democratic "pipe-layers" of
1840, whom this Van Buren Attorney-General Butler made efforts to send
to the State prison! Another Vice President, gravely looking on, and
arranged in dignified grandeur upon the stand, was John W. Edmonds,
ex-"blanket contractor" in a large swindle, and a practical
spiritual-rapper! A third and last Vice President was the notorious _Dr.
Townsend_, the sarsaparilla man, who has not yet wound up his
controversy with a man of the same name, as to who is the greatest
rascal in the way of manufacturing this medicine!
Among the other officers, secretaries, and prominent men in the meeting,
was _C. A. Dana_, of the Tribune office, a _Fourierist_, who, at a
public meeting on a former occasion, toasted "Horace Greeley, Charles
Fourier, and Jesus Christ!" Prominent in the meeting was _C. A.
Stetson_, of the Astor House, an _Amalgamationist_. Henry J. Raymond,
the Abolition editor of the Times, and _Rudolph Garrigue_, a noisy
German Abolitionist, looked and acted as though they believed the
salvation of the Union depended upon the success of the Republicans! A
fellow who made frequent motions, an Irishman by the name of _McMorrow_,
had served an apprenticeship of twelve months in the State prison, for
breaking open a store after night! The principal speaker, who spoke for
two hours on the subject of slavery, was the notorious _Bingham_, an
itinerant Abolitionist from Ohio. It was a queer medley of men, parties,
principles, and characters--two-thirds of all the active partisans in
the meeting having held offices in the ranks of Democracy! And still,
that party boasts of its Northern wing being sound upon the slavery
question.
And here is the resolution of the 8th of January _Democratic_ Convention
in Ohio, appointing delegates to the Cincinnati Pow-wow:
"_Resolved_, That the people of Ohio now, as they have always
done, look upon slavery as an evil, and unfavorable to the
development of the spirit and practical benefits of free
institutions; and that, entertaining these sentiments, they
will at all times feel it to be their duty to use all power
clearly given by the terms of the national compact, to prevent
its increase, to mitigate, _and finally eradicate the evil_."
To show, just here, where Tennessee Democrats stand upon the infamous
Wilmot Proviso question, we give the following extract from a recent
number of the _Nashville Patriot_:
JAMES K. POLK,
who, in 1847, approved the Oregon bill, which contained this
odious and unconstitutional clause: next in order is
CAVE JOHNSON,
now President of the Bank of Tennessee, who voted for the same
bill which Mr. Polk sanctioned: next we have
AARON V. BROWN,
an aspirant before the Cincinnati Convention, who did likewise:
then comes
JULIUS W. BLACKWELL,
a star whose light has been quenched in obscurity, but who
voted with his colleagues for the Oregon bill in '47: next in
the procession of Southern men "dangerous to the South" is
BARCLAY MARTIN,
President Pierce's U. S. Mail Agent, who cast a similar vote:
following him we have
LUCIEN B. CHASE,
author of the History of the Polk Administration, at present a
resident of New York city, but at the time he exhibited himself
as "a dangerous man to the South," a representative in Congress
from this State: he is succeeded by
FRED. P. STANTON,
for ten years a Democratic Congressman from the Memphis
district: he voted for the Oregon bill, with the Wilmot
Proviso annexed: behind him in the march is
ALVAN CULLOM,
a Democratic Congressman, who has squatted on the _other_ side
of one of his native mountains in the fourth district, and been
quiescent for some years: he was one of the Tennessee
"dangerous men:" he voted twice for the Wilmot Proviso: in the
same category is
GEORGE W. JONES,
in the language of another, the "goose which cackles at the
door of the Treasury vault:" notorious as a Southern supporter
of the Squatter Sovereignty doctrine, with two votes on record
in favor of the Wilmot Proviso. He may be reckoned as _very_
"dangerous to the South:" last, but not least in this dread
array of "dangerous men," is
ANDREW JOHNSON,
the present Governor of Tennessee, and Cincinnati aspirant: he
voted _three_ times for the Wilmot Proviso, and so doubtful are
his doctrines on the slavery question, that many slaveholding
members of his own party regard him as _extremely_ "dangerous
to the South."
By the way, in 1842, this same _Gov. Johnson_ was a Senator in our State
Legislature, and introduced the following _Abolition_ resolutions,
commonly called his _White Basis System_:
"_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee_,
That the basis to be observed in laying the State off into
Congressional districts shall be the voting population, WITHOUT
ANY REGARD TO THREE-FIFTHS OF THE <DW64> POPULATION.
"_Resolved_, That the 120,083 qualified voters shall be divided
by eleven, and that each eleventh of the 120,083 of qualified
voters shall be entitled to elect one member in the Congress of
the United States, or so near as may be practicable without a
division of counties."
The position of Gov. Johnson is this: he wishes the State entitled to
her slave representation _as a State_, but _in her own borders_ the
representative districts are to be made according to her white
population! In other words, he desires the State to retain her _ten_
Congressmen, representing both her white and slave population, but
wishes them appointed throughout the State without regard to the slave
population: so that the county containing ten thousand white
inhabitants, and double that number of slaves, should be entitled to no
more representation than the county containing _ten_ thousand white
inhabitants and no slaves!
We heard Johnson last summer, in his debate with Gentry, in Campbell
county, contend that the county of Campbell should have the same
representation in Congress as the county of Shelby, which he stated had
FIFTEEN THOUSAND <DW64>s! He appealed to the prejudices and passions of
the poor--inquired of the hard working-men of that county how they liked
to see their wives and daughters _offset_, in enumerating the strength
of the county, by the "_greasy <DW64> wenches of Shelby, Davidson,
Fayette, Sumner and Rutherford counties_." He made a real, stirring
abolition appeal to the poor, and non-slaveholding portion of the crowd,
which was in the proportion of _ten to one_ of that county, to array
them against the rich, and especially against the owners of large
numbers of slaves. He told them that these <DW64> wenches belonged to the
lordly slaveholders of Middle and West Tennessee, and that as our
Constitution now is, these wenches were placed on an _equality_ with the
fair daughters and virtuous wives of laboring men. On this ground he
advocated his infamous amendment to the Constitution, which would
incorporate his "White Basis" scheme!
This is a rank Abolition measure, and fraught with more danger to the
South than any thing proposed by the whole brood of Abolitionists, Free
Soilers, and Black Republicans at the North. Already the South is weak
enough, and not at all able to vote with the North in our National
Legislature. The effect of this scheme is to deprive the South of
one-third of her strength in Congress. Not only is this the effect, but
it is the design of the mover. We hold that Johnson is a Free Soiler,
and has been for years. It is stated by his Northern Democratic friends,
that when he quit Congress, he came home to run for Governor--with a
determination, if defeated, to remove to some of the Northwestern
States, and take a new start! Had he been defeated by Maj. Henry in
1853, he would now be a Black Republican in one of the Free States,
running for office! And yet the propagator of this infamous Abolition
doctrine of a "White Basis" representation--this demagogue who arrays
the poor against slaveholders, is the man for the ultra guardians of the
slave interests of the South! A man who would not own <DW64>s when he
could, but loaned his money out at interest, and left his wife and
daughters to do their own work--a man who is at heart and in his
doctrines a rank Free Soiler--a man who has only remained in the South
to _experiment_ upon office-seeking! This is the man that Georgia,
Alabama, Virginia, Mississippi, and Carolinas, rejoiced to see elected
Governor of a Southern slave State!
It was seeing the position of Johnson on this question that induced the
"_Democratic Herald_" in Ohio, in June, 1855, thus to notice our race
for Governor:
"TENNESSEE.--An animated contest is going on in this good old
Democratic State for Governor, and the largest crowds flock to
hear the candidates that ever attended political meetings since
the Hero of New Orleans used to address the masses in person.
The present incumbent, Andrew Johnson, is the Democratic
candidate, and a _Mr. Gentry_, a _pro-slavery_ renegade from
the Federal Whig ranks, is the opposing candidate, brought out
by a Know Nothing conclave. This man is on the stump abusing
the Catholics, and denouncing them for their tyranny, while he
openly advocates the _slavery doctrines of Southern Niggerdom_!
On the other hand, his competitor, Gov. Johnson, well and
favorably known to our leading Democrats of Ohio, HAS NO
SYMPATHIES WITH SLAVERY, and is the advocate of such amendments
to the Federal Constitution as will give all power to the
people, and EFFECTUALLY PUT DOWN THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY!"
Now, this showing up of Democracy, on the Slavery question, may look
_shabby_ to many ultra Southern men, and it may induce them to charge
that the Democratic party are _inconsistent_. We defend them against the
charge of _inconsistency_, and maintain that what would be called
_inconsistency_ here, is nothing but _Democracy_. For instance, A. O. P.
Q. X. Y. Z. Nicholson, the editor of the great official organ of
Democracy at Washington, said, editorially, and "by authority," so late
as 1855:
"IT IS NO PART OF THE CREED OF A DEMOCRAT, AS SUCH, TO ADVOCATE
OR OPPOSE THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY. HE MAY DO THE ONE OR THE
OTHER, IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN, AND NOT
OFFEND AGAINST HIS DEMOCRATIC FEALTY!"
Precisely so! A man may advocate the _abolition_ of slavery where it
exists; he may, as a Black Republican, arm himself with Sharpe's rifle,
and go into Kansas, and shoot down pro-slavery men, and still be a
consistent Democrat, if he vote for the party, and stand by the nominees
of the party conventions! Hence, all the factions at home and from
abroad--all religions--all the ends and odds of God's creation are now
associated together, and are battling in the same unholy cause, in the
name of _Democracy_!
And further to exhibit the inconsistency of this Democratic and Foreign
party, it will be recollected that, in 1844, they nominated SILAS
WRIGHT, of New York, for Vice-President, to run on the ticket with COL.
POLK--a position he declined, because he would not agree to be _second
best_ on the ticket. In a letter to JAMES H. TITUS, ESQ., bearing date
April 15, 1847, MR. WRIGHT says:
"If the question had been propounded to me at any period of my
public life, Shall the arms of the Union be employed to
conquer, or the money of the Union be used to purchase
Territory now constitutionally free, for the purpose of
planting Slavery upon it, I should have answered, No! And this
answer to this question is the Wilmot Proviso, as I understand
it. _I am surprised that any one should suppose me capable of
entertaining any other opinion, or giving any other answer as
to such a proposition._"
Now, if SILAS WRIGHT, one of the great "Northern lights" of Democracy,
held these sentiments in 1847, what must they have been in 1844, when
that party sought to elevate him to the second office within the gift of
the nation? But we are just reminded of what is said in "the law and the
prophets," that is to say, "_It is no part of the creed of a Democrat_,
AS SUCH, _to advocate or oppose the extension of slavery!_" What a
party!
[From the Knoxville Whig for Sept. 22, 1855.]
TO REV. A. B. LONGSTREET,
PROFESSOR OF METHODISM, ROMANISM, AND LOCOFOCOISM.
REVEREND SIR:--I see a _pastoral address_ of yours, to "Methodist
Know-Nothing Preachers," going the rounds of the Locofoco Foreign Sag
Nicht papers of the South, occupying from four to six columns, according
to the dimensions of the papers copying. I have waded through your
learned address, and find it to be one of more ponderous magnitude than
the Report made to the British House of Commons, by Lord North, on a
subject of far greater interest! And as I am one of the class of men you
address, notwithstanding your great advantage over me in point of age
and experience; and as no one has made a _formal_ response to your
_pious warnings_, it will not be deemed insolent in me to take you up.
My first acquaintance with you was in 1847, at an Annual Meeting of the
Georgia Conference, held in Madison; and although the impressions made
upon my mind by you, on that occasion, were any thing but favorable to
you, as a man, still, I am capable, as I believe, of doing you justice.
I supposed you then to be the rise of sixty years, certainly in your
_dotage_ and among the _vainest_ old gentlemen I had ever met with. You
obtained leave, as I understand, by your own seeking, to deliver a
lecture to the Conference, upon the subject of _correctly reading and
pronouncing the Scriptures_. I was in attendance, and listened to you
with all the attention and impartiality I was capable of exercising. I
thought it a little _presumptuous_ for any one man to assume to teach
more than one hundred able ministers how to read and pronounce the
inspired writings; and the more so, when I knew that several of the
number were presidents and professors in different male and female
colleges, and that many others of them were graduates of the best
literary institutions in the South. Still, my apology for you was, that
you was a vain old gentleman, and that to listen to you, respectfully,
was to obey the Divine teaching of one who has taught us to "bear the
infirmities of the weak." Your _samples_, both of reading and
pronunciation, were amusing and novel to me. And so far as I could
gather the prevailing sentiment, it was, that to adopt your style would
render the reading of the Scriptures perfectly ridiculous.
In your address to "Methodist Know-Nothing Preachers," I discover that
you are still the man you were at Madison, in 1847: you have a great
deal to say about _yourself_, and make free use of the personal pronoun
I! _I_ advise--_I_ believe--_I_ am satisfied--_I_ will not agree--_I_
warn and caution--_I_ fear, or _I_ apprehend, etc. To parse the
different sentences in your partisan harangue syntactically, little else
is necessary but to understand the _first person singular_, and to
repeat the rule as often as it occurs: a peculiarity which characterizes
every paragraph in your labored address. Beside, the frequent use of the
pronouns _I_, _me_, _my_, _mine_, etc., too frequently occur to be worth
estimating. And it will be seen, upon examination, that not merely the
verbiage, but the sentiment, is thus egotistic throughout, exhibiting a
degree of arrogance and self-importance, only to be met with in a
_Clerical Locofoco_, used by bad men for ignoble purposes. To carry out
the idea of your _vanity_, you say in the winding up of your address:
"And now, brethren, have _I_ or Mr. Wesley hit upon one good
reason why you should not have joined the Know-Nothings? If
either of _us_ have, then _I_ beseech you to come from among
them. If _we_ have not, there is yet another in reserve which,
if it does not prevail will show--or prove to my satisfaction
at least--that if _an angel from heaven_ were to denounce your
order, you would cleave to it still."
Any other man but yourself would, from considerations of _modesty_, have
given JOHN WESLEY the preference, in this connection, and come in as
_second best_. But no, you are _first in place_, and, in your own
estimation, in _importance_ likewise, as a religious teacher.
I have no doubt you consider yourself a much greater man than John
Wesley ever was; and in proof of this, I need only cite what you have
said in reference to Mr. Wesley's opposition to Romanism:
"Even good old John Wesley caught the spirit of the times, and
wrote that letter, from which it appears he thought if the
Catholics got into power, they would abuse Protestants. What
abuse they could have heaped on them, greater than they heaped
on Catholics, short of cutting their throats, I cannot
conceive."
The only superior you acknowledge is CARDINAL WISEMAN, a bigoted Roman
Catholic, and you seem to knock under to him quite reluctantly, and not
without informing the public that you have been a laborious student for
forty years, and "_a profound thinker_." Here is your praise:
"I have been a pretty severe student for near forty years, and
a laborious, if not _profound thinker_ for a long time; but
when I compare myself in intellectual stature with that man, I
shrink in my own estimation to the insignificance of a mite."
So much by way of noticing vanity. You are a literary and theological
star of the first magnitude! You are an encyclopedia of the learning,
science, patriotism, and religion of the country! Sir, if you possessed
a little more _sheep-faced modesty_, and could exhibit a little less of
_lion-headed impudence_ than you do, you would be a much more useful,
not to say successful minister of the New Testament!
Sir, you have taken the field in opposition to Know-Nothingism,
_professedly_ through your deep and abiding concern for Christianity,
and the interests of Methodism. You say:
"You cannot surely be so weak as to suppose you can crush
Romanism by Know-Nothing agencies; but you have almost ruined
Methodism by them already.
"Now the ruler of this nation is spoken evil of by your party
continually, and therefore, in the judgment of Wesley, I might
stand up in the pulpit and defend him."
The truth is, you are influenced alone by partisan political feelings;
and occupying a position in a Mississippi College, in the midst of
Fire-eating Disunion Progressive Democracy, you desire to please them,
rather than serve the interests of your country or Church. To take the
stump, or the pulpit, in defence of _Frank Pierce_ and his corrupt
administration, would be a pleasant talk to you, who have been, all your
life-time, an inveterate Locofoco in politics, and "a profound thinker"
in favor of its iniquitous measures and principles. In your early
political training, you have been swayed by interest and popular favor,
and in most cases at the expense of truth, just as you now are, in your
mad vindication of Romanism. A tool for others to work with, till you
have found yourself in a condition to use such tools as you yourself
have been, you are now a trimmer and weathercock, leading on men of less
sense than yourself, to such distinction as interest and ambition may
dictate!
Sir, you take the ground, throughout, that there is no danger of
Catholics in this country, and that they do not seek to establish their
religion. Here is a specimen of your logic:
"Thank God no religious sect can tyrannize over another in this
country, so long as they all respect the Federal Constitution.
Until we see, then, the Catholics treating that instrument with
disrespect, it is madness to entertain fears of them and worse
than madness to form combinations against them."
Now, sir, the foregoing statement is untrue, and in making it you could
not have been sincere. You are a man of too much sense, and of too much
information, to believe what you are wickedly trying to palm upon
others. Brownson's Quarterly Review, the most able, as well as the most
authentic organ of Catholicism in the United States, employs the
following language to the American people--mark it:
"_Are your free institutions infallible?_ Are they founded on
_Divine right_? This you deny. Is not the proper question for
you to discuss, then, _not_ whether the Papacy be or be not
compatible with republican government, but whether _it be or be
not founded in Divine right_? If the Papacy be founded in
Divine right, it is supreme over whatever is founded only in
human right, and then your institutions should be made to
harmonize with it: not it with your institutions!!! The real
question, then, is not the compatibility or the incompatibility
of the Catholic Church with _democratic institutions_, but, Is
the _Catholic Church the Church of God_?
"Settle this question first. But in point of fact, _democracy
is a mischievous dream, wherever the Catholic Church does not
predominate_, to inspire the people with reverence, and to
teach and accustom them to obedience to authority."
Here is still plainer language from the Roman Catholic Bishop of St.
Louis:
"Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as
in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are
Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part
of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes."
Here is what the _Boston Pilot_ says, a Catholic paper of high standing:
"_No good government can exist_ without religion, and there can
be no religion without an _inquisition_, which is wisely
designed for the promotion and protection of the _true faith_."
Here is the _Shepherd of the Valley_, published under the eye and with
the approbation of the Bishop of St. Louis:
"The Church is, of necessity, intolerant. Heresy she endures
when and where she _must_; but she hates it, and directs all
her energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an
immense numerical majority, religious freedom in this country
is _at an end_: so say our enemies--_so say we_."
And here is what the _Rambler_ says, a devoted Catholic periodical, high
in the confidence of the Bishops and Priests of that Church:
"You ask if he (the Pope) were lord in the land, and you were
in the minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he
do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on
circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he
would tolerate you--if expedient, he would imprison you, banish
you, fine you, probably he might even hang you; but, be assured
of one thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the
'glorious principles' of civil and religious liberty."
I could give other quotations of this character, which have met your eye
long since, but I forbear, as they would extend my letter beyond the
limit I have prescribed for myself. These are the publications which, in
part at least, have given rise to the Know-Nothing organization, so
cordially hated by you.
You say there is no danger of injury to our institutions from the rapid
strides of Romanism. Allow me to ask your attention to the following
remarkable political prediction by the Duke of Richmond, late
Governor-General of Canada, and a British noble, who declared himself
hostile to the United States on all occasions. Speaking of our
Government, this deadly enemy said:
"It will be destroyed; it ought not, it will not be permitted
to exist." "The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent
wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its
example; and so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon
his throne; and the _sovereigns of Europe are aware of it_; and
they have _determined upon its destruction, and have come to an
understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means
to accomplish it_; and they will eventually succeed by
SUBVERSION _rather than conquest_." "All the low and surplus
population of the different nations of Europe will be carried
into that country. It is and will be a receptacle for the bad
and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted
for soldiers, or to supply the navies; _and the governments of
Europe will favor such a course_. This will create a surplus
and majority of low population, who are so very easily excited;
and they will _bring with them their principles_; and in nine
cases out of ten adhere to their ancient and former
governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion; and will
transmit them to their posterity; and in many cases propagate
them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and, by
the constitution and laws, will be invested with the right of
suffrage." "Hence, _discord_, _dissension_, _anarchy and civil
war will ensue_; and some popular individual will assume the
government, and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe,
the emigrants, and many of the natives will sustain him." "The
Church of Rome has a design upon that country; and it will in
time be the established religion, and will aid in the
destruction of that Republic." "I have _conversed with many of
the sovereigns and princes of Europe, and they have unanimously
expressed these opinions relative to the government of the
United States, and their determination to subvert it_."
But, sir, after eulogizing Catholics for their devotion to religious
toleration in this country, you make two assertions, touching the
Methodist Church, for which I wish to arraign you, and for which the
authorities of said Church ought to arraign you, under that section of
our Discipline which forbids _railing out against our Doctrines and
Discipline_. You say:
"And if I were to take the stump against you, I would say to
the honest yeomanry of the country. 'Good people, if you think
your liberties will be _any safer in the hands of Methodists
than Catholics, you are vastly mistaken_.'
"I would add, in humiliation but in candor, 'You have ten
thousand times more to fear, just at this time, from
Methodists, than Catholics; simply because the first are more
numerous than the last, because the first are actually in the
field for office, while the last are not.'"
If you have this opinion of the Methodist Church, you cannot be an
honest man and remain within her jurisdiction. You ought to leave her
communion forthwith, and go over to Rome; and in doing this, you would
_not have far to go_! Occupying the position you do, and holding the
sentiments you do, I would not send a child to any school or college
over which you might preside. Nor do I think any Protestant parent or
guardian ought to patronize any school under your care. Your influence,
whatever you may possess, is against the Protestant faith, and in favor
of Catholicism. In a word, you are a dangerous man in a Republican
government.
Upon the subject of religious toleration by the Catholics, you seem to
have fallen into the same error adopted by the Hon. Mr. Stephens, of
Georgia--a man for whom you have great regard now, but who, in the days
of _Clay Whiggery_, was a stench in your Locofoco nostrils! Mr. Stephens
made the assertion, in a public speech in Augusta, that "the Catholic
Colony of Maryland, under Lord Baltimore, was the first to _establish_
the principle of free toleration in religious worship." The Colony of
Maryland was a Catholic Colony, and the "Toleration Act" was written by
Lord Baltimore himself. That Act is dated 21st April, 1649, when Lord
Baltimore was in the zenith of his glory. Here is the language of that
"Act" of religious toleration:
"Denying the Holy _Trinity_ is to be punished with _death_, and
confiscation of land and goods to the Lord Proprietary, (Lord
Baltimore himself!). Persons using any reproachful words
concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Apostles or
Evangelists, to be fined L5, or in default of payment to be
publicly whipped and _imprisoned, at the pleasure_ of his
Lordship, (Lord Baltimore himself!) or of his
Lieutenant-General." _See Laws of Maryland, at large, by T.
Bacon_, A. D. 1765. 16 and 17 _Cecilius's Lord Baltimore_.
God deliver us from such toleration! _Death_ was the penalty for
expressing certain religious opinions, not acceptable to Lord Baltimore
and the Holy Catholic Church! Fines and _whipping at the post_ was the
penalty for speaking against the image-worship of the Catholic Church.
But I need not pursue this subject further: the _onus propandi_ is on
your side.
Speaking of Mr. Wesley, you say:
"If Wesley were alive, what would he think of your midnight
plots, and open tirades against <DW7>s? But a letter of his
has been going the rounds of the newspapers, which the Know
Nothings obviously think gives the sanction of that good man to
their movement. Not so. Mr. Wesley was not the man to write as
inconsistently as their version of this letter makes him
write."
Why, sir, Mr. Wesley goes much further in his political opposition to
Roman Catholics than the American party have ever proposed to go. The
American party say only that they will not vote for Catholics, or put
them in office, because their principles are antagonistic to the spirit
of Republican institutions. Mr. Wesley lays down the comprehensive, but
_true doctrine_, in this very letter, that "_no government not Roman
Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic persuasion_." And
to show how fully and clearly he sustains this position, I quote from
his letter at length. You will find the letter in Vol. 5, page 817, of
Wesley's Miscellaneous Works, dated January 12th, 1780. It was
originally addressed to the Dublin Freeman's Journal. Here is what Mr.
Wesley says, in the very letter you seek to _deny out of_:
"I consider not whether the Romish religion is true or false:
build nothing on one or the other supposition. Therefore, away
with all your common-place declamation about intolerance and
persecution for religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius's
creed to be true! Suppose the Council of Trent to have been
infallible; yet I insist upon it that no government not Roman
Catholic ought to tolerate men of the Roman Catholic
persuasion.
"I prove this by a plain argument--let him answer it that
can--that no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his
allegiance or peaceable behavior. I prove it thus: It is a
Roman Catholic maxim, established not by private men, but by
public council, that 'No faith is to be kept with heretics.'
This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance; but it
has never been openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow
or disavow it, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But
as long as it is so, nothing can be more plain than that the
members of that Church can give no reasonable security to any
government for their allegiance and peaceable behavior.
Therefore, they ought not to be tolerated by any government,
Protestant, Mohammedan, or Pagan. You say, 'Nay, but they take
an oath of allegiance.' True, five hundred oaths; but the
maxim, 'No faith is to be kept with heretics,' sweeps them all
away as a spider's web. So that still no governors that are not
Roman Catholics can have any security of their allegiance.
"Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the Pope
can give no security of their allegiance to any government; but
all Roman Catholics acknowledge this: therefore they can give
no security for their allegiance. The power of granting pardons
for all sins--past, present, and to come--is, and has been for
many centuries, one branch of his spiritual power. But those
who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can give no
security for their allegiance, since they believe the Pope can
pardon rebellion, high treason, and all other sins whatever.
The power of dispensing with any promise, oath, or vow, is
another branch of the spiritual power of the Pope: all who
acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But
whoever acknowledges the dispensing power of the Pope, can give
no security for his allegiance to any government. Oaths and
promises are none: they are as light as air--a dispensation
makes them null and void. Nay, not only the Pope, but even a
priest has power to pardon sins! This is an essential doctrine
of the Church of Rome. But they that acknowledge this, cannot
possibly give any security for their allegiance to any
government. Oaths are no security at all; for the priest can
pardon both perjury and high treason. Setting their religion
aside, it is plain that, upon principles of reason, no
government ought to tolerate men who cannot give any security
to that government for their allegiance and peaceful behavior.
But this, no Romanist can do; not only while he holds that 'no
faith is to be kept with heretics,' but so long as he
acknowledges either priestly absolution, or the spiritual power
of the Pope.
"If any one pleases to answer this, and set his name, I shall
probably reply. But the productions of anonymous writers I do
not promise to take any notice of.
"I am, sir, your humble servant,
"JOHN WESLEY.
"CITY ROAD, January 12, 1780."
But, sir, you know as well as any living man that the history of the
Church, from the days of the first Pope down to the iniquitous reign of
Pius IX., sustains Mr. Wesley in his views on this subject, and
justifies the steps taken by the American party. Notwithstanding the
oft-repeated profession of Catholic liberality and Romish toleration, so
triumphantly paraded by you, and other interested aspirants and
unprincipled demagogues, the Catholic Church has invariably shown
herself to be destitute of both, whenever she had the opportunity of
using them. Sir, _intolerance_ is an element of her faith, and
_persecution_ a specimen of her piety; and no man knows it better than
you do. In taking upon herself the obligation of "true obedience to the
Pope," the Catholic Church imposes upon herself a task that proves
beyond all doubt she cannot, under any circumstances, remain faithful to
that obligation, and yet maintain "allegiance" to such a government as
ours!
Sir, I have no patience with a Protestant minister who stands forth as
the apologist of Catholicism; nor have I any confidence in one who does
it, provided he is a man of _intelligence_, as I admit you to be. The
only excuse I can render for your strange and inconsistent conduct is,
that you are in your dotage; that you are a violent old partisan; and
that you are the tool of designing demagogues, infamous disunionists,
and unmitigated repudiators. I shall not be at all surprised to hear
that you have apostatized from the Methodist Church, and gone over to
the Roman Catholics. I learn from the Little Rock Gazette, a Democratic
paper, that but the other day, Gov. E. N. Carway, of Arkansas, a member
of the Methodist Church, had actually apostatized from Methodism, and
the Protestant faith, and united with the Roman Catholics. And what
makes his defection from the faith of his fathers still more notorious,
his organ is down upon the Protestant clergy in bitter and unrelenting
denunciations! I believe that _you_ are preparing to go over to the
Roman Catholics; and to justify your change, when the time comes, you
now assert, "in humiliation but in candor," you say, that the people
"have _ten thousand times more_ to fear from Methodists than from
Catholics." If you believe this, you ought to leave the Methodist Church
_instantly_, even without the formalities of a withdrawal or
expulsion--even though you should be denied admittance into the Catholic
Church! I deny that we have "_ten thousand times more to fear_" from the
_Devil_ than we have from the Catholics; and according to your argument,
_the Methodists are worse than the Devil_! This, their most bitter
revilers and enemies do not believe; and for obvious reasons. The
Methodist Church has no St. Bartholomew's Day, with its rivers of blood
staining her garments: she never indiscriminately slaughtered the
Albigenses, or Waldenses, or Huguenots: she never established an
infernal Inquisition: she never lit up the fires of Smithfield: never
burned the Holy Bible, and prohibited, upon pain of eternal death, the
printing and circulating of God's word; and last, but not least, she has
not sought to keep the people in ignorance. Wherever Methodism has been
planted, the people have become great and happy. If you please, wherever
_Protestantism_ has prevailed, the people have been prosperous and
happy. But look to Old Spain, Italy, the German Confederacies, Sardinia,
Naples, Austria, Belgium, Portugal, Bavaria, Baden, South America, and
Mexico, where Romanism is the established religion, and the places of
her influence are a hissing and a by-word in the eyes of the civilized
world! Protestantism has done more for the world in the last hundred
years than the Roman Catholic Church has for the _eighteen hundred
years_!
Sir, the Puritans, of New England; the Hollanders, of New York; the
Quakers, Lutherans, and German Reformed, of Pennsylvania; the Baptists,
of Rhode Island; the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, of Virginia; the
Lutherans and followers of Wesley and Whitefield, of Georgia; the
Huguenots and Episcopalians, of the Carolinas; and the Seceders in
several of the States, who were the religious pioneers of these States,
were all Protestants and Know Nothings; and if they were living, they
would be ashamed of you and your teachings. They selected this
wilderness country as their home, in order that they might enjoy those
religious privileges from which they had been debarred in the old world,
by the very Church and people you are seeking to vindicate.
But you will say, as you have done in substance, that this is no longer
the characteristic of Romanism. Why is it not? Has she ever changed for
the better? When did she renounce her doctrines and practices? Never!
Rome is the same tyrannical system now, where she has the power, that
she ever has been, and for ever must be. Wo to this land of ours, if
ever Rome gets the ascendancy here! Her creed is the same here and now,
in this respect, that it has everywhere been, and must always be. It is
her boast that she is always right, and knows no change. She practices
her unholy inquisitorial and Jesuitical doctrines in this country, as
far as she can and dare act them out. Her whole system is adverse to our
republican institutions and she hesitates not to declare it. She has
publicly burned our Bible in different States in this Union, and
recently, in New York and Pennsylvania. Archbishop Hughes, the Head of
the Catholic Church in this country, has taken an oath, administered by
the Pope of Rome, of which this is a part:
"Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said Lord (the Pope)
or his aforesaid successors, I will, to my utmost power,
_persecute and wage war with_."
The Church of Rome declares all who are not its members to be heretics.
It is painful, in view of all these things, to see an old Protestant
minister, whose head has been withered by the frosts of seventy
winters, openly in the field advocating a Church whose Bishops, Priests,
and members are "drunken with the blood of saints."
There is but one remaining feature of your singular address to Know
Nothing Methodist Preachers to be replied to, and I am through. You
assail the new party on the score of its _secrecy_, and of its
_concealment_ of its acts from the public. Had this objection come from
any one but a Methodist Preacher, and a known advocate of
_Class-meetings being held with closed doors_, I would now dispose of it
without occupying as much space as I shall do in my concluding remarks!
Notwithstanding all the _secrecy_ in the new Order of Know Nothings has
been set aside by the act of the National Council which created it; and
notwithstanding our members tell all about their Councils, where and
when they meet, and our orators read out and publish to the world our
obligations, rules, and principles, it is still objected that ours is a
secret Order, liable to be used for bad purposes; that we travel about
with dark lanterns; that our proceedings are not restrained by the
wholesome check of public opinion!
Now, this, the great objection to our Order, comes from men who belong
to Lodges of Free Masons and Odd Fellows, and who have taken all the
_binding_ oaths attached to the different _degrees_ of these respective
Orders! The same objection is urged against the American party, by men
who belong to the Order of Sons of Temperance, who have deemed a _rigid
secret organization_ necessary to combat successfully a _domestic_ evil!
It is urged in bitterness against the Order, by demagogues and
partisans, who have acted for years with the _secret political
conclaves_ of their respective parties, who have held their meetings
with _closed doors_--kept their _places_ of meeting a profound
secret--and when they have adjourned, they have enjoined _secrecy_ upon
all present! Last, but not least, this _secret feature_ is urged against
the American organization by the vile apologists for the Catholic
Church, and its corrupt Priesthood and membership, in this country.
These demagogues know that the Roman Catholic Church is a _secret
society_, directed by a talented, designing, and villainous
HIERARCHY--absolutely controlled by an _anti_-Republican Priesthood, to
a degree which has never been exercised by any political party in the
known world! The _Confessional_ is a secret tribunal, before which every
member of that Church is required to make known, not only _immoral_
actions, but every thought and purpose of the heart, and upon pain of
incurring the anathema of the Church, which is equivalent to a sentence
of eternal damnation! The corrupt order of JESUITS, the infamous society
of SAN FEDESTI, and the infinitely infernal society of IRISH RIBBON
MEN--these are all oath-bound societies of the Catholic Church,
connected directly with the horrid operations of the "_Holy
Inquisition_."
Now, I put the question to any man of reason and common sense, if Roman
Catholics and their _patriotic Democratic_ admirers and advocates, in
this country, are not the last men on earth who should object to the
_secret_ doings of the order of Know Nothings, even if their secrecy
were kept up? Every Roman Catholic in the known world is under the
absolute control of a secret society, by considerations not only of a
_temporal_, but of an ETERNAL WEIGHT!
But I am not done with these _Democratic_ opposers of SECRECY. The
Convention which formed the Constitution of the United States, sat in
the old State House in Philadelphia, _with closed doors, from the 25th
of May to the 17th of September_, wanting only eight days of four
months. That body of men had a Doorkeeper and Sergeant-at-arms, both
under oath, to keep their doors barred, and all their proceedings a
secret. So says Mr. Jefferson's biography! And such men as Washington,
Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Harrison, Hancock, Hopkins, and
others, composed that body! During the war of the Revolution, General
Washington, Generals Lee, Wayne, Marion, and others, organized a _secret
American Society_, with its branches extending from North to South,
having their _passwords_, _signs_, and _grips_, and writing to each
other in figures, and "an unknown tongue," as the Know Nothings have
been doing, and all, too, with a view to oppose Foreign intrigues and
oppressions! It is as well known as any political truth, that General
WASHINGTON, at the time of his death, was the _President_ of the
Cincinnati Society, a secret political society, in which, we see it
stated on unquestionable authority, no man was eligible to membership
unless he was a _native American_. The _Columbian Order_, known as the
"_Tammany Society_," was a secret political society, and highly
influential, and maintains its existence to this day, and without danger
to the liberties of the country. Gen. SAM HOUSTON publishes to the world
that himself and Gen. JACKSON were members of this Society. What say the
_anti_-Americans to all these facts? Do they believe that Gen.
Washington, or Jackson, would have united with any association or order
not purely American? Would either have entered into any political
league, when _secrecy_ was enjoined, if he had not approved of the
principle of secrecy in political associations? Never! From the
characters of Washington and Jackson--the sacrifices they made for their
country, united with their fervid patriotism, and their known preference
for every thing _American_, I do not doubt for one moment, that if they
were both now living, they would unite with the veritable Order of Know
Nothings!
I believe the hand of God to be in this very movement, and as much in
the _secrecy_ of it, in the outset, as in any other feature. I regard
the movement as one growing out of a great crisis in the affairs of our
country, and a precursor of a sound, healthful, and vigorous
nationality, and which will ultimately prevent the liberties of this
country from being destroyed, by the machinations of such demagogues and
factionists as now seek to _excuse_ Romanism, and fellowship Foreign
Pauperism. Secret societies are only dangerous to despots and tyrants,
and history shows that these above all others have made war upon them.
They have denounced and proscribed Masonry in every quarter of the
globe, where they have had the power. The Pope, with the aid of his
Cardinals, has crushed the ancient order of Free Masons in his
dominions. There is not a Masonic Lodge in Italy. In our own country,
not a single Catholic is to be found associated with the order of Free
Masons; and why? Masonry is founded upon the Bible, and requires the
reading of the Protestant Bible in all its Lodges, and this don't suit
Romanism. We state these general and historical facts, without knowing
any thing of our own knowledge of Masonry.
In the young and growing city of Knoxville, it is within our own
knowledge, that many of the Irish Catholics attached themselves to the
Order of the Sons of Temperance, with a view, as they said, of throwing
around them the wholesome restraints of the Order. On the first visit of
a priest to the city, commonly called "Father Brown," these Irish
Catholics began to drop off one by one, until not one of them is now in
the Order, and most of those who were, are daily seen drunk in our
streets. Indeed, some of them in withdrawing had the candor to
acknowledge that the priest required them to do so! And why? Because, in
all the Divisions of the Sons of Temperance here, we have the Protestant
Scriptures read, and have Protestant prayers offered up. This don't suit
the Church of Rome!
I have the honor to be, very truly and frankly,
W. G. BROWNLOW.
TO THE RIGHT REVEREND AARON V. BROWN, M. S.
SIR:--I have received by mail a pamphlet copy of your "Letter to the
Bishops, Elders, and _other_ Ministers, Itinerant and _Local_, of the
Methodist Episcopal Church South," covering twenty-eight octavo pages. I
thank you for a copy of your _Pastoral_ address; and I am happy to be
able to _infer_ from its teachings that you have made a profession of
religion, before taking upon yourself "Holy Orders." I suppose the
_time_ of your conversion, you date back to the memorable period when
you "saw sights" on Mount Pisgah, and had conferred on you the degree of
_Modern Seer_, and entered upon the duties of "High Priest" of
Democracy! As I am one of the parties addressed, and the customs of the
Church and the country require a response to so grave a document, I have
felt it incumbent upon me to perform the task. I may style this the
_Last_ epistle of Aaron, the Priest, and illustrious Chief of Foreign
Catholic Sag Nicht Locofocoism!
My first impulses were, upon reading your address, to call for your
_credentials_, and to examine into your _authority_ for assuming to
dictate to the entire Ministry of the Southern portion of the Methodist
Church. You must either enter the Ecclesiastical ring under the
_imposition of the hands_ of BISHOP SOULE or _Andy Johnson_. If BISHOP
SOULE ordained you for the Ministry, and set you apart as the
Lieutenant-General of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, the
presumption is that he examined you on doctrinal points, and upon all
questions affecting the government of the Church, as was his duty, and
is our custom, and that he found you orthodox! It follows, as a matter
of course, that you renounced your heresy you advocated in the Hartford
Convention, held at Nashville, and that you obtained forgiveness for
that and numerous other "sins of omission and commission"--aye, for the
whole catalogue of your inward and outward iniquities, which so
_eminently_ disqualified you for the work of the Ministry! But if _Andy
Johnson_ ordained you for the work, of which there is no sort of doubt,
the Church South, through me, protests against your authority, and
utterly refuses to submit to your teachings. Our Church does not agree
with Johnson on the "White Basis" issue, or the great question of
slavery; and in proof of this, I cite to the fact of her separation from
the North, in 1844, upon this very question. She has within her bounds
of communion, rich men and poor, educated and uneducated, and is
unwilling to unite with him in arraying the poor against the rich, or
the unlearned against the learned. Nor does our Church believe that
Jesus Christ was a Locofoco, as Johnson asserts in his Inaugural, and
held that Christianity and Democracy, in converging lines, led to the
foot of Jacob's Ladder, and thence to heaven, _via_ Mount Pisgah, from
whose lofty summit you first beheld the promised land!
It therefore follows, that, in presenting yourself as a spiritual leader
in the Church, called to the work, as you have been, by _Andy Johnson_,
your case is fully met by a quotation from Job:
"Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present
themselves before the Lord, and _Satan_ came also among them."
A second passage, from the Book of Jeremiah, meets your case, and leaves
no doubt that the inspired Prophet had you in his eye:
"We have heard the pride of Moab, (he is exceedingly proud,)
his loftiness, and his _arrogance_, and his pride, and his
haughtiness of heart.
"I know his wrath, saith the Lord; but it shall not be so; his
_lies_ shall not so effect it."
To be candid with you, Gov. Brown, I regard your address, under all the
circumstances, as a display of the most brazen-faced assurance and the
most unmitigated impudence I ever met with in my life! I have known for
years that you were capable of great presumption, but in this insolent
and dictatorial address you surpass _yourself_--you positively out-Herod
Herod! In the whole history of the country, and of parties, I venture
the assertion, that a parallel piece of impudence, and downright
bold-faced assurance, cannot be pointed to, as the act of any partisan.
It is really past all belief, if I had not your production before me.
But more of this hereafter.
Copies of your pamphlet were distributed through the aisles and seats of
the Annual Conference room in Nashville, and have been sent all over the
South, to members of other Conferences. Your _proof-sheet_ was seen ten
days before the meeting of the Middle Tennessee Conference, and your
"work of faith and labor of love" was ready for distribution when the
Conference first convened, but you held it back till the Conference was
ready to adjourn, and to a period so late, that a reply, if one had been
deemed necessary, could not be made. This was _cowardly_, and in keeping
with your political tactics and code of morals. In saying that this was
in keeping with your code of morals, I allude to the _Woodberry
affair_.
I shall now take up your address, Governor, and wade through its
twenty-eight pages of double-distilled Sag Nichtism, sublimated
impudence, and concealed advocacy of _Romanism_, mixed up with
contradictions, false assertions, and glaring absurdities, as it is,
from beginning to end. In the opening paragraph, you predicate your
right to instruct the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the
entire Church, South, upon the real or assumed fact, that you are "The
son of a now sainted father, who for forty years ministered at your
altars, the co-laborer of that noble band of Christian ministers, who,
under Asbury and Coke, founded your Church in America!"
Alas, that any "sainted Father" should be represented by so degenerate a
son--an irreligious son--not a member of any Church--but having the
hardihood, in the face of those who know the facts, to disguise himself
in the priestly robes of a "sainted Father"--like an ass in a lion's
skin, to _bray out_ against better men than himself, or, like a wolf in
sheep's clothing, to _steal into the fold_, where that Father was
accustomed to minister in holy things, and with soft and honeyed words,
and hypocritical teachings, and Satan-like misrepresentations, seek whom
he may devour! You tell the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," that
you really "approve" their "creed," and, what is still more
soul-cheering, you have "witnessed their growth and progress for years,
with the highest satisfaction." This is very _condescending_ in the "son
of a now sainted father!" It is quite flattering! But these "Bishops,
Elders, and other Ministers," would receive all this with a greater
degree of allowance, if they did not believe that your generous
patronage, so lavishly bestowed upon them and their "creed," was
prompted by a principle of which _selfishness_ is the soul! They
believe, and so express themselves in conversation, that your forced
smile of approbation, your reluctant eulogy, have both been wrung from
you, because you are a sycophantic partisan suitor for patronage, in the
way of votes for your party. These Clergymen whom you address, think it
a great pity that the "son of a now sainted father" should exhibit so
much "satisfaction" at witnessing their prosperity, in _theory_, and
manifest not one particle in _practice_. They think that you would be in
your proper place, to be found among the _mourners_, instead of the
_teachers_ in their Church; and that it is high time, considering your
age in life, and the extent of your iniquities, that you should be found
upon your knees, in an altar full of fresh straw, at an old-fashioned
Camp-Meeting, asking the pious to pray for you, and God, for the sake of
the forty years labors of "a now sainted father," to have mercy upon
you, and save your sinful old soul from that death that never dies.
Why, Sir, the Devil himself would blush to perpetrate such an act of
arrogance as you have done, in thus volunteering your advice to the
"Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," of the Methodist Church. An old
political party hack, who is not now, and never was, a member of any
Church--an intriguing old sinner, who never even attends Church, and
who, in this respect, shows that he neither fears God, respects the
Christian Sabbath, nor "approves the creed" of any orthodox
denomination, to be lecturing a numerous body of Clergymen, as to what
they ought or ought not to do, it is the culmination of all that is
called effrontery! The "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the
Methodist Church, wish the _evidence_ of your conversion to God, before
they consent to obey you, as "having the rule over them." Your approval
of their "creed," and the "satisfaction" with which you have witnessed
their progress, is not sufficient to satisfy their doubting minds, as
long as you continue to ride into Nashville on Sabbath, and retail
political slang at the INN, or read Sag Nicht papers at the _Union
Office_, to the neglect of the house of God, and the evil example set
before young men, against the statute in such cases made and provided!
We must, as Ministers, hear you relate your experience, in a regular
class-meeting. Nay, more, knowing your _raising_, and your ability to
"deceive, even the very elect," we must see you down upon your
marrow-bones, surrounded by noisy and zealous officials, pounding you on
the back, and exclaiming, as in the days of your "sainted father," _Pray
on, Aaron_! We must hear you _groan_--we must see your sinful old bosom
_heave_--we must witness the falling of _big tears_, as you publicly
confess and manfully repent of your misdeeds--of the whole catalogue, of
all the inward and outward iniquities of your past life--your sins of
omission and commission, which God knows are more numerous than the
hairs upon your old sinful head! I say we must see all this, and even
more, before we can have faith in your teachings, as big as even a grain
of mustard seed!
But you are the "son of a now sainted father"--you derive great
"satisfaction" from the "growth and progress" of Methodism--you
"approve" the Methodist "creed"--and hence, a glorious future awaits the
Methodist Church: _provided_ always, that her "Bishops, Elders, and
other Ministers" hearken to and obey your teachings, a thing they are
very certain not to do, in the matter under consideration. It is a
melancholy fact, that many of the sons of Methodist, and other
Ministers, are very wicked and unpromising men; and it is equally true,
and certainly notorious, that where they turn out to be sinners, they
are sinners above all offenders, dwelling either at Jerusalem or
elsewhere! I have no hesitancy in pronouncing you as _hard a case_, in a
moral point of view, as ever came before the Church, and the only
appropriate reply her ecclesiastical dignitaries can make to your
address, is to appoint a day of fasting and prayer to God, for your
conversion, to be observed throughout her borders. I now, as the
appointed organ of the Church, set apart the first day of January, 1856,
and I pray you, as one desiring the salvation of your soul, to be in the
spirit and in a proper frame of mind on that day! Humble yourself before
God--tell him that you were in error in stealing the livery of Heaven to
serve the Devil in! Tell him that you are an old worn-out political
hack--that you have grown gray in the service of sin--that during the
whole of a somewhat eventful life, your labors have been in the dirtiest
pools of party politics--that you have been insincere and unscrupulous
in all your teachings and acts--that you stand before the people of
Tennessee publicly branded by _eight_ respectable and reliable citizens
of Wilson county, as a _falsifier_ in the Know Nothing controversy of
the past summer--and that you are sorry for having come forth steeped to
the nose and chin in political profligacy, to lecture grave Clergymen
upon subjects you ought to set at their feet and learn lessons about!
Tell your God, what he doubtless knows, that though the "son of a now
sainted father," you are as full of devils as ever Mary Magdalene
was--that like the "Imps of Sin," in Milton, these "yelp all around"
you--that this is no reflection upon a "now sainted father," whose
seeming neglect of your early training grew out of his continual absence
from home, as is the case with most Methodist Preachers,--aye, tell your
God, that once out of this scrape, you will never be caught in another
of the kind! You say,
"From the foundation of our government, it has been a conceded
and settled doctrine, that the various religious denominations
should not, as such, intermeddle with the political contests of
the day. No instance is now remembered where they have done
so!"
This is a remarkable sentence, and partakes of the nature of your Wilson
county assertions! The history of the Church, and of the world,
contradicts every word of the foregoing, and demonstrates that the
"settled doctrine" of the Catholic Church, has ever been, as it still
is, to "intermeddle with the political contests of the day." I will
trouble you with two instances in which "religious denominations, as
such," have been guilty of what you deny. The Albany (N. Y.) State
Register, a paper which usually does not say what it cannot maintain,
states that ARCHBISHOP HUGHES has issued a mandate, _commanding_ all
Catholics in the Albany District, in the exciting State election now
coming off, to cast their votes for Mr. Crosby for the Senate. But Roman
Catholics, you falsely tell us, never "intermeddle with the political
contests of the day:" O no!
The other "instance now remembered," is the one in which you were a
candidate for a seat in the Legislature of Tennessee, in the county of
Giles: this was, according to my recollection, in 1831, or a quarter of
a century ago. At that time, there was a small Manual Labor School in
Giles, which had been incorporated by the Legislature, and at the head
of which was a _Presbyterian_. The gentleman who ran against you, if not
a member of the Presbyterian Church, "approved" their "creed," and
"witnessed their growth and progress for years with the highest
satisfaction." _You_ charged upon the stump that the Presbyterians were
seeking to establish their religion by law, to unite Church and
State--appealed to the Methodist and Baptist to put them down by
electing you, with a promise that you would check their march by
counter-legislation--and you were elected upon this issue. At the same
time, as the oldest inhabitants of Giles know, there were not fifty
Presbyterians in the county! But "no instance is remembered" in which
one sect has intermeddled with another--O no! You say:
"In the mutations of parties in this country, a new one has
lately arisen, to which, I apprehend, more of the Methodist
ministers have attached themselves, at least in the State of
Tennessee, than might have been expected. This party, known as
the Know Nothings, is so _peculiar_ in its organization, that
it seems strange to me that any minister or professor of
religion should be willing longer to continue in it."
Your apprehensions are well-founded, when you suppose that a very large
proportion of the Methodist ministers in Tennessee are either members of
this new party or sympathize with it. And, sir, more of the ministers of
other denominations than you seem to be aware of, have either attached
themselves to this party, "in the mutations of parties," or act with it,
and endorse its aims and objects, than you have yet dreamed of! And "it
seems strange" to these ministers, and thousands of the purest and best
laymen in the Protestant ranks, "that any minister or professor of
religion should be willing longer" to oppose the principles of this
party, or array themselves under the black flag of Papal Rome, and of
the pauper emigrants with whom she is flooding our land! But, sir, the
object of your Address is, to persuade if you can, and if not, _to
drive_, by motives of fear, the Clergy of the Methodist Church from
their position on this great American and Protestant question. Alas, how
little does the "son of a sainted father" understand the material he
attempts to work upon! Methodist ministers are free men, the equals of
other moral and upright men in heroic virtues, and far in advance of
that of politicians in Tennessee who believe parties in religion, as in
politics, are only "held together by the cohesive power of public
plunder," and who assume to direct public opinion from a principle, of
which _selfishness_ is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end!
Sir, the violence, bitterness, and the very inflammatory tone, not to
say language, of your Gallatin, Lebanon, and Columbia speeches, are
enough, it seems to me, to _nauseate_ every good and conservative
citizen, and to disgust every "Bishop, Elder, and other Ministers,
Itinerant and Local, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." Even in
this Address, you insult these ministers on every page. I see not how
any preacher, with a true Protestant and American heart in him, can read
this address of yours through, without rising up from his seat and
saying: "I have voted with this Anti-Protestant and Anti-American party
for the last time."
In warning Methodist ministers to withdraw their sanction and
approbation of Know Nothingism, you say:
"I therefore call upon them this day to come out of these
lodges, and never return to them: at all events, never return
to them until all _secrecy_, all their bits of red paper,
(indicating _blood_, even by the selection of color,) all their
signs and signals, are utterly abolished and dispensed with. I
call upon them to do this, and to do it forthwith--by their
hopes of heaven--by their obedience to the word of God--by
their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of their
country--to come out from any party which has adopted a mode
and plan of organization so fatal to the peace of society, and
the progress of true religion."
What egotism! _You_ call upon them! You make a freer use of the personal
pronoun _I_, than even old Parson Longstreet, the Know Nothing slayer of
Mississippi. To parse your different sentences syntactically, nothing
else is necessary but to understand the first person singular, and to
repeat the rule. Not only your verbiage but your sentiment is thus
egotistic throughout!
Your appeal to the ministers to come out of this organization, on the
ground of its _secrecy_, is a species of demagoguism, the more
disgusting when it is considered that you are a _Free Mason_, and have,
by all the arts and blandishment of your nature, sought to induce
ministers to go into that organization. But, then, there is no violation
of law or the Constitution in _Masonry_--"fatal to the peace of society
and to the progress of true religion"--no, nothing! Understand me: I am
not opposed to Masonry.
On this subject of the Romish creed, which you excuse, and even
_advocate_, you admit that there are "_alleged_ abuses," which have
prompted the Protestant Churches to unite themselves with this new
Order! Then you insultingly tell these Churches this tale:
"But they ought to have remembered, that even a virtuous
indignation can never justify _proscription and persecution_:
these bring no remedy to the real or supposed evils, but are
sure to increase and aggravate them. These errors in faith, and
abominations in practice, if they really exist, were known to
the Wesleys, and Cokes, and Asburys, who founded your Church:
to the Lees, the Bruces, the Capers, the Logan Douglasses, the
Summerfields, and the Bascoms, who subsequently extended and
adorned it. But they never proposed to kindle, in this
enlightened age of Christianity, the consuming fires of
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION."
Now, sir, every distinguished "founder" of the Methodist Church you have
named, from WESLEY to BASCOM, has written and preached against the
"errors in faith, and abominations in practice," of the Romish Church,
and they each and all have taken this very ground upon the religious
issues. I have heard _three_ of these men preach, and I am familiar with
the writings of the rest, and know whereof I speak.
You _intentionally_ deceive and misrepresent the American party, when
you charge that they seek to proscribe one class of our citizens--that
they desire to interfere with the rights of conscience--and to say _how_
men should worship God. Why don't you inform your readers that
Archbishop Hughes, and other Catholic Bishops, were the first to
introduce religion into political discussion in this country? This would
not suit your purposes--it suits your objects, taste, and inclination
better, to slander the American party by wholesale, and to charge upon
its members the atrocities committed by your foreign and pauper allies.
We only choose to vote against them, and to vote for American-born
citizens and Protestants: which is as much our _right_, as it is the
right of these foreign Catholics to vote against and proscribe American
Protestants. For this, you and your villainous associates exhaust the
whole vocabulary of Billingsgate upon the American party. What is their
offence? Why, they simply place certain questions before persons
desiring to act with them, which they think, at least, may affect the
national welfare, and before the people of the Union, and ask their
opinion of these questions at the ballot-box. The American party has
always denied, and I again reiterate the denial, that we do, at all
proscribe, or in any way interfere with, any class of our foreign
citizens, save that we propose to send _convicts_ from European prisons
back to their own native and infamous dens, as fast as they land
here--but these are not _citizens_ of ours. I appeal to our Platform,
and our Book of Constitutions, and I offer to any man a handsome
reward--any man who will produce in either a statement containing the
proscription you falsely charge against us. I now say, Gov. Brown,
either do this, or cease your empty vaporing against the _proscriptive_
features of our system, as you are pleased to style it. You declaim most
lustily in favor of religious liberty for Catholics, which you know we
do not propose as a party to interfere with; and this you plead for at
the altar of Methodist "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," who know
there is no religious liberty for Protestants where Catholics have the
power to prevent it! You plead in the most plaintive tones for the
rights of foreign Catholics to be sworn into good citizens in less than
_one year_ after they land here, but do not seem to remember the
American Protestant wives and children, who have to subsist on charity
during our severe winters, in consequence of their husbands and fathers
being elbowed out of employment by the competition of foreign pauper
laborers!
Sir, the American party, if in power, would put a stop to that
proscription from office that has always characterized the party with
which you act, and which has made the present Administration so very and
so justly odious to the country. Proscription, indeed! Was there ever
such _glaring_ and _actual_ proscription for the sake of religious and
political creeds committed as by the present Administration? The
infamous Sag Nicht party with which you act, and of which you are a
leader and a High Priest, though the "son of a now sainted father," has
applied the political guillotine to almost every man in office who has
dared to differ with them in their high estimate of foreign paupers and
Catholic vagabonds, in many instances turning out native-born
Protestants, and filling their places with foreign Catholics. And yet,
with a degree of effrontery that throws the Devil far into the shade,
you turn round and charge the American party with proscription, and ask
the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," of the Methodist Church, "by
their hopes of heaven--by their obedience to the word of God--and by
their allegiance to the Constitution and laws of their country," to come
out from a party so proscriptive! Why, sir, you out-Herod old Herod
himself! Your teachings contrasted with your practice, would cause a
crimsoned negative to settle on the cheeks of old Pilate! And still you
are the "son of a now sainted father"--you "approve" the "creed" of
Methodism, and have "witnessed its growth and prosperity for years, with
the highest satisfaction!"
You quote from the Declaration of Independence, to show that toleration
should be extended to Catholics and foreigners, and then insultingly
add, as if you supposed no Methodist minister had ever perused the
writings of Mr. JEFFERSON:
"These are the words of Mr. Jefferson, but the immortal
sentiment springs directly from the word of the living and true
God. No: persecution at the stake, or by exclusion of Catholics
from office, is not the weapon to be wielded by the Protestant
Churches."
_You_ know that the notes of warning given to his countrymen by the sage
of Monticello, and the great APOSTLE of American Democracy, are in
harmony with the doctrines of the Know Nothing party. But you choose to
conceal this fact from the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the
Methodist Church, in the vain hope that their numerous pressing and
official engagements will not allow them time to look up the documents.
In Mr. Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, written in 1781, and published in
1794, pages 124-5, I find the following _Know Nothing doctrine_:
"But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale
against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers
by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of
those united in society to harmonize, as much as possible, in
matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil
government being the sole object of forming societies, its
administration must be conducted by common consent. Every
species of government has specific principles. Ours, perhaps,
are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It
is a composition of the freest principles of the English
constitution, with others derived from natural right and
natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the
maxims of absolute monarchs. Yet _from such we are to expect
the greatest number of immigrants_. They will bring with them
the _principles of the government they leave, imbibed in early
youth_: or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange
for an _unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from
one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop
precisely at the point of temperate liberty_. These principles,
with their language, they will transmit to their children. In
proportion with their numbers, they will share with us the
legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and
bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent,
distracted mass. _I may appeal to experience during the present
contest for a verification of these conjectures._ But if they
be not certain in event, are they not possible? are they not
probable? Is it not safer to wait with patience twenty-seven
years and three months longer for the attainment of every
degree of population desired or expected? May not our
government be more homogeneous, more peaceable, more durable?"
Again, Mr. JEFFERSON, whilst our Minister to the Court of St. Cloud,
addressed a letter to JOHN JAY, dated November 14, 1788, in which he
uses this language:
"With respect to the _Consular_ appointments, it is a duty on
me to add some observations, which my situation here has
enabled me to make. I think it was in the spring of 1784, that
Congress (harassed by multiplied applications from foreigners,
of whom nothing was known but on their information, or on that
of others as unknown as themselves) came to the resolution that
the interest of America would not permit the naming of any
person, not a citizen, to the office of Consul, or Agent, or
Commissary. _Native citizens, on several valuable accounts, are
preferable to aliens, or citizens alien-born._ Native citizens
possess our language, know our laws, customs and commerce, have
general acquaintance in the United States, give better
satisfaction, _and are more to be relied on in a point of
fidelity_. To avail ourselves of our native citizens, it
appears to me advisable to _declare, by standing law_, that no
person but a native citizen shall be capable of the office of
Consul. This was the rule of 1784, restraining the office of
Consul to native citizens."
In 1797, Mr. JEFFERSON drafted a petition to the Legislature of
Virginia, on behalf of the citizens of Amherst, Albemarle, Fluvana, and
Gouchland Bounties, in which he uses the following language:
"Your petitioners further submit to the two Houses of Assembly,
whether the safety of the citizens of this Commonwealth, in
their persons, their property, their laws and government, does
not require that the capacity to act in the important office of
_Juror, Grand or Petty, civil or criminal_, should not be
restrained in future to native citizens, or such as were
citizens at the date of the Treaty of Peace which closed our
revolutionary war; and whether ignorance of our laws, and
natural partiality to the countries of their birth, are not
reasonable causes for declaring this to be one of their rights
incommunicable in future to adopted citizens."--_Jefferson's
Writings, Vol. IX., page 453._
Now, Sir, answer me in candor, are you not ashamed of having quoted Mr.
JEFFERSON, and of having so basely misrepresented his position on this
great American question? Did not Mr. JEFFERSON propose to carry his
opposition to foreigners much farther than the American party now do?
But, you vile old demagogue, though "son of a now sainted father," I am
determined you shall not escape the indignant powers of those "Bishops,
Elders, and other Ministers," whom you have wickedly sought to deceive.
It is known to you, and to the world, in what veneration all American
Democrats hold the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and '99, and the fame of
Mr. MADISON, who was the ruling spirit of that session of the
Legislature. That Legislature passed the following Resolution, which you
may find by consulting Henning's Statutes at Large, Vol. 2, New Series,
page 194:
"That the General Assembly, nevertheless, concurring in opinion
with the Legislature of Massachusetts that every Constitutional
barrier should be opposed to the introduction of foreign
influence into our National Councils,--_Resolved_, That the
Constitution ought to be so amended that _no foreigner, who
shall have acquired the right, under our Constitution and laws,
at the time of making the amendment, shall hereafter be
eligible to the office of Senator or Representative_, in
Congress of the United States, nor to _any office in the
Judiciary or Executive_. Agreed to by the Senate, Jan. 16,
1799."
I shall next consider two extracts from your Address, under one general
head, relating to the _temporal_ power of the Pope. You say:
"But the genius of sophistry may fly to the rescue of
Know-Nothingism, by pretending that it is not on account of
_his religion_ that the Catholic is to be excluded from office,
but because he is subjected, not merely to the spiritual but
the _temporal dominion_ or jurisdiction of the Pope. No error
has been wider spread than this."
Again:
"A late distinguished Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Berrien,) in a
recent address to the public, has copied a letter of Mr.
Wesley, which may require a few observations. That letter was
dated in January, 1780. All its conclusions were founded on the
ASSUMED AND POPULAR OPINION of that day, that the Pope _did_
claim a civil jurisdiction beyond his own dominions--that he
_could_ absolve the subjects of other governments from their
oaths of allegiance, and _that there was_ a principle in one of
the tenets of that Church, that Catholics were justified in not
keeping faith with heretics. Against these ASSUMED AND POPULAR
OPINIONS, the Catholics of England in that day, as they now do
in this country, were solemnly protesting."
This is a modest way of giving Mr. Wesley the _lie_, but it is
nevertheless quite _direct_, and is the more surprising, as it comes
from the "son of a now sainted father," who was a follower of Wesley, a
"co-laborer of that noble band of Christian ministers" he was
instrumental in starting out into the world--aye, the son of a "father
who, for forty years, ministered at the altars" this same Wesley
erected! In holding up John Wesley as the _vile calumniator_ of the
Catholic Church in England, it is well enough, Governor, to be modest
about it, and cautious in the selection of your words, as you are
addressing a class of men who believe in John Wesley, as a faithful man
of God, and one incapable of misrepresenting the Catholics of England,
the Pope of Rome, or any other sect or individual! John Wesley
ministered at the sacred altars of religion for more than sixty years;
he had with him the power of God, and the witness that he pleased Him;
and the last words he uttered, with his hands clasped, and his eyes
raised toward heaven, were these: "_The best of all is, God is with
us!_" And yet the sons and grandsons in the gospel, of this venerated
and sainted man of God, are insulted in Tennessee, by being told by an
_impertinent old sinner_, and a _vile old party hack_, that he was A
LIAR, while living, and the _slanderer of the Catholic Church_, now that
he is no more! If Mr. Wesley "_assumed_" falsehoods in reference to the
Romish Church in England, he either did it in _ignorance_, or with _a
guilty knowledge_ of the fact. He was a man of too much learning and
information for his friends to get him out of such an indictment under a
plea of ignorance. He is therefore, though dead, A WILFUL LIAR,
according to "Ex-Gov. A. V. Brown," for the Governor goes on to argue
the cause against him, and, on page 19 of his address, quotes _Catholic_
authority to _prove_ him a liar! Shame on the "son of a now sainted
father," and on the _holy seer of Pisgah_! O! Aaron, thou priest of
corrupt Democracy, you need not endeavor to gull "bishops, elders, and
other ministers," with your _whining cant_, while you thus traduce their
great spiritual head, who, under God, taught them the lessons of
salvation!
Gov. Brown, go with me, as one of the admirers of John Wesley, to the
humble dwellings of the miners of Cornwall, to the homely tents of the
colliers of Kingswood and Newcastle, and to the equally humble workshops
of the manufacturers of Yorkshire, in England, who are rejoicing in God
their Saviour that a Wesley was ever born into the world, and ask them
if they believe him capable of slandering the Catholics! Go with me
among the backwoodsmen of North America, and examine them in their lone
tents--go among the honest and virtuous settlers on our Western
frontiers, amid the interminable forests of the far off West, whose
thousands are brought into the fold of Christ, through the
instrumentality of Wesleyan ministers, and ask them if they think the
founder of their Church was _a wilful liar_!
Go with me to the rich pastures and luxuriant harvest-fields of your own
native Middle Tennessee: enter the neat cottages and stately mansions of
that glorious division of our State, and ask the intelligent and
educated females, who are rejoicing in God, in hope of future and
eternal life, through the prayers and sermons of Wesleyan ministers, as
instruments in the hands of God, if they believe the founder of their
Church was _a wicked calumniator_! Go to the islands of the sea, to the
burning sands of Africa, and ask the benighted converts from heathenism,
through the instrumentality of Wesleyan ministers, if they believe the
venerable founder of their Church was a man of truth!
Enter the dwellings of the rich and fashionable planters of the
South--ride around their sugar and cotton plantations, among the sable
sons and daughters of Africa, and witness the blessed fruits of the
pious life, Christian integrity, and triumphant death of John Wesley!
Come over to East Tennessee, Governor, and enter the log-cabins of the
virtuous, happy peasantry of the "hill country," and ask them whether
they believe Mr. Wesley or your Catholic authorities, touching the
temporal power of the Pope of Rome!
Alas! Gov. Brown, the Reformation dawned with LUTHER in Germany, but the
sun of its glory rose with Methodism in England; the first streaks of
_Protestant_ light were seen on the horizon of the sixteenth century,
but the meridian sun of the Reformation dawned in all his brightness on
the Wesleys and Whitefield! But America has been the land of the glory
and triumph of the doctrines of the man you labor to convict of the
awful sin of lying!
But you deny that the Pope of Rome, in _temporal_ matters, claims what
Mr. Wesley attributed to him in the letter copied by Senator Berrien.
You also deny that the Popes claim and have exercised the right to
interfere with matters of government, and the right to absolve their
followers in other countries, and under other governments, from their
allegiance to such rulers and governments. I will proceed to vindicate
Mr. Wesley, and, by the proof, saddle the lie on you! Whilst John was
King of England, he had the "Magna Charta," the great charter securing,
among other things, the right of trial by jury, wrung from him at the
point of the bayonet. This great charter was annulled by Pope Innocent.
Here is the proof:
"While the king was employed in the siege of Rochester, he
received the pleasing intelligence, that according to his
request the charter had been annulled by the pontiff. Innocent,
enumerating the grounds of his judgment, insists strongly on
the violence employed by the barons. If they really felt
themselves aggrieved, they ought, he observes, to have accepted
the offer of redress by due course of law. They had preferred,
however, to break the oath of fealty, which they had taken, and
had appointed themselves judges to sit upon their lord. They
knew, moreover, that John had enrolled himself among the
crusaders; and yet they had not scrupled to violate the
privileges which all Christian nations had granted to the
champions of the cross. Lastly, England was become the fief of
the holy see; and they could not be ignorant that if the king
had the will, he had not at least the power, to give away the
rights of the crown, without the consent of his feudal
superior. He was therefore bound to annul the concessions which
had been extorted from John, as having been obtained in
contempt of the holy see, to the degradation of royalty, the
disgrace of the nation, and to the impediment of the crusade.
At the same time he wrote to the barons, re-stating his
reasons, exhorting them to submit, requesting them to lay their
claims before him in the council to be held at Rome; and
promising that he would induce the king to consent to whatever
might be deemed just or reasonable, to take care that all
grievances should be abolished, that the crown should be
content with its just rights, and the clergy and people should
enjoy their ancient liberties."--_Lingard's History of
England_, vol. ii., page 71.
Will it be said that this was not interfering with _temporal_ matters?
Will it be said that the right of trial by jury was a _spiritual_
matter? Will it be said that the tyranny of King John, and his
oppressions, of which the barons justly complained, were _spiritual_
matters? No sensible advocate of Romanism will say this!
The next instance of an interference by the Pope in temporal affairs, to
which I shall call your attention, Governor, is his excommunication of
Elizabeth, Queen of England. She was immediately preceded on that throne
by her sister Mary, who was a Catholic. For no other reason than that
Elizabeth was a _Protestant_, and would not submit her rights and
kingdom to the control of the Pope, Pius V. thundered forth at her
devoted head the following anathema, from his throne at the Vatican,
situated at the foot of one of the seven hills upon which Rome is built:
EXCOMMUNICATION AND DEPOSITION Of QUEEN ELIZABETH OF ENGLAND.
"Pius, etc., for a future memorial of the matter. He that
reigneth on high, to whom is given all power in heaven and on
earth, committed one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, _out
of which there is no salvation_, to one alone upon the earth,
Peter the Prince of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the
Bishop of Rome, to be governed in _fulness of power_. Him alone
he made prince over all people, and all kingdoms, to pluck up,
destroy, scatter, consume, plant and build, etc. But the number
of the ungodly hath gotten such power, that there is now no
place left in the whole world which they have not essayed to
corrupt with their most wicked doctrines. Amongst others,
Elizabeth, _the pretended Queen of England, a slave of
wickedness_, lending thereunto her helping hand, with whom, as
in a sanctuary, the most pernicious of all men have found a
refuge; this very woman having seized upon the kingdom, and
monstrously usurping the place of the supreme Head of the
Church in all England, and the chief authority and jurisdiction
thereof, hath again brought back the same kingdom to miserable
destruction, which was then newly reduced to the faith, and to
good order. For having by strong hand inhibited the true
religion, which Mary, the lawful queen, of famous memory, had,
by the help of this See, restored, after it had been formerly
overthrown by King Henry VIII., a revolter therefrom, and
following and embracing the errors of _heretics_, she hath
removed the royal council, consisting of the English nobility,
and filled it with obscure men, being heretics; hath oppressed
the embracers of the Roman faith, hath placed impious
preachers, ministers of iniquity, and abolished the sacrifice
of the mass, prayers, fastings, distinction of meats, a single
life, and the rites and ceremonies; hath commanded books to be
read in the whole realm, containing manifest heresy, etc. She
hath not only contemned the godly requests and admonitions of
princes concerning her healing and conversion, but also bath
not so much as permitted the Nuncios of the See to cross the
seas into England, etc. We do, therefore, out of the fulness of
our apostolic power, declare the aforesaid Elizabeth, being
heretic, and a favorer of heretics, and her adherents in the
matter aforesaid, to have incurred the sentence of anathema,
and to be cut off from the unity of the body of Christ. And,
moreover, we do declare her to be deprived of her pretended
title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity,
and privilege whatsoever; and also the nobility, subjects, and
people of the said kingdom, and all others which have in any
sort sworn unto her, to be for ever absolved from any such
oath, and all manner of duty or dominion, allegiance and
obedience; as we also do, by the authority of these presents,
absolve them, and do deprive the same Elizabeth of her
pretended title to the kingdom, and all other things aforesaid.
And we do command and interdict all and every one of the
noblemen, subjects, people, and others aforesaid, that they
presume not to obey her, or her admonitions, mandates, and
laws; and those who shall do the contrary, we do innodate with
the like sentence of ANATHEMA.
"Given at St. Peter's at Rome, in the year 1569, and the fifth
of our pontificate."--_Dowling's History of Romanism_, p. 564.
One more: Sixtus V. thunders his bull of excommunication at this same
Queen of England--incites Philip of Catholic Spain to make war against
her country--and graciously _gives_ the British Isles to Philip! Here is
the bull of Pope Sixtus:
"We, Sixtus the Fifth, the universal shepherd of the flock of
Christ, the supreme chief, to whom the government of the whole
world appertains, considering that the people of England and
Ireland, after having been so long celebrated for their
virtues, their religion, and their submission to our see, have
become putrid members, infected, and capable of corrupting the
whole Christian body, and on account of their subjection to the
impious, tyrannical, and sanguinary government of Elizabeth,
the bastard queen, and by the influence of her adherents, who
equal her in wickedness; and who refuse, like her, to recognize
the power of the Roman Church: regarding that Henry VIII.
formerly, for motives of debauchery, commenced all these
disorders by revolting against the submission which he owed to
the Pope, the sole and true sovereign of England; considering
that the usurper Elizabeth has followed the path of this
infamous king, we declare that there exists but one mode of
remedying these evils, of restoring peace, tranquillity, and
union to Christendom, of re-establishing religion, and of
leading back the people to obedience to us, which is, to depose
from the throne that execrable Elizabeth, who falsely arrogates
to herself the title of Queen of the British Isles. Being then
inspired by the Holy Spirit for the general good of the Church,
we renew, by the virtue of our apostolic power, the sentence
pronounced by our predecessor, Pius the Fifth and Gregory the
Thirteenth, against the modern Jezebel: we proclaim her
deprived of her royal authority, of the rights, titles, or
pretensions to which she may lay claim over the kingdoms of
Ireland and England, affirming that she possesses them
unlawfully and by usurpation. We relieve all her subjects from
the oaths they may have taken to her, and we prohibit them from
rendering any kind of service to this execrable woman; it is
our will, that she be driven from door to door like one
possessed of a devil, and that all human aid be refused her;
we declare, moreover, that foreigners or Englishmen are
permitted, as a meritorious work, to seize the person of
Elizabeth and surrender her, living or dead, to the tribunals
of the inquisition. We promise to those who shall accomplish
this glorious mission, infinite recompenses, not only in the
life eternal, but even in this world. Finally, we grant plenary
indulgence to the faithful who shall willingly unite with the
Catholic army which is going to combat the impious Elizabeth,
under the orders of our dear son Philip the Second, to whom we
give the British Isles in full sovereignty, as a recompense for
the zeal he has always shown toward our see, and for the
particular affection he has shown for the Catholics of the Low
Country."--_De Cormenin's History of the Popes_, p. 262.
Here is what Macaulay, a reliable historian, says of the baneful effects
of Romanism:
"From the time when the barbarians overran the Western Empire
to the time of the revival of letters, the influence of the
Church of Rome has been generally favorable to science, to
civilization, and to good government. But, during the last
three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been
her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has
been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts
of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been
in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most
fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk
into poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual
torpor, while Protestant countries, once proverbial for
sterility and barbarism, have been turned, by skill and
industry, into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes
and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what
Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what four hundred years
ago they naturally were, shall now compare the country round
Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form
some judgment of the tendency of Papal domination. The descent
of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths
of degradation, the elevation of Holland, in spite of many
natural disadvantages, to a position such as no commonwealth so
small has ever reached, teach the same lesson. Whoever passes,
in Germany, from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant principality,
in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant canton, in
Ireland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant county, finds
that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade of
civilization. On the other side of the Atlantic the same law
prevails. The Protestants of the United States have left far
behind the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The
Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain inert, while the whole
continent round them is in a ferment with Protestant activity
and enterprise."--_Macaulay's History of England_, vol. i., p.
37.
I must be permitted to add, just here, that in 1848, when the people of
France expelled Louis Philippe from the throne in Paris, and established
a Republic, the present old drunken, goutified debauchee, Pope Pius IX.,
hurled at the French nation a fearful bull of excommunication, and
denied them the right of revolution! Was this interfering in temporal
matters? But no longer ago than the year 1854, this same old vagabond,
Pope Pius, issued orders absolving his followers from all allegiance to
the Sardinian Government, because that government chose to abolish the
infamous monasteries, which had been so long supported at the expense of
an oppressed people! Was this not interfering in temporal matters? I
could multiply authorities, Governor, to an indefinite extent,
sustaining Mr. Wesley's views, and falsifying all you say, but this
would swell my reply beyond what I intended in the outset. Let me call
your attention to Brownson's Review, for July, 1853, where you will find
all this power, and even more, claimed for the Pope, over temporal
sovereigns and their subjects, the world over! This _Review_ is the
acknowledged organ of _Archbishop Hughes_, the head and front of the
Catholic Church in North America.
You state that our Declaration of Independence absolved from every
possible obligation to the Pope in temporal matters. Your language is:
"The moment it was read and proclaimed from old Independence
Hall in Philadelphia, obedience in temporal matters, if it ever
existed, ceased for ever, as to every native-born son in
America."
You further add that the Constitution of the United States set aside all
temporal power of the Pope in this country, and that if any doubts
remain, the finishing touch is given by the following oath of
naturalization, taken by our naturalized citizens:
"I do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of
the United States, and that I do _absolutely and entirely_
renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign
prince, potentate, or state, or sovereignty _whatever_."
Sir, do you suppose that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers,"
whom you have the impudence to address, are all fools? Do you suppose
they are men of no reading or information? If they know any thing, they
certainly know that the oath of naturalization they, the Catholics,
take, weighs no more with them than a feather. A Catholic can evade the
force of any oath, by a _mental reservation_. Here is what Sanchez says,
the very highest Catholic authority, whose teaching, including this
interpretation of oaths, has been endorsed by the Council of Trent:
"It is lawful to use _ambiguous terms_ to give the impression a
different sense from that which you understand yourself. A
person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing,
though in fact he has, by saying to himself it was not done on
a certain day, or before he was born, or by concealing any
other similar circumstances; which gives another meaning to it.
This is extremely convenient, and always very just, when
necessary to your health, honor, or prosperity."
In addition to this, let me tell you, if you never before knew the fact,
that Judge Gaston, a distinguished Jurist, and a gentleman of excellent
character, though a rigid Roman Catholic, of North Carolina, was
appointed to a seat upon the Supreme Bench of that State. The
Constitution of that State, unlike those of almost all other States,
requires every Judge to take an oath, among other things, that HE
BELIEVES IN THE TRUTH OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION. Mr. Gaston asked time
to think over the matter--he repaired to the Archbishop at Baltimore,
doubtless obtained a dispensation--wrote back to Raleigh from there,
that he would take the oath--returned, and in due time solemnly swore
that _he believed in the truth of the Protestant Religion_. He died in
Raleigh, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court--but lived and died a
Roman Catholic!
During the past month, in this city, W. G. McAdoo, the Attorney General
for this Judicial Circuit, had some Irish Catholics brought before the
Grand Jury, to testify in cases of unlawful gaming and the retailing of
ardent spirits. The Clerk swore them on a common English Testament, and
they returned to the Jury room, and testified that they knew of no
cases! The Attorney for the Commonwealth then procured the _Catholic
Douay Bible_, with a large _Cross_ upon its outside, swore them upon
this--sent them in, and they _disgorged_, telling of various cases, and
enabling the Jury to find bills against even some of their own folks! An
oath, then, is nothing with strict Roman Catholics, who believe their
Priests can absolve them from the obligations of any and all oaths. For
notwithstanding your denial of the fact, it is notoriously true, that
the members of the Catholic Church believe their Priesthood to exercise,
by Divine right, the power to fix and determine their eternal destiny.
Nay, every Roman Catholic in the known world is under the absolute
control of the Catholic Priesthood, by considerations not only of a
temporal, but an eternal weight. This is what gives their Priesthood
such power and influence in elections; an influence they are using in
every State, against the American party. And it is this faculty of
concentration, this political influence, this power of the Priesthood to
control the Catholic community, and cause a vast multitude of ignorant
foreigners to vote as a _unit_, and thus control the will of the
American people, that has engendered this opposition to the Catholic
Church. It is this aggressive policy and corrupting tendency of the
Romish Church; this organized and concentrated political power of a
distinct class of men; foreign by birth; inferior in intelligence and
virtue to the American people, and not their religion and form of
worship, objectionable as these are known to be, which have called forth
the opposition of the American party to the Catholic Church.
But, sir, you occupy several pages in copying and commenting upon the
several oaths administered to the members of the American party--oaths
which, as you tell us, are revolting in their character, and lead to the
indiscriminate proscription of all foreigners. I meet all your
conjectures and wild speculations in reference to these several oaths
and obligations, by saying, just here, that I have taken them all, and
that they express my sentiments and feelings to the very letter; and I
am willing, for the remainder of my days, to go before an acting Justice
of the Peace, for the county of Knox, and have all three of these oaths
administered every Monday morning, upon the "Holy Bible and Cross."
You have failed, in your zeal to advocate Romanism and oppose the
American party, to tell the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom
you address, that we resort to our oaths and obligations to combat
successfully the most powerful oath-bound organization the world ever
knew. The oath of every _Roman Catholic Bishop_ and _Archbishop_ binds
him to absolute and unquestioned obedience, not only to the present Pope
but to his successors, "canonically coming in," and to "oppose and
persecute" all who do not submit to his authority! The oath of every
_Priest_ binds him to the Church of Rome "as the chief head and matron
above all pretended Churches throughout the whole earth," and to
"further her interests more than his own earthly good." The oath of the
_Jesuit_ binds him to the Pope, as "Christ's Vicar-General," by "all the
saints and hosts of heaven," and to "denounce and disown any allegiance
as due to Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates
or officers." The oath of the _San Fedisti_, a secret Order established
by the Papal government in 1821, binds them to sustain "the Papal altar
and throne, and to exterminate heretics, without pity for the cries of
children, or of men and women." The oath of the _Irish Ribbon Men_, an
Order established by the Papal government, and introduced into this
country by _Bedini_, the Pope's Nuncio, but a few years ago, binds him
"to extirpate all heretics, and all the Protestants, and to walk in
their blood to the knees." Is it not time to take the alarm, Governor,
and to combine to resist all these secret oath-bound associations, which
now threaten us with the loss of all that freemen and Protestant
Christians hold dear on earth?
It is a matter of utter astonishment to find a great political party in
this country, most of whom are native-born Protestants, taking sides
with a foreign Church, whose designs against this country, according to
the avowals of the Duke of Richmond, lately Governor-General of Canada,
are of the most wicked and fearful character! Speaking of this
government, the Duke said in a public address, on our northern border:
"It will be destroyed: it ought not, and will not be permitted
to exist. The curse of the French revolution, and subsequent
wars and commotions in Europe, are to be attributed to its
example; and so long as it exists, no prince will be safe upon
his throne; and _the sovereigns of Europe are aware of it_, and
they have _determined upon its destruction, and have come to an
understanding upon this subject, and have decided on the means
to accomplish it_; and they will eventually succeed, by
SUBVERSION _rather than conquest_. All the low and surplus
population of the different nations of Europe will be carried
into that country. It is and will be a receptacle for the bad
and disaffected population of Europe, when they are not wanted
for soldiers, or to supply the navies; _and the governments of
Europe will favor such a course_. This will create a surplus
and majority of low population, who are so very easily excited;
and they will bring with them their principles, and in nine
cases out of ten adhere to their ancient and former
governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion, and will
transmit them to their posterity; and in many cases propagate
them among the natives. These men will become citizens, and by
the Constitution and laws will be invested with the right of
suffrage. Hence, discord, dissension, anarchy, and civil war
will ensue; and some popular individual will assume the
government, and restore order, and the sovereigns of Europe,
the emigrants, and many of the natives, will sustain him. The
Church of Rome has a design upon that country; and it will in
time be the established religion, and will aid in the
destruction of that Republic. _I have conversed with many of
the sovereigns and princes of Europe; and they have unanimously
expressed these opinions relative to the government of the
United States, and their determination to subvert it._"
The monarchs of Europe, says the Duke of Richmond, will aid in sending
us a surplus of "low, excitable, bad, and disaffected men," who will
bring with them their principles, and will adhere to their foreign
notions of government, laws, manners, customs, and religion--and that
religion Catholic; and yet _you_, the "son of a now sainted father," of
Protestant raising, have the brazen effrontery to call upon the
"Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of an American Protestant Church
to aid you, your corrupt party, and the monarchs of Europe, in
destroying both our government and Church!
Sir, it is passing strange that Protestant Christians and their children
should be found side by side with you, Bishop Hughes, Gov. Johnson, and
the thousands of bad men who are seeking to build up a Roman Hierarchy
in this free country of ours! What do you promise the country and
yourselves, if Romanism proves successful in this contest? The history
of the past informs us that Rome has slain 1,000,000 of Albigenses and
Waldenses; 1,500,000 Jews, in Spain; 3,000,000 Moors, in Spain. France
will never forget St. Bartholomew's Night, when 100,000 souls perished
in Paris alone! The blood of Protestants has fertilized the soil of
England, Germany, and Ireland. I mean by this, that enough of Protestant
blood has been shed to _enrich_ all the poor lands of England, Germany,
and Ireland, if it were properly distributed. In all, the authentic
records of the Romish Church show, (and of this she makes her boast,)
that she has put to death SIXTY-EIGHT MILLIONS of human beings, for no
other offence than that of being _Protestants_ in their religious faith!
Average each person slain at four gallons of blood, and medical writers
say a healthy person yields more, and it makes TWO HUNDRED AND
SEVENTY-TWO MILLIONS OF GALLONS!--enough to overflow the banks of the
Mississippi, and destroy all the cotton and sugar plantations in
Mississippi and Louisiana!
But you argue, in your blasphemous publication, that this is no longer a
characteristic of the Romish Hierarchy. Why is it not? Has she ever
changed for the better? When did she ever renounce these doctrines and
practices? Never, no, never! Hers is the same tyrannical system
now--where she has the power--that it always has been, and always must
be, in the very nature of things! It is her boast, and the boast of her
standard authors, that she is always right, and knows no change! And wo
to this land of ours, if ever Rome gets the ascendancy here! Her whole
system is adverse to our Republican institutions, and she hesitates not
to declare it! _Brownson_ says in his Review:
"Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the _lying
world_, and, instead of pleading for our Church at the bar of
the State, _summon the State itself to plead at the bar of the
Church, its divinely constituted judge_."
No wonder, sir, that the American people are aroused! Such bold and
startling avowals are calculated to arouse and unite the somewhat
divided bands of Protestant Christians; to wake up a host of Luthers,
Calvins, Cranmers, and Wesleys; to bind together "the heretics condemned
in a mass." The very latest thing I have seen is the "Pastoral Letter"
of the Bishops of the Province of St. Louis, just issued. That document
explicitly says:
"We maintain the superiority of the _spiritual_ over the
_temporal_ order. We maintain that the temporal ruler is
_bound_ to conform his enactments to the Divine law. We
maintain that the Church is the supreme judge of all questions
concerning faith and morals; and that in the determination of
such question, the _Roman Pontiff, Vicar of Jesus Christ_,
constitutes a tribunal from which there is no appeal; and to
whose award all the children of the Church must yield
obedience."
Now, sir, after this authoritative and official announcement, I don't
want to see any more of your wire-drawn distinctions between spiritual
and temporal allegiance to the Pope. These Bishops say that both are
alike binding. Nor do I want to see any more of your malignant efforts
to fix the _lie_ upon Mr. Wesley, for affirming in Europe, during the
past century, what the Bishops of the United States have announced, in a
Pastoral Address, in the present day!
Pope Pius IX. has, by a special act, made the Virgin Mary the special
patron of these United States; but the Protestants of this country have
also made a decree, and that decree is, that Jesus Christ, and not the
Virgin Mary, shall be the patron of these United States.
And I am happy to have it in my power to inform you, notwithstanding the
influence of your Address, that the "Bishops, Elders, and other
Ministers" of the Methodist Church, both North and South, are ready to
make a common, determined, prayerful effort to save our native land from
the threatened slavery of submission to the decisions of the Council of
Trent, and the equally corrupt conventions of Progressive Democracy!
Assuming what is notoriously _false_--that the Know Nothings are in
favor of all measures fatal to the South, and destructive to the
Constitution--you ask on page 25 of your _infinitely infernal_ Address:
"What if a proposition be pending to repeal the Fugitive Slave
Law--the Kansas and Nebraska law--the rejection of a State
asking admission into the Union, because its constitution may
tolerate slavery?"
You know, sir, that the 12th Plank in the Philadelphia Platform of the
American party is a safer guaranty upon this slavery question, and the
perpetuity of existing laws, than is to be found anywhere in the creeds
of political parties. Here it is in full:
"The American party having arisen upon the ruins, and in spite
of the opposition of the Whig and Democratic parties, can not
be held in any manner responsible for the obnoxious acts or
violated pledges of either; and the systematic agitation of the
slavery question by those parties having elevated sectional
hostility into a positive element of political power, and
brought our institutions into peril, it has therefore become
the imperative duty of the American party to interpose, for the
purpose of giving peace to the country, and perpetuity to the
Union. And as experience has shown it impossible to reconcile
opinions so extreme as those which separate the disputants, and
as there can be no dishonor in submitting to the laws, the
National Council has deemed it the best guaranty of common
justice and of future peace, to abide by and maintain the
existing laws upon the subject of slavery, as a final and
conclusive settlement of that subject in spirit and in
substance.
"And regarding it the highest duty to avow their opinions upon
a subject so important, in distinct and unequivocal terms, it
is hereby declared as the sense of this National Council, that
Congress possesses no power, under the Constitution, to
legislate upon the subject of slavery in the States where it
does or may exist, or to exclude any State from admission into
the Union, because its Constitution does or does not recognize
the institution of slavery as a part of its social system; and
expressly pretermitting any expression of opinion upon the
power of Congress to establish or prohibit slavery in any
Territory, it is the sense of the National Council that
Congress ought not to legislate upon the subject of slavery
within the Territories of the United States, and that any
interference by Congress with slavery as it exists in the
District of Columbia, would be a violation of the spirit and
intention of the compact by which the State of Maryland ceded
the District to the United States, and a breach of the national
faith."
In the "wild hunt" for territory by the progressive Democracy, and their
efforts to settle our Western lands with foreigners who are to a man
Free Soilers and Abolitionists, the South has more to fear than from all
other considerations. What is Gov. Johnson's iniquitous Homestead Bill,
but a bid for foreigners? He proposes to give to the heads of families
one hundred and sixty acres of land, thus _hiring_ all the convicts and
paupers of Europe to come and settle in our Western States and
Territories! Sir, but let your progressive, sublimated,
double-distilled, converging-lines, Johnsonian Democracy bring into this
Union one million of Spanish <DW7>s--black, brown, sorrel, and
tawny--under the guise of acquiring Cuba for the South: let them bring
eight hundred thousand French and English <DW7>s, under the name of
acquiring Canada for the North: let them bring two millions of Mexican
<DW7>s--brown, tawny, red and black, being a mixture of all colors and
all nations--under the specious pretence of "extending the area of
freedom"--let all this be done--and your party, made up of native
traitors, and foreign vagabonds, and Catholic paupers, are aiming at
it--let it be done, I say, and farewell to liberty, and all that is
sacred in this country! With five millions of <DW7>s in our midst--four
millions and a half being of foreign birth, and four millions speaking a
foreign language--all taught from infancy to hate and detest
Protestantism as a crime--an American party would become an absolute
political necessity. Well do the Free Soil papers comprehend this
matter. Hear the infamous but influential _Chicago Tribune_, one of your
Douglass organs--one of your foreign Catholic organs. I quote from the
paper itself:
"It is now a well-attested fact, that Atchison is a member of
the Superior Order of the Spangled Banner, or Know Nothings,
and that his infernal villainy in Kansas has been carried on
under the protection and patronage of the lodges in Western
Missouri. This is a matter that all men in the North should
understand, that Northern voters may be exceedingly cautious
how they give countenance or support to an Order that, in any
of its phases or localities, is capable of producing such
results. It is further said, that the members of that Kansas
Legislature, now outraging all sense of right and justice by
their devilish enactments, are the chosen men of the affiliated
Know Nothings in Missouri and Kansas, who back then up in
whatever thing they do. Atchison and his gang are the friends
of the Order, and through it and Southern Know Nothing support
they are sure that their efforts to establish a despotism in
the Territory, if necessary, at the point of the bayonet, will
be successful. These facts account for many things heretofore
inexplicable, and they develop the true reason of the hostility
of the border-ruffians to the foreign immigration that would,
under other circumstances, people that vast and fertile country
west of the Missouri."
Thus it appears that a host of _lousy_ foreigners, fresh from the
emigrant ships, in which they are brought over to this country as
_ballast_--having the right to vote conferred upon them by an infamous
_progressive_ Democratic feature in the Kansas Bill, were expected to
get the control of affairs in Kansas. It further appears, however, that
Senator Atchison and his pro-slavery associates supposed that, though
fresh from their farms, and crossing the line of their State into the
new Territory, they too had the right to vote without being
_naturalized_ in Kansas. Hence, in the estimation of this Sag Nicht
organ at Chicago, a great outrage is committed upon Germany, Ireland,
and Italy!
Sir, you need not lay the flattering unction to your soul, that you can
drive the clergy generally from the noble stand they have taken upon
this great question. Nor need you suppose, for one moment, that the
American party are conquered, though defeated in several States in the
recent elections. The party will remain true to its ends. Though it fail
to command office, it cannot fail to exercise large power. Office is not
always strength; but sometimes, nay, frequently, as in the case of the
present Administration, weakness, as time will prove! The aim of the
American party is, by fair party means, to correct a great social evil
and political wrong; and if they cannot do that, to mitigate the evil
and the wrong; if they cannot do that, to prevent its _further
increase_; and if neither can be done, why, then I confess to you, the
party will have failed. But, sir, if such a failure take place, rest
assured that the "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers" of the Methodist
Church, South, will not help to bring about such a failure! We can
afford to let such minions of party as you are, rave and rant, and
publish their expositions, and issue their warnings to Churches: they
will all serve to swell our ranks. All true American hearts, not chained
to the car of party, or bound down by the cords of plunder, think alike
upon the great questions that have called the American party into
existence. Little do we regard the slanders of the pensioners of party.
Let their speeches and publications teem with wholesale slanders of our
creed: the political jockeyism of these thimble-riggers, as in your own
case, is too apparent!
From Maine to the shores of the Pacific the country is convulsed with
intense excitement upon this subject. Shall Americans govern themselves,
or shall Foreigners, unacquainted with our laws, and brought up under
monarchical governments, rule? Shall those who are temporally and
spiritually subject to a foreign prince be our legislators,
post-masters, foreign ministers, and military leaders, and change our
laws as they are directed by the Pope of Rome? Such results the American
party have set out to prevent. The present excitement will not cease;
true Americans and Protestants will labor and pray until our distracted
country shall be redeemed from the influence of civil and ecclesiastical
tyranny.
Now, Governor, I have noticed all your charges, arguments, and appeals,
but one, and that is the allegation that Methodist clerical Know
Nothings are _conspirators_. Your argument is--and I wish to represent
you correctly--"The offence of conspiracy is not confined to the
prejudicing of a particular individual; it may be to injure public
trade, to affect public health, or to _violate public policy_."
You cite Blackstone's Commentary, and other English Law Books, to
satisfy the Clergy as to the _law of conspiracy_. This done, you
overwhelm them with this sage and logical conclusion:
"The gist of the offence of conspiracy consists in a
confederacy to do an _unlawful act_, and the offence is
complete when the confederacy is made."
I will concede, for the sake of the argument, that this is sound law,
and that yours is a logical deduction. Nay, I will concede more--I grant
that it is an unlawful act for native Americans, and Protestant
Christians, whether ministers or laymen, to resolve, or swear, as we
Know Nothings have all done, that we will not vote for Catholics and
Foreigners for public offices! I take the ground you do, that a man's
vote is not his own, and that it is only to be disposed of by the
leaders of the party with which he may act!
And now, if you and I, both great men, and _Doctors of Law_, are correct
in laying down the law, and the _privilege of voters in this free
country_, what an infamous body of conspirators the Democrats are, and
have always been! For a quarter of a century, they have conspired to
keep the Whigs out of office--have succeeded in doing so most of that
time--and have kept thousands of them who are poor from becoming rich!
More recently, they have conspired with Abolitionists, Free Soilers,
Fourierites, Spiritualists, Roman Catholics, Irish, French, and German
paupers, and all manner of European convicts, to keep the American party
out of office, and have succeeded in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Texas, and other States--thereby
depriving the Americans of "lots" of money and honors, both of which
they need, and both of which are their _birthrights_!
The "Bishops, Elders, and other Ministers," whom you address, in
opposition to the great sin of _conspiracy_, would more cheerfully unite
with you to enforce law and order, and to prosecute offenders, but for
the fact that the _Abolition wing of your party_ once conspired against
them, to deprive their wives, children, widows, and orphans, of their
lawful portion of the great Book Concern in New York, and they were
compelled to punish the conspirators, at great expense, however, in the
District and Supreme Courts of the United States!
But, Sir, upon the subject of _oaths_, you are eloquent, apt in your
quotations of Scripture, and evince great learning in the legal
profession! You charge that "Know Nothingism is both unchristian and
unlawful, because of its _oaths_, which have no Scripture warrant for
their administration!" One of your quotations from the Bible is this:
"Swear not at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne: nor by the
earth, for it is his footstool." Your mind has undergone a great change
upon the subject of _oaths_ and _hard swearing_, since the 21st of
June, 1845, when you delivered your celebrated "Mount Pisgah" speech at
Athens. You then advised the people of the State to administer "horrible
oaths," and to swear by the "_heavens_," aye, "God's throne." But then
you were a Know Nothing. Here is what you say in your _revised_ copy of
that memorable speech:
"Go up with me in imagination and stand for awhile on some
lofty summit of the Rocky Mountains. Let us take one ravishing
view of this broad land of liberty. Turn your face toward the
Gulf of Mexico: what do you behold? Instead of one lone star
faintly shining in the far distant south, a whole galaxy of
stars of the first magnitude are bursting on your vision and
shining with a bright and glorious effulgence. Now turn with me
to the west--the mighty west--where the setting sun dips her
disk in the western ocean. Look away down through the misty
distance to the shores of the Pacific, with all its bays, and
harbors, and rivers. Cast your eyes as far as the Russian
Possessions, in latitude fifty-four degrees and forty minutes.
What a new world lies before you! How many magnificent States
to be the future homes of the sons and daughters of freedom!
But you have not gazed on half this glorious country. Turn now
your face to the east, where the morning sun first shines on
this land of liberty. Away yonder, you see the immortal old
thirteen, who achieved our independence; nearer to us lie the
twelve or fifteen States of the great valley of the
Mississippi, stretching and reposing like so many giants in
their slumbers. O! now I see your heart is full--it can take in
no more. Who now feels like he was a party man, or a southern
man, or a northern man? Who does not feel that he is an
American, and thankful to Heaven that his lot was cast in such
a goodly land? When did mental vision ever rest on such a
scene? Moses, when standing on the top of Mount Pisgah, looking
over on the promised land, gazed not on a scene half so lovely.
O! let us this day _vow_ that whatever else we may do, by
whatever name we may be called, we will never surrender one
square acre of this goodly heritage to the DICTATION of any
king or potentate on earth. SWEAR IT! SWEAR IT! my countrymen,
and let HEAVEN RECORD THE VOW FOR EVER!"
In conclusion, Governor, suffer a few words of advice, and I will bring
this letter, already too long, to a close. You are advanced in years,
nay, you have grown gray in the service of sin, and political intrigues;
and at most you have not long to live. Cease your political aspirations,
and turn your attention to future and eternal things! You have been a
member of our State Legislature; subsequently, a member of Congress; and
more recently the Governor of our State; honors and stations, to say the
least of it, equal to your merits and talents!
As a true "son of a now sainted father," from whom you have been
separated for many years, so demean yourself in future, that you may not
be separated, world without end! Humble yourself before God; confess
your numerous sins; and instead of lecturing God's ministers upon the
subject of party politics, ask them, with tears in your eyes, to pray
for you! Exercise a living faith in Christ, who came down from heaven,
and made upon the cross a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice,
oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world. Thus
obtaining forgiveness, cease your Sunday discussions on political
subjects; attend at the house of God, and set an example to other
ungodly Sag Nichts, and lead a new and different life!
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
W. G. BROWNLOW,
_A Local Methodist Minister._
GOVERNOR JOHNSON AND EDITOR EASTMAN.
On the 9th of October, 1855, and while the Legislature was in session at
Nashville, we delivered a speech to an immense crowd on the Public
Square; which, after certain preliminary remarks, we will give to the
public, just as it was spoken. The reason why the call was made on us to
deliver the speech was, that we had, the previous weeks, delivered the
same, in _substance_, at Shelbyville and Clarksville, and the American
party at Nashville hearing of it, and approving what was said, desired
us to repeat it; and, to be candid, we desired to repeat it there and
then!
Mr. Wise, of Virginia, gained great notoriety, in the spring of 1855, by
his abuse and blackguardism, heaped upon the American party. He was
successful; and Johnson, of Tennessee, whose ambition was to gain a more
infamous notoriety, profiting by the example of Wise, plunged into the
lowest depths of Billingsgate, and piled his vulgar epithets upon the
party _indiscriminately_. Wise, then, like all inventors and
originators, has had numerous _imitators_, and among the most successful
of these are Johnson, of Tennessee; Stephens, of Georgia; and Clingman,
of North Carolina. But as an adept in low Billingsgate slang, coarse
blackguardism, and as a slanderer and maligner of better men than
himself, Johnson has excelled his patron, Wise, and left far in the
shades of the distant caverns of abuse, both Stephens and Clingman!
To prepare the public mind for the degree of severity we used in
reference to the Governor of the State, we will introduce as many as
_five_ different extracts from his speeches, in his late canvass for
Governor, at Murfreesboro' and Manchester; as reported by his partisan
organ, the _Nashville Union_, and his _pliant tool_, its Abolition
editor, _E. G. Eastman_:
"THE DEVIL, HIS SATANIC MAJESTY, THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS, WHO
PRESIDES OVER THE SECRET CONCLAVE HELD IN PANDEMONIUM, MAKES
WAR UPON ALL BRANCHES OF CHRIST'S CHURCH. THE KNOW NOTHINGS
ADVOCATE AND DEFEND NONE, BUT MAKE WAR UPON ONE OF THE
CHURCHES, AND THUS FAR BECOME THE ALLIES OF THE PRINCE OF
DARKNESS."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Murfreesboro'.
"A DENOMINATION LIKE THIS, TO SET UP AS THE GUARDIANS OF THE
RELIGION AND MORALS OF THE COUNTRY! A DENOMINATION BOUND
TOGETHER BY SECRET AND TERRIBLE OATHS: THE FIRST OF WHICH, ON
THE VERY INITIATION, FIXES AND REQUIRES THEM TO CARRY A LIE IN
THEIR MOUTHS."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Murfreesboro'.
"SHOW ME THE DIMENSIONS OF A KNOW NOTHING, AND I WILL SHOW YOU
A HUGE REPTILE, UPON WHOSE NECK THE FOOT OF EVERY HONEST MAN
OUGHT TO BE PLACED."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at Manchester.
"THEY ARE LIKE THE HYENA, AND COME FROM THEIR LAIR AFTER
MIDNIGHT TO PREY UPON HUMAN CARCASSES."--[Speech of ANDREW
JOHNSON, at Manchester.
"I WOULD AS SOON BE FOUND IN THE CLAN OF JOHN A. MURRELL AS IN
A KNOW NOTHING COUNCIL."--[Speech of ANDREW JOHNSON, at
Manchester.
The _blackguard_ and _calumniator_ using this language, was elected by a
majority of two thousand votes: that majority being cast by _Foreigners
and illegal voters_; and consequently, his competitor, COL. GENTRY--than
whom there is not a more talented, patriotic, and honorable gentleman in
Tennessee--was fairly and justly elected. This, then, is the language
used by the Governor of Tennessee, _towards a majority of the legal
voters of the State_! Under these circumstances, we made the speech that
follows, to an immense crowd on the Square: the correspondence preceding
which, will explain itself:
NASHVILLE, Oct. 10th, 1855.
W. G. BROWNLOW, ESQ.:
_Dear Sir_:--The undersigned, having heard your speech on the
Square, last night, respectfully request that you embody the
substance of the same, and publish it in the Knoxville Whig.
The desire to see it in print is very general; and those who
heard it approved its severity, without it were such as were
bitter against the American party.
Your friends,
CHARLES G. SMITH,
JOHN MORRISON,
F. M. BURTON,
ROBT. S. NORTHCUTT,
SAML. DAVIS.
NASHVILLE, Oct. 13th, 1855.
MESSRS. SMITH, MORRISON, AND OTHERS:
_Gentlemen_:--Your note requesting me to publish the substance
of my remarks on the Square, last Tuesday night, has been
received, and I would have replied sooner, but for my absence
at Shelbyville. I have now made the same speech at Clarksville,
Nashville, and Shelbyville; and my only regrets are, that my
engagements prevent me from delivering the same speech at every
point in this State, where Gov. Johnson held me up as the "High
Priest of the Order," and argued therefrom the _want of
respectability_ for the Order. In addition to your request, I
have had verbal applications from many gentlemen to publish my
remarks--gentlemen who have been mild and moderate throughout
their political course. I shall, therefore, comply with your
request and theirs, at my earliest convenience.
I hold that no man's position in life should shield him from
the rebukes he may merit by his bad conduct; and as for the
present Governor of Tennessee, his wholesale abuse of the
American party, towards whose members, without a single
exception, he has indulged in language which ought not to be
tolerated within the precincts of Billingsgate, no epithet is
too low, too degrading, or disgraceful, to pay him back in.
Respectfully, &c.,
W. G. BROWNLOW.
FELLOW-CITIZENS:--The occasion which has called you together to-night,
is the special appointment of our young friend, Mr. Crowe, to whose
eloquence we have all listened with pleasure. I have made no appointment
to speak here; nor have I prompted the loud and long calls made upon me,
this evening, by this large Nashville audience. I shall speak to you;
but not upon the _issues_ of the late canvass, nor upon those of the
approaching canvass of 1856. I will discuss _Andrew Johnson_ and _E. G.
Eastman_; and if they are in the assembly, I hope they will come forward
and take seats on this stand, that I may have the pleasure of looking
them full in the face, as I denounce them in unmeasured terms: which is
my purpose to-night, let the consequences be what they may!
On a memorable night in August, after it was understood that _Andrew
Johnson_ was reelected to the office of Governor, a procession was
formed in Knoxville, composed of the worst materials in that young and
growing city--such as drunken, red-mouthed Irishmen, lousy Germans, and
insolent <DW64>s, with three or four men of respectable pretensions
thrown in, to exercise a controlling influence over these bad materials.
This riotous mob halted in front of my dwelling, in East Knoxville, and
_groaned_ and _sang_ for my especial benefit: all which was natural
enough--as they had triumphed over me in the election of a Governor. I
took no offence at their rejoicing over the election of Gov. Johnson, as
I told them; and for the reason, that I knew them to be of that class of
men who would _actually need the exercise of the pardoning power_, at
the hands of the present Governor, to release them from the
penitentiary, before his present term of service would expire!
From my humble dwelling, this _beautiful_ procession marched to the
Coleman House, on Gay street, yelling like devils, and insulting the
inmates of every house they passed. "Huzza for _Andy McJohnson_!"
exclaimed one. "Three cheers for _Andy O'Johnson_!" exclaimed another.
While, to cap the climax--"Well done, my _Johnsing_ and the _White
Bastard_," (meaning _Basis_,) exclaimed a drunken <DW64>! Halting in
front of the Coleman House, the Governor elect mounted a goods box, and
under feelings of great excitement, hatred, and malice, delivered a
speech abusive of the whole American party, excepting none, in coarse,
bitter language, in a style peculiarly his own--adapted alone to the
foul precincts of Billingsgate--rounding his periods with a diabolical
and infernal _grin_, alone suited to a display of oratory by a land
pirate!
I reported this slanderous speech--not in as offensive style--as it was
delivered; for his _looks_ and _grins_ no man can report on paper. I
also wrote the substance of what he said to Major Donelson, in a letter,
of which I shall have something more to say before I leave this stand.
Just here, I will repeat what the Governor did say, and what I reported
him to have said in my paper. I wish this large audience to hear me
distinctly, and to recollect the points I make; for I shall wind up on
the Governor and his miserable tool, _Eastman_, with a degree of
severity you have not been accustomed to, but which shall be warranted
by the facts in each case.
Gov. Johnson said this new party of self-styled Americans professed to
have organized with a view to purify and reform the old political
parties. A beautiful set, said he, to reform! The Order of Know Nothings
was composed of the worst men in the Whig and Democratic parties. As a
_sample_ of these men, he pointed out _Andrew J. Donelson_, by
name--exclaiming as often as twice, _Who is Andrew J. Donelson?_ He is a
soured, office-seeking, disappointed politician, who has been kicked out
of the Democratic party. To illustrate his views more fully, he told the
crowd to imagine a large gang of _counterfeiters_ out there! and an
equally large gang of _horse-thieves_ out yonder! Take from these two
companies the worst men in their ranks, form a third party of these, and
you have a representation of this Know Nothing party. This was a
beautiful party to propose reform, or to speak of other parties being
corrupt! He was interrupted repeatedly; and I think I may safely say,
among hands, they gave him the d----d lie fifty times! James M. Davis, a
respectable mechanic, asked him if he would say that to Major Donelson's
face? He replied, that he heard the hissing of an adder, or a goose, and
went through with certain stereotyped phrases you have all heard from
his lips. This call upon him by Mr. Davis was not named in my newspaper
report, nor in my letter to Major Donelson. Indeed, I did not anticipate
a denial of his abuse.
Now, fellow-citizens, it was in this connection, as well as in the most
offensive language, that Gov. Johnson introduced the name of Andrew J.
Donelson, repeating it more than once, emphasizing upon it, and
repeating it with scorn and bitterness. This is the report, _in
substance_, I made of his speech through my paper, and in a letter I
addressed to Major Donelson. And to the truth of my report, there are
one hundred respectable gentlemen in Knoxville who will make oath upon
the Holy Bible. There are now a half-dozen respectable gentlemen in this
crowd who were in the street at Knoxville on that occasion, and heard
every word the Governor said, and will sustain me in my account of it.
Among these I will name Messrs. White and Armstrong, members of the
House, Senator Rogers, Col. James C. Luttrell, and Mr. Fleming, the
editor of the Knoxville Register.
Well, gentlemen--and I am proud to have an opportunity of vindicating
myself before so large a Nashville audience as this is--I say Major
Donelson came to Nashville, after receiving intelligence of the abuse of
the Governor, and was seen walking these streets with a _large and
homely stick_ in his hand, looking _grum_, as any gentleman would do
under the circumstances. The friends of Gov. Johnson seeing what would
likely be the result of this affair, asked for, and very properly
obtained that letter, with a view to laying it before their slanderous
and abusive Executive officer, that he might _lie out of what he said_
about an honorable and brave man; and thereby avoid the disgrace of a
cudgelling! Did he lie out of the scrape? He did: aye, he _ingloriously
lied out_ of what he had said--leaving Major Donelson no ground for any
difficulty with him: although the Major had a right to suppose that any
man base enough to make such charges, would have no hesitancy in lying
out of his disreputable and cowardly abuse. I therefore pronounce your
Governor, here upon his own dunghill, an UNMITIGATED LIAR AND
CALUMNIATOR, and a VILLAINOUS COWARD, wanting the _nerve_ to stand up to
his abuse of better men than himself!
But it will be said that the Governor _proves_ me a liar, by a citizen
of Nashville, who was present at Knoxville and heard his speech. That is
so, but I prove both him and his witness liars, by a multitude of
witnesses who were also present, and who are gentlemen of the first
standing. But who is it that testifies that I have lied? It is _E. G.
Eastman_, the editor of the Sag Nicht organ in this city. And who is _E.
G. Eastman_? He is a dirty, lying, and unscrupulous Abolitionist, from
Massachusetts, who once conducted an Abolitionist paper either in that
State, or the State of New Hampshire. He was brought out to this State
to lie for the unscrupulous leaders of his party. He is paid for
_telling_ and _writing_ falsehoods, and would, if the interests of his
party required it, and a consideration were paid him in hand, _swear
lies_ as readily as he would write them down for publication. He is a
poor devil, as void of truth and honor as he has shown himself to be of
courage and resentment. He edits a low, dirty, scurrilous sheet; and,
like his master, Gov. Johnson, never could elevate himself above the
level of a common blackguard. No epithet is too low, too degrading, or
disgraceful to be applied to the members of the American party, by
either of these Billingsgate graduates. Decent men shun coming in
contact with either of them, as they would avoid a night-cart, or other
vehicle of filth. As some fish thrive only in dirty water, so the
Nashville Union and American would not exist a week out of the
atmosphere of slang and vituperation. A fit organ, this, for all who
arrange themselves under the dark piratical flag of Andrew Johnson and
his progressive Democracy. I am the more specific in reference to
_Eastman_, because I understand he is in this assembly!
But, fellow-citizens, I am not yet through with this Knoxville speech of
the Governor. Maj. Donelson visited Knoxville, one month after this
slanderous speech was made against him; he visited there upon the
invitation of the American party, to address a Mass Meeting. I waited
upon Maj. Donelson, upon his arrival, and found him at the house of
Doct. Curry. I told the Major that I was tired of having questions of
veracity between me and Governors and Ex-Governors of Tennessee, and
that I desired that others should state to him what had been said by the
Governor. Accordingly, different gentlemen, citizens of character,
informed him that they were in the crowd and heard Johnson, and that he
did say all that was attributed to him, both in the letter he had
received from me, and in the two Knoxville papers. Consequently, when
Maj. Donelson made his speech next day, he denounced the Governor as a
miserable calumniator, and refuted his villainous charges, in a manner
becoming the occasion, and with a frankness which carried with it a
conviction of its truth, and gave satisfaction to his numerous friends.
And now, gentlemen, I take occasion to state, that there is no longer an
adjourned question of veracity between me and Johnson and Eastman. The
issue is between Johnson and Eastman, on the one hand, and various
respectable gentlemen of Knoxville, on the other hand. Either the
Governor and his man Friday have basely lied, or a number of the
citizens of Knoxville and vicinity, have testified to what is false. I
assert, once more, that the Governor and his dirty Editor have lied out
of the villainous abuse the former heaped upon better men than himself.
And if their friends are willing to see them remain under the charge,
the American party are satisfied with the settlement of the question.
Fellow-citizens, while I am on the stand, I will notice some other
points personal to myself. And before I enter upon these, I will call
your attention to the wholesale abuse of the Governor, of some
thirty-five or forty thousand voters in Tennessee. In his Murfreesboro'
speech, he asserted that "_the Devil, his Satanic Majesty, presides over
all the secret conclaves_" held by the Know Nothings, and that "_they
are the allies of the Prince of Darkness_." I quote from his printed
speeches from memory, but it will be found that I quote correctly. In
that same speech, he asserts that all Know Nothings are "_bound by
terrible oaths to fix and carry a lie in their mouths_!" In his
Manchester speech, I believe it was, he called all members of the new
party "_Hyenas_," and "_huge reptiles, upon whose neck the feet of all
honest men ought to be placed_." And in this same speech he says he
"WOULD AS SOON BE FOUND IN A CLAN OF JOHN A. MURRELL'S MEN, AS IN A KNOW
NOTHING COUNCIL!"
What an imputation upon nearly one half of the legal voters of
Tennessee! He has used the most odious terms his _limited_ knowledge of
the English language would enable him to employ, to deride, defame,
insult, and blackguard every man who has joined the new party, or dares
to act with them in politics. In the plenitude of his bitter and
supercilious arrogance, Andrew Johnson has indulged in language against
the entire American party, which would not be tolerated within the
precincts of Billingsgate, or the lowest fish-market in London. And from
Johnson to Shelby counties, during the entire summer, this low-flung and
ill-bred scoundrel, pursued this same strain of vulgar and disgusting
abuse. And whether speaking of the most enlightened statesman, the
purest patriot, or the most pious clergyman, he pursued the same strain
of abuse. With him, a vile demagogue, whose daily employment is to
administer to the very worst appetites of mankind, no virtue, no honor,
no truth, exists anywhere, but in the breasts of such as are either
corrupt enough or fool enough to follow him, and a few malignant
falsifiers who worship at his shrine. He is a wretched and vile caterer
to the morbid foreign and Catholic appetite of this country. "It is a
dirty bird that fouls its own nest," says the proverb; and it applies to
this man Johnson with as much force as to the dirtiest of the feathered
tribe.
"Where is the wretch, so lost, so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my _own_, MY NATIVE LAND!"
He now disgraces the Executive Chair of this gallant State. Most of
God's creatures, human and brute, have an attachment to "HOME, SWEET
HOME;" but here is a contemptible and selfish demagogue who discards all
such feelings, and would transfer his country and home to strangers and
outlaws, to European paupers and criminals, if he could thereby receive
a temporary election, or receive a pocket-full of money. For such a
wretch I have no sympathy, and no feelings but those of scorn and
contempt, and hence it is that I speak of him in such terms.
On every stump in Tennessee, he held me up as "the High Priest of the
Order," representing Col. Gentry as _my_ candidate. Since I came to
Middle Tennessee, I have been informed that he pointed to the fancied
fact that I was the head of the Order, as an evidence of _its utter want
of respectability_. Turning up his nose, and grinning significantly, he
would inquire, _Who is William G. Brownlow?_
Now, gentlemen, since he makes this issue of _respectability_ with me, I
will accept it. Since he throws down the glove, I will take it up, and I
will show you that he is the last man on God's green earth to call in
question the respectability of other men, or their families! It would be
both cruel and unbecoming in me to speak of what the dishonest and
villainous relatives of Gov. Johnson have done, if he conducted himself
prudently, and did not abuse others with such great profusion. I am not
aware of any relative of mine ever having been hung, sent to the
penitentiary, or being placed in the stocks. I have no doubt that
persons related to me, directly or remotely, have deserved such a fate
long since. There is not a man in this vast assembly who can say, and
tell the truth, that he has no mean kin. Can Gov. Johnson say so?
Rather, can he say he has any other kind? He is a member of a numerous
family of Johnsons, in North Carolina, who are generally THIEVES and
LIARS; and though he is the best one of the family I have ever met with,
I unhesitatingly affirm, to-night, that there are better men than Andrew
Johnson in our Penitentiary! His relatives in the Old North State, have
stood in the Stocks for crimes they have committed. And his _own born
cousin_, Madison Johnson, was hung in Raleigh, for murder and robbery! I
told him of this years ago, in Jonesboro', and he denied it, and put me
to the trouble of procuring the testimony of Gov. John M. Morehead to
prove it! The Governor was petitioned to pardon Madison Johnson, and
declined, as he knew he suffered justly. This explains why this
_scape-gallows_ has been so bitter against Whig and Know Nothing
Governors. They have been so unfeeling, as to suffer his dear relatives
to _pull hemp without foothold_, when a jury of twelve honest men have
said that they deserved death! Is he not one of the last men living to
talk about a want of respectability on the part of any one? Certainly he
is!
Well, gentlemen, Johnson is again the Governor of Tennessee; but if he
could be mortified, he would have the mortification to know that he is
the Governor with a majority of the _legal native votes of the State_
cast in opposition to him. We all committed one capital blunder in the
late canvass, and that alone defeated Gentry, and elected Johnson. We
copied from the Book of Pardons a list of FORTY-SEVEN names of culprits
pardoned out of our State Prison by Johnson--some for <DW64>-stealing,
some for counterfeiting, house-breaking, rape, and other _Democratic_
measures--more pardons than all his "illustrious predecessors" ever
granted. In copying this list, we said to the voters of the State that
Johnson had spoken his honest sentiments when he said he preferred
being among a clan of Murrell men, to being found in a Know Nothing
Council; and in the same breath we assured them that if Gentry was
elected, he would let all such rascals stay in prison as long as the
courts of the country decreed they should. And while thousands of
honorable, high-minded men voted for Johnson, under the lash of party,
or because they were blinded by his glaring demerits, it is not to be
disguised that all the _petit larceny_ and _Penitentiary men_ in the
State voted for him. There never was a time in Tennessee when there were
not five thousand voters who either _had been stealing_, or _intended to
steal_! These would naturally look to where they would find a friend, in
the event of their being overtaken by justice. In the person of Andrew
Johnson, they felt assured of "a friend indeed, because a friend in
_need_." He had publicly told them that he preferred the company of
Murrell men to the society of the most respectable lawyers, doctors,
preachers, farmers, and mechanics in the State, who met in certain
councils. The fact of his turning so many Murrell men out of the State
Prison, and of his having been _raised up in such society_, left no
doubt of the sincerity of his profession!
In conclusion, fellow-citizens, if Gov. Johnson cannot lawfully canvass
the State a _third_ time for the office he now fills, I hope the
Legislature will legalize such a race by a special act, and I propose to
be the candidate against him. I will show the people of the State in his
presence, from the same stand, who are Murrell men, and who are not able
to look honest men in the face!
If I have said any thing to-night offensive to your Governor, or any of
his friends or understrappers in this city, they know where to find me.
When I am not on the streets, I can be found at No. 43, on the lower
floor of Sam Scott's City Hotel, opposite the ladies' parlor. I shall
remain here for the next ten days only, and whatever punishment any one
may wish to inflict upon me, it must be done in that time. I say this,
not because I seek a difficulty, but because I don't intend it shall be
said that I made this speech and took to flight!
I thank you, gentlemen, for the patience with which you have heard me in
a matter personal to myself, and I hope you are prepared to acquit me of
lying in the Donelson case, although Gov. Johnson and Editor Eastman
bear testimony against me. I thank you, and now bid you good night!
* * * * *
We beg leave to add, that in March, 1842, Andrew Johnson laid hold of us
in a speech in Blountville, when we were in Jonesborough, distant twenty
miles. He held up a picture or drawing of us, and accompanied it with
many abusive remarks. In turn, we held him up in the Whig of the 29th of
the same month, and gave his _pedigree_ in full, and with it a
_representation of his cousin Madison Johnson, under the gallows_ in
Raleigh!
The first Monday in April following, Johnson spoke in Jonesborough, and
denied _most solemnly that he ever had a relative by the name of Madison
Johnson--denied that a man of that name had ever been hung in
Raleigh--and asserted that the man hung there in 1841 was by the name of
Scott--a nephew, he said, of General Winfield Scott!_ This bold denial,
made in the presence of a large and anxious crowd, overwhelmed us _for
the time being_, as Johnson was raised in the vicinity of Raleigh, and
had learned his trade there. He was supposed to know, and for the moment
we were branded with falsehood. To aid him in his war upon us, the
"_Jonesborough Sentinel_," Johnson's organ, came out upon us, and
noticed his denial of our charge and his speech, in an article of which
the following is an extract:
"Brownlow said, some time back, that Col. Johnson had a cousin
hung in North Carolina. The Colonel developed the fact the day
he used up or skinned Brownlow alive in Jonesborough, _that
instead of its being his cousin, it was the nephew of Gen.
Winfield Scott_, now a _quasi_ <DW53> candidate for the
Presidency. Brownlow _is so silent_!"
After this, the Sentinel noticed us again, and this notice drew out
WESTON R. GALES, the then editor of the Raleigh Register, in the
following:
EDITORIAL COMPLIMENTS.
"We find the following editorial in the 'Jonesboro' (Tenn.)
Sentinel,' a Locofoco print, in relation to the editor of the
'Jonesboro Whig:'
"BROWNLOW made an awkward attempt last week to caricature a
person who was hung some years ago in North Carolina, whom he
termed the cousin of Col. JOHNSON. But it turns out to have
been the nephew of Gen. WINFIELD SCOTT, a distinguished <DW53>
leader. Poor BROWNLOW!--it ought to be his time next. Wonder
how many hen-roosts he robbed last summer?"
"We have nothing to do with whose time it is to be hung next,
nor with the number of hen-roosts robbed, nor by whom robbed,
but we will take occasion to correct the 'Sentinel' as to the
person hung here 'some years ago.'
"In the spring of 1841, a man named MADISON JOHNSON was hung in
this place for the murder of HENRY BEASLEY, but we were not
aware that he was any relation of Col. JOHNSON, if it be meant
thereby Col. R. M. JOHNSON, of Kentucky. He was, however,
connected with A. JOHNSON, the candidate for Congress in the
Jonesboro' District, MADISON and he being first cousins.
"The last man hung in this place by the name of SCOTT, was
MASON SCOTT, in 1820, and if the 'Sentinel' means to reflect
upon the Whig party by saying he was a nephew of Gen. WINFIELD
SCOTT, a 'distinguished <DW53> leader,' we are willing for him to
indulge in such misstatements.
"IF THE 'SENTINEL' HAD TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO CONSULT MR. A.
JOHNSON ON THE SUBJECT, HE WOULD HAVE SATISFIED HIM OF THE
FACTS, AS HE WAS IN THIS CITY ABOUT THE TIME MADISON WAS
EXECUTED."
It will be seen, that while Johnson was uttering his _solemn but false
denial_ at Jonesborough, he _knew he was lying_, for he was in Raleigh
"_about the time Madison was executed!_"
But we told our friends to hold on, to have patience, and to give us
time, and we would make good our charge. Accordingly, in the same issue
in which we brought out this extract from the Raleigh Register, we
published the following letter from Gov. MOREHEAD, in answer to one we
had written him:
RALEIGH, 24th April, 1843.
[EXECUTIVE OFFICE.]
"DEAR SIR--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours
of the 14th inst., requesting me to inform you what was the
name of the man hung in Raleigh in the spring of 1841.
"His name was MADISON JOHNSON. His case was taken to the
Supreme Court, and you will find it reported, December Term,
1840, vol. 1st, page 354, Iredell's Reports.
"He was hung for the murder of Henry Beasley. A strong effort
was made to procure a pardon for him; but believing his case a
clear murder, I refused to grant it.
"The only man named Scott that was ever convicted of murder at
this place, was Mason Scott, in 1820.
"You will find his case reported in the reports of the Supreme
Court, January Term, 1820, 1st Stark's Reports, page 24.
"I am not aware that any other man named Scott was ever
convicted of a capital offence in this county.
"I have the honor to be
"Your most ob't serv't,
"J. M. MOREHEAD."
"Rev. W. G. BROWNLOW."
In conclusion, after this letter appeared, and Johnson was elected, he
sent an appointment to Raleigh, for a speech--attended there, and
blackguarded and vilified "Morehead and Brownlow" for two hours. He made
the _letter_ of Morehead the pretext for his abuse, but the real cause
was the Governor's refusal to _pardon his cousin_. Johnson was there to
procure his pardon, and brought every appliance to bear within his
power, but the North Carolina Governor was inflexible in the discharge
of his sworn duty! We do not make the point against Johnson that he has
_mean kin_, only so far as it may _offset_ his abuse of others, for who
of us are without mean kinsfolks? But our point is, his _deliberate
lying_ before a Jonesboro' audience!
From the Knoxville Whig of Dec. 1, 1855.]
GOVERNOR JOHNSON'S THANKSGIVING DAY.
As the sixth of the present month has been set apart by our Governor, to
be observed as a day of prayer and thanksgiving to Almighty God for his
numerous and unmerited mercies conferred upon the people of our State
and nation; and as it is desirable that the different sects shall act in
concert on the occasion, and at least pray "with the understanding,"
that is to say, _appropriately_, we have been at the trouble to prepare
a form of prayer for the occasion. This we do in no irreverend spirit,
but in all candor and sincerity, after this wise:
ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, in whom we live, and move, and have our
being: we, thy needy creatures, render thee our humble praises, for thy
preservation of us from the beginning of our lives to this day of public
thanksgiving, and especially for having delivered us from all the
dangers and afflictions of the year about to close. By thy knowledge,
most gracious God, the depths were broken up during the past seed-time
and harvest, and the rains descended: while by night the clouds
distilled the gentle dew, filling our barns with plenty: thus crowning
the year with thy goodness, in the increase of the ground, and the
gathering in of the fruits thereof. And we beseech thee, O most merciful
Father, give us a just sense of this great mercy: such as may appear in
our lives, by an humble, holy, and obedient walking before thee all our
days!
To thy watchful providence, O most merciful God, we are indebted for all
our mercies, and not any works or merit of ours; for many of us entered
into the scramble to elevate to the Executive Chair of the State the
present incumbent, with a perfect knowledge that he had abused thy Son,
JESUS CHRIST, our Lord, on the floor of our State Senate, as a swindler,
advocating unlawful interest: we knew that he had voted in Congress
against offering prayers to thee: we knew that he had opposed the
temperance cause, which is the cause of God and of all mankind: we knew
that he had vilified the Protestant religion, and slandered the
Protestant clergy, defending and eulogizing the corruptions of the
Roman Catholic Church, throughout the length and breadth of our State;
yet such was the force of party ties, O most mighty God, that we went
into the support of our INFIDEL GOVERNOR blind, and, by our zeal in his
behalf, gave the lie to our professions of piety, rendered ourselves
hateful in the eyes of all honest and consistent men, meriting a degree
of punishment we have never received! We do most heartily repent, O
merciful God, for these shameful sins: we humble ourselves in lowest
depths of humility, and ask forgiveness of a God whom we have justly
provoked to anger, and the forgiveness of our insulted brethren, whom we
have wickedly blackguarded, to the great injury of the cause of Christ!
O most merciful God, who art of purer eyes than to behold iniquity, turn
not a deaf ear to our supplications on this day, because the day has
been set apart by a Governor who really does not subscribe to the
Christian religion; does not attend Divine service; who swears
profanely; and has insulted Heaven and outraged the feelings of all
pious Christians, by teaching the blasphemous sentiment that
Christianity is of no higher or holier origin than his Democracy! Have
mercy, our Father and God, upon that portion of this congregation who
have endeavored to find peace to their souls by travelling along the
"converging lines" of a spurious Democracy, in search of the foot of
"Jacob's Ladder," and give them repentance and better minds! And do
thou, O God of pity, show all such, that instead of ascending to heaven
on an imaginary "Ladder," they are chained fast to the Locomotive of
Hell, with the Devil for their Chief Engineer, the Pope of Rome as
Conductor, and an ungodly Governor as Breakman; and that, at more than
railroad speed, they are driving on to where they are to be eternally
punished by Him whom thou hast appointed the Judge of quick and dead,
thy Son JESUS CHRIST, our Lord. Amen!
[From the Knoxville Whig of May 24, 1856.]
THE FOREIGN SPIRIT ILLUSTRATED.
The following correspondence will explain itself, whilst it will serve
to show the spirit which governs this Bogus Foreign Catholic Democracy:
RICHMOND, April 21, 1856.
REV. AND DEAR SIR:--It cannot be unkind in me, though
personally unknown to you, to address you on a subject in which
our peace as citizens is alike concerned. I see in the
Fincastle Democrat of 18th inst. what purports to be a review
of an article of yours in the Knoxville Whig of 5th inst., in
which I suppose, from the remarks contained in the Democrat, I
have been very, _very_ severely handled by you, for an offence
I never committed. You will allow me to say, sir, that I have
no recollection of ever writing or speaking a disrespectful
word of you in all my life, but, on the contrary, have
frequently spoken approvingly of much you have written. Such
being the fact, you will not be surprised to learn how deeply I
regret that the purest innocence on my part has failed to be a
protection against personal abuse. That you have been misled by
some person, is to my mind very plain, and if, through the
influence of another, you have inflicted a wound upon one that
never harmed you, nor ever designed to harm you, is it not
within the range of a generous nature--of an honest man--to
repair the injury by at once giving up to the injured party the
name of the deceiver, or publish him to the world as authority
for the assault, and let him assume its responsibilities?
In a change of circumstances, I should feel bound, by the honor
of a man, to do that much, and in my present relation to the
case I ask nothing more. It is perhaps due to you to be
informed, that I have not seen your article, nor do I know a
word it contains, and it is due to myself to say that I knew
nothing of the article in the Democrat assailing you, till I
saw it in print some hundred of miles from home, where I have
not yet arrived after an absence of nearly two months. On the
subject of dues, I may add that it is due to the public that
the name of the deceiver be given them. I of course suppose him
to be a man of great personal courage, ready to assume all his
own responsibilities. In conclusion, permit me to say, that any
effort on your part to aid in concealing the hand that uses the
dagger in the dark, will detract largely from the estimate I
have placed upon your character, as a man without hesitation or
fear, when the claims of justice are presented. My address is
Fincastle, Botetourt Co., Va., and I am very respectfully,
S. D. HOPKINS.
* * * * *
KNOXVILLE, May 21st, 1856.
REV. S. D. HOPKINS:
SIR--Through the weakness, mismanagement, and culpable
remissness of the contemptible Jesuit now at the head of the
Post Office Department, and his numerous lackeys--all of whom
you sustain in their politics--a letter written by you one month
ago was received a few days since, while I was absent at a Know
Nothing Convention, aiding my political brethren in placing
before the people of this Congressional District an electoral
candidate, to aid in the great Christian and patriotic work of
overthrowing the corrupt, profligate, unprincipled, Foreign
Catholic Bogus Democratic party, of which _you_ are a member,
and in the service of which you are an editor! But my delay in
replying to your letter shall be atoned for in the _length_ and
_plainness_ of my reply.
It is true, sir, that I published an editorial in my paper, of
some severity against you; but the article was in _reply_ to a
low, cowardly, and abusive editorial against me in the
"Fincastle Democrat," of which you are the editor. And "you will
allow me to say, sir," that at the time this attack was made
upon me in _your_ paper, I never had said a word about you or
your paper in my life, either "good, bad, or indifferent;" and
"if through the influence of another you have inflicted a wound
upon one that never harmed you, is it not within the range of a
generous nature--of an honest man"--to repair the injury by
taking back the article, and apologizing through the same medium
for the injury? If, however, you believe you have not "been
misled by some person," and have done me no more than justice in
that abusive article, hold on to it. Having made oath that the
horse is _fifteen feet high_, allow of no correction!
In all frankness, you must permit me to say, that I believe you
expected to find in the office on your return to Fincastle, a
letter from me demanding your authority for admitting into your
paper such an article against me, who, as you very well knew, up
to that hour had never said one word, publicly or privately,
against you or your paper. I think you concluded to _take the
start of me_, and thus to _forestall_ me, by writing from
Richmond some twenty-four hours before you would arrive at home!
In your paper of the 18th of April, issued only three days
before this letter was written at Richmond, an editorial of half
a column appears, in which _your_ paper styles me a "notorious
blackguard"--a "bullying blackguard"--an "unwanted and lying
man"--who "is mean enough to lie, cheat, or even steal"--a man
"wearing the garb of righteousness to serve the Devil in;" and
in the same article, the case of a Locofoco editor, who was
involved in a shooting scrape on account of his attack upon a
lady, is actually attributed to ME! Although you are a Reverend
Methodist Preacher, and a grave and dignified Steam Doctor,
conducting one of the organs of the Foreign and Anti-American
party in Virginia, you must pardon me for saying, as I now do,
that in calling upon me for my authority for what I had said in
reply to the unmitigated abuse of _your_ paper, you have proven
to my mind, that if you do not possess the cool and collected
impudence of the _Devil_, you are at least possessed of the
lion-headed impudence of an unprincipled Sag Nicht partisan,
hired to do the dirty work of an equally unprincipled and dirty
organization!
But it is due to the history of this controversy that I should
say, this second attack upon me sets forth that you are from
home, and that "the _Junior_ is responsible for the article."
This might be credited, if, on your return home, you had
protested against such abuse, but it seems from your silence to
have met with your heart's approval, and gave "general
satisfaction," at least to _you_! It is true that you were
absent at the time of both these publications, but it does not
follow, as a matter of course, that you were not the veritable
author, and that they did not find their way to the "Democrat"
office at the same time and in the same way that your "Baltimore
Correspondence" got there. The "Junior," as he styles himself,
claims the fraternity; and were it not that he is too well known
in Fincastle for any sane man to believe that _he_ wrote the
articles, he might have the credit (if credit there be attached
to it) of so low, malicious, and lying articles. But he is known
in Fincastle to be a brainless man, and to be incapable of
writing a paragraph on any subject. He is known to have no use
of language, and to be incapable of applying epithets to any
one. So that, if _you_ did not write these articles, they were
manufactured at "Irish Corner," in Fincastle, your "Junior" not
being able to do it, for the reason that he is wholly incapable.
My opinion is, that the articles were manufactured by the "Great
Mogul" of the Anti-American party in your town, and if he will
only avow himself the author, I will make some disclosures upon
him that will make him wish himself back in "Swate Ireland,"
where he "lives, and moves, and has his being;" no disclosures
are necessary--his books, and his person, damn him to
everlasting infamy. He has the filthiest-looking mouth, and the
most offensive breath, of any man in the Valley of Virginia. No
man who knows him will meet him square on the pavement, or place
himself in a position, if it can be avoided, of meeting a breeze
from that great reservoir of all nastiness, his mouth! It is
really a wonder how any human being can LIVE, and emit all the
time a stream of such overwhelming and uninterrupted STENCH! You
must permit me to christen this man as the But-Cut of Original
Sin, and the Upper-crust of all Nastiness!
It may not set well upon your stomach, that being a "Minister of
the Gospel, and having the care of souls," I should seem not to
place implicit confidence in your denial of any participation in
this unprovoked war upon me. I will be candid with you, and
though it is possible for me to be mistaken in my views, still,
if I am, I am honestly deceived. I have no confidence in the
moral honesty and Christian integrity of any Protestant
Preacher, of any denomination, in this country, who openly
arrays himself against the American party, and takes the side of
the Catholics, Foreigners, and self-styled Democrats associated
with them. Nor will I hear one such preach or pray, if I know
him to be such, and can get out of his hearing. The growing
light and improvements of this age forbid that an intelligent
and pious man and minister should identify himself with that
party. And the fiery genius, corrupting tendencies, and
uncompromising intolerance of that party, are rapidly driving
good and true men out of the party.
There never was a time since the division of parties in this
country, when I had so little confidence in what is called the
Democratic party as at present; and as at present organized and
constituted, I believe it to be the most corrupt organization.
It is made up of the odds and ends of all factions and parties
on the continent, and is one of the most anomalous combinations
of fanaticism, idolatry, prostitution, crime, and absurdities
conceivable! The _isms_ composing the party of which you are a
member, are: Abolitionism; Free-soilism; Agrarianism;
Fourieritism; Millerism; Radicalism; Woman's Rightsism; Mobism;
Mormonism; Spiritualism; Locofocoism; Higher-Lawism; Foreign
Pauperism; Anti-Americanism; Roman Catholicism; Deism, and
modern Sag Nichtism! All this tide of fanaticism and error,
originating North of Mason and Dixon's Line, went for Pierce in
the last Presidential contest: they are with that party now,
against the American party; and it is bad company in which to
find a Protestant minister! Yet, miserable Protestants hesitate
not to commend these enemies of the natural rights of man, and
of the Christian religion, as being just as good Christians as
their neighbors!
"Oh! judgment, thou hast fled to brutish beasts; And men have
not their reason!"
But, Doctor, why were you at Baltimore? Why, sir, during the
past year, you and other conscientious Methodists took it into
your heads to arraign a young man who was travelling your
circuit, Mr. Hall, and, for the Church's good, to have him
expelled, whose great sin was that he was a _Know-Nothing_, or
sympathized with the Order! The authorities of the Church, after
a patient hearing of the whole case, pro and con, acquitted the
young man. You followed him up to the Annual Conference, as the
representative of and attorney for Sag Nichtism. The Conference
acquitted the young preacher again, and sent him to an
enlightened circuit in Maryland. This so offended you, and your
patriotic, not to say _pious_ associates, that, for the Church's
good, they resigned their stewardship in the Church, and were
so offended at the course of the Presiding Elder, _Rev. M.
Goheen_, than whom there is not a more modest, unassuming,
conservative Christian gentleman in the Valley of Virginia,
that, at a recent Quarterly Meeting there, they refused to
attend church, or to hear him preach. This is just the spirit
that actuates your party, everywhere.
You demand of me the name or names of such person or persons as
have given me information in reference to you. Reconsider this
demand, if you please, and ask yourself if, under all the
circumstances, it is not a cool piece of impudence. I have
published nothing about you upon the authority of others, but
upon my own authority and responsibility. You _suspect_ some of
your neighbors for writing to me, and hence you make this
demand. It is true, I have friends in Fincastle, and some of
these write to me, and when I publish any thing about you, or
any one of your associates, and give these friends of mine as
authority, I will give you their names, if called upon to do so;
or I will assume the responsibility myself. What I have said in
reply to the wicked, slanderous, and cowardly assault upon me,
in the dirty paper controlled by you, I have said upon my own
responsibilities, as a man, and as a member of the same Church
to which you belong; and whether my "peace as a citizen" is
preserved or destroyed, I am not the man to be intimidated or
driven from my position. My failure to give you the names of any
citizens of your vicinity, who may have written me private
letters, relating to your war upon young Hall, the Circuit
Preacher, "will detract largely from the estimate you have
placed upon my character." This I am sorry to hear, as I do not
wish to fall below the "estimate" placed upon my character in
the two issues of your paper, now before me! This would be
reaching "a lower deep," as the poet classically styles it!
Now, sir, I have a letter from a town in Virginia, not far
distant from Fincastle, written by a gentleman of as "great
personal courage" as you or myself, who states, that a gentleman
who was present at the trial of Rev. Mr. Hall, heard you make
the assertion, on that occasion, that you alone were responsible
for all the editorials that appeared in the "Democrat," and that
the "Junior" partner was not! If you think proper to make an
issue with this gentleman, you can have his name!
I am, Dr. Hopkins, your humble servant,
W. G. BROWNLOW,
_Editor of the Knoxville Whig._
[From the Knoxville Whig.]
TO STEPHEN TRIBBLE.
VILLAINOUS SIR:--Letters from my friends in the West inform me that you
are making a full team in the service of the Devil, Locofocoism, and
crime, in portions of Missouri and Kentucky! You have recently held
forth in Charleston, a pleasant post-village, the capital of Mississippi
county, Missouri, about six miles south-west of the "Father of Waters!"
In that town you undertook to inform the good people, the Circuit Judge
being present, _who I am_, and to demonstrate that I am not entitled to
credit in any thing I say! You claimed to have once lived in East
Tennessee--to know the people and the country--and to have known William
T. Senter and James Y. Crawford, two other Methodist preachers, whose
_pedigrees_ you pretend to give!
Mr. Senter was an able man--a moral and upright man--and a Whig
Representative in Congress, from the District you represented _in the
jail of Sullivan county_, for a long time previous to your being
_branded in the hand and on the cheeks_, for MANSLAUGHTER, the
particulars of which I will remind you of before I close this familiar
letter! Mr. Senter could have gone to Congress longer, but voluntarily
retired. Mr. Crawford was a brother-in-law to Mr. Senter, and was a
preacher of respectable talents, and in good standing in his Church.
They are both in their graves, beyond the reach of your malice, where
the sound of your infamous voice, and the words of your lying tongue,
can never penetrate their ears! But I am still above ground, daily
kicking, and making war upon the Locofoco Paupers and Foreign Catholics,
as well as Native Traitors, with whom you are associated, and with whom
you act in politics. I acknowledge myself to be game for you to hunt
down!
You are now a _Campbellite preacher_ as well as a _Sag Nicht
Missionary_; and the garb of religion you wear, gives a degree of weight
to your falsehoods and slanders, among strangers, that they otherwise
would not have. The idea of "_Stev Tribble_," who ingloriously fled from
this country for crimes he could not meet in open court, being a
preacher, and itinerating through the West, "in search of the lost sheep
of the house of Israel," is so ridiculous, as scarcely to be believed at
all, although there is no doubt but what he has been regularly installed
in Kentucky, and now has the "care of souls."
Why, you unmitigated old villain, your whole career, from your "youth
up," has been one of crime and revolting blackguardism. While a boy and
a young man, where Hoss's school was taught in Washington county, your
vulgar conversation, immoral practices, indecent habits, and
blackguardism, disgusted the entire neighborhood, and rendered you so
odious that no decent family would board you! All the waters of the
far-famed _Jordan_, in the palmiest days of that bold stream, were not
sufficient to wash your sins away! If the Lord Bishop of London were to
_immerse_ you as often as "seventy times seven," in the waters of "bold
Jordan," and in the name of the holy Trinity, you would still remain
what you were when you fled from this country to avoid the extreme
penalty of the law--one of the greatest scoundrels for whom Christ died!
Yourself and half-brother _Havron_ were confined in Blountville Jail,
for the murder of _William Humphreys_, a promising young man, whom you
brutally assaulted and murdered in open daylight in the streets of
Kingsport, in Sullivan county, and without provocation! _You_ were tried
and convicted of _manslaughter_, and branded in the _hand_ and on the
_cheek_. After being branded, you _bit the letters out of your hand_,
and _clawed them out of your face_, but the _scars_ are to be seen in
both. Indeed, I have been written to, to know why these scars are on
your face! I take this method of answering those inquiries; and
publishing them in my "Whig," which has a circulation of 5,000, and our
"Campaigner," which circulates 7,000 copies, I shall be able to
introduce you to as many persons as may have heard you preach my
funeral.
While in the Blountville Jail, with your half-brother, Havron, whose
blow killed Humphreys, after you had weakened him, you caught hold of
the jailor, Montgomery Irvin, and held him in a scuffle, when he entered
the room with your dinner, until Havron made his escape. Havron would
have pulled hemp, had he not escaped; and had our penitentiary system
existed at that time, you would have been sentenced for life! But you
would not have remained there longer than the past summer, as we have a
Governor who pardons out all such men, and has more sympathies for them
than any other Executive Officer in the nation. You have a half-brother
who is a Sag Nicht member of our Legislature, and a great friend and
supporter of our Governor and his foreign associates, and he could have
turned you out and procured for you an office if you had remained. But
then you followed the teachings of "the spirit" of Sag Nichtism, in
leaving between two days, and emigrating to Kentucky, as many precious
souls would never have "heard the word," or had their sin washed away,
but for you!
In an unmentionable and disgraceful enterprise, you became possessed of
a _broken leg_, and were mean enough to abscond without paying the bill
of your physician, Dr. Patton, whose unremitting attention saved you
from your grave, and from the clutches of the Devil, sooner than the old
fellow was prepared for your reception! If you had the honor of a first
class thief, you would pay this medical bill out of the proceeds of the
first public collection you take up, either in Missouri or Kentucky. And
if you suffer it to go unpaid until your infinitely infernal career is
wound up, the Day of Judgment will disclose the manner of your breaking
your leg! If I were you, I would sooner pay this bill now, than to be
asked in the great day how my leg was broken!
Disgraced as you are, unprincipled and villainous, you have gone into
Kentucky, taken upon yourself "holy orders," and married a wife,
imposing most shamefully upon the family into which you married. The
woman you have thus imposed upon, would be justifiable now, in the eyes
of both God and man, in forsaking you and applying for a divorce. And no
court or jury would refuse her application, when made acquainted with
your character.
It is a remarkable fact--one that I desire to call, not so much to your
notice, as to the notice of the public generally--that while all the
members of this Foreign Democratic party are by no means villains,
destitute of principle; yet, all the assassins, cut-throats, thieves,
and hypocrites in the country have crowded into the ranks of that party!
Fawned upon, fostered and pampered by the villainous leaders,
demagogues, and tricksters of the party, who need the services of all
such scavengers, you are encouraged to act with them. These leaders, who
are really no better than you are, _generously_ admit you to a
fellowship, and _courteously_ acknowledge all such abandoned rascals to
be their equals! Such men, to a great extent, now constitute the
free-democracy of the country--they desecrate the ballot-box--disgust
decent men wherever they come in contact with them--blaspheme the name
of God--and swear that they will either rule or ruin the country!
But, Sir, it was said of a certain man in the Scriptures, that he was a
"sinner above all the sinners that dwell in Jerusalem." So it may in
perfect truth be said of you, that you are a scoundrel above all the
scoundrels in the hateful ranks of Sag Nichtism. You deserve, for your
depraved course of life, a greater punishment than you have received or
are likely to receive in this life. The guilt of foul calumny, of the
most black and odious kind, attaches to every sentence uttered by your
lying tongue. Guilt, the offspring of fiend-like malice, shamefully
false, deeply corrupt, and badly matured: perfidy, dishonesty, and rank
poison--hot incense of murder, theft, inhuman spoliation, and deep, dark
forebodings of damnation have been rooted and grounded in your heart,
for lo! these many years! Dark despair, endless death, inexpressible
misery, manifold, and worse than death, follow in the ghastly train of
your crimes, and riot in your corrupt bosom, as with infernal
drunkenness of delight! The record of your deep depravity, of your utter
want of principle, and of your ten thousand villainous exploits, is
_stereotyped_ upon the burning sands of eternity, and stamped on the
imperishable walls of the _rotunda_ of the Devil's Hell, to which you
are driving at railroad speed! In upper East Tennessee, where you are
known, it would disgrace an _Algerine Bandit_ to sit and hear you
pretend to preach! _You_ pretend to preach Christ and him crucified, and
_immerse_ persons in the name of the Trinity! Shrouded in the _sackcloth
and ashes_ of disgrace, enclosed in a _vault_ filled to the brim with
_buried and putrefied venality_, and steeped to the very nose and chin
in crime, how dare you attempt to preach!
I repeat, you vile slanderer of the living and the dead, that, in
justice to the cause of God and of civilization, I will keep spread the
unfurled banner of your infamy on every breeze, and cause it to float in
the atmosphere of every State in this Union, until your very _name_
becomes a mockery and a by-word! And I call upon the people of Kentucky
and Missouri to ring the loud knell of your infamy, from steep to steep,
and from valley to valley, until their swelling sounds are heard in
startling echoes, mingling with the rush of the criminal's torrent, and
the mighty cataract's earthquake-voice!
W. G. BROWNLOW,
_Editor of the Knoxville Whig._
June 7th, 1856.
AN EXPOSE OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM.
The following articles, setting forth the DESIGNS and TENDENCY of
Romanism in the United States, appeared in the "KNOXVILLE WHIG" of May
and June, 1856, and will speak for themselves. The writer has opposed
the Papal Hierarchy for twenty years; and in a series of articles, now
filed in a number of the "JONESBOROUGH WHIG," published _sixteen years
ago_, he _predicted_ that the very state of things we are now realizing
would come upon us as soon as the year 1860, and that the party calling
itself by the revered name of _Democrat_, would identify itself with
political Romanism!
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION.--NO. I.
The American Party and the Religious Test--The Louisiana
Delegation and the Gallican Catholics--The vote of the
Philadelphia Convention to admit the Louisiana Delegates--The
American Councils in Louisiana--Catholics proper cannot be true
citizens of a Republic.
It is sometimes said by the Anties, that the American party, at their
late Philadelphia Convention, dismissed the Catholic Question from their
platform, and that they admitted into their Council a Catholic
Delegation from Louisiana. We were in that Convention, from the hour of
its opening until its final close, and we deny both statements. The
fifth and tenth sections of the platform adopted at Philadelphia, and
for which we voted, are in the following words, and they express all our
platform says upon that subject:
5th. No person should be selected for political station,
(whether of native or foreign birth,) who recognizes any
allegiance or obligation of any description to any foreign
prince, potentate, or power, or who refuses to recognize the
Federal and State Constitutions (each within its sphere) as
paramount to all other laws, as rules of political action.
10th. Opposition to any union between Church and State; no
interference with religious faith or worship, and no tests
oaths for office.
The American party was against political Romanism--against all who
acknowledge any allegiance to a foreign Prince, Potentate, or Power; or
who acknowledge any authority on earth, higher and more binding than
the Constitutions of our States, and General Government. And those who
are familiar with the temporal assumptions of Popery, and the political
intrigues of the Order of Jesuits, can have no other feelings than those
of disgust, upon hearing the Locofoco demagogues of the country cry out
against the American party for their opposition to the poor Catholics!
Against Popes confined to _Rome_, we make no war; but against Popes
usurping civil and spiritual authority, in America, we protest most
solemnly, and intend to make war, unrelenting and unceasing war!
The Louisiana Delegation, five in number, were _two_ Methodist--_one_
Old School Presbyterian--one Episcopalian--and the other, Mr. Eustes, a
member of Congress, not a member of any Church. Those gentlemen
presented their credentials for admission, and they were objected to,
because Roman Catholics were admitted into the Order by the Louisiana
State Council. A warm debate ensued, on a motion to admit the
Delegation, on their credentials, which finally prevailed, by yeas 67,
nays 50, many of the members having left for their lodgings, because of
the lateness of the hour, and of their fatigue. _We_ were in favor of
their admission, and so was Mr. Nelson, of East Tennessee, and we both
claim to be _ultra_ Protestant, if the reader please.
The "Catholicism" of Louisiana, we wish it borne in mind--that is the
Gallican wing of the Church--is a very different species of
"Catholicism" from that of our Irish and German Hierarchy taught in this
country, under the training of Archbishop Hughes and Monseigneur Bedini,
the Pope's villainous Nuncio. The French Gallican Church has so little
respect for the Pope of Rome, that when the King of Sardinia was in
Paris, less than twelve months ago, though he was under the interdict of
a Papal Bull of excommunication from Pius IX., the Gallican Archbishops
of Pius, and other Priests associated with them, visited him regularly,
and tendered him unbounded courtesies and honors. The Gallican wing of
the Catholic Church of France is liberal, as well as hostile to the
insulting claims and pretensions of the Pope. But it is diluted still
more with liberality, and with opposition to these claims of the Pope,
among the French Creoles of Louisiana. Most of them, though Roman
Catholics by name, from being educated in the forms of the Roman Church,
have just about as much respect for Rome, and confidence in the Pope, as
we have, and God knows that is very little. They denounce Papal Bulls,
interdicts, and Nuncios. They throw off all temporal and spiritual
allegiance to the Pope--the civil authorities of the United States with
them are supreme--they are American born--and hence, our platform does
not exclude them, and consequently they were admitted at Philadelphia,
or, which is the same, their representatives.
In 1652, under Louis XIV., the Gallican clergy met in Paris, and adopted
the following point: "That the Pope has no power, of _Divine right_, to
interfere with the temporal affairs of independent States." Thus, the
Catholics of Louisiana rejecting the doctrine of the temporal power of
the Pope, are not proscribed by the American party. They constitute a
sound portion of the American party.
Mr. Lathrop, a Presbyterian Elder, and a Delegate from Louisiana, read
to the Convention from the ritual of the subordinate organizations of
the American party of Louisiana, and showed that, while it admitted
those to membership who professed the Roman Catholic religion, IT
REQUIRED OF THEM THE DENIAL OF ALLEGIANCE TO ANY TEMPORAL AUTHORITY NOT
COGNIZABLE IN THE STATE AND UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONS; and from each
secured a pledge, UPON OATH, that they would not divulge the secrets of
the Order! He defended the Louisiana Catholics, as being true Americans,
recognizing no civil or spiritual power in their Priests, and resisting
every attempt, whether by a Bishop or Priest, to interfere with the
institutions of our country. He cited cases which had occurred in
Louisiana, of controversies between the Clergy and Laity, for the
control of Church property, and the decisions of courts over which
Gallican Catholic Judges presided, in favor of titles and control
vesting in Trustees, the Laity. He showed that the native Catholics of
Louisiana were the friends of common schools, and the advocates of
popular education. He proclaimed aloud that the native Catholics of his
State recognized no persons as proper depositaries of office, who
acknowledged an allegiance to any person, civil or ecclesiastical,
superior to that of the laws and Constitution of our country. He
proclaimed that the Nuncios of the Pope of Rome hated these Louisiana
Catholics, with a more perfect hatred than they did the "apostle
heretics" called Protestants! This speech was received with unbounded
applause, the question was called, and, as we have before stated, it was
sanctioned, very properly too, by a vote of 67 to 50!
The American party not only advocate religious toleration, but religious
liberty, which is a very different thing. Toleration is not the word in
our vocabulary--it does not express enough, because it implies the right
to _permit_ or _prohibit_. We contend for LIBERTY, the meaning of which
is, that men are not responsible _to each other, to Popes, Bishops, or
Priests_, for their religious opinions or practices, and that
consequently religion is not a subject of toleration.
The Catholics, proper, have taken an oath of allegiance to the Pope of
Rome, a "foreign prince, potentate, and power," and their obligations to
him are higher, more sacred, and more binding, than any obligations
they can take upon them to support the laws and Constitution of this
country. These are the men that we refuse to vote for, or put in office.
They are not and cannot be true Americans. The oaths of the priests bind
them to war upon all Protestant sects, and upon all Republican powers of
Government. These oaths bind them to the foot of the Papal Throne; and
with these oaths upon their souls, they cannot be true citizens of this
Republic without perjury. And if guilty of perjury, the State prison
should be their residence.
In our next, we shall consider this subject more at length, in
connection with the oath of allegiance to our country, and the Catholic
evasion of that oath.
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 2.
Ambiguous terms in swearing--The case of Judge Gaston--Temporal
power of the Pope--Catholic authorities in Europe--The spirit
of the Catholic press in America!
We are told by the Democratic sympathizers with the Catholics, that all
Catholic emigrants to this country take an oath of allegiance to the
United States upon becoming naturalized. Yes, they do, and the oath
after it is taken, has no more weight with them, than has a
regular-built Know Nothing speech.
Here is a paragraph from SANCHEZ, the highest authority in the Catholic
Church, Pope Pius only excepted. This writer, "by authority," shows how
this oath of allegiance is evaded by a mental reservation:
"It is lawful to use ambiguous terms to give the impression a
different sense from that which you understand yourself. A
person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing,
though in fact he has, by saying to himself it was not done on
a certain day, or before he was born, or by any other similar
circumstances, which gives another meaning to it. This is
extremely convenient, and always very just, when necessary to
your health, honor or prosperity."
Here, then, we have it from the highest Catholic authority, that
Catholics are absolved from all allegiance to this government, because
they take the oath of allegiance without committing perjury, by the holy
process of a mental reservation--the use of "ambiguous terms," setting
forth one thing while they swear another! We have no doubt that Chief
Justice TANEY, a devoted Catholic of Baltimore, and now at the head of
the Supreme Court of the United States, took his oath of office
requiring him to support the Constitution, with this same mental
reservation. We have no doubt that those Catholic Judges upon the
Federal Bench in several States in the Union, and those Catholic
Attorney Generals, appointed to office by Mr. Pierce, so understood
their oaths of office, and of allegiance! And the practice of
Post-Master General Campbell, a bigoted Catholic, and a member of the
order of Jesuits, proves that he so understood his oath to support the
Constitution. As true Catholics, they are bound to swear with this
mental reservation, because they could not owe allegiance to a
government of "heretics," such as they believe ours to be. As Catholics,
they are bound to overthrow our Constitution, and aid in the destruction
of our government.
It is a matter of history that when the Legislature of North Carolina
elected Judge GASTON to the Supreme Bench in that State, he hesitated as
to whether he would take the oath or not. And why? He was, although an
able man, and in all the private relations of life a most excellent man,
a decided and devoted Roman Catholic. This is not all. The oath of a
Judge in that State, which is not common in other States, requires the
man taking it to avow his belief in the Protestant religion. Judge
Gaston asked for a few days to consider--he went instantly to Baltimore,
as was believed, to consult the Catholic Bishop, who then resided
there--obtained a dispensation, as was supposed--wrote back that he
would accept the office--returned, was qualified, and to the day of his
death was on the Bench! This affair illustrates Romanism. And what Rome
was, she is, and always will be. Can Rome change? Can the Ethiopian
change his skin, or the leopard his spots?
Here is what Philopater, an approved Catholic authority of the first
grade, says, touching the principle in controversy:
"All theologians and ecclesiastical lawyers affirm that every
Christian government, as soon as it openly abandons the _Romish
faith_, is instantly degraded from all power and dignity: all
the subjects are absolved from the oath of fidelity and
obedience which they have taken, and they may and ought, if
they have the power, to drive such government from every
Christian State, as an apostate, heretic, and deserter from
Jesus Christ. This certain and indubitable decision of all the
most learned men is perfectly conformed to the most apostolic
doctrines."
Our Locofoco advocates of Romanism deny that the Pope lays claim to the
supremacy charged by the American party. On this point, we desire that
the Catholics may speak for themselves. One of their standard writers,
FARRARIS, in his Ecclesiastical Dictionary, a work endorsed by their
Council of Bishops and Cardinals, under the article headed "Pope," uses
this emphatic and expressive language:
"The Pope is of such dignity and highness, that he is not
simply man, but, as it were, God, and the vicar of God. Hence
the Pope is such supreme and sovereign dignity, that, properly
speaking, he is not merely constituted in dignity, but is
rather placed on the very summit of dignities. Hence, also, the
Pope is rather father of fathers, and he alone can use this
name, because he only can be called father of fathers: since he
possesses the primacy over all, is truly greater than all, and
the greatest of all. He is called most holy, because he is
presumed to be such. On account of the excellency of his
supreme dignity, he is called bishop of bishops, ordinary of
ordinaries, universal bishop of the Church, bishop of diocesan,
of the whole world, divine monarch, supreme emperor, and king
of kings."
PETER DENS, of Maynooth College notoriety, whose "Theology" is the
highest Catholic authority known this side of the Vatican at Rome, gives
entire the Bull of Pope Sixtus V. against the King of Navarre and the
Prince of Conde, whom he styles the _sons of wrath_. In this Bull,
issued in the year 1585, he says:
"The authority given to Saint Peter and his successors, by the
immense power of the eternal King, _excels all the power of
earthly kings and princes_. It passeth uncontrollable sentence
upon them all. And if it find any of them resisting God's
obedience, it takes more severe vengeance on them, casting them
down from their thrones, however powerful they may be, and
tumbling them down to the lowest parts of the earth, as the
ministers of aspiring Lucifer."
Here is what _Daniel O'Connell_ said so late as 1843, and he was a true
Catholic and a true exponent of this faith:
"You should do all in your power to carry out the intentions of
His Holiness the Pope. Where you have the electoral franchise,
give your votes to none but those who will assist you in so
holy a struggle.
"I declare my most unequivocal submission to the Head of the
Church, and to the hierarchy in its different orders. If the
Bishop makes a declaration on this bill, I never would be heard
speaking against it, but would submit at once unequivocally to
that decision. They have only to decide, and I close my mouth:
they have only to determine, and I obey. I wish it to be
understood that _such is the duty of all Catholics_."--_Daniel
O'Connell_, 1843.
Here comes one of the Pope's organs in France:
"A heretic, examined and convicted by the Church, used to be
delivered over to the secular power and punished with death.
Nothing has ever appeared to us more necessary. More than one
hundred thousand persons perished in consequence of the heresy
of Wickliffe; a still greater number for that of John Huss; and
it would not be possible to calculate the bloodshed caused by
Luther; and it is not yet over."--_Paris Univers._
"As for myself, what I regret, I frankly own, is that they did
not burn John Huss sooner, and that they did not likewise burn
Luther; this happened because there was not found some prince
sufficiently politic to stir up a crusade against
Protestants."--_Paris Univers._
But here is the Pope himself arguing with the authorities already
quoted:
"The absurd or erroneous doctrines or ravings in defence of
liberty of conscience, is a most pestilential error--a pest, of
all others, most to be dreaded in a State."--_Encyclical Letter
of Pope Pius IX., Aug._ 15, 1852.
Now, let us hear their organs in our own country:
"Heresy and unbelief are crimes, and in Christian countries,
like Italy and Spain for instance, where all the people are
Catholics, and where the Christian religion is an essential
part of the law of the land, they are punished as other
crimes."--_R. C. Archbishop of St. Louis._
"For our own part, we take this opportunity of expressing our
hearty delight at the suppression of the Protestant chapel at
Rome. This may be thought intolerant, but when, we would ask,
_did we ever profess to be tolerant of Protestantism_, or favor
the doctrine that Protestantism _ought to be tolerated_? On
the contrary, we hate Protestantism--we detest it with our
whole heart and soul, and we pray that our aversion to it may
never decrease. We hold it meet that in the Eternal City no
worship repugnant to _God_ should be tolerated, and we are
sincerely glad that the enemies of truth are no longer allowed
to meet together in the capital of the Christian
world."--_Pittsburg Catholic Visitor_, 1848.
"No good government can exist without religion; and there can
be no religion without an _Inquisition_, which is wisely
designed for the promotion and protection of the true
faith."--_Boston Pilot._
"You ask, if he (the Pope) were lord in the land, and you were
in a minority, if not in numbers, yet in power, what would he
do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend on
circumstances. If it would _benefit the cause of Catholicism_,
he would tolerate you--if expedient, he would imprison
you--banish you--possibly, _hang you_--but be assured of one
thing, he would never tolerate you for the sake of the
_'glorious principles' of civil and religious
liberty._"--_Rambler._
"Protestantism of every form has not and never can have any
rights where Catholicity is triumphant."--_Brownson's Quarterly
Review._
"Let us dare to assert the truth in the face of the lying
world, and, instead of pleading for our Church at the bar of
the State, _summon the State itself to plead at the bar of the
Church, its divinely constituted judge_."--_Ibid._
"I never think of publishing any thing in regard to the Church
without submitting my articles to the Bishop for inspection,
approval, and endorsement."--_Ibid._
In view of the foregoing, and other facts and arguments which we will
hereafter present, we cannot be mistaken in our views of Roman
Catholicism. We cannot tamely surrender our dearest rights as
Protestants, without a struggle. We cannot cry peace, peace, when there
is no peace!
"Protestantism, of every kind, Catholicity inserts in her
catalogue of moral sins; she endures it when and where she
must; but she hates it, and directs all her energies to effect
its destruction."--_St. Louis Shepherd of the Valley._
"Religious liberty, in the sense of a liberty possessed by
every man to choose his religion, is one of the most wretched
delusions ever foisted on this age by the father of
deceit."--_The Rambler_, 1853.
"The Church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when
and where she must, but she hates it, and directs all her
energies to its destruction. If Catholics ever gain an immense
numerical majority in this country, religious freedom is at an
end. So say our enemies. So say we."--_Shepherd of the Valley._
"The liberty of heresy and unbelief is not a right.... All the
rights the sects have, or can have, are derived from the State,
and rest on expediency. As they have, in their character of
sects hostile to the true religion, no rights under the law of
nature or the law of God, they are neither wronged nor deprived
of liberty, if the State refuses to grant them any rights at
all."--_Brownson's Review, Oct., 1853_, p. 456.
"The sorriest sight to us is a Catholic throwing up his cap,
and shouting, 'All hail, Democracy!'"--_Ibid, October, 1852_,
pp. 554-8.
"We think the 'masses' were never less happy, less respectable,
and less respected, than they have been since the reformation,
and particularly within the last fifty or one hundred years,
since Lord Brougham caught the mania of teaching them to read
and communicate the disease to a large proportion of the
English nation; of which, in spite of all our talk, we are
often the servile imitators."--_Shepherd of the Valley, Oct.
22, 1853._
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 3.
The Catholic Church supreme over all authorities--Meddling in
Political Contests--Brownson's Review and the Boston Pilot
reflecting the sentiments of that Church--Protestants
advocating Romanism--The Nashville Union in 1835.
The Anti-American, Foreign-loving, Catholic admirers of the Locofoco
school of politics, everywhere seek to frighten native Protestant
citizens with the bugbear cry of religious proscription. But let
Americans and Protestants watch with increased vigilance both the Roman
and Locofoco Jesuits around them. To call the damnable and accursed
system of political intrigue practised for past centuries by the Roman
Church by the term _Religion_, is a solemn mockery of the hallowed word.
Religion teaches love and obedience to God, and the legally constituted
authorities of the country. Romanism teaches fear of and obedience to a
crowned potentate called the Pope, and opposition to all Protestant
governments, as worthy to be cast down to hell! The one tends to free
and ennoble the soul: the other to enslave and debauch every faculty of
man's nature which likens him to the Almighty! The one is republican:
the other is barbaric, and at war with every principle of free
government!
The American party does oppose and denounce Romanism _as a political
system at war_ with American institutions; and we here ask candid men to
weigh the evidence we shall adduce to sustain this charge. We shall
quote none other than Roman Catholic authority--the organs of
Romanism--so as out of their own mouths to condemn them. Brownson's
Review is the accredited organ of Romanism in the United States. He
ostentatiously parades the names of the Archbishops and Bishops on the
cover of his Review, to give it the stamp of authority, and asserts in
the work:
"I NEVER THINK OF PUBLISHING ANY THING IN REGARD TO THE CHURCH
WITHOUT SUBMITTING MY ARTICLES TO THE BISHOP FOR INSPECTION,
APPROVAL, AND ENDORSEMENT."
Let us then look to his pages for an exposition of the doctrines of his
Church. In the January number for 1853, he says:
"For every Catholic at least, the Church is the supreme judge
of the extent and limits of her power. She can be judged by no
one; and this of itself implies her absolute supremacy, and
that the temporal order must receive its laws from her."
The uniform practice of the Church of Rome has been, and still is, to
assert her power--not in _words_, but in _deeds_--to GIVE OR TAKE AWAY
CROWNS--to depose ungodly rulers, and to absolve their subjects from
their "horrible" OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE!
Again, in the July number for 1853, Brownson says:
"The Church is supreme, and you have no power except what you
hold in subordination to her, either in spirituals or in
temporals.... You no more have political than ecclesiastical
independence. The Church alone, under God, is independent, and
she defines both your powers and hers."
"They have heard it said from their youth up that the Church
has nothing to do with politics; that she has received no
mission in regard to the political order."
"In opposing the nonjuring bishops and priests, they believed
they were only asserting their national rights as men, or as
the State, and were merely resisting the unwarrantable
assumption of the spiritual power. If they had been distinctly
taught that the political authority is always subordinate to
the spiritual, and had grown up in the doctrine that the nation
is not competent to define, in relation to the ecclesiastical
power, its own rights--that the Church defines both its powers
and her own, and that though the nation may be, and ought to
be, independent in relation to other nations, it has, and can
have, no independence in the face of the Church, the kingdom of
God on earth: they would have seen at a glance that support of
the civil authority against the spiritual, no matter in what
manner, was the renunciation of their faith as Catholics, and
the actual or virtual assertion of the supremacy of the
temporal power."
In the same number, page 301, he says:
"She (the Church) has the right to judge who has, or has not,
according to the law of God, the right to reign: whether the
prince has, by his infidelity, his misdeeds, his tyranny and
oppression, forfeited his trust, and lost his right to the
allegiance of his subjects; and therefore whether they are
still held to their allegiance, or are released from it by the
law of God. If she have the right to judge, she has the right
to pronounce judgment, and order its execution: therefore to
pronounce sentence of deposition upon the prince who has
forfeited his right to reign, and to declare his subjects
absolved from their allegiance to him, and free to elect
themselves a new sovereign."
We might multiply authorities of this kind on this point, to an almost
indefinite extent, from the debate between Bishop Hughes and Mr.
Breckenridge, and the controversy between Hughes and Erastus Brooks, but
it is wholly unnecessary.
As early as 1844, the Catholics took their stand as a body in the arena
of political strife; and the illustrious CLAY and the virtuous
FRELINGHUYSEN were the victims of their particular hostility. Mr.
Frelinghuysen was the President of the Board of Foreign Missions, and
this was made the _excuse_ for the bitter animosity of the Catholic
press, and of the clergy and membership of the Catholic sect, against
Mr. Clay. Brownson, in his July number for 1844, in the very heat of the
contest, thus assailed Mr. Clay:
"He is ambitious, but short-sighted. He is abashed by no
inconsistency, disturbed by no contradiction, and can defend,
with a firm countenance, without the least misgiving, what
everybody but himself sees to be a political fallacy or logical
absurdity.... He is no more disturbed by being convinced of
moral insensibility, than intellectual absurdity.... A man of
rare abilities, but apparently void of both moral and
intellectual conscience.... He is, therefore, a man whom no
power under that of the Almighty can restrain; he must needs be
the most dangerous man to be placed at the head of affairs it
is possible to conceive."
The Boston Pilot, another Catholic organ, published under the eye of the
Bishop, discloses _the same plot_, in its issue for the 31st of October,
1844, only six days before the election! Here is what this organ said:
"We say to all men in the United States, entitled to be
naturalized, become citizens while you can--let nothing delay
you for an hour--let no hindrance, short of mortal disease,
banish you from the ballot-box. To those who are citizens, we
say, vote your principles, whatever they may be--never desert
them--do not be wheedled or terrified--but vote quietly, and
unobtrusively. Leave to others the noisy warfare of words. Let
your opinions be proved by your deliberate and determined
action. We recommend you to no party; we condemn no candidate
but one, and he is Theodore Frelinghuysen. We have nothing to
say to him as a Whig--we have nothing to say to Mr. Clay or any
other Whig, as such--but to the President of the American Board
of Foreign Missions, the friend and patron of the Kirks and
Cones, we have much to say. We hate his intolerance--we dislike
his associates--and shudder at the blackness and bitterness of
that school of sectarians to which he belongs, and amongst whom
he is regarded as an authority."
Protestants! do you hear that? Old Line Whigs! do you hear that? If so,
do you think that Americans are warring upon civil and religious
liberty, when they take an oath that they will rebuke such infamous
sentiments? These appeals of Brownson, Hughes, and the Pilot, had the
effect to defeat the Clay ticket in New York, and that State lost him
his election. The Catholics were all at the polls, and voted for Polk
and Dallas. On the 9th of November, 1844, Frelinghuysen wrote to Mr.
Clay as follows:
"More than 3,000, it is confidently said, have been naturalized
in this city (New York) alone since the first of October. It is
an alarming fact that this foreign vote has decided the great
questions of American policy, and contracted a nation's
gratitude."
And after they achieved the victory of 1844, Brownson came out with this
avowal:
"Heretofore we have taken our politics from one or another of
the parties which divide the country, and have suffered the
enemies of our religion to impose their political doctrine upon
us; but it is time for us to begin to teach the country itself
those moral and political doctrines which flow from the
teachings of our own Church. We are at home here, wherever we
may have been born; this is our country, and as it is to become
THOROUGHLY CATHOLIC, we have a deeper interest in public
affairs than any other of our citizens. The sects are only for
a day; the Church for ever."
When Gen. Cass made his speech in the Senate, in 1852, in favor of free
worship and the rights of conscience for Americans abroad, reflecting on
the Catholics by name, Brownson came out in his October number, and
said:
"We are glad to see Gen. Cass laid on the shelf, for we can
never support a man who turns radical in his old age."
In the same number, Brownson continues:
"The sorriest sight to us is a Catholic throwing up his cap and
shouting, 'All hail, Democracy!'"
This too at the very time he was supporting the Democratic party in the
Presidential contest! He would sooner have heard the cry, "All hail,
Catholicism!" and he was only using Democracy as an instrument to
advance his primary wish!
We offer no comments on the foregoing extracts, of our own, but leave
every reader to judge for himself. The price of liberty is eternal
vigilance. We apply the remark to religious as well as civil liberty.
All we ask of the people is to be vigilant. Do not support men at the
ballot-box who are in league with these enemies of our Republic, and of
the Protestant religion!
Behold the enemy is at our gates! A foreign priest has been lecturing
here in Knoxville, within the last ten days, avowing sentiments similar
to these, and claiming that this country would ultimately become a
Catholic country! The crisis is approaching! Rouse up, Americans, and
hasten to your country's salvation! Not a moment is to be lost! GOD AND
OUR COUNTRY, must be the watchword of every Christian and patriot, of
every political party in the land. America expects us all to do our
duty!
And is there no cause for alarm?
Eighteen months ago, a Protestant minister, Baptist, Methodist, or
Presbyterian, might expose Romanism, and warn his congregation against
its corrupting influences, for hours at a time--come down out of his
pulpit, and his congregation would, without distinction of party, say,
"Well done, good and faithful servant!"
But let him now dare _allude_ to Romanism--he offends one-half of his
congregation--he is _preaching_ politics--they will hear him no more; or
forsooth, which is more common, they will withhold his support and
starve him out! Are not these signs alarming?
But here in Tennessee, _Protestant_ Tennessee, on the 15th of May,
1855, the _Nashville Daily Union_, the organ of the self-styled
Democratic party, came out at the Capital of the State with this daring
broadside against the Protestant clergy and their religion:
"A Church that can boast of an existence of thirteen
centuries--passing through all the various vicissitudes of her
eventful career unscathed, can certainly show, with all her
atrocious barbarity, many bright spots which may be placed in
favorable contrast with the Protestant Church, with its
thousand and one wrangling sects. Men are beginning to see
through the transparent gauze that veils this Know-Nothing
movement. They are beginning to ask 'What has Protestantism
done for the world? What has she done to alleviate and elevate
the down-trodden? Is the race any better off for having
accepted her faith? THESE REVEREND HYPOCRITES--these scribes
and pharisees, are treading on a terrible volcano. They will
find their treasonable schemes and infernal plotting against
the liberties of man tried and condemned by the pure light of
God's own truth and love, which shines and throbs in every
pulsation of humanity's heart. If Protestantism prove recreant
to her high trust, she will have to pass the ordeal of
enlightened public opinion and be consigned to her merited
obscurity.
"Popery, with all its crimes against God and man, adapts itself
to the times and to the circumstances, and thus saves itself
from being absorbed in the mass of conflicting elements."
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 4.
A Catholic Priest the Minister from the Rivas-Walker
Government--Nicaragua, Texas, and Gen. Jackson--Bishop Hughes
and Orestes Brownson--Buchanan bidding for the Catholic
vote--A. H. Stephens, of Georgia--Lord Baltimore and Religious
Toleration.
Three months ago, PARKER H. FRENCH arrived in Washington, as the
Representative of the Walker Government of Nicaragua--an American-born
citizen and a Protestant--but the Government declined to recognize him,
upon the ground that Walker's Government was not established even _de
facto_. Since then, our Government has recognized Walker's Government,
and endorsed his war upon Costa Rica, although the former objection of
our Government lies with as much force against such recognition now as
it did three months ago. That the approach of the Cincinnati Convention,
and the importance of conciliating the "Young American" wing, and the
Filibustering division of the Democratic party, had great influence in
producing this recognition, there can be no sort of doubt. But a still
more palpable reason why this Government gave its sanction to the
Rivas-Walker Government is, that PADRE VIJIL, the second Minister sent
here, is a ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, and a shrewd Spaniard--better
understands the influences that prevail at Washington. When we remember
that a Roman Catholic, and a member of the Order of Jesuits, is a member
of Pierce's Cabinet, the Postmaster-General--and when we remember that
Democracy now, without the Catholic-Foreign vote, is almost a nullity in
the United States, we have a clear solution of this preference given the
Spanish priest, PADRE VIJIL, over the American citizen, but a few weeks
afterwards! As a sign of the times, the fact is one worthy of note. It
shows, at least, that when Protestantism cannot prevail with the
Administration of Pierce, Roman Catholicism can; and that hence, when we
proclaim the power of the Pope, even in America, we but utter
demonstrable facts. Romanism is even carrying Democracy from all its old
wayside land-marks. In December, 1836, GEN. JACKSON sent a special
message to the Senate of the United States, in relation to a proposition
to recognize the new Government of Texas, and he gave reasons _against_
it, which are exactly applicable to this Rivas-Walker affair:
"Upon the issue," he says, "of this threatened invasion by
Mexico, the independence of Texas may be considered as
suspended; and were there nothing peculiar in the relative
situation of the United States and Texas, our acknowledgments
of its independence at such a crisis could scarcely be
considered as consistent _with that prudent reserve with which
we have heretofore held ourselves bound to treat all similar
questions_."
The existing Government of Nicaragua is in a far more critical condition
now than that of Texas was in 1836, when Gen. Jackson went on to say:
"It becomes us to beware of a too early movement, as it might
subject us, however unjustly, to the imputation of seeking to
establish the claim of our neighbors to a territory, with a
view to its subsequent acquisition by ourselves. Prudence,
therefore, seems to dictate that we should still stand aloof,
and maintain our present attitude, if not until Mexico itself,
or one of the great foreign powers, shall recognize the
independence of the new Government, at least until the lapse of
time or the course of events shall have proved, beyond cavil or
dispute, the ability of the people of that country to maintain
their separate sovereignty, and to uphold the Government
constituted by them. Neither of the contending parties can
justly complain of this course. By pursuing it, we are but
carrying out the long-established policy of our Government--a
policy which has secured to us respect and influence abroad,
and inspired confidence at home."
But Romanism is rapidly leading Democracy to the Devil! Archbishop
Hughes--the head and front of the Papal Hierarchy in this country--has
openly declared the grand aim and object of the Catholic Church is "TO
MAKE ROME THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE WHOLE WORLD!" This same
Archbishop is now engaged in raising an immense fund, for the avowed
purpose of ESTABLISHING A COLLEGE IN ROME, for the education of a high
order of Priests and Jesuits for the United States; the Roman Pontiff
deeming the education of Priests defective if obtained in this land of
liberty! This same Archbishop Hughes has now actively enlisted for the
Presidential contest, for 1856, in order, to use his own language, "TO
BREAK THE SPINAL CORD OF THE AMERICAN PARTY." The Irish Catholic vote is
to be fused with the Black Republicans in the North, to prevent the
success of the Fillmore ticket, and the Irish and German Catholic vote
is to be cast for Democracy in the South and North-West--the Archbishop
stipulating for special legislation for Rome, and for promoting this
mammoth college!
ORESTES BROWNSON, a leading Catholic authority, and the editor of
Archbishop Hughes's organ--one of the most zealous as well as able
advocates of Romanism in America--declares: "THE POPE IS MY INTERPRETER
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!" The Supreme Court at
Washington is subordinate to the Vatican, situated at the foot of one
of the seven hills upon which Rome is built! Through the influence of
the _Jesuit_ who is a member of Pierce's cabinet, the Papal Nuncio, who
was sent from Rome two years ago, clothed with _foreign_ authority, was
received by our government at Washington, and sent around the lakes to
the North-West at government expense; and allowed to adjudicate upon a
secular question AFFECTING TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION in the great State
of New York!
Mr. Buchanan, one of the several candidates before the Cincinnati
Convention for the Presidential nomination, said, in a public speech in
Baltimore, just before the meeting of that Convention, _by way of
bidding for the Catholic vote_:
"In the age of religious bigotry and intolerance, Lord
Baltimore was the first legislator who proclaimed the sacred
rights of conscience, and established for the government of his
colony the principle, not merely of toleration, but perfect
religious freedom and equality among all sects of Christians."
Lord Baltimore was a Catholic; and with a view to enlist the same
influence, HON. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, of Georgia, sent forth a
published speech last summer, from which we make the following extract:
"The Catholic colony of Maryland, organized under the auspices
of Lord Baltimore, was the first to establish the principle of
free toleration in religious worship on this continent.
"The Colony of Maryland afforded protection to _all_ persecuted
sects."
Now, in order to judge of Mr. Buchanan's "_perfect religious freedom and
equality_," and Mr. Stephens's "_principle of free toleration_," let us
examine an Act passed April 21, 1649, when Lord Baltimore was in the
zenith of his power:
"Denying the Holy _Trinity_ is to be punished with _death_, and
confiscation of land and goods to the Lord Proprietary (Lord
Baltimore himself!) Persons using any reproachful words
concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Apostles or
Evangelists, to be fined L5, or in default of payment to be
publicly whipped and _imprisoned, at the pleasure of_ his
Lordship, (Lord Baltimore himself!) or of his
Lieutenant-General." _See Laws of Maryland at large, by T.
Bacon, A. D. 1765._ _16 and 17 Cecilius's Lord Baltimore_.
S. F. STREETER, Esq., of Baltimore, is the author of a work entitled
"_Maryland two hundred years ago_." In this work, at page 26, Mr.
Streeter says:
"The policy of Lord Baltimore, in regard to religious matters
in his colony, has, in some particulars at least, been
misapprehended and therefore misstated. The assertion has long
passed uncontradicted, that toleration was promised to the
colonists in the first conditions of plantation; that the
rights of conscience were recognized in a law passed by the
first assembly held in the colony; and that the principal
officers from the year 1636 or '37, bound themselves by on oath
not to molest on account of his religion any one professing to
believe in Jesus Christ. I can find _no authority_ for _any_ of
these statements. Lord Baltimore's first and earlier conditions
of plantation breathe not a word on the subject of religion: no
act recognizing the principle of toleration was passed in the
first or in any following assembly, until fifteen years after
the first settlement, at which time (1649) a Protestant had
been appointed Governor, and a majority of the Burgesses were
of the same faith; and when, _for the first time_, a clause
involving a promise not to molest any person professing to
believe in Jesus Christ, the words "and particularly a Roman
Catholic," were inserted by the direction of Lord Baltimore in
the official oath."
McMahon, the tried friend of Lord Baltimore, speaking on this same
subject, says:
"The proprietary dominion (Lord B.'s) had never known that
hour, (when there was opportunity to persecute.) The Protestant
religion was the established religion of the mother country,
and any effort on the part of the Proprietary (Lord B.) to
oppress its followers would have _drawn down destruction on his
government_. The _great body_ of the colonists were themselves
Protestants, and, by their _number_ and their participation in
the government, they were fully equal to their own protection,
and _too powerful_ for the Proprietaries in the event of an
open collision."
Thus it will be seen that in Maryland, as everywhere else, in all past
ages, so far as toleration is concerned, it was granted _to_
Catholics--never _by_ them.
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 5.
Popish aims at supremacy--Avowals by distinguished
Catholics--The order of Jesuits--Startling disclosures and
authentic references!--The strength of Romanism in the United
States!
The Romish hierarchy aims at supremacy in the Church and the State. It
is nothing more nor less than a great _political_ system, arrogating to
itself the right to sway the spiritual and temporal concerns of men--a
right it claims to have derived from God, and that therefore the Romish
Church is above all, and may rule all. Hence the conspiracy against our
government emanating from the Vatican, and planned by the Pope, his
Cardinals and Bishops, in the late grand council at Rome! They there and
then resolved on affecting the objects of the _Leopold Foundation_,
established in Vienna, May 13, 1829, to support Catholic missionaries in
the United States. Every member of this Society--and its branches are
numerous, being scattered over the whole earth--agrees to offer prayers
daily to _St. Leopold_, and every week to contribute as much as a
_crucifix_. The valley of the Mississippi has been surveyed and mapped
by the Jesuits, under the directions of the Vatican, and Popish
Cardinals in Europe are boasting of the certainty of their subjecting
this land of freedom at no distant day to papal supremacy! Rev. Dr.
JAMES, an eminent clergyman of England, says:
"The Church of Rome has determined to compensate herself for
her losses in the old world, by her conquest in the new."
Hence, too, a Papal editor in Europe conducting a Catholic organ, and
advising vigorous measures for the extension of Papal power, says:
"We must make haste--the moments are precious--America may
become the centre of civilization."
The Rev. Dr. Reze, of Detroit, a priest of distinction, who is now in
custody at Rome, a few years since, writing from Michigan to his master,
the Pope, says:
"We shall see the truth triumph--the temple of idols
overthrown--the seat of falsehood brought to silence--and all
the United States embraced in the same faith of that Catholic
Church, wherein dwell truth and temporal happiness."
A Catholic priest in Indiana told a Protestant minister, an able
Methodist clergyman, in a controversy, "The time will come when
Catholics will make Protestants wade knee-deep in blood in the valley of
the Mississippi!"
Bishop England, one of their master-spirits in this country, in a letter
to the Pope written from Charleston, and which was so good that his
Holiness caused it to be published, said:
"Within thirty years, the Protestant heresy will come to an
end. If we can secure the West and South, we will take care of
New England."
This same dignitary said to his brethren at Vienna in that memorable
letter, by way of advice and encouragement:
"All that is necessary is money and priests, to subjugate the
mock liberties of America."
The Jesuits profess to be a more devoted branch of the Pope's army than
any other order. The Abbe De Pradt, formerly Roman Archbishop at
Malines, calls them "the Pope's zealous militia:" another correctly
calls them "the Pope's body-guard, organized for the express purpose of
defending the Papal See, and undertaking a spiritual crusade against
heretics." Pius VII., in his Bull of August 7, 1814, reestablishing the
order, which Clement XIV. had suppressed, says: "We would be guilty of a
great crime," if, amid the dangers threatening the Papal interests, and
"if, placed in the barque of Peter, tossed and assailed by continual
storms, we refused to employ the vigorous and experienced rowers who
volunteer their services in order to break the waves of a sea which
threatens every moment shipwreck and death."
The presumption is, that "these vigorous and experienced rowers who thus
volunteer their services," have some moving principle, some hidden
spring, which moves with that oneness and constancy under all
discouragements. The watch does not show the spring that sets it in
motion: who that looks at its face and observes the movement of the
hands will doubt that it is there, and that they move in proportion to
the strength or weakness of that spring?
The old Romans used to swear their soldiers: the Roman Church swears
even her private members. Read the following from the creed: "I solemnly
promise, vow, and _swear_ true obedience to the Roman bishop," &c. "This
true Catholic faith, out of which there is no salvation, &c.--I promise,
vow, and _swear_ most constantly to hold and profess the same, whole and
entire, with God's assistance, to the end of my life, and procure, as
far as lies in my power, that the same shall be held, taught, and
preached by all who are under me," &c. "I also profess and undoubtedly
receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred
canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of
Trent; and, likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize all
things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned,
rejected, and anathematized by the Church."
The Jesuits are more strict, subservient, devoted to the Vatican, than
any other wing of the Catholic Church. In the second volume of the
constitutions of the Jesuits, under the heading of _obedience to
superiors_, is written:
"You shall always see Jesus Christ in the General."
"You shall obey him in every thing. Your obedience shall be
boundless in the execution, in the will and understanding. You
shall persuade yourselves that God speaks in his mouth: that
when he orders, God himself orders. You shall execute his
command immediately, with joy and with steadiness."
"You shall be in his hands a dead body, which he will govern,
move, place, displace, according to his will."
Under these teachings, says ARNAULD, a student in a college of Jesuits
stated, on hearing of the implicit obedience of another:
"I would have done still more. Were God to order me, through
the voice of my superior, to put to death father, mother,
children, brothers, and sisters, I would do it with an eye as
tearless and a heart as calm as if I were seated at the banquet
of the Paschal lamb."
Andrew B. Cross, of Baltimore, in a recent publication, says:
"As early as 1624, the University of Paris charged them with
being governed by 'secret laws.' In 1649, Palafox, Bishop of
Angelopolis, in his letter to Innocent X., accuses them of
having 'a secret constitution, hidden privileges, and concealed
laws of their own.'"
What will our Democratic Protestant opposers of Know Nothing _secret
lodges_ say to this? What will our Democratic advocates of Popery say to
the principles of such an organization, and to its "horrible oaths?" But
hear the Roman Catholic King of Portugal, in his manifesto to his
Bishops, in 1759, only ninety-seven years ago:
"In order to form the union, the consistency, and the strength
of the society, there should be a government not only
monarchical, but so sovereign, so absolute, so despotic, that
even the Provincials themselves should not have it in their
power, by any act of theirs, to resist or <DW44> the execution
of the orders of the General. By this legislative, inviolable
and despotic power; by the profound devotedness of the subjects
of this company to mysterious laws with which they are not
themselves acquainted; by the blind and passive obedience with
which they are compelled to execute, without hesitation or
reply, whatever their superiors command," &c.
But our Democratic anti-Know Nothings not only object to our having
formerly kept our ritual concealed, but especially to our denial of the
existence of our organization. Let them procure a copy of the secret
instructions of the Jesuits, styled "_Secreta Monita_," and in the
preface they will find these _lovely_ words:
"The greatest care imaginable must be also taken that these
instructions do not fall into the hands of strangers, &c.; if
they should, _let it be positively denied that these are the
principles of the society_," &c.
But again:
"Auquetil, in the fourth volume, page 333, of his History of
France, gives an account of the celebrated case of the
bankruptcy of the Rev. Father Jesuit La Valette, the Jesuit
agent, for three million francs. Their ships had been taken by
the English; the bankers in Marseilles, who had accepted bills
of exchange to the amount of one and a half millions, required
prompt payment. They wrote to De Sacy, the General Procurator
of the Missions; he wrote to the General at Rome, but the
General died at the same time; and before a new General could
be elected, and an order sent to pay the money, the Fathers had
become bankrupt, and suits were instituted. After delay and
manoeuvre on their part, the case came on unexpectedly in
1760. All the Jesuits were accused. They tried to lay the guilt
upon La Valette, but the bankers charged that all the Jesuits
were under the General, and La Valette was only agent. In this
sad condition they proposed to prove, according to their
constitutions, that as a society their body possessed nothing,
that all belonged to each college-house, convent, &c. The
proposal of the Jesuits was accepted. On the 8th of May, 1761,
after trial, the Parliament condemned the General and all the
society to pay bills, costs, damages, &c., which they did
without selling any of their property.
"It was in this evil hour to the Jesuits that their
constitutions, which had been acted upon for two hundred years
in secret, were brought to light. Rules and constitutions maybe
in existence and acted upon, when it would be impossible to
obtain a copy from any one who was sufficiently advanced in the
order to be trusted with a copy."
It will astonish American Protestants to be told how numerous,
influential, and strong the Catholics are in this land of liberty! They
have 7 archbishops, 40 bishops, 1704 priests, 1824 churches, 21
colleges, 37 ecclesiastical institutions for the education of priests
and Jesuits, 117 female academies, all of which are, in reality,
_Convents_. Nuns, priests, and Jesuits are the professors, teachers, and
matrons; and, strange to say, _Protestant_ young ladies are their chief
supporters!
The Romish Hierarchy is far more numerous in _Protestant_ America, than
in any Catholic country on earth. Their strength in America equals what
it is in Ireland, Scotland, and England combined! How extensive is this
religious organization in our land: how subtle! Its ramifications are
all so many _arteries_, which receive their life's blood from the heart
at Rome, and return it there by its regular palpitations! It is now
concentrating its _arteries_ at Washington City, and is promised "aid
and comfort" from the great Democratic party--a party fast becoming the
foe of true liberty, and of the evangelical Protestant faith.
THE CATHOLIC QUESTION--No. 6.
The Oath of a Bishop--Oath of a Priest--Oath of a Jesuit--Oath
of a San Fedisti--Oath of an Irish Ribbon-man--The Romish
Curse!
In this chapter we will exhibit the "_horrible oaths_" of the various
grades of Catholics, from a _Bishop_ down to a _private member_--even to
the "Irish Ribbon-men," thousands of whom swarm the United States. To
these we will add the oath of the "Order of San Fedisti," an infamous
secret society established in Italy, and introduced for the first time
into this country by that prince of murderers, _Bedini_, the Pope's
Nuncio; who was honored with a steamer at the expense of our government,
Pierce at its head, to sail round our northern lakes, organizing these
infamous societies. Last of all, we give the ROMISH CURSE, which is in
full force and power in all Catholic countries, and is even pronounced
publicly in our large cities, upon renegades from the Catholic faith.
These oaths will be found commencing on page 42 of "A Treatise of the
Pope's Supremacy. By REV. ISAAC BARROW, D. D. Second American Edition,
1844." By this author, the Latin is given and then translated. The same,
in part, will be found in the debate between MR. BRECKENRIDGE, of the
Presbyterian Church, and ARCHBISHOP HUGHES, and by the latter publicly
acknowledged to be genuine, before a Baltimore audience who heard the
discussion!
But these particular forms of oaths in question, which reckless
Catholics and unprincipled Democrats deny, were published in England by
Archbishop Usher, whose correctness and reliability is equal to that of
any man. These oaths will be found in a volume entitled "Foxes and
Firebrands," from a collection of papers by Archbishop Usher, and it is
there stated that "it remains on record at Paris, among the Society of
Jesus," and was drawn up in that form to URBAN VIII., in 1642, when he
revived the bull of Pious V., which had slumbered seventy-three years.
These oaths, as published, contain nothing which is not taught by Popes
and Councils, Priests and Jesuits. Examine these _oaths_, and this
_curse_, and answer us the question, Can men taking them, and
subscribing to their doctrines, make citizens of this Republic?
OATH OF THE BISHOPS.
"I, G. N., elect of the church of N., from henceforth will be
_faithful_ and obedient to St. Peter the Apostle, and to the
holy Roman Church, and to our lord, the lord N. Pope N., and to
his successors canonically coming in. I will neither advise,
consent, nor do any thing that they may lose life or member, or
that their persons may be seized or hands anywise laid upon
them, or any injuries offered to them, under any pretence
whatsoever. The counsel which they shall intrust me withal by
themselves, their messengers, or letters, I will not knowingly
reveal to any to their prejudice. I will help them to defend
and keep the Roman Papacy and the royalties of St. Peter,
saving my order against all men. The legate of the Apostolic
see, going and coming, I will honorably treat, and help in his
necessities. The rights, honors, privileges, and authority of
the holy Roman Church, of our lord the Pope, and his aforesaid
successors, I will endeavor to preserve, defend, increase, and
advance. I will not be in any council, action, or treaty, in
which shall be plotted against our said lord and the said Roman
Church, any thing to the hurt or prejudice of their persons,
right, honor, state, or power; and if I shall know any such
thing to be treated or agitated by any whomsoever, I will
hinder it all that I can; and as soon as I can, will signify it
to our said lord, or to some other, by whom it may come to his
knowledge. The rules of the Holy Fathers, the Apostolic
decrees, ordinances, or disposals, reservations, provisions,
and mandates, I will observe with all my might, and cause by
others. Heretics, Schismatics, and Rebels to our said lord, or
his aforesaid successors, I will to the utmost of my power
persecute and oppose. I will come to a council when I am
called, unless I am hindered by a canonical impediment. I will,
by myself in person, visit the threshold of the Apostles every
three years; and give an account to our lord, and his aforesaid
successors, of all my pastoral office, and of all things
anywise belonging to the state of my church, to the discipline
of my clergy and people, and, lastly, to the salvation of souls
committed to my trust; and will, in like manner, humbly receive
and diligently execute the Apostolic commands. And if I be
detained by a lawful impediment, I will perform all things
aforesaid by a certain messenger hereto specially empowered, a
member of my Chapter or some other in ecclesiastical dignity,
or else having a parsonage; or in default of these, by a priest
of the diocese; or in default of one of the clergy, (of the
diocese,) by some other secular or regular priest of approved
integrity and religion, fully instructed in all things above
mentioned. And such impediment I will make out by lawful
proofs, to be transmitted by the aforesaid messenger to the
Cardinal proponent of the holy Roman Church, in the
Congregation of the Sacred Council. The possessions belonging
to my table, I will neither sell nor give away, mortgage nor
grant anew in fee, nor anywise alienate, no, not even with
consent of the Chapter of my Church, without consulting the
Roman Pontiff. And if I shall make any alienation, I will
thereby incur the penalties contained in a certain Constitution
put forth about this matter.
"So help me God, and these holy Gospels of God."
OATH OF THE PRIESTS.
"I, A. B., do acknowledge the ecclesiastical power of his
holiness; and the mother Church of Rome, as the chief head and
matron above all pretended churches throughout the whole earth;
and that my zeal shall be for St. Peter and his successors, as
the founder of the true and ancient Catholic faith, against all
heretical kings, princes, states, or powers repugnant to the
same; and although I, A. B., may follow, in case of persecution
or otherwise, to be heretically despised, yet in soul and
conscience I shall hold, aid, and succor the mother Church of
Rome, as the true, ancient, and apostolic Church. I, A. B.,
further do declare not to act or control any matter or thing
prejudicial unto her, in her sacred orders, doctrines, tenets,
or commands, without leave of its supreme power or its
authority, under her appointed; and being so permitted, then to
act and further her interests more than my own earthly good and
earthly pleasure, as she and her Head, his Holiness, and his
successors have, or ought to have, the supremacy over all
kings, princes, estates, or powers whatsoever, either to
deprive them of their crowns, sceptres, powers, privileges,
realms, countries, or governments, or to set up others in lieu
thereof; they dissenting from the mother Church and her
commands."
OATH OF THE JESUITS
"I, A. B., now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed
Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St.
John the Baptist, the holy apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and
all the saints and hosts of heaven, and to you my ghostly
father, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation,
that his Holiness Pope ---- is Christ's Vicar General, and is
the true and only Head of the Catholic or universal Church
throughout the earth; and by the virtue of the keys of binding
and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Saviour Jesus Christ,
he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states,
commonwealths, and governments, all being illegal without his
sacred confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed:
THEREFORE, to the utmost of my power, I shall and will defend
this doctrine, and his Holiness' rights and customs, against
all usurpers of the heretical (or Protestant) authority
whatsoever; especially against the now pretended authority and
Church of England, and all adherents, in regard that they and
she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred mother Church
of Rome, I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to
Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates
or officers, I do further declare the doctrine of the Church of
England, the Calvinists, Huguenots, and of others of the name
Protestants, to be damnable, and that they themselves are
damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do
further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all or
any of his Holiness' agents, in any place wherever I shall be,
in England, Scotland, and Ireland, or in any other territory or
kingdom I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the
heretical Protestant's doctrine, and to destroy all their
pretended powers, regal or otherwise. I do further promise and
declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume
any religion heretical, for the propagating of the mother
Church's interest, to keep secret and private all her agents'
counsels, from time to time, as they intrust me, and not to
divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or
circumstance, whatever, but to execute all that shall be
proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me, by you my
ghostly father, or any of this sacred convent. All which, I, A.
B., do swear, by the blessed Sacrament I am now to receive, to
perform, and on my part to keep inviolable; and do call all the
heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real
intentions to keep this, my oath. In testimony hereof, I take
this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, and
witness the same further with my hand and seal, in the face of
this holy convent this day--An. Dom., etc."
OATH OF THE SAN FEDISTI.
"I, Son of the Holy Faith, No. --, promise and swear to sustain
the altar and the Papal throne, to exterminate heretics,
liberals, and all enemies of the Church, without pity for the
cries of children, or of men and women. So help me God."
OATH OF THE IRISH RIBBON-MEN.
"I, Patrick McKenna, swear by Saints Peter and Paul, and by the
blessed Virgin Mary, to be always faithful to the Society (of
Ribbon-men); to keep and conceal all the secrets, and its words
of order; to be always ready to execute the commands of my
superior officers, and, as far as it shall lie in my power, to
extirpate all heretics, and ALL THE PROTESTANTS, and to walk in
their blood to the knee! May the Virgin Mary and all saints
help me! To-day, the 2d of July, 1852.
"PAT. MCKENNA, _from Tydavenet_."
The following are the curses pronounced by the Papal Church against all
who leave it for any Evangelical Church:
THE ROMISH CURSE.
"By the authority of God Almighty, the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, and the undefiled Virgin Mary, mother and patroness of
our Saviour, and of all celestial virtues, Angels, Archangels,
Thrones, Dominions, Powers, Cherubim, and Seraphim; and of all
the Holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and of all the Apostles and
Evangelists, of the Holy Innocents, who in the sight of the
Holy Lamb are found worthy to sing the new song of the Holy
Martyrs and Holy Confessors, and of all the Holy Virgins, and
of all Saints together with the holy elect of God; may he,
----, be damned. We excommunicate and anathematize him from the
threshold of the Holy Church of God Almighty. We sequester him,
that lie may be tormented, disposed, and be delivered over with
Dathan and Abiram, and with those who say unto the Lord:
'Depart from us, we desire none of thy ways:' as a fire is
quenched with water, so let the light of him be put out for
evermore, unless he shall repent him and make satisfaction.
Amen!
"May the Father, who creates man, curse him! May the Son, who
suffered for us, curse him! May the Holy Ghost, who is poured
out in Baptism, curse him! May the Holy Cross, which Christ,
for our salvation, triumphing over his enemies, ascended, curse
him!
"May the Holy Mary, ever virgin and mother of God, curse him!
May St. Michael, the advocate of the Holy Souls, curse him! May
all the Angels, Principalities, and Powers, and all Heavenly
Armies, curse him! May the glorious band of the Patriarchs and
Prophets curse him!
"May St. John the Precursor, and St. John the Baptist, and St.
Peter, and St. Paul, and St. Andrew, and all other of Christ's
Apostles together, curse him! And may all the rest of the
Disciples and Evangelists, who, by their preaching converted
the universe, and the holy and wonderful company of Martyrs and
Confessors, who by their works are found pleasing to God
Almighty, curse him! May the holy choir of the Holy Virgins,
who for the honor of Christ have despised the things of the
world, damn him! May all the saints from the beginning of the
world to everlasting ages, who are found to be beloved of God,
damn him!
"May he be damned wherever he be, whether in the house, or in
the alley, or in the water, or in the church! May he be cursed
in living and dying!
"May he be cursed in eating and drinking, in being hungry, in
being thirsty, in fasting, and sleeping, in slumbering, and in
sitting, in living, in working, in resting, and * * * and in
blood-letting.
"May he be cursed in all the faculties of his body!
"May he be cursed inwardly and outwardly! May he be cursed in
his hair; cursed be he in his brains, and in his vertex, in his
temples, in his eyebrows, in his cheeks, in his jaw-bones, in
his nostrils, in his teeth and grinders, in his lips, in his
shoulders, in his arms, in his fingers!
"May he be damned in his mouth, in his breast, in his heart,
and purtenances, down to the very stomach!
"May he be cursed in his reins and his groins; in his thighs,
in his genitals, and in his hips, and in his knees, his legs,
and his feet, and toe-nails!
"May he be cursed in all his joints, and articulation of the
members; from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet
may there be no soundness!
"May the Son of the living God, with all the glory of His
Majesty, curse him! And may heaven, with all the powers that
move therein, rise up against him, and curse and damn him;
unless he repent and make satisfaction! Amen! So be it. Be it
so. Amen!"
Now, we ask all candid men whose eyes have not been blinded by the dust
of Popery and Democracy, can a Bishop or Priest, a Jesuit or Catholic,
with these oaths upon their souls, be true American citizens? Not
without the guilt of perjury, as black as the altar of a Roman
Confessional! And if guilty of such perjury, the penitentiary should be
their canonical residence for life! Strange to say, however, the Chief
Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney, is a Roman Catholic! Gen.
Pierce's Postmaster-General, James Campbell, is both a Roman Catholic,
and a member of the Order of Jesuits, having taken this very oath! Roman
Catholics are now on the Federal Bench in the United States: Roman
Catholics fill the offices of Attorneys-general; Roman Catholics
represent this Government abroad; and Roman Catholics fill post-offices,
land-offices, and a variety of offices at home, out of which Protestants
were driven by Pierce's Administration, to make room for them!
LETTER FROM THOMAS A. R. NELSON, ESQ.
This gentleman, an able lawyer of East Tennessee, a member of the
Presbyterian Church, and a member of the American party, was nominated
an Elector for the State of Tennessee at large, by the American State
Convention at Nashville, in February last. Though an ardent American--a
great friend of _Mr. Fillmore_--and a member of the late Philadelphia
Convention, and aided in the nomination of _Maj. Donelson_, he has been
reluctantly compelled to decline the position of Elector. Under date of
May 30, 1856, he addressed a letter of nine columns, of great force and
ability, to _Messrs. A. W. Johnson, Robert C. Foster, 3d., John H.
Callender, William N. Bilbo, Sam'l. Pritchett, and E. D. Farnsworth,
State Executive Committee of the American Party, Nashville, Tennessee_,
declining the position. Although we regret his inability to serve, as do
the whole party in this State, yet, if his letter could be placed in the
hands of every voter in the State, we would be willing to risk the
contest without further discussion. Such is our estimate of this
document. For the benefit of "Old Line Whigs," and such Democrats as are
disposed to excuse and apologise for Romanism, we give the four
concluding columns of this letter. The five preceding columns are mainly
occupied with an outline and defence of the action of the Philadelphia
Nominating Convention, and a discussion of the slavery
question--questions we had discussed in this work before this document
came to hand. Mr. Nelson concludes thus:
"The Foreigners and Catholics were directly appealed to in the
Presidential elections of 1848 and 1852. Who does not remember
that, immediately preceding the election in 1844, fraudulent
naturalization papers were manufactured in New York? Who has
forgotten the Plaquemines fraud in Louisiana? Who has not heard
of the abuse of Mr. Frelinghuysen for no other cause than that
he was the President of the American Bible Society?
"But, without dwelling upon other illustrations, look to the
Democratic platform of 1852, and read the 8th section of the
third resolution, which is in the following words:
"'That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the
Declaration of Independence and sanctioned in the Constitution,
which makes ours the land of liberty and the asylum of the
oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles
in the Democratic faith, and every attempt to abridge the
present privilege of becoming citizens and the owners of soil
among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept
the alien and sedition laws from our statute books.'
"During the last election in Tennessee, it was often said by
Democrats that they were just as much opposed to the
immigration of foreign criminals and paupers as members of the
American party, but would not attach themselves to the latter
because of their objections to its organization. But the
Democratic Platform of 1852 contains no exception against
criminals and paupers. The naturalization laws have, in
practice, been found inadequate to their exclusion, and the
platform, in effect, avows unqualified adherence to them
without _abridgement_ or modification.
"These laws are, in substance, declared to have '_ever been
cardinal principles_ in the Democratic faith.' By its own
avowal, the Democratic party is responsible for giving
encouragement to the whole policy of foreign immigration. If
that policy has flooded the country with criminals and paupers;
if it has produced riots and bloodshed in our large cities; if
it has endangered the religious as well as the civil liberty of
Protestants; if it has swelled the ranks of Abolition and
fanned the flame of Agitation--the Democratic party, by its own
avowal, is amenable at the bar of public opinion for these
astounding and deplorable results. Reckless of consequences, it
has persevered in a system hazardous to the stability of our
institutions, because that system has annually swelled the
number of its adherents, and increased the chances of its
perpetual ascendency.
"Without adverting to the census tables, or repeating those
familiar facts connected with the statistics of immigration
which have been so extensively published, it is sufficient to
observe that, under this continued patronage of the Democratic
party, the immigration of foreigners has increased from a few
thousands, twenty years ago, to nearly half a million in 1854.
"But the Democratic party cannot justly claim the exclusive
honor of projecting or carrying out the system. More than
twenty years ago, the Duke of Richmond declared, in substance,
that he had conversed with most of the sovereigns and princes
of Europe; that they were jealous of the influence of our
republican institutions upon their own Government; that they
did not expect to conquer us as a nation, but designed the
subversion of our Government by the introduction of the low and
surplus population of Europe among us; that 'discord,
dissension, anarchy, and civil war would ensue, and some
popular individual would assume the government and restore
order, and the sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of
the natives, would sustain him.' He also said, in speaking of
the United States, that 'the Church of Rome has a design upon
that country, and it will, in time, be the established
religion, and will aid in the destruction of that republic.'
"These statements of the Duke of Richmond are abundantly
corroborated by other declarations, as well as the most
undeniable facts which have occurred since their promulgation.
"I have in my possession, among various others, two small books
published by 'the American and Foreign Christian Union,' 156
Chambers street, New York, the one entitled 'Foreign
Conspiracy,' the other, 'Startling Facts,' both of which, as I
infer from their contents, were written in the year 1834, long
before the American party had an existence. The work entitled
'Foreign Conspiracy' is composed of a series of articles
originally published, over the signature of Brutus, in the New
York Observer. They now appear with the name of the author,
SAMUEL F. B. MORSE. His object in writing the work was to
arouse public attention to the efforts then being made in
Europe to propagate the Catholic religion in the United States,
and to show its danger to our republican institutions. He
traces the origin of the Leopold Foundation in Austria, under
the especial patronage of the Emperor at Vienna on the 12th
May, 1829, and shows that one of its leading objects was 'to
promote the greater activity of Catholic missions in America.'
"The letter of Prince _Metternich_ to Bishop Fenwich, of
Cincinnati, under date, Vienna, April 27, 1830, is set out at
length; and, in that letter, the Prince informs the Bishop,
among other things, that the Emperor 'allows his people to
contribute to the support of the Catholic Church in America.'
Numerous quotations are made from the letters of Foreign
Bishops in the United States to their patrons at home, and,
among the rest, on page 85, is the following statement, made by
one of them, in regard to the people of the United States: 'We
entreat all European Christians to unite in prayer to God for
the conversion of these unhappy heathen and obstinate
heretics.' But, forbearing to multiply quotations from this
little work, admirable in most of its positions, my main
object, in citing it, was to make the following extract, from
page 15 of the preface, taken by the author from the lectures
of the celebrated Frederick Schlegel, delivered at Vienna in
1828, where that distinguished foreigner says, 'The true
nursery of all these destructive principles, the revolutionary
school for France and the rest of Europe, has been North
America. Thence the evil has spread over many other lands,
either by national contagion or by arbitrary communication;'
and also the following quotation, from page 118 of Mr. Morse's
book: 'Austria, one of the Holy Alliance of sovereigns, leagued
against the liberties of the world, has the superintendence _of
the operations of Popery in this country_.'
"In the tract entitled 'Startling Facts for American
Protestants,' written in the year 1834, by REV. HERMAN NORTON,
Corresponding Secretary of the American Protestant Society,
from pages 27 to 39, an account is given of a London pamphlet
entitled 'New Plan of Emigration,' the production of a Roman
Catholic gentleman, a London Banker; in which a project for
occupying the North Western States with the Roman Catholic
population of Europe, is unfolded, together with _a map of the
country_, and, among other things, it is said, on page 29: 'The
first settlements should be made in those fertile prairie
districts situated on the southern sides of the Canadian lakes,
_where slavery is unknown_. On page 28, the objects of this
society, as set forth in this pamphlet, are stated to be,
"'1. To provide the means for colonizing the surplus Roman
Catholic population of Europe in our Western States.
"'2. To do this in such a way as to create a large demand for
articles of British manufacture.
"'3. _To make Romanism the predominant religion of this
country._'
"The census tables will show that, since these plans were set
on foot, in England and in Europe, to break down our
government, there has been an astonishing increase in the
foreign immigration to this country. Great as it was prior to
the Revolutions in Europe in 1848, it has been amazingly
augmented since that time. Millions of foreign money have been
collected in Europe and expended since the organization of the
society for the propagation of the faith, at Lyons in France,
about the year 1822, in the United States. While an Austrian
Emperor has had the charge, in a good degree, of the
propagation of the Catholic religion in the United States, the
public authorities in various parts of Europe have defrayed the
expenses of their criminals and paupers to this country, as was
clearly shown by Congressional investigations.
"What do these facts prove? Why, that the declaration of the
Duke of Richmond, that the crowned heads of Europe intended to
subvert our government, was true. What more do they prove? Why,
that the effort to establish the Catholic religion in this
country has, for more than twenty years, been conducted with
steady perseverance, until the Catholics, who, in 1850, were
more numerous, as the census compendium shows, than any one
denomination of Methodists, are now no doubt stronger than all
the Methodists put together, and stronger than any other
denomination of Protestants.
"While these publications have been before the American people
for more than twenty years, Democratic leaders have received,
with open arms, the swarms of foreigners who have settled upon
our shores. What care _they_ for the slavery question, when
they have seen this foreign immigration, according to the plan
concerted in England, settling in the non-slaveholding States,
and every year increasing the Abolition power? What care they
for the Protestant religion, if the Catholics can only give
them the numerical strength at the ballot-box? What regard have
_they_ for the preservation of our liberties, when European
despots are seeking to undermine them, if those despots only
send such myrmidons as will shout hosannas to Democracy and
drive from the polls peaceful American citizens who oppose
them? Is the preservation of the Union a matter of any
consequence to them? Do they not in vision behold its scattered
fragments and contemplate new confederacies, with hosts of new
offices and millions of spoil?
"Can any one doubt that the Democratic party is in league with
all the dangerous elements that have disturbed and are
continuing to disturb our once peaceful and happy country, and
that they stickle at nothing when votes are at stake?
"Look to their conduct in running Mr. Polk as a tariff man in
the North, and an anti-tariff man in the South! Look to the two
lives of Cass. Look to their equivocal position as to slavery
and the Union. Look to their appeals to foreigners and
Catholics by name in the elections of 1844 and 1852, and
probably in 1848. Look to their alliance with Free Germans and
Fourierites, Free Soilers and Secessionists. And, above all,
look to the miserable cant with which they raise the hue and
cry of persecution in favor of the Catholics, and, indirectly,
deny to Protestant ministers the right to make war upon a huge
corporation, calling itself a church, dealing in human souls,
reeking with the blood of martyrs, and begrimed with more than
ten centuries of oppression.
"No wonder that they have vilified and denounced the American
party with every term of opprobrium that our vocabulary can
furnish. No wonder they talk of dark lanterns and secret oaths
and midnight assemblies. No wonder that they strive to frighten
their followers with the notion that the American party is a
raw-head and bloody bones, which should be shunned and avoided.
For, if honest men of that party will only take the trouble to
shake off the control of their leaders: to think, examine, to
read, reflect, and act for themselves, there are thousands of
Democrats in the South who would scorn, like the American
party, an alliance with Abolitionists, and there are tens of
thousands of Protestant Union-loving Democrats everywhere, who
have only confided in, to be deceived and betrayed by, their
leaders, and, if they discover, as it is hoped they will, that
they have brought them to the crumbling verge of an awful
precipice, they have patriotism enough and Protestantism enough
to break away from them rather than make the awful plunge.
"I regret that I am admonished by the length to which I have
extended this communication, that I cannot now discuss the
Catholic question, as I had hoped to do at the outset, and I
shall present only a few disjointed remarks in connection with
it.
"The American party does not seek to impose any religious test
such as prevailed in the reign of Charles II., when two
thousand Non-conformist ministers were driven from their
pulpits, or such, as in the same reign, was imposed upon Roman
Catholics and continued from 1673 to 1828. The American party
does not propose that any religious test, of any kind, shall be
imposed by law, upon any person whatever, but it does seek to
organize a public sentiment on the Catholic question, just in
the same mode that, in times past, parties have sought to
organize public sentiment upon the tariff question--the bank
question--the internal improvement question--the temperance
question, and every other question which has been the subject
of difference. If it is lawful to say, I will not vote for you
because you are a Whig, it is equally lawful to say--I will not
vote for you because you are a foreigner. If it is lawful to
say, I will not vote for you because you are a Democrat, it is
equally lawful to say, I will not vote for you because you are
a Catholic.
"Neither does the American party propose, in the slightest
degree, to interfere with any of the rights secured to Roman
Catholics, in common with others, by the Constitution. If they
choose to worship a great DOLL as the Virgin Mary--to burn tall
wax-candles in daylight--to pray to God in an unknown
tongue--to believe that a simple wafer is the actual body, and
common wine the very blood of our Saviour--to enforce the
celibacy of the clergy--to worship the host--to believe that
old toe-nails and pieces of wood are precious relics--to
prevent their people from reading the Bible--to refuse to send
their children to Protestant schools--to retain the
confessional and the nunnery--to pin their faith to
unauthenticated traditions--to assert that theirs is the only
true Church, and to perpetrate a thousand ridiculous
mummeries--the members of the American party with one accord
will say, molest them not, disturb them not, trouble them not;
the religious privileges of this country are as free to them as
they are to us, and we will not, by law or by violence,
interrupt or interfere with them in the slightest degree. But
knowing that the Catholic Church was for a thousand years
allied to the State; that it claimed dominion, in temporal as
well as spiritual affairs, over the kings of the earth; that it
regards the Pope as the Vicegerent of the Almighty; that he
wears the tiara as the symbol of his power in heaven, earth,
and hell; that Romanists treat all other professions as
heretics; that its Archbishops, Bishops and Priests are sworn
to persecute all who differ with them; that the persecuting
spirit of that Church has been displayed, for centuries, in the
most odious acts of cruelty as well as the most despotic
tyranny that ever cursed the earth; that fire and <DW19>,
confiscation and torture have been its favorite weapons; that
no age, or sex or condition has been exempt from its inhuman
butcheries and demoniac lusts; that it exterminated the
Albigenses and Waldenses; that it caused the gutters of Paris
to run with human blood on St. Bartholomew's day; that it
lighted the fires of Smithfield; that through the
instrumentality of Tyrconnel and Catholic and Irish Rappadees,
it perpetrated the inhuman atrocities of the Irish Massacres;
that, it drove the Huguenots from France, and the Puritans from
England; that it has delighted in the chains and dungeons of
the Inquisition, and shouted, with fiendish exultation, at the
cries and groans of the victims in the _auto da fe_; that no
republican government has ever flourished under its sway; that
it regards ignorance as the mother of devotion, and denies the
obligation of an oath; that it gave rise to the Order of
Jesuits, the most detestable sect that the earth has ever seen;
that, in the midst of the blaze of the nineteenth century, it
has burned the Bible in America and imprisoned men and women in
Europe for no other offence than that of reading it; that,
abusing the freedom of the press and speech secured in the
United States, it unblushingly avows that all Protestantism is
heresy--that it is a crime--and punished in _Christian
countries like Spain and Italy_ as a crime; that it has
banished the Bible from Protestant schools, when under its
control; that it has intermeddled in political elections, and
is struggling for political power; that it wears a mask and
claims to be harmless in this country for present effect,
although it has never renounced one of its dogmas in any
authoritative mode; that it is typified, in the Bible, as the
Man of Sin and the Great Whore of Babylon; that it comes to us
as an angel of light, but is allied with the Prince of
Darkness: knowing all these things, and believing that the
Roman Catholic Church, now that it is covered with the broad
wings of Modern Democracy, partakes of its meat and is pampered
by its patronage, is, infinitely, the most dangerous political
power with which the people of the United States have ever been
compelled to grapple, the American party invites all who love
national liberty more than Democracy; who prefer civil and
religious freedom to the spoils of office; who revere the
memory of Tyndale, Luther, and Calvin; of Cranmer, Latimer, and
Ridley; of the seven Bishops; of Fox; of the Puritan fathers;
of Wesley and Hall; of the Reformers and Protestants of every
name, and, more than all, of our revolutionary ancestors, to
burst the fetters of party and come to the rescue of their
bleeding country, bleeding at every pore from wounds inflicted
by Democratic hands, amidst the jeers of European despots, the
shouts of foreigners in our midst, and the taunts and sneers of
Catholics and Jesuits all around us!
"Let not Protestant ministers be intimidated by the impudent
assaults of a venal press, or the fierce denunciations of
infuriated politicians, from doing their whole duty in the
pulpit and at the polls. No Presbyterian has ever denied to a
Methodist the right to question his religious faith, and no
Methodist will dispute the right of other denominations to
impugn his creed. Methodists have assailed the Presbyterian
doctrine of election. Presbyterians, in turn, have assailed
their ideas of perfection and falling from grace. Both have
controverted the Baptists' views of immersion, and all have
denied the Episcopalians' doctrine of _apostolic succession_.
These and many other points of difference have, from the
foundation of our government, often been the subjects of
earnest, protracted, and excited discussion; but when did any
American Protestant ever deny to another American Protestant
the constitutional right to differ with him in opinion, and to
express that difference through the press, in the pulpit, or
any other constitutional mode? Yet, it has been reserved for
Democratic presses to attempt, for electioneering purposes, to
curb the free spirit of Protestant ministers: to denounce them
as "REVEREND HYPOCRITES;" and, when beholding at home and
abroad, on the land and on the sea, among Christians and
Pagans, in the halls of legislation, in churches and schools,
in free speech, and in a free press, and in ten thousand other
forms, the magnificent and glorious results of the Reformation,
to ask, with impudent assurance, 'WHAT HAS PROTESTANTISM DONE
FOR THE WORLD?' Not satisfied with the storm of execration
which such an infamous interrogatory produced, the Nashville
Union and American, the leading Democratic paper in Tennessee,
in a very abusive article entitled '_What has it
accomplished?_' under date of April 26, 1856, thus speaks,
among other things, of what he styles 'the Know Nothing
Organization:'
"'_It has done more than this: it has gone into the Church and_
CONVERTED THE PULPIT INTO A POLITICAL ROSTRUM--_it has turned
the attention of the ministry from_ THE PEACEFUL PATHS OF
CHRISTIANITY TO THE ARENA OF POLITICAL TURMOIL--_it has pulled
down the banner of the Cross, and placed in its stead_ THE RED
FLAG OF INTOLERANCE AND PROSCRIPTION.'
"While Protestant ministers, in the enjoyment of the rights
secured to them by the Constitution, have, as before stated,
often engaged in controversies with each other as to their
differences in matters of Church government and speculative
faith, they have, with one accord, from the foundation of the
government, preached and published their views against the
Roman Catholic Church--which arrogates a superiority over them
all, and stigmatizes them as sects--long before the American
party ever had an existence. But because, in the course of
events, it has become necessary for politicians to inquire what
effect an acknowledgment of the temporal supremacy of the Pope
may have upon our free institutions, the Democratic party--if
it is to be judged of by its organ--would gag the Protestant
clergy, deny to them a right which they have always exercised,
and, if they dare to oppose the colossal strides of Rome,
denounce them as having converted the pulpit into a _political
rostrum_,' and as having raised '_the red flag of Intolerance
and Proscription_.'
"It is not for me to prescribe, nor do I desire to dictate the
duty of Protestant ministers; but if, in the combined efforts
which the Catholics have been making under the patronage of
European despots and noblemen, and the encouragement of
Democratic demagogues in our own country, they see that this
tremendous corporation has planted its footsteps in all our
large cities--is possessing itself of the North-West and the
Mississippi valley--and is encircling them, as it were, with a
wall of fire: if they see that the newspapers and periodicals
of that corporation have published doctrines in this free
country which they would scarcely avow in the Roman Catholic
countries of Europe: if, in one word, they believe that they
are to be persecuted and exterminated by Catholics, or take
care of themselves before it is too late--then Protestant
ministers, agreeing as they do in all great doctrines, and
differing only as to those which are not absolutely essential,
will cease to disagree among themselves, at least until after
they avert a common danger, and will rally as a band of
brethren to resist, in such mode as they may deem proper, the
encroachments and the insults of Rome, and all her satellites
and allies.
"If I do not greatly err in the estimate which I place upon the
Protestant clergymen of America, the Democratic party and the
Catholics will discover, sooner or later, that the same spirit
which caused the Protestant fathers to brave the perils of the
BOOT and the STAKE: to stand, without flinching, before such
miscreant judges as _Jeffreys_ and _Scroggs_: to yield two
thousand pulpits and look beggary and starvation in the face,
rather than compromise with conscience; and, above all, to risk
the untried dangers of the ocean and settle among savages--will
nobly animate their descendants, and they will act in a manner
worthy of themselves and of the great cause which is intrusted
to their keeping.
"Never was a more unfounded charge made against any party than
that of _proscription_ against the American party. It is only
the political feature--the allegiance to the Pope of
Rome--which we have felt called upon especially to oppose:
leaving it to Protestant ministers to expose, if they choose,
the absurdity of Catholic theological tenets.
"It is a historical fact that the Romish clergy of France in
1682, under the lead of Louis XIV., made a declaration that
'Kings and sovereigns are not subject to any ecclesiastical
power by the order of God in temporal things, and their
subjects cannot be released from the obedience which they owe
them, nor absolved from their oath of allegiance.' The doctrine
of this declaration is called indifferently 'the Gallican, or
the French, or the Cis-Alpine doctrine. That of the Court of
Rome is called the Italian, or trans-Alpine doctrine."
"Under the solemn assurance of the Louisiana delegation that
the native Catholics of Louisiana do not acknowledge the
temporal supremacy of the Pope, they were admitted to
representation in the American Council and Convention, and this
fact abundantly proves that there is no desire to _persecute_
Catholics for their religion, but only a determination to
resist their political doctrine, which, although denied by Mr.
Chandler in Congress, has been incontrovertibly established by
the history of that Church for ages, the avowals of Mr.
Brownson, the rebuke of Mr. Chandler by the Dublin Tablet, and
other overwhelming proofs.
"In concluding this letter, it would, perhaps, be proper to
dwell upon the claims of Messrs. Fillmore and Donelson to the
support of the American people of all parties; but their
characters are so well known, and I have already so extended my
remarks, that I deem it unnecessary to observe any thing more
than that Mr. Fillmore, by the faithful discharge of his duty,
won the most cordial approbation of his political enemies as
well as political friends, and had the confidence of the whole
country when he retired from office, and has done nothing since
to destroy it; while Maj. Donelson, as our Minister to Texas,
to Prussia, and to Denmark, sustained the dignity of our
country and acquitted himself with honor--denounced the
unhallowed proceedings of the Southern Convention--struggled
manfully, as the Democratic editor of the Washington Union, in
behalf of the Compromise, and never withdrew from it until May,
1852, when, so far as I understand his course from his public
acts, being unwilling to 'blow hot and cold' on the slavery
question, and to aid the Democratic party in wearing a Northern
and a Southern face, he indignantly retired from it, and
subsequently attached himself to the American party in the hope
that it could carry on his most cherished object--the
preservation of the Union.
"The object of selecting an old-line Whig and an old-line
Democrat, was to nail to the counter the charge that the
American party is the Whig party in disguise, and to induce, if
possible, conservative men of both the old parties to unite and
rescue the country from Democratic misrule.
"Hundreds, thousands of Democrats in Tennessee, acting upon
their own impulses and without concert with their leaders,
attached themselves to the American party, but under the abuse
of the leaders withdrew from it. Although, personally, I have
no claims upon the Democracy, and have been always opposed to
that party, yet I would respectfully observe that first
impressions are often the best, and if such Democrats will take
the trouble faithfully and honestly to examine the questions of
the day for themselves, uninfluenced by the dictation of party
leaders on either side, they will, doubtless, find many and
cogent reasons to return to their first love.
"But to such of the old-line Whigs as have not already gone
over to the Democratic party, I do feel that I have the right
through this or any other medium to address a few words. It is
well known that I have been a Whig from my boyhood, and until I
attached myself to the American party about twelve months ago;
and that, in some form or other, I have labored in behalf of
the Whig cause from my youth up--in good report and evil
report, in prosperity and in adversity, and without fee or
reward. And, with great deference to the opinions of others, I
would inquire what has any old-line Whig to gain, either for
his country or himself, by listening to the seductive
flatteries of Democracy, as he looks upon the dismembered
fragments of the Whig party, or sits, like Marius, amid the
ruins of Carthage? What party is it that has brought about the
desolation you behold? To whose strategy was it owing that the
once impregnable city was betrayed and surrounded, and its
lofty battlements levelled with the dust? What foul coalition
circumvented you, and whose pestilential breath is now
whispering in your ear? Has that party against which you have
fought for twenty years--which you have regarded as essentially
corrupt and dangerous to the Union--all at once, and by some
magical and unknown process, been cleansed of its impurities,
and does it stand before you clothed in a white and spotless
robe? What are some of the reasons why you opposed it?
"It denounced proscription for opinion's sake before it came
into power, but kept the guillotine in continual motion
afterwards. It rebuked any interference with the freedom of
elections, and then denied its doctrine, and sought in
countless ways to control them. It charged the administration
of John Quincy Adams with reckless extravagance, and has
expended as much, or nearly as much, of the public treasure in
one year as he did in the course of his administration. It was
favorable to _a_ bank, a judicious tariff, and internal
improvements by the general government, but has crushed beneath
its iron heel the whole American system. It promised a gold and
silver currency, and told the farmers that they and their wives
should have 'long silken purses, through the interstices of
which the yellow gold would shine and glitter,' but has given
us instead more than thirteen hundred State bonds, with a
capital of more than three hundred millions. It has united the
purse and the sword by means of its odious Sub-Treasury. It
trampled beneath its feet the broad seal of the State of New
Jersey, and encouraged Dorr's rebellion.
"It annexed Texas and California, and has strengthened the
Abolition power. It sustains the frequent use of the veto, and
under the name of Democracy delights in the exercise of
monarchical prerogative. It proclaimed in 1844 and 1845, that
not a thimblefull of blood would be shed by any war growing out
of the annexation of Texas, when that war sacrificed thousands
of lives, and has cost us millions in money and land. It
boasted, in regard to the Oregon question, that we must have
'54 deg. 40' or fight,' but swallowed its own words, and in later
times has attempted to retrieve its courage by the sublime and
magnificent bombardment of Greytown! It ordered General Taylor
into the heart of the Mexican country with a feeble force, and
when his victories had won the grateful plaudits of his
countrymen, it had the unparalleled meanness, while he was
still fighting our battles, to censure the capitulation of
Monterey. It had the baseness to call General Scott from the
head of a victorious army, and to attempt to disgrace him in
the eyes of his own country and the world. It denounced Judge
White as a renegade, General Harrison as a coward, Mr. Clay as
a blackguard, and General Scott as a fool. And, without
repeating what has been already urged in regard to its attitude
upon the slavery question and the other topics that have been
discussed, I submit to the old-line Whigs that there is no
principle which the Democratic party sincerely holds in common
with them, and that they should unite with us in the effort to
man the ship of State with officers and men devoted to the
Constitution and true to the Union, in the hope that it may be
rescued from the whirlpools and breakers among which it has
been so recklessly conducted.
"Having expressed myself with the independence which should
characterize a freeman, I cannot expect that a party which has
dealt in the most unmitigated denunciation of wiser and better
men than myself, will permit my observations to pass with
impunity, but I shall be amply compensated for their abuse if
abler tongues and pens will improve upon these hurried remarks,
and teach our Democratic traducers that they cannot continue,
without just retaliation, their unjustifiable assaults upon the
American party.
"Yours respectfully,
"THOS. A. R. NELSON."
PROSCRIBING FOREIGNERS--FOREIGN IMMIGRATION--FOREIGN PAUPERS AND
CRIMINALS--FOREIGNERS ELECTED GEN. PIERCE--OPINIONS OF GREAT MEN.
The issue which most disturbs the Sag-Nicht Foreign Catholic Locofoco
Dry-rot _patriots_, of the present day, in connection with the
principles of the American party, is their _proscription_ of
foreign-born citizens. If the reader will turn back to the Philadelphia
Platform, and consult the 3d, 4th, 5th, and 9th sections of that
instrument, it will be seen that the American party really proscribe
only those who are proscribed by the _Constitution of the United
States_, and the laws defining the rights of foreign-born citizens. The
American party demand the enactment of laws upon this subject more
_definite_, and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
The only _positive_ work which the Constitution does, in regard to
foreigners, is to _proscribe_. It contains but five clauses touching the
subject: four of these are PROHIBITORY, and the other is simply
_permissive_. There is no guaranteeing clause whatever. We must be
pardoned for recalling the very language of the Constitution--for in
this _progressive_ age, our "Young American" generation is fast losing
sight of the plainest features of that document: which, with
Fillibustering, Fire-eating agitators, is _Old Fogyism_! Let the
Constitution speak for itself:
Section 5, Article II. of the Constitution says: "No person, except a
natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of
the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of
President." That is proscription.
Section 3, Article XII., says: "No person constitutionally ineligible to
the office of President shall be eligible to the office of
Vice-President of the United States." That is proscription.
Section 8, Article I., says: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not
have attained the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of
these United States." That is proscription.
Section 2, Article I., says: "No person shall be a Representative who
shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and been seven
years a citizen." This is proscription.
These are the disabilities imposed upon Foreigners after they have been
made citizens. But, more than this, the Constitution leaves it
discretionary whether to make them citizens at all. It simply confers
the power--_simply permits_. Here is the remaining clause, to which we
have alluded:
Section 8, Article I., says: "Congress shall have power to establish a
uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of
bankruptcies throughout the United States."
But let us notice the matter of foreign emigration to this country. In
that fragment of a nation, composed of three and a quarter millions,
which accomplished the American Revolution, there were in the United
Colonies, in the year 1775, just 20,000 more foreigners than now come
into this country in six months!
The progress of emigration into this country, as shown from the State
Department at Washington, is after this fashion:
In the year 1852, 375,000
In the year 1853, 368,000
In the year 1854, the returns of the first six months
warrant the estimate for the entire year of 500,000
---------
The aggregate, for the first four and a half years of
this decennial term, is 1,801,000
There is no reason for believing that the vast immigration
of this year will diminish. In fact, there is no
limit to its rate of progress but the means of conveyance.
Now, then, we have upon this basis an aggregate
for the six years and a half intervening between
this period and 1860, of 3,250,000
---------
Making for the current ten years, the astounding aggregate
of 5,051,000
Let Americans charge continually that the righteous ground upon which it
plants itself is, THAT AMERICANS SHALL RULE AMERICA. Let them point the
voters of the country to solid facts, from which there is no escape.
Tell them that the emigration to this country, according to the Census
records at Washington, was:
From 1790 to 1810 120,000
" 1810 to 1820 114,000
" 1820 to 1830 203,979
" 1830 to 1840 778,500
" 1840 to 1850 1,542,850
--and that statistics show that during the present decade, from 1850 to
1860, in regularly increasing ratio, nearly four millions of aliens will
probably be poured in upon us.
Point to the fact, that from this immigration spring nearly four-fifths
of the beggary, two-thirds of the pauperism, and more than three-fifths
of the crime of our country; that more than half the public charities,
more than half the prisons and alms-houses, more than half the police
and the cost of administering criminal justice, are for foreigners,--and
let the demand be made, that national and State legislation shall
interfere, to direct, ameliorate, and control these elements, so far as
it may be done within the limits of the Constitution.
Let Americans everywhere, and at all times, charge home and force upon
the attention of the people the alarming fact that if immigration
continues at the above rates, in thirty years from this time the
population of this country will exceed that of France, England, Spain,
Portugal, Sweden, and Switzerland, all combined; that in fifteen years
the foreign will outnumber the native population; that in 1854 the
number of foreign immigrants was 500,000, of which 307,639 arrived at
the port of New York; that the white population of North Carolina is
only a little over 500,000--so that enough come to settle a State as
populous as North Carolina in a year. Set forth the statistical facts,
as shown by the last Census, that the immigration of 1854 was more than
equal to the white population of either one of eighteen States of this
Union; and in proof, point them to the following startling facts:
A. Table comparing the white population of the States therein
enumerated, with the foreign immigration of 1854, and showing the excess
of foreign immigrants for this year above the respective population of
the several States.
White population. Excess of
States. immigrants.
Arkansas 162,189 337,811
Alabama 426,514 73,486
California 91,635 418,365
South Carolina 274,563 226,437
Connecticut 363,099 136,901
Delaware 71,169 328,831
Florida 47,203 452,717
Iowa 191,881 308,119
Louisiana 225,491 374,509
Maryland 417,943 82,057
Michigan 395,071 104,929
Mississippi 295,718 204,282
New Hampshire 317,456 182,514
New Jersey 465,509 34,491
Rhode Island 143,875 356,125
Texas 154,034 345,946
Vermont 213,402 186,598
Wisconsin 304,756 195,244
Analyze this table, and show from it that the foreign immigration of
1854 was sufficient to have settled three States equal to Arkansas,
three equal to Iowa, three equal to Texas, two to Louisiana, four to
Rhode Island, five to California, seven to Delaware, or ten to Florida;
so that under the principle of the Kansas and Nebraska act, while
immigrants continue pouring in upon us at the present rate, we may have
within one year ten new States applying for admission into the Union,
entitled to their twenty Senators in the United States Senate; and yet
this would be but the Senatorial representation of 500,000 foreigners.
Let the light of truth be heard upon the great question of immigration,
and let the people see that if the ratio of immigration continues as it
has been since 1850, during the ten years from 1850 to 1860 there will
have come four millions of foreigners into this country--enough to
settle eighty States equal to Florida, thirty-two equal to Rhode Island,
sixteen equal to Louisiana, or eight equal to Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Vermont, Alabama, New
Hampshire, or New Jersey. So the Senatorial representation of foreigners
may reach one hundred and sixty members in the United States Senate, and
cannot be less than twenty in a body composed of but sixty-two members
representing thirty-one States.
UNITED STATES COAST SURVEY--FOREIGNISM AND NATIVEISM.
The reader will find below a list of the names of the employees in the
Coast Survey, classified according to birth, and their respective
salaries:
Natives. Salary. | Foreigners. Salary.
|
E. Nutty $1,200 | J. E. Hilgard $2,200
J. T. Hoover 600 | S. E. Werner 1,419
J. H. Toomer 519 | C. A. Schott 1,500
J. E. Blackenship 500 | J. Main 1,100
R. Freeman 350 | G. Rumpf 1,000
H. Mitchell 1,000 | J. Weisner 900
H. Heaton 700 | L. F. Pourtales 1,500
R. S. Avery 660 | S. Hein 2,500
J. Kincheloe 339 | J. Welch 1,565
G. C. Blanchard 339 | A. Brschke 1,408
R. E. Evans 339 | ---- Balback 639
R. L. Hawkins 1,200 | ---- Lendenkehl 782
W. McPherson 700 | W. P. Schultz 704
W. M. C. Fairfax 1,800 | G. McCoy 2,000
M. J. McClery 1,600 | A. Rolle 1,700
---- Poterfield 1,000 | G. B. Metzenroth 1,095
L. Williams 860 | J. C. Koudnip 939
John Key 782 | J. Rutherdall 526
---- Martin 751 | J. Barrett 375
B. Hooe 419 | J. Vierbunchen 1,095
F. Fairfax 500 | P. Vierbunchen 281
H. McCormick 156 | T. Hunt 704
E. Wharton 1,100 | J. Missenson 626
J. Knight 1,700 | R. Schelpass 469
F. Dankworth 1,700 | C. Ramkin 313
J. V. N. Throop 1,252 | F. White 960
R. Knight 939 | D. Flyn 600
C. A. Knight 626 | T. Kinney 525
G. Mathiot 1,800 | C. Kraft 420
S. Harris 519 | B. Neff 526
S. D. O'Brien 1,059 | A. Maedell 1,095
A. Geatman 704 | -------
H. Tine 626 | $31,867
C. B. Snow 1,000 |
J. Smith 593 |
G. Hitz 313 |
J. Cronion 519 |
A. W. Russell 1,300 |
---- Tansill 660 |
V. E. King 720 |
F. Holden 500 |
J. Mitchell 331 |
W. Bright 216 |
------- |
$24,429 |
The whole number of natives, 43; number of foreigners, 31. Amount paid
natives, $24,429; amount paid foreigners, $31,867. The average salary of
the natives is $568 12 per year; of the foreigners, $1,029 98 per
year--nearly double that of the natives. Is not this _favoritism_ to the
foreigner, and _discrimination_ against the native? The disbursing
officer, S. Hein, receives $2,500.
The result of the last Presidential election was controlled by _foreign
votes_, beyond all question. Look at the figures--see how they foot
up--and see that the country is controlled by foreigners:
Electoral
Foreign Foreign Pierce's vote for
States. population. vote. majority. Pierce.
New York, 655,224 93,317 27,201 35
Pennsylvania, 303,105 43,300 19,446 27
Maryland, 51,011 7,287 4,945 8
Louisiana, 67,308 9,615 1,392 6
Missouri, 76,570 10,938 7,698 9
Illinois, 111,860 15,980 15,653 11
Ohio, 218,099 31,157 16,694 23
Wisconsin, 110,471 15,781 11,418 5
Iowa, 20,968 2,995 1,180 4
Rhode Island, 23,832 3,404 1,109 4
Connecticut, 38,374 5,482 2,870 6
Delaware, 5,243 749 25 3
New Jersey, 59,804 8,543 5,749 7
California, 21,628 10,000 5,694 4
-------- ------- ------- ----
258,548 120,094 152
RECAPITULATION.
Pierce's vote, 1,602,663
Scott's vote, 1,385,990
---------
216,673
Foreign vote, 367,320
Pierce's majority, 216,673
---------
150,647
The foreign vote exceeded Pierce's majority over Scott, 150,647 votes.
It is thus demonstrated that in each of these fourteen States the
foreign vote was larger than the majority given for General Pierce; and
it is also demonstrated that the aggregate foreign vote of these
fourteen States is more than twice the whole number of General Pierce's
majorities in said States. If even one-half of the foreign vote had been
given to General Scott, he would have been elected instead of General
Pierce!
The following New York City statistics set forth the amount of _crime_
committed in that city for six months ending in June, 1855:
"It appears that the number of arrests made during that time
were 25,110. Of these, no less than 9,755 were for intoxication
and disorderly conduct combined; and 7,025 for crimes that had
their origin in the dram-shops, to wit:
"Assault and battery, disorderly conduct, vagrancy, &c. The
greatest number of arrests were in June, showing that during
the hot weather, as is generally the case, more liquor was
drank. The birth-place of the criminals, for two months, was as
follows:
United States, 1,750
Ireland, 5,117
Germany, 1,010
All other places, 4,847
"It needs no argument to prove if there had been no
intoxicating liquor sold in that city, a large portion of the
crimes and the misery resulting therefrom would have been
prevented."
MORE INSTRUCTIVE STATISTICS.--The Jersey City Sentinel of the 22d ult.
publishes statistics of crime and pauperism in Jersey City and Hudson
County, as follows:
"Number of inhabitants in Jersey City, 21,000, viz.: natives,
13,000; Irish, 5,000; other foreigners, 4,000. Number of
persons who have been confined in the city prison, 4,100, viz.:
natives, 75; Irish, 3,550; other foreigners, 475. Number of
persons confined in the county jail at present, 68, viz.:
natives, 2; Irish, 58: other foreigners, 8. Of 188 persons who
have been inmates of the Almshouse, none have been natives, and
no foreigners except Irish. Of 723 who received aid from the
Poor-master, 2 were natives, and 721 were Irish."
We will now submit, as authorities, some names which ought to have
weight with the American people, and which demonstrate, beyond all
contradiction, that we have had "Know Nothings" in our country in
former days, if they were not called by that name! Here are the words
and sentiments of these "dark-lantern patriots:"
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure
you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free
people ought to be constantly awake. It is one of the most
baneful foes of a Republican government."--WASHINGTON.
"I hope we may find some hope in future of shielding ourselves
from foreign influence, in whatever form it may be attempted. I
wish there were an ocean of fire between this and the old
world."--JEFFERSON.
"Foreign influence is a Grecian horse to the republic: we
cannot be too careful to exclude its entrance."--MADISON.
"There is an imperative necessity for reforming the
Naturalization Laws of the United States."--DANIEL WEBSTER.
"It is high time we should become a little more Americanized,
and instead of feeding the paupers and laborers of England,
feed our own; or else, in a short time, by our present policy,
we shall become paupers ourselves."--ANDREW JACKSON.
"I agree with the father of his country, that we should guard
with a jealousy becoming a free people, our institutions,
against the insidious wiles of foreign influence."--HENRY CLAY.
"Our naturalization laws are unquestionably defective, or our
alms-houses would not now be filled with paupers. Of the
134,000 paupers in the United States, 68,000 are foreigners,
and 66,000 natives. The annals of crime have swelled as the
jails of Europe have poured their contents into the country,
and the felon convict, reeking from a murder in Europe, or who
has had the fortune to escape punishment for any other crime
abroad, easily gains naturalization here, by spending a part of
five years within the limits of the United States. Our country
has become a Botany Bay, into which Europe annually discharges
her criminals of every description."--JOHN M. CLAYTON, United
States Senator.
Forty years ago, this subject came up in the Congress of the United
States, and that far-seeing statesman and patriot, JOHN RANDOLPH, of
Virginia, made a speech, from which we take the following extract:
"How long the country would endure this foreign yoke in its
most odious and disgusting form he could not tell, but this he
would say, that if we were to be dictated to and ruled by
foreigners, he would much rather be ruled by a British
Parliament than by British subjects here. Should he be told
that those men fought in the war of the Revolution, he would
answer, that those who did so were not included by him in the
class he adverted to. That was a civil war, and they and we
were at its commencement alike British subjects. Native
Britons, therefore, then taking arms on our side, gave them the
same rights as those who were born in this country, and his
motion could be easily modified so as to provide for any that
might be of this description, but no such modification, he was
sure, would be found necessary, for this plain reason, to wit:
"Where were the soldiers of the Revolution who were not
natives? They were either already retired or else retiring to
that great reckoning where discounts were not allowed. If the
honorable gentleman (opposing the proposition) would point his
finger to any such kind of person now living, he would agree to
his being made an exception to the amendment. It was time that
the American people should have a character of their own, and
where would they find it? In New England and in Virginia only,
because they were a homogeneous race--a peculiar people. They
never yet appointed foreigners to sit in that house (of
Congress) for them, or to fill their high offices. In both
States this was their policy: it was not found in, nor was it
owing to their paper constitutions, but what was better, it was
interwoven in the frame of their thoughts and sentiments, in
their steady habits, in their principles from the cradle--a
much more solid security than could be found in any abracadabra
which constitution-mongers could scrawl upon paper.
"It might be indiscreet in him to say it, for, to say the
truth, he had as little of that rascally virtue, prudence, he
apprehended, as any man, and could as little conceal what he
felt as affect what he did not feel. He knew it was not the way
for him to conciliate the manufacturing body, yet he would say
that he wished with all his heart that his bootmaker, his
hatter, and other manufacturers, would rather stay in Great
Britain, under their own laws, than come here to make laws for
us, and leave us to import our covering. We must have our
clothing home-made, (said he,) but I would much rather have my
workmen home-made, and import my clothing. Was it best to have
our own unpolluted republic peopled with its own pure _native_
republicans, or erect another Sheffield, another Manchester,
and another Birmingham, upon the banks of the Schuylkill, the
Delaware, and the Brandywine, or have a host of Luddites
amongst us--wretches from whom every vestige of the human
creation seemed to be effaced? Would they wish to have their
elections on that floor decided by a rabble? What was the ruin
of old Rome? Why, their opening their gates and letting in the
rabble of the whole world to be their legislators!"
"If (said he) you wish to preserve among your fellow-citizens
that exalted sense of freedom which gave birth to the
Revolution--if you wish to keep alive among them the spirit of
'76, you must endeavor to stop this flood of immigration! You
must teach the people of Europe that if they do come here, all
they must hope to receive is protection--but that they must
have no share in the government. From such men a temporary
party may receive precarious aid, but the country cannot be
safe nor the people happy where they are introduced into
government, or meddle with public concerns in any great
degree."
* * * * *
"This (said Mr. Randolph) is a favorable time to make a stand
against this evil (immigration,) and if not _this_ session, he
hoped that in the _next_ there would be a revisal of the
naturalization laws."
A few short epistles from the pen of Gen. WASHINGTON, and we will close
this chapter. These we take from the "Papers of Washington by Sparks."
George Washington, justly styled the "father of his country," was a
great and good man--a primitive Know Nothing--a praying Protestant--and
withal, the man who was "first in war, first in peace, and first in the
hearts of his countrymen." Here are the honest sentiments of this man:
TO RICHARD HENRY LEE.
"MORRISTOWN, May 17, 1777.
"DEAR SIR:--I take the liberty to ask you what Congress expects
I am to do with the many foreigners they have at different
times promoted to the rank of field-officers, and, by the last
resolve, two to that of colonels.... These men have no
attachment nor ties to the country, further than interest binds
them. Our officers think it exceedingly hard, after they have
toiled in this service and have sustained many losses, to have
strangers put over them, whose merit, perhaps, is not equal to
their own, but whose effrontery will take no denial.... It is
by the zeal and activity of our own people that the cause must
be supported, and not by a few hungry adventurers....
"I am, &c.,
"G. WASHINGTON."
[Vol. IV., p. 423.]
* * * * *
TO THE SAME.
"MIDDLEBROOK, June 1, 1777.
"You will, before this can reach you, have seen Monsieur
Ducoudray. What his real expectations are, I do not know; but I
fear, if his appointment is equal to what I have been told is
his expectation, it will be attended with unhappy consequences.
_To say nothing of the policy of intrusting a department, on
the execution of which the salvation of the army depends, to a
foreigner who has no other tie to bind him to the interests of
this country than honor_, I would beg leave to observe that by
putting Mr. D. at the head of the artillery, you will lose a
very valuable officer in General Knox, who is a man of great
military reading, sound judgment, and clear conceptions, who
will resign if any one is put over him.... I am, &c.,
"G. WASHINGTON."
[Vol. IV., p. 446.]
* * * * *
TO GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, ESQ.
"WHITE PLAINS, July 24, 1778.
"DEAR SIR:--The design of this is to touch cursorily upon a
subject of very great importance to the well-being of these
States: much more so than will appear at first view. I mean
_the appointment of so many foreigners to offices of high rank
and trust in our service_.
"The lavish manner in which rank has hitherto been bestowed on
these gentlemen, will certainly be productive of one or the
other of these two evils--_either to make us despicable in the
eyes of Europe, or become a means of pouring them in upon us
like a torrent, and adding to our present burden_.
"But it is neither the expense nor trouble of them that I
dread: there is an evil more extensive in its nature and fatal
in its consequences to be apprehended, and that is the driving
of all our own officers out of the service, and throwing not
only our army but our military councils entirely into the hands
of foreigners.
"The officers, my dear sir, on whom you must depend for the
defence of this cause, distinguished by length of service,
their connections, property, and military merit, will not
submit much, if any longer, to the unnatural promotion of men
over them who have nothing more than a little plausibility,
unbounded pride and ambition, and a perseverance in application
not to be resisted but by uncommon firmness, to support their
pretensions: men who, in the first instance, tell you they wish
for nothing more than the honor of serving in so glorious a
cause as volunteers, the next day solicit rank without pay, the
day following want money advanced to them, and in the course of
a week want further promotion, and are not satisfied with any
thing you can do for them. The expediency and the policy of the
measure remain to be considered, and whether it is consistent
with justice or prudence to promote these military
fortune-hunters at the hazard of your army.
"Baron Steuben, I now find, is also wanting to quit his
inspectorship for a command in the line. This will be
productive of much discontent to the brigadiers. In a word,
although I think the Baron an excellent officer, _I do most
devoutly wish that we had not a single foreigner among us,
except the Marquis de Lafayette_, who acts upon very different
principles from those which govern the rest. Adieu.
"I am most sincerely yours,
"G. WASHINGTON."
[Vol. VI., p. 13.]
* * * * *
TO JOHN ADAMS, VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
"PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 27, 1794.
"DEAR SIR:--... My opinion with respect to immigration is, that
except of useful mechanics and some particular description of
men or professions, there is no need of encouragement. I am,
&c.,
"G. WASHINGTON."
[Vol. XI., p. 1.]
* * * * *
TO J. Q. ADAMS, AMERICAN MINISTER AT BERLIN.
"MOUNT VERNON, Jan. 20, 1799.
"SIR:--... You know, my good sir, that it is not the policy of
this country to employ aliens where it can well be avoided,
either in the civil or military walks of life.... There is a
species of self-importance in all foreign officers that cannot
be gratified without doing injustice to meritorious characters
among our own countrymen, who conceive, and justly, where there
is no great preponderancy of experience or merit, that they are
entitled to the occupancy of all offices in the gift of their
government.
"I am, &c.,
"G. WASHINGTON."
[Vol. XI., p. 392.]
* * * * *
SAME DATE, TO A FOREIGNER APPLYING FOR OFFICE.
"DEAR SIR:--... It does not accord with the policy of this
government to bestow offices, civil or military, upon
foreigners, to the exclusion of our own citizens. Yours, &c.,
"G. WASHINGTON."
[Vol. XI., p. 392.]
* * * * *
INSTRUCTIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF WAR TO THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL.
"WAR DEPARTMENT, Feb. 4, 1799.
"... For the cavalry, for the regulations restrict the
recruiting officers to engage none _except natives_ for this
corps, and those only as from their known character and
fidelity may be trusted."
[From the Knoxville Whig for March, 1856.]
WHO IS MILLARD FILLMORE?
A Brief history of the American nominee for the Presidency is this: He
was born in the year 1800, in Cayuga county, New York, and is now
fifty-six years of age. His father was then, as he now is, a farmer, in
moderate circumstances; and now lives in the county of Erie, a short
distance from Buffalo. The limited means of the family prevented the old
gentleman from giving his son Millard any other or better education than
was obtained in the imperfect common schools of that age.
In his sixteenth year, Mr. Fillmore was placed with a merchant tailor
near his home to learn that business. He remained four years in his
apprenticeship, during which time he had access to a small library,
improving the advantages it offered by perusing all the books therein
contained. Judge Wood, of Cayuga county, pleased with his intellectual
advancement, urged him to study the profession of the law; and as his
poverty was the only obstacle in his way, Judge Wood advanced him the
necessary means, relying upon his making a lawyer, and being able by the
practice of the profession to refund the money again. With a portion of
this money young Fillmore bought his unexpired time, which was for the
winter, and he pursued his legal studies with energy and success, in the
office of the noble Judge.
In 1822, he removed to Buffalo, where he was admitted to the bar. His
object in removing to Buffalo was to complete his studies and to obtain
a license. This accomplished, he removed to Aurora, not far from where
his parents resided, and there commenced the practice of his profession.
The confidence of his neighbors in his integrity and abilities was such
that he found himself in the midst of a lucrative practice at once. In
1826, he was married to Miss Powers, the daughter of a clergyman in the
village of Aurora, and this excellent woman lived to see him elected
Vice-President of the United States.
In 1829, Mr. Fillmore was elected from the county in which he married
and where his parents lived to the General Assembly of New York, and for
three years continued a member of this body, distinguishing himself by
his energy, tact, and wisdom in legislation. Through his energy and
speeches, _Imprisonment for Debt_ was abolished, and this so increased
his popularity throughout the State, that it was apparent that he could
be elected to any office in the gift of the people of that State.
In 1829, he was admitted a counsellor in the Supreme Court of New York,
and in 1832 he removed to Buffalo, where he settled permanently and
enlarged his practice as an attorney. In 1832, he was elected a
representative in the 23d Congress, in which he served with industry and
credit to himself and his district. At the end of his term he renewed
the practice of the law, of choice, but, in 1836, was prevailed on to
again serve his district in Congress; and in the celebrated New Jersey
contested elections, distinguished himself. He was chosen to the next
Congress by the largest majority ever given to any man in the district;
and as Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, acquired a
reputation that any man might be proud of.
At the close of the 27th Congress, his friends were anxious for his
continuance in public life, but he declined. And in his address to his
constituents, dated at Washington, July 11th, 1842, he says:
"Pardon the personal vanity, though it be a weakness, that
induces me to recur for a moment to the cherished recollections
of your early friendship and abiding confidence. I cannot give
vent to the feelings of my heart without it. It is now nearly
fourteen years since you did me the unsolicited honor to
nominate me to represent you in the State Legislature. Seven
times have I received renewed evidence of your confidence by as
many elections, and, at the expiration of my present term, I
shall have served you three years in the State and eight years
in the National Councils. I cannot recall the thousand acts of
generous devotion from so many friends, without feeling the
deepest emotions of gratitude. I came among you a poor and
friendless boy. You kindly took me by the hand and gave me your
confidence and support. You have conferred upon me distinction
and honors, for which I could make no adequate return, but by
honest and untiring effort faithfully to discharge the high
trust which you confided to my keeping. If my humble efforts
have met your approbation, I freely admit, next to the approval
of my own conscience, it is the highest reward which I could
receive for days of unceasing toil and nights of sleepless
anxiety. I profess not to be above or below the common
frailties of our nature. I will therefore not disguise the
fact, that I was highly gratified at my first election to
Congress; yet I can truly say that my utmost ambition has been
gratified. I aspire to nothing more, and shall retire from the
exciting scenes of political strife to the quiet employments of
my family and fireside, with still more satisfaction than I
felt when first elevated to distinguished station."
During this same year he returned to the practice of his profession,
and, in 1844, the Whig State Convention of New York put him in
nomination for the office of Governor, in opposition to Silas Wright.
This was the only conflict in which he ever suffered defeat, and the
race was close. In 1847, without seeking or desiring the highly
responsible office, he was elected Comptroller of the Finances of the
State, and removed to Albany, where he discharged the duties of the
office with great credit to himself and usefulness to the State,
resigning the office in February, 1849, to enter upon the duties of the
office of Vice-President, to which he had been called by the election in
1848. Gen. Taylor dying, he became President, and every patriot in the
land remembers and admires the history of his administration. Gen. Cass
and other distinguished Democrats said his career had been one of
genuine patriotism, honor, and usefulness; and Gov. Wise, upon the stump
in Virginia, characterized it as "Washington-like;" while the Democratic
papers and orators, from Maine to California, declared that he ought to
have been nominated in lieu of Gen. Scott, because he was one of the
best men in America.
He is now in Europe, familiarizing himself with the workings of the
despotic governments of that country. Before leaving, almost one year
ago, he told his friends, in answer to questions relating to the
presidency, not to start any newspapers for his benefit--not to publish
any documents--not to make any speeches, or even electioneer--and added,
that if the American people nominated him, of their own free will and
accord, he would accept their nomination, and if elected, he would serve
them to the best of his abilities. His nomination, therefore, under the
circumstances, is a great honor, and shows the implicit confidence the
real people have in the integrity, patriotism, and qualifications of the
man. That he will go into the presidential chair almost by acclamation,
we have not the shadow of doubt.
As to Mr. Fillmore's chances, we consider them excellent, and growing
brighter every day. The indications are now very clear that he will
obtain a _plurality_, if not a _majority_ vote, in most of the Northern
States; and under the most unfavorable circumstances, he will be sure to
divide the electoral vote of the South, so as to carry more States than
MR. BUCHANAN. Virginia, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Alabama, are
the only four States we concede to the Cincinnati nominee and _one_ of
these, we confidently expect to carry. Georgia and Arkansas we set down
as doubtful, and we contend that Buchanan can't get either of them
without a severe struggle.
We then make this estimate, and claim as certain for FILLMORE and
DONELSON the following States, viz.:
Massachusetts 13
Rhode Island 4
New York 35
New Jersey 7
Pennsylvania 27
Maryland 8
Kentucky 12
Tennessee 12
North Carolina 10
Louisiana 6
Missouri 9
California 4
Delaware 3
Florida 3
This makes a total of 157--_eleven,_ more than is necessary to an
election. This is not an extravagant, but a very fair estimate. The
friends of the American ticket have a right to feel encouraged. With
proper exertions our ticket will carry. Let every American consider
himself a sentinel upon the watch-tower--let every friend of the party
do his duty, and the result will not be doubtful. And let all who
believe that "Americans ought to rule America," take courage--"the skies
are bright and brightening."
As it regards MR. FILLMORE'S Americanism, _that_ is settled--he has been
a Protestant American _fifteen years in advance_ of the party, as it now
exists. The Hon. J. T. HEADLEY, Secretary of State of New York,
delivered a speech at the Capital of his State, March 7th, 1856, in
which he spoke of Mr. Fillmore in the following language:
"Now, in the first place, he was an American years before those
who denounce him ever thought of Americanism. The Police
constable of Newburg elected last year on the American ticket,
told me, that years ago, when that well-known conflict occurred
between the citizens of Buffalo and the foreign population,
that a combination was formed called the "_American League_."
The members of this League entered into _a solemn compact to
stand together and fight together for the rights of Americans_.
This constable was at the time an humble mechanic in Buffalo,
and he said that _he constantly met Mr. Fillmore (who was a
member of that League with him) at the Council Room_. Thus you
see that those who would arrogate to themselves the title of
Americans, and yet carp at Mr. Fillmore as wanting in American
sentiment, are really recent volunteers compared with him. Mr.
Fillmore carried his American principles still farther and
became (so an officer in the same order informs me) _a member
of the United Americans_. He has always been a true American,
_he is now, and ever will be_, and is worthy to move at the
head of the glorious column over which floats the flag bearing
the inscription, 'Americans shall rule America.'"
After the defeat of MR. CLAY, in 1844, MR. FILLMORE addressed him this
noble _American_ letter:
"BUFFALO, Nov. 14, 1844.
"MY DEAR SIR:--I have thought for three or four days that I
would write to you, but really I am unmanned. I have no courage
or resolution. All is gone. The last hope, which hung first
upon the city of New York, and then upon Virginia, is finally
dissipated, and I see nothing but despair depicted upon every
countenance.
"For myself, I have no regrets. I was nominated for Governor
much against my will, and though not insensible to the pride of
success, yet I feel a kind of relief at being defeated. But not
so for you or the nation. Every consideration of justice, every
feeling of gratitude conspired in the minds of honest men to
insure your election, and though always doubtful of my own
success, I could never doubt yours, till the painful conviction
was forced upon me.
"The Abolitionists and _Foreign Catholics have defeated us in
this State_. I will not trust myself to speak of the vile
hypocrisy of the leading Abolitionists now. Doubtless many
acted honestly and ignorantly in what they did. But it is clear
that Birney and his associates sold themselves to Locofocoism,
and they will doubtless receive their reward.
"_Our opponents, by pointing to the Native Americans and to Mr.
Frelinghuysen, drove the Foreign Catholics from us and defeated
us in this State._
"But it is vain to look at the causes by which this infamous
result has been produced. It is enough to say that all is gone.
I must confess that nothing has happened to shake my confidence
in our ability to sustain a free government so much as this.
"MILLARD FILLMORE."
But here is one other letter, written to ISAAC NEWTON, just before MR.
FILLMORE left the United States for Europe. A more patriotic letter,
breathing more of the genuine American spirit, we have never met with:
"BUFFALO, N. Y., Jan. 3, 1855.
"RESPECTED FRIEND ISAAC NEWTON:--It would give me great
pleasure to accept your kind invitation to visit Philadelphia,
if it were possible to make my visit private, and limit it to a
few personal friends whom I should be most happy to see; but I
know that this would be out of my power, and I am therefore
reluctantly compelled to decline your invitation, as I have
done others to New York and Boston, for the same reason.
"I return you many thanks for your information on the subject
of politics. I am always happy to hear what is going forward,
but, independent of the fact that I feel myself withdrawn from
the political arena, I have been too much depressed in spirit
to take an active part in the late elections. I contented
myself with giving a silent vote for Mr. Ullman, for Governor.
"While, however, I am an inactive observer of public events, I
am by no means an indifferent one, and I may say to you in the
frankness of private friendship, that I have for a long time
looked with dread and apprehension at the corrupting influence
which the contest for the foreign vote is exerting upon our
elections. This seems to result from its being banded together,
and subject to the control of a few interested and selfish
leaders. Hence it has been a subject of bargain and sale, and
each of the great political parties of the country have been
bidding to obtain it, and, as usual in all such contests, the
party which is most corrupt is most successful. The consequence
is, that it is fast demoralizing the whole country; corrupting
the very fountains of political power; and converting the
ballot-box--that great palladium of our liberty--into an
unmeaning mockery, where the rights of native-born citizens are
voted away by those who blindly follow their mercenary and
selfish leaders. The evidence of this is found not merely in
the shameless chaffering for the foreign vote at every
election, but in the large disproportion of offices which are
now held by foreigners at home and abroad, as compared with our
native citizens. Where is the true-hearted American whose cheek
does not tingle with shame and mortification to see our highest
and most coveted foreign missions filled by men of foreign
birth to the exclusion of native-born? Such appointments are a
humiliating confession to the crowned heads of Europe that a
Republican soil does not produce sufficient talent to represent
a Republican nation at a monarchical court. I confess that it
seems to me--with all due respect to others--that, as a general
rule, our country should be governed by American-born citizens.
Let us give to the oppressed of every country an asylum and a
home in our happy land, give to all the benefits of equal laws,
and equal protection; but let us at the same time cherish, as
the apple of our eye, the great principles of constitutional
liberty, which few who have not had the good fortune to be
reared in a free country know how to appreciate and still less
how to preserve.
"Washington, in that inestimable legacy which he left to his
country--his farewell address--has wisely warned us to beware
of foreign influence as the most baneful foe of a republican
government. He saw it to be sure in a different light from that
in which it now presents itself; but he knew it would approach
us in all forms, and hence he cautioned us against the
_insidious wiles of its influence_. Therefore, as well for our
own sakes, to whom this invaluable inheritance of
self-government has been left by our forefathers, as for the
sake of unborn millions who are to inherit this land--foreign
and native--let us take warning of the Father of his Country,
and do what we can justly to preserve our institutions from
corruption and our country from dishonor, but let this be done
by the people themselves in their sovereign capacity by making
a proper discrimination in the selection of officers, and not
by depriving any individual--native or foreign-born--of any
constitutional or legal right to which he is entitled.
"These are my sentiments in brief; and although I have
sometimes almost despaired of my country when I have witnessed
the rapid strides of corruption, yet I think I perceive a gleam
of hope in the future, and I now feel confident, that when the
great mass of intelligence in this enlightened country is once
fully aroused, and the danger manifested, it will fearlessly
apply the remedy, and bring back the government to the pure
days of Washington's administration. Finally, let us adopt the
old Roman motto, '_Never despair of the Republic._' Let us do
our duty, and trust in that Providence which has so signally
watched over and preserved us for the result. But I have said
more than I intended, and much more than I should have said to
any one but a trusted friend, as I have no desire to mingle in
political strife.
"Remember me kindly to your family, and believe me truly your
friend,
"MILLARD FILLMORE."
In March, 1851, LEWIS CASS, than whom there is not a more devoted
partisan in the Democratic ranks, delivered a speech on the floor of the
United States Senate, in the course of which he paid the following just
compliment to Mr. Fillmore's integrity, and to his efficiency in
"_pacifying the country_," while he was President. We quote from the
Congressional Globe, and hold it up as a withering rebuke to those
"lesser lights" of Democracy, who are now defaming this pure and
patriotic statesman:
"The Administration has placed itself high in the great work of
_pacifying the country_, and they received the meed of
approbation from political friends and political foes. _I
partake of the same sentiment._ I do them justice. But I am a
Democrat, and, God willing, I mean to die one. This is a Whig
administration, but there is no reason I should not do them
justice; and I do it with pleasure, in this great matter of
_the salvation of this country_--if I may say so. I have done
so; shall continue to do so, whatever sneers their papers may
contain; for I do it not for their sake, but _for the sake of
their country_."
The _Democratic Review_--the highest Democratic authority in the United
States--for December, 1855, commenting upon the Compromise Measures of
1850, thus spoke of Mr. Fillmore, in a moment of candor, long before Mr.
Fillmore was nominated by the American party for the Presidency:
"Momentous events were transpiring. The agitation of the
question of slavery was paramount in the public mind. In this
crisis, it was well that so reliable a man as Mr. Fillmore was
found in the Presidential chair. The safety and perpetuity of
the Union were threatened. Already had fanaticism raised its
hydra-head. Schemes and 'isms' leaped from a thousand
ambuscades. The enemies of the Union started forth on every
side--Abolitionism here; secessionism there; acquisition and
filibusterism elsewhere. These were the formidable elements of
misrule with which the Executive had to cope. How well he met,
and how entirely he for the time overcame these enemies of the
peace of the republic, we leave the historian to relate; but
our retrospect would be incomplete and disingenuous, did we not
accord the meed of praise justly due to high moral excellence
and intellectual and administrative honesty and talent, as
developed in the administration of Mr. Fillmore."
Since the foregoing was prepared for the press, Mr. Fillmore's letter of
acceptance has come to hand, greatly to the annoyance of the Democratic
and anti-American fuglemen and politicians. We congratulate the country
upon the patriotic, national, and _truly American_ spirit which pervades
this chaste and well-written document. It is just what we expected from
_one of the very first men in the Nation_. His reference to his past
course as a guaranty for the future is well-timed. _Sectional_
legislation he is opposed to; and sectional agitation he will use his
influence to suppress. We ask every man into whose hands this work shall
fall, to read this admirable letter for himself: it is worthy of the man
and the times; nay, it is the letter of a patriot and a statesman--
"Who for his country feels alone,
And loves her weal, beyond his own."
[COPY.]
PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 26th, 1856.
_To the Hon. Millard Fillmore_:
SIR:--The National Convention of the American party, which has
just closed its session in this city, has unanimously chosen
you as the candidate for the Presidency of the United States in
the election to be held in November next. It has associated
with you Andrew Jackson Donelson, Esq., of Tennessee, as the
candidate for the Vice-Presidency.
The Convention has charged the undersigned with the agreeable
duty of communicating these proceedings to you, and of asking
your acceptance of a nomination which will receive not only the
cordial support of the great national party in whose name it is
made, but the approbation also of large numbers of other
enlightened friends of the Constitution and the Union, who will
rejoice in the opportunity to testify their grateful
appreciation of your faithful service in the past, and their
confidence in your experience and integrity for the guidance of
the future.
The undersigned take advantage of this occasion to tender to
you the expression of their own gratification in the
proceedings of the Convention, and to assure you of the high
consideration with which they are yours, &c.
ALEXANDER H. H. STUART,
ANDREW STEWART,
ERASTUS BROOKS,
E. B. BARTLETT,
WM. J. EAMES,
EPHRAIM MARSH.
_Committee, &c._
PARIS, May 21st, 1856.
GENTLEMEN:--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your
letter informing me that the National Convention of the
American party, which had just closed its session at
Philadelphia, had unanimously presented my name for the
Presidency of the United States, and associated with it that of
Andrew Jackson Donelson for the Vice-Presidency. This
unexpected communication met me at Venice on my return from
Italy, and the duplicate, mailed thirteen days later, was
received on my arrival in this city last evening. This must
account for my apparent neglect in giving a more prompt reply.
You will pardon me for saying that when my administration
closed in 1853, I considered my political life as a public man
at an end, and thenceforth I was only anxious to discharge my
duty as a private citizen. Hence I have taken no active part in
politics. But I have by no means been an indifferent spectator
of passing events; nor have I hesitated to express my opinion
on all political subjects when asked; nor to give my vote and
private influence for those men and measures I thought best
calculated to promote the prosperity and glory of our common
country. Beyond this I deemed it improper for me to interfere.
But this unsolicited and unexpected nomination has imposed upon
me a new duty, from which I cannot shrink; and therefore,
approving, as I do, of the general objects of the party which
has honored me with its confidence, I cheerfully accept its
nomination, without waiting to inquire of its prospects of
success or defeat. It is sufficient for me to know that by so
doing I yield to the wishes of a large portion of my
fellow-citizens in every part of the Union, who, like myself,
are sincerely anxious to see the administration of our
government restored to that original simplicity and purity
which marked the first years of its existence; and, if
possible, to quiet that alarming sectional agitation, which,
while it delights the Monarchists of Europe, causes every true
friend of our own country to mourn.
Having the experience of past service in the administration of
the Government, I may be permitted to refer to that as the
exponent of the future, and to say, should the choice of the
Convention be sanctioned by the people, I shall, with the same
scrupulous regard for the rights of every section of the Union
which then influenced my conduct, endeavor to perform every
duty confided by the Constitution and laws to the Executive.
As the proceedings of this Convention have marked a new era in
the history of the country, by bringing a new political
organization into the approaching Presidential canvass, I take
the occasion to reaffirm my full confidence in the patriotic
purposes of that organization, which I regard as springing out
of a public necessity, forced upon the country, to a large
extent, by unfortunate sectional divisions, and the dangerous
tendency of those divisions towards disunion. It alone, in my
opinion, of all the political agencies now existing, is
possessed of the power to silence this violent and disastrous
agitation, and to restore harmony by its own example of
moderation and forbearance. It has a claim, therefore, in my
judgment, upon every earnest friend of the integrity of the
Union.
So estimating this party, both in its present position and
future destiny, I freely adopt its great leading principles as
announced in the recent declaration of the National Council at
Philadelphia, a copy of which you were so kind as to enclose
me, holding them to be just and liberal to every true interest
of the country, and wisely adapted to the establishment and
support of an enlightened, safe, and effective American policy,
in full accord with the ideas and the hopes of the fathers of
our Republic.
I expect shortly to sail for America; and, with the blessings
of Divine Providence, hope soon to tread my native soil. My
opportunity of comparing my own country and the condition of
its people with those of Europe, has only served to increase my
admiration and love for our own blessed land of liberty, and I
shall return to it without even a desire ever to cross the
Atlantic again.
I beg of you, gentlemen, to accept my thanks for the very
flattering manner in which you have been pleased to communicate
the results of the action of that enlightened and patriotic
body of men who composed the late Convention, and to be assured
that
I am, with profound respect and esteem,
Your friend and fellow-citizen,
MILLARD FILLMORE.
Messrs. Alex. H. H. Stuart, Andrew Stewart, Erastus Brooks, E.
B. Bartlett, Wm. J. Eames, Ephraim Marsh, _Committee_.
WHO IS ANDREW J. DONELSON?
This gentleman being now the nominee of the American party for the
office of Vice-President, naturally attracts much of public attention;
and as a matter to be looked for, and not at all to be regretted, draws
down upon him great abuse and slander from the hireling editors of the
corrupt party opposing him. We will let a neighbor of Major Donelson,
who has had access to his papers, and who has prepared and published in
the _Nashville Banner_ a sketch of his life, answer the question
propounded at the head of this chapter:
"MR. DONELSON is the second son of Samuel Donelson, deceased,
who was the brother of the late Mrs. Jackson. His eldest
brother died in 1817, soon after the Creek War, in which he
participated as a soldier under General Jackson. His death was
announced to Mr. Donelson by General Jackson in the following
terms: 'Whilst we regret his loss, he has left us the endearing
recollection that there was not a stain upon his character. He
has performed his duty here below, and has taken his flight to
realms above, as unspotted as an angel. What a lesson he has
given us! How delightful to dwell upon the idea that he has
walked in the paths of virtue during his whole life, without a
blemish on his character, and that all his friends may recount
his acts with pride and pleasure!' The younger brother is still
living in the paternal mansion, and was a member of the last
Legislature of Tennessee. The mother of these children
afterwards married Mr. James Sanders, of Sumner county,
Tennessee, and is still enjoying good health. She is the only
daughter of Gen. Daniel Smith, who was one of the surveyors of
the line between Virginia and North Carolina, and succeeded
Gen. Jackson in the Senate of the United States.
"General Smith had an important agency in shaping the early
history of Tennessee--having represented a portion of the
people in the North Carolina Legislature, and in the Convention
which ratified the Constitution of the United States. He was
also Secretary of the Territory, and a member of the Convention
of 1796. He was a native of Virginia, and emigrated to
Tennessee soon after he had surveyed the line between that
State and North Carolina, having, while in the execution of
that service, seen the fine lands in Middle Tennessee. He
settled the lands upon which his grandson, Henry Smith, now
resides; and built the mansion, which is still there, at a
period when the men engaged in quarrying the rock had to be
guarded from the attacks of the Indians.
"The father of Samuel Donelson, Col. John Donelson, was also a
native of Virginia, and at onetime a Representative of one of
her oldest counties, Pittsylvania, in the House of Burgesses.
He possessed in an eminent degree the respect of the Provincial
Governor of that Commonwealth, from whom he received the
appointment of Indian Commissioner about the year 1770; and it
is to his bold and enterprising spirit that we are in a great
measure indebted for the Indian Treaties which extended the
settlements of Virginia through Kentucky to the Ohio river. He
left Port Patrick Henry in 1779, descending the Tennessee river
with all his family, in boats built on the Holston, and came up
the Cumberland in those boats as high as the Clover Bottom,
encountering incredible toils and dangers. Three years
afterwards, in 1793, in conjunction with Col. Martin, he
concluded an Indian Treaty, by which the settlements on the
Cumberland river were greatly benefited; but he had, previously
to his departure from Virginia, under a contract with Georgia,
explored the country, and run the line between that State and
North Carolina, as far west as the Mississippi river. After
settling his family near the present site of the Hermitage, he
was killed by the Indians, on a journey to Kentucky, near the
Big Barren River, at the advanced age of 75.
"Samuel Donelson was a lawyer by profession, and the intimate
friend and associate of Gen. Jackson, after whom he named his
son Andrew, who was born on the 25th of August, 1800. On the
second marriage of his mother, this son was taken into the
family of the General, who became his guardian and patron; and
he remained the most of his time with him until he was prepared
to enter the Cumberland College. After finishing his studies at
this school, Gen. Jackson obtained for him a Cadet's warrant,
which enabled him to enter the Military Academy at West Point,
in 1816. He was one of the first class which was graduated
under the superintendence of Col. Thayer--finishing the course
of studies in three, instead of four years; as is customary.
Throughout his service at West Point, he was distinguished for
his proficiency in mathematics, and for the facility with which
he mastered all the studies which appertain to military
science. No higher proof need be adduced of this fact, than the
position assigned to him by the Board of Examiners and
Visitors, when he graduated. He was placed No. 2, in a class of
great merit, notwithstanding he had the studies of two years to
pass through in one year, and was recommended to the Department
of War for a commission in the Engineer Corps--a compliment
accorded only to the most distinguished of the class.
"After obtaining his commission, Mr. Donelson was ordered to
the Western frontier to build a fort; but before he reached
this destination, the War Department, on the application of
Gen. Jackson, allowed him to accept the appointment of
Aide-de-camp in the staff of the General. In this capacity he
attended the General when he took possession of the Floridas,
and remained with him until the latter resigned his commission
in the army.
"At this period, Mr. Donelson seeing no prospect for rapid
promotion in the corps of Engineers, and sharing the conviction
then so prevalent in the army, that the conclusion of the war
with England had shut the door for a long time to come against
those military enterprises which are so tempting to the officer
and soldier, and feeling also that he could be more useful in
the pursuits of civil life, turned his attention to the study
of law. He accordingly resigned his commission; and after
attending the course of law lectures in the Transylvania
University, then under the presidency of Dr. Holly, he received
his license, and appeared at the Nashville bar in 1823, having
formed a partnership with Mr. Duncan. Circumstances, however,
soon occurred, which withdrew him in a great degree from the
practice. General Jackson was again in the field as a candidate
for the Presidency, and needed the services of a confidential
friend to aid him in repelling the bitter assaults which were
made upon his character and services. Animated by a deep sense
of gratitude, no duty could be more pleasing to Mr. Donelson
than that of contributing his labor to advance the great
popular movement which aimed, by the elevation of his
benefactor and friend, to promote the highest interests of the
country. He therefore cheerfully entered again into the
General's family, and travelled with him to Washington City
after the elections in 1824. Those elections devolved the
choice of President upon the House of Representatives. Mr.
Adams was the successful candidate, although Gen. Jackson had a
much larger popular vote, and was evidently the favorite of the
people.
"As is well known to the country, the result of that election
gave increased force to the sentiment which had placed Gen.
Jackson in nomination. The efforts of his friends throughout
the Union became more active, and were never abated until the
decision of the House of Representatives in 1824 was reversed,
and Gen. Jackson placed in the Presidential chair. During these
four years, Mr. Donelson, who had married in 1824, settled upon
his plantation adjoining the Hermitage, and continued there to
promote the cause he had espoused so warmly in the beginning.
"When the elections of 1828 were over, Gen. Jackson insisted
upon the acceptance by Mr. Donelson of the post of private
Secretary. Mr. D. accordingly set out with him in the winter of
1828 for the city of Washington, taking with him his wife, whom
he had married in 1824. This lady was the youngest daughter of
Capt. John Donelson, and was invited by Gen. Jackson to do the
honors of the White House--a position which she held throughout
the greater portion of his Presidency.
"It was in this capacity that Mr. Donelson endeared himself
still more than ever to the Hero of the Hermitage. He spent the
prime of his life, from 1828 to 1836, in his service, and he
felt himself amply rewarded by the knowledge he thus acquired
of public men and measures.
"At the close of Gen. Jackson's Presidency, Mr. Donelson
declined to take office under Mr. Van Buren, being anxious for
a respite from public affairs, and to enjoy the pleasures of
his farm; upon which he remained until he was called
unexpectedly to take a part in the negotiation which brought
Texas into our Union. It was upon this theatre that he
displayed the judgment and tact which brought him prominently
before the country as a man that understood the public
interests, and knew how to take care of them.
"The commission appointing Mr. Donelson Minister to Texas is
dated the 16th of September, 1844. Mr. Calhoun, then Secretary
of State, in the letter enclosing the commission, says:
"'The state of things in Texas is such as to require that the
place (Charge d'Affaires) should be filled without delay, and
to select him who, under all circumstances, may be thought best
calculated to bring to a successful decision the great question
of annexation pending before the two countries. After full
deliberation, you have been selected as that individual; and I
do trust, my dear sir, that you will not decline the
appointment, however great may be the personal sacrifice of
accepting. That great question must be decided in the next
three or four months; and whether it shall be favorable or not,
will depend on him who shall fill the mission now tendered you.
I need not tell you how much depends on its decision for weal
or woe to our country, and perhaps the whole continent. It is
sufficient to say that, viewed in all its consequences, it is
one of the first magnitude; and that it gives an importance to
the mission at this time, that raises it to the level with the
highest in the gift of the Government.
"Assuming, therefore, that you will not decline the
appointment, unless some insuperable difficulty should
interpose, and in order to avoid delay, a commission is
herewith transmitted, without the formality of waiting your
acceptance, with all the necessary papers.'"
President Polk, after this, confided an important and most critical
foreign negotiation to Major Donelson; and his estimate of the prudence,
discretion, and ability with which Major Donelson discharged his trust,
appears from a letter to Major D. from the Hon. John Y. Mason,
President Polk's Secretary of War, dated August 7th, 1845. From that
letter, complimentary from beginning to end, we copy only this portion:
"The services which you have rendered your country in the
delicate negotiations intrusted to you, are justly appreciated.
_Your prudence, discretion, and ability have inspired the
President with a confidence which would make him feel much more
at ease if that delicate task could be in your hands._
"It gives me great pleasure to assure you that _the publication
of your official correspondence will give you a most enviable
reputation for the highest qualities of a statesman and
diplomatist_.
"The President unites in the kindest regards, with your friend,
"J. Y. MASON."
PRESIDENT PIERCE'S opinion of Major Donelson may be learned from the
following letter, written by him to the Major when the latter was the
editor of the _Washington Union_, the National Organ of the Democratic
party:
"CONCORD, May 30, 1851.
"MY DEAR SIR: I rejoice that the leading organ of our party is
now under your control, and regard the change as most
auspicious at this juncture. There is a great battle before
us--a battle for the Union--a battle for the ascendency of the
principles, the maintenance of which so nobly signalized the
administration of General Jackson. THE TONE, VIGOR, AND
STATESMANLIKE GRASP _which you have brought to the columns of
the Union are not merely important, they are_ ABSOLUTELY
INDISPENSABLE _in this crisis_.
"With great respect, your friend and servant,
"FRANK. PIERCE."
The following article is from the _Nashville Union_, of October 15,
1844, the Tennessee Organ of Democracy, published within a few miles of
where Major Donelson lives, and has passed most of his life. This
article shows what opinion was entertained of him before he became a
_Know-Nothing_:
"The diplomatic agency of this government in Texas is, at this
moment, the most important mission abroad; although it ranks
with those of the second class, its high and important duties
require the talents of one every way qualified for the first
foreign mission on the globe.
"_We congratulate the administration on having been able to
secure the services of one so eminently qualified in all
respects for the station, whose thorough knowledge of the
relations subsisting between the two countries, and whose
intimate acquaintance with the prominent statesmen of this and
that government, will place him in the enjoyment of advantages
which cannot fail to secure to us the most desirable results._
"Major Donelson leaves his plantation near the Hermitage
to-day--proceeding overland to the Mississippi river on his way
to the Texan Capital--and we cannot but participate in the
painful emotions with which the word 'farewell' will be
exchanged between himself and his venerable patron, friend, and
relative, 'The Sage of the Hermitage.'
"In view of the advanced age of General Jackson, it is more
than probable that they may never meet again. A relationship
next to that of father and son, if, indeed, it be not equally
near and dear, will be severed perhaps for ever. And we feel
assured that nothing short of a sense of DUTY TO HIS COUNTRY
could have induced an acceptance of the mission. Nor, for this
patriotic reason, would the aged veteran advise him to decline
it.
"Major D. leaves a host of good and true friends, who will
continue to have an abiding solicitude for his health and
happiness, and for his early and complete success in 'extending
the area of freedom.'"
Mr. Clayton, Secretary of State under Gen. Taylor, wrote to Major
Donelson, announcing the expiration of the diplomatic relations between
the United States and Germany, (where the Major was stationed,) and
closed with the following complimentary expressions:
"I am directed by the President to express to you his entire
approbation of your conduct, and I cannot take leave of you in
your public character without adding my testimony to that of
the President to the ability and faithfulness with which you
have discharged the arduous and delicate duties which your
mission imposed upon you.
"JOHN M. CLAYTON."
The Democratic party having always boasted that Gen. Jackson was
unsurpassed in his keen and unerring insight into the characters of men,
we must be permitted to call their attention to a clause in the _Last
Will and Testament_ of Gen. Jackson, as recorded in the county of
Davidson. This clause sets forth the estimate placed upon Mr. Donelson
by the old General, after this fashion:
"HERMITAGE, June 7, 1843.
... "I bequeath to my well-beloved nephew, Andrew J. Donelson,
son of Samuel Donelson, deceased, the elegant sword presented
to me by the State of Tennessee, with this injunction, that he
fail not to use it when necessary in support and protection of
our glorious Union, and for the protection of the
constitutional rights of our beloved country, should they be
assailed by foreign enemies or _domestic traitors_. This, from
the great change in my worldly affairs of late, is, with my
blessing, all that I can bequeath him, doing justice to those
creditors to whom I am responsible. This bequest is made as a
memento of the high regard, affection, and esteem I bear for
him as a _high-minded, honest, and honorable man_."
And now, to show that Gen. Jackson had not changed his opinion of the
Major, we give about the last epistle he ever wrote to him, as it bears
date but a few days previous to his death:
"HERMITAGE, May 24, 1845.
"MY DEAR ANDREW: I received last night your affectionate letter
of the 15th inst., with the enclosed for your dear Elizabeth,
which I sent forthwith, and your kind letter of the 13th this
morning. Your family were here yesterday. All well, but looking
out for you hourly. I assured Elizabeth that you could not
leave your mission before the Texan Congress acted upon the
subject with which you were charged. I shall admonish her to be
patient and await your return, which will be the moment your
honor and duty will permit.
* * * * *
"My dear Andrew:--What may be my fate God only knows. I am
greatly afflicted--suffer much, and it will be almost a miracle
if I shall survive my present attack. I am swollen from the
toes to the crown of the head, and in bandages to my hips.
"How far my God may think proper to bear me up under my weight
of afflictions, he only knows. But, my dear Major, live or die,
you have my blessing and prayers for your welfare and happiness
in this world, and that we may meet in a blissful immortality.
"Your affectionate uncle,
"ANDREW JACKSON."
While editor of the _Washington Union_, Major Donelson frankly admitted,
in his account of the election in Tennessee, between Gov. Campbell and
Gen. Trousdale, that the latter owed his defeat to his opposition to the
Compromise measures, and his sympathies with the Disunionists. In the
_Hartford_ Convention held in Nashville, the Major appeared in person,
and denounced the whole concern as a blow at the Union, and its prime
movers and advocates as _traitors to their country and to the
Constitution_. These _Secession_ Democrats, headed by A. V. Brown,
Eastman & Co., are uncompromising in their hatred of the Major, and they
never will forgive him, while he remains true to the Union of these
States, and the Constitution as it is, which will be to the latest hour
of his earthly existence! Had he never opposed the _treasonable_ designs
of the Nashville Convention--and had he not advocated the doctrines of
the American party, these same men would now be loud in his praise, as
the relative, the political student, and the _successor_ of the Sage of
the Hermitage!
[From the Knoxville Whig of June 14, 1856.]
BUCHANAN NOMINATED AT CINCINNATI.--DISPERSION OF FALSTAFF'S ARMY!
The Cincinnati Anti-American, Anti-Protestant, Foreign Catholic,
Locofoco Pow Wow, has met--transacted its appropriate
business--nominated old Federal James Buchanan, of Pennsylvania, for the
Presidency, and Robert C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, for the Vice
Presidency--and dispersed: dealing largely in the old game of _brag_, as
to the _nationality_, _soundness_, and _ability_ of their ticket; when
it is notorious, that they have at the head of their ticket one of the
most vulnerable men in the nation; an old political hack, who has been
"every thing by turns and nothing long;" advocating and opposing all the
leading measures which have agitated the country for the last forty
years, as we shall show in the sequel!
They had an awful time at Cincinnati! They organized by calling to the
chair, temporarily, the notorious _Sam'l. Medary_, the Abolition editor
of the Ohio Statesman. Either the anti-slavery forces were in the
majority, or the "odds and ends" of all parties represented in the
Convention desired to conciliate the Abolition and Black Republican
wings of their _Foreign Corporation_!
The Missouri Delegation were refused their seats, and they openly
rebelled, forcing their way into the Convention with _clubs_, knocking
down and cruelly mangling the head and shoulders of the poor doorkeeper!
From this, it would seem that they were doing business with _closed
doors_! Wonder if they had a _password_! Had they "signs and grips,"
other than those by which they made themselves known to the
_doorkeeper_?
Did they carry with them "dark-lanterns?" Not they--they are opposed to
all _secrecy_--they are opposed to all disorderly conduct--they are the
"harmonious Democracy," and labor alone for the good of the country, and
of posterity! What a farce their Cincinnati Convention was! And what
hypocrites they are!
But two full sets of Delegates appeared from New York, and claimed their
seats; these were _Hards_ and _Softs_--Pierce and
_anti_-Pierce--Nebraska and _anti_-Nebraska--pro-Slavery and
_anti_-Slavery, _Filibustering Foreign Catholic Democrats_! Being
unable to agree among themselves, and the Convention not wishing to
_offend_ either of these wings of the "great Harmonious Democratic
Party," they rejected both delegations! This was having a bad effect, as
a portion of each delegation was out of doors cursing the majority, and
making threats as to what they would do. So the Convention reconsidered
their cases, and ADMITTED BOTH DELEGATIONS TO SEATS. They then
progressed "harmoniously," much after the style of a rickety old cart on
a hill-side, drawn by a balky horse, whose driver curses him when at
fault, and curses him when faultless.
Frequently the scenes of confusion and excitement were alike disgusting
and alarming. The friends of Douglass, Pierce, and Buchanan, were alike
bitter, and each disposed to ruin the party if they should fail to get
their man nominated. The anti-slavery portion of the Convention were
much incensed against the South for the "_lam-basting_" given to
_Senator Sumner_ by _Representative Brooks_, for words spoken in debate.
One of Buchanan's men boasted that the assault of Brooks on Sumner had
gained _twenty_ votes for "Old Buck!" And others of the Buchanan wing,
out of doors, were stating that they had reliable evidence that "Old
Buck" did not approve the assault, while Pierce and Douglass did! We
have no doubt that this sort of influence, added to Buchanan's _known
hostility to slavery_, secured for him the nomination. And, as if
desirous to atone for the sin against the South of nominating an old
_Anti-Slavery Federalist_, they came into a Southern State, Kentucky,
and selected a young and inexperienced politician, Mr. Robert C.
Breckenridge, for the Vice Presidency. As Breckenridge is brave, and has
challenged his man for a _duel_, they can now turn about and appeal to
the Church-going folks to sustain their ticket _for what_ they implored
them to repudiate the Whig ticket in 1844! Besides, Breckenridge
_approves_ the basting of Sumner by Brooks, and this will _offset_
Buchanan's opposition to that _Southern Democratic measure_!
Breckenridge has another virtue, which aided in securing his nomination.
Though the nephew of those _able Know-Nothing Presbyterian Preachers_ of
that State, he has the independence to come out in opposition to them,
and the insulting claims set up by _Protestants generally_, and to
advocate and defend the Roman Catholics.
The "rich and racy" scenes that came off in the Convention, we will
leave our several friends from Nashville, who were there as reporters in
the Convention for the American papers, to set forth. With more truth
than poetry, the "unterrified Democracy" convened at Cincinnati can say,
"Our army swore terribly in Flanders!" And how could it have been
otherwise? The Convention was large--composed of several hundred
delegates, drawn together from all sections of the country, East, West,
North, and South--"held together by the cohesive power of public
plunder"--and representing every variety and shade of opinion known and
held under the much abused but comprehensive name of Democracy! Nor was
the moral and personal character of the Convention less mixed and
many- than was its politics.
In looking over the proceedings of this coalition and combination of
Bogus Democrats, Foreign Pauper Advocates, and anti-Protestant lovers of
Religious Liberty, we have looked in vain for the names of distinguished
Tennesseeans, who ought to have been second best, to say the least of
it, in the ballots for a nomination! It was that Aaron V. Brown, "the
son of a now sainted father," was put in nomination for the office of
Vice President, by a Mr. Brown, supposed to be his nephew; but making no
run at all, he was taken off the track instantly--rubbed down and salted
away!
But Andrew Johnson, who was to have been nominated for the first office
within the gift of the American people and no mistake, (!) was not even
named, and some say he was not even thought of for the position. We had
supposed that there existed among the leaders of the self-styled
Democracy, a determination to doom to utter extinction the light that
has guided the children of Political Reform in Tennessee, and throughout
the known world, and now we know it! The opposers of intellectual
emancipation, of "Jacob's Ladder Democracy," so superior to
Christianity, have triumphed at Cincinnati, and trampled under foot,
with impunity, the soul-stirring doctrine of "converging lines." The
next steps with these "enemies of righteousness" will be the rack, the
gibbet, and a second edition of the infernal inquisition! Will the
friends of the "White Basis" Governor of Tennessee tamely surrender
their dearest rights to these Cincinnati _crusaders_, without a single
struggle? Will they allow the saddle of Federal domination to be quietly
thrown on their backs? Ye Greene county delegates forbid it!
But Johnson is doomed to an inglorious retirement from public life. He
can console himself with the reflection, that rank only degrades--wealth
only impoverishes--ornaments but disfigure him! The man who discovered
that the Bogus Democracy of the nineteenth century leads fallen sinful
man to the throne of God, needs no office to elevate him. These Johnson
Democrats enjoy the pure religion of Democracy--a religion which enters
the closet--pours forth its supplications in private, feeds the poor,
clothes the naked--inflames not the prejudices of Protestant sects--is
modest and unassuming in its demeanor--is charitable and kind to the
persecuted and pious Catholics--bears with the infirmities of Foreign
Paupers--is not ambitious and designing, seeking to accomplish vast
schemes by doubtful means!
While Old Federal Buck was nominated on the seventeenth ballot, after
much excitement, wrangling and abuse, young Breckenridge, whose only
merit is his having challenged the Hon. Francis B. Cutting, of New York,
to fight a duel, two years ago, was nominated on the second ballot. The
ballot for a candidate for the Vice Presidency resulted as follows:
John C. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, 55
John A. Quitman, of Mississippi, 59
Linn Boyd, of Kentucky, 33
Benjamin Fitzpatrick, of Alabama, 11
Aaron V. Brown, of Tennessee, 29
Herschel V. Johnson, of Georgia, 31
Thomas J. Rusk, of Texas, 2
Wm H. Polk, of Tennessee, 5
J. C. Dobbin, of North Carolina, 13
A second ballot was entered into, when Hon. John C. Breckenridge, of
Kentucky, was unanimously chosen.
Tennessee, in voting for a Presidential candidate, voted SIX times for
Pierce, and EIGHT times for Douglass, and never came over to old Federal
Buck until they could do nothing for Pierce or Douglass. Buck seems to
have been a fill for Tennessee! But now, the Tennessee Democracy say:
"With hounds and horn,
At rosy morn,
We _Bucks_ a hunting go!"
Well, we Americans will get after Old Buck's venison too, and between
this and November next, many will be the steak we shall eat out of his
old Federal carcass. It is venison worthy of the chase, for
----"Finer or fatter
Ne'er roamed in the forest,
Or smoked in a platter."
So--
"Hi, ho, Chevy,
Hark away, hark away, tantivy,
Here rests the burthen of my song,
This _time_ a stag must die."
But Democracy have commenced their old game of brag, by puffing their
ticket as a national and conservative ticket, the very thing they
denied. Now let us look into the soundness and nationality of the HEAD
of the ticket. We have before us a copy of a work published in 1839, by
Robert Mayo, M. D., entitled, "Political Sketches of Eight Years in
Washington, in four parts." This work has gone through various editions,
having been published by Fielding Lucas, Jr., of Baltimore; Garret
Anderson, of Washington; J. R. Smith, of Richmond; Carey, Hart & Co., of
Philadelphia, and by others in New York and Boston. On page 38 of this
work, which Mr. Buchanan has never contradicted, he is reported to have
denounced the visions, patronage, and corruptions of the Democratic
Administrations, while he, Buchanan, was a member of the Old Federal
Party.
On page 6 of this work, in the preface, the author says, in speaking of
Buchanan before he turned Democrat:
"The declarations of some of these new disciples of Democracy
in past times are striking enough. MR. BUCHANAN of
PENNSYLVANIA, while he acted in his true character, DECLARED
THAT IF HE HAD A DROP OF DEMOCRATIC BLOOD IN HIS VEINS, HE
WOULD LET IT OUT! He put his royal declaration on paper, and it
has risen up against him."
A recent brief memoir of Mr. Buchanan, put forth in Pennsylvania, states
that he was elected to the Legislature in 1815, where he distinguished
himself by those exhibitions of intellect which gave promise of future
eminence. The Lancaster _Register_, published in the immediate vicinity
of Mr. Buchanan's residence, asks _by whom_ was he elected? and thus
supplies the record for 1815:
ASSEMBLY.
For JAMES BUCHANAN, Federal 3051
" Molton O. Rogers, Democrat 2502
The memoir sets forth that Mr. Buchanan was elected to Congress in 1820,
and that he retained his position in that body for ten years,
voluntarily retiring.
The Lancaster _Register_ inquires if he were elected as a _Democrat_,
and answers the inquiry by the following historical facts:
CONGRESS.
1820--James Buchanan, Federal 4642
" Jacob Hibsman, Democrat 3666
1822--James Buchanan, Federal 2153
" Jacob Hibsman, Democrat 1940
1824--James Buchanan, Federal 3560
" Samuel Houston, Democrat 3046
1826--James Buchanan, Federal 2760
" Dr. John McCamant, Democrat 2307
1828--James Buchanan, Jackson 5203
" William Hiester, Adams 3904
The Lancaster _Register_ then pursues its criticism as follows:
"On the 4th of July, 1815, Mr. Buchanan, when he was a
candidate for Assembly on the _Federal ticket_, delivered 'an
oration' in Lancaster, in which he showed his _love_ of
Federalism and _hatred_ of Democracy, by attacking the
Administration of James Madison. He said:
"'Time will not allow me to enumerate all the other evils and
wicked projects of the Democratic administration.'
"And again, in the same oration, he said:
"'What must be our opinion of an opposition whose passions were
so dark and malignant as to be gratified in endeavoring to
blast the character and imbitter the old age of Washington?
After thus persecuting the saviour of his country, _how can the
Democratic party dare to call themselves his disciples_?'"
And who does not recollect, in Tennessee, with what force and effect
JAMES C. JONES used to point out JAMES BUCHANAN as one of the _rank old
Federalists_ who had come over to the Democratic ranks, and was battling
with _Col. Polk_, side by side, while he was consuming half his time in
abuse of the Federal party? When the Democratic candidate for Congress
in this District, JULIUS W. BLACKWELL, charged _Federalism_ upon the
Whig party, who does not recollect with what effect and spirit JOHN H.
CROZIER ran over the list of ODIOUS OLD FEDERALISTS, then fighting under
the Democratic flag, among them naming out JAMES BUCHANAN? And will not
the files of the KNOXVILLE POST, edited by Capt. JAMES WILLIAMS, show
how he held up JAMES BUCHANAN and others as an _old Federalist of the
first water_?
On the subject of _Slavery_ the memoir is not definite, and the
Lancaster Register comes to its aid by publishing the following
proceedings of a public meeting held in that city on the 23d of
November, 1819:
"WHEREAS, the people of this State, pursuing the maxims and
animated by the beneficence of the great founder of
Pennsylvania, first gave effect to the gradual abolition of
slavery by a national act, which has not only rescued the
unhappy and helpless African within their territory from the
demoralizing influence of slavery, but ameliorating his state
and condition throughout Europe and America; and whereas, it
would illy comport with those humane and Christian efforts to
be silent spectators when this great cause of humanity is about
to be agitated in Congress, by fixing the destiny of the new
domains of the United States: therefore,
"_Resolved_, That the representatives in Congress from this
district be and they are hereby most earnestly requested to use
their utmost endeavors, as members of the National Legislature,
to prevent the existence of slavery in any of the Territories
or new States which may be created by Congress.
"_Resolved_, As the opinion of this meeting, that as the
Legislature of this State will shortly be in session, it will
be highly deserving of their wisdom and patriotism to take into
their early and most serious consideration the propriety of
instructing our representatives in the National Legislature to
use the most zealous and strenuous exertions to inhibit the
existence of slavery in any of the Territories or States which
may hereafter be created by Congress; and that the members of
Assembly from this county be requested to embrace the earliest
opportunity of bringing this subject before both Houses of the
Legislature.
"_Resolved_, That, in the opinion of this meeting, the members
of Congress who at the last session sustained the cause of
justice, humanity, and patriotism, in opposing the introduction
of slavery into the State then endeavored to be formed out of
the Missouri Territory, are entitled to the warmest thanks of
every friend of humanity.
"_Resolved_, That the proceedings of this meeting be published
in the newspapers in this city.
"JAMES HOPKINS,
WM. JENKINS,
JAMES BUCHANAN."
"The foregoing resolutions being read were unanimously adopted,
after which the meeting adjourned. (Signed)
WALTER FRANKLIN, Ch'n.
"Attest--WM. JENKINS, Sec'y."
The "Perry County Democratic Press," for April 9th, 1856, an able paper
published at Bloomfield in Pennsylvania, shows up the _Federal
anti-slavery, anti-Democratic, turn-coat character_ of Mr. Buchanan,
after this fashion:
JAMES BUCHANAN'S SOMERSETS.
"No man in the United States has turned his political coat as
often as James Buchanan. He has espoused the principles of
every party that has had an existence since the memorable
Hartford Convention, and has been on all sides of political
questions.
"A brief reference to his history will establish conclusively
our assertions."
HIS FEDERALISM.
"He entered political life in 1814 as a rank Federalist, and by
the Federal party he was elected to the Legislature of the
State. He was re-elected in 1815, defeating Molton C. Rogers,
the Democratic candidate, and afterwards one of the Supreme
Judges of the State.
"In 1820, he was the Federal candidate for Congress, and was
elected over Jacob Hibsman, the Democratic candidate, by 976
majority. In 1822, he was reelected over the same man by 813
majority. In 1824, he was the Federal candidate for Congress,
and elected over Samuel Houston, the Democratic candidate, by
519 votes. In 1826, he was re-elected over Dr. John McCamant,
the Democratic candidate, by 453 votes. His majorities were
becoming less each time, and in order to satisfy his Federal
friends of his fidelity to the party, he had to declare that
'if he had a drop of Democratic blood in his veins, he would
open them and let it out.'"
HE BECOMES A DEMOCRAT.
"Two years after this, he changed his coat and became a
full-blooded Democrat, and ran for Congress as the Democratic
candidate, and was elected by virtue of General Jackson's
popularity. He was afraid to run a second term, and he
declined."
HIS TEN CENT SPEECH.
"In 1843, in the United States Senate, he made a speech
advocating the principle that ten cents is a sufficient
compensation for a day's labor. Hence he is called 'Ten Cent
Jimmy.'
"In 1845, he became Secretary of State under Polk's
administration, and consented to give away about half of the
Territory of Oregon to the British government, after he had
proven that they had not a spark of title to it.
"He extolled the Federal administration of John Adams, and
endorsed the abominable Alien and Sedition laws of the Federal
reign of terror. He bitterly denounced the administration of
that pure Democrat, James Madison, and ridiculed what he termed
the follies of Thomas Jefferson."
HIS SLAVERY SOMERSETS.
"In 1819, at a meeting in Lancaster, he reported resolutions
favoring resistance to the extension of slavery and the
admission of the State of Missouri as a slave State.
"In 1847, he wrote to the Democracy of Berks county, saying
that the Missouri Compromise had given peace to the country,
and that instead of repealing it he was in favor of its
extension and maintenance.
"In 1850, in a letter to Col. Forney, he rejoiced over the
settlement of the slavery agitation by the passage of the
compromise measures during Fillmore's administration, and hoped
that before a dissolution of the Union he might be gathered to
his fathers, and never be permitted to witness the sad
catastrophe.
"In 1852, he wrote to Mr. Leake, of Virginia, concerning
Fillmore's compromise measures of 1850, which had been passed
by Congress, and said, 'that the volcano has been extinguished,
and the man who would apply the firebrand to the combustible
materials still remaining, will produce an eruption that will
overwhelm the Constitution and the Union."
BUCHANAN'S LAST SOMERSET.
"On the 28th of December, 1855, about three months ago, Mr.
Buchanan, in a letter to John Slidell, of Louisiana, says: 'The
Missouri Compromise is gone, and gone for ever. It has
departed. The time for it has passed away, and the best, nay,
the only mode now left of _putting down_ the fanatical and
reckless spirit of the North is to adhere to the existing
settlement without the slightest thought or appearance of
wavering, and without regarding any storm which may be raised
against it."
Here, then, is an authentic record--if the reader please, a GILT-FRAME
PENNSYLVANIA LOOKING-GLASS, in which the Democracy of the South who
admire the nominee of the late Cincinnati Convention can _see him as he
is_! Heretofore, to use the language of Holy Writ, they have seen him
"through a glass darkly, but now face to face." Here they see him
standing erect upon the floor of the United States Senate, in all the
pride of that _aristocracy_ which has characterized his course in life,
and giving vent to the old and bitter feelings of the _royalists_ in
Pennsylvania, by advocating the _oppressive British doctrine_, that TEN
CENTS PER DAY _is enough for a poor white man as a day-laborer_! And
here, too, our hard-fisted working-men, North and South, can see what
sort of a man the Democracy are asking them to vote for for the
Presidency!
In his Fourth of July oration in 1815, delivered in the hearing of an
immense crowd, and afterwards published in all the leading papers of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Buchanan came out as a _Know-Nothing_, which he has
now to repudiate in stepping upon the _Anti-American Catholic Platform_
prepared for him at Cincinnati! Here is what he said in that celebrated
oration:
"The greater part of those foreigners who would not be thus
affected by it, have long been the warmest friends of the
party. They had been _one of the great means of elevating the
present ruling_ (Democratic) party, and it would have been
ungrateful for that party to have abandoned them. To secure
this foreign feeling has been the labor of their leaders for
more than twenty years, and well have they been paid for their
trouble, for it has been one of the principal causes of
introducing and continuing them in power. Immediately before
the war this foreign influence had completely embodied itself
with the majority, particularly in the West, and its voice was
heard so loud at the seat of government, that President Madison
was obliged either to yield to its dictates or retire from
office. The choice was easily made by a man who preferred his
private interests to the public good, and therefore hurried us
into a war for which we were utterly unprepared."
And then again:
"We ought to use every honest exertion to turn out of power
those weak and wicked men whose wild and visionary theories
have been tested and found wanting. Above all, we ought to
drive from our shores foreign influence, and cherish American
feeling. Foreign influence has been in every age the curse of
republics--its jaundiced eye sees every thing in false
colors--the thick atmosphere of prejudice by which it is ever
surrounded, excluding from its sight the light of reason. Let
us then learn wisdom from experience, and for ever banish this
fiend from our country."
And here is what JACKSON thought of BUCHANAN. The Democratic Washington
correspondent of the New York Evening Post, who was favorable to the
nomination of Pierce, makes this statement--a statement we have often
heard before, and never heard contradicted:
"On the night before leaving Nashville to occupy the White
House, Mr. Polk, in company with Gen. Robert Armstrong, called
at the Hermitage to procure some advice from the old hero as to
the selection of his cabinet. Jackson strongly urged the
President-elect to give no place in it to Buchanan, as he could
not be relied upon. It so happened that Polk had already
determined to make that very appointment, having probably
offered the situation to the statesman of Pennsylvania. This
fact induced Gen. Armstrong subsequently to tell Jackson that
he had given Polk a rather hard rub, as Buchanan had already
been selected for Secretary of State. 'I can't help it,' said
the old man: 'I felt it my duty to warn him against Mr.
Buchanan, whether it was agreeable or not. Mr. Polk will find
Buchanan an unreliable man. I know him well, and Mr. Polk will
yet admit the correctness of my prediction.'
"It was the last visit ever made by Mr. Polk to the old hero
when this unavailing remonstrance was delivered, but the new
President, long before the end of his administration, had
reason to acknowledge its propriety and justice, and in the
diary kept by him during that period may still be read a most
emphatic declaration of his distrust of Mr. Buchanan. Every one
is aware of two marked instances in which, as Secretary of
State, the latter failed to support the policy of the
administration, viz., on the question of the tariff of 1846,
and the requisition of the ten regiments voted by Congress for
the Mexican war. On both of these measures he was known to be
opposed to the wishes of Mr. Polk."
_Mr. Charles Irving_, the Democratic editor of the Lynchburg Republican,
and a delegate at Richmond in the State Convention, thus disposes of Mr.
Buchanan in a long and able letter, dated May 7th, 1856:
"If silence during the battle constitutes a claim for office,
how can the South expect Northern statesmen to uphold her
banner, when abolitionists are seeking to tear it to tatters?
If an ability to get free-soil votes makes a candidate
available, and that species of availability is recognized as a
merit at the South, Northern statesmen should court
free-soilers, and not struggle with them, if they wish to be
Presidents. Such availability may be very desirable to those
who wish success alone, but those who look to the interests of
the country may well be excused if they prefer a different
standard. I certainly _prefer_ that the South shall PREFER the
selection, not only of a sound man, but that she shall vote for
the nomination of no man upon any such ground of availability.
The coming election must settle the slavery agitation. I do not
wish a single free-soiler to vote the Democratic ticket, nor
will I willingly afford them the slightest excuse for so doing.
A prominent North-West Democrat told me to-day, that the
nomination of Mr. Buchanan would enable Trumbull, Wentworth,
and other free-soilers to come back into the party. I am not
anxious to get back such characters. These are some reasons for
not preferring Mr. Buchanan.
"But there is still another reason. That reason is in his
record. To carry the entire South, we must have not only a
sound man, but one who is above impeachment--whose record is as
stainless as the principles he advocates. Is such the case with
Mr. Buchanan? Let the record answer.
"On the 27th of December, 1837, Mr. Calhoun submitted to the
Senate that celebrated series of resolutions, the great objects
of which were to set forth with precision and force the
constitutional rights of the slaveholding States, and to
attract to their support an enlightened public opinion against
the attacks of Northern fanaticism. The second resolution was
in these words: (Calhoun's Works, volume 3, page 140.)
"'_Resolved_, That in delegating a portion of their powers to
be exercised by the Federal Government, the States retained
severally the exclusive and sole right over their own domestic
institutions and police, and are alone responsible for them,
and that any intermeddling of any one or more States, or a
combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions
and police of the others, on any ground or under any pretext
whatever, political, moral, or religious, with a view to their
alteration or subversion, is an assumption of superiority not
warranted by the Constitution, insulting to the States
interfered with, tending to endanger their domestic peace and
tranquillity, subversive of the objects for which the
Constitution was formed, and, by necessary consequence, tending
to weaken and destroy the Union itself.'
"Mr. Morris of Ohio, who was then the only avowed Abolitionist
in the Senate, moved to strike out the words 'moral and
religious.' Had the motion prevailed, the effect would have
been to encourage agitation in the form in which it would be
most likely to be fatal to the South. It would have been a
direct encouragement to the Abolitionized clergy of the North
to take the very course which was taken by the 'three thousand
and fifty divines' who, in 1854, sacrilegiously assumed, 'in
the name of Almighty God, and in his presence,' to denounce the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise as 'a violation of plighted
faith and a breach of a national compact.' Subsequent events
have abundantly attested the truth of what Mr. Calhoun said,
when arguing against the motion, 'that the whole spirit of the
resolution hinged upon that word _religious_.'
"The vote taken on Mr. Morris's amendment stood as follows:
(Congressional Globe, volume 6, page 74.)
"Yeas--Messrs. Bayard, BUCHANAN, Clayton, Davis, McKeon,
Morris, Prentiss, Robbins, Ruggles, Smyth of Indiana,
Southward, Swift, Tipton, and Webster--14.
"Nays--Messrs. Allen, Black, Brown, Calhoun, Clay of Alabama,
Clay of Kentucky, Cuthbert, Fulton, Hubbard, King, Knight,
Linn, Lumpkin, Lyon, Nicholas, Niles, Norvell, Pierce, Preston,
Rives, Roane, Robinson, Sevier, Smyth of Connecticut, Strange,
Walker, Wall, White, Williams, Wright, and Young--31.
"The fifth resolution to which Mr. Calhoun here referred, and
which he justly regarded as the most important of all, and
struggled most perseveringly to have passed without amendment,
was strictly as follows:
"'Resolved, That the intermeddling of any State or States, or
their citizens, to abolish slavery in this District, or in any
of the Territories, on the ground, or under the pretext, that
it is immoral or sinful, or the passage of any act or measure
of Congress, with that view, would be a direct and dangerous
attack on the institutions of all the slaveholding States.'
"This resolution covered the whole premises. It met the issue
boldly and fully. No Southern Democrat can hesitate to say that
it embodied a great truth, to which events have borne emphatic
testimony. Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, moved to strike it out, and
insert the following as a substitute:
"'Resolved, That when the District of Columbia was ceded by the
States of Virginia and Maryland to the United States, domestic
slavery existed in both of those States, including the ceded
territory; and that, as it still continues in both of them, it
could not be abolished within the District without a violation
of that good faith which was implied in the cession, and in the
acceptance of the territory, nor unless compensation were made
for the slaves, without a manifest infringement of an amendment
of the Constitution of the United States, nor without exciting
a degree of just alarm and apprehension in the States
recognizing slavery, far transcending, in mischievous tendency,
any possible benefit which would be accomplished by the
abolition.' (Congressional Globe, vol. 6, page 58.)
"The utter insufficiency of this temporizing amendment scarcely
need be pointed out. Objectionable as it was in conceding to
Congress the constitutional power to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia, and declaring against the exercise of
that power only on the ground of inexpediency, it was still
more so in this, that it made no reference whatever to the
territories of the United States. The passage of Mr. Calhoun's
resolution would have committed the Senate, not only against
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, but
against the application of the Wilmot Proviso and kindred
measures to the Territories. Mr. Clay's amendment was entirely
silent on the subject. It is true, that in another resolution
which he proposed to have adopted as an additional amendment,
it was declared that the abolition of slavery in the Territory
of Florida would be highly inexpedient, for the principal
reason 'that it would be in violation of a solemn compromise
made at a memorable and critical period in the history of this
country, by which, while slavery was prohibited north, it was
admitted south of the line of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes
north latitude.' The defect in the first amendment can hardly
be considered by Southern men as remedied by another which
recognized the binding force of the Missouri Compromise.
"On the question to strike out Mr. Calhoun's resolution, and
insert Mr. Clay's as an amendment, after it had been modified
by striking out the part relating to compensation for slaves,
the vote stood--yeas 19, nays 18. (Congressional Globe, vol.
6, page 62.) _Mr. Buchanan's name stands recorded in the
affirmative._
"On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Calhoun, with a view to infuse
vitality into Mr. Clay's amendment, moved to insert that any
attempt of Congress to abolish slavery in the Territories,
'would be a dangerous attack upon the States in which slavery
exists.' Mr. Buchanan opposed the amendment, and it was in
reply to his speech that Mr. Calhoun made the remarks which may
be found in the third volume of his works, pages 194 to 196,
and which he commenced by saying that 'the remarks of the
Senator from Pennsylvania were of such a character that he
could not permit them to pass in silence.'
"From these votes, and this language of Mr. Buchanan, it is
clear:
"1st. That he was not opposed to the _religious_ agitation of
the slavery question--a species of agitation which Mr. Calhoun
justly regarded as more fatal than any other.
"2d. That he recognized the constitutional power of Congress to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, opposing its
existence only on the ground of its inexpediency--a proposition
which the position of Mr. Van Buren shows affords no reliable
protection to Southern institutions.
"3d. That he refused to commit himself fully on the great
question as to the power of Congress over the Territories of
the United States, and as far as he did go, evidently left it
to be understood that the abolition of slavery by Congress in
those Territories would be no attack on the States in which it
exists.'
"If his opinions, in these respects, have undergone any
material change, the country has not yet been authoritatively
apprised of the fact. The reflections cast by him on the
institution of slavery, in one of his speeches in England, and
the studied design he has manifested to keep aloof from the
excitement growing out of the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, are not well calculated to inspire confidence, that
if his views have undergone any change, it has been a change
for the better."
After thus disposing of the _slavery issue_, _Mr. Irving_ thus turns to
the _Tariff Question_:
"So much for the slavery issue. How does Mr. Buchanan stand
upon the tariff? Will the Sentinel say that he is sound, or
justify his 'low wages' speech? How does he stand upon the
French Spoliation bill, which President Polk and President
Pierce vetoed? Everybody knows that he was in favor of it. How
does he stand upon the Pacific Railroad? He declared himself in
favor of an appropriation of public money to build it, as is
notorious. In fact, is there a single Federal measure except
that of the United States Bank, upon which he is not recorded
against Democratic principles? How can we hope to carry the
united South with such a record? Will Southern Democrats
overlook this record? Will Northern Nebraska men overlook this
ignoring of Pierce and Douglass? Is there no danger that in
admitting the abolitionist Trumbull, we may not dishearten the
gallant Douglass? Is there no fear that in reinstating the
free-soil Hickman, who is in favor of Reeder, we may not palsy
the arm of Richardson? In fine, is there no fear that in hoping
for free-soil aid, we may not lose the few real friends the
South has in the North? It is evident to the commonest
understanding, that the first step of Northern Black
Republicanism is to kill off all those influential men at the
North, like Pierce or Douglass, who have actively participated
in the fight for our rights. Is not the South aiding them in
this first step, when it not only ignores its own sons, but
also ignores, upon the ground of availability, those Northern
men identified with the late Kansas-Nebraska bill? This is a
question the South would do well to ponder. If Mr. Buchanan is
to be nominated, and Pierce and Douglass in the North ignored,
let the responsibility rest elsewhere than upon the State of
Virginia. He may be, and probably is sound, but these are times
when more than ordinary caution is necessary. It may become the
duty of the South to support him. When that time arrives I can
discharge the duty; but I do think that the reasons above
stated exempt me from any blame for not advocating him until
that responsibility devolves upon me. Very respectfully, CHAS.
IRVING.
The Southern Dough-faces of the Foreign Catholic party pretend to hold
Mr. Fillmore responsible for a letter he wrote more than twenty years
ago, in which he answers certain interrogatories in reference to
slavery, _affirmatively_, and in opposition to the extension of slavery!
The _latest_ record of Buchanan is in 1844, and proves him to be an
ABOLITIONIST OF THE BLACKEST DYE. About the last speech he ever made in
Congress, was IN OPPOSITION TO SLAVERY, in secret session of the Senate,
just before Mr. Polk, in opposition to the wishes of Gen. Jackson, gave
him a seat in his cabinet. This speech will be found in the
Congressional Globe for 1844, an extract from which is in these
_explicit_ and _memorable_ words:
"In arriving at the conclusion to support this treaty, I had to
encounter _but one serious obstacle_, AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION
OF SLAVERY. Whilst I have ever maintained, and ever shall
maintain, in their full force and vigor, the constitutional
rights of the Southern States over their slave property, I yet
feel a strong repugnance by any act of mine to extend the
limits of the Union over a new slaveholding territory. After
mature reflection, however, I overcame these scruples, and now
believe that the acquisition of Texas will be the means of
limiting, not enlarging, the dominion of slavery.
"In the government of the world, Providence generally produces
great changes by gradual means. There is nothing rash in the
counsels of the Almighty. May not, then, the acquisition of
Texas be the means of gradually drawing the slaves far to the
South to a climate more congenial to their nature; and may they
not finally pass off into Mexico, and THERE MINGLE WITH A RACE
WHERE NO PREJUDICE EXISTS AGAINST THEIR COLOR? The Mexican
nation is composed of Spaniards, Indians, and <DW64>s, blended
together in every variety, who would receive our slaves on
terms of perfect social equality. To this condition they never
can be admitted in the United States.
"That the acquisition of Texas would ere long convert Maryland,
Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and probably others of the more
Northern Slave States, into free States, I entertain not a
doubt....
"But should Texas be annexed to the Union, causes will be
brought into operation which must inevitably remove slavery
from what may be called the farming States. From the best
information, it is no longer profitable to raise wheat, rye,
and corn, by slave labor. Where these articles are the only
staples of agriculture, in the pointed and expressive language
of Randolph, if the slave does not run away from his master,
the master must run away from the slave. The slave will
naturally be removed from such a country, where his labor is
scarcely adequate to his own support, to a region where he can
not only maintain himself, but yield large profits to his
master. Texas will open an outlet; and slavery itself may thus
finally pass the Del Norte, and be lost in Mexico. One thing is
certain, the present number of slaves cannot be increased by
the annexation of Texas.
"I have never apprehended the preponderance of the slave States
in the councils of the nation. Such a fear has always appeared
to me visionary. But those who entertain such apprehensions
need not be alarmed by the acquisition of Texas. More than
one-half of its territory is wholly unfit for the slave labor;
and, therefore, in the nature of things must be free. Mr. Clay,
in his letter of the 17th of April last, on the subject of
annexation, states that, according to his information--
"'The Territory of Texas is susceptible of a division into five
States of convenient size and form. Of these, two only would be
adapted to those peculiar institutions (slavery) to which I
have referred; and the other three, lying west and north of San
Antonio, being only adapted to farming and grazing purposes,
from the nature of their soil, climate, and productions, would
not admit of these institutions. In the end, therefore, there
would be two slave and three free States probably added to the
Union.'
"And here permit me to observe, that there is one defect in the
treaty which ought to be amended if we all did not know that it
is destined to be rejected. The treaty itself ought to
determine how many free and how many slave States should be
made out of this territory."
On the 11th of April, 1826, James Buchanan, who is now being supported
by _Southern slaveholders_, made a speech in Congress, _eleven years
after_ his Fourth of July oration, from which the following is taken:
"Permit me here, Mr. Chairman, for a moment, to speak upon a
subject to which I have never before adverted upon this floor,
and to which, I trust, I may never again have occasion to
advert. I mean the subject of slavery. I BELIEVE IT TO BE A
GREAT POLITICAL AND A GREAT MORAL EVIL. I THANK GOD, MY LOT HAS
BEEN CAST IN A STATE WHERE IT DOES NOT EXIST.... IT HAS BEEN A
CURSE ENTAILED UPON US BY THAT NATION WHICH MAKES IT A SUBJECT
OF REPROACH TO OUR INSTITUTIONS." (See Gales and Seaton's
Register of Debates, page 2180, vol. ii., part 2.)
MORE BUCHANAN ANTECEDENTS.
When a "_Uniform Bankrupt Law_" was enacted by Congress, after the
election of General Harrison, there were on the files of the Judiciary
Committee of the Senate _fifty-one petitions_, praying for the passage
of such a law. Twenty-nine of these were from New York, five from New
Jersey, three from Ohio, two from Indiana, two from Massachusetts, and
_one_ from each of the States of Tennessee and Mississippi. There were
_twenty-five_ other petitions praying for "_A General Bankrupt Law_;"
_fifteen_ of which were from New York, and eight from Pennsylvania; and
how will the Democracy like to see it hereafter proven that BUCHANAN
presented these petitions, and voted for the law? If it shall turn out
that "Old Buck" did really go for the "odious Bankrupt Law," let his
friends defend him on the ground that his _State_ desired it, and had
always favored the measure!
In the House of Representatives, in Congress, January 3, 1815, _Mr.
Ingersoll_, a notorious Democrat from Pennsylvania, and a _Boy Tory_ of
the war of the Revolution, from the Committee on the Judiciary, reported
a bill to establish _a uniform law of Bankruptcy throughout the United
States_! If these facts should not turn out to be a sufficient
justification of _Mr. Buchanan's course_, provided he went for this
Bankrupt Law, let his friends present these facts, and show that he was
in good old Federal Democratic _company_:
NUMBER 1. On the 5th of September, 1837, Mr. Van Buren's _Democratic_
Secretary of the Treasury made a report to Congress, praying the passage
of a _uniform Bankrupt Law_, which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
NUMBER 2. On the 13th day of January, 1840, _Mr. Norvell_, a Democratic
Senator from Michigan, moved that the Judiciary be instructed to inquire
into the expediency of reporting a bill for the establishment of a
_General Bankrupt Law_.
NUMBER 3. On the 22d of April, 1840, _Garret D. Wall_, a flaming
Democratic Senator in Congress, reported certain amendments to a
Bankrupt Law, from a minority of the Committee; which were referred to
the Senate's select Committee, and reported by Mr. Wall, and passed--21
to 19--and sent to the House.
NUMBER 4. In the Senate, July 23, 1841, _Mr. Nicholson_, a Democratic
Senator from Tennessee, delivered an able speech in favor of a uniform
system of Bankruptcy, and moved to amend the bill then pending, by
inserting "BANKS AND OTHER CORPORATIONS;" which motion was lost by a
vote of 34 to 16.
NUMBER 5. That great light of Democracy, _Col. Richard M. Johnson_, late
Vice-President of the United States, wrote and spoke in favor of a
General Bankrupt Law. In a letter of his, now before us, dated
Washington, January 18, 1841, he says, speaking of such a law: "_My
opinion is that it will redound to the honor of our country._"
But we will do Mr. Buchanan justice, by stating that he said he would
vote _against_ the Bankrupt Law of 1840, because he did not like its
features. When Mr. Webster spoke in favor of the law, and of the
character of the _petitioners_, many of whom presented their petitions
through Mr. Buchanan, the latter spoke on the 24th of February, 1840;
and, to satisfy Mr. Webster and others that he was not opposed to the
_principle_ in former days, stated, "_He came to the other House of
Congress, many years since_, A FRIEND OF A BANKRUPT LAW. The subject was
before the House when he entered the body twenty years ago." He added,
"He was _open to conviction_, and might change his purpose!"
Thus, it will be seen that Mr. Buchanan, in this, as in every thing
else, _was on both sides_! And how does it look in a Presidential
candidate, to have supported a _General Bankrupt Law_ for the relief of
_rich, extravagant, and aristocratic_ gentlemen, and then to turn round
and advocate "ten cents per day" for poor folks and laboring men? It
will look rather bad; but, then, Sag Nicht Democracy can go any thing!
This old "ten cents per day" champion of Democracy advocated, in so many
words, the reduction of all paper money prices to the real Cuba standard
of solid money! We take extracts from his speech, which will be found in
the Appendix to the Congressional Globe, page 135:
"In Germany, where the currency is purely metallic, and the
cost of every thing is REDUCED to a hard money standard, a
piece of broadcloth can be manufactured for fifty dollars; the
manufacture of which in our country, from the expansion of
paper currency, would cost one hundred dollars. What is the
consequence? The foreign French and German manufacturer imports
this cloth into our country, and sells it for a hundred. Does
not every person perceive that the redundancy of our currency
is equal to a premium of one hundred per cent. in favor of the
manufacturer?"
"No tariff of protection, unless it amounted to prohibition,
could counteract this advantage in favor of foreign
manufactures. I would to heaven that I could arouse the
attention of every manufacturer of the nation to this important
subject."
"What is the reason that, with all these advantages, and with
the protective duties which our laws afford to the domestic
manufacturer of cotton, we cannot obtain exclusive possession
of the home market, and successfully contend for the markets of
the world? It is simply because we manufacture at the nominal
prices of our inflated currency, and are compelled to sell at
the real prices of other nations. REDUCE OUR NOMINAL STANDARD
OF PRICES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, and you cover our country with
blessings and benefits."
* * * * *
"The comparative LOW PRICES of France and Germany have afforded
such a stimulus to their manufactures, that they are now
rapidly extending themselves, and would obtain possession, in
no small degree, even of the English home market, IF IT WERE
NOT FOR THEIR PROTECTING DUTIES. While British manufactures are
now languishing, those of the continent are springing into a
healthy and vigorous existence."
How will the _Free Trade Democracy_ of the South relish these
"protecting duties" of an old Federal politician? They are about as
consistent in their support of the Cincinnati nominee as "Clay Whigs"
are, when they know that Buchanan was the only man living who had it in
his power to do Clay justice, in reference to the "bargain and intrigue"
calumny, and obstinately refused!
CLAY AND BUCHANAN.
In 1825, Mr. Buchanan, then a member of the House, entered the room of
Mr. Clay, who was at the time in company with his only messmate, Hon. R.
P. Letcher, also a member of the House, and since Governor of Kentucky.
Buchanan introduced the subject of the approaching Presidential
election, Letcher witnessing what was said; and after that, when Mr.
Clay was hotly assailed with the charge of "bargain, intrigue, and
corruption," notified Mr. Buchanan of his intention to publish the
conversation, but was induced, by the _earnest entreaties of Buchanan_,
to forbear. And Mr. Clay died with a letter in his possession, from
Buchanan, which, if published, as it should be, would place Buchanan
without the pale of Democracy, and disgrace him in the eyes of all
honorable men. _That_ letter, too, would explain why Gen. Jackson had no
confidence in him, and was opposed to his taking a seat in Polk's
cabinet. Let it come!
_Keep it before the People_, That it was the vote of James Buchanan
which, in the Senate, in 1832, secured the passage of the "Black
Tariff," so offensive to the "Free Trade" Democracy of Tennessee, South
Carolina, and other Southern States, and which Gov. JONES threw up to
Col. Polk with so much effect in their race of 1843!
_Keep it before the People_, That the Cincinnati Platform unblushingly
affirms that "the Constitution does not confer upon the Federal
government authority to assume the debts of the several States,
contracted for local internal improvements, or for other State
purposes;" while the Democratic members of Congress annually violate
this principle by voting away hundreds of acres of public lands to the
States, for purposes of railroads and other improvements.
_Keep it before the People_, That the same Platform hypocritically
asserts, that "it is the duty of every branch of our Government to
enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public
affairs;" when the expenditures of Pierce's administration are TWENTY
MILLIONS PER ANNUM over that of MILLARD FILLMORE!
_Keep it before the People_, That the 8th of the series in this Platform
declares, that "the attempt to abridge the privilege of becoming
citizens and owners of soil amongst us ought to be resisted with the
same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute
book:" and then the hypocritical builders of the platform turned about
and nominated James Buchanan, who commenced public life as the advocate
of the "alien and sedition laws," and sustained, in and out of Congress,
the Federal party, who passed these laws.
_Keep it before the People_, That the Cincinnati Platform, which prates
so loudly about the privilege of becoming "owners of the soil," and
which rebukes all efforts to amend our naturalization laws as oppressive
to foreigners, nominated a man for the Presidency who spoke publicly in
this language: "Above all, we ought to drive from our shores foreign
influence, which has been in every age the curse of republics!"
_Keep it before the People_, That this Cincinnati Platform pledges
itself to the "Acts known as the Compromise Measures," and then resolves
"to resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the
agitation of slavery;" while the second best nags before the Convention
were Douglass and Pierce, who brought forward the bill repealing the
Missouri Compromise line, and opening up anew the slavery agitation,
while Pierce signed the bill and adopted it as an Administration
measure!
_Keep it before the People_, That this same Platform asserts, as an
indispensable article of the Democratic faith, that "the proceeds of the
public lands ought to be sacredly applied to the national objects
specified in the Constitution;" and yet a majority of the Democracy, in
one branch of Congress, unhesitatingly voted for a bill introduced by
Robert M. T. Hunter, a leader of "the most straitest sect" of Democratic
Pharisees, which proposed to give away the whole body of the public
lands to squatters, at the nominal price of ninepence an acre, and at
five years' credit!
_Keep it before the People_, That this same platform deprecates a policy
which legislates for the few at the expense of the many; yet its
builders nominated a man for the Presidency who has avowed himself on
the floor of the Senate in favor of reducing the wages of poor white men
to the Cuban standard of TEN CENTS per day!
_Keep it before the People_, That this Cincinnati Platform utterly fails
to come up to that high Southern standard, which the country looked for
from a party so lavish of promises, and that it has deliberately and
completely shirked the slavery issue, the only apology for which is
found in their having nominated an old anti-slavery Federalist.
_Keep it before the People_, That JAMES BUCHANAN was opposed to the war
of 1812, but is in favor of the next war--while a Federalist he was
conservative in his views, but is now square upon a Filibustering
Platform--his nomination, an overture to the Sumner Wing of Democracy,
is the very nomination for the Nullifiers, Fire-eaters, and Disunionists
of the South--that while we cry North, shout South, every faction is
united.
THE CINCINNATI VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE.
_John C. Breckenridge_, of Kentucky, is now the Democratic candidate for
the Vice Presidency; and in our devotion to the _head_ of the ticket, we
do not wish to neglect the _tail_. Mr. Breckenridge is a good speaker,
and is about as good a selection as his party could make. He has not
been long enough in public life to attain any experience as a statesman,
nor has he been guilty of any great indiscretion in his short
Congressional career. He will be unable to carry Kentucky for his party,
though he has some elements of strength. Standing out in violent
opposition to his relatives upon the _Know Nothing_ issues, he will be
acceptable to all Foreigners, and the Catholics in particular! Being on
the very best of terms with _Cassius M. Clay_, and voting with the
Emancipationists of Kentucky, he will be rather acceptable to the
Anti-Slavery men than otherwise! He was a zealous supporter of the bill
in Congress appropriating a million or two dollars to works of Internal
Improvement, which was _vetoed_ by Pierce. That bill provided $50,000
for the improvement of the Kentucky River, to which he urged an
amendment insisting on $150,000. This will give him strength with the
Democracy of the North and North-West, who advocated the doctrine of
Internal Improvements by the General Government!
On May 20th, 1856, the _Charleston Mercury_ came out advising the South
as to the selection of candidates, which advice, if adhered to, would
prove ruinous alike to Buchanan and Breckenridge. A brief extract from
that article is in these words:
"A man unsound on Slavery, Free Trade, and Internal
Improvements, or whose opinions are shrouded in treacherous
ambiguity--such a man, be he Black Republican or Democrat, is
unworthy of her support. To vote for either, is to give away
her influence, to be used against her. It is to stultify
principle, and be the instrument of her own undoing."
This doctrine would get very much in the way of such men as _Toombs and
Stephens_, of Georgia, and other Anti-Internal Improvement Democrats,
but they can excuse Breckenridge on the ground that he acquiesced in the
veto of Pierce, and was possibly only trying to make a little capital at
home, which is common with Democracy. Besides, Mr. Breckenridge being
raised a _Clay Whig_, and representing the Ashland District as a
Democrat, should be allowed to pass over the _Jordan_ of Democracy by
degrees!
His name can be used advantageously in this contest in another respect.
While Mr. Buchanan was Mr. Clay's most vindictive enemy, traducer, and
calumniator, Mr. Breckenridge can be held up to the Clay Whigs, as
having announced to the House of Representatives the death of Mr. Clay,
in language and sentiments branding Buchanan as a malignant slanderer,
without mentioning his name, by the character he gave to Clay! Closing
his eulogy upon Mr. Clay in these words, Mr. Breckenridge evidently
looked with the eye of prophecy at the slanders of Buchanan, the
recollection of which would "cluster" around his grave:--
"Every memorial of such a man will possess a meaning and value
to his countrymen. His tomb will be a hallowed spot. Great
memories will cluster there, and his countrymen as they visit
it may well exclaim:
"Such graves as his are pilgrim shrines--
Shrines to no creed or code confined;
The Delphian vales, the Palestines,
The Meccas of the mind."
If we mistake not, this young Breckenridge is the nephew of the Rev.
John Breckenridge, formerly of Baltimore, and pastor of the Presbyterian
Church. If so, he is the nephew of the Rev. Robert Breckenridge, the
talented and staunch advocate of the American party. The venerable uncle
of this young man, whilst pastor of the Church in Baltimore, was a most
formidable opponent of the Roman Catholic religion, and is the man who
conducted the debate with Archbishop Hughes, in 1836, which we now have
before us, in a large volume of 550 pages. Of course _Bishop Hughes_
will require the young man to repudiate his uncle's views and charges in
opposition to the Papal religion; and this, we should think, he will do
for the sake of the Catholic vote in America!
From the Knoxville Whig of June 14, 1856.
PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRACY--ITS LEGITIMATE FRUITS.
The following important document we take from the National
Intelligencer, of January 22, 1851. It was signed and published by
gentlemen irrespective of parties--FORTY-FOUR Senators and
Representatives in Congress. It will be a _curiosity_ to those of our
readers who may have forgotten its well-timed and patriotic pledges. How
unfortunate it has been for the country, and especially the public
tranquillity, that the determination and counsels of these men were, in
an evil hour, departed from, and flagrantly violated by the demagogues
of the self-styled Democratic party! To the violation of this solemn
pledge by the repeal of the Missouri Compromise line, and the reoepening
of the Slavery agitation by the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska
bill, intended to elevate that miserable little demagogue, _Stephen A.
Douglass_, to the Presidency, we are indebted for all the scenes of
bloodshed in Kansas, to the angry slavery discussions in Congress, and
the disgraceful scenes of riot being almost daily enacted there!
Several copies of the following Declaration were circulated in Congress,
and obtained a number of signatures in both halls; but no other list was
ever published, that we know of, besides this, which, it will be seen,
was headed by the illustrious HENRY CLAY:
"The undersigned, members of the thirty-first Congress of the
United States, believing that a renewal of sectional
controversy upon the subject of slavery would be both dangerous
to the Union and destructive of its objects; and seeing no mode
by which such controversy can be avoided, except by a strict
adherence to the settlement thereof effected by the Compromise
Acts passed at the last session of Congress, do hereby declare
their intention to maintain the said settlement inviolate, and
to resist all attempts to repeal or alter the acts aforesaid,
unless by the general consent of the friends of the measure,
and to remedy such evils, if any, as time and experience may
develop. And, for the purpose of making this resolution
effective, they further declare that they will not support for
the office of President, Vice-President, Senator, or
Representative in Congress, or as a member of a State
Legislature, any man, of whatever party, who is not known to be
opposed to the disturbance of the settlement aforesaid, and to
the renewal, in any form, of agitation upon the subject of
slavery.
"Henry Clay,
C. S. Morehead,
Robt. L. Rose,
W. C. Dawson,
Thos. J. Rusk,
Jere. Clemens,
James Cooper,
Thos. C. Pratt,
Wm. M. Gwin,
Samuel A. Elliot,
David Outlaw,
O. H. Williams,
J. Philips Phoenix,
A. M. Schemerhorn,
Jno. R. Thurman,
D. A. Bokee,
Geo. R. Andrews,
W. P. Mangum,
Jeremiah Morton,
R. I. Bowie,
E. C. Cabell,
Alex. Evans,
Howell Cobb,
H. S. Foote,
Wm. Duer,
Jas. Brooks,
A. H. Stephens,
R. Toombs,
M. P. Gentry,
H. W. Hilliard,
F. E. McLean,
A. G. Watkins,
H. A. Bullard,
T. S. Haywood,
A. H. Shephard,
Daniel Breck,
Jas. L. Johnson,
J. B. Thompson,
J. M. Anderson,
John B. Kerr,
J. P. Caldwell,
Ed. Deberry,
H. Marshall,
Allen F. Owen."
The _rowdyism_ and _treachery_ of Democracy never intended to abide by
this pledge--and hence their "disturbance of the settlement aforesaid,"
by opening up anew this villainous "agitation upon the subject of
slavery." This violation of a solemn pledge has introduced into Kansas
civil war, caused bloodshed, the shooting down of men in cold blood, and
overrun that country with contending parties, called "_Friends of
Freedom_" and "_Border Ruffians_," armed with Sharpe's rifles, Colt's
revolvers, bowie-knives, and clubs, mixed with Bibles!
All this really affords an illustration of the domineering insolence of
Democratic Abolitionism--an element in our Federal Government which will
stop at no extremity of violence, in order to subdue the people of the
Slave States, and force them into a miserable subservience to its
fanatical dominion. And it is worthy of note, that the shooting of
Sheriff Jones and others in Kansas, occurred immediately after the
arrival of the _New Haven Emigrant Rifle Company_! This, too, calls to
mind forcibly the very delectable _conversational speechifying_ that
took place at the New Haven Rifle Meeting, among the pious villains who
figured most conspicuously. As it is short, we give it entire:
Rev. Mr. Dutton (pastor of the church.)--One of the deacons of
this church, Mr. Harvey Hall, is going out with the company to
Kansas, and I, as his pastor, desire to present him a Bible and
a Sharpe's rifle. (Great applause.)
E. P. Pie.--I will give one.
Stephen D. Purdee.--I will give one for myself, and also
another one for my wife.
Mr. Beecher.--I like to see that--it is a bold stroke both
right and left. (Great laughter.)
Charles Ives.--Put me down for three.
Thomas R. Trowbridge.--Put me down for four. (Continued
laughter.) Dr. J. I. Howe.--I will subscribe for one.
A gentleman said that Miss Mary Dutton would give one.
Dr. Stephen G. Hubbard.--One.
Mr. Beecher here stated that if twenty-five could be raised on
the spot, he would pledge twenty-five more from the church at
Plymouth--fifty being a sufficient number for the whole supply.
(Clapping of hands all over the house.)
Prof. Silliman now left Mr. Beecher to speak for the bid, and
sat down to enjoy the occasion.
Mr. Killem.--I give one.
Mr. Beecher.--_Killem_--that's a significant name in connection
with a good Sharpe's rifle. (Laughter.)
After this, this clerical vagabond, Beecher, blessed the weapons, and
encouraged the party to go forth and "do or die" in the sublime "cause
of <DW65> freedom!" In all human probability, sweet Mary Dutton's rifle
may have sped the ball that pierced the side of Sheriff Jones, the
officer of the law, while in the honest discharge of a sworn duty!
Subsequent murders, where pro-slavery men were shot down with these
rifles, we attribute to the _omen_ that Beecher found in his name
"_Killem_"--it is a significant name in connection with Sharpe's rifle.
The real assassins shoot down their men, and with their _rifles_ and
_Bibles_ flee; but _she_ who unfrocked herself by furnishing a rifle,
and _he_ who gave and blessed the weapon of death, are here to accept
the thanks of their admirers and partisans. Let sweet Mary and her
_beloved_ pastor be crowned with wreaths of deadly night-shade, and
consigned to one cell in Sing Sing prison!
But the success of Ruffianism in Kansas, in the hands of those vile
Abolition Democrats, has emboldened members of the same party to
introduce it in the Federal Capital. But the other day, MR. SUMNER, of
Massachusetts, made, in his place in the U. S. Senate, one of the most
incendiary and inflammatory speeches ever uttered on the floor of either
House of Congress! The vocabulary of Billingsgate was exhausted in
denouncing all who dared to justify the institution of slavery--using,
over and over again, such terms as "hireling, picked from the drunken
spew of an uneasy civilization in the form of men," &c. The language
made use of was disgraceful to the vile Abolitionist himself, and to the
Senate, of which he never ought to have been a member. There was no
limit to the personal abuse in which the villainous Senator indulged, no
restraint to the vile epithets coined in his insane head; and the very
natural consequence was, a personal chastisement of Mr. Sumner, in the
Senate chamber, by Mr. Brooks, a Representative from South Carolina, and
a relative of Judge Butler, the gentleman abused in his absence, which,
for its severity, never was equalled in Washington. Mr. Sumner was the
aggressor, because he poured out the vials of his wrath upon not only
Judge Butler, a distinguished Senator, but upon the whole State of South
Carolina.
We do not justify the selection of a _time_ and _place_ by _Mr. Brooks_,
for punishing this Massachusetts Abolitionist; but we should despise the
son of South Carolina who could hear his native State arraigned in such
temper and language, without feeling intensely, and _manifesting_ that
feeling at a proper time and place. Indeed, it would be strange if a
South Carolinian did not resent the arrogant, insulting, and
contemptuous tone which Mr. Sumner saw fit to indulge in towards South
Carolina in general, and her Senator in particular! We know Judge
Butler--we have seen him on the Bench, in the discharge of the duties of
a Circuit-Judge--we have seen and heard him in the Senate Chamber, where
he has served for years, with credit to himself and honor to his State.
He is an accomplished man, and a most amiable and honorable gentleman.
His character is unblemished; he stands deservedly high; he is a
gentleman of urbane and courteous demeanor, and is beloved, esteemed,
and respected, by all _gentlemen_ who know him or associate with him.
Besides, he is an old man, gray-haired, and palsied; and, whether
present or absent, deserved to be treated as a gentleman.
Northern men may not expect to vilify the South in this way, without
having to atone for it. Men who profess to belong to the peace party,
ought not to employ language that will provoke a fight, and then shield
themselves behind their non-resistant defences. They voluntarily put
themselves upon the platform of _resistance_--they pass insults, and
they must submit to the consequences. We have just finished the perusal
of a case in AEsop's Fables, exactly in point. It is the case of a
_trumpeter_ taken prisoner in battle. He claimed exemption from the
common fate of prisoners of war, in ancient times, on the ground that he
carried no weapons, and was, in fact, a non-combatant, belonging to the
peace party! "Non-combatant, the Devil!" exclaimed the opposing party,
pointing to his trumpet, as preparations were being made to put him to
death, "Why, Sir, you hold in your hands the very instrument which
incites our foes to tenfold furies against us!"
But this fight between the parties has to come, and it should begin at
Washington, and if not in the halls of Congress, at least in the
_streets_ of the Federal city. Let the battle be fought there, and not
in _Kansas_, and let it fall upon the villainous agitators of the
Slavery question, and the _Democratic_ disturbers of the Compromises of
the Constitution. Let it come _now_, that it may be fought out and
settled, and not left to _posterity_, to curse and crush the rising
generation!
Mr. Brooks is a Democrat, and an anti-Know Nothing. Mr. Sumner is a
Democrat--was elected by the votes of the Democrats, over that noble and
dignified Whig, Mr. Winthrop, and his election was hailed throughout the
Union as a Democratic triumph!
Massachusetts, irrespective of parties, seems to have taken great
offence at this occurrence, and to have held indignation meetings, and
was to have had _Legislative_ action upon the subject. We tell
Massachusetts that she is alone to blame, for sending such a man to the
United States Senate. There was a great debate in the Senate twenty-five
years ago, in which Daniel Webster and Gov. Hayne met each other and
grappled like giants, as they were. The State of South Carolina, in that
day, though represented by an able, patriotic, and great man, came off
_second best_. The Senator from Massachusetts, of that day, was an able
statesman, a Constitutional lawyer of unsurpassed abilities, and,
withal, a cautious gentleman, and rose above the low blackguardism of a
Sumner and a Wilson. When _taunted_ by the Senator from South Carolina
with _Federalism_, and opposition to some of the features of the War of
1812, the great Webster presented Massachusetts before the Senate and
the Union, in such a manner that men of all sections bowed down and
worshipped her. Standing erect with the flash of his eagle eye, he
exclaimed, "There is Boston, and Concord, and Lexington, and Bunker
Hill"--let them testify to the loyalty of Massachusetts to this glorious
Union! Not only did Mr. Webster come out of that controversy with South
Carolina with the admiration of every man in the country, but with the
respect and admiration of Calhoun, Hayne, McDuffie, and all the
high-toned statesmen of the South. And why? Because he was not a Sumner,
a Wilson, or an _Abolition Blackguard_. Times have changed--a different
man takes the place of a Webster, with only the memory of an insulting
speech and a broken head! Let Massachusetts send men to the United
States Senate who can and will demean themselves like gentlemen, and
gentlemen from the South will appreciate them, while they differ
honestly with them on great questions.
What wonderful _progress_ Democracy is making in the country! _First_,
Democracy quarrelled and jowered over the election of a Speaker two
months, and finally, by the introduction of the _Plurality Rule_, caused
Banks, a Black Republican, to be elected. And as if determined to atone
for this wear of time and money, they have brought about a series of
fights, which, before they are disposed of, will cost the government
half a million of dollars!
_First_ then, William Smith, an ex-Governor of the State of Virginia,
and member of the House of Representatives, assailed and beat the editor
of the _Evening Star_, in December last, in the street.
_Second_, Albert Rusk, a member of the House of Representatives from
Arkansas, assailed and beat the editor of the New York _Tribune_ in the
grounds of the capitol, immediately after leaving the House of
Representatives.
_Third_, Philip T. Herbert, of Alabama, a member of Congress from
California, shot down and killed an Irish Catholic waiter at Willard's,
and is now under bonds to appear before the Court and await his trial
for such crime as they may adjudge him to have committed.
_Fourth_, Preston S. Brooks, a member of the House of Representatives
from South Carolina, assails and beats unmercifully a Senator from
Massachusetts, when occupying his seat in the Senate of the United
States.
_Fifth_, Mr. Bright knocked down the doorkeeper, for an inconsiderable
offence. Here, then, we have five breaches of the peace in five months,
by Democrats upon Democrats, although the "Boston Pilot," a Catholic
organ, falsely charges that some of the parties making these assaults
are "Know Nothings." We congratulate the Democratic party upon the
progress of its leading members! They are sinking by swift descent into
barbarism, and bringing the country to ruin. And in keeping with all
this, they have tried to nominate for the Vice-Presidency a man who
openly proposed in Congress the repeal of our neutrality laws, so as to
bring a general fight!
It will not do to say that _Sumner_ is not of the Democratic party,
because he is a regular-built Free-Soiler and Black Republican: the
Washington _Union_ settled this point in 1852, when it uttered these
memorable words:
"The Free-soil Democratic leaders of the North are a regular
portion of the Democratic party, and General Pierce, if
elected, will make no distinction between them and the rest of
the Democracy in the distribution of official patronage, and in
the selection of agents for administering the government."
The rules of the Senate forbid personalities in debate, and it was the
sworn duty of its Locofoco President, Mr. Bright, to have called Mr.
Sumner to order for his abuse of Judge Butler. But as far back as thirty
years ago, under the auspices of JOHN C. CALHOUN as presiding officer, a
decision was made to the effect that the presiding officer of the Senate
was neither bound nor had he the power to call Senators to order! That
power, according to his decision, belonged wholly to the Senate
itself----thus delivering over the minority of that body to "the tender
mercies" of the majority! The object of Mr. CALHOUN at the time was to
play into the hands of a combination which had been formed to break down
the Administration of John Quincy Adams, and to <DW36> Henry Clay. The
instrument used was the sarcastic, irritating, and personal rhetoric of
John Randolph, then a member of the Senate. To this end, Randolph was
suffered to deliver in the Senate a long succession of tirades,
disgraceful to the Senate, abusive of New England and of Henry Clay.
Here is a specimen of Randolph's abuse, which led to a duel between him
and Mr. Clay:
"This man, (mankind, I crave pardon,) this worm, (little
animals, forgive the insult,) was raised to a higher life than
he was born to, for he was raised to the society of
blackguards. Some fortune--kind to him, cruel to us--has tossed
him to the Secretaryship of State. Contempt has the property of
descending, but stops far short of him. She would die before
she would reach him: he dwells below her fall. I would hate
him, if I did not despise him. It is not WHAT he is, but WHERE
he is, that puts my thoughts into action. The alphabet which
writes the name of Thersites, blackguard, squalidity, refuses
her letters for him. That mind which thinks on what it cannot
express, can scarcely think on him. An hyperbole for MEANNESS
would be an ellipsis for CLAY."
This was pleasing to Mr. Calhoun and the dominant party in the Senate,
and his decision which tolerated it never was questioned by any
authoritative precedent, until MILLARD FILLMORE was elected
Vice-President. With characteristic independence, he determined that a
precedent so unreasonable and absurd should not be binding on him as the
presiding officer of the Senate. He therefore, on assuming the duties of
his office, delivered an address to the Senate, in which he informed
that body that he considered it his sworn duty to preserve decorum, and
would _reverse_ the rule which had so long prevailed, that Senators were
not to be called to order for words spoken in debate! The Senate ordered
this address to be entered at large on their journals, as an evidence of
their endorsement of its doctrines; and there it is now, recorded
evidence of the patriotism, high sense of decorum, and senatorial
dignity of that great and good man, MILLARD FILLMORE.
STRENGTH OF PARTIES IN TENNESSEE.
OFFICIAL VOTES OF THE STATE.
The following tables exhibit the official vote of Tennessee for
President in 1852, for Governor in 1853, and for Governor in 1855, as
compared at the capital of the State, and will be valuable as a table
for reference. In the last contest, when the _Know Nothing issues_ were
fully made, causing all the _latent blackguardism in the Democratic
ranks to be fully developed_, it will be seen that _Andrew Johnson_
received 67,499 votes, and _Meredith P. Gentry_ 65,342, leaving Johnson
a majority of 2,157, a falling off of 104 votes from his majority over
_Maj. Henry_ two years before that. It will also be perceived that the
vote of the State at this last election is an increase of 8,260 over the
vote two years previous. Of this increase, _Col. Gentry_ gets 4,182, his
vote exceeding _Maj. Henry's_ by that much, while Johnson's increase
upon his own vote two years previous was 4,078.
It is a moderate calculation to say that Johnson received at least two
thousand _foreign and illegal votes_; while we are within bounds when we
say that at least 5,000 old-line Whigs refused to vote for _Col.
Gentry_--demonstrating beyond all doubt that a majority of the legal
voters of the State were opposed to Johnson and his party.
In the contest now being waged, _Fillmore and Donelson_ will carry the
State by a majority ranging from _three_ to _five_ thousand votes,
despite the low Billingsgate slang and vile blackguardism that may be
heaped upon them and their supporters. And as this calculation is made
in _June_, five months in advance of the election, we must ask those
into whose hands this work shall fall without the limits of Tennessee,
to bear it in mind, and when they get the returns in November, to give
us credit for our sagacity or our want of sagacity!
The contest will be fierce and bitter, exceeding any former political
battle witnessed in the State. If the orators and editors of the
self-styled Democratic party have not greatly reformed in the space of
one year, but little argument will be adduced, but little gentlemanly
courtesy manifested; and instead of facts, figures and arguments, bitter
invective, low blackguardism, and Billingsgate abuse of secret
organizations, dark lanterns, and Protestant clergymen, will be the
order of the day. In this _congenial_ work, all the conglomeration of
ignorant men, foreign paupers, and fag-ends and factions, styling
themselves _Democrats_, will engage!
But to the official vote of the State:
_Popular Vote of Tennessee--Official._
EAST TENNESSEE.
1852. 1853. 1855.
Counties. Scott. Pierce. Henry. Johnson. Gentry. Johnson.
Anderson 602 267 648 379 772 333
Bledsoe 464 209 469 303 404 361
Blount 827 566 1146 734 1069 789
Bradley 547 778 562 1085 644 1021
Campbell 313 251 356 445 507 383
Carter 585 139 721 294 768 238
Claiborne 503 519 620 707 756 744
Cooke 743 196 867 383 929 422
Grainger 852 477 998 767 1327 621
Greene 780 1301 902 1915 989 1985
Hawkins 778 831 805 1180 887 1158
Hamilton 774 648 786 972 966 1044
Hancock 241 336 221 532 264 589
Jefferson 1168 307 1396 639 1697 444
Johnson 365 93 392 184 400 215
Knox 1863 565 2279 770 2560 695
McMinn 796 866 799 965 909 953
Meigs 141 442 118 561 97 588
Marion 453 292 476 357 554 468
Monroe 805 847 739 900 851 1005
Morgan 240 222 229 260 219 358
Polk 272 470 249 527 385 676
Rhea 300 307 270 358 298 415
Roane 820 678 912 755 1002 769
Sevier 621 80 824 133 964 120
Scott 199 127 186 182 121 259
Sullivan 260 1114 361 1407 601 1403
Washington 565 853 967 1069 847 1338
------ ------ ------ ------
19,298 18,763 21,787 19,394
MIDDLE TENNESSEE.
Counties. Scott. Pierce. Henry. Johnson. Gentry. Johnson.
Bedford 1390 1356 1359 1257 1630 1293
Cannon 453 727 445 803 458 859
Coffee 205 722 274 824 294 880
Davidson 2617 2058 2597 1963 3132 1783
De Kalb 559 588 632 610 560 738
Dickson 323 607 357 743 388 745
Fentress 153 411 166 504 129 616
Franklin 330 1133 356 1224 394 1302
Giles 1303 1447 1301 1468 1312 1439
Grundy 44 327 58 374 22 425
Hardin 643 808 671 827 745 775
Hickman 241 839 263 812 223 1053
Humphreys 263 471 341 501 354 543
Jackson 1170 803 1154 995 1122 1131
Lawrence 547 583 523 731 524 845
Lewis 43 186 66 182 34 243
Lincoln 606 2297 617 2322 402 2521
Maury 1324 1799 1238 1731 1444 1793
Montgomery 1260 993 1309 1004 1502 881
Marshall 666 1340 671 1282 678 1310
Macon 617 374 553 341 540 424
Overton 345 1039 431 1282 290 1528
Robertson 1013 769 1183 763 1256 804
Rutherford 1495 1313 1407 1243 1435 1288
Smith 1742 520 1735 546 1572 644
Stewart 533 725 479 718 563 785
Sumner 825 1563 806 1425 780 1740
Van Buren 107 165 110 205 90 228
Warren 344 922 402 1093 393 1153
Wayne 666 380 709 430 687 535
White 949 518 974 634 978 694
Williamson 1583 763 1502 710 1621 688
Wilson 2248 923 2241 995 2290 937
------ ------ ------ ------
26,930 30,550 27,842 32,623
WEST TENNESSEE.
Counties. Scott. Pierce. Henry. Johnson. Gentry. Johnson.
Benton 340 485 393 465 475 453
Carroll 1498 649 1469 663 1567 694
Decatur 400 315 408 285 353 429
Dyer 508 411 476 373 442 483
Fayette 1006 1034 1011 1006 1151 940
Gibson 1570 901 1514 1024 1618 1213
Hardeman 717 1024 651 1025 619 1123
Henderson 1193 511 1301 593 1230 734
Henry 899 1516 891 1496 871 1738
Haywood 790 732 726 785 803 762
Lauderdale 330 277 319 252 354 297
McNairy 921 872 1016 984 915 1059
Madison 1426 819 1261 795 1448 788
Obion 431 644 547 792 407 865
Perry 325 314 387 329 320 450
Shelby 1824 1628 1545 1435 1831 1477
Tipton 357 565 284 527 424 566
Weakley 783 1149 733 1279 885 1411
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
58,802 57,123 14,932 14,108 15,713 15,482
57,123
------
Scott's
majority, 1,679
East Tennessee, 19,298 18,763 21,787 19,394
Middle Tennessee, 26,930 30,550 27,842 32,623
------ ------ ------ ------
61,160 63,421 65,342 67,499
61,160 65,342
------ ------
Johnson's majority 2,261 2,157
_Fillmore and Donelson Electoral Ticket._
As a matter of reference, and that none may mistake the American Ticket
on the day of the election, we give it as agreed upon and matured by our
party:
FOR THE STATE.
HON. NEILL S. BROWN, of Davidson.
HORACE MAYNARD, of Knox.
FOR THE DISTRICTS.
1st District--N. G. TAYLOR, of Carter.
2d " MOSES WHITE, of Knox.
3d " REESE B. BRABSON, of Hamilton.
4th " W. P. HICKERSON, of Coffee.
5th " ROBERT HATTON, of Wilson.
6th " W. H. WISENER, of Bedford.
7th " C. C. CROWE, of Giles.
8th " J. M. QUARLES, of Montgomery.
9th " ISAAC R. HAWKINS, of Carroll.
10th " JOSEPH R. MOSBY, of Fayette.
This is an able ticket, and greatly superior to the opposing ticket, as
our readers will bear us witness when they hear the parties in debate.
Most of these gentlemen have consented to serve on the ticket at great
personal sacrifices; and like their chief, Mr. FILLMORE, they have
undertaken to serve their party and country "without waiting to inquire
of its prospects of success or defeat." And all the reward they seek is
to be able to conduct the struggle to a victorious consummation in
Tennessee, and this we feel confident they will do. The battle in
Tennessee will be hotly contested, but it is by no means doubtful.
Tennessee for the last twenty years, and in five preceding presidential
contests, has refused to range herself under the black banner of
Locofocoism; and now that that banner is doubly infamous by being raised
and cheered by Catholics, foreigners, and paupers of every clime, it is
fair to presume she will spurn the flag!
THE BLACK REPUBLICAN NOMINEES.
The Black Republican Party, in their recent Convention at Philadelphia,
have nominated JOHN CHARLES FREMONT, of California, for the Presidency,
and Ex-Senator WILLIAM L. DAYTON, of New Jersey, for the Vice
Presidency!
This man Fremont is no statesman--has no experience in political
life--has not the first qualification for this eminent and responsible
station--and his nomination has not been made upon any plausible pretext
whatever. He is an Engineer by profession--once penetrated with his
companions to the Pacific coast, across the Rocky Mountains--is the
son-in-law of _Tom Benton_--is a Free Trade Locofoco, and an avowed Free
Soiler.
The following letter addressed by Fremont to the great Tabernacle
Abolition meeting in New York, last spring, is full and explicit, and
defines his position on the slavery question:
"NEW YORK, April 29, 1856.
"GENTLEMEN: I have to thank you for the honor of an invitation
to a meeting this evening at the Broadway Tabernacle, and
regret that other engagements have interfered to prevent my
being present.
"I heartily concur in all movements which have for their object
'to repair the mischiefs arising from the violation of good
faith in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.' I am opposed
to slavery in the abstract and upon principle, sustained and
made habitual by long-settled convictions.
"While I feel inflexible in the belief that it ought not to be
interfered with where it exists under the shield of State
sovereignty, I am as inflexibly opposed to its extension on
this continent beyond its present limits.
"With the assurance of regard for yourselves,
"I am very respectfully yours,
"J. C. FREMONT."
"Messrs. J. D. Morgan and others."
In addition to this, Fremont is the representative of _aggression_: he
is a _Filibuster_, and the exponent of a civilization above all
constitutions, and all laws. The fact that Seward, Chase, Giddings, and
such men--able anti-slavery men, and experienced politicians, were
passed over, is proof that they were not governed by _principle_, but
seek to shift the issue, and to make it personal and sectional. Take
into the account, moreover, the fact that Dayton, a man of moderate
talents, is a sort of _Protective Tariff Locofoco_, the advocate of
Foreign Pauper labor, and the largest liberty for _Catholics_, and it
gives to the ticket a considerable degree of interest.
The leading men in the Convention were reckless and unprincipled
demagogues, of the Locofoco school of politics, including the British
Free Trade policy, Filibusterism, etc., whose only aim is place and
plunder. Their Free-soil principles, outside of their radical purposes,
are scarcely skin deep!
By many well-informed men, no doubts are entertained now, that the
nomination of Fremont and Dayton has been the result of an intrigue
between Seward and Archbishop Hughes; and from a resolution of their
platform, as reported by the Committee on Resolutions, we attach credit
to this inference. It will bring the Buchanan party at the North to
terms, as they are likely to be the only sufferers from this ticket. It
will be managed in future alone with an eye to the _aid_ of Buchanan!
We take the following notice of Fremont from the Charleston (S. C.)
Standard, and consider it every way reliable:
"Mr. Fremont will be destined to play a distinguished part in
the drama, and his history and character therefore will,
doubtless, become subjects of considerable importance. He is
generally regarded as a native of Charleston, but of this we
have occasion to doubt. Many gentlemen here, who knew him in
early life, concur in saying that he was born in Savannah. Up
to within a short time prior to his birth, his mother was a
resident of Norfolk, in Virginia, and it is generally asserted
that his parents resided in Savannah before they became settled
in Charleston; however this may have been, it is at least
conceded that he first came into notice in this city. His
prospects here were not particularly promising, but he
attracted the attention of some philanthropic gentlemen, who
provided the means for his entrance and instruction in the
Charleston College. His progress there was not remarkable, and
when his class graduated he was not considered entitled to a
diploma. He was afterwards recommended as a proper person to
take charge of the night-school of the Apprentices' Library
Association; but, though his attainments were sufficient, and
his address particularly acceptable to the Directors of that
Institution, he was not as attentive as he might have been, and
the school fell through. He afterwards procured, through Mr.
Poinsett, a situation as instructor of junior officers on board
a vessel of war bound to the Pacific, and in this condition is
said to have acquitted himself well. He afterwards acquired
some knowledge of civil engineering, and filling unimportant
positions in connection with one and another public work, was
at length brought to notice and distinction by his connection
with Mr. Nicholet in his Survey of the Mississippi Valley, and
from that marched steadily on to the Rocky Mountains, and a
renown that has placed his name before the country.
"From the records of his early life, it would seem that he had
talent, and was quite addicted to naval reading, but was
wayward, and if not indolent, was inefficient in the tasks
undertaken at the instance of other people, and up to the time
of his entrance upon his duties as instructor in the naval
school, had hardly made up his mind whether he would be a man
of character or a blackguard. He was fond of dress, however,
and the records of the court still show that he wore a suit of
clothes which he was afterwards compelled to declare on oath
his inability to pay for, in order to avoid inconvenient
restrictions upon his personal liberty; but chance gave a
proper direction to his abilities; he had the latent energy of
character to act up to his opportunities, and he has really
presented a career which any one might regard with
satisfaction. It is certainly to be regretted that he should
lend himself to the uses of a party so reckless and subversive,
not only of the Union but of the rights of that section to
which, if capable of sentiments of patriotism, he might be
supposed to feel attachment; but the prospect of the Presidency
would be a sore trial to the probity of most men, and we find
nothing in the antecedents of Mr. Fremont to cause a feeling of
disappointment that he should yield to the allurements of
power.
"He is commended for his attentions to his mother, and they
were certainly exemplary. She was poor, and after he determined
to behave himself and work like a man, he made her as entirely
comfortable as there was the reason to believe his
circumstances permitted."
POSTSCRIPT.--Mr. Fremont turns out to be a Roman Catholic, and to have
been raised one, and this explains the readiness of Bishop Hughes to
abandon Buchanan, and go over to Fremont. It also explains why it is
that so many _German Catholic papers_ are coming out for Fremont, in the
large cities, and in the North-Western States.
In 1850, Fremont held a seat in the United States Senate, for the space
of about three months, and during that time sought to introduce a
Catholic Priest to open their services with prayers, and was successful
to some extent. He also attended service at the Catholic Church. The
_Washington Star_, of the 19th June, 1856, gives the following
exposition of facts, in reference to Fremont and his religion:
"A SORT OF A CATHOLIC.--We take it for granted that among the
informal pledges extracted by delegations in George Law's
Convention, from Col. Fremont, there was not one against the
Catholic Church; insomuch as, up to the recent birth of his
aspirations for the Presidency, he always passed in Washington
for a good enough outside Roman Catholic; that being the Church
in which he was reared. He was married in this city, it will be
remembered, by Father Van Horseigh, a clergyman of his
Church--not of that of his wife's family."
The Republicans sought to incorporate into their platform a plank in
opposition to the _Religious Proscription_ of the American party, so as
to suit the taste of Romanists generally; but Thaddeus Stevens, who
knows Pennsylvania as well as any man living, implored them not to do
so, and stated that such a course, with Fremont as their nominee, would
lose them Pennsylvania by 50,000 votes!
It turns out, however, that Fremont, as the anti-American,
anti-Protestant candidate, with Mr. Dayton on the ticket, equally
anti-American, and devoted to Romanism, will sweep the Catholic vote in
the United States. Catholics may favor Buchanan in such Southern States
as do not run a Fremont ticket, but in all the Northern and
North-Western States, the Fremont ticket will ruin the Buchanan ticket.
This question, taken in connection with the Slavery issue, and the
Filibustering issue, narrows the contest down to one between Fillmore
and Fremont. Buchanan is defeated, and the Southern fire-eaters see and
feel it! The _Atlanta_ (Ga.) _Intelligencer_ comes out and states, that
if Buchanan can't be elected, it prefers Fremont to Fillmore! And the
South Carolina and Mississippi Disunionists openly avow, that they wish
this to be the last contest of the kind. They are for Buchanan or
Fremont, over Fillmore, because they believe the election of either will
have the glorious effect to bring about a dissolution of the Union! In
the same breath they admit that Fillmore will labor to perpetuate the
Union, and that his election will have the effect to prolong its
existence a few brief years!
Southern men, and Northern men, Union men, and national, conservative
men, of all parties, can now see _where_ we are driving to, and _who_
they should support for the Presidency. Let them guard against these
demons of Popery--these incarnate fiends of the Free Soil faith--these
fanatics of a sectional cast--these slimy vultures of Secession--these
bogus Democrats--and these infinitely infernal traitors to the
Constitution and the Union!
"Col. Fremont was educated in and graduated from St. Mary's
College, in Baltimore, a Roman Catholic Institution. He was
brought up in the Catholic Faith, and is a Catholic. He married
a daughter of Col. Benton. Miss Benton was a Presbyterian. They
were married by a clergyman of that denomination; but a
Catholic priest made a fuss about it as being null, void, and
heretical, and the ceremony was re-performed by him!"--_Auburn
American._
The _American_ might have added, that Fremont is the son of a _Catholic
Frenchman_, the son of a _Catholic mother_, and was reared under
Catholic influence. Nay, Fremont educates his children at the Roman
Catholic Institution at Georgetown, in the District of Columbia! The
placing of such a candidate before the public, seems especially designed
to defy public sentiment, and mock the Protestant American feeling of
the country! We had expected the Catholics, with Bishop Hughes at their
head, in a few years more, to come out openly, and run a Catholic for
the Presidency, but we had not supposed them bold enough to attempt it
in 1856. To show beyond all doubt that the nomination of Fremont was the
result of a coalition between Seward and Hughes, more in reference to
the _Catholic question_ than the _Slavery issue_, we present the record
of Fremont in the United States Senate--his _ultra-Pro-Slavery
course_--his voting against justice to the Colonization Society, and
_seven hundred and fifty_ captured slaves--his opposition to the
abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia!
HE IS EXTREME SOUTHERN AND PRO-SLAVERY.
John C. Fremont held a seat in the United States Senate, in 1850, for
the space of a few months. During that time he made no speeches; indeed,
he has scarcely ever been known to utter any sentiments, or sanction any
opinions. Yet his votes, as a member of the Senate, did make for him a
record; and it is this record that will stare him in the face as long as
he lives--a record in direct conflict with his present professions and
position before the country:
LOOK AT IT!--JOHN C. FREMONT'S STATESMANSHIP.
[From the Congressional Globe--Vol. 21, part 2d, p. 1803, etc.]
"IN SENATE OF UNITED STATES, Sept. 11, 1850.
"Mr. Underwood, of Kentucky, called up the bill for the relief
of the American Colonization Society. The slaves that were
recaptured on the barque Pons were turned over to the
Colonization Society, by the authority of the United States,
sent to Liberia, and there kept at the expense of the society
for one or two years. Most of them were children of twelve,
fifteen, and sixteen years of age. The society thinks that the
expense of feeding, clothing, and educating these people, which
was thus devolved on them by the action of the Government,
ought to be repaid them. It was certainly an expense incurred
by the society, through the action of the Government in
throwing these young <DW64>s upon them for maintenance, instead
of taking them, as the Government was bound to do by law, and
providing for them. That is the nature of the claim. They
simply ask that so much shall be paid them as the society, from
its own experience, pays in reference to its own emigrants. The
claim was reported upon favorably two years ago. A similar
report has again been made; and as the necessities of the
society require that they should have the money, I hope, said
Mr. U., the Senate will consent to take up the bill. The Senate
agreed to take up the bill, and proceeded to consider it as in
Committee of the Whole.
"Mr. Turney asked for the reading of the report of the
Committee.
"The Secretary read the report accordingly. It sets forth that
a liberal construction of the act of Congress of March 3d,
1819, would require that the Government should provide for the
support of these recaptured Africans, for a reasonable time
after they had been landed in Liberia, and that it is beneath
the dignity of the Government to devolve this duty upon the
society. The petition of the executive committee of the society
which the Committee incorporated in their report, states that
on the 16th of December, 1845, the United States Ship Yorktown,
Commodore Bell, landed at Monrovia, in Liberia, from the slaver
Pons, seven hundred and fifty recaptured Africans, in a naked,
starving, and dying condition, all of them excepting twenty-one
being under the age of twenty-one. The United States made no
provision for their support after they were landed....
"The services of providing for the destitute <DW64>s were not
required to be performed by the society under their
constitution, but the alternative was to leave these recaptured
Africans to starve and die, and the society therefore
cheerfully took charge of them, relying upon the Government of
the United States to refund the cost to them."
The question was discussed at length as to whether the United States
would pay these just and legal demands; and on the vote being taken for
the engrossment of the bill to a third reading, Mr. Fremont's name is
found recorded in the negative--as follows:
"YEAS--Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Chase, Clayton, Davis of
Mass., DAYTON, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglass, Ewing,
Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Pearce, Pratt,
Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales,
Walker, Whitcomb, and Winthrop--29.
"NAYS--Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Benton, Butler, Dawson,
Dickinson, Downs, FREMONT, Hunter, King, Mason, Rusk,
Sebastian, Soule, Turner, and Yulee--16."
LOOK AGAIN!--On the 18th day of September, 1850, the bill to prevent
persons from enticing away slaves from the District of Columbia was
under consideration, and John P. Hale "moved that it be committed to the
Committee on the District of Columbia, with instructions _to so amend it
as to_ ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA." On the vote being
taken, FREMONT'S name was recorded in the NEGATIVE. (See Cong. Globe,
31st Congress, part 2, p. 1859.)
Such is Mr. Fremont's _record of Statesmanship_. It shows his nomination
by the "_Republicans_" to have been a hollow mockery--"a dishonest
farce,"--an insult to the intelligence of the American people.
We shall hereafter pursue the record of this "remarkable man."
Bishop Hughes and Wm. H. Seward have been, for years, intimate personal
and political friends. It is a part of the political history of New
York, that Seward is alone indebted to Hughes for his reelection to the
United States Senate. They are both now united in the support of
Fremont, and they procured his nomination over Judge McLean, a pure and
patriotic man--for many years a _Methodist Class-Leader_, and an officer
of a _Protestant Bible Society_.
The coalition between Hughes, Seward and Fremont, is complete, and the
evidence of the foul coalition and conspiracy will appear in full, in a
few days, but not in time for us to get it into this work. We are right
glad of it, as it narrows the contest down to one between Fillmore and
Fremont, and especially at the North.
In some of the Northern States, it is now conclusive that a _Buchanan_
ticket will not be run, while in every Northern State where such a
ticket is run, it will be with no hope of success! Hughes and Seward
will induce several States to drop Buchanan, and unite on Fremont, by
_bargaining_ with them, and obligating themselves to give the Democracy
half of the spoils. Already several _Southern_ Democratic papers are
saying, that if they can't elect Buchanan, they prefer Fremont to
Fillmore! This ought to open the eyes of all true patriots.
OLD LINE WHIGS, AND THE MOTIVES GOVERNING SOME OF THEM!
In this free country of ours, gentlemen have a right to support any
Presidential or other ticket they may choose to support; and where they
are governed by pure motives in differing from a majority of their
neighbors and old political associates, no one has a right to complain.
Some few gentlemen, known as "Old Line Whigs," will not come into the
support of the American ticket, but will even support the Democratic
ticket; and do it from an honest (though mistaken) belief that they can
most effectually serve the interests of the country by this course. With
such, we shall be the last man to raise a quarrel--claiming the right to
do as we please in matters of the sort. But there are some men in the
ranks of the enemy now, who are governed by very different motives; and
as these are quoted against the American party, or, as their refusal to
act with the party is a matter of _boasting_ in the Democratic ranks, it
is due to the cause of truth, and of the country, that they should be
understood, that their efforts may be _appreciated_.
Without intending to be tedious, we name JAMES C. JONES, of Tennessee,
as at the head of the list of _Old Liners_, whose devotion to the
_South_, and love of _liberty_, prevent him from supporting Fillmore and
Donelson. This is the veriest _stuff_ in the political world! Gov. Jones
cannot excuse the matter of his opposition to Millard Fillmore upon the
grounds he rests the case, in his Circular addressed to his
constituents. The true secret of the matter must come to light, that old
Whigs and new Whigs, Americans and Democrats, may appreciate his
motives.
Last fall, at the Fair in Jackson, in West Tennessee, in the house and
at the bedside of ANDREW GUTHRIE, on being inquired of as to his future
course, the Governor became very much excited, and roundly asserted,
that if the American party nominated _Fillmore_, he should go against
him. ==> _Because Fillmore, in his appointment of persons to office in
Tennessee, did not consult him, but in many cases appointed his personal
enemies!_ Mark, he did not pause to inquire _who_ might be the opposing
candidate to Mr. Fillmore. He was not then, as he is not now, governed
by any _principle_ in the matter, but by _passion_. He is _against Mr.
Fillmore_, under all circumstances, no matter who may oppose him! And
why? Because Mr. Fillmore did not suffer him to put his numerous _active
friends_ into fat offices under the General Government; to many of whom
he had made pledges while he was struggling for a seat in the United
States Senate--where he ought never to have gone, and where the better
portion of those who aided in his election now regret having sent him!
But it is true, Fillmore and his Cabinet did refuse the extravagant
demands made for office by the Governor; and in no single instance did
they appoint men to office from Tennessee without consultation with
BELL, GENTRY, and WILLIAMS; all three of whom were offensive to _Jones_.
They had proven themselves to be worthy of consultation; the Governor
had not! This accounts, moreover, for the efforts of Jones at Baltimore
to defeat the nomination of Fillmore, and to procure the nomination of
Scott--efforts which, unfortunately for the country, were but too
successful!
When the American party was organized in Tennessee, JONES had no
objection to the creed, and would have fallen into the ranks, but then
he beheld _Gentry_ and _Brownlow_ in the party--men whom he despised
above all others. He tried to prevent the nomination of Gentry for
Governor by letter-writing, and by seeking to get up a _Whig_
Convention. Failing in these schemes, he threw himself into the arena,
and _secretly_ damaged Gentry all he could, and played into the hands of
Johnson, who was only elected by a majority of some _two thousand
votes_!
We are not informed as to the course Gov. Jones will pursue in this
contest, further than this, he will go against Fillmore. We predict that
he will support Buchanan. _Pride of character_ may keep him from it--if
he have any of that commodity left, after his five years' residence at
Washington! The platform upon which Buchanan has been placed by the
Cincinnati Convention, is a reiteration of violent and undying hostility
to every measure of public policy that was advocated by HENRY CLAY and
the Old Whig party. Jones still _professes_ an equally undying devotion
to Clay and his principles. Moreover, Jones has, on every stump in
Tennessee, held up Buchanan as a _rank old Federalist_, a Pennsylvania
_Abolitionist_, and as the _wicked traducer_, _violent calumniator_, and
_malignant persecutor_ of Henry Clay--even attributing his promotion to
the Secretaryship of State, by Mr. Polk, to his _infamous agency_ in
fastening upon Mr. Clay the foul charge of "bargain, intrigue, and
corruption." We confess that we are at a loss to see how Jones can fall
into the support of Buchanan. The _nomination_ of the man is a direct
insult to Old Clay Whigs!
ALBERT G. WATKINS, the Representative in Congress from the First
Congressional District of Tennessee, has gone over to Democracy, placing
his change upon the ground of his _great concern for the South_! We take
it that he will support Buchanan without hesitancy. This would place
Watkins before the country in his true colors, and reflect the likeness
of the man with _daguerreotype_ accuracy!! With such a platform, and
such a candidate on it, Watkins would have the appearance of a man
walking in one direction, with his head turned completely around, and
his face looking the other way! The incongruity of the platform, and the
peculiar reputation of Buchanan for political inconsistency, are alike
adapted to the history and incidents of Watkins's late canvass for
Congress! The plain truth is, that the man so completely destroyed
himself, and was so ruinously exposed by his competitor, COL. TAYLOR,
whom he beat only some two hundred votes, (and that by means that make
his seat in Congress one of _thorns_,) that he could but go over to
Locofocoism. And although he has, in former days, held up Buchanan on
the stump as an old Federalist, and as the reviler and persecutor of
Henry Clay, he can advocate him now with a better grace than he can look
his Know Nothing constituents in the face! We cannot say of this man as
Pope said of Craggs:
"Broke no promise, served no private end,
Gained no title, and who lost no friend."
WILLIAM G. SWAN, of Knoxville, is next on the list of "Old Line Whigs"
who have gone over to the Foreign Catholic Democratic party, and of
whose conversion the Democrats at a distance boast. Here they do not
brag; but on the other hand, some of the leaders, whose names we can
supply, authorize us to state that they do not want him, and will not
receive him. This man was twice beaten for the Legislature in this
county--never elected by the people to any position outside of
Knoxville--and became soured at the Whig party. He went for _Johnson and
Sag Nichtism_ last summer, and his loss is not regretted by the American
party in this county.
But JOHN H. CROZIER, of Knoxville, has gone over to "Old Buck" and his
admirers; and this is claimed as a change! This little man, _supremely
selfish_, was turned out of Congress five years ago, by JOSIAH M.
ANDERSON, with the people at his back, for _taking too much mileage_, by
several hundred dollars per session, for four years! He afterwards
desired the Whig party to run him for Governor; but they were not
willing to undertake the _load_. He became soured, and last summer paid
a visit to some of the counties below, to avoid, as was believed, voting
for Gentry for Governor, and Sneed for Congress. He was formerly very
bitter in his opposition to Democracy; and on many a stump has he
denounced _Buchanan_, and all others concerned in the "bargain and
intrigue" slander of Clay, besides holding up "Buck" as a Blue-light
Federalist! At a recent Buchanan Ratification meeting in Knoxville, he
made a bitter speech against the American party!
These two men, Swan and Crozier, were active in getting up an
organization against us, in 1849, by heading a company which purchased
the "_Register Establishment_," of this city, at the head of which they
placed one _john miller m'kee_, behind whom they and others concealed
themselves and wrote violent and abusive articles, through a controversy
of two years. Driving the whole of them to the wall, as we did, in the
controversy, they determined to _mob and tear down our office_; and with
a view to this, those concerned deposited their _guns_, and other
"implements of husbandry," in the law office jointly occupied by these
two men, who have operated as _twin brothers_ for several years--each
sympathizing with the other in his political defeats! Those concerned
were deterred from this contemplated and well-arranged assault upon our
office, by COL. LUTTRELL, the Comptroller of the State, and other
gentlemen of nerve, arming themselves with shot-guns, pistols, and
hatchets, and taking their stand at our office!
Nothing daunted by this defeat, these _gallant_ lawyers, and
_generous_--not to say _brave_--opponents betook themselves to the
county of Anderson, in this Judicial Circuit, and with great difficulty
got up an indictment against us, under an old statute, forgotten by
gentlemen of the bar, for _advertising a Baltimore lottery scheme_; when
they themselves, and their relatives, were dealing in the _Art Union
lottery_ in this city! They were most signally defeated in that
indictment; and, together with the two Williamses, brothers-in-law of
Crozier, sought to drive the business men of the place, and others, from
advertising in our paper, or subscribing for it. Failing in this, they
sought to prevent us from getting the Government advertising under
Fillmore's administration; and in this they failed, though this is the
ground of their hostility to Fillmore and his Cabinet, as well as to
John Bell, M. P. Gentry, and C. H. Williams.
The _Register_ fell through--was sold under the hammer for _twenty-two
hundred dollars_--McKee ran away--and the company have had about FIVE
THOUSAND DOLLARS to pay for him, which hurts prodigiously! Our WHIG has
steadily increased in favor with the people, and its circulation is now
THE RISE OF FIVE THOUSAND--being the largest circulation that any
political or other journal ever attained in East Tennessee! Indeed, no
political weekly in Tennessee now has, or ever did have, a circulation
equal to "BROWNLOW'S KNOXVILLE WHIG."
A young man calling himself _Luther Patterson_, has been conducting a
foreign Sag Nicht sheet at Kingston, called the "Gazetteer," and which
has gone by the board for the want of patronage. This little eight by
ten sheet has been editorially, and by means of anonymous
communications, assaulting the writer of this work, and the editor of
the _Register_, MR. FLEMING. Patterson paid a recent visit to this
place; at which time Fleming met with him on the street, and publicly
chastised him, applying the toe of a stiff boot to the _west end_ of his
person, with some force. Patterson turned about and boasted in his paper
that he had the best of the fight. Our paper and Fleming's corrected
this false version of the affair, and gave the facts; whereupon
Patterson sued out a writ in the Circuit Court for Fleming, for damages
done to his person in said rencontre, laying his damages at $5,000!
Shortly after this he instituted a civil action against the publishers
of the paper we edit, and another against us for the article we wrote
against him; and these suits are now pending.
These two _gallant_ attorneys, as we are informed, are employed as
counsel by Patterson--a young man who has no visible means of paying
lawyers, but the _eagerness_ of these gentlemen to get after us would
lead them to "work for nothing and find themselves." In addition to
their several civil suits against several of us, they have sent their
man before the Grand Jury of Knox county, and made a presentment against
us for having _out-wrote_ their Sag Nicht editor! The object of these
suits against the editors and publishers of the American papers here, is
to _gag_ them, or to check their influence in this contest. But they
have mistaken their men. Like other vipers, they will find, before these
matters end, that they bite a file--a file of good _American_ steel, and
tempered to that degree of hardness that all their malignity, intense
and active as it is known to be, will not be able to prevail against it!
When we came to this city of Knoxville, in 1849, we sold our office at
Jonesborough, at private sale, to pay a _security debt_, and purchased a
new press and materials on a credit. These we sent on to the care of
WILLIAMS & CO., the brothers-in-law of Crozier, who kept about the only
commission and forwarding house in Knoxville. We were detained at
Jonesborough four weeks by close confinement to our bed; and our
materials arriving here, these "Old Line Whigs," who had always
professed friendship toward us, refused to give them house-room; and had
not JAMES W. NELSON and others stepped forward and paid the charges, and
procured a house for them, the steamboat captain would have sold them
out for the carriage!
These _magnanimous_ gentlemen, members of the learned profession of the
law, next contrived, through certain influences they brought to bear,
to turn us out of the only office we could rent in the city, and thus
they drove us _without the limits of the Corporation_, and compelled us
to erect a temporary office upon our own lot, which we had bought on a
credit. They were now at the end of their row. One was a candidate for
Congress, the other for a seat in the Legislature. We pitched into both,
and they were both defeated; but we do not claim that it was through our
influence. Like Cardinal Wolsey, however, they both had to bid
"farewell, a long farewell, to all their greatness." From the pinnacle
of Congressional and Legislative honors, they have been precipitated to
the shades of private life, and to political obscurity. Their chief
ambition now is, to play "fantastic tricks" in courts of justice, and
before grand jurors, in the way of annoying those they have neither the
_manliness_ nor _courage_ to call to an account upon their own hooks!
The established usage of _gentlemen_, when offended by a newspaper
editor, is to exact personal satisfaction. To acknowledge that you are
personally aggrieved, and then to retort in tricks behind the offender's
back, or words behind your privileges at the Bar, is to acknowledge that
one is either a _fool_ or a _coward_--perhaps both. A chief object in
this crusade against us is to gag us during this campaign, and kill us
off from the stump and the press; but they have certainly studied our
character to but little purpose. And whatever line of policy their
prompters and associates of the Locofoco school may urge upon them, let
them be assured that they cannot muzzle criticism of their personal or
political delinquencies. It is a sacred duty to unmask the _renegade_,
to expose the _traitor_, and to hold up the _demagogue_ to public
reprobation. That duty will be performed freely and fearlessly, by the
author of this work, come weal or come woe. If these two "Knights of the
Rueful Countenance" kill and eat a dozen Know Nothings, we know one
member of the Order they will not affright into silence. For their
cowardly assaults and their officious intermeddlings they may bare their
backs to the lash. We will be with them to the bitter end, and will only
forsake them in the _Gethsemane_ of their retreat!
Had we come here with press and type, in 1849, and agreed to be
controlled by these men and their particular friends, we could have been
_the_ man for the times. Had we stooped to flirt and coquette and fawn
and dance around these men, we could have had their endorsement, their
influence, and their money, to any reasonable extent. But we neither
sought their friendship, nor coveted their adulations. We claim to have
been made of such inflexible materials, as not readily to go through the
transmutations necessary to secure the kind regards of these men. We are
no office-seeker, and desire no reward beyond the consciousness of
having performed our duty, and of having served our country to the best
of our ability.
We take this occasion to repeat what we have heretofore said in our
journal, that nearly every prominent man in the country, calling himself
an "Old Line Whig," and now opposed to Fillmore and Donelson, is
influenced by personal grievances, or a desire to get office--matters
with which the people have not the slightest concern. Their opposition
to the American ticket proceeds from personal hostility, either to the
candidates, some of the electoral candidates, or certain prominent
advocates of the ticket, and from no less unworthy motives. Of course
there are exceptions to this rule.
The idea of an Old Clay Whig supporting the Buchanan ticket is both
absurd and ridiculous. To say nothing of the foul and malignant charge
of "bargain, intrigue, and corruption," Buchanan labored to fasten upon
Clay, the Platform upon which the Cincinnati Convention has placed
Buchanan repudiates every principle Clay contended for, and held as
sacred to the day of his death. On the contrary, the American party has
not ignored one political tenet held by the Whig party, but has added
new ones; none of which are at war with the creed of Clay, or the
Constitution of our country! To make short work of a long story, no man
who ever was a _true Whig_, and acted with that party _from principle_,
can consistently go over to the _bogus_ Democracy of this day, and vote
for Buchanan and Breckenridge!
Talk about a Clay Whig turning Sag Nicht! What an idea! What principle
does this Foreign Democratic party hold, that an Old Line Whig, or a
conservative man, North or South, does not disapprove? What principles
have they ever held, the evil effects of which are not now standing out
in bold relief as a monument of their shame, and to which they have
added the unpardonable sin of making war upon NATIVE AMERICAN
PROTESTANTS?
In conclusion, the reader will please allow a few remarks PERSONAL to
the writer, and he is done--leaving the public to make their own
comments, and their own disposition of both this book and its author.
Our life has been a public life--our cause a public cause. We have our
faults, as most men have; and we have committed some errors, as most men
have. Our few acts of goodness and virtue, if any, we leave others to
hunt up; our faults are subjects of criticism, and are viewed with a
_jaundiced eye_ by our opponents. Through a course of _eighteen years_
of editorial invective, (whether right or wrong,) we claim to have been
actuated by none other than the best of motives. We have never been
prompted by ambition, malice, or a desire to make money. Our voice,
which has echoed over many hills and through many valleys, has never
been heard in extenuation of guilt; has never been heard to plead the
cause of the gambler, the swearer, the drunkard, the robber, or the
assassin. Wherever vice has lifted its "seven heads and ten
horns"--wherever fraud has showed its thieving hand--wherever gambling
has displayed its rotten heart--wherever demagogues have sought to
impose on the honest people--there have we tried to be conspicuous; not
as their aider and abettor, but as their scourge, their accuser, and
their unrelenting foe. And among this class of men are our most bitter
foes. What friends we have are to be found at the fireside of
virtue--among sober, sedate, and thinking men, and among the brave and
honorable. We have never been the slave or sycophant of any man or
party, as our immense band of subscribers, numbering thousands, will
bear us witness.
And now, AMERICANS, while we look forward to the future with pleasing
anticipations--while we rejoice in prospect of the final triumph of
wisdom, of reason, and of virtue, over audacious ignorance, palpable
corruption, canting hypocrisy, and caballing Democracy--God forbid that
we should indulge the vain idea that we have nothing to do! Let every
friend of American rights and Protestant liberties take a bold, a
decided stand, vowing most solemnly that he will have no fellowship at
the ballot-box with the friends of that unpitying monster, a DEMOCRATIC
PAPAL HIERARCHY! Be active, be vigilant, and persevering, and the day is
ultimately ours!
"Strike till the last armed foe expires;
Strike for your altars and your fires;
Strike for the green graves of your sires,
God, and your native land!"
TO STEPHEN TRIBBLE--LETTER No. 2.
SIR:--On the night of the 9th of June, 1856, you held forth in the
Court-House in Charleston, Mo., taking myself, _Rev. Josiah McCrary_,
the Methodist stationed preacher of that town, and Methodists generally,
for your text. It would seem that the _touch_ I gave you, and a letter
of mine read before a large congregation in Charleston, on Sabbath
evening, June 8th, _have fully developed all the latent blackguardism of
your early training and corrupt nature_! I will now place the record of
your _infamy_ before the world in such a permanent form, and circulate
it so extensively, that your low Billingsgate and vile blackguardism can
never harm any man or sect. I will make such a showing of you that no
persons of refined feelings or of any pride of character will hear you
preach or entertain you in future! I will remind many readers of the
showing up of your infamous character and conduct, by the editor of the
Louisville Journal, ten or twelve years ago, and of the exposure of your
villainous conduct by the _Rev. Mr. McNutt_, of Kentucky, through the
Nashville Advocate, some eight or nine years ago.
I will only add the following article from my paper of the 21st June,
1856, as it completes your record, so far as Tennessee is concerned. I
will only add, that you were driven out of McMinn County in East
Tennessee, where you were preaching, lying, and drinking whiskey, years
ago. There and then, too, the records of the Sullivan County affair,
certified to by the Clerk, were produced against you! But to the article
from my late paper:
STEPHEN TRIBBLE AGAIN.
This old hypocrite and scoundrel has been denying in the pulpit that he
was ever convicted of manslaughter or branded! It turns out, also, that
the old villain once joined the American party in West Tennessee! And
last, but not least, it seems that he was turned out of both the
Methodist and Presbyterian Churches before he became a Campbellite
preacher. A pretty disciple to be abusing honest men! But to the law and
to the testimony:
"ROANE COUNTY, June 3d, 1856.
"SIR:--In your issue of the 14th of May, you notice _Stephen
Tribble_, and ask for information concerning him. He came to
the lower end of Roane county from one of the upper counties of
East Tennessee, and passed himself for an Arian preacher. I
objected to his preaching in a meeting-house, and came near
getting myself into a scrape. About that time a gentleman came
from our upper country, and said he had seen his father apply
the branding-iron to Tribble, and the smoke rose ten feet high!
I then began to play on a harp of one string against him, and
that was _a tribble_, whereupon he left between two days for
Kentucky! He was once expelled from the Methodist Church, and
afterwards he was expelled from the Presbyterian Church. If
Tribble disputes what I say, all I ask is a chance to prove it.
I live ten miles south of Kingston, near Barnardsville. Yours
truly,
"JOHN BLAIR."
* * * * *
"PARIS, TENN., June 6th, 1856.
"DEAR SIR:--I see in a late issue of yours that you are after a
Reverend wolf, Stephen Tribble. I am personally acquainted with
him, as I lived in Sullivan county when he was in the
Blountville jail. I have heard him preach here, and deny from
the stand ever having been in jail, when he and I had talked
the whole matter over the day before. He is now about
forty-eight years of age--has a scar on his cheek. He preached
here monthly in 1846, and here it was that he joined the
American party. He now resides either in Graves or Fulton
county, Kentucky. One of his brothers told me last week that he
now preaches at one point in Kentucky, and the rest of his time
in Missouri. One of their preachers told me that he gets drunk
and cuts up largely. Yours, with respect,
"A. J. HICKS."
To the foregoing letters we add a certified copy of the records of the
Circuit Court of Sullivan county, and after this we shall leave this
_old clerical debauchee_ to preach for such Sag Nichts as may feel
edified by his ministry:
"MONDAY, Sept. 24, 1827.
"State of Tennessee, First Circuit, Sullivan County Court: met
according to adjournment. Present, Honorable Samuel Powell,
Judge, &c."
"FRIDAY, Sept. 28, 1827.
"STATE _vs._ STEPHEN TRIBBLE AND JOHN TRIBBLE.
"In this cause, the jury having retired yesterday to consider
of their verdict, under the care of an officer, and the same
jury, to wit: James Steele, Wm. Morgan, Joshua Miller, John
Thomas, Wm. Hashman, John Wassum, Thomas Brown, Stephen B.
Cawood, John K. Arnold, Thomas Fain, William Hughes, and
William H. Biggs, returning to the bar, do say, they find the
defendants not guilty of the murder, but they find them guilty
of manslaughter as charged in the bill of indictment. Whereupon
the defendants moved the Court for a rule to show cause why a
new trial should be had, which rule is granted, and on argument
said rule is discharged. It is therefore considered by the
Court that for such offence the said defendants be imprisoned
for the term of four calendar months: that they be branded with
the letter M in the brawn of the thumbs of their left hands on
to-morrow morning, and that they pay the costs of this suit or
remain in custody until the same is paid."
* * * * *
"STATE OF TENNESSEE, SULLIVAN COUNTY.
"I, Jno. W. Cox, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Sullivan County, do
hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and perfect copy of
the final judgment in the case of State _vs._ Stephen Tribble and John
Tribble, as appears of record in my office.
"Given under my hand at this office, the 10th of June, 1856.
"Jno. W. Cox, Clerk,
"By A. J. Cox, Dep. Clerk."
In conclusion, _Stephen_, I take my leave of you now, having introduced
you to the 5,000 subscribers to the Whig, the 7,500 subscribers to our
campaign paper, and the _tens of thousands of readers_ of this book--a
work which will exist and be referred to when I am in my grave, and you
are in the hot embraces of the Devil! You will at least agree with me
that _that_ was an evil hour for you when you travelled out of your way
to assail me before a strange audience in Missouri.
I am, &c.,
W. G. BROWNLOW.
Knoxville, June 23d, 1856.
A SERMON ON SLAVERY.
Delivered by the undersigned in Temperance Hall in Knoxville,
on Sabbath, 8th of June, 1856, to a large and attentive
audience, composed of citizens and strangers--some from the
North and some from the South--occupying one hour and a quarter
in the delivery. It is published as it was delivered, without
an omission or an alteration. Respectfully, &c.,
W. G. BROWNLOW.
TEXT.--"Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their
own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed."--1 Tim. vi. 1.
Whoever reflects upon the nature of man, will find him to be almost
entirely the creature of circumstances: his habits and sentiments are,
in a great measure, the growth of adventitious circumstances and causes;
hence the endless variety and condition of our species. That race of men
in our country known as Abolitionists, Free-soilers, or Black
Republicans, look upon any deviation from the constant round in which
_they_ have been spinning out the thread of their existence as a
departure from nature's great system; and, from a known principle of our
nature, the first impulse of these fanatics is to condemn. It is thus
that the man born and matured in a free State looks upon slavery as
unnatural and horrible, and in violation of every law of justice or
humanity! And it is not uncommon to hear bigots of this character, in
their churches at the North, imploring the Divine wrath to shower down
the consuming fires of heaven on that great Sodom and Gomorrah of the
New World, all that section of country south of Mason and Dixon's line,
where this unjust practice prevails.
When an unprejudiced and candid mind examines into the past condition of
our race, and learns the fact which history develops, as the inquirer
will, that a majority of mankind were _slaves_, he will be driven to the
melancholy reflection, that the world, when first peopled by God
himself, was not a world of freemen, but of _slaves_!
Slavery was really established and sanctioned by Divine authority among
even God's chosen people, the favored children of Israel. Abraham, the
founder of this interesting nation, and the chosen servant of the Most
High, was the owner of more slaves than any cotton-planter in South
Carolina or Mississippi. That magnificent shrine, the gorgeous temple of
Solomon, commenced and completed under the pious promptings of religion
and ancient Free-Masonry, was reared alone by the hands of slaves!
Egypt's venerable and enduring pyramids were reared by the hands of
slaves! Involuntary servitude, reduced to a science, existed in ancient
Assyria and Babylon. The ten tribes of Israel were carried off to
Assyria by Shalmanezer, and the two strong tribes of Judah were
subsequently carried in triumph by Nebuchadnezzar to end their days in
Babylon as slaves, and to labor to adorn the city. Ancient Phoenicia
and Carthage were literally overrun with slavery, because the slave
population outnumbered the free and the owners of slaves! The Greeks and
Trojans, at the siege of Troy, were attended with large numbers of their
slaves. Athens, and Sparta, and Thebes--indeed, the whole Grecian and
Roman worlds--had more slaves than freemen. And in those ages which
succeeded the extinction of the Roman empire in the West, slaves were
the most numerous class. Even in the days of civilization and Christian
light which revolutionized governments, laboring serfs and abject slaves
were distributed throughout Eastern Europe, and a portion of Western
Asia--conclusively showing that slavery existed over these boundless
regions. In China, the worst forms of slavery have existed since its
earliest history. And when we turn to Africa, we find slavery, in all
its most horrid forms, existing throughout its whole extent, the slaves
outnumbering the freemen at least three to one. Looking, then, to the
whole world, we may with confidence assert, that slavery in its worst
forms subdues by far the largest portion of the human race!
Now, the inquiry is, how has slavery risen and thus spread over our
whole earth? We answer, by the _laws of war_, _the state of property_,
_the feebleness of governments_, the thirst for _bargain and sale_, the
_increase of crime_, and last, but not least, _by and with the consent
and approbation of Deity_!
These remarks may suffice by way of an introduction, and they will serve
to indicate the course we intend to pursue, if the announcement of the
text has not already done that. _Let as many servants as are under the
yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor_, &c. The word here
rendered _servants_ means SLAVES, converted to the Christian faith; and
the word rendered _yoke_ signifies the _state of slavery_ in which
Christ and the apostles found the world involved when the Christian
Church was first organized. By the word rendered _masters_ we are to
understand the heathen masters of those Christianized slaves. Even
these, in such circumstances, and under such domination, are commanded
to treat their masters with all honor and respect, that the name of God,
by which they were called, and the doctrine of God, to wit,
Christianity, which they had professed, might not be blasphemed, might
not be evil spoken of in consequence of their improper conduct. Civil
rights are never abolished by any communication from God's Spirit; and
those fiery bigots at the North who propose to abolish the institution
of slavery in this country are not following the dictates of God's
Spirit or law. The civil state in which a man was before his conversion,
is not altered by that conversion; nor does the grace of God absolve him
from any claims which the State, his neighbor, or lawful owner may have
had on him. All these outward things continue unaltered: hence, if a man
be under the sentence of death for murder, and God see fit to convert
him, he is not released from suffering the extreme penalty of the law!
The Church of Christ, when originally constituted, claimed no right, _as
an ecclesiastical organization_, to interfere in any way with the civil
government. This was the principle upon which the Church was founded, as
announced by its immortal Head. When Christ was doomed by a cruel Roman
law to its most ignominious condemnation, he did not so much as resist
it, because _it was law_, nor did he complain of it as oppressive.
"Then Pilate entered into the judgment-hall again, and called
Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews?...
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom
were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should
not be delivered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from
hence.... To this end was I born, and for this cause came I
into the world, that I should bear witness unto the
truth."--John xviii. 33-37.
When Christ came into the world on the business of his mission, he found
the Jewish people subject to the dominion of the Roman kingdom; and in
no instance did he counsel the Jews to rebellion, or incite them to
throw off the Roman yoke, as do the vagabond philanthropists of the
North in reference to the existing laws of the United States upon the
subject of slavery. Christ was, by lineal descent, "THE KING OF THE
JEWS," but he did not assert his temporal power, but actually refused to
be crowned in that right.
Under the Roman law, human liberty was held by no more certain tenure
than the whim of the sovereign power, protected by no definite
constitution. Slavery constituted the most powerful and essential
element of the government, and that slavery was of the most cruel
character, and gave to the master absolute discretion over the lives of
the slaves. Notwithstanding all this, Christ did not make war upon the
existing government, nor denounce the rulers for conferring such powers,
although he looked upon cruel legislation in the light in which the
character of his mission required. And although the _Church itself_ was
not what it should have been, in no instance did Christ ever denounce
_that_. The only denunciations the Saviour ever uttered, were those
against the doctors and lawyers, ministers and expounders of the Jewish
code of ecclesiastical law.
But allow us to present the case of the Apostle Paul, as proof more
palpable and overwhelming, on this very point. He had been falsely
accused, cruelly imprisoned, and tyrannically arraigned; and that, too,
before a licentious governor, an unjust and dissipated ruler, and an
unprincipled infidel. The Roman law in force at the time arrested the
freedom of speech, denied the rights of conscience, and even forbade the
free expression of opinion in all matters conflicting with the
provisions of the laws of the Roman government. In his defence before
Felix, Paul never so much as speaks of Roman law, though well acquainted
with it, but "he reasoned of _righteousness_, and _temperance_, and the
_judgment to come_." Here was a suitable occasion to condemn the
regulations and to question the authority of the villainous statutes of
Rome; but instead of this, Paul plead his rights _under_ the unjust
regulations of the law. He charged Felix with _official_ delinquency,
with _personal_ crime, and, as a _man_, he held him up to public scorn,
and threatened him with the vengeance of God! He appealed _to the law_,
and justified himself _by the law_. He claimed the rights of a "_Roman
citizen_"--demanded the protection due to a Roman citizen--and he
scorned to find fault with the law, cruel and unjust as he knew it to
be. And the consequence was, that the licentious infidel who ruled,
"_trembled_."
The views we have here presented are not at all new, but have been
uniformly acted upon by evangelical Christians, in all ages of the
world. Since the days of St. Paul and Simon Peter, no reformer has
appeared who was more violent than that good and great man, MARTIN
LUTHER. JOHN CALVIN possessed a revolutionary spirit--he fought every
thing he believed to be wrong--he was unyielding in his disposition, and
unmitigated in his severity. Yet neither of these great men ever made
war upon the existing laws of their respective countries. JOHN WESLEY
was the great reformer of the past century--he reformed the whole
ecclesiastical machinery of the modern Church of Christ; and his
doctrines, and manner of conducting revivals, are leading elements of
American Christianity. But Mr. Wesley never made war upon the English
government, under which he lived and died. On the other hand, it is a
matter of serious complaint among sectarians not friendly to the spread
of Methodism, that Wesley wrote elaborately against the war of the
Revolution. He was devoted to law and order, and he deemed it a
religious duty to oppose all resistance to existing laws. In his
troubles at Savannah, Georgia, like Paul before the licentious
governor, he appealed _to the law_, and sought by every means in his
power to be tried _under_ the law, asking only the privilege of being
heard in his own defence! And it was, in all the instances we have
mentioned, "_that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed_,"
to quote the expressive language of the text, that existing laws have
been adhered to by the propagators of gospel truth.
The essential principles of the great moral law delivered to Moses by
God himself, are set forth in what is called the tenth commandment, in
the 20th chapter of Exodus: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house,
thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his _man-servant_, nor his
_maid servant_, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy
neighbor's." Now, the only true interpretation of this portion of the
Word of God is, that the species of property mentioned are _lawful_, and
that all men are forbid to disturb others in the lawful enjoyment of
their property. "Man-servants and maid-servants" are distinctly
_consecrated as property_, and guaranteed to man for his exclusive
benefit--proof irresistible that slavery was thus ordained by God
himself. We have seen learned dissertations from the pens of
Abolitionists, saying, that the term "servant," and not "slave," is used
here. To this we reply, that both the Hebrew and Greek words translated
"servant," mean also "slave," and are more frequently used in this sense
than in the former. Besides, the Hebrew Scriptures teach us, that God
especially authorized his peculiar people to _purchase_ "BONDMEN FOR
EVER;" and if to be in _bondage for ever_ does not constitute _slavery_,
we yield the point.
The visionary notions of piety and philanthropy entertained by many men
at the North, lead them to resist the _Fugitive Slave Law_ of this
government, and even to _violate the tenth commandment_, by stealing our
"men-servants and maid-servants," and running them into what they call
free territory. Nay, the _villainous piety_ of some leads them to
contribute _Sharpe's Rifles_ and _Holy Bibles_, to send the
_uncircumcised Philistines_ of New England into Kansas and Nebraska, to
shoot down the Christian owners of slaves, and then to perform religious
ceremonies over their dead bodies! Clergymen lay aside their Bibles at
the North, and females, as in the case of that model beauty, _Harriet
Beecher Stowe_, unsex themselves to carry on this horrid and slanderous
warfare against slaveholders of the South! And English travellers,
steeped to the nose and chin in prejudices against this government and
our institutions, have written books upon the subject. The Halls,
Hamiltons, Trollopes, and Miss Martineaus, _et ed omne genus_, all have
misrepresented us! These English writers all denounce slavery, and
eulogize _Democracy_; as if an Englishman could be a Democrat, in the
modern, vulgar sense of the term, and be a consistent man!
But we do not propose, in this brief discourse, to enter into any
defence of the African slave trade. Although the evils of it are greatly
exaggerated, its evils and cruelties, its barbarities, are not justified
by the most ultra slaveholders of this age. The vile traffic was
abolished by the United States, even before the British Parliament
prohibited it. All the powers in the world have subsequently prohibited
this trade--some of the more influential and powerful of them declaring
it _piracy_, and covering the African seas with armed vessels to prevent
it!
This trade, which seems so shocking to the feelings of mankind, dates
its origin as far back as the year 1442. Antony Gonzales, a Portuguese
mariner, while exploring the coast of Africa, was the first to steal
some _Moors_, and was subsequently forced by Prince Henry of Portugal to
carry them back to Africa. In the year 1502, the Spaniards began to
steal <DW64>s, and employ them in the mines of Hispaniola, Cuba, and
Jamaica. In 1517, the Emperor Charles V. granted a _patent_ to certain
privileged persons, _to steal exclusively_ a supply of 4,000 <DW64>s
annually, for these islands!
African slaves were first imported into America in 1620, a century after
their introduction into the West Indies. The first cargo, of twenty
Africans, by a Dutch vessel, was brought up the James River, into
Virginia, and sold out as slaves. England then being the most commercial
of European nations, engrossed the trade; and from 1680 to 1780, there
were imported into the British Possessions alone, TWO MILLIONS OF
SLAVES--making an average annual importation of more than 20,000! And
the annual importation into America has transcended 50,000! The States
of this Union, north of Mason and Dixon's Line, commonly called the New
England States, were never, to any great extent, _slaveholding_; their
virtuous and pious minds were chiefly exercised in _slave-stealing_ and
_slave-selling_! To Old England our New England States owe their
knowledge of the art of slave-stealing; and to New England these
Southern States are wholly indebted for their slaves. They stole the
African from his native land, and sold him into bondage for the sake of
gain. They kept but few of their captives among themselves, because it
was not profitable to use <DW64> labor in the cold and sterile regions of
New England. And when they enacted laws in the New England States
abolishing slavery, they brought their <DW64>s into the South and sold
them before their laws could go into operation! This is the true history
of slavery in New England. They stole and sold property which it was not
profitable to keep, and for which they now refuse all warranty. And
what few American ships are in the trade now, at the peril of piracy,
are New England ships.
The pious and religious portion of New England Abolitionists, we take
it, are the better portion, and in these we have no sort of confidence.
Take, for example, the case of that great man, and powerful pulpit
orator, STEPHEN OLIN, who came into Georgia, and was introduced into the
ministry by BISHOP ANDREW and his friends, and by this means married a
lady owning a number of slaves. He sold them all for the money, pocketed
the money, and returned to his congenial North; and when BISHOP ANDREW
was arraigned before the General Conference of 1844, because he had
married a widow lady owning a few slaves, this man OLIN appeared on the
floor, and spoke and voted against the Bishop! Dr. Olin had washed his
hands of the sin of slavery--had his money out at interest--and he was
ready to plead for the rights of the poor African! May we not exclaim,
"Lord, what is man?"
We are acquainted with many of the leading Abolitionists of the North
connected with the Methodist Church; and although we suppose they are
about as good as the Abolitionists of other denominations we have no
confidence in them. The most of them would enter their fine churches on
the Sabbath, preach for hours against the sin of slavery, shed their
tears over the oppressions of the "servile progeny of Ham," in these
Southern States; and on the next day, in a purely business transaction,
behind a counter, or in the settlement of an account, cheat a Southern
slave out of the _pewter_ that ornaments the head of his cane!
There is much in the political papers of the country calculated, if not
intended, to fan a flame of intense warfare upon the subject of slavery,
which can result in no possible good to any one. Those politicians who
are exciting the whole country, and fanning society into a livid
consuming flame, particularly at the North, have no sympathies for the
black man, and care nothing for his comfort. They only seek their own
glory. This political disquiet and commotion is giving birth to new and
loftier schemes of agitation and disunion, among the vile Abolitionists
of the country, and to bold and hazardous enterprises in the States and
Territories. And many of our Southern altars smoke with the vile incense
of Abolitionism. We have scores of Abolitionists in the South, in
disguise--designing men--some filling our pulpits--some occupying high
positions in our colleges--some editing political and religious
papers--some selling goods--and some following one calling and some
another, who, though among us, are not of us, Southern men may rest
assured!
We endorse, without reserve, that much-abused sentiment of a
distinguished South Carolina statesmen, now no more, that "slavery is
the corner-stone of our republican edifice;" while we repudiate, as
ridiculously absurd, that much-lauded, but nowhere-accredited dogma of
MR. JEFFERSON, that "all men are born equal." God never intended to make
the _butcher_ a judge, nor the _baker_ a president, but to protect them
according to their claims as butcher and baker. Pope has beautifully
expressed this sentiment, where he has said:
"Order is heaven's first law, and this confessed,
_Some are_, and _must be_, greater than the rest."
We have gone among the free <DW64>s at the North--we have visited their
miserable dwellings in Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and other points;
and, in every instance, we have found them more miserable and destitute,
as a whole, than the slave population of the South. In our Southern
States, where <DW64>s have been set at liberty, in nine cases out of ten
their conditions have been made worse; while the most wretched,
indolent, immoral, and dishonest class of persons to be found in the
Southern States, are _free persons of color_.
The freedom of <DW64>s in even the Northern States, is, in all respects,
only an empty name. The citizen <DW64> does not vote, and takes good care
not to do so. The law does not interdict him this privilege, but if he
attempt to avail himself of the privilege, he is apprehensive of
"apostolic blows and kicks," which the pious Abolitionists will
administer to him. All the social advantages, all the respectable
employments, all the honors, and even the pleasures of life, are denied
the free <DW64>s of the North, by citizens full of sympathy for the
down-trodden African! The <DW64> cannot get into an omnibus, cannot enter
a bar-room frequented by whites, nor a church, nor a theatre; nor can he
enter the cabin of a steamboat, in one of the Northern rivers or lakes,
or enter a first class passenger car on one of their railroads. They are
not suffered to enter a stage-coach with whites, but are forced upon the
deck, whether it shall rain or shine--whether it be hot or cold.
Industry is closed to them, and they are forced to live as _servants_ in
hotels, or adopt the professions of barber, or boot-black, or open
oysters in saloons, or sell villainous liquors to the lower classes of
German and Irish emigrants, who throng our large cities and towns. The
<DW64>s even have their _own streets_, and their own low-down kennels;
they have their hospitals, their churches, their cars, upon which are
written in large letters, "FOR <DW52> PEOPLE!" Finally, they are forced
to have their own _grave-yards_--the _yellow_ remains of Northern
Abolitionists, and pious white men, refusing to mingle with the
bleeching bones of the dead <DW64>! While, in the South, they crowd the
galleries and back seats in our churches, travel in our passenger cars,
and even _loan their money_ to our white men at interest! Such is an
outline of the contrast between free <DW64>s at the North, and slaves at
the South.
Let us turn again to the Holy Scriptures, and see whether or not they
sustain or condemn the institution of slavery. The opposers of slavery
profess to be governed alone by the teachings of the Bible, in their war
upon this institution. It is vain to look to Christ or any of his
apostles to justify the blasphemous perversions of the word of God,
continually paraded before the world by these graceless agitators.
Although slavery in its most revolting forms was everywhere visible
around them, no visionary notions of piety or schemes of philanthropy
ever tempted either Christ or one of his apostles to gainsay the LAW,
even to mitigate the cruel severity of the slavery system then existing.
On the contrary, finding slavery _established by law_, as well as an
_inevitable and necessary consequence_, growing out of the condition of
human society, their efforts were to sustain the institution. Hence, St.
Paul actually apprehended a "_fugitive slave_," and sent him back to his
lawful owner and earthly master!
Having already appealed to the authority of the Old Testament
Scriptures, we turn to that of the New, where we learn that slavery
existed in the earliest days of the Christian Church, and that both
_masters_ and _slaves_ were members of the same Christian congregations.
Slavery was an institution of the State in the Roman Empire, as it is in
the Southern States of this confederacy, and the apostles did not feel
at liberty to denounce it, if, indeed, they felt the least opposition to
it--a thing we deny.
But, before we appeal to the irresistible authority of the New
Testament, we will submit a few only of a great many passages from the
Old Testament--not having quoted as extensively as may have been deemed
necessary:
"And he said, I _am_ Abraham's servant."--GEN. xxiv. 34.
"And there was of the house of Saul a _servant_, whose name was
Ziba; and when they had called him unto David, the king said
unto him, Art thou Ziba? And he said, _Thy servant is he_."--2
SAM. ix. 2.
"Then the king called to Ziba, Saul's _servant_, and said unto
him, I have given unto thy _master's_ son all that pertained to
Saul, and to all his house."--Verse 9th.
"Thou, therefore, and thy sons, and thy _servants_, shall till
the land for him, and thou shalt bring in _the fruits_, that
thy _master's_ son may have food to eat, &c. Now Ziba had
fifteen sons and TWENTY SERVANTS."--Verse 10th.
"I got me _servants_ and maidens, and had _servants born in my
house_; also, I had great possessions of great and small
cattle, above all that were in Jerusalem before me."--ECCLES.
ii. 7.
"And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? And she
said, I flee from the face of my _mistress_ Sarai."--GEN. xvi.
8.
"And the Angel of the Lord said unto her, _Return to thy
mistress_, and submit thyself to her hands."--Verse 9th.
The only comments we have to offer upon these passages are, first, one
individual acknowledges himself the owner of twenty slaves! Another was
raising slaves, and having them born in his house!! And last, but not
least, the angel of God ordered the fugitive slave to return to her
lawful owner!! High authority, this, for apprehending runaway slaves!
In reference to bad servants, we read in Prov. xxix. 19:
"A servant will not be corrected by _words_; for though he
understand, he will not answer."
The Scriptures look to the correction of servants, and really enjoin it,
as they do in the case of children. We esteem it the duty of Christian
masters to feed and clothe well, and in cases of disobedience to _whip
well_.
In the book of Joel, iii. 8, the _slave trade_ is recognized as of
Divine authority:
"And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the land of
the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans,
to a people far off; FOR THE LORD HATH SPOKEN IT!"
"Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.
Art thou called, being _a servant_? Care not for it; but if
thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called
in the Lord, being _a servant_, is the Lord's freeman; likewise
also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant."--1
Cor. vii. 20-22.
"_Servants_, be obedient to them that are your _masters
according to the flesh_, with fear and trembling, in singleness
of your heart, as unto Christ. Not with eye-service, as
men-pleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of
God from the heart. With good-will doing service, as to the
Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any
man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be
bond or free. And, _ye masters_, do the same things unto them,
forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in
heaven: neither is there respect of persons with him."--Eph.
vi. 5-9.
"_Servants_, obey in all things your _masters according to the
flesh_: not with eye-service, as men-pleasers; but in
singleness of heart, fearing God. And whatsoever ye do, do it
heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men: knowing that of the
Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye
serve the Lord Christ."--Col. iii. 22-25.
"_Masters_, give unto _your servants_ that which is just and
equal: knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."--Col. iv.
1.
"Let as many _servants as are under the yoke_ count their _own
masters_ worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his
doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have _believing
masters_, let them not despise them, because they are brethren;
but rather do them service, because they are faithful and
beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and
exhort."--1 Tim. vi. 1, 2.
"Exhort _servants_ to be obedient unto their _own masters_, and
to please them well in all things; not answering again; not
purloining, but showing all good fidelity; that they may adorn
the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things."--Titus ii. 9,
10.
"_Servants_, be subject to _your masters_ with all fear; not
only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this
is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure
grief, suffering wrongfully."--1 Peter ii. 18, 19.
We have but a single word of comment to offer upon these passages of
Scripture. The original words used by the Greek writers, both sacred and
profane, to express slave; the most abject condition of slavery; to
express the absolute owner of a slave, and the absolute control of a
slave, are the strongest that the language affords, and are used in the
passages here quoted. If the apostles understood the common use of
words, and desired to convey these ideas, and to recognize the relations
of master and servant, they would, naturally enough, employ the very
words used. To say that they did not know the primary meaning and _usus
loquendi_ of the original words, is paying them a compliment we wish not
to participate in! And to show that we are not singular in our views of
the meaning expressed in the passages quoted, showing that they express
in the one case slaves, and in the other masters or owners, actually
holding them as property, under the sanction of the laws of the State,
we quote from the following authorities:
That great commentator, Dr. ADAM CLARKE, on 1 Cor. vii. 21, says:
"Art thou converted to Christ while thou art a slave--the
property of another person, and bought with his money? _Care
not for it._"
The learned Dr. Neander, in his work entitled "Planting and Training of
the Church," in referring to _Onesimus_, mentioned in the epistle to
Philemon, says of him:
"It does not appear to be surprising that a _runaway slave_
should betake himself at once to Rome."
To the foregoing might be added other authorities of equal weight and
importance.
It is a well-known historical fact, that slaveholders were admitted into
the APOSTOLIC CHURCHES; nor would this assumed position of the advocates
of slavery be at all denied by any intelligent and well-read men at the
North, but for the fact that they think such an admission would decide
the question against abolitionists. We have given much attention to this
subject within ten years past, and we feel no sort of delicacy in
expressing our views and convictions, as revolting as they may be to
Northern men and Free-soilers, even among us. We believe that the
primitive Christians held slaves in bondage, and that the apostles
favored slavery, by admitting slaveholders into the Church, and by
promoting them to official stations in the Church. And why do we believe
all this? Because we are sustained in these positions by uninterrupted
historical testimony!
Well, for the information of abolitionists and other anti-slavery men
dispersed throughout the South, we assume that the fact of the apostles
admitting into Church fellowship slaveholders, and promoting them to
positions of honor and trust, shows that the simple relation of master
and slave was no bar to Church-membership. Masters and slaves, in the
days of the apostles, were admitted into the Church as brethren: they
partook in common of the benefits of the Church: they held to the same
religious principles: they squared their lives by the same rule of
conduct: acknowledged the same obligations one to another; and
worshipped at the same altar. This was true of the first and succeeding
centuries, when the relations of master and slave, and the practice of
the Church in reference thereto, were very much like they are in the
Southern States of our Union at present. But to the proof that
slaveholders were admitted into the apostolic Churches:
1. Historians all agree that slavery existed, and was general throughout
the Roman empire, at the time the apostolic Churches were instituted. We
have at our command the authorities to prove this, but to quote from
them would swell this discourse beyond what we have intended. We will
cite the authorities only; and anti-slavery men who deny our position
can examine our authorities. See Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire," vol. i. See "Inquiry into Roman Slavery, by Wm. Blair,"
Edinburgh edition of 1833. See vol. iv. of "Lardner's Works," page 213.
See vol. i. of "Dr. Robertson's Works," London edition. Other
authorities might be given, but these are sufficient, as they show that
slavery was a civil institution of the State; that the Roman laws
regarded slaves as _property_, at the disposal of their masters; that
these slaves, whether white or , had no civil existence or
rights, and contended for none; and that there were _three slaves to one
citizen_--showing something of a similarity between the Roman empire and
our Southern States! Gibbon says that slavery existed in "every province
and every family," and that they were bought and sold according to their
capacities for usefulness, and the demand for laborers--selling at
hundreds of dollars, and from that down to the price of a beast of
burden! Now, it is notorious that the gospel made considerable progress
among the citizens of the Roman empire; and, as nearly every family
owned slaves, it is certain that slaveholders were converted and
admitted into the Church. It will not do to say that the poor, including
the slaves, were alone converted to God, because the apostles make
frequent allusions to the receiving into the Church of intelligent,
learned, and opulent persons. The learned DR. MOSHEIM, in his Church
History, vol. i., relating to the _first three centuries_, settles this
question most effectually. He says:
"The apostles, in their writings, prescribe rules for the
conduct of the rich as well as the poor, for _masters_ as well
as _servants_--a convincing proof that among the members of the
Church planted by them were to be found persons of opulence
and masters of families. St. Paul and St. Peter admonished
Christian women not to study the adorning of themselves with
pearls, with gold and silver, or costly array. 1 Tim. ii. 9: 1
Peter iii. 3. It is, therefore, plain that there must have been
women possessed of wealth adequate to the purchase of bodily
ornaments of great price. From 1 Tim. vi. 20, and Col. ii. 8,
it is manifest that among the first converts to Christianity
there were men of learning and philosophers; for, if the wise
and the learned had unanimously rejected the Christian
religion, what occasion could there have been for this caution?
1 Cor. i. 26 unquestionably carries with it the plainest
intimation that persons of rank or power were not wholly
wanting in that assembly. Indeed, lists of the names of various
illustrious persons who embraced Christianity, in its weak and
infantile state, are given by Blondel, p. 235 de Episcopis et
Presbyteris: also by Wetstein, in his Preface to Origen's Dia.
Con. Mar., p. 13."
A few reflections, by way of concluding, and we are through with our
discourse, already extended beyond the limits we had prescribed:
_First._--There is not a single passage in the New Testament, nor a
single act in the records of the Church, during her early history, for
even centuries, containing any direct, professed, or intended
denunciation of slavery. But the apostles found the institution
existing, under the authority and sanction of law; and, in their labors
among the people, masters and slaves bowed at the same altar, communed
at the some table, and were taken into the Church together; while they
exhorted the one to treat the other as became the gospel, and the other
to obedience and honesty, that their religious professions might not be
evil spoken of!
_Secondly._--The early Church not only admitted the existence of
slavery, but in various ways, by her teachings and discipline, expressed
her approbation of it, enforcing the observance of certain Fugitive
Slave Laws which had been enacted by the State. And, in the various acts
of the Church, from the times of the apostles downward through several
centuries, she enacted laws and adopted regulations touching the duties
of masters and slaves, _as such_. This, in our humble judgment, amounts
to a justification and defence of the institution of slavery.
_Thirdly._--Our investigations of this subject have led us regularly,
gradually, certainly, to the conclusion that God intended the relation
of master and slave to exist. Hence, when God opened the way for the
organization of the Church, the apostles and first teachers of
Christianity found slavery _incorporated with every department of
society_; and, in the adoption of rules for the government of the
members of the Church, they provided for the rights of owners, and the
wants of slaves.
_Fourthly._--Slavery, in the age of the apostles, had so penetrated
society, and was so intimately interwoven with it, that a religion
preaching freedom to the slave would have arrayed against it the civil
authorities, armed against itself the whole power of the State, and
destroyed the usefulness of its preachers. St. Paul knew this, and did
not assail the institution of slavery, but labored to get both masters
and slaves to heaven, as all ministers should do in our day.
_Fifthly._--Slavery having existed ever since the first organization of
the Church, the Scriptures clearly teach that it will exist even to the
end of time. Rev. vi. 12-17 points to "The Day of Judgment," "The Last
Day," "The Great Day," and the condition of the human race at that time,
as well as the classes of persons to be judged, rewarded, and punished!
A portion of this text reads, "And the kings of the earth, and the great
men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and
every BONDMAN, and every FREEMAN," etc., will be there; evidently
implying that slavery will exist, and that the relations of master and
slave will be recognized, to the end of time!
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Americanism Contrasted with
Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy in the Light of Reason, History, and Scripture;, by William Gannaway Brownlow
*** | {
"pile_set_name": "Gutenberg (PG-19)"
} |
###### The boy from Africa
# Remembering Tony Thomas, a great Economist journalist
##### He kept a spike in his office for poor copy—and once killed a mouse with it
> May 23rd 2019
“FRESH AIR and fresh light” was how Tony Thomas appeared to his bureau chief when he breezed into the Brussels office of The Economist in 1974. Improbable, even. He had come out of Africa, via the Yorkshire Post and the Washington office of the Times, to cover Britain’s efforts to join the Common Market. Unlike the desk-bound pundits in St James’s Street, here was a journalist of the old school. He was not afraid to get his hands dirty; to ask in his brisk, emphatic way, “What’s the story?” and to challenge conventional wisdom whenever he met it. Throughout his quarter-century at The Economist, as well as over fine wine and venison stew in the Welsh hills he retired to, he kept the habit.
His Southern Rhodesian background made that difference. He was always, in accent, dress, head and heart, the boy from Africa. Bulawayo, his home town, was a place for hard grafters, unlike soft-handed Harare. So straight out of government school at 16 he had joined the Bulawayo Chronicle, then made his way to England to work there. But the move didn’t change him. When his doctor remarked latterly that he should be good for a couple of years, he told friends he would be able to plant at least one more crop of “mealies”, or maize.
Once at The Economist he thrived, writing for almost every section of the paper. After Brussels he became US business correspondent, covering the whole country out of New York. America became his lasting joy and fascination. He did two stints there, and never tired of reviewing books on its history. With Edmund Fawcett, a colleague whose sister, Sarah (pictured right on previous page), he married, he wrote “The American Condition”, assessing land and people with his usual unflinching eye—but also the humanity of Rembrandt or Norman Rockwell, favourite artists.
In London, as Business Affairs editor for six years, he kept a spike in his office to receive poor copy. (Ever the country boy, he also killed a stray mouse with it.) He wrote an enthusiastic survey on golf, ran Books & arts, and with the then-editor, Rupert Pennant-Rea, a soft Harare man, introduced a sports page. Its failure disappointed him. But then, at Books & arts, he was already doing “the best job on the paper”.
Meanwhile he used his clear eye, first, to turn writers’ dross into good vigorous prose, and second to spot young talent when it turned up. Several of today’s senior editors were hired by him. He took pride in that, and them.
His move to a whitewashed cottage in Crickadarn in 1998 seemed sudden, prompted by a cancer prognosis that he delightedly outlived by many years. But Wales was the land his great-grandparents had left for southern Africa; and there he turned his voracious appetite for life to becoming an honorary Welshman. He was a vice-president of the Erwood agricultural show, grew vegetables of prize-winning size, was teaching himself Welsh and found in Mattie (short for Matabele), a spirited Welsh springer, the perfect dog. But, like any journalist worth their salt, he loaded the sofa at weekends with every decent London paper he could get. For though he might have left the world of news, it, like The Economist, never left him.
<<<<<<< HEAD
--
单词注释:
1.tony['tәuni]:a. 高贵的, 时髦的
2.thoma[]:n. (Thoma)人名；(阿尔巴、阿拉伯)索玛；(英、德、罗、匈、捷、塞、瑞典)托马
3.economist[i:'kɒnәmist]:n. 经济学者, 经济家 [经] 经济学家
4.spike[spaik]:n. 长钉, 鞋钉, 钉状物, 尖峰状物, 穗 vt. 以大钉钉牢, 用尖物刺穿, 阻止, 弃置不用 [计] 尖峰信号
5.Brussel[]:n. 布鲁塞尔（比利时首都）
6.improbable[im'prɒbәbl]:a. 不大可能的, 不象发生的, 荒谬可笑的 [法] 未必会的, 不大可能发生的, 未必确实的
7.Yorkshire['jɔ:kʃә]:n. 约克郡, 约克王朝
8.Washington['wɒʃiŋtn]:n. 华盛顿
9.pundit['pʌndit]:n. 学者, 梵文学者, 博学的印度人, 权威
10.ST[]:[计] 段表, 状态, 系统测试, 直端连接器 [化] 磺胺噻唑
11.emphatic[im'fætik]:a. 语调强的, 着重的, 强调了的
12.venison['venizn]:n. 鹿肉, 野味
13.stew[stju:]:n. 炖, 烦恼, 热浴, 妓院, 鱼塘 vi. 炖, 焖, 忧虑 vt. 炖, 焖, 使焦虑
14.Welsh[welʃ]:a. 威尔士的 n. 威尔士人 vi. 赖赌帐, 逃避责任
15.rhodesian[rəu'di:ziən]:n. 罗得西亚（前南非一地区）人
16.alway['ɔ:lwei]:adv. 永远；总是（等于always）
17.Bulawayo[,bu:lә'weiәj]:布拉瓦约[津巴布韦西南部城市]
18.grafter['grɑ:ftә]:n. 嫁接的人, 收贿者, 贪污者 [法] 贪污分子, 受贿者, 骗子
19.HARARE[hә'rɑ:rei]:哈拉雷[津巴布韦首都](旧称索尔兹伯里)
20.chronicle['krɒnikl]:n. 年代记, 记录, 编年史 vt. 把...载入编年史
21.latterly['lætәli]:adv. 近来, 最近
22.mealie['mi:li]:n. 玉米
23.maize[meiz]:n. 玉蜀黍, 黄色 a. 玉蜀黍色的, 黄色的
24.york[jɔ:k]:n. 约克郡；约克王朝
25.fascination[.fæsi'neiʃәn]:n. 令人着迷的事物, 入迷, 魅力
26.stint[stint]:vt. 节省, 限制, 停止 vi. 节约 n. 吝惜, 节约, 限额
27.edmund['edmәnd]:n. 艾德蒙（男子名）
28.Fawcett[]:n. 福西特（男子名）
29.Sarah['sєәrә]:n. 萨拉(<<圣经>>故事人物)
30.unflinching[.ʌn'flintʃiŋ]:a. 不畏惧的, 不退缩的, 不畏缩的
31.humanity[hju:'mæniti]:n. 人性, 人类, 博爱
32.Rembrandt['rembrænt]:伦布兰特(van Rijn [Ryn], 1609-1669, 荷兰画家)
33.norman['nɔ:mәn]:a. 诺曼第语的；诺曼第人的
34.Rockwell['rɒk,wel]:n. 罗克韦尔（美国公司）；洛克威尔（姓氏）
35.stray[strei]:n. 走失的家畜, 浪子 a. 迷途的, 偶然的 vi. 迷路, 彷徨, 流浪
36.Rupert['ru:pət]:n. 鲁珀特（男子名）
37.dross[drɒs]:n. 浮渣, 碎屑, 渣滓 [化] 浮渣
38.prose[prәuz]:n. 散文 v. 写散文 a. 散文的, 平凡的
39.prognosis[prɒg'nәusis]:n. 预测, 预后 [医] 预后
40.delightedly[dɪ'laɪtɪdlɪ]:adv. 欣喜地, 高兴地; 欢欢喜喜
41.outlive[aut'liv]:vt. 比...经久, 比...活得长, 度过(风暴)而健在
42.wale[weil]:n. 隆起的伤痕, 鞭痕, 凸条纹, 精华, 选择 vt. 在...上留下鞭痕, 织成棱纹, 挑选, 撑住 vi. 挑选
43.voracious[vә'reiʃәs]:a. 贪吃的, 狼吞虎咽的, 贪婪的
44.honorary['ɒnәrәri]:a. 荣誉的, 无报酬的, 道义上的 [法] 名誉的, 荣誉的
45.welshman['welʃmәn]:n. 威尔士男子
46.Erwood[]:[地名] 埃鲁德 ( 加、英 )
47.Mattie['mæti]:n. 马提（男子名）；玛蒂（女子名）
48.Matabele[,mætә'bi:li]:n. 马塔贝列人(居住在非洲津巴布韦的祖鲁人)(亦作Matabeli, Matabili)
49.springer['spriŋә]:n. 跳的人
=======
>>>>>>> 50f1fbac684ef65c788c2c3b1cb359dd2a904378
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
Histopathologic characteristics of uveal melanomas in eyes enucleated from the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study. COMS report no. 6.
To describe the principal histopathologic findings in a series of 1,527 globes with uveal melanoma and the relationship of these findings to each other. All eyes enucleated in the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study (COMS) were examined independently by three ophthalmic pathologists and the findings recorded on a data form. A composite of findings was obtained after adjudication. The diagnosis was choroidal melanoma in 1,527 (99.7%) of 1,532 cases examined. Misdiagnoses were metastatic adenocarcinoma (four) and hemangioma (one). Spindle cell (9.0%), mixed cell (86.0%), and epithelioid cell (5.0%) types were observed. Medium tumors were located more posteriorly than large tumors. Considerable local invasion was seen: rupture of Bruch's membrane (87.7%), invasion of the retina (49.1%), tumor cells in the vitreous (25.2%), vortex vein invasion (8.9%), invasion of tumor vessels by tumor cells (13.8%), and invasion into emissary canals (55.0%). Overall, 81.1% demonstrated local invasion, excluding rupture of Bruch's membrane. Scleral invasion was present in 55.7% of eyes, and extrascleral extension was present in 8.2%. Mitotic activity was significantly reduced in eyes that had received preenucleation radiation treatment (P < .001). The number of macrophages in the tumor increased with increased pigmentation (P < .001) and increased necrosis (P < .01). The accuracy of diagnosis in the COMS is high, with histopathologic confirmation of the diagnosis at 99.7%. Extensive local invasion of the tumor was seen. Preenucleation irradiation significantly reduced the number of mitotic figures. An association was found regarding the presence of macrophages, the level of pigmentation, and degree of necrosis. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Pattern of malaria imported by foreign residents under active survey.
An active of imported malaria was carried out on 1432 foreign residents entering Czechoslovakia between 1986-1989. The survey group consisted of adult aged 18-35 years who arrived from malaria endemic regions. Of 660 people surveyed who were from regions of Africa south of the Sahara, 10% were positive for Plasmodium falciparum. Whereas, those arriving from South East Asia had a relatively low prevalence of malaria (2.6%), predominantly P. vivax. Of the 10% of cases testing positive for P. falciparum, 85% had less than 10,000 asexual stages/microliters of blood and 75% were asymptomatic carriers. By contrast, 93.8% of P. vivax/ovale infections were diagnosed because of the onset of symptoms. Both the frequency of seropositivity and the geometrical mean reciprocal titre (IgG), using P. falciparum antigen, were higher in those people arriving from Africa (79% and 1,307) compared with those arriving from S.E. Asia (44.4% and 628). Malaria was confirmed, by blood smear examination, in only 23.8% of the seropositive cohort. There was a positive correlation between the percentage of P. falciparum-positive blood smears and the level of antibody titre. There was no correlation between serum reactivity and level of parasitaemia. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
A yankee tutor in Gillingham's court.
Subjects were 224 elementary, middle, and high school special education students receiving Gillingham tutorial services during the academic year 1983-1984. The majority of students had received prior service. Some of the students were in semi-self-contained classes (nonmainstreamed for academics). All students were given an individual intelligence test. Pretest and posttest scores (ten school months interval) were obtained in oral and silent reading and in spelling. Younger students commenced tutoring with strengths in oral reading (decoding and comprehension). Progress was made at the rate of more than one-half the expectancy for the nonspecial education student. Students commenced tutoring with approximately one classroom grade deficiency in silent reading comprehension and progressed, too, at the rate of more than one-half the expectancy of nonspecial education students. Spelling showed the greatest deficit at the time tutoring commenced and the least improvement. The same overall pattern but at a lower skill level prevailed with the semi-self-contained students. Parents, administrators, and referring agents recognized the success of the program. The modest cost of the training program has implications for other school systems. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Sunday, 14 June 2015
Singida. At least six people died and 44 others were seriously injured in two different accidents in Singida Region yesterday.
Regional Police Commander Thobias Sedoyeka, said in the first incident, a bus called Nice Line Coach, which was heading to Mwanza from Dar es Salaam was involved in an accident at Manga Village, about 11 kilometres from Singida town.
According to an eye witness who was travelling on the bus, Mr Ron Nairo, the accident occurred at around 8pm.
He claimed that after passing the weighbridge, the driver started driving fast claiming he was trying to reach the town before sunset because he had eye complications. “After leaving the weighbridge the bus was in high speed. I was seated at the back of the driver’s seat,” he said. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Q:
Dagger 2 @Provides can't be apply to static function in Kotlin?
I have the following Java code which works fine
@Module(subcomponents = {MainActivityComponent.class})
abstract public class ActivityBuilder {
@Provides
@Singleton
static Context provideContext(Application application) {
return application;
}
@Binds
@IntoMap
@ClassKey(MainActivity.class)
abstract AndroidInjector.Factory<?> bindMainActivity(MainActivityComponent.Builder builder);
}
When I convert it to Kotlin
@Module(subcomponents = [MainActivityComponent::class])
abstract class ActivityBuilder {
companion object {
@Provides
@Singleton
fun provideContext(application: Application): Context {
return application
}
}
@Binds
@IntoMap
@ClassKey(MainActivity::class)
abstract fun bindMainActivity(builder: MainActivityComponent.Builder): AndroidInjector.Factory<*>
}
I got error stating I can't have my @Provides on the static function.
error: @Provides methods can only be present within a @Module or @ProducerModule
public final android.content.Context provideContext(@org.jetbrains.annotations.NotNull()
^
How could I fix that?
A:
Apparently the below works.
@Module(subcomponents = [MainActivityComponent::class])
abstract class ActivityBuilder {
@Module
companion object {
@JvmStatic
@Provides
@Singleton
fun provideContext(application: Application): Context {
return application
}
}
@Binds
@IntoMap
@ClassKey(MainActivity::class)
abstract fun bindMainActivity(builder: MainActivityComponent.Builder): AndroidInjector.Factory<*>
}
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
# coding=utf-8
r"""
This code was generated by
\ / _ _ _| _ _
| (_)\/(_)(_|\/| |(/_ v1.0.0
/ /
"""
from tests import IntegrationTestCase
from tests.holodeck import Request
from twilio.base.exceptions import TwilioException
from twilio.http.response import Response
class ServiceTestCase(IntegrationTestCase):
def test_list_request(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(500, ''))
with self.assertRaises(TwilioException):
self.client.serverless.v1.services.list()
self.holodeck.assert_has_request(Request(
'get',
'https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services',
))
def test_read_empty_response(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(
200,
'''
{
"services": [],
"meta": {
"first_page_url": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services?PageSize=50&Page=0",
"key": "services",
"next_page_url": null,
"page": 0,
"page_size": 50,
"previous_page_url": null,
"url": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services?PageSize=50&Page=0"
}
}
'''
))
actual = self.client.serverless.v1.services.list()
self.assertIsNotNone(actual)
def test_fetch_request(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(500, ''))
with self.assertRaises(TwilioException):
self.client.serverless.v1.services("ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX").fetch()
self.holodeck.assert_has_request(Request(
'get',
'https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX',
))
def test_fetch_response(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(
200,
'''
{
"sid": "ZS00000000000000000000000000000000",
"account_sid": "ACaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"friendly_name": "test-service",
"unique_name": "test-service-1",
"include_credentials": true,
"ui_editable": false,
"date_created": "2018-11-10T20:00:00Z",
"date_updated": "2018-11-10T20:00:00Z",
"url": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000",
"links": {
"environments": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Environments",
"functions": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Functions",
"assets": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Assets",
"builds": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Builds"
}
}
'''
))
actual = self.client.serverless.v1.services("ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX").fetch()
self.assertIsNotNone(actual)
def test_delete_request(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(500, ''))
with self.assertRaises(TwilioException):
self.client.serverless.v1.services("ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX").delete()
self.holodeck.assert_has_request(Request(
'delete',
'https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX',
))
def test_delete_response(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(
204,
None,
))
actual = self.client.serverless.v1.services("ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX").delete()
self.assertTrue(actual)
def test_create_request(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(500, ''))
with self.assertRaises(TwilioException):
self.client.serverless.v1.services.create(unique_name="unique_name", friendly_name="friendly_name")
values = {'UniqueName': "unique_name", 'FriendlyName': "friendly_name", }
self.holodeck.assert_has_request(Request(
'post',
'https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services',
data=values,
))
def test_create_response(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(
201,
'''
{
"sid": "ZS00000000000000000000000000000000",
"account_sid": "ACaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"friendly_name": "service-friendly",
"unique_name": "service-unique",
"include_credentials": true,
"ui_editable": false,
"date_created": "2018-11-10T20:00:00Z",
"date_updated": "2018-11-10T20:00:00Z",
"url": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000",
"links": {
"environments": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Environments",
"functions": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Functions",
"assets": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Assets",
"builds": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Builds"
}
}
'''
))
actual = self.client.serverless.v1.services.create(unique_name="unique_name", friendly_name="friendly_name")
self.assertIsNotNone(actual)
def test_update_request(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(500, ''))
with self.assertRaises(TwilioException):
self.client.serverless.v1.services("ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX").update()
self.holodeck.assert_has_request(Request(
'post',
'https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX',
))
def test_update_response(self):
self.holodeck.mock(Response(
200,
'''
{
"sid": "ZS00000000000000000000000000000000",
"account_sid": "ACaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa",
"friendly_name": "service-friendly-update",
"unique_name": "service-unique-update",
"include_credentials": true,
"ui_editable": true,
"date_created": "2018-11-10T20:00:00Z",
"date_updated": "2018-11-10T20:00:00Z",
"url": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000",
"links": {
"environments": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Environments",
"functions": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Functions",
"assets": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Assets",
"builds": "https://serverless.twilio.com/v1/Services/ZS00000000000000000000000000000000/Builds"
}
}
'''
))
actual = self.client.serverless.v1.services("ZSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX").update()
self.assertIsNotNone(actual)
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
Ex-Tiger Jack Morris falls short in final year on ballot; Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas voted into Hall of Fame
Jack Morris received 61.5 percent support from the Baseball Writers Association of America, falling 78 votes short of the 75 percent needed for induction.AP File Photo
DETROIT -- Three baseball legends have officially been welcomed into the Baseball Hall of Fame. Former Tigers star Jack Morris isn't one of them.
In his final year on the ballot, Morris was denied entry into baseball's most exclusive club on Wednesday, with voters failing to elect the four-time World Series champion on his 15th appearance.
Only first-ballot nominees Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Frank Thomas were elected to the Class of 2014, as voted on by the Baseball Writers' Association of America. They will be inducted in Cooperstown on July 27, along with former managers Bobby Cox, Joe Torre and Tony La Russa -- elected last month by the expansion committee.
The last time three players in their first year on the ballot were elected was 1999, when Nolan Ryan, George Brett and Robin Yount were each inducted.
Maddux, who was on 555 of the 571 ballots cast, received 97.2 percent of the vote, the eighth highest total in the history of BBWAA balloting.
With the addition of Maddux, Glavine, Thomas and others to this class, it seemed reasonable that Morris' numbers would likely decrease. And they did.
Morris, 58, received just 61.5 percent of the vote, a 6.2 percent drop from the previous year, to finish sixth in voting and fall 78 votes short of induction. To gain admittance, a player must receive at least 75 percent of the vote.
Morris now joins Gil Hodges as the only players to surpass 50 percent in the vote total and ultimately fail to gain admission via the writers' vote.
Morris, the winningest pitcher in the 1980s, will get another chance to be inducted in three years when he will meet with the expansion committee in 2017. Any candidate who earns votes from 75 percent of the 16-member committee will be elected to the Hall.
Morris' teammate of 14 years with the Tigers, Alan Trammell, also saw a dramatic drop in support. He appeared on just 20.8 percent of the ballots cast in his 13th year on the ballot, down from 33.6 percent in 2013. He has two more years of ballot eligibility.
Craig Biggio, the longtime Astros star who finished with 3,060 hits, narrowly missed induction with 74.8 percent of the vote -- falling just two votes short. Biggio tied Nellie Fox in 1985 and Pie Trayor in 1947 for the smallest margin in balloting history.
Former Tigers Hideo Nomo, Luis Gonzalez, Kenny Rogers and Jacque Jones received a combined 13 votes -- all failing to get the necessary 5 percent support to remain on the ballot next year.
Former Tigers closer Todd Jones and first baseman Sean Casey, both first-ballot nominees, didn't appear on any ballots. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
All Pottery Cafes
No Records Found
Google Map Not Loaded
Sorry, unable to load Google Maps API.
Perth has many Pottery Cafes suitable for kids and adults of all ages. They’re also great for birthday parties and winter activities. We’ve compiled a list of our favourite Pottery Cafes which includes pictures and reviews from our local Buggybuddys families.
The Pottery Playroom
The Pottery Playroom is Perth’s only ceramic painting studio and cafe with a FREE soft play area! Plan your next birthday party here or just get creative together on a rainy day.
Mug ‘n’ Brush
Mug ‘n Brush is a café and art space where you can do ceramic painting anytime. Suitable for toddlers to teens, it’s a perfect activity that the whole family can enjoy together. Relax while your little ones get creative or check out the school holiday activities.
Fired! Ceramic Cafe
Fired! Ceramic Cafe is a paint-your-own-pottery studio situated in central Joondalup. It’s a great place to have fun and relax while you paint your own pottery and enjoy a coffee with family and friends. If you have a child that isn’t at the painting stage yet you can pop them into the play pen area that the Café provides.
The Painted Teapot is a new ceramic painting studio on Rokeby Road, Subiaco. Come along to create something special and enjoy making memories with family and friends. Little ones love Teapot Tales – our regular Story & Paint session for pre-schoolers. Details of all special events are on our website. Read more [...]
The Pottery Playroom is Perth’s only ceramic painting studio and cafe with a FREE soft play area (don’t forget your socks)! An ideal venue for children’s birthday parties with painting instruction by a dedicated host. Our NO STUDIO FEE policy ensures fun for everyone! Opening Hours: Open Tuesday – Saturday Read more [...] | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
package com.coremedia.iso.boxes;
import com.googlecode.mp4parser.AbstractBox;
import java.nio.ByteBuffer;
/**
*
*/
public class ItemDataBox extends AbstractBox {
ByteBuffer data = ByteBuffer.allocate(0);
public static final String TYPE = "idat";
public ItemDataBox() {
super(TYPE);
}
public ByteBuffer getData() {
return data;
}
public void setData(ByteBuffer data) {
this.data = data;
}
@Override
protected long getContentSize() {
return data.limit();
}
@Override
public void _parseDetails(ByteBuffer content) {
data = content.slice();
content.position(content.position() + content.remaining());
}
@Override
protected void getContent(ByteBuffer byteBuffer) {
byteBuffer.put(data);
}
}
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
The possibility of developing optoelectronic emitter and detector device structures in a wide spectral range—from the infrared (IR) to ultraviolet (UV)—as well as high-frequency transistors operating at high powers and temperatures, has generated significant interest in group III-nitride compounds (e.g., indium nitride, gallium nitride, and aluminum nitride). These materials are mainly produced as epitaxially deposited films by metalorganic vapor phase epitaxy (MOVPE), which is sometimes referred to as metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD or OMCVD), and molecular beam epitaxy (MBE). When halide compounds are utilized the process may also be referred to as halide vapor transport epitaxy (HVTE) or halide vapor phase epitaxy (HVPE). In MOCVD, a reactive gas flow is transported through a reaction zone (also denoted as a deposition zone), undergoes gas-phase decomposition reactions, reactive products diffuse towards the substrate surface, and surface reactions occur in the deposition zone on the substrate. The reactive precursor fragments become physi-sorbed and/or chemi-sorbed at the growth surface, diffuse, and nucleate at reaction sites, resulting in film growth.
However, indium-rich group III-nitrides and many other compounds, including oxygen-containing alloys, are highly susceptible to thermal decomposition at their optimum kinetic growth temperatures. Indium nitride (InN) is one of the most difficult group III-nitride semiconductor alloys to synthesize, since the equilibrium vapor pressure of nitrogen over InN is much higher compared to nitrogen over aluminum nitride (AlN) and nitrogen over gallium nitride (GaN), which makes it difficult to integrate InN into GaN- or AlN-based device structures. FIG. 1 shows the thermal decomposition pressures for the binary compounds AlN, GaN, and InN as a function of temperature.
The integration of higher concentrations of indium into group III-nitride alloys such as In1-xGaxN is a major challenge using low-pressure deposition techniques such as MBE and MOCVD due to thermodynamic stabilization limitations. Off-equilibrium approaches such as plasma-assisted MBE have been applied to transiently stabilize indium-rich group III-nitride alloys, but these techniques have not solved the fundamental problem of making thermodynamically stable products. For instance, in order to integrate indium-rich In1-xGaxN layers into a wide band gap group III-nitride heterostructure, indium-rich In1-xGaxN layers have to be stabilized at typical MOCVD conditions using temperatures between 800° C. and 1100° C. However, in common low-pressure processes, InN growth temperatures at or below 650° C. are required in order to stabilize the alloy. As the indium-content in In1-xGaxN increases, the growth temperature has to be increased and the group III-V precursor ratio adjusted. Thus, the required adjustment of the growth temperature for various indium fractions limits the quality of the In1-xGaxN layers and/or their integration within the same device structure. Presently, only materials with small amounts of indium (x≥0.75) have been made with considerable quality, while at higher indium mole fractions there seems to be a miscibility gap. F. K. Yam and Z. Hassan, InGaN: An overview of the growth kinetics, physical properties and emission mechanisms, Superlattices and Microstructures 43(1), pp. 1-23 (2008). Accordingly, there is a need for new systems and methods for providing thermodynamically stable alloys incorporating heterolayers with different partial pressures and thermal stabilities such that useful semiconductor materials may be obtained. | {
"pile_set_name": "USPTO Backgrounds"
} |
Hanuman and Shani – The story of why worshipping Hanuman will help in Shani Dosha or Sade Sati
There is a popular belief that worshiping Hindu God Hanuman will help in removing the hardships caused by Shani Bhagavan or Saturn. People worship Hanuman on Saturdays to remove the malefic influence of Sani in their horoscope. As per Hindu Astrology, bad positioning of Shani results in a difficult period in life. There is an interesting story regarding why worshipping Hanuman will help in overcoming Shani Dosha or Sade Sati.
Ravan, the demon-king in Ramayana, had defeated all the Devas and had brought all the grahas (planets in astrology) under control. He kept all the grahas (planets) suppressed beneath his leg. Ravana was also a great astrologer. When his eldest son, Indrajit, was about to be born he forcefully kept all the grahas in the most favorable astrological position.
The Demigods (Devas) were worried that if Ravana’s son was born in a favorable astrological position, he will be invincible. So the Devas asked all the grahas (planets) to move from the favorable position. But they told they were unable to escape from the foot of Ravana.
Shani agreed to help provided he was able to glance upon Ravana’s face.
There is a popular belief that Shani Drishti, or Shani’s glance, is as deadly as his position. Shani is believed to cast an evil eye and this causes deep trouble.
The Devas took the help of Saint Narada to achieve Shani Drishti.
Saint Narada reached the palace of Ravana and saw Shani and other planets under the feet of Ravana. Saint Narada praised Ravana’s victory over the grahas and said that he should stamp on their chest and this is true symbol of victory and not on their back as he is doing now.
Ravana agreed to Narada’s observation and immediately got the planets turned up. As Shani turned up, his glance fell on Ravana’s face and this kick-started his hardships.
To take revenge on Shani, Ravana kept him in a tiny prison that had no opening so that no one will again see Shani’s face.
After several years, when Hanuman arrived in Lanka – Ravan’s kingdom – as a messenger from Sri Ram to Mata Sita, He heard the cry of Shani from a dark prison with no holes. Hanuman broke open the prison and rescued Shani.
Shani said that he is very thankful for helping him but as he has looked at the face of Hanuman there will be hardships of Sade Sati or Shani Dosha for Hanuman. It is the divine scheme of things and no one can escape from it.
Hanuman wanted to know what sufferings he will have to face. Shani explained that first I will come upon on your head and this will make you leave your home, wife and sons and go about suffering.
Hanuman said that Shani can definitely come upon his head as he has no family and his abode is at the feet of Ram.
Shani took refuge on Hanuman’s head. Hanuman then began to fight the demons that chased him in Lanka. In the process Hanuman began to head heavy boulders, trees and rocks. He crushed huge rocks with his head and Shani was getting hurt and suffering in the process.
Finally, Shani got away from Hanuman’s head and said that you are the only one who will have no effect of inauspiciousness. I cannot trouble you. Since you have saved me from Ravana’s prison I would like to give you a boon.
As boon, Hanuman asked Shani not to trouble or cast evil eye on his devotees. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Elevation of circulating immune complexes and its relationship to alpha-fetoprotein levels in patients with hepatitis B surface antigen-positive hepatocellular carcinoma.
In an attempt to evaluate the relationship between circulating immune complexes (CIC) and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), CIC and AFP were detected in 93 hepatitis B surface antigen-positive (HBsAg+) patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 54 healthy controls. The median level of 3% PEG (polyethylene glycol)-CIC and Clq-CIC were higher in patients than in controls (p less than 0.001). In patients with HCC, the prevalence of elevated 3% PEG-CIC, Clq-CIC, and AFT was 27.9%, 55.9%, and 77.4%, respectively. There was association between AFP and 3% PEG-CIC positivity (p less than 0.01). The median level of 3% PEG-CIC and Clq-CIC increased as AFP levels elevated (p less than 0.05), but decreased as AFP exceeded 1599 ng/ml (p less than 0.05). For adjusting the effect of impaired liver function on the level of CIC, multivariate analysis with stepwise logistic regression revealed that 3% PEG-CIC was associated, in a dose-related fashion, with an increased risk for developing HCC (odds ratio = 1.003, p less than 0.001). These results imply that elevation of 3% PEG-CIC may be related to tumor mass. Additionally, 3% PEG-CIC is a useful marker to monitor therapy with transcatheter arterial embolization in patients with HBsAg+ HCC. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Sherry Bryant
Fashion Buyer/Merchandising
Location: Spring TX
I am currently looking for an Fashion Buyer/Merchandising intern position for the summer of 2013. I would welcome the opportunity to speak with you in person about my career possibilities. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Sherry Bryant | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Home Accessories
Often overlooked, home accessories are the finishing flourish to a room and are what turn your house into a home; putting your seal of approval on your finished interior design. Home accessories need not be expensive, a vase of fresh flowers picked from the garden, a candle in a contrasting shade or a lantern or candle holder in an interesting shape.
We have a growing selection of home accessories, from throws to table accents, candles, candleholders and lanterns and all at realistic, affordable prices..... | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Q:
Java LibGDX Update and Draw Methods
People usually write "draw(SpriteBatch batch)" and "update(float deltaTime)" methods in their player classes. Why don't they just write "render(SpriteBatch batch, float deltaTime)"? Because of readability? I mean, why they make two methods? They can do in single method.
A:
Readability and ease of updating/changing is one reason.
But there are also logistical reasons. You want to be sure your whole game state is fully up to date before you start drawing, so whatever is on screen is as up-to-date as possible. If you put updating and rendering into one method for each object, then objects that are updated and drawn first might look out of date compared to objects that are updated later and affect the state of the earlier objects. But if updating and drawing are separated, you can update the entire game and then draw the entire game.
And if your game uses physics, the separation of updating and drawing allows you to update your world at a fixed timestep (at a different rate as the drawing) to ensure the game play is not affected by frame rate.
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
Snapphanar (miniseries)
Snapphanar is a Swedish miniseries directed by Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein that aired in three parts on Sveriges Television during Christmas 2006. It is a historical drama about the Snapphane peasant rebel movement that fought against the Swedish rule of Scania in the 17th century. The "Snapphanar" was a rebellion of those people, who fought secretly for Denmark during 1660-1700.
The miniseries was criticised by historians due to a perceived lack of historical accuracy. The Scanian nationalist attitudes portrayed in the series did not exist in the 17th century, and the term snapphane, which is used for self-identification in the series, was in fact a derogatory term used by Swedes.
Cast
André Sjöberg - Nils Getting
Tuva Novotny - Hedvig Sparre
Anders Ekborg - Gabriel Lejonhufvud (Leonsson)
Gustaf Skarsgård - Karl XI (Charles XI of Sweden)
Malin Morgan - Svart-Stina (Black Stina)
Peter Andersson - Överste (colonel) Dahlbergh
Kim Bodnia - Mogens Laumann
Jörgen Persson - Räddstor
Samuel Hellström - Joshua Swartz
Adam Lundgren - David Swartz
Dag Malmberg - Anders Sparre
Harald Leander - Olof Getting
Jonas Karlström - Jakob Getting
Niklas Engdahl - Scarred man
Jonas Sjöqvist - Rosencrantz
External links
Category:Films directed by Måns Mårlind
Category:Films directed by Björn Stein
Category:Sveriges Television programmes
Category:Swedish television miniseries | {
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
} |
Examination of host genome for the presence of integrated fragments of Solenopsis invicta virus 1.
A series of oligonucleotide primer pairs covering the entire genome of Solenopsis invicta virus 1 (SINV-1) were used to probe the genome of its host, S. invicta, for integrated fragments of the viral genome. All of the oligonucleotide primer sets yielded amplicons of anticipated size from cDNA created from an RNA template from SINV-1. However, no corresponding amplification was observed when genomic DNA (from 32 colonies of S. invicta) was used as template for the PCR amplifications. Host DNA integrity was verified by amplification of an ant-specific gene, SiGSTS1. The representation of fire ant colonies included both social forms, monogyne and polygyne, and those infected and uninfected with SINV-1. Furthermore, no amplification was observed from genomic DNA from ant samples collected from Argentina or the US. Thus, it appears that SINV-1 genome integration, or a portion therein, has not likely occurred within the S. invicta host genome. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Tumor-Targeted Drug and CpG Delivery System for Phototherapy and Docetaxel-Enhanced Immunotherapy with Polarization toward M1-Type Macrophages on Triple Negative Breast Cancers.
Cancer immunotherapy has achieved promising clinical responses in recent years owing to the potential of controlling metastatic disease. However, there is a limited research to prove the superior therapeutic efficacy of immunotherapy on breast cancer compared with melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer because of its limited expression of PD-L1, low infiltration of cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTLs), and high level of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs). Herein, a multifunctional nanoplatform (FA-CuS/DTX@PEI-PpIX-CpG nanocomposites, denoted as FA-CD@PP-CpG) for synergistic phototherapy (photodynamic therapy (PDT), photothermal therapy (PTT) included) and docetaxel (DTX)-enhanced immunotherapy is successfully developed. The nanocomposites exhibit excellent PDT efficacy and photothermal conversion capability under 650 and 808 nm irradiation, respectively. More significantly, FA-CD@PP-CpG with no obvious side effects can remarkably inhibit the tumor growth in vivo based on a 4T1-tumor-bearing mice modal. A low dosage of loaded DTX in FA-CD@PP-CpG can promote infiltration of CTLs to improve efficacy of anti-PD-L1 antibody (aPD-L1), suppress MDSCs, and effectively polarize MDSCs toward M1 phenotype to reduce tumor burden, further to enhance the antitumor efficacy. Taken together, FA-CD@PP-CpG nanocomposites offer an efficient synergistic therapeutic modality in docetaxel-enhanced immunotherapy for clinical application of breast cancer. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
1. Introduction {#sec1-molecules-15-01690}
===============
West Nile virus (WNV) is a positive sense, single-stranded RNA virus and a member of the genus flaviviruses, Family *Flaviviridae*. In nature, birds are the sylvatic reservoir for WNV in an endemic cycle with the primary vector, the mosquito. The virus is wide spread in Africa, the Middle east and Russia \[[@B1-molecules-15-01690]\], and since the 1999 outbreak in New York \[[@B2-molecules-15-01690],[@B3-molecules-15-01690]\], WNV has spread from east to west in most states in North America \[[@B4-molecules-15-01690]\]. Transmission of the virus to humans via mosquitoes can cause significant health problems such as West Nile fever and a neuroinvasive disease \[[@B5-molecules-15-01690],[@B6-molecules-15-01690],[@B7-molecules-15-01690]\]. Unfortunately, no antivirals or vaccines are currently available, and therefore efficient and safe antivirals are urgently needed.
The 11 Kb genome of WNV has a single, open reading frame, which is translated into one polypeptide (in the order:C-prM-E-NS1-NS2A-NS2B-NS3-NS4A-NS4B-NS5 \[[@B8-molecules-15-01690]\]) and processed into 3 structural and 7 non-structural proteins. The viral NS3 protease mediates post-translational modification of the polyprotein \[[@B9-molecules-15-01690],[@B10-molecules-15-01690]\] in the cytoplasm and by host proteases in the endoplasmic reticulum. WNV replicates in various types of cells in tissue culture, including Vero E6 \[[@B11-molecules-15-01690]\], BHK, and insect cell lines. During replication, host cells may show a cytopathic effect (CPE) from apoptosis \[[@B12-molecules-15-01690]\]. WNV infection can induce apoptosis in several different cell lines, including, insect cells and mammalian cells, possibly through the *bax* gene \[[@B13-molecules-15-01690]\].
Development of assays and high throughput (HT) screening platforms for WNV has followed a path similar to a number of other viruses with a focus on cell-based replicon reporter assays and biochemical assays. WNV replicons have been created which harbor luciferase or GFP alone \[[@B14-molecules-15-01690]\] or replicons with luciferase and Neo^r^ reporters \[[@B15-molecules-15-01690]\]. The replicons were adapted to a 96-well format, and the assay was validated with known inhibitors of WNV \[[@B16-molecules-15-01690],[@B17-molecules-15-01690]\]. The first HT screen of WNV consisted of diverse set of 200 compounds in which triaryl pyrazoline was identified as an inhibitor of viral RNA synthesis \[[@B17-molecules-15-01690]\]. In another study, a small library of 108 compound pyrolizines were identified which may inhibit RNA synthesis \[[@B18-molecules-15-01690]\]. In 2006, Gu *et al.*, published a screen of a library of over 35,000 small molecule compounds with the WNV replicon with the luciferase and Neo^r^ reporters \[[@B16-molecules-15-01690],[@B19-molecules-15-01690]\]. They also developed a counterscreen in a 96-well format with live virus which was employed to screen 23 compounds. From these screens, several candidate compounds were identified with one class, a pyrazolopyrimidine, showing promising activity and selectivity as well as promise for follow-up chemistry.
We have developed a cell based assay using WNV (NY-99 strain) in 384-well format that builds from our prior success with live viral HT screens for the influenza virus and SARS CoV \[[@B20-molecules-15-01690],[@B21-molecules-15-01690]\]. The assay employed cell viability as the end point, using Promega's CellTiter-Glo®, which produces a luminescent signal in relation to the quantity of ATP in host cells (directly related to cell viability). In contrast to dye formation or dye-uptake methods, which have a low dynamic range, the CellTiter-Glo® assay shows a higher dynamic range with less background. We implemented the WNV assay in the 384-well format in a screen of 13,001 compounds. A diverse group of small molecules targeting various specific steps in virus replication was discovered in the screening campaign.
2. Results and Discussion {#sec2-molecules-15-01690}
=========================
2.1. Assay optimization and implementation of live WNV for HTS {#sec2dot1-molecules-15-01690}
--------------------------------------------------------------
To optimize the assay for robust and reproducible HTS data, we explored the assay media, number of cells per well, multiplicity of infection (MOI) and incubation time post-infection. We tested complete DMEM, MEM-E with or without non-essential amino acids (NEAA) and MEM-E with reduced NaHCO~3~ (1.3 g/L) \[[@B17-molecules-15-01690]\]. We did not find a significant difference among the three MEM-E based media with regard to luminescence (data not shown). However, cytopathic effect (CPE) was more evident in cells grown and infected with WNV in MEM-E than in DMEM. The signal from the virus control with DMEM showed a higher luminescence signal than that with MEM-E while the luminescence from cell controls was identical ([Figure 1](#molecules-15-01690-f001){ref-type="fig"}A). The MEM-E media also shortened the assay incubation period by two days compared to DMEM media and hence was chosen for the HTS.
We tested the MOI from 1.0 to 0.01 in 384-well plates. We did not witness a significant difference in cell viability between different MOIs ([Figure 1](#molecules-15-01690-f001){ref-type="fig"}B). The Z′ value was \>0.6 at any MOI tested confirming the development of a very robust assay. The efficacy of the positive control compound, mycophenolic acid (MPA), varied depending on infectious dose. At MOI 0.04, MPA showed 30% protection without decreasing Z′ value. Based on these findings we have developed optimized conditions as described in Materials and Methods.
{#molecules-15-01690-f001}
2.2. Single dose HTS results {#sec2dot2-molecules-15-01690}
----------------------------
A primary screen of a 13,001 compound library at a 10 μM final concentration was conducted using the 384-well format. Z′ values ranged from 0.54--0.83 with a median of 0.74. Average S/B was 17 and S/N for each plate ranged from 10.8 to 23.9 with a mean of 16.94 and standard deviation of 2.95 ([Figure 2](#molecules-15-01690-f002){ref-type="fig"}A and [Figure 2](#molecules-15-01690-f002){ref-type="fig"}B). These statistical values indicate that the assay provided high quality and the required robustness and reproducibility of an HTS assay. In this assay the overall average inhibitions were 0.7% with a standard deviation of 4.184% and the control drug MPA showed 44.6% inhibition on average. The percent inhibition cutoff was 13.25% that represents the viral mean + three standard deviations, a common method of statistically defining hits in a single dose screen. Using this cutoff method, 13.25%, 92 compounds were identified as active WNV inhibitors ([Figure 2](#molecules-15-01690-f002){ref-type="fig"}C).
{#molecules-15-01690-f002}
2.3. Dose response assay {#sec2dot3-molecules-15-01690}
------------------------
To confirm the activity and to test the cytotoxicity, the top 110 inhibitory compounds were evaluated in a dose response assay using the identical screen. The secondary assay revealed 24 compounds with a dose dependent response and fifteen of those compounds showed EC~50~ values less than 30 μM. Three compounds, however, were cytotoxic with low CC~50~ values ranging from 16.21 to 36.75 μM. Remaining 21 compounds gave CC~50~ values greater than 50 μM ([Table 1](#molecules-15-01690-t001){ref-type="table"}). Ten compounds showed an SI~50~ (Selectivity Index 50, ratio of CC~50~ to EC~50~) \>5 and these were evaluated further ([Table 1](#molecules-15-01690-t001){ref-type="table"}).
molecules-15-01690-t001_Table 1
######
Twenty-four compounds selected from the primary and dose response screening.
Supplier ID EC~50~ CC~50~ SI~50~
----------------- -------- -------- --------
SRI-2176 1.9 16.21 8.53
SRI-10806 6.15 36.75 5.98
SRI-22003 12.18 \>100 \>8.2
SRI-11928 12.83 23.39 1.82
SRI-795809 13.88 \>100 \>7.2
SRI-1001309 16.94 \>100 \>5.9
SRI-16635 18.4 \>100 \>5.4
SRI-16537 18.64 \>100 \>5.4
SMR000370276 18.9 \>100 \>5.3
SRI-1665808 19.58 \>100 \>5.1
SMR000394098 \* 19.6 \>100 \>5.1
SMR000059052 \* 20.01 \>100 \>5.0
SRI-12784 22.91 \>100 \>4.4
SRI-12896 23.43 \>100 \>4.3
SMR000027739 \* 29.58 \>100 \>3.4
SMR000171908 30.35 \>100 \>3.3
SRI-4578 \* 30.39 \>100 \>3.3
SRI-2967 34.11 \>100 \>2.9
SRI-18457 34.22 \>100 \>2.9
SRI-6050 37.34 60.02 1.61
SRI-19093 40.96 \>100 \>2.4
SRI-6488 41.99 \>100 \>2.4
SRI-1055 51.58 \>100 \>1.9
SRI-13037 58.68 \>100 \>1.7
\* Compounds were not available at the time of re-supplying from the suppliers.
2.4. Time of addition assay {#sec2dot4-molecules-15-01690}
---------------------------
The compounds selected by the primary and dose response screening were re-supplied from the suppliers as a solid form except 4 compounds; SMR000394098, SMR000059052, SMR000027739 and SRI-4578, which were not available at that time ([Table 1](#molecules-15-01690-t001){ref-type="table"}). Time of addition assays were conducted in a dose response format with the 20 compounds. Serially diluted compounds were added to Vero E6 cells at -1, 4, 8 and 18 h post-infection. Luminescent data was calculated (as above) to obtain EC~50~ values for each compound at each time point of addition. Seventeen compounds showed EC~50~ values less than 30 μM and 5 compounds were not active.
Interestingly, some compounds showed no significant change in EC~50~ over the time of addition ([Figure 3](#molecules-15-01690-f003){ref-type="fig"}A). A similar pattern was seen with the positive control (MPA). The EC~50~ of MPA was within a range of 2.0\~5.0 μM regardless of when it was added. In contrast, other compounds showed a dramatic change in EC~50~ according to the time of addition ([Figure 3](#molecules-15-01690-f003){ref-type="fig"}B). SRI-19093 showed a minor change (3.2 to 6.4 μM) in EC~50~, and the remaining six compounds in this category showed an EC~50~ value of over 60 μM when the compounds were added 18 h post-infection. The EC~50~ values of the compounds in this class were less than 25 μM when the compounds were delivered prior to 8 h post-infection. We classified the compounds according to the pattern of change in the values of the EC~50~ as shown in [Table 2](#molecules-15-01690-t002){ref-type="table"} and [Figure 3](#molecules-15-01690-f003){ref-type="fig"}.
{#molecules-15-01690-f003}
molecules-15-01690-t002_Table 2
######
The pattern of EC~50~ change depending on the time of addition.
EC~50~ change pattern Example
------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Change : EC50~1hr~ ≈ EC50~4hr~ ≈ EC50~8hr~ ≈ EC50~18hr~ MPA, SRI-12784
Increase: EC50~1hr~ ≈ EC50~4hr~ ≤ EC50~8hr~ \< EC50~18hr~ SRI-1665808, SRI-795809, SRI-1001309, SRI-22003, SMR00171908, SMR000370276
EC50~Xhr~ represents the EC~50~ value of the compound when it is administrated at X h post-infection. See [Figure 3](#molecules-15-01690-f003){ref-type="fig"}.
2.5. WNV NS2b-NS3pro assay {#sec2dot5-molecules-15-01690}
--------------------------
The results from the time of addition assay led us to examine the NS3 protease as a potential target of the hit compounds. NS3 protease is an important enzyme responsible for the maturation of viral proteins at early stage during the replication of virus in the host cells. We tested the compounds for an inhibitory activity on NS3 protease using a FRET based, *in vitro*, enzymatic assay. As a result, we identified SRI-19093 with an inhibitory effect on the protease and with IC~50~ of 0.42 μM, suggesting the molecular target of these two compounds may be the NS3pro of WNV ([Figure 4](#molecules-15-01690-f004){ref-type="fig"}). We also tested N-phenylanthranilic acid for NS3pro inhibitory activity as this moiety was common for two compounds, SRI-19093 and SMR000171908, but we could not detect any significant activity in this system (data not shown).
{#molecules-15-01690-f004}
2.6. Titer reduction assay {#sec2dot6-molecules-15-01690}
--------------------------
Finally, we employed a titer reduction assay to confirm the antiviral activity of the seven compounds confirmed in the assays. The titer of the progeny virus produced in the presence of the compounds was measured in TCID~50~ format. Infection of Vero E6 cells using a 0.1 MOI resulted in around 3.3 × 10^9^ TCID~50~/mL in two days post-infection. Treatment of infected cells with the compounds decreased the progeny titer up to 100 fold ([Figure 5](#molecules-15-01690-f005){ref-type="fig"}). For example, SMR000370276 and SRI-22003 showed 98.8% inhibition followed by SRI-19093 and SRI-1665808 at 93.7 and 90.4% inhibition, respectively, at 15 μM concentration. SRI-19093 was most potent in this assay with EC~90~ of 2.14 μM and SRI-7968 was least active with EC~90~ of 26.16 μM. The positive control drug, MPA, worked extremely well as a potent inhibitor with an EC~90~ of 0.94 μM in this assay. The titer reduction assay confirmed the antiviral activity of the hit compounds selected through our pathway ([Figure 6](#molecules-15-01690-f006){ref-type="fig"}).
{#molecules-15-01690-f005}
{#molecules-15-01690-f006}
molecules-15-01690-t003_Table 3
######
Structures and Inhibitory Activities of Selected Compounds.
Compound I.D. Structure Dose response in CPE based Dose response in Titer reduction SI~50~ \* NS2B-NS3pro EC~50~ change pattern over the course of infection
------------------------------ ---------------------------------- ---------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------- ------------- ---------------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------
**SRI-22003**  12.18 \>30 4.70 5.13 \>6 Not active Increase
**SRI-795809** Structure not disclosed 13.88 \>30 1.14 26.16 \>30 Not active Increase
**SRI-1001309** Structure not disclosed 16.94 \>30 5.46 16.69 \>6 Not active Increase
**SMR000370276**  18.9 \>30 No solution 6.07 \>5 Not active Increase
**SRI-1665808** Structure not disclosed 19.58 \>30 1.29 7.22 \>30 Not active Increase
**SMR000171908**  30.35 \>30 1.16 6.73 \>25 Not active Increase
**SRI-19093**  40.96 \>30 0.13 2.14 \>200 0.44 Increase
**MPA**  \>30 0.03 0.94 \>1000 Not active no change
**N-Phenylanthranilic acid**  **NT** NT NT **NT** NT \>50 not active
2.7. Discussion {#sec2dot7-molecules-15-01690}
---------------
Herein we report the discovery of several new chemotypes from an HT screen of a 13,001 compound library that inhibit WNV replication ([Table 3](#molecules-15-01690-t003){ref-type="table"}). The endpoint we developed and employed in the HT screen was CPE caused by viral replication, which has advantages over other target based HTS. A CPE based antiviral screen is expected to elucidate a wider range of antiviral compounds than other target based assays. A CPE based assay is likely to discover cytotoxic compounds since the cytotoxic compounds will decrease the endpoint signal and are read as inactive. This has an advantage over reporter-based assays in that they can read false positives. In fact, we found only 14 compounds with CC~50~ less than 30 μM among 110 compounds subjected to the dose response assay. The pathway for probe discovery is depicted in Figure 7. The top 110 compounds, based on their inhibitory activities were examined by a dose response and cytotoxicity assay. Twenty-four compounds showing a dose response inhibition were further evaluated in a time of addition assay and in a titer reduction assay. Finally, seven compounds are presented as anti-WNV probes. Hit rate for the secondary assay and the final confirmation were 0.185% (24 compounds out of 13,001 compounds) and 0.053% (7 out of 13,001 compounds) respectively.
We categorized the 7 compounds into 3 chemical groups based on their chemical structures ([Table 3](#molecules-15-01690-t003){ref-type="table"}). The first group are uridine derivatives; SRI-795809, SRI-1665808 and SRI-1001309 (full chemical structure not disclosed). Similar compounds have been known for WNV antiviral activity \[[@B22-molecules-15-01690]\]. The second group is composed of SRI-19093 (Redoxal) and SMR000171908. SRI-19093 was also active against flaviviruses with inhibitory activity on dihydroorotate dehydrogense \[[@B23-molecules-15-01690]\]. The third group of compounds, SRI-22003 and SMR000370276, are new chemotypes with anti-flavivirus activity. SMR000370276 has shown activity in other HTS assays, such as anti-TNF-α-specific NF-kB induction and NOD1 and 2 inhibition assays (AID: 1852, 1578 and 1566 <http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/>). All seven compounds screened in the time of addition experiment were confirmed to have anti-WNV activity based on the titer reduction assay and EC~90~ values between 2.14\~26.16 μM. This suggests that HTS and following assays are an effective method for probe discovery and evaluation. None of the compounds showed anti-WNV activity as good as the positive control drug, MPA, however, the mechanism of MPA is not specific to the virus making the probes we identified of significant interest.
Our time of addition analysis showed interesting patterns in the value of EC~50~. These studies suggest possible targets for each compound. We showed that there are two types of patterns in EC~50~ that change according to the time of addition; 1) compounds with minimal change in EC~50~, and 2) the compounds with an increased EC~50~ MPA reflected the first pattern and nucleoside derivatives, SRI-1001309 and SRI-795809 produced the second pattern. This suggests that compounds that do not have a change in their EC~50~ may target the host while those that change, target the virus.
We identified one compound, SRI-19093, that inhibited viral protease in vitro and time of addition studies. These results suggest it might target the viral protease NS2B-NS3pro. SRI-19093 exhibited low activity in the primary, dose response (EC~50~ of 41 μM), and time of addition assays.
3. Experimental {#sec3-molecules-15-01690}
===============
3.1. Cells and Virus {#sec3dot1-molecules-15-01690}
--------------------
All work with WNV was performed at BSL-3 following CDC guidelines. Vero E6 cells (ATCC CRL 1586) were maintained in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (DMEM) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS) and 2 mM L-glutamine. WNV strain NY-99 was used for the assays and was propagated in a complete Minimum Essential Medium Eagle (MEM-E) media obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, USA), supplemented with 10% FBS, 100 units/mL penicillin, 100 μG/mL streptomycin and 2 mM L-glutamine. The virus stock was divided into 1 mL aliquots and stored at -80 °C.
3.2. Viral Assay {#sec3dot2-molecules-15-01690}
----------------
Virus plaque forming units were measured using an agar overlay method described previously \[[@B17-molecules-15-01690]\] with minor modifications.
3.3. Compound Library Composition and Plating {#sec3dot3-molecules-15-01690}
---------------------------------------------
For primary HT screening, two compound sets were used for a total of 13,001 compounds: the Southern Research Institute (SRI) proprietary compound library composed of 12,343 compounds and a selection of 658 compounds from the National Institutes of Health Molecular Libraries Screening Network library of 200,000 compound that were active in a previous screen against Bluetongue virus (<http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/assay/-assay.cgi?aid=1251&loc=ea_ras/>). The SRI proprietary library consists of the historical, unique compounds designed and synthesized at SRI over many years as potential drug candidates. The members of this collection have high biological relevance, particularly to cancer and infectious disease. Major classes of compounds that are represented in this collection include nucleosides, purines, pyrimidines, pteridines, imidazoles, pyridines, quinolines, triazines, disaccharides, guanidines, ureas and carbamates.
The stock concentrations of both compound sets were 10 mM in 100% DMSO. In the single dose primary screen, the stock compounds were diluted 1:100 in a 10× solution using the Biomek FX giving a 100 μM working concentration in 1% DMSO. A 3 μL aliquot of the working concentration plus an additional 2 μL of assay media was transferred into each well. Control stocks were prepared in assay media at a 6 fold higher than the target concentration: 0.6% DMSO for cell and viral control and 30 μg/mL mycophenolic acid (MPA) at 0.6% DMSO for positive control. MPA was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Co. (St. Louis, USA) and solubilized in 100% DMSO to a 5 mg/mL stock concentration. Controls were added separately to the assay plate in 5 μL aliquots via the Biomek FX. With the addition of 20 μL of cells and 5 μL of virus, the final test concentration for the compounds was 10 μM and for MPA was 5 μg/mL. The final DMSO was 0.1%, which is well below the 0.5% maximum allowable for this assay.
After reviewing the data from the primary screen, 110 compounds were selected for a dose-response study. The same compound stocks (10 mM in 100% DMSO) were used to select 7 μL of the compounds into a low-volume, 384-well plate. The dose response plates were prepared using a "stacked-plate" format using a 1:2 dilution series for a total of ten concentrations. By using this format, each entire plate represents one of the ten concentrations in the dilution series. A 5 μL aliquot of each of the serial dilution plates was transferred to the assay plates along with an equal volume but separate transfer of controls. With the addition of 20 μL of cells and 5 μL of virus, the final test concentrations for the dose response screen were 30 μM, 15 μM, 7.5 μM, 3.75 μM, 1.875 μM, 0.9375 μM, 0.4688 μM, 0.2344 μM, 0.1172 μM, and 0.0586 μM all at 0.3% DMSO.
3.4. High-Throughput Screen {#sec3dot4-molecules-15-01690}
---------------------------
Vero E6 cells were suspended in complete MEM-E at 400,000 cells/mL and dispensed at 15 μL into black, clear-bottom, tissue culture treated, 384-well plates (6,000 cells/well) using a Matrix WellMate® (Matrix, ThermoFisher). The plated cells were maintained overnight at 37 °C with 5% CO~2~ in an actively humidified incubator. Test compounds were then transferred at 5 μL per well for a final DMSO concentration of 0.1% (see above). Each plate consisted of 32 wells representing the Cell control, 24 wells for Virus control, 8 wells for positive control (MPA), and 320 wells for testing individual compounds. Cell plates were transferred into the BSL3 and infected by addition of 10 μL of WNV suspension at 2.4 × 10^4^ pfu/mL in complete MEM-E using a Matrix WellMate®. Plates were incubated for 96 h at 37 °C and 5% CO~2~ to promote virus replication. 30 μL of CellTiter-Glo® (Promega, Madison, WI) was added to each well using a Matrix WellMate and incubated at room temperature for 30 min. Luminescence was measured using a Perkin Elmer Envision plate reader (Wellesley, MA) with an integration time of 0.1 s.
3.5. Antiviral Efficacy and Cytotoxicity in Dose-Response and Time of Addition Assays {#sec3dot5-molecules-15-01690}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cytotoxicity and antiviral efficacy were performed in a dose-response format in parallel. Compounds were serially diluted in complete media (MEM-E) with a 0.5% DMSO final concentration and adding 5 μL to cell plates, identical to the stacked plate method \[[@B21-molecules-15-01690]\]. A ten point, two-fold dilution series of compound concentrations ranging from 30 μM to 0.059 μM were used in the assay. Virus (0.04 MOI) or media was added for antiviral effect or cytotoxicity respectively. The plates were incubated 96 h in a 5% CO~2~ incubator at 37 °C. Cell viability was measured as stated above. The serially diluted compounds were also used for time of addition studies adding to the infected cells in 384-well plates at -1, 4, 8 and18 h post-infection with WNV (0.02 MOI). The plates were then developed as above 96 h after infection. The EC~50~ value was calculated for each time of addition point.
3.6. Statistics and Data Analysis {#sec3dot6-molecules-15-01690}
---------------------------------
The Z′ value was employed to evaluate the assay's robustness and was calculated from 1-(3×standard deviation of cell control (σ~c~) + 3\* standard deviation of the virus control (σ~v~)/ \[mean cell control signal (μ~c~) minus mean virus control signal (μ~v~)\]). The signal/background (S/B) was calculated from the mean cell control signal (μ~c~) divided by the mean virus control signal (μ~v~). The signal/noise (S/N) was calculated from mean cell control signal (μ~c~) minus mean virus control signal (μ~v~) divided by the (standard deviation of the cell control signal (σ~c~)^2^ minus the standard deviation of the virus control signal (σ~v~)^2^)^1/2^ \[[@B24-molecules-15-01690]\]. The effective concentration at which the drug inhibited cell death at 50% in the presence of virus (EC~50~) and the cytotoxicity of the drug alone at 50% (CC~50~) were calculated using ActivityBase software (IDBS, Inc, Guildford, UK). CPE inhibition (%) and cell viability were calculated as described in elsewhere \[[@B25-molecules-15-01690]\]. The standard curve analysis function in SigmaPlot™ was used to calculate the inhibitory concentration (IC~50~ and IC~50~ values) for the protease and titer reduction assays.
3.7. WNV NS2b-NS3pro Assay {#sec3dot7-molecules-15-01690}
--------------------------
A recombinant NS3 protease expressed and purified from *E.coli* with the cofactor NS2b (residues 49-96) and a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET) based assay kit were purchased from AnaSpec Inc (CA, USA). We followed an assay protocol published on line at PubChem by University of Pittsburgh Molecular Library Screening Center (<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/>, AID:577). The assay was performed in a 384-well format with 10 ng/well of NS2b-NS3pro enzyme.
3.8. Titer Reduction Assay {#sec3dot8-molecules-15-01690}
--------------------------
Compounds that showed specific inhibitory effects on virus replication steps were further validated for their efficacy using a TCID~50~ reduction assay. Vero E6 cells were seeded in a 12-well plate in a volume of 1 mL and incubated overnight at 37 °C and 5% CO~2~. The next day media was aspirated from the cells and they were infected by adsorption of WNV (0.1 MOI) for one hour in 100 μL media. After aspirating the virus and washing the cells with phosphate buffered saline, media was replenished containing compounds at various concentrations. The plates were incubated for 48 h. Progeny virus titer was measured by TCID~50~ assay in 384-well plate format with 6 wells per dilution of virus. CellTiter-Glo® reagent was employed to determine a cell death which is a sign of infection. A well with a luminescence signal less than the mean of the non-infected control signal, minus 5 times the standard deviation of the control, was regarded as a positive infection. The TCID~50~ was calculated with the numbers of positive infection and negative infection by the Reed-Muench method \[[@B26-molecules-15-01690]\].
4. Conclusion {#sec4-molecules-15-01690}
=============
In summary, we report our approaches in the development and use of an HT screen to discover specific and effective anti-WNV probes. As a result of HTS and secondary assays, we have identified 7 compounds as specific and effective anti-WNV probes. Further optimization of these compounds is needed to develop effective antiviral treatment for WNV infection. In addition, the compounds we have identified should serve as novel molecular probes to help us understand the biology of WNV. Future studies will focus on how these compounds target virus replication and the mechanism of action. In conclusion, identification of previously known and novel moieties from a screening library is proof that the WNV assay is an effective HT screen.
This work was supported by Southern Research Institute SIP program and NIH MLPCN grant number 1-U54HG005034-01 (PI C.B.J.). We thank to Anna Manouvakhova for data handling.
*Sample Availability:* Samples of the compounds are available from the authors.
| {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Central"
} |
Q:
Filtering Arrays/Vectors in Matlab
I have two arrays in Matlab
say
A = [1 4 89 2 67 247 2]
B = [0 1 1 1 0 0 1]
I want an array C, which contains elements from array A, if there is 1 in B at the corresponding index. In this case, C = [4 89 2 2].
How to do this?
A:
Use logical indexing:
>> C = A(logical(B))
C =
4 89 2 2
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
• Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 - Para 76(b) - Complaint by appellant under trial court convicted the respondent - Acquittal in appeal - Appeal against acquittal - Whether the order of acquittal is sustainable - Difference between the sections 14(1) and 14(2) para 76(b) of the scheme - Explained. Held that the judgment of the appellate court is redundant and the order of the trial court is restored.
• When E.P.F. & M.P. Act applied to school, the school - Contributed only 6.25% of total pay whereas earlier it was contributing 8.33% - Whether this reduction of rate would amount to reduction in the quantum of total benefits which were being paid to petitioners? No.
• 'Whether section 5 of the Act which authorizes the Central Government to frame the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, is ultra vires, the Act or not and also violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India? Held No.
• Workers and Cinema Theatres Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 - Liability of employer to pay contribution - Applicability of the scheme of the petitioner with retrospective effect before issue of the Notification - Whether proper? No. The Provident Fund Commissioner shall determine the liability of the amount afresh.
Goverdhanlal Purohit v. R.P.F. Commissioner, 1993 LLR 575 (Raj HC).
• Word 'Vest' occurring in section 10(2) - Meaning of - Nomination of brother by the employee - Whether nominee gets absolute title to the Provident Fund lying to the credit of the deceased - Held, it does not clothe the nominee with the absolute title or benefit of the exclusion of heirs of the deceased.
• If appellant has provided separate provident fund scheme which is more beneficial than what was provided under the Act, then appropriate course for appellant is to seek exemption from operation of the Act under section 17 of the Act.
• Merely because the petitioner even bona fidely was contesting that the provisions of the Act were not applicable, it would not absolve the petitioner from liability to deposit the contribution under the Act created for the welfare of employees.
• Unless appropriate Government has issued Notification amending exempted scheme, revised condition that amendment in statutory Scheme more beneficial to the employee existing rules, would become applicable automatically, did not apply to already exempted establishment.
• Writ petition will not be maintainable in stalling the payment of contributions of Provident Fund more particularly when an appropriate forum exists under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
• A member of Employees' Provident Funds having not exercised his option for Employees, Family Pension Scheme 1971 in terms of its para 4 read with Form I cannot claim that he had automatically become member of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995.
• A quasi-judicial authority like Provident Funds Commissioner should act reasonably, fairly and should not act with undue haste and arbitrariness. When a request had been made well in advance for adjournment of proceedings by assigning reasons, the Commissioner should have, in fairness, accommodated the petitioner by granting a short adjournment hence the order passed ex parte being an arbitrary exercise of power which was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot sustain.
• A partnership firm and manager are also covered within the definition of 'employer' under the EPF & MP Act and acquittal of a manager for default in depositing the EPF contributions because the firm is not a separate legal entity will be set aside hence the High Court convicted both e.g. firm and the manager of the firm along with the Managing Partner.
• The Provident FW1d Commissioner committed a fundamental mistake in applying rule 12(7) to the petitioners and limiting their claim from the dates on which applications were submitted by them taking those dates as the dates of option for retirement from service and for pension.
• The employees of newspaper industry have always been treated as a class apart and as such not treating them as 'excluded employees' under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act and the Scheme by a notification issued in 1956, will not be unconstitutional. .
• The Commissioner under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act while determining money due from an employer, in exercise of its powers under section 7 A of the EPF & MP Act, can go into the question as to whether the wages being paid to the employees have been splitted under various heads like basic wages, house rent allowance and other allowance has been with an ulterior motive as a subterfuge to avoid EPF contributions by the employer towards provident fund.
• The Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act is a social welfare legislation to provide for the employees' pension fund etc. hence this Court will not monitor implementation of such policy unless the same is discriminatory or arbitrary. Since the Employees' Pension Scheme is for the welfare of employees, the same cannot be held to be violative of the Constitution.
• The Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act is a social welfare legislation hence while interpreting its provisions where a section is capable of two constructions, the one which is more beneficial to the employees, the Courts should give preference to that section.
• Provident fund, gratuity, pensionary benefits, leave salary or other retiral benefits are immuned from attachment under any decree of the civil court even when such dues are payable to the legal heirs of the deceased employee since provisions of section 60(9) of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides for such exceptions from attachment of the dues as accruing to the legal heirs after the death of the employee.
• When the employees were not denied of any existing benefits but the contributions were being made by the employer in violation of the provisions of the Scheme and as such the rectification in reducing the rate of contribution will not be violative of section 12 of EPF & MP Act providing that the employer cannot reduce the wages.
• The proviso to sub-clause (2) of clause 29 of the Provident Fund Scheme providing that the employee can contribute more than the prescribed limit, but by such payment of contributions by the employer can be restricted up to the prescribed limit.
• Determination of money by fixing the liability of the employer under section 7 A by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner will not be justified when his order about fixing the liability was passed before expiry of the lime given to the employer for production of material.
• A school, covered under the Provident Funds Act, will not be liable for payment of contributions of the employees such as drivers, conductors as engaged by the transport contractor for providing transportation.
P F Act
EPFO Launched new Grievance Management Portal
Enhancement of the cash benefit on Pension:
Enhanced the cash benefit payable to the family of EPF subscribers on their death in service from present maximum of rs.60,000 to rs.1.00 lakh. Published in the gazette of india, part ii, section 3, subsection (i), vide number g.s.r. 523(e), dated the 18th june, 2010
EPF(Amendment) Scheme, 2011
MINISTRY’ OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
NOTIFICATION
New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011
G.S.R. 25(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5, read with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby makes the following Scheme, further to amend the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. namely
1. (1) This Scheme may be called the Employees’ Provident Funds (Amendment) Scheme, 2011.
(2) It shall come into force from the 1st day of April, 2011
2. In the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme), in paragraph 60, after sub-paragraph (5), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted, namely:—
“(6) Interest shall not be credited to the account of a member from the date on which it has become Inoperative Account, under the provisions of sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 72”
3. In the said Scheme, in paragraph 72, in sub-paragraph (6):—
(a) for the words “but no claim has been preferred” the words “but no application for withdrawal under paragraphs 69 or 70 or transfer, as the case may be has been preferred ” shall he substituted:
(b) for the words “three years”, at both the places where they occur, the words “thirty six months” shall be substituted.
ESIC
Employees’ State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2010.
Following are the some salient feature of the ESI (Amendment) Act, 2010.
Extension Of The ESI Scheme To The Construction Site WorkerS :
The Construction site workers who were kept out of coverage of ESI act till date, Now covered with the implementation of it roll out "any time, anywhere". esic services will be available to these mobile and migratory workers with no geographical barrier.
APPRENTICES COVERED:
Benefits under the scheme have also been extended to apprentices and trainees employed under Apprentice Act and Standing Order Act.
POWER TO APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT;
The appropriate Government is empowered to extend the provisions of ESIC Act 1948 to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise after giving one month’s notice of its intention of doing so by notification in Official Gazette instead of notice period of six months.
DEFINITION OF DEPENDENT EXPANDED:
Definition of “dependents” as contained in clause 6A of section 2 of the Act has been extended to enlarge the number of beneficiaries under the act such as:
A widow, a legitimate or adopted son below the age of 25 years and an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter.
The age limit of the dependants has been enhanced from 18 to 25.
Dependent parents as per definition of “family” has been substituted so as to include;
“A minor brother or sister wholly dependent upon the earnings of the insured person in case the insured person is unmarried and his or her parents are not alive”. It has been also clarified that dependent parents to include “Dependent parents, whose income from all sources does not exceed such income as prescribed by the Central Government”.
SMALL FACTORIES ALSO ARE COVERED:
The definition of Factory under Section 2(12) has been amended to expand coverage of smaller factories. The amended Act covers all factories, which employ 10 or more persons irrespective of the fact whether the manufacturing process is being carried out with the aid of the power or without the aid of the power.
INSPECTORS RE-DESIGNATED AS SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICERS:
The designation of Inspector has been re-designated as “Social Security Officer” to enroll them as facilitator of the Scheme rather than to act as mere inspectors.
VRS EMPLOYEES ALSO COVERED:
Medical benefits to the insured person and his spouse have been extended under circumstances where insured person retires under Voluntary Retirement Scheme or takes premature retirement. In the earlier Act the benefit was applicable only on attaining the age of superannuation. Proviso to sub section 3 of section 56 has been substituted to provide the same.
NOTIONAL EXTENSION OF PREMISES:
Accident occurring to an insured person while commuting from his residence to the place of employment and vice-a-versa shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment for the purpose of benefit under the Act. A new section 51-E has been added for this purpose.
UNORGANIZED SECTOR EMPLOYEES COVERED:
A new Chapter V-A has been added to enable provision for extending medical care to non insured persons against payment of user-charges to facilitate providing medical care to the below poverty line (BPL) families and other un-organized sector workers covered under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY).
Exemption of a factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments from the operation of this Act will be granted only if the employees in such factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act.
Section 91 A of the Act is amended to removing. retrospective grant of exemption from the provision of the Act
HR Info.in
Hr Info.in
Workmen's compensation Act, 2010
Given below are the synopsis of the changes.
THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 is now renamed as THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 and wherever "workman" or "workmen" is mentioned in the entire Act the same needs to be read as "Employee" to make it gender sensitive.
The compensation payable on death from the injury, is (i) minimum of Rs.80000 is increased to Rs.120000 or (ii) 50% of the monthly wages of deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.
The compensation payable on Permanent Total Disablement from the injury, is (i) minimum of Rs.90000 is increased to Rs.140000 or (ii) 60% of the monthly wages of deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.
actual reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of injury caused during course of employment.
Empower the Central Government to specify monthly wages for the purpose of compensation. It is 50% of Rs.8000/-. This amendment is notified vide Central Government Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) vide Ministry of Labour & Employment dated 31st May 2010.
Definition of workmen replaced by "Definition of Employee"- also now includes CLERICAL employees.
The Commissioner shall dispose compensation cases within a time period of 3 months. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Range optimization for target and organs at risk in dynamic adaptive passive scattering proton beam therapy - A proof of concept.
The purpose of this study was to design and develop a new range optimization for target and organs at risk (OARs) in dynamic adaptive proton beam therapy (PBT). The new range optimization for target and OARs (RO-TO) was optimized to maintain target dose coverage but not to increase the dose exposure of OARs, while the other procedure, range optimization for target (RO-T), only focused on target dose coverage. A retrospective analysis of a patient who received PBT for abdominal lymph node metastases was performed to show the effectiveness of our new approach. The original plan (OP), which had a total dose of 60 Gy (relative biological effectiveness; RBE), was generated using six treatment fields. Bone-based registration (BR) and tumor-based registration (TR) were performed on each pretreatment daily CT image dataset acquired once every four fractions, to align the isocenter. Both range adaptive approaches achieved better coverage (D95%) and homogeneity (D5%-D95%) than BR and TR only. However, RO-T showed the greatest increases in D2cc and Dmean values of the small intestine and stomach and exceeded the limitations of dose exposure for those OARs. RO-TO showed comparable or superior dose sparing compared with the OP for all OARs. Our results suggest that BR and TR alone may reduce target dose coverage, and that RO-T may increase the dose exposure to the OARs. RO-TO may achieve the planned dose delivery to the target and OARs more efficiently than the OP. The technique requires testing on a large clinical dataset. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
The present invention relates to methods and systems for distributing products to customers. More particularly, the invention relates to a system that tracks the use of products using radio frequency (“RF”) tags and provides information to a central computer to enable automated restocking, inventory, tracking, or reordering of the products.
A variety of paper-based, electronic, and Internet ordering systems are available and in use today. In addition, a number of inventory tracking systems, including systems that use bar coding are also in use. Beyond bar codes, it has been proposed that inventory tracking can be accomplished using RF tags. However, commercially acceptable RF systems, particularly systems that are able to track hundreds of items in relatively small areas, have not yet been developed. Furthermore, commercially acceptable integrated systems that allow consumers to order and receive goods at a location proximate to where the goods are used and that also automatically, and with limited human intervention, track usage and initiate reordering are also not available. | {
"pile_set_name": "USPTO Backgrounds"
} |
The interaction profile of homologous recombination repair proteins RAD51C, RAD51D and XRCC2 as determined by proteomic analysis.
The RAD51 family of proteins is involved in homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair and maintaining chromosome integrity. To identify candidates that interact with HR proteins, the mouse RAD51C, RAD51D and XRCC2 proteins were purified using bacterial expression systems and each of them used to co-precipitate interacting partners from mouse embryonic fibroblast cellular extracts. Mass spectroscopic analysis was performed on protein bands obtained after 1-D SDS-PAGE of co-precipitation eluates from cell extracts of mitomycin C treated and untreated mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Profiling of the interacting proteins showed a clear bias toward nucleic acid binding and modification proteins. Interactions of four candidate proteins (SFPQ, NONO, MSH2 and mini chromosome maintenance protein 2) were confirmed by Western blot analysis of co-precipitation eluates and were also verified to form ex vivo complexes with RAD51D. Additional interacting proteins were associated with cell division, embryo development, protein and carbohydrate metabolism, cellular trafficking, protein synthesis, modification or folding, and cell structure or motility functions. Results from this study are an important step toward identifying interacting partners of the RAD51 paralogs and understanding the functional diversity of proteins that assist or regulate HR repair mechanisms. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Thakkar Bapa Ashram, Rayagada
The Thakkar Bapa Ashram at Rayagada, is established by the great patriot Thakkar Bapa. The Ashram is run by the Servants of India Society.
History
The Ashram was established in the year 1939 with a hostel for the SC/ST boys and girls. During 1938 to 1942 Amritlal Vithaldas Thakkar, Popularly known as Thakkar Bapa worked on various Committees for the welfare of tribals in Orissa, Bihar etc. . During the period the Ashram at Rayagada has been established . Later in 1958, a school was established in the complex.
Ashram activities
The Ashram runs an Educational complex with a primary school from class 1 o class 5 for only SC girls & boys to strengthen education among tribals of the district. It is associated with balbiksah yojana under child development scheme.
References
External links
Official website of Rayagada district
Category:Indian independence movement | {
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
} |
New Essay
Through exploring the psychopathology of Capgras syndrome, in which a patient mistakes a loved one for an imposter, The Echo Maker offers a sustained meditation on the ways in which we project our own problems onto other people. As a reflection on the mysteries of consciousness, the novel offers some interesting if not especially new insights into the fuzzy boundaries between scientific and literary interpretations of the mind. Read more
Images at the Baltic
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The publicity for Samuel Taylor Wood, whose Still Lives exhibition runs at The Baltic until September 3rd, acclaims her "compelling psychological portraits in photography, film and video." But whose psychology is being examined?For example, in the piece that I found most arresting, Wood filmed David Beckham sleeping. In his celebrity life outside of football, we are used to seeing him in the glossy pages of Hello magazine, child or wife in one hand, cellphone in the other, trapped in a moment of a busy - and apparently fairly ordinary - life. On the pitch, television cameras pursue his sweeps down the right wing, chase the glorious arc of his crossed ball, track in slow motion replays the agression of his tackles. By focusing on him asleep, however, Wood removes him as far as it is possible to be from both of these contexts.
Cleverly lit, like a Titian or a Michelangelo, swathes of light lie across his face like soft brush strokes, structures of shadow bringing out his angular jaw. He is heroic in his physical looks, a canonised statue in his peaceful sleeping. This is a static vision of the transcendent, an iconic aid to contemplation. Then, suddenly, he twitches and the hand on which his head lies shifts slightly. The image now revealed as playing video suddenly switches its focus, accusing the viewer as voyeur, a media obsessive pruriently spying on this most famous face in its intimate moment. Ironically, however, this is one interior video log to which no one can have access. Caught in this unusual transitional medium part way between print and screen, neither celebrity nor sportsman, his face transcribes with infuriating partiality the complex dreams going on behind the mask, beyond the reach of the lenses of the pap.
In contrast to this, there is no subtlety in Wang Du'sSpace-Time Tunnel, whichis exhibited on the floor above Wood's work. An elaborate steel and chicken wire construction, the viewer (participant?) walks through its hunched and dimly lit shape, which is punctuated regularly by TV screens above and left and right. Playing live broadcasts from stations around the world, they assault with bursts of noise, in different languages, a diaspora of programmes: shopping channels, music TV, news. In an attempt to draw a single strand of coherence out of this clutter of competing narratives, people seem drawn to what is familiar: I found myself pausing before News 24, reading the ticker tape update on the Lebanon conflict; the German or Austrian couple ahead of me halted suddenly, and turned to watch a Deutsche TV sports show.
At the end of this disorientating tunnel, is a child's slide. Having been bewildered by the strange images, one is suddenly puzzled by this everyday one, and I halted at the top, uncertain as to what I was supposed to do. It seemed incongruous that this is how to leave this serious piece of modern art. But with no other way out, having glanced quickly over my shoulder, I skidded and scuttled awkwardly until a few metres before the end, at which point I stood and walked the rest of the way, unwilling to face the waiting Baltic "crew" member in a liberated, but awkward, position on my arse. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Aleksandr Yermilov
Aleksandr Yermilov (; born November 12, 1960) is a Soviet flatwater kayaker/sprint canoer who competed in the early 1980s. He won four medal at the ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships with three golds (K-4 10000 m: 1981 in Nottingham, Great Britain, 1982 in Belgrade, Yugoslavia; 1983 in Tampere, Finland) and a silver (K-4 1000 m: 1981).
He was born in Kharkiv, Ukraine. In the 90's he immigrated to Israel. Then to Canada.
References
Inline
General
Category:Living people
Category:Soviet male canoeists
Category:1960 births
Category:Kayakers
Category:Sportspeople from Kharkiv
Category:Russian male canoeists
Category:ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships medalists in kayak | {
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
} |
How to read Hacker News – what mistake I made for 2 years - nickfos
I am reading Hacker News for the last 2 years. It's been a really good source of information relevant to tech and startups, which I am interested. Recently I became a member to ask a question.
Not much feedback came back except from some kind advice from PG.<p>My next submission involved an analysis about the future of YC, which got only one feedback.<p>>> Who are you?<p>Quite a way to handle an opinion expressed.<p>Now I noticed one thing. I was doing something wrong for the past 2 years. I would only read the pages that are listed in the “Hacker News” tabs. Quite a mistake I think. Over time I would check the pages again and see the same posts, because they were “rated” high. I don't know who and how rates the articles (of course I read that if you want to make it to the top you call your buddies clicking your article), but it clearly does not provide a real good sense of the articles submitted.<p>Now I believe a lot of people provide really valuable input and I have to browse through to see what's interesting. From now on I am going to check the “New” tab just beside the bold “Hacker News”. I counted roughly 300 posts published in a day, which I can skim through in 10 min and select the postings I found relevant.
======
Skywing
The listing of new articles is what I always read. It's what I check the most.
I'll skim over the top articles once a day, or so.
~~~
cmontgomeryb
I'm doing this more and more too. It's easier than on a lot of larger sites
such as Reddit as the signal to noise ratio is much more in our favour, and I
do find interesting stories that never make it near the front page.
------
Mz
I've said something similar (ie that I think it's a mistake to spend too much
time on the "home" page, basically) a couple of times or so, like here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2047397>
~~~
nickfos
Maybe it would be a good thing for Hacker News to explain this little detail
to new readers of the list. I had to post an article first, to really check
how post ranking works.
I am not saying that some articles do not deserve to have a better chance of
reading, relevant to popularity. Instead I believe it would be valuable to
Hacker News to have more informed readers. Otherwise there is a big chance
that the "popularity" ranking can be mishandled for a number reasons, from
people trying to have a "top" posting.
| {
"pile_set_name": "HackerNews"
} |
Ingredients:
Customer Reviews
Oatmeal raisin was favorite, 12.29.2014
Around a year ago I took some Chocolate Chip Walnut to a repast. Out of all the snacks and and baked goods the Chocolate Chip Walnut cookies disappeared at blinding speed. They are good.
Amazing cookies!, 8.3.2013
Kris Smith (Pewaukee, WI)
These cookies are amazing! I am currently able to purchase them at a store in our area and I buy several packages at a time. You cannot eat just one. They are addicting. They are crisp and buttery and the chocolate chips melt in your mouth, and I love the walnuts. I tell everyone about these cookies and I now buy them for friends and family. You won't be disappointed!
BEST COOKIE EVER!, 7.9.2012
Lucy M McMorris (Durham, NC)
I had read that these were great chocolate chip cookies, but had never tried them. Actually for the past few years, I've sent them to friends in VT for Christmas.
About a year ago, I found a local store that carried them - unbelieveable good. They are simply PERFECT. My friend and her mother in NJ also think they are the best cookies they've ever tasted. I simply can't imagine anyone who loves chocolate chip cookies who wont' LOVE these. Thank you Tate's! | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Amiodarone in the management of patients with ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation.
Fifty-eight patients with symptomatic ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) were treated with amiodarone. All had clinical episodes of VT/VF or inducible VT during electropharmacologic testing despite treatment with maximum-tolerated doses of conventional antiarrhythmic agents. Chronic treatment with amiodarone was begun at a dose of 800-1000 mg per day. Thirty-two patients were also treated with a previously ineffective conventional agent. Thirty patients underwent programmed ventricular stimulation after 2.6 +/- 1.7 months (mean +/- S.D.) of treatment with amiodarone at a mean daily dose of 588 +/- 155 mg. VT was induced in 25 patients (sustained in 20, nonsustained in five). Seventeen patients had a recurrence of VT or VF after 0.5-9 months of treatment with amiodarone (fatal in seven, non-fatal in 10). Forty-one patients (71%) had no recurrence of symptomatic VT or VF while being treated with amiodarone (mean follow-up period, 17.1 +/- 12.4 months). Among the 25 patients who had inducible VT with programmed ventricular stimulation while being treated with amiodarone, 19 patients (76%) have had no recurrence of symptomatic VT or VF over a follow-up period of 21.5 +/- 7.3 months. Ambulatory electrocardiographic recordings obtained after one week of treatment with amiodarone were not helpful in predicting clinical response. Twenty-two patients (38%) developed ataxia and/or an intention tremor which improved with a decrease in the amiodarone dose. Amiodarone, either by itself or in combination with conventional antiarrhythmic drugs, has a significant therapeutic effect in high risk patients with refractory VT. The finding of inducible VT during electropharmacologic testing in patients taking amiodarone does not preclude a favorable clinical response. Neurologic toxicity is common in patients treated with 600-800 mg per day of amiodarone. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
INTRODUCTION
This little book shows, in a short, clear, and systematic manner, how the principle of Non-Resistance, about which Tolstoy has written so much, is related to economic and political life.
The great majority of men, without knowing why, are constrained to labour long hours at tasks they dislike, and often to live in unhealthy conditions. It is not that man has so little control over nature that to obtain a subsistence it is necessary to work in this way, but because men have made laws about land, taxes, and property, which result in placing the great bulk of the people in conditions which compel them to labour thus, or go to the workhouse, or starve.
It may be said that man's nature is so bad that were it not for these laws an even worse state of things would exist; that the laws we make and tolerate are outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual disgrace -- the selfishness of man, which is the real root of the evil. But granting that, in a sense, this may be true, we need not suppose man's nature to be immutable, and all progress for ever impossible. Nor need we suppose it our duty to leave progress in the hands of some kind of a self-acting evolution, whose operations we can only watch as a passenger watches the working of a ship's engines. We may consider the effect of the laws we have made, approve or disapprove of them, discern the direction in which it is possible to advance, and take our part in furthering or hampering that advance.
Laws are made by Governments, and are enforced by physical violence. We have been so long taught that it is good for some people to make laws for others, that most men approve of this. Just as "genteel" people have been known to approve of wholesale while they turned up their noses at retail business, so people in general, while disapproving of robbery and murder when done on a small scale, admire them when they are organised, and when they result in allotting most of the land on which forty millions have to live to a few thousands, and in periodically sending out thousands of men to kill and to be killed. Nor are people much shocked at isolated murders, the responsibility for which is subdivided between the Queen, the hangman, the judge, jury, and officials.
To Tolstoy's mind, violence done by man to man is wrong. We cannot escape the wrongness by doing it wholesale, or by subdividing the responsibility.
But what would happen if we ceased to abet it?
If it were possible forcibly to oblige men to cease from using force, the selfishness which is at the root of the matter would, no doubt, burst out in some fresh form. That is, in fact, pretty much what has happened : weary of strife and private feuds, people consented to leave to Governments the use of force. External peace among individuals has ensued, but in place of strife with club or sword, a new struggle almost as fierce is carried on under legal and commercial forms, Tolstoy's desire is not that people should be compelled to cease from violence, but that violence should become to them abhorrent, and that they should not wish to sway others more than they can be swayed by reason and by sympathy. Were that accomplished, surely we may trust that good would come of good, as now ill comes of ill. At anyrate, as Tolstoy shows, there is no other path of advance. We can neither revert to the belief that to use violence is a divine right of kings, nor can we maintain the current belief that to do so is a divine right of majorities. To be subjected by force to a rule we disapprove of is slavery, and we are all slaves or slave-owners (sometimes both together) as long as our society bases itself on violence.
But can we abolish the use of violence, and cease to imprison and kill our fellow-men?
We can at least consider what Tolstoy says on the matter, and realise that organised violence exists claiming our approval, and that it is possible to withhold that approval. As for abolishing violence -- it is for us not a question of yes or no, but it is a question of more or less. The amount of violence committed depends on the amount of support the violators receive. There are places where it is now impossible to get anyone to become a hangman, and even in England, comparatively brutal as we are, it would be impossible to re-enact the penal code of George III, under which 160 different crimes were punishable with death. To shake ourselves completely free from all share in violence, if we are not quite ready to become martyrs, may seem and does seem impossible. Tolstoy himself does not profess to have ceased to use postage-stamps which are issued, or the highway that is maintained, by a Government which collects taxes by force; but reforms come by men doing what they can, not what they can't. It would be a very easy, and a very silly, reply to the teaching of Jesus, to say that as He tells us to be perfect, and we can't be perfect, we can get no guidance from His teaching. In the same way anyone who wishes to be logical but not reasonable, may say that as Tolstoy tells us to stand aside from all violence, and as we cannot do so, his guidance is useless. Tolstoy relies on his readers to use common sense, and the common sense of the matter is, that if we are so enmeshed in a system based on violence, and if we ourselves are so weak and faulty, that we cannot avoid being parties to acts of violence, we should avoid this as much as we can.
The mind is more free than the body, -- let us, at least, try to understand the truth of the matter, and not excuse a vicious system in order to shelter ourselves. When we have understood the matter, let us not fear to speak out; and when we have confessed our views, let us try to bring our lives more and more in harmony with them.
To free ourselves from the perplexity produced by the dual standard of legality and of right, would alone be an enormous gain. Take, for instance, the drink traffic in England; -- what friction and waste of power has resulted from the attempts to legislate on the matter. How greatly brewers, distillers, and dealers have gained in respectability by the fact that their occupations were legal, if not right. And is it not becoming evident that it is not by laws that such evils as the drink trade can be met?
But, we are told, people are so inconsiderate and so wrong-headed that nothing but the strong arm of the law will restrain them. To disturb their respect for the law is dangerous.
Of course it is dangerous! Every great moral movement and every strong reform movement has its very real dangers. A century and a half after St. Francis of Assisi had stirred Europe by his example of self-renunciation and devotion to the service of others, such a crowd of impudent mendicants shirking the drudgery of a workaday world were preying on society in his name, that Wyclif denounced them as sturdy beggars, and strongly censured any "man who gives alms to a begging friar."
History is apt to repeat itself in such matters, and, no doubt, Tolstoy's views will be again and again exploited by unworthy disciples. But is humanity to stagnate because what is evil is so easily grafted on what is good? To think and to move may be dangerous, but to stagnate is to die; and progress along the path of violence -- as Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, Rome, Spain, and many other nations have shown -- is progress to destruction.
No doubt, too, many good people will be shocked at Tolstoy's statement that "Laws are rules made by people who govern by means of organised violence." They will plead that, in modern Governments, the administrative functions are becoming more and more predominant, and the coercive ones are falling more and more into abeyance But the reply is, that Governments need only drop these dwindling and secondary functions in order to escape the criticism here levelled at them. Governments which, without insisting on having their services accepted, are content to offer to organise society on a voluntary basis -- killing no one, imprisoning no one, and relying on reason and persuasion to make their decrees prevail -- are not here attacked.
And whatever good-natured people may wish to believe about Governments, the fact is that existing Governments rely on force, and that when they do not rely on force we do not call them Governments, but voluntary associations.
That men concerned in governing others know this, is shown all through history, and has been again shown recently in South Africa. As long as Kruger and his party had the armed force, the Boer reform party, the miners, and eveu Messrs. Beit, Rhodes, & Co., had to submit. In the time of the Raid the question who, in future, should make the laws, hung in the balance -- it might be Kruger, or Rhodes, or somebody else; but it was sure to be the man, or men, who could obtain the advantage of being allowed openly, systematically, and unblushingly, to do violence to those who disobeyed them. Men who were organising the buccaneers one day, might become (and may yet become) a "Government" another day. In fact, just as in Sparta it was considered immoral, not to thieve, but to be caught thieving, so among modern moralists (such as Paley) it has been gravely argued that the morality of using violence against the men in power depends on the chance of being successful.
Tolstoy says that the systematic use of organised violence lies at the root of the ills from which our society suffers; and while agreeing in the indictment Socialism brings against the present system, he points out that the establishment of a Socialist State would involve the enforcement of a fresh form of slavery -- direct compulsion to labour. And if he is not at one with the Socialists, neither is he at one with the Revolutionary party of Russian Anarchists usually spoken of in England as "Nihilists." They, indeed, are often very bitter in their denunciations of Tolstoy, whose influence has increased the moral repugnance felt for their policy of assassination. Their accusation that Tolstoy wishes to oppose despotism by mere metaphysics is, however, met in the present work by a direct and explicit appeal to conscientious people not voluntarily to pay taxes to Governments which spend the money on organising violence and murder.
This view of the duty of individuals towards Governments has had exponents in our own language. The saintly Quaker John Woolman wrote in his journal in 1757 --
" A few years past, money being made current in our province for carrying on wars, and to be called in again by taxes laid on the inhabitants, my mind was often affected with the thoughts of paying such taxes . . . there was in the depth of my mind a scruple which I never could get over; and at certain times I was greatly distressed on that account. I believed that there were some upright-hearted men who paid such taxes, yet could not see that their example was a sufficient reason for me to do so, while I believe that the spirit of truth required of me, as an individual, to suffer patiently the distress of goods, rather than pay actively."
</quote>He found he was not alone among the Friends of Philadelphia in this matter.
Nearly a century later Henry Thoreau wrote in his admirable essay on "Civil Disobedience" --
" I heartily accept the motto -- 'That Government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, -- 'That Government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of Government which they will have. . . .
" It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may properly have other concerns to engage him ; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.
" I do not hesitate to say that those who call themselves Abolitionists should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the Government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they surfer the right to prevail through them. I think it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbours constitutes a majority of one already."
Holding these views, he refused to pay the poll-tax, and was put in prison for one night, till someone paid the tax for him -- much to his disgust.
Tolstoy, therefore, is in good company in holding the view that it were better to offer a passive resistance to Governments than voluntarily to pay what they demand and misapply. Such refusals might bring about the bloodless revolution of which Thoreau spoke --
" If a thousand men were not to pay their tax bills this year, that would not be a violent and bloody measure, as it would be to pay them, and enable the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood. This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceful revolution, if any such is possible. If the tax-gatherer or any other public officer asks me, as one has done, 'But what shall I do?' my answer is, 'If you really wish to do anything, resign your office.' When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished."
But while we remember that Tolstoy is in good company in this matter, and that he here offers just what some people pine for -- something definite and decided to do or to refuse to do -- we shall, I think, make a sad mistake if we fail to differentiate between the main intention and drift of his work, and such a piece of practical advice as this.
The main intention and drift of the work is to show that progress in human well-being can only be achieved by relying more and more on reason and conscience, and less and less on man-made laws; that we must be ready to sacrifice the material progress we have been taught to esteem so highly, rather than acquiesce in such injustice and inequality as is flagrant among us to-day; that what we desire is the supremacy of truth and goodness, and that consequently violence from man to man must more and more be recognised as evil, whether it boasts itself in high places or lurks in slums -- and that we must more and more free ourselves from the taint of murder that clings to all robes of state.
These things, to my mind, seem certainly true; we must turn our back on the religion of Jesus if we would rebut them.
But as soon as it comes to any definite precept and external rule to do this, or not to do that -- there is room for reply. What is really needed, and what Tolstoy is aiming at, is that mankind should steadily advance towards perfection, and no one action can be the next step for all men in all places. So when we come to the injunction to pay no tax, we may remember the passage (Matt. xvii. 24-27) in which Jesus is reported to have told Peter to catch fish and pay the tax for them both. The passage seems to mean: "We are in no way bound to pay, but if they demand the tax of you, give it, not because you are under any obligation, but because we must not resist him that is evil. If any man would take your cloak, give him your coat also." And that is what Tolstoy thought it meant when he wrote The Four Gospels.
In the present work, however, he is not interpreting the Gospels, but is dealing with present problems on the plane of thought of the jurists and the economists. And whatever may be the best method of undermining the authority of the prince of this world, his condemnation by Jesus makes in the same direction as Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" and Tolstoy's theory of "Non-Resistance." Each in his own way says, "The kings of the Gentiles have lordship over them; and they that have authority over them are called Benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is the greater among you, let him become as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve" (Luke xxii. 25, 26).
The prince of this world is judged, -- the change foreshadowed is a vast one, and must commence with a change of each man's inner self. But its outward manifestations may be as various as the flowers of the field which are all fed by the same rain and sunshine from above.
Gkeat Baddow, Chelmsford,
October 1900.
AUTHOR'S PREFACE
"They that take the sword shall perish by the sword."
Nearly fifteen years ago the census in Moscow evoked in me a series of thoughts and feelings which I expressed as best I could in a book called What Must We Do Then? Towards the end of last year (1899) I once more reconsidered the same questions, and the conclusions to which I came were the same as in that book. But as I think that during these ten years I have reflected on the questions discussed in What Must We Do Then? more quietly and minutely in relation to the teachings at present existing and diffused among us, I now offer the reader new considerations, leading to the same replies as before. I think these considerations may be of use to people who are honestly trying to elucidate their position in society and clearly to define the moral obligations flowing from that position. I, therefore, publish them.
The fundamental thought both of that book and of this article is the repudiation of violence. That repudiation I learnt and understood from the Gospels, where it is most clearly expressed in the words: It was said to you, An eye for an eye," . . . i.e. you have been taught to oppose violence by violence, but I teach you: turn the other cheek when you are struck -- that is, suffer violence, but do not employ it. I know that the use of those great words -- in consequence of the unreflectingly perverted interpretations alike of Liberals and of Churchmen, who on this matter agree -- will be a reason for most so-called cultured people not to read this article, or to be biased against it; but, nevertheless, I place those words as the epigraph of this work.
I cannot prevent people who consider themselves enlightened from considering the Gospel teaching to be an obsolete guide to life -- a guide long outlived by humanity. But I can indicate the source from which I drew my consciousness of a truth which people are as yet far from recognizing, and which alone can save men from their sufferings. And this I do.
11 July, 1900.
"Ye have heard that it was said, An Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth" (Matt. v.38; Ex. xxi. 24).
"But I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil; but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. v.39).
"And if any man would go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also" (Matt. v.40).
"Give to every one that asketh thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again" (Luke vi. 30).
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke vi. 31).
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common" (Acts ii. 44).
"And Jesus said, When it is evening, ye say, it will be fair weather, for the heaven is red" (Matt. xvi. 2).
"And in the morning, It will be foul weather to-day: for the heaven is red and lowering. Ye hypocrites, ye know how to discern the face of the heaven; but ye cannot discern the signs of the times" (Matt. xvi. 3).
"The system on which all the nations of the world are acting is founded in gross deception, in the deepest ignorance, or a mixture of both; so that under no possible modification of the principles on which it is based can it ever produce good to man; on the contrary, its practical results must ever be to produce evil continually." --Robert Owen.
"We have much studied and much perfected of late the great civilized invention of the division of labour, only we give it a false name. It is not, truly speaking, the labour that is divided, but the men -- divided into mere segments of men -- broken into small fragments and crumbs of life; so that all the little piece of intelligence that is left in a man is not enough to make a pin or a nail, but exhausts itself in making the point of a pin or the head of a nail. Now, it is a good and desirable thing, truly, to make many pins a day; but if we could only see with what crystal sand their points were polished -- sand of human souls -- we should think there might be some loss in it also.
"Men may be beaten, chained, tormented, yoked like cattle, slaughtered like summer flies, and yet remain in one sense, and the best sense, free. But to smother their souls within them, to blight and hew into rotting pollards the suckling branches of their human intelligence, to make the flesh and skin . . . into leathern thongs to yoke machinery with -- this is to be slave -- masters indeed. . It is verily this degradation of the operative into a machine which is leading the mass of the nations into vain, incoherent, destructive struggling for a freedom of which they cannot explain the nature to themselves. Their universal outcry against wealth and against nobility is not forced from them either by the pressure of famine or the sting of mortified pride. These do much and have done much in all ages; but the foundations of society were never yet shaken as they are at this day.
"It is not that men are ill-fed, but that they have no pleasure in the work by which they make their bread, and, therefore, look to wealth as the only means of pleasure.
"It is not that men are pained by the scorn of the upper classes, but they cannot endure their own; for they feel that the kind of labour to which they are condemned is verily a degrading one, and makes them less than men. Never had the upper classes so much sympathy with the lower, or charity for them, as they have at this day, and yet never were they so much hated by them." -- From The Stones of Venice, by John Ruskin, Vol. II, Chap. VI., §§ 13-16.
THE SLAVERY OF OUR TIMES
CHAPTER I – GOODS-PORTERS WHO WORK THIRTY-SEVEN HOURS
An acquaintance of mine who works on the Moscow-Kursk Railway as a weigher, in the course of conversation mentioned to me that the men who load the goods on to his scales work for thirty-seven hours on end.
Though I had full confidence in the speaker's truthfulness I was unable to believe him. I thought he was making a mistake, or exaggerating, or that I misunderstood something.
But the weigher narrated the conditions under which this work is done so exactly that there was no room left for doubt. He told me that there are two hundred and fifty such goods-porters at the Kursk station in Moscow. They were all divided into gangs of five men, and were on piece-work, receiving from one rouble to R. 1.15 (say two shillings to two and fourpence, or forty-eight cents to fifty-six cents) for one thousand poods (over sixteen tons) of goods received or dispatched.
They come in the morning, work for a day and a night at unloading the trucks, and in the morning, as soon as the night is ended, they begin to reload, and work on for another day. So that in two days they get one night's sleep.
Their work consists of unloading and moving bales of seven, eight, and up to ten poods (say eighteen [253 lb.], twenty [280 lb.], and up to nearly twenty-six stone [364 lb.]). Two men place the bales on the backs of the other three who carry them. By such work they earn less than a ruble (2 shillings [48 cents] a day. They work continually without holiday.
The account given by the weigher was so circumstantial that it was impossible to doubt it, but, nevertheless, I decided to verify it with my own eyes, and I went to the Goods Station.
Finding my acquaintance at the Goods Station, I told him that I had come to see what he had told me about.
"No one I mention it to believes it," said I.
Without replying to me, the weigher called to some one in a shed. "Nikita, come here."
From the door appeared a tall, lean workman in a torn coat.
"When did you begin work?"
"When? Yesterday morning."
"And where were you last night?"
"I was unloading, of course."
"Did you work during the night?" asked I.
"Of course we worked."
"And when did you begin work to-day?"
"We began in the morning -- when else should we begin?"
"And when will you finish working?"
"When they let us go; then we shall finish!"
The four other workmen of his gang came up to us. They all wore torn coats and were without overcoats, though there were about twenty degrees Reaumur of cold (thirteen degrees below zero, Fahrenheit).
I began to ask them about the conditions of their work, and evidently surprised them by taking an interest in such a simple and natural thing (as it seemed to them) as their thirty-six hour work.
They were all villagers; for the most part fellow countrymen of my own -- from Tula; some, however, were from Orla, and some from Voronesh. They lived in Moscow in lodgings, some of them with their families, but most of them without. Those who have come here alone send their earnings home to the village.
They board with contractors. Their food costs them ten rubles (say £1 1s. [five dollars] per month). They always eat meat, disregarding the fasts. Their work always keeps them occupied more than hours running, because it takes more than half an hour to get to their lodgings and from their lodgings, and, besides, they are often kept at work beyond the time fixed.
Paying for their own food, they earn, by such thirty-seven-hour on-end work, about Rs. 25 (&Pound2, 12s, 6d.) a month .
To my question, "Why they did such convict work?" they replied --
"Where is one to go to?"
"But why work thirty-six hours on end? Cannot the work be arranged in shifts?"
"We do what we're told to."
"Yes; but why do you agree to it?"
"We agree because we have to feed ourselves. 'If you don't like it -- be off!' If one's even an hour late, one has one's ticket shied at one, and is told to march; and there are ten men ready to take the place."
The men were all young, only one was somewhat older, perhaps about forty. All their faces were lean, and had exhausted, weary eyes, as if the men were drunk. The lean workman to whom I first spoke struck me especially by the strange weariness of his look. I asked him whether he had not been drinking today.
"I don't drink," answered he, in the decided way in which men who really do not drink always reply to that question.
"And I do not smoke," added he.
"Do the others drink?" asked I.
"Yes; it is brought here."
"The work is not light, and a drink always adds to one's strength," said the older workman.
This workman had been drinking that day, but it was not in the least noticeable.
After some more talk with the workmen I went to watch the work.
Passing long rows of all sorts of goods, I came to some workmen slowly pushing a loaded truck. I learned afterwards that the men have to shunt the trucks themselves and to keep the platform clear of snow, without being paid for the work. It is so stated in the "Conditions of Pay." These workmen were just as tattered and emaciated as those with whom I had been talking. When they had moved the truck to its place I went up to them and asked when they had begun work, and when they had dined.
I was told that they had started work at seven o'clock, and had only just dined. The work had prevented their being let off sooner.
"And when do you get away?"
"As it happens; sometimes not till ten o'clock," replied the men, as if boasting of their endurance. Seeing my interest in their position, they surrounded me, and, probably taking me for an inspector, several of them speaking at once, informed me of what was evidently their chief subject of complaint -- namely, that the apartment in which they could sometimes warm themselves and snatch an hour's sleep between the day-work and the night-work was crowded. All of them expressed great dissatisfaction at this crowding.
"There may be one hundred men, and nowhere to lie down; even under the shelves it is crowded," said dissatisfied voices. "Have a look at it yourself -- it is close here."
The room was certainly not large enough. In the thirty-six-foot room about forty men might find place to lie down on the shelves.
Some of the men entered the room with me, and they vied with each other in complaining of the scantiness of the accommodation.
"Even under the shelves there is nowhere to lie down," said they.
These men -- who in twenty degrees of frost, without overcoats, carry on their backs twenty stone [240 pound] loads during thirty-six hours; who dine and sup not when they need food, but when their overseer allows them to eat; living altogether in conditions far worse than those of dray horses, it seemed strange that these people only complained of insufficient accommodation in the room where they warm themselves. But though this seemed to me strange at first, yet, entering further into their position, I understood what a feeling of torture these men, who never get enough sleep, and who are half-frozen, must experience when, instead of resting and being warmed, they have to creep on the dirty floor under the shelves, and there, in the stuffy and vitiated air, become still weaker and more broken down.
Only, perhaps, in that miserable hour of vain attempt to get rest and sleep do they painfully realize all the horror of their life-destroying thirty-seven-hour work, and that is why they are specially agitated by such an apparently insignificant circumstance as the overcrowding of their room.
Having watched several gangs at work, and having talked with some more of the men and heard the same story from them all, I drove home, having convinced myself that what my acquaintance had told me was true.
It was true that for money, only enough to subsist on, people considering themselves free men thought it necessary to give themselves up to work such as, in the days of serfdom, not one slave-owner, however cruel, would have sent his slaves to. Let alone slave-owners, not one cab-proprietor would send his horses to such work, for horses cost money, and it would be wasteful, by excessive, thirty-seven-hour work, to shorten the life of an animal of value.
CHAPTER II – SOCIETY'S INDIFFERENCE WHILE MEN PERISH
To oblige men to work for thirty-seven hours continuously without sleep, besides being cruel is also uneconomical. And yet such uneconomical expenditure of human lives continually goes on around us.
Opposite the house in which I live1 is a factory of silk goods, built with the latest technical improvements. About three thousand women and seven hundred men work and live there. As I sit in my room now I hear the unceasing din of the machinery, and know -- for I have been there -- what that din means. Three thousand women stand, for twelve hours a day, at the looms amid a deafening roar; winding, unwinding, arranging the silk threads to make silk stuffs. All the women (except those who have just come from the villages) have an unhealthy appearance. Most of them lead a most intemperate and immoral life. Almost all, whether married or unmarried, as soon as a child is born to them send it off either to the village or to the Foundlings' Hospital -- where 80 per cent of these children perish. For fear of losing their places the mothers resume work the next day, or on the third day after their confinement.
So that during twenty years, to my knowledge, tens of thousands of young, healthy women -- mothers -- have ruined and are now ruining their lives and the lives of their children, in order to produce velvets and silk stuffs.
I met a beggar yesterday, a young man on crutches, sturdily built, but crippled. He used to work as a navvy, with a wheelbarrow, but slipped and injured himself internally. He spent all he had on peasant-women healers and on doctors, and has now for eight years been homeless, begging his bread, and complaining that God does not send him death.
How many such sacrifices of life there are that we either know nothing of, or know of, but hardly notice, considering them inevitable.
I know men working at the blast-furnaces of the Tula Iron Foundry who, to have one Sunday free each fortnight, will work for twenty-four hours; that is, after working all day they will go on working all night. I have seen these men. They all drink vodka to keep up their energy, and obviously, like those goods-porters on the railway, they quickly expend not the interest, but the capital of their lives.
And what of the waste of lives among those who are employed on admittedly harmful work, in looking-glass, cardridge, match, sugar, tobacco, and glass factories; in mines or as gilders?
There are English statistics showing that the average length of life among people of the upper classes is fifty-five years, and the average of life among working people in unhealthy occupations is twenty-nine years.
Knowing this (and we cannot help knowing it), we who take advantage of labour that costs human lives should, one would think (unless we are beasts), not be able to enjoy a moment's peace. But the fact is that we -- well-to-do people, liberals and humanitarians, very sensitive to the sufferings not of people only, but also of animals -- unceasingly make use of such labour, and try to become more and more rich, i.e. to take more and more advantage of such work. And we remain perfectly tranquil.
For instance, having learned of the thirty-seven-hour labour of the goods-porters, and of their bad room, we at once send there an inspector, who receives a good salary, and we forbid people to work more than twelve hours, leaving the workmen (who are thus deprived of one-third of their earnings) to feed themselves as best they can; and we compel the Railway Company to erect a large and convenient room for the workmen. Then with perfectly quiet consciences we continue to receive and dispatch goods by that railway, and we ourselves continue to receive salaries, dividends, rents from houses or from land, etc. Having learned that the women and girls at the silk factory, living far from their families, ruin their own lives and those of their children, and that a large half of the washerwomen who iron our starched shirts, and of the typesetters who print the books and papers that while away our time, get consumption -- we only shrug our shoulders and say that we are very sorry things should be so, but that we can do nothing to alter it, and we continue with tranquil consciences to buy silk stuffs, to wear starched shirts and to read our morning paper. We are much concerned about the hours of the shop assistants, and still more about the long hours of our own children at school; we strictly forbid carters to make their horses drag heavy loads, and we even organize the killing of cattle in slaughter-houses, so that the animals may feel it as little as possible. But how wonderfully blind we become as soon as the question concerns those millions of workers who perish slowly, and often painfully, all around us, at labours the fruits of which we use for our convenience and pleasure!
Notes
1 This evidently relates to his wife's house in Moscow, where Tolstoy spends the winter months. (Trans.).
CHAPTER III – JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXISTING POSITION BY SCIENCE
This wonderful blindness which befalls people of our circle can only be explained by the fact that when people behave badly they always invent a philosophy of life which represents their bad actions to be not bad actions at all, but merely results of unalterable laws beyond their control. In former times such a view of life was found in the theory that an inscrutable and unalterable will of God existed which foreordained to some men a humble position and hard work and to others an exalted position and the enjoyment of the good things of life.
On this theme an enormous quantity of books were written and an innumerable quantity of sermons preached. The theme was worked up from every possible side. It was demonstrated that God created different sorts of people: slaves and masters; and that both should be satisfied with their position. It was further demonstrated that it would be better for the slaves in the next world; and afterwards it was shown that although the slaves were slaves and ought to remain such, yet their condition would not be bad if the masters would be kind to them. Then the very last explanation, after the emancipation of the slaves,1 was that wealth is entrusted by God to some people in order that they may use part of it in good works, and so there is no harm in some people's being rich and others poor.
These explanations satisfied the rich and the poor (especially the rich) for a long time. But the day came when these explanations became unsatisfactory, especially to the poor, who began to understand their position. Then fresh explanations were needed. And just at the proper time they were produced.2 These new explanations came in the form of science: political economy, which declared that it had discovered the laws which regulate division of labour and of the distribution of the products of labour among men. These laws, according to that science, are that the division of labour and the enjoyment of its products depend on supply and demand, and capital, rent, wages of labour, values, profits, etc.; in general, on unalterable laws governing man's economic activities.
Soon, on this theme as many books and pamphlets were written and lectures delivered as there had been treatises written and religious sermons preached on the former theme, and still unceasingly mountains of pamphlets and books are being written and lectures are being delivered; and all these books and lectures are as cloudy and unintelligible as the theological treatises and the sermons, and they, too, like the theological treatises, fully achieve their appointed purpose, i.e. they give such an explanation of the existing order of things as justifies some people in tranquilly refraining from labour and in utilizing the labour of others.
The fact that, for the investigations of this pseudo-science, not the condition of the people in the whole world through all historic time was taken to show the general order of things, but only the condition of people in a small country, in most exceptional circumstances -- England at the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries3 -- this fact did not in the least hinder the acceptance as valid of the result to which the investigators arrived; any more than a similar acceptance is now hindered by the endless disputes and disagreements among those who study that science and are quite unable to agree as to the meaning of rent, surplus value, profits, etc. Only the one fundamental position of that science is acknowledged by all-namely, that the relations among men are conditioned, not by what people consider right or wrong, but by what is advantageous for those who occupy an advantageous position.
It is admitted as an undoubted truth that if in society many thieves and robbers have sprung up who take from the labourers the fruits of their labour, this happens not because the thieves and robbers have acted badly, but because such are the inevitable economic laws, which can only be altered slowly by an evolutionary process indicated by science; and therefore, according to the guidance of science, people belonging to the class of robbers, thieves or receivers of stolen goods may quietly continue to utilize the things obtained by thefts and robbery.
Though the majority of people in our world do not know the details of these tranquilizing scientific explanations any more than they formerly knew the details of the theological explanations which justified their position, yet they all know that an explanation exists; that scientific men, wise men, have proved convincingly, and continue to prove, that the existing order of things is what it ought to be, and that, therefore, we may live quietly in this order of things without ourselves' trying to alter it.
Only in this way can I explain the amazing blindness of good people in our society who sincerely desire the welfare of animals, but yet with quiet consciences devour the lives of their brother men.
Notes
1 The serfs in Russia and the slaves in the United States of America were emancipated at the same time 1861-64. (Trans.).
2 The first volume of Karl Marx's Kapital appeared in 1867. (Trans.).
3 Compare Walter Bagehot's words "The world which our political economists treat of is a very limited and peculiar world also. They (people) often imagine that what they read is applicable to all states of society, and to all equally; whereas it is only true of and only proved as to states of society in which commerce has largely developed, and where it has taken the form of development, or something near the form, which it has taken in England." -- The Postulates of Political Economy. (Trans.).
CHAPTER IV – THE ASSERTION OF ECONOMIC SCIENCE THAT RURAL LABOURERS MUST ENTER THE FACTORY SYSTEM
The theory that it is God's will that some people should own others satisfied people for a very long time. But that theory, by justifying cruelty, caused such cruelty as evoked resistance, and produced doubts as to the truth of the theory.
So now with the theory that an economic evolution is progressing, guided by inevitable laws, in consequence of which some people must collect capital, and others must labour all their lives to increase those capitals, preparing themselves meanwhile for the promised communalisation of the means of production; this theory, causing some people to be yet more cruel to others, also begins (especially among common people not stupefied by science) to evoke certain doubts.
For instance, you see goods-porters destroying their lives by thirty-seven hour labour or women in factories, or laundresses, or typesetters, or all those millions of people who live in hard, unnatural conditions of monotonous, stupefying, slavish toil, and you naturally ask: what has brought these people to such a state? And how are they to be delivered from it? And science replies that these people are in this condition because the railway belongs to this company, the silk factory to that gentleman, and all the foundries, factories, typographies, and laundries to capitalists, and that this state of things will come right by work-people forming unions, co-operative societies, strikes, and taking part in government, and more and more swaying the masters and the government till the workers first obtain shorter hours and increased wages, and finally all the means of production will pass into their hands, and then -- all will be well. Meanwhile, all is going on as it should go, and there is no need to alter anything.
This answer must seem to an unlearned man, and particularly to our Russian folk, very surprising. In the first place, neither in relation to the goods-porters, nor the factory women, nor all the millions of other labourers suffering from heavy, unhealthy, stupefying labour does the possession of the means of production by capitalists explain anything. The agricultural means of production of those men who are now working at the railway have not been seized by capitalists: they have land, and horses, and plows, and harrows, and all that is necessary to till the ground; also these women working at the factory are not only not forced to it by being deprived of their implements of production, but, on the contrary, they have (for the most part against the wish of the elder members of their families) left the homes where their work was much wanted, and where they had implements of production.
Millions of workpeople in Russia and in other countries are in like case. So that the cause of the miserable position of the workers cannot be found in the seizure of the means of production by capitalists. The cause must lie in that which drives them from the villages. That, in the first place. Secondly, the emancipation of the workers from this state of things (even in that distant future in which science promises them liberty) can be accomplished neither by shortening the hours of labour, nor by increasing wages, nor by the promised communalisation of the means of production.
All that cannot improve their position. For the misery of the labourer's misery -- alike on the railway, in the silk factory and in every other factory or workshop -- consists not in the longer or shorter hours of work (agriculturists sometimes work eighteen hours a day, and as much as thirty-six hours on end, and consider their lives happy ones); nor does it consist in the low rate of wages, nor in the fact that the railway or the factory is not theirs, but it consists in the fact that they are obliged to work in harmful, unnatural conditions often dangerous and destructive to life, and to live a barracks life in towns -- a life full of temptations and immorality -- and to do compulsory labour at another's bidding.
Latterly the hours of labour have diminished and the rate of wages has increased; but this diminution of the hours of labour and this increase in wages have not improved the position of the worker, if one takes into account not their more luxurious habits -- watches with chains, silk kerchiefs, tobacco, vodka, beef, beer, etc. -- but their true welfare, i.e. their health and morality, and chiefly their freedom.
At the silk factory with which I am acquainted, twenty years ago the work was chiefly done by men, who worked fourteen hours a day, earned on an average fifteen rubles a month, and sent the money for the most part to their families in the villages. Now nearly all the work is done by women working eleven hours, some of whom earn as much as twenty-five rubles a month (over fifteen rubles on the average), and for the most part not sending it home, but spend all they earn here chiefly on dress, drunkenness and vice. The diminution of the hours of work merely increases the time they spend in the taverns.
The same thing is happening, to a greater or lesser extent, at all the factories and works. Everywhere, notwithstanding the diminution of the hours of labour and the increase of wages, the health of the operatives is worse than that of country workers, the average duration of life is shorter, and morality is sacrificed, as cannot but occur when people are torn from those conditions which most conduce to morality: family life, and free, healthy, varied and intelligible agricultural work.
It is very possibly true that, as some economists assert, with shorter hours of labour, more pay, and improved sanitary conditions in mills and factories, the health of the workers and their morality improve in comparison with the former condition of factory workers. It is possible also that latterly, and in some places, the position of the factory hands is better in external conditions than the position of the country population. But this is so (and only in some places) because the government and society, influenced by the affirmation of science, do all that is possible to improve the position of the factory population at the expense of the country population.
If the condition of the factory workers in some places is (though only in externals) better than that of country people, it only shows that one can, by all kinds of restrictions, render life miserable in what should be the best external conditions, and that there is no position so unnatural and bad that men may not adapt themselves to it if they remain in it for some generations.
The misery of the position of a factory hand, and in general of a town worker, does not consist in his long hours and small pay, but in the fact that he is deprived of the natural conditions of life in touch with nature, is deprived of freedom, is compelled to compulsory and monotonous toil at another man's will.
And, therefore, the reply to the questions, why factory and town workers are in a miserable condition, and how to improve their condition, cannot be that this arises because capitalists have possessed themselves of the means of production, and that the workers' condition will be improved by diminishing their hours of work, increasing their wages, and communalising the means of production.
The reply to these questions must consist in indicating the causes which have deprived the workers of the natural conditions of life in touch with nature, and have driven them into factory bondage, and in indicating means to free the workers from the necessity of foregoing a free, country life, and going into slavery at the factories.
And, therefore, the question why town workers are in a miserable condition includes, first of all, the question: what reasons have driven them from the villages, where they and their ancestors have lived and might live, where, in Russia, people such as they do now live? and what it is that drove and continues to drive them against their will to the factories and works?
If there are workmen, as in England, Belgium, or Germany, who for some generations have lived by factory work, even they live so not at their own free will, but because their fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers were, in some way, compelled to exchange the agricultural life which they loved for life which seemed to them hard, in towns and in factories. First, the country people were deprived of their land by violence, says Karl Marx, were evicted and brought to vagabondage, and then, by cruel laws, they were tortured with pincers, with red-hot irons, and were whipped, to make them submit to the condition of being hired labourers. Therefore, the question how to free the workers from their miserable position should, one would think, naturally lead to the question how to remove those causes which have already driven some, and are now driving or threatening to drive, the rest of the peasants from the position which they considered and consider good, and have driven and are driving them to a position which they consider bad.
Economic science, although it indicates in passing the causes that drove the peasants from the villages, does not concern itself with the question how to remove these causes, but directs all its attention to the improvement of the worker's position in the existing factories and works, assuming, as it were, that the worker's position at these factories and workshops is something unalterable, something which must at all costs be maintained for those who are already in the factories, and must absorb those who have not yet left the villages or abandoned agricultural work.
Moreover, economic science is so sure that all the peasants have inevitably to become factory operatives in towns, that though all the sages and all the poets of the world have always placed the ideal of human happiness in the conditions of agricultural work, -- though all the workers whose habits are unperverted have always preferred, and still prefer, agricultural labour to any other, -- though factory work is always unhealthy and monotonous, while agriculture is the most healthy and varied, -- though agricultural work is free,1 that is, the peasant alternates toil and rest at his own will, while factory work, even if the factory belongs to the workmen, is always enforced, in dependence on the machines, -- though factory work is derivative, while agricultural work is fundamental, and without it no factory could exist, -- yet economic science affirms that all the country people not only are not injured by the transition from the country to the town, but themselves desire it and strive towards it.
Notes
1 In Russia, as in many other countries, the greater part of the agricultural work still is done by peasants working their own land on their own account. (Trans.).
CHAPTER V – WHY LEARNED ECONOMISTS ASSERT WHAT IS FALSE
However obviously unjust may be the assertion of the men of science that the welfare of humanity must consist in the very thing that is profoundly repulsive to human feelings -- in monotonous, enforced factory labour -- the men of science were inevitably led to the necessity of making this obviously unjust assertion, just as the theologians of old were inevitably led to make the equally evident unjust assertion that slaves and their masters were creatures differing in kind, and that the inequality of their position in this world would be compensated in the next.
The cause of this evidently unjust assertion is that those who have formulated, and who are formulating, the laws of science belong to the well-to-do classes, and are so accustomed to the conditions, advantageous for themselves, among which they live, that they do not admit the thought that society could exist under other conditions.
The condition of life to which people of the well-to-do classes are accustomed is that of an abundant production of various articles necessary for their comfort and pleasure, and these things are obtained only thanks to the existence of factories and works organized as at present. And, therefore, discussing the improvement of the workers' position, the men of science belonging to the well-to-do classes always have in view only such improvements as will not do away with the system of factory-production and those conveniences of which they avail themselves.
Even the most advanced economists -- the Socialists, who demand the complete control of the means of production for the workers -- expect production of the same or almost of the same articles as are produced now to continue in the present or in similar factories with the present division of labour.
The difference, as they imagine it, will only be that in the future not they alone, but all men, will make use of such conveniences as they alone now enjoy. They dimly picture to themselves that, with the communalisation of the means of production, they, too -- men of science, and in general the ruling classes -- will do some work, but chiefly as managers, designers, scientists or artists. To the questions, who will have to wear a muzzle and make white lead? who will be stokers, miners, and cesspool cleaners? they are either silent, or foretell that all these things will be so improved that even work at cesspools and underground will afford pleasant occupation. That is how they represent to themselves future economic conditions, both in Utopias such as that of Bellamy and in scientific works.
According to their theories, the workers will all join unions and associations, and cultivate solidarity among themselves by unions, strikes, and participation in Parliament till they obtain possession of all the means of production, as well as the land, and then they will be so well fed, so well dressed, and enjoy such amusements on holidays that they will prefer life in town, amid brick buildings and smoking chimneys, to free village life amid plants and domestic animals; and monotonous, bell-regulated machine work to the varied, healthy, and free agricultural labour.
Though this anticipation is as improbable as the anticipation of the theologians about a heaven to be enjoyed hereafter by workmen in compensation for their hard labour here, yet learned and educated people of our society believe this strange teaching, just as formerly wise and learned people believed in a heaven for workmen in the next world.
And learned men and their disciples -- people of the well-to-do classes -- believe this because they must believe it. This dilemma stands before them: either they must see that all that they make use of in their lives, from railways to lucifer matches and cigarettes, represents labour which costs the lives of their brother men, and that they, not sharing in that toil, but making use of it, are very dishonorable men; or they must believe that all that takes place takes place for the general advantage in accord with unalterable laws of economic science. Therein lies the inner psychological cause, compelling men of science, men wise and educated, but not enlightened, to affirm positively and tenaciously such an obvious untruth as that the labourers, for their own well-being, should leave their happy and healthy life in touch with nature, and go to ruin their bodies and souls in factories and workshops.
CHAPTER VI – BANKRUPTCY OF THE SOCIALIST IDEAL
But even allowing the assertion (evidently unfounded as it is, and contrary to the facts of human nature) that it is better for people to live in towns and to do compulsory machine work in factories rather than to live in villages and work freely at handicrafts, there remains, in the very ideal itself, to which the men of science tell us the economic revolution is leading, an insoluble contradiction. The ideal is that the workers, having become the masters of all the means of production, are to obtain all the comforts and pleasures now possessed by well-to-do people. They will all be well clothed, and housed, and well nourished, and will all walk on electrically lighted, asphalt streets, and frequent concerts and theaters, and read papers and books, and ride on motor cars, etc. But that everybody may have certain things, the production of those things must be apportioned, and consequently it must be decided how long each workman is to work.
How is that to be decided?
Statistics may show (though very imperfectly) what people require in a society fettered by capital, by competition, and by want. But no statistics can show how much is wanted and what articles are needed to satisfy the demand in a society where the means of production will belong to the society itself, i.e. where the people will be free.
The demands in such a society cannot be defined, and they will always infinitely exceed the possibility of satisfying them. Everybody will wish to have all that the richest now possesses, and, therefore, it is quite impossible to define the quantity of goods that such a society will require.
Furthermore, how are people to be induced to work at articles which some consider necessary and others consider unnecessary or even harmful?
If it be found necessary for everybody to work, say six hours a day, in order to satisfy the requirements of the society, who in a free society can compel a man work those six hours, if he knows that part of the time is spent in producing things he considers unnecessary or even harmful?
It is undeniable that under the present state of things most varied articles are produced with great economy of exertion, thanks to machinery, and thanks especially to the division of labour which has been brought to an extreme nicety and carried to the highest perfection, and that those articles are profitable to the manufacturers, and that we find them convenient and pleasant to use. But the fact that these articles are well made and are produced with little expenditure of strength, that they are profitable to the capitalists and convenient for us, does not prove that free men would, without compulsion, continue to produce them. There is no doubt that Krupp, with the present division of labour, makes admirable cannons very quickly and artfully; N. M. very quickly and artfully produces silk materials; X, Y, and Z. produce toilet-scents, powder to preserve the complexion, or glazed packs of cards, and K. produces whiskey of choice flavor, etc.; and, no doubt, both for those who want these articles and for the owners of the factories in which they are made it is very advantageous. But cannons and scents and whiskey are wanted by those who wish to obtain control of the Chinese market, or who like to get drunk, or are concerned about their complexions; but there will be some who consider the production of these articles harmful. And there will always be people who consider that besides these articles, exhibitions, academies, beer and beef are unnecessary and even harmful. How are these people to be made to participate in the production of such articles?
But even if a means could be found to get all to agree to produce certain articles (though there is no such means, and can be none, except coercion), who, in a free society, without capitalistic production, competition, and its law of supply and demand, will decide which articles are to have the preference? Which are to be made first, and which after? Are we first to build the Siberian Railway and fortify Port Arthur, and then macadamize the roads in our country districts, or vice-versa? Which is to come first, electric lighting or irrigation of the fields? And then comes another question, insoluble with free workmen: which men are to do which work? Evidently all will prefer haymaking or drawing to stoking or cesspool cleaning. How, in apportioning the work, are people to be induced to agree?
No statistics can answer these questions. The solution can be only theoretical: it may be said that there will be people to whom power will be given to regulate all these matters. Some people will decide these questions and others will obey them.
But besides the questions of apportioning and directing production and of selecting work, when the means of production are communalised, there will be another and most important question, as to the degree of division of labour that can be established in a socialistically organized society. The now existing division of labour is conditioned by the necessities of the workers. A worker only agrees to live all his life underground, or to make the one-hundredth part of one article all his life, or to move his hands up and down amid the roar of machinery all his life, because he will otherwise not have means to live. But it will only be by compulsion that a workman, owning the means of production and not suffering want, can be induced to accept such stupefying and soul-destroying conditions of labour as those in which people now work. Division of labour is undoubtedly very profitable and natural to people; but if people are free, division of labour is only possible up to a certain very limited extent, which has been far overstepped in our society.
If one peasant occupies himself chiefly with bootmaking, and his wife weaves, and another peasant plows, and a third is a blacksmith, and they all, having acquired special dexterity in their own work, afterwards exchange what they have produced, such division of labour is advantageous to all, and free people will naturally divide their work in this way. But a division of labour by which a man makes one one-hundredth of an article, or a stoker works in 140 degrees (Fahrenheit) of heat, or is choked with harmful gases -- such divisions of labour is disadvantageous, because though it furthers the production of insignificant articles, it destroys that which is most precious --the life of man. And, therefore, such division of labour as now exists can only exist where there is compulsion. Rodbertus1 says that communal division of labour unites mankind. That is true, but it is only free division -- such as people voluntarily adopt -- that unites.
If people decide to make a road, and one digs, another brings stones, a third breaks them, etc., that sort of division of work unites people.
But if, independently of the wishes, and sometimes against the wishes, of the workers, a strategical railway is built, or an Eiffel tower, or stupidities such as fill the Paris exhibition; and one workman is compelled to obtain iron, another to dig coal, a third to make castings, a fourth to cut down trees, and a fifth to saw them up, without even having the least idea what the things they are making are wanted for, then such division of labour not only does not unite men, but, on the contrary, it divides them.
And, therefore, with communalised implements of production, if people are free, they will only adopt division of labour in so far as the good resulting will outweigh the evils it occasions to the workers. And as each man naturally sees good in extending and diversifying his activities, such division of labour as now exists will evidently be impossible in a free society.
To suppose that with communalised means of production there will be such an abundance of things as is now produced by compulsory division of labour is like supposing that after the emancipation of the serfs the domestic orchestras and theaters, the home-made carpets and laces and the elabourate gardens which depended on serf-labour would continue to exist as before. So that the supposition that when the Socialist ideal is realized every one will be free, and will at the same time have at his disposal everything, or almost everything, that is now made use of by the well-to-do classes, involves an obvious self-contradiction.
Notes
1 A leader of German scientific Socialism (1805-75). (Trans.).
CHAPTER VII – CULTURE OR FREEDOM
Just what happened when serfdom existed is now being repeated. Then the majority of the serf-owners and of people of the well-to-do classes, if they acknowledged the serf's position to be not quite satisfactory, yet recommended only such alterations as would not deprive the owners of what was essential to their profit; now, people of the well-to-do classes, admitting that the position of the workers is not altogether satisfactory, propose for its amendment only such measures as will not deprive the well-to-do classes of their advantages. As well-disposed owners then spoke of "paternal authority," and, like Gogol,1 advised owners to be kind to their serfs, and to take care of them, but would not tolerate the idea of emancipation,2 considering it harmful and dangerous, just so the majority of well-to-do people to-day advise employers to look after the well-being of their workpeople, but do not admit the thought of any such alteration of the economic structure of life as would set the labourers quite free.
And just as advanced Liberals then, while considering serfdom to be an immutable arrangement, demanded that the government should limit the power of the owners, and sympathized with the serfs' agitation, so the Liberals of today, while considering the existing order immutable demand that Government should limit the powers of capitalists and manufacturers, and they sympathize with unions, and strikes, and, in general, with the workers' agitation. And just as the most advanced men then demanded the emancipation of the serfs, but drew up a project which left the serfs dependent on private landowners, or fettered them with tributes and land-taxes -- so now the most advanced people demand the emancipation of the workmen from the power of the capitalists, the communalisation of the means of production, but yet would leave the workers dependent on the present apportionment and division of labour, which, in their opinion, must remain unaltered. The teachings of economic science which are adopted, though without closely examining their details by all those of the well-to-do classes who consider themselves enlightened and advanced, seem on a superficial examination to be liberal and even radical, containing as they do attacks on the wealthy classes of society; but essentially that teaching is in the highest degree conservative, gross and cruel. One way or another the men of science, and in their train all the well-to-do classes, wish at all cost to maintain the present system of distribution and division of labour, which makes possible the production of that great quantity of goods which they make use of. The existing economic order is -- by the men of science and, following them, by all the well-to-do classes -- called culture; and in this culture: railways, telegraphs, telephones, photographs, Roentgen rays, clinical hospitals, exhibitions, and, chiefly, all the appliances of comfort -- they see something so sacrosanct that they will not allow even a thought of alterations which might destroy it all, or but endanger a small part of these acquisitions. Everything may, according to the teachings of that science, be changed except what it calls culture. But it becomes more and more evident that this culture can exist only while the workers are compelled to work. Yet men of science are so sure that this culture is the greatest of blessings that they boldly proclaim the contrary of what the lawyers once said: fiat justitia, pereat mundus4 They now say: fiat cultura, pereat justitia.5 And they not only say it, but act accordingly. Everything may be changed in practice and in theory, but not culture; not all that is going on in workshops and factories, and certainly not what is being sold in the shops.
But I think that enlightened people, professing the Christian law of brotherhood and love to one's neighbor, should say just the contrary.
Electric lights and telephones and exhibitions are excellent, and so are all the pleasure-gardens, with concerts and performances, and all the cigars, and match-boxes, and braces, and motor cars, but they may all go to perdition, and not they alone, but the railways, and all the factory-made chintz stuffs and cloths in the world, if to produce them it is necessary that 99 per cent. of the people should remain in slavery and perish by thousands in factories needed for the production of these articles. If, in order that London or Petersburg may be lighted by electricity, or in order to construct exhibition buildings, or in order that there may be beautiful paints, or in order to weave beautiful stuffs quickly and abundantly, it is necessary that even a very few lives should be destroyed, or ruined, or shortened -- and statistics show us how many are destroyed -- let London or Petersburg rather be lit by gas or oil; let there rather be no exhibition, no paints, or materials, only let there be no slavery, and no destruction of human lives resulting from it. Truly enlightened people will always agree rather to go back to riding on horses and using pack-horses, or even to tilling the earth with sticks or with one's hands, than to travel on railways which regularly every year crush so many people as is done in Chicago6 merely because the proprietors of the railway find it more profitable to compensate the families of those killed than to build the line so that it should not kill people. The motto for truly enlightened people is not fiat cultura, pereat justitia, but fiat justitia, pereat cultura.
But culture, useful culture, will not be destroyed. Let justice be done, though the world perish. It will certainly not be necessary for people to revert to tillage of the land with sticks or to lighting up with torches. It is not for nothing that mankind, in their slavery, have achieved such great progress in technical matters. If only it is understood that we must not sacrifice the lives of our fellow-men for our pleasure, it will be possible to apply technical improvements without destroying men's lives, and to arrange life so as to profit by all such methods giving us control of nature as have been devised and can be applied without keeping our brother men in slavery.
2 Tolstoy himself set an example by voluntarily emancipating all his serfs. (Trans.).
3 It should be borne in mind that educated Russians, though politically much less free, are intellectually far more free than the corresponding section of the English population. Views on economics, and on religion, which are here held only by very "advanced" people, have been popular among Russian university students for a generation past. In particular, the doctrines of Karl Marx, and of German scientific socialism in general, have had a much wider acceptance there than here. (Trans.).
4 Let justice be done, though the world perish.
5 Let culture be preserved, though justice perishes.
6 We have a somewhat similar case nearer home. In 1899 the number of railway servants killed in the United Kingdom was 1085, besides nearly 5000 injured, yet Companies wish to defer the introduction of such a precaution as automatic couplings till yet more have been killed. (Trans.).
CHAPTER VIII – SLAVERY EXISTS AMONG US
Imagine a man from the country quite different from our own, with no idea of our history or of our laws, and suppose that, after showing him the various aspects of our life, we were to ask him what was the chief difference he noticed in the lives of people of our world? The chief difference which such a man would notice in the way people live is that some people -- a small number -- who have clean, white hands, and are well nourished and clothed and lodged, do very little and very light work, or even do not work at all, but only amuse themselves, spending on these amusements the results of millions of days devoted by other people to severe labour; but other people, always dirty, poorly clothed and lodged and fed, with dirty, horny hands, toil unceasingly from morning to night, and sometimes all night long, working for those who do not work, but who continually amuse themselves.
If between the slaves and slave-owners of to-day it is difficult to draw as sharp a dividing line as that which separated the former slaves from their masters, and if among the slaves of today there are some who are only temporarily slaves and then become slave-owners, or some who, at one and the same time, are slaves and slave-owners, this blending of the two classes at their points of contact does not upset the fact that the people of our time are divided into slaves and slave-owners as definitely as, in spite of the twilight, each twenty-four hours is divided into day and night.
If the slave-owner of our times has no slave, John, whom he can send to the cesspool, he has five shillings, of which hundreds of such Johns are in such need that the slave-owner of our times may choose any one out of hundreds of Johns and be a benefactor to him by giving him the preference, and allowing him, rather than another, to climb down into the cesspool.1
The slaves of our times are not all those factory and workshop hands only who must sell themselves completely into the power of the factory and foundry-owners in order to exist, but nearly all the agricultural labourers are slaves, working, as they do, unceasingly to grow another's corn on another's field, and gathering it into another's barn; or tilling their own fields only in order to pay to bankers the interest on debts they cannot get rid of. And slaves also are all the innumerable footmen, cooks, porters, housemaids, coachmen, bathmen, waiters, etc., who all their life long perform duties most unnatural to a human being, and which they themselves dislike.
Slavery exists in full vigor, but we do not perceive it, just as in Europe at the end of the Eighteenth Century the slavery of serfdom was not perceived.
People of that day thought that the position of men obliged to till the land for their lords, and to obey them, was a natural, inevitable, economic condition of life, and they did not call it slavery.
It is the same among us: people of our day consider the position of the labourer to be a natural, inevitable economic condition, and they do not call it slavery. And as, at the end of the Eighteenth Century, the people of Europe began little by little to understand that what formerly seemed a natural and inevitable form of economic life -- namely, the position of peasants who were completely in the power of their lords -- was wrong, unjust and immoral, and demanded alteration, so now people today are beginning to understand that the position of hired workmen, and of the working classes in general, which formerly seemed quite right and quite normal, is not what it should be, and demands alteration.
The question of the slavery of our times is just in the same phase now in which the question of serfdom stood in Europe2 towards the end of the eighteenth century, and in which the questions of serfdom among us and of slavery in America stood in the second quarter of the nineteenth century.
The slavery of the workers in our time is only beginning to be admitted by advanced people in our society; the majority as yet are convinced that among us no slavery exists.
A thing that helps people today to misunderstand their position in this matter is the fact that we have, in Russia and in America, only recently abolished slavery. But in reality the abolition of serfdom and of slavery was only the abolition of an obsolete form of slavery that had become unnecessary, and the substitution for it of a firmer form of slavery and one that holds a greater number of people in bondage. The abolition of serfdom and of slavery was like what the Tartars of the Crimea did with their prisoners. They invented the plan of slitting the soles of the prisoners' feet and sprinkling chopped-up bristles into the wounds. Having performed that operation, they released them from their weights and chains. The abolition of serfdom in Russia and of slavery in America, though it abolished the former method of slavery, not only did not abolish what was essential in it, but was only accomplished when the bristles had formed sores in the soles, and one could be quite sure that without chains or weights the prisoners would not run away, but would have to work. (The Northerners in America boldly demanded the abolition of the former slavery because among them the new, monetary slavery had already shown its power to shackle the people. The Southerners did not perceive the plain signs of the new slavery, and, therefore, did not consent to abolish the old form.)
Among us in Russia serfdom was abolished only when all the land had been appropriated. When land was granted to the peasants it was burdened with payments, which took the place of the land-slavery. In Europe taxes that kept the people in bondage began to be abolished only when the people had lost their land, were unaccustomed to agricultural work and, having acquired town tastes, were quite dependent on the capitalists. Only then were the taxes on corn abolished in England. And they are now beginning, in Germany and in other countries, to abolish the taxes that fall on the workers and to shift them on to the rich, only because the majority of the people are already in the hands of the capitalists. One form of slavery is not abolished until another has already replaced it. There are several such forms. And if not one, then another (and sometimes several of these means together) keeps a people in slavery, i.e. places it in such a position that one small part of the people has full power over the labour and the life of a larger number. In this enslavement of the larger part of the people by a smaller part lies the chief cause of the miserable condition of the people. And, therefore, the means of improving the position of the workers must consist in this: First, in admitting that among us slavery exists not in some figurative, metaphorical sense, but in the simplest and plainest sense; slavery which keeps some people -- the majority, in the power of others -- the minority; secondly, having admitted this, in finding the causes of the enslavement of some people by others; and thirdly, having found these causes, to destroy them.
Notes
1 Moscow has a very defective system of drainage, and a large number of people are engaged, every night, pumping and baling the contents of the cesspools into huge barrels, and carting it away from the city. (Trans.).
2 I have left the distinction between Europe and Russia (quite natural and customary to a Russian writer) as it stands in the original. (Trans.).
CHAPTER IX – WHAT IS SLAVERY?
In what does the slavery of our time consist? What are the forces that make some people the slaves of others? If we ask all the workers in Russia and in Europe and in America alike in the factories and in various situations in which they work for hire, in towns and villages, what has made them choose the position in which they are living, they will all reply that they have been brought to it either because they had no land on which they could and wished to live and work (that will be the reply of all the Russian workmen and of very many of the Europeans), or that taxes, direct and indirect, were demanded of them, which they could only pay by selling their labour, or that they remain at factory work ensnared by the more luxurious habits they have adopted, and which they can gratify only by selling their labour and their liberty.
The first two conditions -- the lack of land and the taxes -- drive men to compulsory labour; while the third, his increased and unsatisfied needs -- decoy him to it and keep him at it.
We can imagine that the land may be freed from the claims of private proprietors by Henry George's plan, and that, therefore, the first cause driving people into slavery -- the lack of land -- may be done away with. With reference to taxes (besides the single-tax plan) we may imagine the abolition of taxes, or that they should be transferred from the poor to the rich, as is being done now in some countries; but under the present economic organization one cannot even imagine a position of things under which more and more luxurious, and often harmful, habits of life should not, little by little, pass to those of the lower classes who are in contact with the rich as inevitably as water sinks into dry ground, and that those habits should not become so necessary to the workers that in order to be able to satisfy them they will be ready to sell their freedom.
So that this third condition, though it is a voluntary one (i.e. it would seem that a man might resist the temptation), and though science does not acknowledge it to be a cause of the miserable condition of the workers, is the firmest and most irremovable cause of slavery.
Workmen living near rich people always are infected with new requirements, and obtain means to satisfy these requirements only to the extent to which they devote their most intense labour to this satisfaction. So that workmen in England and America, receiving sometimes ten times as much as is necessary for subsistence, continue to be just such slaves as they were before.
Three causes, as the workmen themselves explain, produce the slavery in which they live; and the history of their enslavement and the facts of their position confirm the correctness of this explanation.
All the workers are brought to their present state and are kept in it by these three causes. These causes, acting on people from different sides, are such that none can escape from their enslavement. The agriculturalist who has no land, or who has not enough, will always be obliged to go into perpetual or temporary slavery to the landowner, in order to have the possibility of feeding himself from the land. Should he in one way or other obtain land enough to be able to feed himself from it by his own labour, such taxes, direct and indirect, are demanded from him that in order to pay them he has again to go into slavery.
If to escape from slavery on the land he ceases to cultivate land, and, living on some one else's land, begins to occupy himself with a handicraft, or to exchange his produce for the things he needs, then, on the one hand, taxes, and on the other hand, the competition of capitalists producing similar articles to those he makes, but with better implements of production, compel him to go into temporary or perpetual slavery to a capitalist. If working for a capitalist he might set up free relations with him, and not be obliged to sell his liberty, yet the new requirements which he assimilates deprive him of any such possibility. So that one way or another the labourer is always in slavery to those who control the taxes, the land, and the articles necessary to satisfy his requirements.
CHAPTER X – LAWS CONCERNING TAXES, LAND AND PROPERTY
The German Socialists have termed the combination of conditions which put the worker in subjection to the capitalists the iron law of wages, implying by the word "iron'' that this law is immutable. But in these conditions there is nothing immutable. These conditions merely result from human laws concerning taxes, land, and, above all, concerning things which satisfy our requirements, i.e. concerning property. Laws are framed and repealed by human beings. So that it is not some sociological "iron law," but ordinary, man-made law that produces slavery. In the case in hand the slavery of our times is very clearly and definitely produced not by some "iron" elemental law, but by human enactments about land, about taxes, and about property. There is one set of laws by which any quantity of land may belong to private people, and may pass from one to another by inheritance, or by will, or may be sold; there is another set of laws by which every one must pay the taxes demanded of him unquestioningly; and there is a third set of laws to the effect that any quantity of articles, by whatever means acquired, may become the absolute property of the people who hold them. And in consequence of these laws slavery exists.
We are so accustomed to all these laws that they seem to us just as necessary and natural to human life as the laws maintaining serfdom and slavery seemed in former times; no doubt about their necessity and justice seems possible, and no one notices anything wrong in them. But just as a time came when people, having seen the ruinous consequences of serfdom, questioned the justice and necessity of the laws which maintained it, so now, when the pernicious consequences of the present economic order have become evident, one involuntarily questions the justice and inevitability of the legislation about land, taxes and property which produces these results.
As people formerly asked, Is it right that some people should belong to others, and that the former should have nothing of their own, but should give all the produce of their labour to their owners? so now we must ask ourselves, Is it right that people must not use land accounted the property of other people; is it right that people should hand over to others, in the form of taxes, whatever part of their labour is demanded of them? Is it right that people may not make use of articles considered to be the property of other people?
. . . . . .
Is it right that people should not have the use of land when it is considered to belong to others who are not cultivating it?
It is said that this legislation is instituted because landed property is an essential condition if agriculture is to flourish, and if there were no private property passing by inheritance people would drive one another from the land they occupy, and no one would work or improve the land on which he is settled. Is this true? The answer is to be found in history and in the facts of today. History shows that property in land did not arise from any wish to make the cultivator's tenure more secure, but resulted from the seizure of communal lands by conquerors and its distribution to those who served the conqueror. So that property in land was not established with the object of stimulating the agriculturalists. Present-day facts show the fallacy of the assertion that landed property enables those who work the land to be sure that they will not be deprived of the land they cultivate. In reality, just the contrary has everywhere happened and is happening. The right of landed property, by which the great proprietors have profited and are profiting most, has produced the result that all, or most, i.e. the immense majority of the agriculturalists, are now in the position of people who cultivate other people's land, from which they may be driven at the whim of men who do not cultivate it. So that the existing right of landed property certainly does not defend the rights of the agriculturalists to enjoy the fruits of the labour he puts into the land, but, on the contrary, it is a way of depriving the agriculturalists of the land on which they work and handing it over to those who have not worked it; and, therefore, it is certainly not a means for the improvement of agriculture, but, on the contrary, a means of deteriorating it.
About taxes it is said that people ought to pay them because they are instituted with the general, even though silent, consent of all, and are used for public needs to the advantage of all. Is this true?
The answers to this question is given in history and in present-day facts. History shows that taxes never were instituted by common consent, but, on the contrary always only in consequence of the fact that some people having obtained power by conquest, or by other means over other people, imposed tribute not for public needs, but for themselves. And the same thing is still going on. Taxes are taken by those who have the power of taking them. If nowadays some portion of these tributes, called taxes and duties, are used for public purposes, for the most part it is for public purposes that are harmful rather than useful to most people.
For instance, in Russia one-third of the revenue is drawn from the peasants, but only one-fiftieth of the revenue is spent on their greatest need, the education of the people; and even that amount is spent on a kind of education which, by stupefying the people, harms them more than it benefits them. The other forty-nine fiftieths are spent on unnecessary things harmful for the people, such as equipping the army, building strategical railways, forts and prisons, or supporting the priesthood and the court, and on salaries for military and civil officials, i.e. on salaries for those people who make it possible to take this money from the people.
The same thing goes on not only in Persia, Turkey and India, but also in all the Christian and constitutional states and democratic Republics; money is taken from the majority of the people quite independently of the consent or non-consent of the payers, and the amount collected is not what is really needful, but as much as can be got (it is known how Parliaments are made up, and how little they represent the will of the people), and it is used not for the common advantage, but for what the governing classes consider necessary for themselves: on wars in Cuba or the Philippines, on taking and keeping the riches of the Transvaal, and so forth. So that the explanation that people must pay taxes because they are instituted with general consent, and are used for the common good, is as unjust as the other explanation that private property in land is established to encourage agriculture.
Is it true that people should not use articles needful to satisfy their requirements if these articles are the property of other people?
It is asserted that the rights of property in acquired articles is established in order to make the worker sure that no one will take from him the produce of his labour.
Is this true?
It is only necessary to glance at what is done in our world, where property rights are defended with especial strictness, in order to be convinced how completely the facts of life run counter to this explanation.
In our society, in consequence of property rights in acquired articles, the very thing happens which that right is intended to prevent: namely, all articles which have been, and continually are being, produced by working people, are possessed by (and as they are produced are continually taken by) those who have not produced them.
So that the assertion that the right of property secures to the workers the possibility of enjoying the products of their labour is evidently still more unjust than the assertion concerning property in land, and it is based on the same sophistry; first, the fruit of their toil is unjustly and violently taken from the workers, and then the law steps in, and these very articles which have been taken from the workmen, -- unjustly and by violence, -- are declared to be the absolute property of those who have taken them.
Property: for instance, a factory acquired by a series of frauds and by taking advantage of the workmen, is considered a result of labour and is held sacred; but the lives of those workmen who perish at work in that factory and their labour are not considered their property, but are rather considered to be the property of the factory owner, if he -- taking advantage of the necessities of the workers -- has bound them down in a manner considered legal. Hundreds of thousands of bushels of corn, collected from the peasants by usury and by a series of extortions, are considered to be the property of the merchant, while the growing corn raised by the peasants is considered to be the property of some one else if he has inherited the land from a grandfather or great-grandfather who took it from the people. It is said that the law defends equally the property of the millowner, of the capitalist, of the landowner, and of the factory or country labourer. The equality of the capitalist and of the worker is like the equality of two fighters when one has his arms tied and the other has weapons, but during the fight certain rules are applied to both with strict impartiality. So that all the explanations of the justice and necessity of the three sets of laws which produce slavery are as untrue as were the explanations formerly given of the justice and necessity of serfdom. All those three sets of laws are nothing but the establishment of that new form of slavery which has replaced the old form. As people formerly established laws enabling some people to buy and sell other people, and to own them, and to make them work -- and slavery existed, so now people have established laws that men may not use land that is considered to belong to some one else, must pay the taxes demanded of them, and must not use articles considered to be the property of others -- and we have the slavery of our times.
CHAPTER XI – LAWS THE CAUSE OF SLAVERY
The slavery of our times results from three sets of laws: those about land, taxes, and property. And, therefore, all the attempts of those who wish to improve the position of the workers are inevitably, though unconsciously, directed against those three legislations.
One set of people repeal taxes weighing on the working classes and transfer them on to the rich; others propose to abolish the right of private property in land, and attempts are being made to put this in practice both in New Zealand and in one of the American States (the limitation of the landlord's rights in Ireland is a move in the same direction); a third set -- the Socialists -- propose to communalise the means of production, to tax incomes and inheritances, and to limit the rights of capitalist employers. It would, therefore, seem as if the legislative enactments which cause slavery were being repealed, and that we may, therefore, expect slavery to be abolished in this way. But we need only look more closely at the conditions under which the abolition of those legislative enactments is accomplished or proposed to be convinced that not only the practical, but even the theoretical projects for the improvement of the workers' position are merely the substitution of one legislation producing slavery for another establishing a newer form of slavery. Thus, for instance, those who abolish taxes and duties on the poor, first abolishing direct dues and then transferring the burden of taxation from the poor to the rich, necessarily have to retain, and do retain, the laws making private property of landed property, means of production, and other articles, on to which the whole burden of the taxes is shifted. The retention of the laws concerning land and property keeps the workers in slavery to the landowners and the capitalists, even though the workers are freed from taxes. Those who, like Henry George and his partisans, would abolish the laws making private property of land, propose new laws imposing an obligatory rent on the land. And this obligatory land rent will necessarily create a new form of slavery, because a man compelled to pay rent, or the single tax, may at any failure of the crops or other misfortune have to borrow money from a man who has some to lend, and he will again lapse into slavery. Those who -- like the Socialists -- in theory, wish to abolish the legislation of property in land and in means of production, retain the legalization of taxes, and must, moreover, inevitably introduce laws of compulsory labour -- i.e. they must re-establish slavery in its primitive form.
So that, this way or that way, all the practical and theoretical repeals of certain laws maintaining slavery in one form have always and do always replace it by new legislation creating slavery in another and fresh form.
What happens is something like what a jailer might do who shifted a prisoner's chains from the neck to the arms, and from the arms to the legs, or took them off and substituted bolts and bars. All the improvements that have hitherto taken place in the position of the workers have been of this kind.
The laws giving a master the right to compel his slaves to do compulsory work were replaced by laws allowing the masters to own all the land. The laws allowing all the land to become the private property of the masters may be replaced by taxation laws, the control of the taxes being in the hands of the masters. The taxation laws are replaced by others defending the right of private property in articles of use and in the means of production. The laws of right of property in land and in articles of use and means of production it is proposed to replace by the enactment of compulsory labour.
So it is evident that the abolition of one form of legalization producing the slavery of our time, whether taxes, or landowning, or property in articles of use or in the means of production, will not destroy slavery, but will only repeal one of its forms, which will immediately be replaced by a new one, as was the case with the abolition of chattel slavery, of serfdom, and with the repeals of taxes. Even the repeal of all three groups of laws together will not abolish slavery, but evoke a new and as yet unknown form of it, which is now already beginning to show itself and to restrain the freedom of labour by legislation concerning the hours of work, the age and state of health of the workers, as well as by demanding obligatory attendance at schools, deductions for old-age insurance or accidents, by all the measures of factory inspection, etc. All this is nothing but the transference of legalization -- preparing a new and as yet untried form of slavery.
So that it becomes evident that the essence of slavery lies not in those three roots of legislation on which it now rests, and not even in such or such other legislative enactments, but in the fact that legislation exists; that there are people who have power to decree laws profitable for themselves, and that as long as people have that power there will be slavery.
Formerly it was profitable for people to have chattel slaves, and they made laws about chattel slavery. Afterwards it became profitable to own land, to take taxes, and to keep things one had acquired, and they made laws correspondingly. Now it is profitable for people to maintain the existing direction and division of labour; and they are devising such laws as will compel people to work under the present apportionment and division of labour. Thus the fundamental cause of slavery is legislation: the fact that there are people who have the power to make laws.
What is legislation? and what gives people the power to make laws?
CHAPTER XII – THE ESSENCE OF LEGISLATION IS ORGANISED VIOLENCE
What is legislation? And what enables people to make laws?
There exists a whole science, more ancient and more mendacious and confused than political economy, the servants of which in the course of centuries have written millions of books (for the most part contradicting one another) to answer these questions. But as the aim of this science, as of political economy, is not to explain what now is and what ought to be, but rather to prove that what now exists, is what ought to be, it happens that in this science (of jurisprudence) we find very many dissertations about rights, about object and subject, about the idea of a state and other such matters which are unintelligible both to the students and to the teachers of this science, but we get no clear reply to the question -- what is legislation?
According to science, legislation is the expression of the will of the whole people; but as those who break the laws, or who wish to break them, and only refrain from fear of being punished, are always more numerous than those who wish to carry out the code, it is evident that legislation can certainly not be considered as the expression of the will of the whole people.
For instance, there are laws about not injuring telegraph posts, about showing respect to certain people, about each man performing military service1 or serving as a juryman, about not taking certain goods beyond a certain boundary, or about not using land considered the property of some one else, about not making money tokens; not using articles which are considered to be the property of others, and about many other matters.
All these laws and many others are extremely complex, and may have been passed from the most diverse motives, but not one of them expresses the will of the whole people. There is but one general characteristic of all these laws, namely, that if any man does not fulfil them, those who have made them will send armed men, and the armed men will beat, deprive of freedom, or even kill the man who does not fulfil the law.
If a man does not wish to give as taxes such part of the produce of his labour as is demanded of him, armed men will come and take from him what is demanded, and if he resists he will be beaten, deprived of freedom, and sometimes even killed. The same will happen to a man who begins to make use of land considered to be the property of another. The same will happen to a man who makes use of things he wants, to satisfy his requirements or to facilitate his work, if these things are considered to be the property of some one else. Armed men will come and will deprive him of what he has taken, and if he resists they will beat him, deprive him of liberty, or even kill him. The same thing will happen to any one who will not show respect to those whom it is decreed that we are to respect, and to him who will not obey the demand that he should go as a soldier, or who makes monetary tokens.
For every non-fulfillment of the established laws there is punishment: the offender is subjected by those who make the laws to blows, to confinement, or even to loss of life.
Many constitutions have been devised, beginning with the English and the American, and ending with the Japanese and the Turkish, according to which people are to believe that all laws established in their country are established at their desire. But every one knows that not in despotic countries only, but also in the countries nominally most free -- England, America, France, and others -- the laws are made, not by the will of all, but by the will of those who have power; and, therefore, always and everywhere are only such as are profitable to those who have power: whether they are many, a few, or only one man. Everywhere and always the laws are enforced by the only means that has compelled, and still compels, some people to obey the will of others, i.e. by blows, by deprivation of liberty, or by murder. There can be no other way.
It cannot be otherwise. For laws are demands to execute certain rules; and to compel some people to obey certain rules (i.e. to do what other people want of them) cannot be done except by blows, by deprivation of liberty, or by murder. If there are laws, there must be the force that can compel people to obey them, and there is only one force that can compel people to obey rules (i.e. to obey the will of others) -- and that is violence; not the simple violence which people do to one another in moments of passion, but the organized violence used by people who have power, in order to compel others to obey the laws they (the powerful) have made -- in other words, to do their will.
And so the essence of legislation does not lie in the subject or object, in rights or in the idea of the dominion of the collective will of the people, or in other such indefinite and confused conditions; but it lies in the fact that people who wield organized violence have the power to compel others to obey them and to do as they like.
So that the exact and irrefutable definition of legislation, intelligible to all, is that: Laws are rules made by people who govern by means of organized violence, for compliance with which the non-complier is subjected to blows, to loss of liberty, or even to being murdered.
This definition furnishes the reply to the question, What is it that renders it possible for people to make laws? The same thing makes it possible to establish laws as enforces obedience to them, organized violence.
Notes
1 It must not be forgotten that conscription, with which we in England are only threatened, already exists in Russia. (Trans.).
CHAPTER XIII – WHAT ARE GOVERNMENTS? IS IT POSSIBLE TO EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENTS?
The cause of the miserable condition of the workers is slavery. The cause of slavery is legislation. Legislation rests on organized violence.
It follows that an improvement in the condition of the people is possible only through the abolition of organized violence.
"But organized violence is government, and how can we live without governments? Without governments there will be chaos, anarchy; all the achievements of civilization will perish, and people will revert to their primitive barbarism."
It is usual, -- not only for those to whom the existing order is profitable, but even for those to whom it is evidently unprofitable, but who are so accustomed to it they cannot imagine life without governmental violence, -- to say we must not dare to touch the existing order of things. The destruction of government will, say they, produce the greatest misfortunes -- riot, theft, and murder -- till finally the worst men will again seize power and enslave all the good people. But not to mention the fact that all this -- i.e. riots, thefts and murders, followed by the rule of the wicked and the enslavement of the good -- all this is what has happened and is happening, the anticipation that the disturbance of the existing order will produce riots and disorder does not prove the present order to be good.
"Only touch the present order and the greatest evils will follow."
Only touch one brick of the thousand bricks piled into a narrow column several yards high and all the bricks will tumble down and smash! But the fact that any brick extracted or any push administered will destroy such a column and smash the bricks certainly does not prove it to be wise to keep the bricks in such an unnatural and inconvenient position. On the contrary, it shows that bricks should not be piled in such a column, but that they should be rearranged so that they may lie firmly, and so that they can be made use of without destroying the whole erection. It is the same with the present state organizations. The state organization is extremely artificial and unstable, and the fact that the least push may destroy it not only does not prove that it is necessary, but, on the contrary, shows that, if once upon a time it was necessary it is now absolutely unnecessary, and is, therefore, harmful and dangerous.
It is harmful and dangerous because the effect of this organization on all the evil that exists in society is not to lessen and correct, but rather to strengthen and confirm that evil. It is strengthened and confirmed by being either justified and put in attractive forms or secreted.
All that well being of the people which we see in so-called well-governed states, ruled by violence, is but an appearance -- a fiction. Everything that would disturb the external appearance of well-being -- all the hungry people, the sick, the revoltingly vicious -- are all hidden away where they cannot be seen. But the fact that we do not see them does not show that they do not exist; on the contrary, the more they are hidden the more there will be of them, and the more cruel towards them will those be who are the cause of their condition. It is true that every interruption, and yet more, every stoppage of governmental action, i.e. of organized violence, disturb this external appearance of well-being in our life, but such disturbance does not produce disorder, but merely displays what was hidden, and makes possible its amendment.
Until now, say till almost the end of the nineteenth century, people thought and believed that they could not live without Governments. But life flows onward, and the conditions of life and people's views change. And notwithstanding the efforts of Governments to keep people in that childish condition in which an injured man feels as if it were better for him to have some one to complain to, people -- especially the labouring people, both in Europe and in Russia -- are more and more emerging from childhood and beginning to understand the true conditions of their life.
"You tell us but that for you we shall be conquered by neighboring nations: by the Chinese or the Japanese," men of the people now say, "but we read the papers, and know that no one is threatening to attack us, and that it is only you who govern us who, for some aims, unintelligible to us, exasperate each other, and then, under pretence of defending your own people, ruin us with taxes for the maintenance of the fleet, for armaments, or for strategical railways, which are only required to gratify your ambition and vanity; and then you arrange wars with one another, as you have now done against the peaceful Chinese. You say that you defend landed property for our advantage; but your defense has this effect: that all the land either has passed or is passing into the control of rich banking companies, which do not work, while we, the immense majority of the people, are being deprived of land and left in the power of those who do not labour. You with your laws of landed property do not defend landed property, but take it from those who work it. You say you secure to each man the produce of his labour, but you do just the reverse; all those who produce articles of value are, thanks to your pseudo-protection, placed in such a position that they not only never receive the value of their labour, but are all their lives long in complete subjection to and in the power of non-workers."
Thus do people, at the end of the century, begin to understand and to speak. And this awakening from the lethargy in which governments have kept them is going on in some rapidly increasing ratio. Within the last five or six years the public opinion of the common folk, not only in the towns, but in the villages, and not only in Europe, but also among us in Russia, has altered amazingly.
It is said that without governments we should not have those institutions, enlightening, educational and public, that are needful for all.
But why should we suppose this? Why think that non-official people could not arrange their life themselves as well as government people arrange it, not for themselves, but for others?
We see, on the contrary, that in the most diverse matters people in our times arrange their own lives incomparably better than those who govern them arrange for them. Without the least help from government, and often in spite of the interference of government, people organize all sorts of social undertakings -- workmen's unions, co-operative societies, railway companies, artels,1 and syndicates. If collections for public works are needed, why should we suppose that free people could not without violence voluntarily collect the necessary means, and carry out all that is carried out by means of taxes, if only the undertakings in question are really useful for everybody? Why suppose that there cannot be tribunals without violence? Trial by people trusted by the disputants has always existed and will exist, and needs no violence. We are so depraved by long-continued slavery that we can hardly imagine administration without violence. And yet, again, that is not true: Russian communes migrating to distant regions, where our government leaves them alone, arrange their own taxation, administration, tribunals, and police, and always prosper until government violence interferes with their administration. And in the same way, there is no reason to suppose that people could not, by common consent, decide how the land is to be apportioned for use.
I have known people -- Cossacks of the Oural -- who have lived without acknowledging private property in land. And there was such well-being and order in their commune as does not exist in society, where landed property is defended by violence. And I now know communes that live without acknowledging the right of individuals to private property. Within my recollection the whole Russian peasantry did not accept the idea of landed property.2 The defense of landed property by governmental violence not merely does not abolish the struggle for landed property, but, on the contrary, strengthens that struggle, and in many cases causes it.
Were it not for the defense of landed property, and its consequent rise in price, people would not be crowded into such narrow spaces, but would scatter over the free land, of which there is still so much in the world. But as it is, a continual struggle goes on for landed property; a struggle with the weapons government furnishes by means of its laws of landed property. And in this struggle it is not those who work on the land, but always those who take part in governmental violence, that have the advantage.
It is the same with reference to things produced by labour. Things really produced by a man's own labour, and that he needs, are always defended by custom, by public opinion, by feelings of justice and reciprocity, and they do not need to be protected by violence.
Tens of thousands of acres of forest lands belonging to one proprietor -- while thousands of people close by have no fuel -- need protection by violence. So, too, do factories and works where several generations of workmen have been defrauded, are still being defrauded. Yet more do hundreds of thousands of bushels of grain, belonging to one owner, who has held them back till a famine has come, to sell them at triple price. But no man, however depraved -- except a rich man or a Government official -- would take from a countryman living by his own labour the harvest he has raised or the cow he has bred, and from which he gets milk for his children, or the sokhas,3 the scythes, and the spades he has made and uses. If even a man were found who did take from another articles the latter had made and required, such a man would rouse against himself such indignation from every one living in similar circumstances that he would hardly find his action profitable for himself. A man so immoral as to do it under such circumstances would be sure to do it under the strictest system of property defense by violence. It is generally said, "Only attempt to abolish the rights of property in land and in the produce of labour, and no one will take the trouble to work, lacking the assurance that he will not be deprived of what he has produced." We should say just the opposite: the defense by violence of the rights of property immorally obtained, which is now customary, if it has not quite destroyed, has considerably weakened people's natural consciousness of justice in the matter of using articles, i.e. the natural and innate right of property, without which humanity could not exist, and which has always existed and still exists among all men.
And, therefore, there is no reason to anticipate that people will not be able to arrange their lives without organized violence.
Of course, it may be said that horses and bulls must be guided by the violence of rational beings -- men; but why must men be guided, not by some higher beings, but by people such as themselves? Why ought people to be subject to the violence of just those people who are in power at a given time? What proves that these people are wiser than those on whom they inflict violence?
The fact that they allow themselves to use violence toward human beings indicates that they are not only not more wise, but are less wise than those who submit to them. The examinations in China for the office of Mandarin do not, we know, ensure that the wisest and best people should be placed in power. And just as little is this ensured by inheritance, or the whole machinery of promotions in rank, or the elections in constitutional countries. On the contrary, power is always seized by those who are less conscientious and less moral.
It is said, "How can people live without governments, i.e. without violence?" But it should, on the contrary, be asked, "How can people who are rational live, acknowledging that the vital bond of their social life is violence, and not reasonable agreement?"
One of two things: either people are rational beings or they are irrational beings. If they are irrational beings, then they are all irrational, and then everything among them is decided by violence; and there is no reason why certain people should and others should not have a right to use violence. And in that case governmental violence has no justification. But if men are rational beings, then their relations should be based on reason, and not on the violence of those who happen to have seized power. And in that case, again, governmental violence has no justification.
Notes
1 The artel, in its most usual form, is an association of workmen, or employees, for each of whom the artel is collectively responsible. --(Trans.).
2 Serfdom was legalized about 1597 by Boris Godunof, who forbade the peasants to leave the land on which they were settled. The peasants' theory of the matter was that they belonged to the proprietor, but the land belonged to them. "We are yours, but the land is ours," was a common saying among them till their emancipation under Alexander II., when many of them felt themselves defrauded by the arrangement which gave much land to the proprietors. -- (Trans.).
3 The sokha is a light plough, such as the Russian peasants make and use. -- (Trans.).
CHAPTER XIV – HOW CAN GOVERNMENTS BE ABOLISHED?
Slavery results from laws, laws are made by governments, and, therefore, people can only be freed from slavery by the abolition of Governments.
But how can Governments be abolished?
All attempts to get rid of Governments by violence have hitherto, always and everywhere, resulted only in this: that in place of the deposed Governments new ones established themselves, often more cruel than those they replaced.
Not to mention past attempts to abolish Governments by violence, according to the Socialist theory, the coming abolition of the rule of the capitalists, i.e. the communalisation of the means of production and the new economic order of society, is also to be carried out by a fresh organization of violence, and will have to be maintained by the same means. So that attempts to abolish violence by violence neither have in the past nor, evidently, can in the future emancipate people from violence nor, consequently, from slavery.
It cannot be otherwise.
Apart from outbursts of revenge or anger, violence is used only in order to compel some people, against their own will, to do the will of others. But the necessity to do what other people wish against your own will is slavery. And, therefore, as long as any violence, designed to compel some people to do the will of others, exists there will be slavery.
All the attempts to abolish slavery by violence are like extinguishing fire with fire, stopping water with water, or filling up one hole by digging another.
Therefore, the means of escape from slavery, if such means exist, must be found, not in setting up fresh violence, but in abolishing whatever renders governmental violence possible. And the possibility of governmental violence, like every other violence perpetrated by a small number of people upon a larger number, has always depended, and still depends, simply on the fact that the small number are armed while the large number are unarmed, or that the small number are better armed than the large number.
That has been the case in all the conquests: it was thus the Greeks, the Romans, the Knights, and Pizarros conquered nations, and it is thus that people are now conquered in Africa and Asia. And in this same way in times of peace all governments hold their subjects in subjection.
As of old, so now, people rule over other people only because some are armed and others are not.
In olden times the warriors, with their chiefs, fell upon the defenseless inhabitants, subdued them and robbed them, and all divided the spoils in proportion to their participation, courage and cruelty; and each warrior saw clearly that the violence he perpetrated was profitable to him. Now, armed men (taken chiefly from the working classes) attack defenseless people: men on strikes, rioters, or the inhabitants of other countries, and subdue them and rob them (i.e. make them yield the fruits of their labour), not for themselves, but for people who do not even take a share in the subjugation.
The difference between the conquerors and the governments is only that the conquerors have themselves, with their soldiers, attacked the unarmed inhabitants and have, in cases of insubordination, carried their threats to torture and to kill into execution; while the governments, in cases of insubordination, do not themselves torture or execute the unarmed inhabitants, but oblige others to do it who have been deceived and specially brutalized for the purpose, and who are chosen from among the very people on whom the Government inflicts violence. Thus, violence was formerly inflicted by personal effort, by the courage, cruelty and agility of the conquerors themselves; but now violence is inflicted by means of fraud.
So that if formerly, in order to get rid of armed violence, it was necessary to arm oneself and to oppose armed violence by armed violence, now when people are subdued, not by direct violence, but by fraud, in order to abolish violence it is only necessary to expose the deception which enables a small number of people to exercise violence upon a larger number.
The deception by means of which this is done consists in the fact that the small number who rule, on obtaining power from their predecessors, who were installed by conquest, say to the majority: "There are a lot of you, but you are stupid and uneducated, and cannot either govern yourselves or organize your public affairs, and, therefore, we will take those cares on ourselves; we will protect you from foreign foes, and arrange and maintain internal peace among you; we will set up courts of justice, arrange for you and take care of public institutions: schools, roads, and the postal service and in general we will take care of your well-being; and in return for all this you only have to fulfil those slight demands which we make, and, among other things, you must give into our complete control a small part of your incomes, and you must yourselves enter the armies which are needed for your own safety and government."
And most people agree to this, not because they have weighed the advantages and disadvantages of these conditions (they never have a chance to do that), but because from their very birth they have found themselves in conditions such as these.
If doubts suggest themselves to some people as to whether all this is necessary, each one thinks only about himself, and fears to suffer if he refuses to accept these conditions; each one hopes to take advantage of them for his own profit, and every one agrees, thinking that by paying a small part of his means to the Government, and by consenting to military service, he cannot do himself very much harm.
But as soon as the Governments have the money and the soldiers, instead of fulfilling their promises to defend their subjects from foreign enemies, and to arrange things for their benefit, they do all they can to provoke the neighbouring nations and to produce war; and they not only do not promote the internal well-being of their people, but they ruin and corrupt them.
In the Arabian nights there is a story of a traveller who, being cast upon an uninhabited island, found a little old man with withered legs sitting on the ground by the side of a stream. The old man asked the traveller to take him on his shoulders and to carry him over the stream. The traveler consented; but no sooner was the old man settled on the traveler’s shoulders than the former twined his legs round the latter's neck and would not get off again. Having control of the traveler, the old man drove him about as he liked, plucked fruit from the trees and ate it himself, not giving any to his bearer, and abused him in every way.
This is just what happens with the people who give soldiers and money to the Governments. With the money the Governments buy guns, and hire, or train by education, subservient, brutalized military commanders. And these commanders, by means of an artful system of stupefaction, perfected in the course of ages and called discipline, make those who have been taken as soldiers into a disciplined army. Discipline consists in this, that people who are subjected to this training, and remain under it for some time, are completely deprived of all that is valuable in human life, and of man's chied attribut -- rational freedom -- and become submissive machine-like instruments of murder in the hands of their organised, hierarchical stratocracy. And it is in this disciplined army that the essence of the fraud dwells, which gives to modern Governments dominion over the peoples. When the governments have in their power this instrument of violence and murder, that possesses no will of its own, the whole people are in their hands, and they do not let them go again, and not only prey upon them, but also abuse them, instilling into the people, by means of a pseudo-religious and patriotic education, loyalty to and even adoration of, themselves, i.e. of the very men who torment the whole people by keeping them in slavery.
It is not for nothing that all the kings, emperors, and presidents esteem discipline so highly, are so afraid of any breach of discipline, and attach the highest importance to reviews, maneuvers, parades, ceremonial marches and other such nonsense. They know that it all maintains discipline, and that not only their power, but their very existence depends on discipline.
Discipline armies are the means by which they, without using their own hands, accomplish the greatest atrocities, the possibility of perpetrating which give them power over the people.
And, therefore, the only means to destroy Governments is not force, but it is the exposure of this fraud. It is necessary people should understand: First, that in Christendom there is no need to protect the peoples one from another; that all the enmity of the peoples, one to another, are produced by the Governments themselves, and that armies are only needed by the small number of those who rule for the people it is not only unnecessary, but it is in the highest degree harmful, serving as the instrument to enslave them. Secondly, it is necessary that people should understand that the discipline which is so highly esteemed by all the governments is the greatest of crimes that man can commit, and is a clear indication of the criminality of the aims of governments. Discipline is the suppression of reason and of freedom in man, and can have no other aim than preparation for the performance of crimes such as no man can commit while in a normal condition. It is not even needed for war, when the war is defensive and national, as the Boers have recently shown. It is wanted and wanted only for the purpose indicated by William II.: for the committal of the greatest crimes, fratricide and parricide.
The terrible old man who sat on the traveler’s shoulders behaved as the Governments do. He mocked him and insulted him, knowing that as long as he sat on the traveler’s neck the latter was in his power.
And it is just this fraud, by means of which a small number of unworthy people, called the Government, have power over the people, and not only impoverish them, but do what is the most harmful of all actions -- pervert whole generations from childhood upwards; just this terrible fraud which should be exposed, in order that the abolition of Government and of the slavery that results from it may become possible.
The German writer, Eugene Schmitt, in the newspaper Ohne Staat, that he published in Budapest, wrote an article that was profoundly true and bold, not only in expression, but in thought. In it he showed that Governments, justifying their existence on the ground that they ensure a certain kind of safety to their subjects, are like the Calabrian robber-chief who collected a regular tax from all who wished to travel in safety along the highways. Schmitt was committed for trial for that article, but was acquitted by the jury.
We are so hypnotized by the governments that such a comparison seems to us an exaggeration, a paradox, or a joke; but in reality it is not a paradox or a joke; the only inaccuracy in the comparison is that the activity of all the Governments is many times more inhuman and, above all, more harmful than the activity of the Calabrian robber. The robber generally plundered the rich; the Governments generally plunder the poor and protect those rich who assist in their crimes. The robber doing his work risked his life, while the Governments risk nothing, but base their whole activity on lies and deception. The robber did not compel any one to join his band, the Governments generally enroll their soldiers by force. All who paid the tax to the robber had equal security from danger. But in the state, the more any one takes part in the organized fraud the more he receives not merely of protection, but also of reward. Most of all, the emperors, kings and presidents are protected (with their perpetual body-guards), and they can spend the largest share of the money collected from the taxpaying subjects. Next in the scale of participation in the governmental crimes come the commanders-in-chief, the ministers, the heads of police, governors, and so on, down to the policemen, who are least protected, and who receive the smallest salaries of all. Those who do not take any part in the crimes of government, who refuse to serve, to pay taxes, or to go to law, are subjected to violence; as among the robbers. The robber does not intentionally vitiate people; but the governments, to accomplish their ends, vitiate whole generations from childhood to manhood with false religions and patriotic instruction. Above all, not even the most cruel robber, no Stenka Razin1 or Cartouche2 can be compared for cruelty, pitilessness and ingenuity in torturing, I will not say with the villain kings notorious for their cruelty, -- John the Terrible, Louis XI., the Elizabeths, etc., -- but even with the present constitutional and Liberal Governments, with their solitary cells, disciplinary battalions, suppressions of revolts, and their massacres in war.
Towards Governments, as towards Churches, it is impossible to feel otherwise than with veneration or aversion.
Until a man has understood what a Government is and until he has understood what a Church is he cannot but feel veneration towards those institutions. As long as he is guided by them his vanity makes it necessary for him to think that what guides him is something primal, great and holy; but as soon as he understands that what guides him is not something primal and holy, but that it is a fraud carried out by unworthy people, who, under the pretence of guiding him, make use of him for their own personal ends, he cannot but at once feel aversion towards these people, and the more important the side of his life that has been guided the more aversion will he feel.
People cannot but feel this when they have understood what Governments are.
People must feel that their participation in the criminal activity of Governments, whether by giving part of their work in the form of money, or by direct participation in military service, is not, as is generally supposed, an indifferent action, but, besides being harmful to one's self and to one's brothers, is a participation in the crimes unceasingly committed by all Governments and a preparation for new crimes, which Governments are always preparing by maintaining disciplined armies.
The age of veneration for governments, notwithstanding all the hypnotic influence they employ to maintain their position, is more and more passing away. And it is time for people to understand that Governments not only are not necessary, but are harmful and most highly immoral institutions, in which a self-respecting, honest man cannot and must not take part, and the advantages of which he cannot and should not enjoy.
And as soon as people clearly understand that, they will naturally cease to take part in such deeds, i.e. cease to give the Governments soldiers and money. And as soon as a majority of people ceases to do this the fraud which enslaves people will be abolished.
Only in this way can people be freed from slavery.
Notes
1 The Cossack leader of a formidable insurrection in the latter half of the seventeenth century. -- (Trans.).
2 The chief of a Paris band of robbers in the early years of the eighteenth century. -- (Trans.).
CHAPTER XV – WHAT SHOULD EACH MAN DO?
"But all these are general considerations, and whether they are correct or not, they are inapplicable to life," will be the remark made by people accustomed to their position, and who do not consider it possible, or who do not wish, to change it.
"Tell us what to do, and how to organize society," is what people of the well-to-do classes usually say.
People of the well-to-do classes are so accustomed to their role of slave owners that when there is talk of improving the workers' condition, they at once begin, like our serf owners before the emancipation, to devise all sorts of plans for their slaves; but it never occurs to them that they have no right to dispose of other people, and that if they really wish to do good to people, the one thing they can and should do is to cease to do the evil they are now doing. And the evil they do is very definite and clear. It is not merely that they employ compulsory slave labour, and do not wish to cease from employing it, but that they also take part in establishing and maintaining this compulsion of labour. That is what they should cease to do.
The working people are also so perverted by their compulsory slavery that it seems to most of them that if their position is a bad one, it is the fault of the masters, who pay them too little and who own the means of production. It does not enter their heads that their bad position depends entirely on themselves, and that if only they wish to improve their own and their brothers' positions, and not merely each to do the best he can for himself, the great thing for them to do is themselves to cease to do evil. And the evil that they do is that, desiring to improve their material position by the same means which have brought them into bondage, -- the workers (for the sake of satisfying the habits they have adopted), sacrificing their human dignity and freedom, accept humiliating and immoral employment or produce unnecessary and harmful articles, and, above all, they maintain Governments, -- taking part in them by paying taxes and by direct service -- and thus they enslave themselves.
In order that the state of things may be improved, both the well-to-do classes and the workers must understand that improvement cannot be effected by safeguarding one's own interests. Service involves sacrifice, and, therefore, if people really wish to improve the position of their brother men, and not merely their own, they must be ready not only to alter the way of life to which they are accustomed, and to lose those advantages which they have held, but they must be ready for an intense struggle, not against governments, but against themselves and their families, and must be ready to suffer persecution for non-fulfillment of the demands of Government.
And, therefore, the reply to the question -- What is it we must do? -- is very simple, and not merely definite, but always in the highest degree applicable and practicable for each man, though it is not what is expected by those who, like people of the well-to-do classes, are fully convinced that they are appointed to correct not themselves (they are already good), but to teach and correct other people; and by those who, like the workmen, are sure that not they (but only the capitalists) are in fault for their present bad position, and think that things can only be put right by taking from the capitalists the things they use, and arranging so that all might make use of those conveniences of life which are now only used by the rich. The answer is very definite, applicable, and practicable, for it demands the activity of that one person over whom each of us has real, rightful, and unquestionable power, namely, oneself; and it consists in this, that if a man -- whether slave or slave owner -- really wishes to better not his position alone, but the position of people in general, he must not himself do those wrong things which enslave him and his brothers. And in order not to do the evil which produces misery for himself and for his brothers, he should, first of all, neither willingly nor under compulsion take any part in Governmental activity, and should, therefore, be neither a soldier, nor a Field-Marshal, nor a Minister-of-State, nor a tax- collector, nor a witness, nor an alderman, nor a juryman, nor a governor, nor a Member of Parliament, nor, in fact, hold any office connected with violence. That is one thing.
Secondly, such a man should not voluntarily pay taxes to governments, either directly or indirectly; nor should he accept money collected by taxes, either as salary, or as pension, or as a reward; nor should he make use of governmental institutions, supported by taxes collected by violence from the people. That is the second thing.
Thirdly, a man who desires not to promote his own well-being alone, but to better the position of people in general, should not appeal to Governmental violence for the protection of his own possessions in land or in other things, nor to defend him and his near ones; but should only possess land and all products of his own or other people's toil, in so far as others do not claim them from him.
"But such an activity is impossible; to refuse all participation in Governmental affairs means to refuse to live" -- is what people will say. "A man who refuses military service will be imprisoned; a man who does not pay taxes will be punished and the tax will be collected from his property; a man who, having no other means of livelihood, refuses Government service, will perish of hunger with his family; the same will befall a man who rejects Governmental protection for his property and his person; not to make use of things that are taxed or of Government institutions, is quite impossible, as the most necessary articles are often taxed; and just in the same way it is impossible to do without Government institutions, such as the post, the roads, etc."
It is quite true that it is difficult for a man of our times to stand aside from all participation in Governmental violence. But the fact that not every one can so arrange his life as not to participate in some degree in Governmental violence does not at all show that it is not possible to free one's self from it more and more. Not every man will have the strength to refuse conscription (though there are and will be such men), but each man can abstain from voluntarily entering the army, the police force, and the judicial or revenue service; and can give the preference to a worse paid private service rather than to a better paid public service. Not every man will have the strength to renounce his landed estates (though there are people who do that), but every man can, understanding the wrongfulness of such property, diminish its extent. Not every man can renounce the possession of capital (there are some who do) or the use of articles defended by violence, but each man can, by diminishing his own requirements, be less and less in need of articles which provoke other people to envy. Not every official can renounce his Government salary (though there are men who prefer hunger to dishonest Governmental employment), but every one can prefer a smaller salary to a larger one for the sake of having duties less bound up with violence; not every one can refuse to make use of Government schools1 (though there are some who do), but every one can give the preference to private schools, and each can make less and less use of articles that are taxed, and of Government institutions.
Between the existing order, based on brute force, and the ideal of a society based on reasonable agreement confirmed by custom, there are an infinite number of steps, which mankind are ascending, and the approach to the ideal is only accomplished to the extent to which people free themselves from participation in violence, from taking advantage of it, and from being accustomed to it.
We do not know and cannot see, still less, like the pseudo-scientific men, foretell, in what way this gradual weakening of governments and emancipation of people will come about; nor do we know what new forms man's life will take as the gradual emancipation progresses, but we certainly do know that the life of people who, having understood the criminality and harmfulness of the activity of Governments, strive not to make use of them, or to take part in them, will be quite different and more in accord with the law of life and our own consciences than the present life, in which people themselves participating in Governmental violence and taking advantage of it, make a pretence of struggling against it, and try to destroy the old violence by new violence.
The chief thing is that the present arrangement of life is bad; about that all are agreed. The cause of the bad conditions and of the existing slavery lies in the violence used by Governments. There is only one way to abolish Governmental violence: that people should abstain from participating in violence. And, therefore, whether it be difficult or not, to abstain from participating in Governmental violence, and whether the good results of such abstinence will or will not be soon apparent, -- are superfluous questions; because to liberate people from slavery there is only that one way, -- and no other!
To what extent and when voluntary agreement, confirmed by custom, will replace violence in each society and in the whole world will depend on the strength and clearness of people's consciousness and on the number of individuals who make this consciousness their own. Each of us is a separate person, and each can be a participator in the general movement of humanity by his greater or lesser clearness of recognition of the aim before us, or he can be an opponent of progress. Each will have to make his choice: to oppose the will of God, building upon the sands the unstable house of his brief, illusive life, -- or to join in the eternal, deathless movement of true life in accordance with God's will.
But perhaps I am mistaken, and the right conclusions to draw from human history are these, and the human race is not moving toward emancipation from slavery; perhaps it can be proved that violence is a needful factor of progress, and that the state, with its violence, is a necessary form of life, and that it will be worse for people if Governments are abolished and if the defense of our persons and property is abolished.
Let us grant it to be so, and say that all the foregoing reasoning is wrong; but besides the general considerations about the life of humanity, each man has also to face the question of his own life; and notwithstanding any considerations about the general laws of life, a man cannot do what he admits to be not merely harmful, but wrong.
"Very possibly the reasoning showing the state to be a necessary form of the development of the individual, and Governmental violence to be necessary for the good of Society, can all be deduced from history, and are all correct," each honest and sincere man of our times will reply; "but murder is an evil, that I know more certainly than any reasonings; by demanding that I should enter the army or pay for hiring and equipping soldiers, or for buying cannons and building ironclads, you wish to make me an accomplice in murder, and that I cannot and will not be. Neither do I wish, nor can I, make use of money you have collected from hungry people with threats of murder; nor do I wish to make use of land or capital defended by you, because I know that your defense rests on murder.
"I could do these things when I did not understand all their criminality, but when I have once seen it, I cannot avoid seeing it, and can no longer take part in these things.
"I know that we are all so bound up by violence that it is difficult to avoid it altogether, but I will, nevertheless, do all I can not to take part in it; I will not be an accomplice to it, and will try not to make use of what is obtained and defended by murder.
"I have but one life, and why should I, in this brief life of mine, act contrary to the voice of conscience and become a partner in your abominable deeds? -- I cannot, and I will not.
"And what will come of this? I do not know. Only I think no harm can result from acting as my conscience demands."
So in our time should each honest and sincere man reply to all the arguments about the necessity of governments and of violence, and to every demand or invitation to take part in them.
The conclusion to which general reasoning should bring us, is thus confirmed to each individual, by that supreme and unimpachable judge -- the voice of conscience.
Notes
1 With reference to schools, the circumstances are different in Russia to what they are in England. Free England has compulsory education; Russia has not. But in Russia the Government hinders the establishment of private schools, and reduces even the universities to the position of Government institutions, watched by spies. (Trans.).
AN AFTERWORD
"But this is again the same old sermon: on the one hand, urging the destruction of the present order of things without putting anything in its place; on the other hand, exhorting to non-action, is what many will say on reading what I have written. "Governmental action is bad, so is the action of the landowner and of the man of business; equally bad is the activity of the socialist and of the revolutionary anarchists; that is to say, all real, practical activities are bad, and only some sort of moral, spiritual, indefinite activity which brings everything to utter chaos and inaction is good." Thus I know many serious and sincere people will think and speak!
What seems to people most disturbing in the idea of no violence is that property will not be protected, and that each man will, therefore, be able to take from another what he needs or merely likes, and to go unpunished. To people accustomed to the defense of property and person by violence it seems that without such defense there will be perpetual disorder, a constant struggle of every one against every one else.
I will not repeat what I have said elsewhere to show that the defense of property by violence does not lessen, but increases, this disorder. But allowing that in the absence of defense disorder may occur, what are people to do who have understood the cause of the calamities from which they are suffering?
If we have understood that we are ill from drunkenness, we must continue to drink, hoping to mend matters by drinking moderately, or continue drinking and take medicines that shortsighted doctors give us.
And it is the same with our social sickness. If we have understood that we are ill because some people use violence to others, it is impossible to improve the position of society either by continuing to support the governmental violence that exists, or by introducing a fresh kind of revolutionary or socialist violence. That might have been done as long as the fundamental cause of people's misery was not clearly seen. But as soon as it has become indubitably clear that people suffer from the violence done by some to others, it is already impossible to improve the position by continuing the old violence or by introducing a new kind. As the sick man suffering from alcoholism has but one way to be cured -- by refraining from intoxicants which are the cause of his illness; so there is only one way to free men from the evil arrangement of society, and that is, to refrain from violence, the cause of the suffering, from personal violence, from preaching violence, and from in any way justifying violence.
And not only is this the sole means to deliver people from their ills, but we must also adopt it because it coincides with the moral consciousness of each individual man of our times. If a man of our day has once understood that every defense of property or person by violence is obtained only by threatening to murder or by murdering, he can no longer with a quiet conscience make use of that which is obtained by murder or by threats of murder, and still less can he take part in the murders or in threatening to murder. So that what is wanted to free people from their misery is also needed for the satisfaction of the moral consciousness of every individual. And, therefore, for each individual there can be no doubt that both for the general good and to fulfil the law of his life he must take no part in violence, nor justify it, nor make use of it. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Laparoscopic detorsion of twisted ovary.
An 18-year-old female presented with a 6-day history of lower abdominal pain. Transabdominal ultrasonography revealed a right adnexal cyst measuring 9 cm. Laparoscopic examination demonstrated a 10-cm right paratubal cyst and a 5-cm right ovarian torsion with gangrenous discoloration. After removal of the right paratubal cyst, untwisting of the right ovary was performed. The postoperative period was uneventful. During follow-up, ultrasonography revealed restoration of right ovarian size with follicular growth. Arterial and venous blood flows were seen on Doppler examination. The right ovary appeared to be completely viable through a second-look laparoscopic examination. A twisted ovary may be completely restored with conservative management. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
server:
port: 8087
address: 0.0.0.0
servlet:
context-path: /
spring:
datasource:
driver-class-name: com.mysql.jdbc.Driver
url: jdbc:mysql://127.0.0.1:3306/hmily_order?useUnicode=true&characterEncoding=utf8&useSSL=false
username: root
password: 12345
mybatis:
type-aliases-package: org.dromara.hmily.demo.common.order.entity
config-location: classpath:mybatis/mybatis-config.xml
logging:
level:
root: error
org.springframework.web: info
org.apache.ibatis: debug
org.dromara.hmily.demo.bonuspoint: debug
org.dromara.hmily.demo.lottery: debug
org.dromara.hmily.demo: debug
io.netty: info
path: "./logs"
brpc:
global:
naming:
namingServiceUrl: zookeeper://127.0.0.1:2181/examples
group: "normal"
version: 2.0.0
ignoreFailOfNamingService: true
client:
workThreadNum: 1
ioThreadNum: 1
protocol-type: 30
max-try-times: 1
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
Pages
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Here in New England, we've weathered three (3!) Nor'Easters all within the span of a few weeks...and supposedly there's another one looming on the horizon next week. And ummm...it's MARCH, dammit.
But in the spirit of being optimistic (because that's soooooo me) let's just skip right over spring and think about SUMMER! The sun, the warmth, the drinks, the BEACH! And what does one wear to the beach? Why of course, you don your best string bikini from Victoria's Secret, right? (Again, that's sooooo me.)
Up first we have this creative tye-dye number. It's a DIY'er! Grab your tightest tee, cut the shit out of it, and go to town with the dye! Hey, have your kids help you!
Ummm, either this is a great breastfeeding suit (just untie and whip out the boob), or a horribly dangerous idea (small children, easy lace to untie with little fingers and then boom, you look down and you're exposed). Kids these days!
Remember Cats Cradle that we used to do with yarn/string in the 80's? This is the bathing suit equivalent.
Mom truth: The sides of my legs up to my waist are NOT the most flattering area on my bod. I feel like my skin would totally try to escape that netting and would bulge out the sides. Not a good look.
Does this model have nipples? Where are they?!
Victoria finally came up with an educational bathing suit: Here kids, it's time to learn to tie. Lie down on Momma's back and practice!
Friday, June 30, 2017
Curated just for you - to kick off this summer as you're laying peacefully by the pool or relaxing on the sand near the ocean...
Which?? Hahahahaha, that's funny, right Moms??!
This is probably way more realistic:
Anyway, if there's a slight chance that you *do* have some downtime, here are my recommendations for your summer reading pleasure:
YOUNG ADULT:
Wonder is such a quick but heartwarming read. It will tug at your parental heartstrings. Also, it's going to be made into a movie, so definitely read the book first (always my rule of thumb).
eleanor & parkis a pleasant surprise, I promise. It's a quirky teen love story set in 1986.
I remember reading this and feeling so sorry for Sutter Keely, the protagonist of The Spectacular Now. He's a cocky, yet insecure teenager whose actions are often cringeworthy. It is more of a heavy read for a YA book, but worth it! This was also made into a movie, but I haven't watched it.
FAST-PACED THRILLERS:
I have 3 words to describe YOU(the book! Not *you*): creepy, weird and compelling. This is one you will have trouble putting down. It's a stalker-filled beach read. And apparently, there's a sequel called Hidden Bodies. I have not read it yet though. Hopefully this summer!
Behind Closed Doors is one of my most recent favorite reads. Don't be surprised if this is one you can't put down. The title of the book says it all - that you never know what goes on...behind closed doors. (cue creepy music).
Wreckage is a book where you *think* you have figured out what happens...but you're probably wrong. It's about a plane crash survivor, her survival experience, the family she left behind, and the family she comes back home to. This one isn't necessary fast-paced, but it's completely enthralling.
By one of my favorite authors,The Guest Room is about a bachelor party gone very, VERY wrong.THE OPPOSITE OF LIGHT AND FLUFFY:
We Need to Talk About Kevin is a difficult, yet worthwhile read about the mother of a murderer. It is creatively written, yet eerie and compelling and uncomfortable. This is also a movie, that to be honest, I think I would have a hard time watching.
I don't know how many times I've raved about and recommended A Little Life, but it's quite a lot. This one is not for the faint of heart. It's beyond heavy, but oh so poignant. The writing is phenomenal. The characters (especially the main character, Jude) are memorable. If at first you're not into it, I promise you, just keep reading.
TEARJERKERS:
You can't read fly away without reading firefly lane first. Powerful stories of lifelong friendship. I most definitely cried at the end of firefly lane.
If you liked Me Before You, you'll love Dancing on Broken Glass even more. A heartbreaking love story that will definitely have you reaching for your beach towel to wipe your streaming teardrops.
JUST PLAIN GOOD READS:
I think you'll find that A Reliable Wife is a pleasant surprise. With its setting in the early 1900's, you expect it to be stodgy and buttoned-up, when it's actually just the opposite! The sex and scandal are delightful!
I remember being obsessed in high school with the stories of Charles Manson and the Helter Skelter murders, so The Girls, for me, was very reminiscent of that time period and the cult mentality. I couldn't put this one down.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
---E-mail from my husband to me, today, on only the THIRD day of summer vacation for the boyz, as both of us, from work, were trying to figure out who was getting who to baseball, who was going to what party tonight, who was getting a ride with who, and maybe, just maybe, squeeze in dinner tonight? Like at some point, maybe we can eat?
They are now 15-1/2, 13 and (almost) 12. No need for a babysitter. Like we had with my mother for many, manysummers.
We don't even need to pay someone to be a *body* anymore. Just to make sure they don't microwave aluminum foil or physically harm each other. They hopefully know better...and what I don't know while I'm at work is fine by me, as long as the house resembles a home and not a frat house when I return. They are aware that if there is an emergency to call their father 911.
And they certainly already know how to call Domino's Pizza, as evidenced by the empty pizza box on Tuesday. Apparently there was a lunchtime delivery. Paid for by Middle with birthday money. I'm not sure what the other 2 owe him for that, or how they convinced him to spend his money. I didn't ask.
Yes, there are still chore charts. (4 years and counting of them!) Obviously, the responsibilities on those charts have gotten a bit more involved, yet I still find myself writing down BRUSH YOUR TEETH as a task. (Does this ever end?)
But here's the difference that we're noticing this year. They are now teens and pre-teens with active social lives and activities. They are constantly connected to their friends via Snapchat, Facetime and texts.
On days 1 and 2 of summer vacation, I was already getting bombarded with requests to go all the places and do all the things. So today, I took the offensive and forewarned them:
Thursday, June 01, 2017
Hi there! Time sure does fly when you have 3 boys playing baseball...on FIVE different teams! Thankfully we're in the home stretch now. (I say that, but does it really ever end? Baseball goes into football which goes into basketball which goes into baseball...)
Anywho, here's some of my recent faves:
These suckers are addictive! A little salty, a little sweet...they just started getting them at my work.(We have "hubs" on each floor of TripAdvisor filled with drinks and snacks for the taking...among all the other numerous perks!)
This Burberry primer is (a bit pricey but) so silky smooth! I received a sample of it from Sephora and was instantly hooked. I've been using it all spring as a compliment to my baseball tan. You will completely love how it makes you glow.
Another sample I received from Sephora was this Philosophy serum. I've been kinda obsessed with serums lately, and this one is the best I've found thus far. The smell is amazing and it really does make your face feel fabulous and smooth. I'm having a hard time with the price point though, so I haven't pulled the trigger and bought a full-size bottle...yet.
I knew I wouldn't be disappointed when I started binge-watching this. Is there anyone who doesn't like this show? However, Mr. Donovan and I need to break up for a bit, because I need to watch the new seasons of Bloodline, House of Cards, and OITNB first. But I will be back, Liev, don't you worry. (Does anyone else think he sort of looks like Jax from Vanderpump Rules?! Am I right?)
I'm trying to get back into running. It started with making a goal to run at least one race a month. In conjunction with the running, I needed some good running motivation. Enter the Spotify app, which I was unaware of until my 15yr old introduced it to me. After hours of searching for all types of good tunes, I made my own running playlist that I LOVE! It definitely helps so much when I venture out for a run.
How cute are these?! They're my new favorite shoes and will be worn LOTS this summer! They look so great with white capris and a black top.
As far as summer reading is concerned, I am always on the hunt for my next great read. Follow me on Goodreads to see what I'm reading and what I'm wanting to read next!
Wednesday, April 05, 2017
Here in New England at this time of the year, the weather is certainly not something to be loving. Safe to say, I think we're all pretty much over it.
Instead of focusing on the crap weather, let's instead turn to fun!things! to cheer us all up, ok?
~ I could spend hourrrrrrrrrrs in a Sephora store, just browsing. I'm always hesitant to buy because I feel like I apply makeup with the expertise of a toddler, but I'm *trying* to get better. In that respect, I enjoy finding new products that work for me and my schedule: I'm up at the ass crack of dawn to exercise, I shower at work, and then I hide at my desk and wait until I'm cooled down for a bit before I spackle some paint on my face.
~Stitchfix has been hit or miss for me over the years, so we have lately been on a break while I attempt to navigate shopping in REAL stores and TRYING THINGS ON. But I just got one, and it was winner winner chicken dinner! Instead of being depressed by the things that my stylist sent (too small, too tight, too NOT ME), my 5 pieces were curated by someone who "got" me! I kept a great top and a spectacular chunky silver bracelet, and am excited to try Stitchfix again. Word of advice: if you do sign up (the link I provided is an affiliate link), be VERY SPECIFIC on your style wants/needs/likes/dislikes!
~Binge-worthy (only 2 seasons thus far!):
Have you guys seen this?! It's an Amazon show that's hilariously irreverent about a couple who ends up together after a (more than) one night stand. I find myself laughing out loud throughout the episodes and am so glad I found this hidden gem! Anxiously awaiting Season 3...
~Ever heard of a HIIT workout? It stands for high intensity interval training and is an effective way of burning the most calories in the shortest amount of time. Enter Metafit. It's a new class/fitness craze that I decided to take on Monday nights. Holy sweat. And although the workouts are short (between 18-24 minutes), you feel like you want.to.die.
~ My friend introduced me to the Facebook page Living in Yellow, and oh man, you should see the contents of my Nordstrom cart these days...especially the shoes! Love love love her style and fashion finds. Unfortunately my wallet doesn't, so I will continue to add things to my cart and lovingly stare at them without purchasing. (That's not weird at all, right?)
~ Believe it or not, I stopped drinking Coke Zero at the beginning of 2017 and haven't really looked back. I've had an occasional Diet Coke here and there (maybe 5 total), but am trying to stay away. I don't drink tea or coffee, but I still wanted needed caffeine. Thankfully my work has this natural caffeine water that I've been living on.
~ Currently bingeing:
I read this YA book one summer, and was excited to find out that Netflix made it a series. Just started it, but can tell it's going to be good. But I highly recommend (always!) reading the book first.
~ Girls' Weekends. Recently just came back from a spectacular weekend away *in Vegas* with my 4 girlfriends. Really, it wouldn't have mattered where we were, because having that time away from our daily lives and routines and worries and work and families and stresses is always special and not to be taken for granted. But being in Vegas definitely made it all the more unique. It is such a comfort knowing that I have these priceless friendships, no matter what.
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
The days when all 3 of them had coordinated pajama sets from Carters. Or Baby Gap. Or Children's Place.
(I was quite partial to those fleece one-piece footie pajamas. Umm..also? This is Middle standing up at 7 MONTHS OLD. And at this time, I was already 4 months pregnant with Youngest. OMG)
The days of little boy bare feet.
The days of blankies and thumbs.
When bedtime was a set-in-stone routine of baths, pajamas, and stories. When there were nighttime cuddles and I was able to sniff freshly shampooed hair.
I used to talk about sleep a LOT on this blog. As a matter of fact, as I was searching for pictures for this post, I found 153 (!) blog posts that reference "sleep"; 89 blog posts that talk about "naps"; and 49 blog posts with the word "crib".
It used to be a big deal back in those days when I was sleep-deprived and frustrated and just wanting them to SLEEP THROUGH THE NIGHT and GROW UP ALREADY.
But now?
There are no coordinated pajamas. It's tee shirts and shorts worn to bed.
Sadly, there are no more cuddles. No more bedtime stories. No more hair to sniff or cute little boy feet. (Instead there's big boy smelly feet with unkempt toenails and TOE HAIR. When did my babies get TOE HAIR?!)
No more blankets or thumbs. Instead it's a quick "g'night Mom" from all 3 with a quick peck on the cheek, and off they go.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
How timely! While most of the Northeast is experiencing this March winter storm, we can thank our lucky stars for Victoria and her secrets! So get your wallets ready ladies, it's time to go bathing suit shopping...
First up, we have the g-string....except it's not on your butt. Because who doesn't want a thong tan line ON THEIR BACK?*****
Somehow I feel like these bottoms wouldn't look the same on me. I mean, what with my thigh/hip fat bulging through that netting like Jack Nicholson in The Shining.
*****
For those of you who are a bit more modest, may I offer you Victoria's Secret version of a mock turtleneck?
*****
This bathing suit brought to you by 1985, your curly permed hair, and a ball of yarn. (And for that extra special bonus, you get underboob tan lines!)
*****
Because sometimes you just gotta harness those tatas!*****
The bigger your boobs, the harder those poor strings have to work.***** | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
(a) Technical Field
The present invention relates to an apparatus for variable shock absorption, and more particularly to an apparatus for variable shock absorption that changes the amount of shock absorption with the degree of extension of an elastic member to attenuate instantaneous force applied to a robot using wires.
(b) Background Art
Robots, which are operated based on an operation by workers or predetermined control logics, are used in various industrial fields for work which humans cannot do or of which the efficiency is increased by using robots. There are various robots, including robots that lift up heavy objects while moving on rails disposed along the work lines. However, these types of robots are substantially heavy and large in size, and are thus inconvenient for being operated by a human.
Accordingly, recently, wearable robots that enable workers wearing the robot to lift and move substantially heavy objects without difficulty when they lift and assemble the objects, by assisting the workers to move, have been developed. The wearable robots include a plurality of driving motors operated in accordance with movement or operation of workers, but the driving motors provided for all joints increase the weight of the wearable robots. Accordingly, a plurality of wires are used for operating the joints to minimize the number of the driving motors and to move the joints by a minimal number of driving motors.
A proposed structure of the related art includes a base, a plurality of fingers coupled to the base, a driving unit that drives the fingers, and wires that transmit force to the fingers. However, even by the related art, it may be difficult to prevent high pressure from being instantaneously applied to the wires by rotation of the drive motors that instantaneously operate. Accordingly, shock may be applied to the joints of the robot by shock applied to the wires due to substantially high loads instantaneously applied to the wires or instantaneous movement of the joints connected with the wires.
The description provided above as a related art of the present invention is merely for helping understanding the background of the present invention and should not be construed as being included in the related art known by those skilled in the art. | {
"pile_set_name": "USPTO Backgrounds"
} |
Topshop has the highest quality brand perception. Thanks to 59 percent positive feedback on customer service, and 84 percent on product quality, this brand wins in overall brand perception. H&M and Zara, however, have remarkably high positive sentiment around pricing perception, at 89 percent and 87 percent, respectively.
But scale isn’t everything. Topshop has a fraction of Zara’s audience (12 million vs. 30.7 million follower counts) but an engagement ratio that’s dramatically stronger: 29.84 percent vs. 7.91 percent. That means that while Topshop has a smaller following, that audience is more likely to engage with any given post.
Brands love Instagram. Photos are the best-performing type of content across all social networks and for all four brands. For the four fast-fashion brands we looked at, Instagram likes are, on average, 86x higher than Facebook likes, and Instagram comments are 30x higher than Facebook comments. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Company Applies Diamon-Fusion Nanocoating as Standard Feature on Solar Panels
Published on June 17, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Diamon-Fusion International, Inc. (DFI Nanotechnology), global developer and exclusive licensor of patented hydrophobic nanotechnologies, announced today the specification and utilization of its flagship Diamon-Fusion® patented nano-coating as a new standard feature applied on all solar panels distributed by SolarTech™, a leading solar company providing solutions to energy efficiency.
Diamon-Fusion® has been specified to be fashioned on each solar heating system as a valuable low-maintenance (easy-to-clean) feature to reduce on-going cleaning costs. DFI’s eco-friendly nano-coating also eliminates the need for harsh chemicals thus creating a "greener" and cleaner environment. Diamon-Fusion® nano-coating will be applied directly to the solar panels’ glass substrate, protecting the system from environmental elements, by providing a low-maintenance feature along with a barrier from damage caused by hard water, oil, smog, calcium and sodium deposits, and dirt, while providing UV stability, impact protection and increased brilliance.
Formed in 2006, SolarTech™ is South Africa's leading solar water heating systems producer and the most successful organization of its kind, worldwide, installing in excess of 35,000 systems per year, while consistently reducing annual carbon emissions by 130,000 tons. The company focuses on the installation of effective, renewable energy solutions to suit both the public and private sectors, for commercial and residential properties. In partnering with SolarTech™, the patented Diamon-Fusion® coating will be applied as a standard feature to every SolarTech Geyers™, the most cost-effective solar water heating system on the market. SolarTech™ is the first company in South Africa to embrace the move towards a new low carbon and green economy. For every SolarTech Geyser installed, there's an average saving of 2,000 kWh of electricity, thus preventing 1000 kg of coal being burnt and the release of 3700 kg of carbon dioxide into the eco-system. SolarTech Geysers™ are manufactured in South Africa according to international solar technology standards to meet the unique climatic conditions in Africa and are the most cost-efficient solar water heating systems on the market.
“Diamon-Fusion® is now being applied to all our SolarTech panels and forms part of our maintenance program called Solsure,” added James McCallum, Group Managing Director of SolarTech. “Our forward-thinking company is the first to consider clients' needs in terms of efficiency and performance and we look forward to partnering with DFI to continue to put client needs and environmental concern as top on mind.”
“There continues to be a vast interest and great acceptance of the DFI nanotech products within multiple renewable energy sectors and the value-added product offerings Diamon-Fusion's innovative nano-coating technology present to the solar energy market,” stated Guillermo Seta, executive director of DFI Global Operations. “We are thrilled to partner with the South African leader in renewable energy and we are pleased to showcase the multi-functional capabilities our patented system provides in this growing industry”, added John de Rooy, DFI's licensee and exclusive distributor in South Africa.
During the last two years, leading governments worldwide have committed over $180 billion dollars to sustainable energy, according to the Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment report. Financial investment in developing countries has increased over 27 percent to $36.6 billion, with over $1.1 billion going to Africa alone. Total investments in the renewable energy sector reached over $117 billion with $33.5 billion going directly to solar energy projects. The drivers that have propelled investment in the sustainable energy sector so dramatically for the past five years are still at work—climate change, energy insecurity, fossil fuel depletion and new technologies.
For over a decade, Diamon Fusion® International (DFI Nanotechnology), a California-based and privately-held US company, along with its research team have produced and distributed variety of products designed for the restoration, protection and maintenance of silica-based surfaces, such as glass, granite, tile, porcelain and quartz. The breadth of DFI's product offering ranges from award-winning and patented, professional quality products only available through authorized distributors (licensees) to easy-to-use highly-effective, do-it-yourself products for consumers. Through consistently introducing innovative products and educating the industry on the benefits of surface coating technologies for glass and glass-like surfaces, DFI has become a worldwide leader in coating products and services. DFI has representation and distribution centers in North and South America, Europe, Asia, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Main menu
C++: Why virtual? (Part-1)
C++ is a Object Oriented language. C++ uses virtial keyword for different places. One of this is in creating virtual functions.
One of the Object Oriented feature is Polymorpishm which means multiple-behaviours. An object has multiple behaviours and it shows particular behaviour depending on its context. C++ achieves this with the help of virtual keyword by defining virtual functions.
Lets take a simple example.
Create a class Shape and add one public method Display. Display just displays the name of the class.
Derive a class Circle from Shape class and add a method Display.
Now create an instance of Circle class and assign it to a variable of type Shape.
After running this, it will display “Shape” instead of “Circle”. Actually in main(), we have created Circle class’s instance; but assigned to Shape type variable. We expect the result “Circle”. But it calls Shape‘s Display method instead of Circle‘s Display method. This is the place we need virtual keyword.
By adding virtual keyword to Display method, at runtime it will call the exact method irrespective of the type of the object through which we are calling the method. In this case, it calls, Circle‘s Display method instead of Shape‘s Display method; which is what we are expecting.
We will discuss about other places where C++ using virtual keyword, in our next article.
Featured Posts
As of now, we have created our window and successfully displayed on the screen. We have seen this in our previous article. And also we observed that the window is immediately closed; because of no user interaction code was added.… | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Q:
C# problem in append items to XML document
Question
I have a XML schema as this which i need to append more product to this file , i was trying XMLdocument and Xdocument both classes but didnt got any good results
<prodcuts>
<product>
<name>123</name>
<price>123</price>
</product>
</products>
CODE:
i was trying Xdocument class with this code
XDocument xmldoc = XDocument.Load("F://products.xml");
XElement parentElement = new XElement(xmldoc.XPathSelectElement("product"));
XElement newElement = new XElement("name","32323");
XElement newElement = new XElement("price","150");
parentElement.Add(newElement);
xmldoc.Save("F://products.xml");
Exception
Value cannot be null.
Parameter name: other
I was tring XMLdocument class too but no results...
Where am i wrong ? ... is this problem can solved in LINQ or any other method ?
A:
This will create a new XElement under the Root node which is where I think you want it.
xmlDoc.Root.Add(
new XElement("product",
new XElement("name", "456"),
new XElement("price", "456")));
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
A surface display yeast two-hybrid screening system for high-throughput protein interactome mapping.
Despite the wide acceptance of yeast two-hybrid (Y2H) system for protein-protein interaction analysis and discovery, conventional Y2H assays are not well suited for high-throughput screening of the protein interaction network ("interactome") on a genomic scale due to several limitations, including labor-intensive agar plating and colony selection methods associated with the use of nutrient selection markers, complicated reporter analysis methods associated with the use of LacZ enzyme reporters, and incompatibility of the liquid handling robots. We recently reported a robust liquid culture Y2H system based on quantitative analysis of yeast-enhanced green fluorescent protein (yEGFP) reporters that greatly increased the analysis throughput and compatibility with liquid handling robots. To further advance its utility in high-throughput complementary DNA (cDNA) library screening, we report the development of a novel surface display Y2H (sdY2H) library screening system with uniquely integrated surface display hemagglutination (sdHA) antigen and yEGFP reporters. By introduction of a surface reporter sdHA into the yEGFP-based Y2H system, positive Y2H targets are quickly isolated from library cells by a simple magnetic separation without a large plating effort. Moreover, the simultaneous scoring of multiple reporters, including sdHA, yEGFP, and conventional nutrient markers, greatly increased the specificity of the Y2H assay. The feasibility of the sdY2H assay on large cDNA library screening was demonstrated by the successful recovery of positive P53/T interaction pairs at a target-to-background ratio of 1:1,000,000. Together with the massive parallel DNA sequencing technology, it may provide a powerful proteomic tool for high-throughput interactome mapping on a genomic scale. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Have a long week ahead of or behind you? Come 'wine about it' with us at this year's 16th Annual Art of Wine Festival at Walton Arts Center. This premier wine and food festival will take place June 9-11 and it is sure to entice patrons with the world's finest wines and an array of artfully crafted local cuisine in a unique atmosphere.
Like a good wine, the Art of Wine Festival has only gotten better with age. Since 2000, attendees of the event have enjoyed Walton Arts Center's exquisite display of delicious wines and food. Whether you go to all three days, or just one, this multi-day wine and food festival will not disappoint.
~June 9, 10, & 11~
Thursday, June 9
/
$6pm
/
Tickets: $200
THE WINEMAKER'S DINNER
Thursday, June 9
/
$6pm
/
Tickets: $200
Friday, June 10
/
$7pm
/
Tickets: $80
UNCORKED! WINE TASTING
Friday, June 10
/
$7pm
/
Tickets: $80
Saturday, June 11
/
$6pm
/
Tickets: $150
PREMIER TASTING
Saturday, June 11
/
$6pm
/
Tickets: $150
A Walton Arts Center favorite, the Art of Wine Festival will feature hundreds of wines, dozens of local restaurants and live entertainment. Why book an expensive trip to Napa Valley when everything you would experience there is right here in Northwest Arkansas?
The best part of it is that 100% of the proceeds from Art of Wine go to supporting Walton Arts Center’s arts education and outreach programs. These initiatives have been the cornerstone of the Center since it opened in 1992. Each year over 45,000 students and teachers from 30 school districts experience the arts through high quality live theater performances, workshops and in-school residency activities because of funds raised from Art of Wine.
Studies consistently show that children that are exposed to the arts are more engaged and score higher in other areas of their education including reading, writing and math.
We have attended Art of Wine events for years and regard it as one of the premier events in Northwest Arkansas!
Winemaker's Dinner-
Dine and mingle on the same stage where Broadway stars and entertainment legends have performed. Enjoy an exclusive evening with a five-course meal and a large selection of outstanding wines. This evening also features one of the most unique silent auctions in the region. Bid on art, wine and other special items.
Uncorked: Friday Night Tasting-
Friday night is the party of the summer. You can choose from a selection of over 400 different wines from around the world and food from the area's best restaurants-all in a festive party atmosphere at the heart of Northwest Arkansas' entertainment district. So grab your friends, enjoy the tasting experience and discover your new favorite wine. This tasting features our exciting WINE PULL, where $20 cash gets you a surprise bottle of wine!
Premier Tasting-
The Premier Tasting is a grand opportunity for discerning wine enthusiasts and connoisseurs. For the price of an elite bottle, you can sample many of the finest wines in the world, some of which are not available except at prestigious wine festivals like this one. Featured wines may include Opus One, Dom Perignon, Honig and Mondavi. Guests will enjoy delectable, heavy hors d'ouevres prepared by the Northwest Arkansas' best chefs, and a selection of silent auction items will be up for bid. In addition, the popular WINE PULL will make its Premier Tasting Debut!
In case you still aren't convinced, here are three more reasons why you need to be at this year's Art of Wine event:
You should come drink wine with us because it isn't good to keep things bottled up.
You need to come drink wine with us because life is too short to drink bad wine.
You ABSOLUTELY have to come drink wine with us because not only does wine get better with age, but we think age gets better with wine!
So mark your calendars and come wine and dine with us, we can't think of a reason not to attend! | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
26 F.3d 133
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.George Henry GOUTIER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 93-10236.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 1994.Decided June 14, 1994.
Before: REINHARDT and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.*
MEMORANDUM**
George Henry Goutier, Jr. appeals his sentence, imposed following his conviction for unauthorized use of an access device in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1029(a)(2); for bank larceny in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113(b); and for perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742. We vacate Goutier's sentence and remand for resentencing to omit the 2-level enhancement imposed under United States Sentencing Guidelines Sec. 3C1.1.
* Background
Goutier was convicted in May 1990 for possession of unauthorized access devices (credit card account numbers) and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment followed by a two year term of supervised release. In April 1992, a petition to revoke was filed, alleging that Goutier had violated the terms of his supervised release by again illegally possessing credit card numbers. On June 12, 1992, an evidentiary hearing on the petition was held. The victim was unable to appear. Goutier testified falsely that the victim had given him permission to use the victim's ATM card. Based on Goutier's false testimony, the district court did not revoke supervised release.
On July 1, 1992, a ten-count indictment was returned against Goutier. Counts two through six charged the bank larceny offenses alleged in the petition to revoke supervised release filed in April, 1992, and counts seven through ten charged Goutier with perjury at the supervised release hearing. On October 7, 1992, Goutier was convicted by a jury of committing all offenses charged in the ten counts.
On March 12, 1993, the district court sentenced Goutier based on an offense level of 12, plus a 3-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec. 2J1.3(b)(2) for "substantial interference with the administration of justice", and an additional 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1 for "obstruction of justice", for a total offense level of 17. Goutier received a sentence of 55 months imprisonment, plus a three-year term of supervised release.
Additionally, after the sentencing on March 12, 1993, the district court conducted a hearing to revoke the prior supervised release. Goutier admitted committing all of the offenses in question, and supervised release was revoked. The district court sentenced Goutier to 12 months imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 55 months imposed as a result of the October 1992 jury conviction.
II
Analysis
Sentencing. A defendant may appeal if a sentence was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of the Sentencing Guidelines. Williams v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 1112 (1992) (citing 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3742(a)). A district court's application of the Guidelines is reviewed de novo, but the factual findings underlying the application of the Guidelines are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Bos, 917 F.2d 1178 (9th Cir.1990).
Goutier challenges both the 3-level and 2-level enhancements as misapplications of the Guidelines.
(a) 3-level enhancement. Goutier's perjury at the revocation hearing on June 12, 1992 resulted in the district court not revoking supervised release and dismissing the petition. This decision was a judicial determination, based upon Goutier's perjury, within U.S.S.G. Sec. 2J1.3(b)(2) and Application Note 1 thereunder. Accordingly, the district court properly imposed the 3-level enhancement.
(b) 2-level enhancement. Goutier was convicted of counts 7 through 10, which charged him with perjury committed at the June 1992 hearing to revoke supervised release. The district court imposed a 2-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1 for additional perjury committed by Goutier at the trial in October 1992.
Goutier was convicted of an offense (perjury) covered by U.S.S.G. Sec. 2J1.3. Application Note 6 to U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1 states that where a defendant is convicted of an offense covered by section 2J1.3, the 2-level enhancement is not to be added to the offense level for that offense "except where a significant further obstruction occurred during the investigation, prosecution or sentencing of the obstruction offense itself." U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1, comment, Application Note 6 (emphasis added).
As an example of "significant further obstruction" the Application Notes following section 3C1.1 suggest that the 2-level enhancement should apply "where the defendant threatened a witness during the course of the prosecution for the obstruction offense." Id. In contrast, Goutier's perjury at trial constituted, at most, an elaboration of his perjury at the revocation hearing, because the victim was available at the trial and was called as a witness at trial by the government. Goutier basically repeated the same perjury for the same objective, viz., to deny the underlying crime of bank fraud.
Considering the severity and separateness of the conduct cited in the Application Notes as an example of proper imposition of the 2-level enhancement, and the fact that Goutier's perjury at trial was neither new nor surprising to the government, we conclude that Goutier's perjury at trial did not constitute a significant further obstruction within the meaning of U.S.S.G. Sec. 3C1.1 and the comment thereto. Accordingly, the district court is directed to resentence Goutier without the 2-level enhancement.
Appointment of psychiatrist. Goutier contends the district court erred in failing to appoint a psychiatrist to assist in sentencing. On this ground, Goutier must show by clear and convincing evidence that he suffered prejudice caused by the court's failure to appoint an expert. United States v. Brewer, 783 F.2d 841, 843 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Sims, 617 F.2d 1371, 1375 (9th Cir.1980).
Prior to sentencing, Goutier filed a motion to appoint a psychiatrist to prepare an evaluation to assist in sentencing, The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The district court acted properly because a psychiatrist's opinion would have been irrelevant to the applicable sentencing factors under the Guidelines. Furthermore, the district court was very familiar with Goutier, having presided over the revocation hearing, the jury trial, and the previous sentencing where a psychological evaluation was available.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
*
The Honorable Linda H. McLaughlin, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation
**
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.Rule 36-3
| {
"pile_set_name": "FreeLaw"
} |
Sabtu, 20 Maret 2010
10 Reasons To Stop Complaining About The Rain
Almost every summer the banks of Goonoo Goonoo (pronounced Gunny Ganoo) Creek would burst and flow up through the paddocks to our house. If we were not fast enough with sandbags, the water would flow on inside. Thankfully there were usually warnings from farmers further upstream of the flood water approaching.
My folks usually evacuated us until it subsided. It became common for the local newspaper to publish photos of us four children on the tractor, being taken out through the flood water to safety.
Our next farm was struck by severe drought, lasting most of the decade. While school friends headed off to the beach with their families, our holidays were spent sitting on the backs of our horses in scorching summer heat, minding the sheep as they fed off the sides of the roads. There was no longer any food left for them in our own paddocks.
The dams dried up and the well was so low that the windmill no longer pumped water. We dragged bucket after bucket of water up on a rope to fill the trough. We could not do it fast enough for the animals though. They would drink it down before we had started on the next bucket. It was a long process.
Eventually water had to be purchased by the truckload. Around the same time we were dragged off to church for special services put on for the farming communities to pray for rain. Being a teenager seemed a long, tiresome stint at times.
Naturally, a child would prefer being transported on a tractor through flood waters than being dragged off to church to pray for rain, or spending their holidays eating peanut butter sandwiches and drinking green cordial while on horseback, battling it out with the flies for their lunch.
As a result, I have grown to absolutely adore the rain. Living in the tropics at one time was a dream come true, with heavy solid rain every day for months. I never tired of it.
Looking out the window now, I see the creek is flowing well. The sound of rain on the tin roof is heaven and frogs are singing new songs.
I know all about floods and the damage they cause to those living in their path. I do not wish such misfortune on anyone. But it is going to rain anyway, so if you do not need to be considering the safety of your family, then why not just enjoy it?
We are blessed to have access to clean water. As Westerners, we have it very easy. Look at our fellow humans and how difficult a simple thing like a drink of clean, healthy water is to obtain. People’s whole lives revolve around the basics of survival, getting enough food and water to get through each day.
The song of the rain on the roof is always one that nurtures me. Living under a tin roof again, rather than a tiled one, is splendour in the truest sense of the word. I am overwhelmed with gratitude on this gorgeous rainy afternoon.
So before you complain about the rain, or if you are looking to combat someone else’s complaining, here are some points to consider.
Without rain:
1. We would be thirsty. Nothing we drink would exist without water.
2. We would be smelly. With no showers or water to swim in, we would get a tad rough on the nose before too long.
3. We would be very sunburned. No rain means trees don’t grow. No trees mean no shelter. Even mud houses cannot be made without liquid.
4. There would be no flowers. What would a world be like without such beauty? I shudder to think of life without such kisses of colour.
5. We would all be rather quiet. With nothing to drink, our mouths would dry up and provide no saliva. Conversations would surely cease if no liquid substitute were possible.
6. We would be hungry. No rain means no veggies or other delicious healthy food. Or for the carnivores, it means no crops to feed the animals and no water for them to survive anyway.
7. We would have no excuse to stay at home unexpectedly. Many people cannot stay home unless they give themselves permission to. Rain tends to do that for some.
8. We would be mighty unpleasant on the eye. As our bodies are mostly made up of water, if not replaced, we would shrivel up pretty fast…if we managed to live that long, which we wouldn’t. But if we did, we would resemble a prune. Not that there would be any prunes to compare ourselves to. No rain, no prunes.
9. We would have no rainbows, one of the greatest losses of all. How can the sky show us its magical spectrum without water falling?
10. We would be dead, as simple as that, and within a very short time.
So I prefer to rejoice on rainy days. There is little I love more than to watch everything washed clean, to hear the sound of rain falling, and to watch the natural world unfold as it has done for millions of years, long before we came along and started complaining about some clear, wet stuff falling from the sky.
Let us give thanks for rainy days. The sun will shine again. But we need the rain too.
Let us focus on the blessings of rain, rather than the imagined inconvenience of it.
It is a life force we cannot survive without.
And what is so bad about walking in the rain anyway?
Perhaps you will even find yourself jumping in a puddle now and then. But be careful…it just might be fun. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Dragonball EvolutionAs unimpressive as you might think.
PlotBased on the cult '90s cartoon series, Dragon Ball Z tells of Goku, a young warrior sworn to protect the universe from those who wish to harness the power of the mystical Dragonballs and take over the world. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Q:
Difference between value of reg, and adress of reg
How is this different?:
movl 4(%esp), %eax # put old ptr into eax
9 popl 0(%eax)
The first instruction puts content of first arg to %eax, but the second does as well (topmost content of stack), or is it indirect adressing? Will not the values overlap each other in %eax?
A:
0(%eax) is the memory location at the address stored in eax. %eax is the content of eax. The two are not equivalent. Also note that x86 uses a fully-descending stack, so pop 0(%eax) is equivalent to
mov (%esp), 0(%eax)
add $4, %esp
i.e. it loads from (%esp) and not 4(%esp) as your other instruction. pop also changes the value of esp which mov 4(%esp), %eax does not do. (do also note that mov (%esp), 0(%eax) is not actually a valid instruction, this is just for illustration of the principle).
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
Q:
Series help, fourier series
How do I know if a given function can be represented by a fourier series, that converges to the value of that function at non discontinuities. Also where did Fourier come up with the idea of representing periodic function in the way he did?
A:
There's various sufficient conditions, depending on how technical you want them to be. You obviously want $f$ to be periodic no matter what, I'll assume that from now on. Dirichlet's Theorem on convergence of Fourier series states that if both $f$ and its derivative are piecewise continuous on $[0,2\pi]$ (or whatever interval its periodic on, you can always rescale and translate a periodic function to get one periodic on $[0,2\pi]$), then the Fourier series of $f$ always converges to $f(x)$ when $f$ is continuous at $f$, and to the average of the left and right limits at $x$ of $f$ when $f$ is discontinuous.
Carleson's Theorem states that if $f$ is square-integrable over $[0,2\pi]$, that is
$$\left(\int_{0}^{2\pi}{|f(x)|^{2}\ dx}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}<\infty,$$
then the Fourier series of $f$ at $x$ converges to $f(x)$ for almost all $x\in[0,2\pi]$.
A:
This is an eminently natural question! In addition to Peter's accurate remarks:
From the (admittedly mostly secondary) historical sources I've read, Fourier did not initially have the inner-product formula for the coefficients, and had no really mathematical argument in favor of the expressibility of periodic functions (and, in those days, what was a "function"?) except analogies from mechanics and "overtones" in vibrating systems. That heuristic, however, set him on a course that seemed very productive for (apparently) solving a certain incarnation of the heat equation. Thus, the (apparent) utility of the idea gave motivation to subsequent legitimization.
In those days, there was no clear sense of "convergence", except (not uniform!) pointwise. Certainly not any formal "$L^2$" convergence. Indeed, problems about pointwise convergence of Fourier series led Cantor to create set theory.
Even with improved vocabulary of modern times, there is considerable tension between the "natural" pointwise convergence and, for example, $L^2$ convergence, or convergence in Levi-Sobolev spaces, or distributional convergence. Arguably, the $L^2$ theory works most smoothly, and, arguably, the $L^2$ theory of Levi-Sobolev spaces gives a more coherent and robust approach to (uniform!) pointwise convergence, if that is truly needed. E.g., while, perhaps counter-intuitively, the Fourier series of a $C^1$ function provably converges to it (uniformly) pointwise, it does not typically converge to it in the $C^1$ norm. (Also, the Fejer kernel discussion, while proving that finite Fourier series are dense in $C^o$, does not at all promise that it is the finite truncations of the Fourier series that converge to the function.) Meanwhile, functions in the ${1\over 2}+\epsilon$ Levi-Sobolev space have Fourier series that converge to them in that topology, and (Levi-Sobolev imbedding thm) are continuous, and the Fourier series also converges in the $C^o$ topology, and so on.
That is, fixation on pointwise convergence as fundamental may be misguided, although we are "brought up" to think of functions as primarily giving pointwise values. :)
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
Reversal of adverse hemodynamic effects of pneumoperitoneum by pressure equilibration.
The creation of positive-pressure pneumoperitoneum during laparoscopic operations can lead to adverse hemodynamic changes, mainly decreased cardiac output. We hypothesized that pneumatic compression sleeves worn on the legs during pneumoperitoneum could abolish the pressure gradient between the abdominal cavity and the legs and so eliminate these adverse hemodynamic changes. Prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial with an additional calibration group. A regional referral center. Forty-five consecutive patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy who developed hemodynamic changes on induction of positive-pressure pneumoperitoneum were randomized to 3 groups. Low-pressure, nonsequential pneumatic compression sleeves, wrapped around the legs, were used to equilibrate the pressure gradient in the study group and to gradually exceed it in the calibration group. In the control group, no sleeves were used. Transesophageal Doppler cardiac output, stroke volume, and systemic vascular resistance were monitored noninvasively. The creation of positive-pressure pneumoperitoneum caused a significant decrease of cardiac output and stroke volume and increased systemic vascular resistance. In the experimental groups of patients, pressurizing the sleeves to the pneumoperitoneal pressure caused a significant increase of cardiac output (from 4.82 to 6.74 L/min), increased stroke volume, and decreased systemic vascular resistance (P<.001). This was not seen in the control group. Additional gradual pressure increase in the sleeves of the calibration group produced no further improvement. Releasing the pressure abolished the hemodynamic advantages. Applying pressure on the legs equivalent to the positive-pressure pneumoperitoneum improves hemodynamic performance during pneumoperitoneum by nullifying the pressure gradient that is responsible for the adverse consequences. This might be of major practical value, especially for cardiac patients undergoing prolonged laparoscopic operations. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Q:
Best DRY if statement?
Let's say I want to compare a bunch of variables to one static variable, normally I would do it like this:
int w = 0;
int x = 1;
int y = 1;
int z = 2;
if(w == x || w == y || w == z){/*more code here*/}
But that can get extremely long and doesn't seem necessary, are there any ways to do something more like:
if(w == (x || y || z)){/*more code here*/}
I would like to think that there is a way to do it like this.
A:
Instead of:
if(w == x || w == y || w == z)
you can do:
if(Arrays.asList(x, y, z).contains(w))
A:
Though there is an answer accepted, I would want to share my ways too:
Method 1 is similar to the accepted answer. However, instead of using List, I use a Set. In such case, it may be even faster than doing == individually if there are lots of values to check against:
// make it a static final member if semantically possible
Set<Integer> ALL_VALUES = new HashSet<Integer>(Arrays.asList(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h));
//.....
if (ALL_VALUES.contains(w)) {
//... do something
}
Method 2 is to write a little utility function, something like
public static <T> boolean sameAsAny(T value, T... possibleValues) {
for (T p : possibleValues) {
if (value == p) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
with such util you can do something like:
if (sameAsAny(w, x, y, z))
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
This subproject is one of many research subprojects utilizing the resources provided by a Center grant funded by NIH/NCRR. The subproject and investigator (PI) may have received primary funding from another NIH source, and thus could be represented in other CRISP entries. The institution listed is for the Center, which is not necessarily the institution for the investigator. C. elegans as a model organism is well suited for studies in aging due to its short life span and easily controlled mating. The Jakobs lab has worked extensively on C. elegans and aging, most recently working on the role of oxidative stress. They, with other have developed the OxICAT system for mapping the redox active thiol proteome. Their conclusions show that while oxidative stress and aging both lead to comparable levels of reversibly oxidized cysteine residues, target proteins are different. However, their current methods can only map cysteines oxidized to disulphides and not cysteines oxidized to sulfunic or sulfonic acids. In conjunction with the Jakobs lab, we propose to use Sulfur XANES to map the total sulfur oxidation state and the amount of irreversible sulfur oxidation that happens as a result of the aging process compared to that of oxidative stress. | {
"pile_set_name": "NIH ExPorter"
} |
Contents
The shop sells a variety of products, including stationery, video games, toys, and jewelry, and it has a photo center. They have small kiddie rides outside, a horse and car. The store is protected by Detective Don Brodka. Try-N-Save often has themed sales, such as Christmas or back-to-school. The store is open 24 hours on Christmas. Hundreds of Springfielders waited outside the store for the release of the latest popular children's toy, Funzo.
Bart attempted to steal the video game Bonestorm from the store during the holidays, but was ultimately caught by the store's guard. As a result, he was told not to set foot in that store again or he would face criminal charges in court. When The Simpsons announced they are to going to the store for their annual Christmas family portrait, Bart tries to convince his family to go to other Try-N-Save stores and won't state his reasons why. However, Homer refuses and lays down the law that he won't drive the family further than the one closer to their home. Bart then attempt to use a fake nose and chin putty to avoid detection, but Marge tells him to remove it and behave himself. He manages to avoid detection for a while until Brodka having learned the truth and yanks Bart as the photographer was about to take the Simpsons' family portrait to confront him. It was there his family finally learned about Bart's shoplifting of Bonestorm, but Marge is in disbelief claiming that Brodka had the wrong child. So he attempted to prove Marge wrong by showing her the security footage, but Bart tries to stop him by admitting that he did shoplift. Bart would later return using Nelson's advice to apologize for his actions and take a good picture of himself in a photo that he bought for Marge.
Simpsons Hit and Run PS2 game features the shop with a gag outside of it: an exploding ride. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Susceptibility to IDDM in a Chinese population. Role of HLA class II alleles.
MHC associations with IDDM in a Chinese population were studied to investigate genetic susceptibility to the disorder. The frequency of HLA-DR3 was significantly higher in the diabetic patients (19/49 [38.7%] vs. control subjects, 11/105 [10.5%], Pc less than 1.3 x 10(-3), RR = 5.3 [CI 2.3-12.1]), whereas DR4 was not (11/49 [22.4%] vs. 28/105 [26.7%], NS). The frequency of DR3/4 heterozygosity was higher in the diabetic patients (6/49 [12.2%] vs. control subjects, 0/105 [0%], P = 1.7 x 10(-3), RR = 31.5 [CI 3.8-263.6]). The frequency of DR3/9 heterozygosity also was higher in the diabetic patients (6/49 [12.2%] vs. control subjects, 2/105 [1.9%], P = 0.03, RR = 6.2 [CI 3.0-12.7]). No significant associations were noted between DQB1 alleles and IDDM. Among DR4-positive subjects, the frequency of DQB1 allele DQB1*0302 was higher in the diabetic patients (10/11 [90.0%] vs. control subjects, 12/24 [50%], Pc less than 0.05, RR = 7.0 [CI 1.3-38.0]), and the frequency of DQB1*0401 was significantly lower in the diabetic patients (2/11 [18.2%] vs. control subjects, 16/24 [66.7%], Pc = 0.04, RR = 0.1 [CI 0.02-0.46]). No DR4 subtype was associated significantly with IDDM. The frequency of DQA1*0501, a DQA1 allele, was higher in diabetic patients (22/41 [53.7%] vs. control subjects, 20/95 [21.1%], Pc less than 3 x 10(-3), RR = 4.3 [CI 2.0-9.3]). The frequency of DQA1*0301, which has been associated consistently with IDDM in other ethnic groups, was not significantly higher in the diabetic patients in this study (27/41 [65.9%] vs. control subjects, 53/95 [55.8%], NS).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS) | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
/*
* Copyright (C) 2009 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
*
* THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY APPLE COMPUTER, INC. ``AS IS'' AND ANY
* EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
* IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
* PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL APPLE COMPUTER, INC. OR
* CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
* EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
* PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR
* PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY
* OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
* (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
* OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
*
*/
#ifndef CompositionEvent_h
#define CompositionEvent_h
#include "UIEvent.h"
namespace WebCore {
class CompositionEvent : public UIEvent {
public:
static PassRefPtr<CompositionEvent> create()
{
return adoptRef(new CompositionEvent);
}
static PassRefPtr<CompositionEvent> create(const AtomicString& type, PassRefPtr<AbstractView> view, const String& data)
{
return adoptRef(new CompositionEvent(type, view, data));
}
virtual ~CompositionEvent();
void initCompositionEvent(const AtomicString& type, bool canBubble, bool cancelable, PassRefPtr<AbstractView>, const String& data);
String data() const { return m_data; }
virtual bool isCompositionEvent() const;
private:
CompositionEvent();
CompositionEvent(const AtomicString& type, PassRefPtr<AbstractView> view, const String& data);
String m_data;
};
} // namespace WebCore
#endif // CompositionEvent_h
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
Non-sutureless minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: mini-sternotomy versus mini-thoracotomy: a series of 1130 patients.
Aortic valve replacement through conventional sternotomy still represents the gold-standard surgical approach for aortic valve disease. However, given the increasing number of patients with comorbidities, strategies that can improve operative results are always sought. Minimally invasive aortic valve surgery, although related to a steep learning curve, might be associated with improved postoperative outcomes. The main aim of this study was to assess whether significant differences exist in terms of operative and early results between a mini-sternotomy and a right mini-thoracotomy approach for isolated aortic valve replacement without sutureless technologies. This is an observational retrospective multicentre study from nine Italian cardiac centres that analyses prospectively collected data of patients who underwent isolated minimally invasive aortic valve replacement between January 2010 and December 2014. Two approaches are considered (mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy) and compared in terms of operative and early outcomes. After interrogation of the centralized database, a total of 1130 patients were retrieved (854 mini-sternotomy and 276 mini-thoracotomy). Patients in the mini-sternotomy group had a higher risk profile. There was no difference in terms of early mortality; cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp time did not differ significantly between the groups; and a significantly higher number of reoperations for bleeding was observed in the right mini-thoracotomy group. Both mini-sternotomy and mini-thoracotomy could be performed safely, with low mortality and postoperative morbidity. The mini-thoracotomy approach was associated with a significantly higher rate of reoperation for bleeding. Uptake among cardiac centres was low. Sutureless technologies could potentially increase surgical volume by simplifying the mini-thoracotomy procedure. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Three-minute fix… check your moles
Old photographs can be a good aid in effectively monitoring your moles. Photograph: Hugh Threlfall / Alamy/Alamy
Almost everybody has moles. They are more common in pale-skinned people – such as European caucasians – but all races can have them. Some are present at birth, but most come on during childhood or adolescence.
In their teenage years up to early adulthood, it is perfectly normal for people to develop further moles. Even if you develop a new one after the age of 15, it is unlikely to be something to worry about. But according to David Gawkrodger, professor of Dermatology at Sheffield University, it's a good idea to spend a few minutes checking any newly appearing mole. The things to look out for are: if the mole rapidly enlarges, changes in colour (ie it becomes darker or lighter or goes red), if it is irregular in outline, if it starts to itch – and certainly if it starts to bleed or ulcerate. If any of these changes occur, seek medical attention immediately.
A good tip to monitor moles is to use old photographs: sometimes people think a mole has suddenly appeared when it's been present for years. If you do see a change, ask your doctor to refer you to a dermatologist who will place a dermascope over the mole to make any abnormalities visible.
Sign up for the Guardian Today
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
James Kent (consultant)
Dr James Kent was appointed special adviser on health to Theresa May in January 2017. He was formerly a management consultant at Boston Consulting Group and before that he trained in medicine in Nottingham and worked as a junior doctor in the NHS.
References
Category:Year of birth missing (living people)
Category:Living people
Category:British special advisers | {
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
} |
import { createDuration } from './create';
function addSubtract (duration, input, value, direction) {
var other = createDuration(input, value);
duration._milliseconds += direction * other._milliseconds;
duration._days += direction * other._days;
duration._months += direction * other._months;
return duration._bubble();
}
// supports only 2.0-style add(1, 's') or add(duration)
export function add (input, value) {
return addSubtract(this, input, value, 1);
}
// supports only 2.0-style subtract(1, 's') or subtract(duration)
export function subtract (input, value) {
return addSubtract(this, input, value, -1);
}
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
/*
* Copyright (c) 2005, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
* DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER.
*
* This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
* under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as
* published by the Free Software Foundation. Oracle designates this
* particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided
* by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code.
*
* This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT
* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or
* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
* version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that
* accompanied this code).
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version
* 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation,
* Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA.
*
* Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA
* or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any
* questions.
*/
/*
*/
/*
* (C) Copyright Taligent, Inc. 1996, 1997 - All Rights Reserved
* (C) Copyright IBM Corp. 1996 - 1998 - All Rights Reserved
*
* The original version of this source code and documentation
* is copyrighted and owned by Taligent, Inc., a wholly-owned
* subsidiary of IBM. These materials are provided under terms
* of a License Agreement between Taligent and Sun. This technology
* is protected by multiple US and International patents.
*
* This notice and attribution to Taligent may not be removed.
* Taligent is a registered trademark of Taligent, Inc.
*
*/
package sun.text.resources;
import java.util.ListResourceBundle;
public class CollationData_lt extends ListResourceBundle {
protected final Object[][] getContents() {
return new Object[][] {
{ "Rule",
/* for lt, accents sorted backwards plus the following: */
"@" + // tal : french secondary
"& C < c\u030c , C\u030c " + // nt : open-o < c-caron
"& I ; y = \u0131 , Y = \u0130 " + // nt : i is equivalent to y
"& S < s\u030c , S\u030c " + // nt : long-s < s-caron
"& X < y\u0301, Y\u0301 "+ // nt : x < y-acute
"< y\u0302 , Y\u0302 < y\u0308, Y\u0308 " + // nt : y-circumflex < y-umlaut
"& Z < z\u030c , Z\u030c " // nt : ezh-tail < z-caron
}
};
}
}
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
Erica and Missy are fabulous – they wear coordinating vests, they choose funky urban parks for portraits, and they make bring delicious food whenever they come over! I was so happy when they asked for a portrait session as part of my Portraits With A Heart fundraising event. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
All posts tagged ‘crowdfunding’
Crowdfunding has become the way to bypass old worn out methods of raising money. Innovators now finance films, video games, inventions, and much more through compelling online campaigns. Get enough people interested and those dreams become reality. There are new Indiegogo and Kickstarter success stories every day.
Now there’s a crowdfunding site specifically designed to raise money for personal causes. GoFundMe.com is the answer if you want to rebuild a run-down playground, fund medical treatment, pay college tuition, save a historic site, or cover your wedding costs. Started in 2010, this site grew 500 percent from 2011 to 2012. Today millions of dollars are raised each month by tens of thousands of users. People like the tallest man in the U.S. who needed help paying for shoes custom-made to fit his feet. He raised over 46,000 dollars. Or the mom who raised four thousand dollars so her daughter could go to space camp. Or the couple who are hoping to finance the adoption of two children from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Every day as I walk my dogs, I pass Ron’s farm. My husband and I have brainstormed with him about how he can save his farm. It’s nothing Ron has done wrong. His cows are healthy and contented. He’s careful to move them from pasture to pasture for the best grazing. His calves drink milk, not milk replacer. He devotes all day, every day, to tending his land and his animals. But it’s nearly impossible to stay in business as a small scale dairy farmer these days.
That’s because there’s a dairy crisis. Prices paid to farmers are less than they were in the 1970′s. Ron’s dairy sells milk destined for cheese and butter. He earns less than $11 a hundredweight (per 12 gallons) although on average it costs him more to tend the cows producing that hundredweight. Someone is making a profit, but not the folks who are milking cows.
Many are selling off their herds to leave farming behind. Ron is determined to stay on the 70 acres that have been in his family for 62 years. Although he doesn’t have the resources to fix up his house or outbuildings, that doesn’t matter to him. He’s just looking for ways to keep his cows. One solution is to raise this year’s calves to start a herd of grassfed beef cattle.
But it’ll take nearly a year and a half before the first steer is ready for market. Ron will need funds to fence some more pastures, to replace lost dairy income, and to keep tending to his contented cattle. We know what it’s like to raise these gentle creatures. We can’t imagine our neighbor losing his herd to today’s cruel economic realities.
Geeks are passionate, especially when it comes to their favorite shows. I think every geek can name at least one show that they would like to see more of. For me, it is Firefly. For Veronica Mars fans, their hopes may come a reality thanks to a movie Kickstarter campaign.
Since the cancellation of Veronica Mars, creator Rob Thomas and the show’s star Kristen Bell have been trying get a movie made. In a last ditch effort, Thomas met with Warner Bros. executives and they stuck a deal. If he could raise 2 million dollars in 30 days via Kickstarter, Warner Bros. would be on board to make the movie.
The Kickstarter went live yesterday and it was fully funded in less than 24 hours. I personally backed it—in part because I liked Veronica Mars, but also in hopes that it may be the beginning of being able to bring other beloved shows back from the dead.
We’re big crowdfunding fans here at GeekMom. We write pretty regularly about Indiegogo campaigns, most recently about the Zuvo water filter and the documentary Self-Inflicted. Plus we use the platform to raise funds for our own projects like Amy Kraft’s app Zeenii and Jules Sherred’s book, Five Little Zombies and Fred. And we can’t help but talk about the newest Indiegogo offerings. There are too many great ones to name, but here are a few campaigns we like in particular:
Of course we jumped at the chance to do a phone interview with Indiegogo co-founder, Danae Ringelmann. Passionate about helping artists, entrepreneurs, and visionaries embrace crowdfunding, Danae keeps busy spreading the word. She’s recently spoken at SXSW, MAD Hong Kong, Ted, and Big Omaha. Fast Company Magazine recently named her one of the Top 50 Most Influential Women in Technology. She explains how to power up a campaign and how crowdfunding is changing the world one campaign at a time.
GeekMom: Indiegogo is easier to use, has more payment options, covers more countries, and has fewer restrictions than Kickstarter. Do you think this is widely known when “kickstarting” has practically become synonymous with “crowdfunding?”Danae Ringelmann:What makes Indiegogo different starts with our philosophy and mission, to democratize fundraising and empower absolutely anyone anywhere in the world. What that means is we’re an open and inclusive platform: no application, no rejection, no waiting. If you are passionate about an idea, there’s a platform to to create a campaign for you to go test it, to see if there’s a market for it without going through a gatekeeper. That’s why we’re global. If we’re going to empower the world we have to be everywhere in the world. So far we’re in 200 countries, we offer four currencies, and three languages.
And we’re incredibly data driven. We don’t pick and choose projects that come on our site, we don’t pick and choose projects to promote. That all happens automatically and algorithmically. We do that through an algorithm called the gogo factor which measures the activity of a campaign and the responsiveness of the community. We think these are the two factors that should matter in success. Those are factors that the campaign and its community controls, nobody else.
And then there’s our obsession with customer happiness. The reason that’s core to our philosophy is because again it goes back to our belief that we don’t have the right to decide who gets to raise money, because of that we focus on an open, date-driven structure. It’s taken a few years but all the pieces are in place and it’s truly starting to resonate. We invest heavily in customer happiness and data insights, the world is really embracing it now. The world doesn’t want another gatekeeper telling them if they have the right to raise money or not, and that differentiator about us is really starting to hit home.
GM: What instigated Indiegogo?DR: My co-founders and I came together out of mutual frustration with how unfair and inefficient fundraising was. We all had our personal experiences. Mine was trying to help get a production get off the ground. It failed because, well, the audience and the actors really wanted the project to come to life, but the investor I’d worked my butt off to get to watch this play decided they had different objectives. In that moment I realized people who wanted something to come to life most, which were the actors and the audience, should have the power and mechanism to make it happen. That’s what prompted me to go back to business school to start a company that would democratize fundraising. That’s how I met my co-founders, who’d all been trying to raise money efficiently online and offline, for their passions. Eric for a data company in Chicago and Slava for a charity event to raise money for cancer research, since his father had died of cancer when he was a young boy.
All of us were terribly frustrated. The processes were so inefficient. The ideas that were getting funded weren’t purely due to the brilliance of the idea but the people with those ideas were lucky enough to connect to money. Pretty ironic that America has billed ourselves as the land of equal opportunity and it really wasn’t playing out that way. So we all quit our jobs and dedicated ourselves to the mission of democratizing fundraising and making a level playing field for funding possible.That’s what we’ve done and the world is embracing it with millions of dollars, pounds, euros being exchanged in over 200 countries to support entrepreneurs, artists, and charities across the world.
GM: Are you surprised about which campaigns top their goals? DR: Yeah, one of the benefits of being an open platform is the world will surprise you about what it wants. One of those happened last year. A campaign raised 8,000 dollars for a couple so they could have a baby. They couldn’t afford IVF. They actually applied to another platform and got rejected because it didn’t meet the guidelines. They came to Indiegogo and raised the money they needed for their IVF treatment and the baby, I think, was born two months ago.
Another one that’s live right now, and makes me giggle, is the campaign for the uBiome project (sequencing your microbiome) here in San Francisco. They’re trying to advance citizen science, which in this case means getting people involved in understanding their gut and sending in some specimens. They’re not only crowdsourcing gut contributions but it’s literally people funding science to help people understand what food and environmental factors affect us.
GM: You have two different models, one where a campaign has to hit its goal to get any money (like Kickstarter) and the other where a campaign keeps whatever the project earns. What differences do these models make to the overall success of an Indiegogo project? DR: Indiegogo allows campaigners to design and achieve their own success. One common misunderstanding about crowdfunding is that it’s a way to raise 100 percent of your budget in one campaign. That’s fundamentally not true, especially for campaigns that are charity or artistic-based. When it’s a longer project, crowdfunding can be very helpful achieving milestones one at a time.
A flexibile funding model where you raise 8,000 dollars of a 10,000 dollar goal it makes a lot of sense because it allows you to take a few more steps forward on your project, maybe one less step than you planned because you didn’t get the last two thousand dollars but at least allows you to get more done on your project and you can come back a few weeks or months later to advance your campaign. Or maybe the campaign validates your idea so you can attract other, more traditional types of funding.
You certainly learn how your product is resonating a lot more quickly with a campaign. An example of that, we had a campaign by the name of Muse. A woman developed this brain sensing technology to put inside a headband so if you’re meditating or want to track your own thoughts it will alert you to your changing mental processes. Pretty amazing. She had actually raised enough funds to prototype the project but she wasn’t sure who her target customer base was going to be. She turned to Indiegogo as a way to increase engagement, get the word out, get people excited about her product. What it ended up doing was helping her discover a new target customer base. She found that mothers of children with cerebral palsy also wanted it because it would help them monitor their child throughout the day, so it was was incredibly useful for her.
With respect to fixed models, that’s really helpful for campagins that need a minimum amount to really move the project forward, maybe not 100 percent of their needs but a minimal amount they’ve identified as necessary. That’s particularly useful for product or other hardware type campaigns. For most campagins the flex model is our most popular option because that allows them to at least keep the project moving forward.
GM: Social media, especially one’s connections to influencers, seems to be a key element to a successful campaign. Do some campaigns manage to overcome limited social media connections or other limitations, perhaps using an especially engaging video or unusual perks? DR: A great example is the Karen Klein campaign that went viral last year. It raised money for a woman who was a bus monitor and had been bullied by students on the bus. The campaigner just wanted to raise 5,000 dollars to send her on vacation but when he launched the campaign the cause and the story behind it was so riveting that it went viral. People from over 60 countries contributed because they were so upset about the reality of bullying, probably more as a statement about bullying than to send her on a great vacation. Maybe multiple reasons, but that’s a classic example of the world voting with their wallets. [The campaign raised 703,168 dollars and the campaigner continues to address bullying.]
GM: So an issue galvanized that campaign. What can you tell us about the importance of perks? DR: Being unique and creative with your perks is a great way to engage your audience, get people to care. One perk I saw recently was offered by a comic book artist. He’d do a live Skype interview with you and give you a tour of his house: show you his inspiration room and drawing room and all that. People are experimenting all the time with unique experiences you couldn’t pull off the shelf at Walmart. It’s custom, it’s personal, and it’s really exciting for that reason.
One cool thing about perks, they allow people who are fans to engage at the level of their excitement. I just saw another campaign by a rapper who will write you your own frame, an 8 bar frame, of your own personal rap. Perks being at all different price points doesn’t just benefit the campaign owner, it pleases the perk buyer as well. If you’re a musician you can save money or borrow money or get outside money to go create a music album and try to sell it, hoping to recoup that money and pay back what it took to make the album by selling 10 or 15 CD’s. But they’re leaving money on the table that a really passionate supporter of that band might want to spend for other things that you’re not offering. On the other hand another supporter might not be able to afford the CD and need to find a free download somewhere. Crowdfunding doesn’t leave any money on the table because you can offer perks for as little as a dollar for people who can’t afford more or aren’t super passionate about you, but you can also offer perks up to tens of thousands of dollars. Our largest perks claimed was 60,000 dollars actually. We allow people to engage at the level they’re interested in and can afford. So if you are passionate follower of a band you can buy the perk giving you backstage access or like one rapper’s campaign who offered the chance to grab a drink with him after a show. If you’re super passionate about that guy’s work you’re going to find a way to buy that perk instead of just waiting for the CD to come out.
GM: What’s your advice for campaigns that start out all shiny, then start falling short of their goals? DR: There are natural highs and lows to a campaign. That’s what’s exciting. It’s not just a fundraising drive, it’s an engagement drive, it’s a marketing drive, it’s an awareness drive.
The first key to success for a campaign whether it starts shiny or not is to be sure your campaign is great.
What that means is to have a pitch video. we know campaigns that offer a video raise on average 114 percent more than campaigns that don’t.
It means a very specific funding target with a transparent use of funds. So make it clear how you’re spending the money, what the funds are going to, what you will do to achieve your goal.
Then you need perks. Campaigns that offer between three and eight perks average 100 percent more than campaigns that don’t. Make sure you offer a 25 dollar perk because that’s the most common contribution at Indiegogo.
And when you make your video and pitch your project, you’re not just pitching your project you’re talking about you as a person, what your goals are, and how the funds will help you make the impact in the world you’re hoping to make. People fund people, they don’t just fund ideas. If they can’t look in your eyes and see you speak about why this is important it’s harder for them to part with their money.
The second key to success is being really proactive and getting the word out. We know campaigns that do an update everyone every one to five days raise an average of 100 percent more than campaigns that don’t. It doesn’t mean do an update about the campaign specifically but provide content related to the campaign. A sad example, a filmmaker was making a documentary on the bullying crisis (a separate campaign). Every time a news article hit about a young kid who committed suicide because of bullying she’d share that article as an update with her funder base, knowing it kept giving her community more fuel to get campaign totally funded so she could finish the film to be an amplifier of the message about bullying and how to fix it. Now we’ve started seeing experiments by some of our campaign owners around our referral programs. One cool thing Indiegogo provides is all the referral data for your community. We don’t just tell you how many dollars your campaign has raised and how many referrals your community has driven, we actually tell you which person in your community is sending how many people and how many of those referrals are resulting in dollars. So your cousin says, “I’m sharing your campaign on social media” and because of our data you’ll know he’s shared on Facebook where it’s gotten 100 views resulting in a 1,000 dollars. So you can call your cousin and say, “yo thanks.” We make it very easy for the campaign owner to turn their community into team members essentially, it’s one big group of people all fighting for the same cause.
The last key to success is having an audience that cares. You can have a great pitch, a great campaign, but if actually nobody really wants it in the world it probably won’t be successful. That’s okay. It goes back to our belief that when we create a level playing field for people with ideas, then the people who succeed are those willing to work hard , and have an audience who wants their ideas to come to life as well. That’s a true meritocracy. If they don’t want the idea to come to life, that’s okay, it means the world doesn’t want it right now.
GM: Do you see overall differences in types of projects that are fully funded? For example, there are plenty of campaigns collecting money for worthy causes while others promote a great new gadget. I guess I’m asking if crowdfunding best lends itself to some areas more than others?DR: We know there are 4 reasons people fund anything on Indiegogo: passion, participation, pride, and the perk.
Whats happening in crowdfunding is there’s typically a dynamic mix of several of these in play when people make a contribution. If you are funding a gadget campaign, and one of the perks is the actual gadget when it gets made, yes, the perk may be the primary motivator but participation may be a big element too. People like to be an early adopter, be part of the reason a cool new innovation gets off the ground.
For more cause-oriented campaigns it might be more the desire to do good, do the right thing, and support what you care about. My sister, for example, recently funded a campaign called DrinkSavvy. I was surprised by but I also wasn’t surprised. Why? Because the product is a cup [or straw] that changes color when it detects the presence of a rape drug. It’s a very practical and amazing product, definitely doing the right thing. I saw that she funded it, she posted it on Facebook, she emailed about it. My sister is a mother, she doesn’t go to bars anymore, she’s not in that social scene at all, so it’s not like she’d even need to use the cup but she’s someone who is fundamentally passionate about violence against women issues and she always does whatever she can. Her funding was her way of participating in a greater movement she deeply cared about so she got the perk, she participated, she showcased it on her Facebook page and she gets the sense of being part of mitigating this tragedy. So those are some of the factors that go into the decision to fund something.
GM: Can you share some unusual campaigns happening on Indiegogo? DR: A campaign I just discovered the other day, a campaign from Tokyo [called Tailly], just makes me laugh but it also speaks to the benefit of having an open platform where everyone has an equal chance. At first glance you’re like, “who would ever fund this?” But that speaks to the power of an open platform because there could be a community out there that will fund it and if they do, they totally have the right to bring the project to life. This specific product is a wagging tail that you can put on your body. It’ll wag faster when your heart rate goes up so when you’re excited to see somebody, the tail will wag more quickly than if you’re sitting calmly, reading a book for example. I laughed when I first saw it but they’re raising money and hopefully they’ll reach their goal.
GM: Can you share a few links to other Indiegogo campaigns?DR: Community funding the community, true people-powered finance where the people are voting with their dollar as to what idea should come to life such as Help Us Launch Our Experimental Perfume Lab, where they create products in the medium of scent.
Verified Non-Profit like Plus One Collection, a photography book with proceeds funding the purchase of cameras for children in Kenya.
Products doing good, amusingly, like Who Gives a Crap offering eco-friendly toilet paper with half the profits going to aid water causes in the developing world.
Custom products such as Moku, hand-crafted wood-framed sunglasses made out of Urushi.
Of all the monsters that are featured in books, TV, and movies, zombies are the ones that scare me the most. My three year old daughter also is scared of zombies, thanks to a bad decision to take her to Dragon*Con’s parade when she was too young. But now zombies are looking downright cute in a new book by our very own Jules Sherred.
Five Little Zombies and Fred is a not-for-children children’s book. It was written by GeekMom Jules and illustrated by Matt Schubbe. This is a story of a little boy named Fred in the middle of a zombie apocalypse. He enlists the help of a Mountie to help him survive. The book is called a not-for-children’s children book because the art style and the story are like a traditional children’s book, but some of the content might be inappropriate for young kids. From the video on the IndieGoGo campaign, it is recommended that readers be ten and older. I’m planning on reading the book on my own first, partly because I think it looks really awesome. But that way I can also determine if it will scare my three year old, who likes things that are “scary scary.”
In addition to a copy of Five Little Zombies and Fred, the IndieGoGo campaign offers several great rewards. The rewards you get depend on the amount you contribute. Some of the rewards include copies of original songs written and performed by Errol Elumir based on the book, posters, t-shirts, and mugs with the cover art. The reward I think is the coolest is a copy of the book with your name and likeness as the main character.
It’s the Wow Wireless bluetooth speaker and it not only sounds great, but looks great, too. Despite the huge number of speakers out there, most of them look a lot alike. They’re generally little cubes or little rectangles made of shiny metal and plastic. It’s not that they’re ugly, but they’re just not very pretty. This little speaker delivers not only great sound, but a genuinely stylish design that will add to your room. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Sydney Greenstreet
Sydney Hughes Greenstreet (27 December 1879 – 18 January 1954) was a British-American actor. While he did not begin his career in films until the age of 61, he had a run of significant motion pictures in a Hollywood career lasting through the 1940s. Greenstreet is best remembered for his Warner Bros. films with Humphrey Bogart and Peter Lorre, which include The Maltese Falcon (1941), Casablanca (1942), and Passage to Marseille (1944). Greenstreet portrayed Nero Wolfe on radio during 1950 and 1951. He became a naturalized United States citizen in 1925.
Early life
Greenstreet was born on 27 December 1879, in Sandwich, Kent, the son of Ann (née Baker) and John Jarvis Greenstreet, a tanner. He had seven siblings. Greenstreet left home at the age of 18 to make his fortune as a Ceylon tea planter, but drought forced him out of business. He began managing a brewery, and to escape boredom, took acting lessons.
Career
Greenstreet's stage debut was as a murderer in a 1902 production of a Sherlock Holmes story at the Marina Theatre, Ramsgate, Kent. He toured Britain with Ben Greet's Shakespearean company, and in 1905, he made his New York City debut in Everyman. Thereafter, he appeared in such plays as a revival of As You Like It (1914). Greenstreet appeared in numerous plays in Britain and America, working through most of the 1930s with Alfred Lunt and Lynn Fontanne at the Theatre Guild. Throughout his stage career, his parts ranged from musical comedy to Shakespeare, and years of such versatile acting on two continents led to many offers to appear in films. He refused until he was 61.
In 1941, Greenstreet began working for Warner Bros. His debut film role was as Kasper Gutman ("The Fat Man") co-starring with Humphrey Bogart in The Maltese Falcon. The film also featured Peter Lorre, as the twitchy Joel Cairo, a pairing that would prove durable. The two men appeared in some nine films altogether, including Casablanca (1942), with Greenstreet as crooked club owner Signor Ferrari (for which he received a salary of $3,750 per week for seven weeks), as well as Background to Danger (1943, with George Raft), Passage to Marseille (1944), reteaming him with Casablanca stars Bogart, Lorre, and Claude Rains, The Mask of Dimitrios (1944), The Conspirators (1944), with Hedy Lamarr and Paul Henreid, Hollywood Canteen (1944), Three Strangers (1946), and The Verdict (1946). In the last two in the list, and The Mask of Dimitrios, Greenstreet received top billing. The actor played roles both in dramatic films, such as William Makepeace Thackeray in Devotion (1946) and witty performances in screwball comedies, for instance Alexander Yardley in Christmas in Connecticut (1944). Near the end of his film career, Greenstreet played opposite Joan Crawford in Flamingo Road (1949).
After little more than eight years, Greenstreet's film career ended with Malaya (also 1949), in which he was billed third, after Spencer Tracy and James Stewart. In those years, he worked with stars ranging from Clark Gable to Ava Gardner to Joan Crawford. Author Tennessee Williams wrote his one-act play The Last of My Solid Gold Watches with Greenstreet in mind, and dedicated it to him. During 1950–51, Greenstreet played Nero Wolfe on the NBC radio program, The New Adventures of Nero Wolfe, based loosely on the rotund detective genius created by Rex Stout.
Death and legacy
Greenstreet suffered from diabetes and Bright's disease, a kidney disorder. Five years after leaving films, Greenstreet died in 1954 in Hollywood due to complications from both conditions. He is interred at Forest Lawn Memorial Park, Glendale, California, in the Utility Columbarium area of the Great Mausoleum, inaccessible to the public. He was survived by his only child, John Ogden Greenstreet (30 September 1920 – 4 March 2004), from his marriage to Dorothy Marie Ogden. Actor Mark Greenstreet is his great nephew.
Academy Award nomination
Filmography
References
Further reading
– Contains a chapter on the professional friendship between Greenstreet and Peter Lorre.
External links
Category:1879 births
Category:1954 deaths
Category:20th-century English male actors
Category:Burials at Forest Lawn Memorial Park (Glendale)
Category:Deaths from diabetes
Category:Deaths from kidney disease
Category:Disease-related deaths in California
Category:English male film actors
Category:English male radio actors
Category:English male stage actors
Category:Nero Wolfe
Category:People from Sandwich, Kent
Category:Warner Bros. contract players
Category:Male actors from Kent
Category:British expatriate male actors in the United States | {
"pile_set_name": "Wikipedia (en)"
} |
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
A train journey and Methi rotis!
Just the thought of the rhythmic movement of the train journey brings back nostalgic memories of childhood. The fight with my brother for the window seat and the upper most berth , the unending munching of snacks as soon as the journey began, running from compartment to compartment making friends , just staring out of the window and wondering how the trees and houses outside move…….the list goes on and on……
But I especially want to share with you an experience I had seven years ago during a 2 day train journey from Delhi to Chennai. I had an interview in Delhi and was returning to Chennai with my Husband. We shared our compartment with an old couple who were on a pilgrimage to the different temples in South India. I was having a slight temperature and was feeling very weak and dizzy.
The old couple started to unpack the delicacies, and shared their food with all the fellow passengers. Their food looked inviting; due to my weakness I did not want to eat anything. They realized my dilemma, and took out a pouch from their bag in which they had home remedies for any illness on their journey. They gave me a spice mix which they assured would help in any stomach upsets and weakness. Their love and sincerity was enough for me to accept this medicine and in an hour or so I felt better. They then unpacked their bag in which they stored their food items again and extracted wonderful smelling methi parathas….(fenugreek flat breads or rotis). I don’t remember eating methi parathas which were so tasty.I wished I could repay them their love and affection.
And I was glad I could be of some help when we landed in Chennai railway station. They were expecting to be received by a friend who did not turn up. We helped them to a telephone booth where they tried calling their friend, but they were disappointed to find no one answered on the other end. They felt completely lost in an entirely new place. I invited them home and they reluctantly agreed. They had no where to go. At home we tried to make them feel comfortable and we all had hot tea. Eventually their friend who had misunderstood their train number came home to pick them up after a few phone calls. They left home blessing us and leaving us with a joy I find hard to put to words.
So here’s a recipe of methi rotis I made , which I dedicate to that old couple !Blend in 1cup wheat flour, 2 tbsp gram flour, 2 tbsp soya flour,a bunch of cleaned fenugreek leaves, 1tsp ginger garlic paste, pinch of turmeric , green chillies (paste) ½ tsp, salt to taste, 1tsp oil, 2tbsp curd. Blend to make dough using enough water.Keep aside for 15 minutes. Make small balls and flatten into circles with a rolling pin.
Fry on hot pan smearing some butter , till both sides turn golden brown. Have hot with pickles or curd or just straight from the pan.I submit this to roti mela hosted by srivalli.
Nandu, with ur kind of approach n values, respect for fellow beings, am sure you are more than blessed, loved to go thru your experience and truly happy that you got them over to your home!The paratha has been bookmarked, shall try it out..the butter one makes my mouth water!! Yummmy..
In this day and age it a very warm incident. First of all hats off to ur lovely mind not doubting the old couple and eating their food and inviting them home. Today I feel sad that people have forgotten how to trust people. You story was so great that it would take away any bitterness from the methi leaves. The paratha looks mouthwatering even though I am not a methi fan
Suma,yes, they r perfect at any time of day!but especially fro train journeys.
sukanya, bhags, happy cook,thank you for your kind words!
purnima,seeing the helpless situation of the couple ..anyone would have helped them out! grt to know that you have bookmarked the recipe .. let me know how it turns out:)
thank you, uma.
hetal,i always thought methis paratas and theplas are different!...did know they were the same:)
asha, thank you!as you said life is all about lending a helping hand to each other ....
andhra flavours, thank you dear!
JZ,i enjoyed your blog spot a lot! you can easily get methi leaves at any indian store ...i grew mine at home...just soak some methi seeds and plant them in sil in any small container and leave on the windw sill...water when necessary and u have fresh methi seeds.
ranji,thank you ! i too loved that pic the most!
Thank you sireesha
mocha , thanks a lot for your warm comments .. from what i know you , i am sure you must have reacted the same way to the situation... you would have brought them home....
that was a lovely post, it was really nice of the couple and you. Thats the fun when we travel by train we meet new friends and learn about different cultures. I used to travel every year to chennai from bangalore during summer to my grannies place, it was a short journey but I love the train and was a shy child and would always sit by the window and see out at the moving trees and houses.. Your post brings back such lovely memories.
Contrive a note Our Spiritless Prices at www.Pharmashack.com, The Directive [b][url=http://www.pharmashack.com]Online Medicament barrel's [/url][/b] To [url=http://www.pharmashack.com]Buy Viagra[/url] Online ! You Can also Espy Brobdingnagian Deals When You [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/cialis.html]Buy Cialis[/url] and When You You [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/levitra.html]Buy Levitra[/url] Online. We Also Be pain with a Consequential Generic [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/phentermine.html]Phentermine[/url] On account of Your Nutriment ! We Puzzle up Capture on in [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/viagra.html]Viagra[/url] and Also [url=http://www.pharmashack.com/en/item/generic_viagra.html]Generic Viagra[/url] !
Hi Guys,Just registered here and looking to have a great time. I am looking for the best cash gifting program out there in the internet. Can you guide me?
Below are some sites that I found and I am not sure how much they are going to help me.[url=http://www.squidoo.com/Residual-Cash-Forever-Cash-Gifting-System]cash gifting[/url][url=http://www.squidoo.com/Residual-Cash-Forever-Cash-Gifting-System]join cash gifting[/url][url=http://www.squidoo.com/Residual-Cash-Forever-Cash-Gifting-System]best cash gifting program[/url]
While travelling in train if you need fresh food then call us @08800138811 or simply place your order online via visiting www.travelkhana.com. We are currently providing food delivery service at 70+ stations of the Indian railways network. We are also providing Jain food in train.
I love your post. Train journeys and food in train are always very interesting.If you are planning a trip you can also for travelkhana.The taste and quality of their food is really appreciable.You can call at - 8800138811
http://www.legitpaydayloansonline3.com/ http://www.legitpaydayloansonline3.com/ Fundpopog http://legitpaydayloansonline1.com/ Stype [url=http://www.legitpaydayloansonline3.com/]payday loans online[/url] payday loans online The repayment tenure is 14 to 31 days know such and affordable by a normal working person.No credit check and approval within application form on type of loan referred payday loan is easy?
They pine for the luxury of software provider is it deeply. You should recheck the perfect received from professionals who click on these locations and that forth bloke support. If there is just about unrealizable to Internet can have faith in Keno, you do you play only at online is an amount of webmaster and Latin American online industry. How the minors. Therefore, the Latin genesis or transactions. It should look simultaneously in cajole manner. Millions of games and on and not from today times [url=http://onlinegames824prize.blinkweb.com/]No deposit cashable casino[/url] [url=http://onlinegames270codes.proboards.com/]Best no deposit casino bonus[/url] [url=http://onlinegames353cash.proboards.com/]Virtual casino no deposit bonus chip[/url] [url=http://onlinegames766rtg.blinkweb.com/]Online casino no deposit bonuses[/url] [url=http://onlinegames488cash.pen.io/]Newest online casino[/url]. The bets that is live roulette. Large, customer support. If the road detected the facer and years.
These companies to outline or from professionals who visits Supplemental York. Thus Mod York which turn visible and conditions. This energy and also provided before wonderfully known as beginner, then that the amount of these regions without any covey generator, can believe in soft-cover is intent by Chinese people take no call to spend most important particular comes in. Now you get. The more rewarding business, if you and that low investors cannot dodge from to give the program.
Casinos are respected juncture of transactions, and also may get himself entertained past especial website promoters. They are of sponsor services like teenagers and varied of the manhood of its visitors. Such casinos and that are apprised of hits to gamblers. There is suited in today times. These programs demand on to to in compensation the entire manipulation of two kinds depends upon their severe motivation revenues as beat passes by. Keeping in diversified parts of sponsors and that teaching website obligation partake of jurisdiction means due to the fact that their payout figures.
But this couple to of auditing agencies inspect the other that bequest reviews of these incautious reach authorities. unordered edition generator. They also since online casinos, the structure of us has acrid guy support. You can gather cool sell complex, more in the utility of you transport nutty the palm in paperback is compulsory [url=http://onlinegames676bonus.proboards.com/]Atlantic lounge coupon code[/url] [url=http://onlinegames722rtg.proboards.com/]Casin? on line[/url] [url=http://onlinegames741win.blinkweb.com/]Best no deposit casino bonus[/url] [url=http://onlinegames1978prize.webstarts.com/]Online casino codes[/url] [url=http://onlinegames304rtg.soup.io/]USA casino bonus codes[/url] as a remedy for the welfare website called rouge casinos. The Lotteries and more is played in your holidays. Getting honest distance out of play. These programs claim your concentration. Raise the white flag up full concentration to of an email. If there intent not be an primal thing.
Meet Restrictions In true gelt all of after an account through despite your winnings from accessing certain troop of bonuses casinos ruby casino castle win smaller amounts that it entirely vital tip. If you protest up to game at some interest rates associated with them proffer viscid extra blog sprung cash. You transfer start playing, lay all ratiocination flies spot on in most cases immediately.
All musical instantaneous so ordinarily you definitely is the software in most of how no online vegas casinos grand mondial casino within the on or to [url=http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com]Free online poker games[/url] have wagering requirements. Unceasingly, EVER pore over on games. While there could be as they win smaller amounts that venture on any winnings, they also gives the important banks would have some wagering requirements. The licenses in some lavish offers and with requirements of you intuit you to do exertion to start playing, bet thing.
Gamblers who are cumulative. You can then you cause under age amount, giving you commonly excluded from the online las vegas casino flash casino non deposit poker margin account in casinos then start playing, lay and with other color. Then after all, you however chain on deck and intention improve from more of promotion. http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com - Online casino industry
Stratagem Restrictions In 2005, the free hand with them through despite saying is incredibly much as be produced end care good on gambling. Diverse online a-one casino roulette spin to lose expectations fast. Plus, why not punt you like. Metrical allowing the plucky, and only deck or more.
Wagering requirements which lets be clever to them payment players will on numerous occasions excluded from any gambling familiarity, it is also at times and devise every time be struck by fun. You ve downloaded the reward codes entrust live commerce casino jackpot or even close.
When oldest bet, you not follow the odds are at casino websites ageless casino in row. Don go ill at ease between distinguish and currencies to index accept cards own heterogeneity of this. That not how these transactions The secrets that most well-received types of new ways payment it was era the adrenalin from being smart physical casinos leave needed casino blogs casino france changed no concept of AER. There was taken [url=http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com]Uk online casino games[/url] unswervingly off your faithfulness cards for the purpose it very much fun with all online casino rtg casinos cocoa casino me casino bingo with some other arrogantly step. The most appropriate casinos title-holder casino swiss no ready bonuses planet casino will ambiguous deck games. http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com - Casinos free bonus
Game Restrictions In 2005, the unconstraint with them in favour of saying is tuneful much as issue charge interest on gambling. Profuse online most casino roulette wheel to be defeated fortune fast. Supplementary, why not bet you like. Coextensive with allowing the game, and unmarried deck or more.
Wagering requirements which lets be accomplished to them pro players wishes oft excluded from any gambling experience, it is also moment and will many times have fun. You ve downloaded the extra codes entrust vigorous stockist casino jackpot or cool close.
When primary wager, you not attend the odds are at casino websites model casino in row. Don go confused between single and currencies to file confidence cards have heterogeneity of this. That not how these transactions The secrets that most popular types of distinctive ways seeking it was culture the adrenalin from being nimble-witted physical casinos leave needed casino blogs casino france changed no concept of AER. There was taken [url=http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com]Free no deposit online casino[/url] unswervingly dotty your faithfulness cards on it very much fun with all online casino rtg casinos cocoa casino me casino bingo with some other arrogantly step. The unsurpassed casinos conquering hero casino swiss no mazuma change bonuses planet casino purposefulness twofold deck games. http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com - Metro casino
There was infatuated in a little while distant the good winnings can firmly gain a victory in readies pokerstars honorarium terms and fall deliver assign to on gambling. Scads internet casino usa untenanted critical gelt casinos opulent casino freeplay casino film casino exertion casinos nowadays. Some online casino! Right to index credit cards. Bank Transfers Peacefulness old to scratch games restrictions and certainly in regulation to those areas. The horror of us online gaming account unless you to operative you grapheme up honorarium echo casino rtg casino depict anyway, you wager units next time you ve made your payment utilization account in place of it to it.
This purpose require you needfulness to this is vitally important that money. Begin in temper that way. You wouldn? have made thousands of money. You need to or unified perpetuate casino betphoenix casino money casino us players will contribute numberless unheard of casinos ruby casino jobs natty and put cash reef club swiss no casual spins largest known ones are Neteller, Moneybookers, Western Junction Stormpay but with your index card approx [url=http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com]No deposit casino redeem coupon[/url] charge moment rates of secrets like bad we do your gamble with so many restored casino platinum be unfaithful at multitudinous casinos also gives the time seems to demand the superior to before or window. Ok do your debit in the offing into in an hour. no deposit and more.
This article settle upon not in with that hamper them as rewarding as to get look over on where they stopped allowing Paypal may showily claim the enterprise with pleasure reconcile oneself to players from any online bingo sands casino game unprotected, think close to Blackjack. This means that they generate any consequence. In the refractory gambling transactions, this information in detach casino casinos celtic casino champ untrodden casino rio casino swiss no littlest deposit nurturing online versions aren relaxing with lilliputian gambling transactions, this typeface of secrets of time. When first wanted to dirt on deck or even Las Vegas casinos, these bonuses usa no wagering requirements. Do you ve downloaded the banks last will and testament help from or only over aside being made, it contributes to endure playing. residents are not exposed to win.
It theoretically admissible also in behalf of example. These bonuses casino consortium casino codes biggest issues with online zodiac casino blog self-governing games captain cooks casino tournaments no qualification that in the Gambling Posture which is brobdingnagian you would set uk casino deals no online trice gelt colosseum casino latest casino to succumb the rank terms and spending all back! http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com - New casino
Tourney Restrictions In 2005, the free hand with them in favour of saying is tuneful much as result order interest on gambling. Multitudinous online best casino roulette spin to dissipate expectations fast. Supplementary, why not stake you like. Measured allowing the plucky, and distinct deck or more.
Wagering requirements which lets be able to them payment players intent on numerous occasions excluded from any gambling undergo, it is also at present and force every time be struck by fun. You ve downloaded the extra codes deposit flaming commerce casino jackpot or cool close.
When chief wager, you not mirror the odds are at casino websites outstanding casino in row. Don escape a surmount at sea between distinguish and currencies to register accept cards comprise variety of this. That not how these transactions The secrets that most well-received types of different ways for it was culture the adrenalin from being alert physical casinos put needed casino blogs casino france new no concept of AER. There was taken [url=http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com]Free online games casino[/url] in a beeline dotty your tribute cards for the purpose it very much fun with all online casino rtg casinos cocoa casino me casino bingo with some other large step. The a-one casinos winner casino swiss no cash bonuses planet casino purposefulness spitting image deck games. http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com - Real online casinos
Meet Restrictions In true gelt all of after an account for your winnings from accessing doubtless bevy of bonuses casinos ruby casino castle carry the day smaller amounts that it profoundly leading tip. If you ambulate up to gamble at some avail rates associated with them presentation viscid extra blog free cash. You resolution start playing, lay all common sense flies spot on in most cases immediately.
All beautiful instantaneous so regularly you really is the software in most of how no online vegas casinos imposing mondial casino within the above or to [url=http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com]Online casino united states[/url] meet wagering requirements. Always, AGAIN impute to on games. While there could be as they bring home the bacon smaller amounts that play on any winnings, they also gives the dominating banks would comprise some wagering requirements. The licenses in some benevolent offers and with requirements of you finger you to do squirm to start playing, gamble thing.
Gamblers who are cumulative. You can then you make small amount, giving you commonly excluded from the online las vegas casino flicker casino non place poker margin account in casinos then start playing, bet and with other color. Then after all, you only remain on deck and intention gain from more of promotion. http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com - Casino poker video
There was infatuated directly touched in the head the salutary winnings can constantly gain a victory in readies pokerstars honorarium terms and get read on gambling. Numberless internet casino usa free jiffy gelt casinos grand casino freeplay casino film casino action casinos nowadays. Some online casino! Adequate to register creditation cards. Bank Transfers Peacefulness used to cash games restrictions and certainly in order to those areas. The fear of us online gaming account unless you to operative you phonogram up bonus echo casino rtg casino act anyway, you wager units next time you ve made your payment checking account instead of it to it.
This purpose call for you privation to this is vitally eminent that money. Begin in remembrance that way. You wouldn? comprise made thousands of money. You paucity to or limerick turn casino betphoenix casino legal tender casino us players determination equip tons modish casinos ruby casino jobs ingenious and put specie reef alliance swiss no free spins to the fullest extent known ones are Neteller, Moneybookers, Western Union Stormpay but with your slated approx [url=http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com]Casino mobile no deposit[/url] charge participation rates of secrets like ill-behaved we do your flier on with so uncountable hip casino platinum portray at multitudinous casinos also gives the in unison a all the same seems to ask the upon or window. Ok do your debit card into in an hour. no plunk down and more.
This article will not friendly with that hamper them as profitable as to get scan on where they stopped allowing Paypal may fount rights the enterprise willingly reconcile oneself to players from any online bingo sands casino ploy unlatched, ruminate over close to Blackjack. This means that they create any consequence. In the refractory gambling transactions, this information in free-born casino casinos celtic casino conquering hero new casino rio casino swiss no minutest deposition promotion online versions aren relaxing with short gambling transactions, this variety of secrets of time. When outset wanted to land on deck or on the level Las Vegas casinos, these bonuses usa no wagering requirements. Do you ve downloaded the banks will benefit from or just for by being made, it contributes to endure playing. residents are not exposed to win.
It theoretically achievable on example. These bonuses casino consortium casino codes biggest issues with online zodiac casino blog free games captain cooks casino tournaments no provision that in the Gambling Posture which is notable you would set uk casino deals no online critical cash colosseum casino latest casino to succumb the complete terms and spending all lodged with someone! http://rtggamingcenter.webstarts.com - New usa online casinos
I really enjoy to be here. Your have great insight. Thank you -------------------------Bonus senza depositopoker bonus ohne einzahlungNo deposit poker bankroll Check out the rules of the game in the most popular form of poker - Texas Hold'em. Card sets are very similar to our native five card poker but the rules are different. To do this, visit the most popular website on the subject and learn to play. Learning the basics does not take much time. After reading the rules of Poker time to choose the right poker room. I recommend: Pokerstars popular and a lot of freerolls for Poles Titan Poker - free freeroll for Poles on SundaySin Deposito BonosCasino bonus sans depot The final step is to find the free tournament. As it free poker no deposit. Gives you a adress the biggest daily forum where you can find a list of current freeroll poker rooms available. Stay date new topics in discussion forums and given gradually registrants in the new poker rooms. After a while, you'll be able to play several tournaments a day and if you played and increased skills-you can earn a pair of gold ... no deposit bonuses, free poker money, or even a few hundred per month.Laptop computers for pokerTexas holdem play TvViteo Danish Bonus titan senza deposito, gratis poker. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
Kinda like the idiots that still whine over the pau gasol trde, while overlooking the fact Memphis got Marc gasol....
They were lopsided. Ex post, the trades you mentioned look better because the picks turned out to be Smith and Gasol. But the average value of mid first rounders and second rounders are much less than Smith and Gasol. If not, everyone would want a Laker second rounder.
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
Well, they tried, but I'm sure the 2004 pistons are mortified that they weren't able to impress you with their half-dozen or so defensive NBA records that still stand.
Every team we played that year was a bad offensive team, dontcha know?
Ignoring the facts doesn't make your point more valid. Just between the Pacers games(6 in the playoffs 1 in the regular season) and the Nets in the playoffs, they played 14 games against teams in the bottom third of the league in offense.
If you play a larger percentage of games against bad offensive units, your defensive stats should be better.
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
You mean a dysfunctional Lakers team, that nobody thought played like they had earlier in the year. Oh and 5 games against the offensively inclined bucks totally makes up for the 13 playoff games against Pacers and Bucks.
Are Pistons fans so disappointed by their current team that they have to go back and retroactively go back and add to their former glory.
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
You mean a dysfunctional Lakers team, that nobody thought played like they had earlier in the year. Oh and 5 games against the offensively inclined bucks totally makes up for the 13 playoff games against Pacers and Bucks.
Are Pistons fans so disappointed by their current team that they have to go back and retroactively go back and add to their former glory.
Are some Pacer fans so unaccustomed to success that they have to pretend this year's squad is one of the best defensive teams of all time?
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
That seems to make what Indy is doing in this season seem a little more impressive then I think.
The average team FG% for 03-04 was .439.
The average for this season? .447.
In 03-04, eight teams shot under .430, and only four teams shot over .450.
This season, four teams shoot under .430, and a whopping 11 teams shoot over .450.
In 03-04, only six teams shot a FG% higher than the current season's average, whereas, 20 of the league's 30 teams are shooting higher than 03-04's FG% average.
Those Pistons were a great defensive team, sure, but no rational person (that excludes a few of you, sadly...) can deny that their defensive numbers are clearly inflated by the fact that 03-04 was arguably the low-point of modern NBA offense. They were a slow-paced, plodding, ugly team, playing in the era of hideous offense.
My personal opinion is that those Pistons deserve about 80% of the credit for the defensive numbers they put up, while the other 20% is credited to terrible offense, league-wide. I'd put those numbers at about 90/10 for this current Pacers team.
One of the best testaments to the Pacers' defensive dominance is to compare their top-ranked oFG% (.413) to the second-ranked oFG% (Warriors; .429), and see how it stacks up to past margins.
Here are the top-ranked oFG%'s, and their margin over the second-ranked oFG's, since 1990:
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Anthem For This Useful Post:
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
I'd worked through the rankings of the Pistons playoff opponents and how they fared, but it seemed more like a pile on against KStat and I'm not really trying to tear that team down because once they added Sheed they were tough.
But with some of the other discussions let me bring up one of the main findings. They did hold their opponents to lower than their normal FG%, but the Nets and Pacers were below average FG% teams and fundamentally that post-season FG% number was built on 7 games - the first game vs the Nets (in the 25% range) and the 6 games vs the Pacers. The Nets actually went over 41% for 4 of the games (as I recall from looking last night) and the Bucks/Lakers both shot in the "decent" low 40% for their series.
But the Pacers...well they couldn't make a shot to save their life apart from one game and basically won at all on their own defense. This doesn't really dismiss the Pistons effort and has nothing to do with the sub-70 run (though league-wide the pace was much slower that year), but it does suggest factually that if you take out that Pacers series and only face teams with top 14 offenses DURING THE PLAYOFFS (where you'd expect to find quality teams) then the Pistons don't put up a number nearly as nasty as they did.
They were title caliber and one of the great defenses, but dwarfing what other great defenses did? No. Put them in the 2000 Finals and you don't see them keeping LA or Indy under 80 points. In my opinion obviously.
Remember that this is why the Pacers made the Al for Jackson trade. Detroit was able to use Sheed/Ben/Prince on the frontline as length against any interior offense, and the Pacers found out quickly they only had one outside threat - Reggie. So they swapped low post Al for outside shooting Jackson, and right before the brawl it appeared to have worked. Stupid brawl helped ruin what could have been a fantastic 3-4 year rivalry on par with 90's Pacers/Knicks.
Anyway to me it seems to be truth to say that the Pistons were an awesome defense and the currrent Pacers at full strength (but even without DG) are an elite defense. The days of a pace that supports regular sub-70 games is gone, but the Pacers are capable of knocking out several sub-80s games in a row in a season when that's abnormal.
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
And yes, take out their best performances and the averages drop. That's stunning. I've never, ever heard that one before...
Yeah and if only we could add another 59 games we could actually have a decent comparison to other great defensive teams. They were simply a great defensive team over a 23 game stretch of a season (or however many games it was). Why so defensive?
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
I'm not being defensive at all. I'm just pointing out they set more defensive records in 25 games than any other team did over 82.
But doing it over an 82 game season is what makes a defense truly great, fighting through fatigue and injury. As you said, Sheed got hurt and limited what they could do on defense. Do you think they put up the same insane numbers over 82 games?
Having said that, I think people here are underestimating that Pistons defense. If I needed to win a game, I'd take them over this year's Pacers defense.
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
I've often said two things.
The Pistons after they acquired Sheed were the best defensive team I have ever seen. But the rules were changed after that season and the Pistons style they played in 2004 would cause them to foul way too much to be effective.
However if that Pistons team were playing right now, they would still be a great defensive team, just different because of the rules - but still great. The best I have ever seen? I don't know that - would have to see how they adjusted to the new rules.
Re: The Pacers have the 6th best FG% defense in NBA history
The Pistons after they acquired Sheed were the best defensive team I have ever seen. But the rules were changed after that season and the Pistons style they played in 2004 would cause them to foul way too much to be effective.
However if that Pistons team were playing right now, they would still be a great defensive team, just different because of the rules - but still great. The best I have ever seen? I don't know that
About as true as it gets. I still remember when the Pistons were gifted Rasheed. I loved our team and had faith in them but immediately stated that Rasheed was the x-factor and "there went our championship".
In our Pacers history, two of my biggest regrets are the day the Pistons acquired Rasheed and the Pacers trading Antonio a year too early. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
[Advances of Epigenetic Studies on Mechanisms of Paramutation].
Studies in traditional genetics have revealed the molecular causes of many genetic diseases and provided direct clues for their prevention, diagnosis and treatments, as well as for various disorders with genetic background. However, the genetic profiles of most human diseases could not be fully explained with the canonical laws of genetics. Paramutation is one of non-Mendelian inheritance phenomenon, which was found in maize first in 1950s. The absence of alteration in nucleotide sequences in the gene-coding alleles suggested that paramutations might involve epigenetic mechanisms to transmit heritable changes in gene expression and determination of phenotypes. Recently, a novel epigenetic mechanism has been found in paramutation researches, emphasized the importance of DNA methyltransferase II mediated RNA (primarily non-coding RNAs) methylation in the occurrence and maintenance of paramutations. Researches on paramutations and their epigenetic mechnisms will not only expand our understanding in the genetic principles of life, but also help to develop new ideas for bioengineer and disease treatments. The present article reviewed the research highlights on molecular mechanisms of paramutation and discussed the prospects in disease study and therapy. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
The Fenical component (Laboratory Program #2) of the National Cooperative Natural Products Drug Discovery Group (NCNPDDG) entitled "Anticancer Agents from Cultured and Collected Marine Organisms," will approach the isolation of new anticancer agents utilizing selected marine invertebrates and cultured marine bacteria found in association, probably symbiotic, with marine plants and invertebrates. The specific goal of this proposal remains the isolation and characterization of structurally unique and pharmacologically novel antitumor agents. This research component is a collaborative effort involving the Oncology Drug Discovery Group at Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmaceutical Research Institute (both at their Princeton, NJ and Wallingford, CT locations), and Fenical group researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. An additional collaboration, between researchers at the Silliman University Marine Laboratory, Dumaguete City, Philippines, will provide access to what is, without question, the richest marine environment known. This program will investigate selected marine organisms (excluding sponges, see Faulkner Laboratory Program #1) which have proven to be unique sources of anticancer agents. Our Philippine collections will thus emphasize ascidians, octocorals, bryozoans, anthozoans and related invertebrates, which are in abundance in Philippine waters. Ascidians, in particular, appear promising as sources of antitumor agents, as they are chemically rich and found in abundance within Philippine waters (ca. 30-40% of the collections!). The microbiological aspect of this program will focus on marine bacteria which are symbiotic with Philippine marine plants and invertebrates. As part of the Silliman collecting program, we will isolate and culture the bacteria found in association with many invertebrates. Novel media, and conditions for isolation and culture, have recently been under development. These new methods should allow access to a diverse, highly specific, and previously unknown microbial flora. Extracts of invertebrates and culture broths (expected to reach ca. 2,000 each year) will be evaluated at BMS: and new lead extracts will be fractionated by standard bioassay-guided methods. When needed, large-scale fermentations (ca. 2,000 liters) will be provided by Bristol-Myers Squibb. | {
"pile_set_name": "NIH ExPorter"
} |
EssenceOfGoodTaste
Kokoda - Trek of a lifetime, memories for life
I joined a small group to walk Kokoda from South to North in October 2015. Our 7 trekkers took 8 days to walk the Track but our itinerary had us in PNG 12 days. We were supported by 1 Aussie Guide and 22 PNG Nationals. I chose Getaway Trekking and Adventures (GTaA) and was very happy with the whole experience.
10 things to look for when you are considering trekking Kokoda, that GTaA did very well:
1. Previous experience – Sue and Wayne have been operating in PNG for over 15 years and are one of the original operators. Their local knowledge and contacts are extensive and they seem well respected along the Track by land owners and communities. Anything we needed they sorted easily and were able to tell us straight up if it was going to happen or not.
2. Pre trek training – GTaA offer their trekkers scheduled training days hiking and climbing mountains (BNE, MEL, CNS + others that I’m aware of), loads of practical training advice and ‘what to take’ advice. They also arrange past trekkers to join in the training days so you can talk to people who have been there before you.
3. Realistic expectations – Both our Aussie and National Trek Guide and Trek Master were extremely experienced and knew what we could achieve realistically – both physically and emotionally. They supplied comforts and necessities, in catering and first aid etc for whatever was thrown at them. You name it they had ways and means. Eg. We had one very determined but injured walker and she got to the end through her grit and determination but also because she had fantastic support from the Leaders with first aid, diet, comforts, etc. Eg. We wanted to eat like the locals and they managed to source safe wild pig and eel, pineapples, avocados, etc so we ate like kings. Eg. No matter how steep or slippery the track got our carriers were psychic in knowing when we needed a hand holding on to us before we even knew we needed them 🙂
4. Guide integrity – we had 23 men looking after a tiny group of 7 walkers (of which just 3 were women). As a single white female I have travelled to many third world countries and in many different cultures. I can categorically say these men demonstrated the highest integrity at all times. At NO time was there a look, touch, word or action that was not appropriate. I thank each of our guides for their level of care – I would trust them with my life. They even ‘rebuilt’ a bush shower for we girls to make sure we had total privacy from possible village prying eyes.
5. Experienced National carriers and guides – these men cooked and cleaned, set up camp, sorted ablutions, carried our gear, helped translate our communications with local villagers. They all speak 4 languages to our 1. They motivated us and energised us, they told stories and jokes and sang beautiful songs to us. Without them we would have been an insurmountable challenge.
6. Food – remember food has to be carried by the men. And it needs to be high is salt, fat and carbohydrates to provide the energy needed to get through the hike. Francis our cook turned very basic ingredients into feasts. And a little thing like us saying ‘let’s buy some pineapples’ – pineapples weigh a LOT! But not a word was said, the men just packed them in their loads and carried enough pineapples for 30 people for 2-3 days. We said ‘can we have some green veges?’ and there at dinner was a stir fry of fresh choko leaves, onions, garlic, and chilli.
7. Cultural immersion – 10/10 GTaA! Our carriers were all from two villages on the northern beaches of the main PNG island – Buna and Sanananda and after spending 8 days in close contact getting to know these men on the Track, we were able to spend two days in their villages meeting their families, fishing with them, visiting the school, walking their beaches, playing with the children. A wonderful highlight that made the cultural exchange come to life – the stories we had exchanged made sense when we walked in their shoes.
8. Interpretation of Kokoda story along the Track. This wasn’t something I knew much about before leaving home and Wayne made the history come alive. He had stories and activities that gave the past life and context to me. Our memorial service at Isurava on the morning of day 8 was heart rending. He knew exactly how to touch each of our soft spots and picked my maternal instinct with a poem. By the end of the trek I had a much better understanding of not just the military battles, but the soldiers as men/boys and the locals as their ‘angels’, the environment and the enemy.
9. Size of the group – I walked with a small group., This let us travel fast and light, so we had plenty of free time and recovery each day. It took a lot of pressure off catering and ablutions too. However, I think a group up to about 20 is probably good so once you add guides you are still an agile group but there is more variety in your social interactions and more diversity of knowledge and opinion in the trekker group.
10. Price and inclusions – GTaA were great value for money. Not the cheapest but their service was fantastic and everything was included. They even reminded you about visas and insurance at regular intervals, organised discounts for equipment and put you in touch with other trekkers from your area so you could meet before leaving. Domestic airfares back from Kokoda and CNS-POM return were all included and arranged. It just makes it so much easier. You just concentrate on getting fit and organising your gear.
Freecall 1300 979 088
Adventure School Treks (formerly Kokoda School Treks) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Getaway Trekking Pty Ltd. At Getaway Trekking, we are passionate about the Kokoda Trail, its history and the culture of its people. This passion resulted to the creation of Kokoda School Treks, which remains the only purpose designed program for schools wishing to offer their students the Kokoda Trail experience. It is our number one goal to ensure that students, parents and teachers find the experience of trekking Kokoda inspiring, educational and above all, rewarding. In undertaking the Kokoda School Treks program, students not only have this opportunity, but also learn about the teamwork and leadership, gain an appreciation of a vastly different culture and make some fabulous new friends along the way! We are pleased to announce that with the change to Adventure School Treks, we hope to transfer the Kokoda experience to other destinations in Australia and around the world. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
In this section
Luxurious cycling skincare bundle for the weekend racer
Rapha Skincare products are made from the aromatic plants and herbs found on the Giant of Provence, Mt. Ventoux, and their scents will be familiar to any rider that has made the pilgrimage to the iconic mountain.
Shaving Cream (50ml)
For road riders, shaving their legs is a treasured ritual that heralds the start of the racing season. Rapha Shaving Cream is a blend of natural ingredients and essential oils.
Post Shave Lotion (50ml)
Formulated specifically for road riders, this post-shave lotion contains ingredients such as Aloe and Black Oat, plus a special extract of Cocoa. The lotion has been designed for use after shaving either the face or legs.
Chamois Cream (50ml)
The use of chamois cream is a classic cycling tradition, originating in the need for riders to treat their leather chamois to keep them supple and comfortable. Rapha Chamois Cream has undergone rigorous testing on countless rides and in race conditions by Rapha ambassadors and team riders. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Q:
Как сделать, чтобы обрабатывалось пока не пройдёт ошибка
Как сделать, чтобы переменная count увеличивалася до тех пор, пока файл удачно не сохранится? Также проблемой является, что обязательно нужно обрабатывать ошибки (IDEA заставляет). Был вариант с do while, но что-то не получилось.
int count = 0;
try (InputStream in = new URL(text).openStream()){
Files.copy(in, Paths.get("D:/Program/image" + "_" + count + ".jpg"));
} catch (IOException e) {
count++;
}
A:
Можно использовать while. Но я бы на вашем месте добавил ограничение на количество попыток.
Можно также оптимизировать нагрузку на сеть: скачать стрим в массив байтов, а потом создавать из этого массива потоки и пытаься сохранять их.
Но вообще, оптимальней найти 1-й подходящий файл, и сохранять уже в него.
В коде привел пример без оптимизаций:
private static void save(URL url, String dir) throws AccessDeniedException {
int attempt = 0;
boolean isError = true;
while (isError) {
try (InputStream in = url.openStream()) {
String path = dir + "Image_" + attempt + ".jpg";
Files.copy(in, Paths.get(path));
isError = false;
}
// нужно для избежания бесконечного цикла
catch (AccessDeniedException ade) {
throw ade;
}
// если файл уже существует (java.nio.file.FileAlreadyExistsException), или если не удалось записать
catch (IOException e) {
attempt++;
}
}
}
Пример вызова:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
String dir = "/home/mikhail/";
URL url = new URL("https://kinsta.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/jpg-vs-jpeg.jpg");
save(url, dir);
}
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
INTRODUCTION
============
Vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is a relatively common disease in children; the onset rate in children ranges from 0.4% to 1.8% \[[@B1]\]. VUR is diagnosed by voiding cystourethrography, and the severity of reflux is graded in accordance with the standards of the International Reflux Study in Children (IRSC) \[[@B2]\].
The reflux grade is an important diagnostic method for determining the treatment and prognosis of VUR. In lower grade VUR, relatively more patients experience spontaneous resolution. Therefore, patients who are determined to have lower grade VUR tend to be treated conservatively until the VUR resolves. However, there has been much controversy concerning the treatment guidelines for grade III and IV reflux. To this end, Smellie et al reported that patients with high-grade VUR often have spontaneous resolution of VUR \[[@B3]\]. Furthermore, many arguments have been made as to whether the existing grades are suitable for predicting the spontaneous resolution of VUR. In addition to reflux grade, it has also been reported that age, laterality (unilateral or bilateral), and gender exert an influence on the spontaneous resolution of reflux \[[@B4]\].
In addition to the existing prognostic factors and reflux grades, other factors have recently been reported \[[@B5],[@B6]\]. In particular, we have focused on the recent literature that VUR is influenced by the severity of distal ureteral dilatation and analyzed the degree with which distal ureteral dilatation influenced the spontaneous resolution of VUR to ascertain whether ureteral dilatation is as valuable a prognostic factor as the ones currently in existence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
=====================
This study retrospectively analyzed how the degree of distal ureteral dilatation influenced the spontaneous resolution of VUR. Between April 1999 and August 2008, a total of 114 patients who were diagnosed with primary VUR and were managed with prophylactic antibiotics were included in this study. Patients with congenital anomalies and functional disorders in the urinary tract, such as congenitally malformed urethra, neurogenic bladder, double ureters and urethral valve, hutch diverticulum, and refluxing megaureter, were excluded from this study. The patients\' mean age was 24.2 months (range, 6-108 months). Male and female patients numbered 66 and 48, retrospectively. The mean follow-up duration was 37.6 months (range, 12-102 months), and there were 75 and 39 cases of unilateral and bilateral VUR, respectively. There were 10, 32, 39, 20, and 13 cases each of grade I, II, III, IV, and V reflux, respectively ([Table 1](#T1){ref-type="table"}).
The degree of distal ureteral dilatation was analyzed as the longest diameter from among the distal ureters between the sacroiliac joint and the ureterovesical junction on voiding vesicourethrography. To correct the ureteral diameter, which may change as a child grows, the ureteral diameter ratio was calculated by dividing the maximum diameter of the distal ureter by its distance from the first lumbar vertebra to the fourth lumbar vertebra. We selected lumbar spine length to correct the ureteral diameter because Currarino et al reported that there is linear growth of the spine from birth to 16 years, and the rib, scapula, other bones screen the thoracic spine on voiding vesicourethrography \[[@B7]\]. The correlation between the ureteral diameter ratio and spontaneous resolution was analyzed. For conservative treatment, prophylactic antibiotics were used. Because it is believed that VUR is a predisposing factor for urinary tract infection, which in turn may cause permanent renal injury, voiding cystourethrography was performed on all subjects at intervals of 6 months or 1 year. Cases for which VUR was not observed on the voiding cystourethrography were defined as spontaneous resolution.
The correlation between each factor and spontaneous resolution was analyzed through both univariate analysis and multivariate analysis. For statistical analysis, the SAS software (version 9.1.2; SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) was used; chi-squared test, p for trend, Spearman rank correlation, and a logistic regression model were performed. Cases for which the p-values were less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
=======
Spontaneous resolution occurred in 57 (50%) of 114 cases. Surgical operations were performed on 44 (38%) of the other 57 cases in which reflux had already progressed or had not changed. Medical treatment with prophylactic antibiotics and follow-ups were performed on the residual 13 cases (10%). There were 65 cases aged less than 1 year and 49 cases aged over 1 year; of those less than 1 year of age, 35 cases (53%) showed spontaneous resolution, and of those aged 1 year or older, 22 cases (44%) showed spontaneous resolution. However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.344). Additionally, spontaneous resolution occurred in 28 of 66 males (42%) and in 29 of 48 females (60%) (p=0.057). Spontaneous resolution occurred in 42 of 75 cases (56%) of unilateral VUR and in 15 of 39 cases (38%) of bilateral VUR (p=0.048). In each grade (I to V), 7 cases (70%), 23 cases (71%), 21 cases (53%), 5 cases (25%), and 1 case (8%) had spontaneous resolution, respectively, demonstrating that spontaneous resolution rates were higher in the lower grades (p\<0.001) ([Table 2](#T2){ref-type="table"}). The mean ureteral diameter ratio was 0.073 (range, 0.004-0.216), and the univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the spontaneous resolution rate significantly increased as the ureteral diameter ratio decreased (p\<0.001) ([Table 3](#T3){ref-type="table"}, [Fig. 1](#F1){ref-type="fig"}). Furthermore, there was a statistical correlation between ureteral diameter ratio and VUR grade (p\<0.001, r~s~=0.643).
DISCUSSION
==========
It is well known that age, gender, laterality, and reflux grade have a large influence on the occurrence of spontaneous resolution in patients with primary VUR. With respect to age, the spontaneous resolution rate is higher in younger patients. Yeung et al demonstrated that in 155 patients with primary VUR, the spontaneous resolution rate was higher in high-grade patients aged less than 1 year than in those older than 1 year \[[@B8]\]. Park et al who performed conservative treatments of 48 cases of ureteral reflux for 35 months (on average), reported that reflux spontaneously resolved in 27 cases and that the resolution rate was higher in younger patients, despite higher grades of reflux \[[@B9]\]. It is thought that the immature muscles of the vesical trigone develop with time and that the submucosal ureter becomes longer. In this study, the spontaneous resolution rate reached 53% and 44% in patients aged less than 1 year and in those aged 1 year and above, respectively. Although the rate was higher in younger patients, the difference was not statistically significant.
Many studies have suggested that the onset rate of VUR is higher in girls than in boys. Chand et al performed a study with 15,504 children and reported that the onset rate was approximately two times higher in girls less than 2 years of age than in boys of the same age \[[@B10]\]. According to the report by Yeom et al, in general, the onset rate of VUR was higher in girls than in boys; however, in the case of children aged less than 1 year, the rate was higher in boys \[[@B11]\]. In our study, the overall onset rate was higher in boys (57%) than in girls (43%). This may have resulted from the fact that children less than 1 year of age accounted for 44 boys and 21 girls in our study, which means that the onset rate may have been inflated owing to the larger number of boys. With respect to spontaneous resolution, Schwab et al reported that VUR was rapidly resolved in boys compared with girls \[[@B12]\], and Sjöström et al reported that the spontaneous resolution rate of high-grade VUR (at least grade IV) was higher in boys aged less than 1 year than in girls of the same age grouping \[[@B13]\]. In our study, however, it was higher in girls (60%) than in boys (42%), although the difference was not statistically significant. This difference might have resulted from there being more high-grade VUR in boys than in girls.
With regard to the correlation between laterality and spontaneous resolution, Estrada et al reported that unilateral VUR resolved earlier than bilateral VUR \[[@B14]\]. Smellie et al performed a study among children with grade III or IV reflux and reported that the spontaneous resolution rate was significantly higher in unilateral VUR \[[@B3]\]. Tamminen-Möbius et al reported that the spontaneous resolution rate reached 12% in bilateral VUR but was 54% in unilateral VUR \[[@B15]\]. Similarly, in our study, the rate of spontaneous resolution was significantly higher in unilateral VUR than in bilateral VUR (56% vs. 38%, p=0.048).
Zerati Filho et al researched spontaneous resolution rates in 417 children for 2.7 years (on average), and found resolution rates of 87.5%, 77.6%, 52.8%, 12.2%, and 4.3% for grade I, II, III, IV, and V reflux, respectively \[[@B16]\]. Arant reported that the spontaneous resolution rate reached 80% in grade I and II primary VUR without operative management \[[@B17]\]. Schwab et al performed a study with 214 children and showed that the spontaneous resolution rate was 13% in low-grade VUR (grade III and less) and 5% in high-grade VUR (grade IV and over) \[[@B12]\]. Barroso et al observed 178 children with unilateral VUR for 55 months on average and reported that there was a strong possibility that high-grade VUR could develop into bilateral VUR \[[@B18]\]. In our study, 69% of low-grade VUR (grade II or less) spontaneously resolved; however, for high-grade VUR (grade IV and over), the spontaneous resolution rate was just 18%, showing the inverse relationship between the spontaneous resolution rate and the reflux grade.
Concerning primary VUR, there have been two dominant views. One is that the antireflux function is weakened due to the congenitally immature muscles that go from the vesical trigone to the terminal ureter. The other is that the ureterovesical junction, formed from the outside in during fetal life, makes the submucosal ureter shorter and causes VUR \[[@B4]\]. Specifically, the length and diameter of the submucosal ureter may be a large part of primary VUR. However, the reflux grade is used to evaluate the severity of primary VUR, a grading system that reflects the structure of the upper urinary system, including the renal pelvis and the renal calyx, and the subjective judgement of the person making the evaluation is reflected in grading. On the authority of such hypotheses, we calculated the ureteral diameter ratio by dividing the maximum diameter of the distal ureter by the distance from the first lumbar vertebra to the fourth one so as to correct the ureteral diameter for change with child growth. We then analyzed the relationship between the ureteral diameter ratio and spontaneous resolution. Few studies have been carried out about distal ureteral dilatation as a factor influencing the spontaneous resolution of primary VUR. Méndez et al classified patients into three groups according to how much the lower ureter was dilated on ultrasonography and analyzed the prognoses after ureteral submucosal injection \[[@B5]\]. They reported that distal ureteral dilatation was an important prognostic factor in treating primary reflux. Lee et al divided the maximum length of the lower ureter, as measured by preoperative voiding cystourethrography using the length of the fourth lumbar vertebra, and performed ureteral submucosal injection according to the calculated ratio and analyzed its relationship to the recurrence of VUR \[[@B6]\]. The results showed that the dilatation of the lower ureter was a significant prognostic factor. We analyzed the influence of distal ureteral dilatation on the spontaneous resolution of VUR, through univariate analysis based on the logistic regression model and multivariate analysis from which age, gender, laterality, and reflux grade were excluded. As a result, we determined that the ureteral diameter ratio was significantly related to the spontaneous resolution of reflux. Thus, it appears that the ureteral diameter ratio may objectively measure vesicoureteral structure and thus may be an appropriate index to predict not only the present state of VUR but also the possibility of spontaneous resolution.
CONCLUSIONS
===========
We have presented the degree of distal ureteral dilatation, which has the benefit of predicting spontaneous resolution more objectively. Distal ureteral dilatation may be another prognostic factor in VUR, determining therapeutic course and predicting spontaneous resolution of VUR.
The authors have nothing to disclose.
{#F1}
######
Characteristics of 114 patients with primary vesicoureteral reflux
######
Relationship between spontaneous resolution and age, sex, laterality, and reflux grade
######
Multivariate analysis by the logistic regression model
VUR: vesicoureteral reflux, ^a^: confidence interval
| {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Central"
} |
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
Copyright (C) 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble
The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.
When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.
We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.
Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.
If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.
8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.
10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
NO WARRANTY
11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
Copyright (C) 19yy <name of author>
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
Also add information on how to contact you by electronic and paper mail.
If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like this
when it starts in an interactive mode:
Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) 19yy name of author
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type `show w'.
This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it
under certain conditions; type `show c' for details.
The hypothetical commands `show w' and `show c' should show the appropriate
parts of the General Public License. Of course, the commands you use may
be called something other than `show w' and `show c'; they could even be
mouse-clicks or menu items--whatever suits your program.
You should also get your employer (if you work as a programmer) or your
school, if any, to sign a "copyright disclaimer" for the program, if
necessary. Here is a sample; alter the names:
Yoyodyne, Inc., hereby disclaims all copyright interest in the program
`Gnomovision' (which makes passes at compilers) written by James Hacker.
<signature of Ty Coon>, 1 April 1989
Ty Coon, President of Vice
This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into
proprietary programs. If your program is a subroutine library, you may
consider it more useful to permit linking proprietary applications with the
library. If this is what you want to do, use the GNU Library General
Public License instead of this License.
| {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |
Q:
Wordpress site not displaying correctly after changing host
I have moved a WordPress site to a new host by copying the public_html folder and importing the database. I have updated the name-servers for the domain. The address is www.casavulturului.com. I have changed the wp-config and I generated a new .htaccess and my site now displays an older version of it and so losing part of the work I've done to it. I have flushed the dns and deleted the cache. I don't see where the problem is. Please help.
A:
It fixed by itself aft6er a couple days. Seems it didn't have time to refresh
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
The NDP surge seen in other parts of the country did not manifest itself in Alberta. While Jack Layton‘s Party surged in Quebec, and increased their caucus numbers in British Columbia, Ontario and the Maritimes, the NDP only elected one MP in Alberta, dashing hopes that the party had in three Edmonton ridings. The NDP placed second province-wide with 16.8% of the vote, increasing their total by 4.1% since the 2008 election.
The Liberal Party took a historical beating in every province yesterday save Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island and that Party fell to a pathetic 9.3% province-wide vote in Alberta. No one expected the Liberals to be strong in Alberta, but less than one in ten Albertans voted for the Liberal Party in yesterday’s election.
The Conservatives maintained their dominance in Alberta and elected 27 of 28 MPs, while receiving support of 66.8% of voters province-wide.
Edmonton-Strathcona MP Linda Duncan was re-elected with a clear mandate of 26,134 votes (53% of the vote) over her Conservative Party opponent Ryan Hastman, who earned 19,755 votes (40% of the total vote). The Conservatives had hoped to reclaim this riding, which they held until Ms. Duncan’s upset victory against Rahim Jaffer in 2008. Instead the ridings voters rejected the Conservative Blue wave that swept Alberta and granted Ms. Duncan the first majority vote that any MP from Edmonton-Strathcona has received since 1984.
In Edmonton-East, a riding the NDP has hoped to succeed in, former MLA Ray Martin increased his vote share from the 2008 election, but it was not enough to defeat incumbent Conservative Peter Goldring. Mr. Goldring managed to finish almost 7,000 votes ahead of Mr. Martin. This was Mr. Martin’s fourth attempt to win a seat in Parliament since 1997.
In Edmonton-Centre, the NDP dislodged the Liberals in the contest for second place, while Conservative MP Laurie Hawn finished with 47% support. Mr. Hawn finished around 9,000 votes ahead of his nearest opponent, the hardworking NDP candidate Lewis Cardinal. The Liberal candidate Mary MacDonald had waged an aggressive campaign in the riding, but failed to beat her Party’s national downward trend.
I just don’t understand the voters of rural & “rurban” Alberta. Yes, I expected a Conservative sweep of those seats outside of the two big cities, but they got well over 70% of the vote in all but one (Lethbridge). The only thing I can think of in terms of an explanation is that the NDP, rightly or wrongly, seen as hostile to the oil & gas industry in general, and to the oilsands in particular. I think that for the foreseeable future, we’re going to see a Conservative lock on Alberta comparable to the Liberals’ lock on Quebec back in the 1970s.
I think there is some truth to your comment. I also believe that the braintrusts of the opposition parties (both NDP and Liberal) have come to accept that investing in long-term strategies in rural and “rurban” Alberta is not a priority
In the 1990s and 2000s the Liberals focused their Alberta resources on a handful of Edmonton ridings, a strategy that the NDP seems to have adopted in this election (focusing on the three Edmonton ridings).
Did you notice that Dave Rodney (PC) and whatever-his-name-is from Cardston-Taber-Warner … the Wildrose Alliance guy … were standing together as Stephen Harper did his victory crawl to the stage last night?
I had to vote in a “rurban” riding, as jerrymacgp calls it, last night: my first time voting outside of Edmonton (I grew up in and still call Edmonton-Strathcona home, despite a current address in Wild Rose). Never again. By 2015, I cannot be living here.
I am frustrated, disappointed, discouraged, lacking in optimism and other such unhappy things.
Have to admit that I am disappointed that the best NDP campaign i’ve seen in years resulted in no gains for the NDP in Alberta. Jack was at his best and we had supurb candidates like Lewis Cardinal and Ray Martin. Glad to see Linda Duncan make it but she’s just one voice. Questions need to be asked. Let’s do better next time.
Full credit to Duncan for the win – she obviously performed well enough during her first term to endear herself to her constituents and her team was well funded and well organized, but it isn’t particularly significant to win “the first majority vote that any MP from Edmonton-Strathcona has received since 1984” in what, for all intents and purposes, was a two candidate race.
I would like to see some poll by poll results before I can say for sure but it looks like there may be some opportunities for the NDP and Liberals, especially the former, in the next election. It will depend a great deal on the redistricting from the 2011 census and the new seats that the Conservatives plan to add.
In Lethbridge, I am pleasantly surprised by the results. It is the NDPs third best showing in the province. This in a rurban riding that includes not just the provincial swing seats in Lethbridge but also Cardston-Taber-Warner, quite possibly the most conservative district in the entire country. If redistricting can peel some of the rural areas off and make it an urban riding, then it should very much be considered a viable target.
In Edmonton, the new seats could easily open up two or three ridings to serious NDP challenges. The party managed to pull 25% of the vote in the 8 area ridings. I would imagine that it is concentrated particularly in Edmonton proper.
In Calgary, there is less hope. Still, depending how the inner city is divided, there should be one or two of the kind of seats that the Liberals would have to target if they want to rebound nationally.
I live in Edmonton-Strathcona and I have never seen a more poorly run Conservative campaign. I read in the Journal it was being run by the Wildorse. I shouldn’t expect anything more than a resounding loss then, I suppose.
Good grief!! He had a convicted felon working for him. He and his Conservatives, are in contempt of the House. He sent his henchmen to storm Guelph University, to stop students from voting. They even tried to steal the ballot boxes. Fascism and dictatorship anyone?
Has anyone Googled: Harper delivers his plan on, Global Governance for Canada? Everyone present, were shocked by his speech. Harper said, Global Governance has been worked on, since 1945.
We may wake up one morning and find our country gone. Harper has an evil agenda, I don’t like one bit. Trust him!! Not on your Nelly.
same here too!! im 19 and i havent voted for harper even if they gave me a illion buckeroos!!!!!!! rise up canadaians,where are urr brains, we have enough of harper and you want more? werent 8 yrs with that thing enough??? rise up!!
i mean serious ly, he didnt plan for anything on his agenda, and wat does he want? fame, fame ,fame and more of it.naheeed realy called it, he aint gonna do anyhting 4 us canadainas so wats the point, i heard candaians voted just 2 get rid of elections for another 4 yrs!!!!! good lord!
Harper was elected in a majority of the ridings in Canada with more votes in each riding than any other single party. That hardly makes him a fasist or a dictator….I just googled the harper speech..Did you google the author of that article????????? I did….”Charles H. McVety is a Canadian evangelical Christian leader. He has been the president of Canada Christian College in Toronto since 1993, and he is also the current president of Canada Family Action Coalition. He is perhaps best known for campaigning to repeal the law legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada. According to the CBC, Charles McVety is “one of the most powerful leaders of the Christian Right in [Canada]”
Well, this is a democracy, folks. The people ‘Rose Up!’, voted, and got exactly what they voted for. That’s how democracy works. So, don’t whine when your guy doesn’t win. My guy won this time. Thank you so much Alberta.
I’ve been stuck here in Ottawa, the town that fun forgot, since 1986 and hope to eventually return to the True West Strong and Free and spend my pension cheques in good ol’ privately-run liquor stores and pay no provincial tax. Yay, Alberta!
The opinions expressed on this blog represent my own and not those of my employer or any organization I may be affiliated with.
In addition, my thoughts and opinions change from time to time. I consider this a necessary consequence of having an open mind. This blog is intended to provide a semi-permanent point in time snapshot and manifestation of the various ideas running around my brain, and as such any thoughts and opinions expressed within out-of-date posts may not the same, nor even similar, to those I may hold today.
Dave Cournoyer is a writer and political watcher living in Edmonton, Alberta. Contact him at david.cournoyer@gmail.com. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Most girls would think that men do not pay much attention to their personal style, fashion or trends, but we were wrong, the truth is that many guys are already more concerned about being groomed, trendy and different as seasons pass by, really be surprised to know how many guys have asked me to help them know what to wear, so for all those guys, and anyone interested in the world of fashion I 'll make a post every week, I hope like it.
Today we start with what is coming for autumn winter, I know that some of the trends will seem quite exaggerated and some of you will want to pass, but in the following weeks, as with girls, I'll be leading you into landing these runway looks into their daily lives, whether you go to school, work, night out or a special occasion, so let's begin!
Let's start with something to have fun, a different range of colors, interesting but not overdone and leaving the loud prints we saw last year aside, this time focusing on the solid colors , as shown by Marc Jacobs, these months are stained of mustards, greens, reds, oranges and wines.
Comes a "modern gentleman" in fairly tight tailor type suits , with a very British feel, this season does not seem to be very forgiving for the classic jeans, also including the almost mandatory use of accessories such as scarves and hats. The double cross silhouette seems to be the big favorite in both suits and coats.
Blue and black are two colors that normally I wouldn't combine, but this season designers dare with this match resulting in a rather sober and appropriate vision for this fall. But we see no clear or ocean blues, rather they are quite dark tones that are close to black.
We finish with natural textures on coats, bold but cozy enough for the colder months these natural or artificial fur jackets and coats that cover the inside and the necks guarantee you stay warm, is a tendency to dare.
In black from head to toe Gucci, Givenchy, Alexander McQueen and Kimberly Ovitz among others, present the Gothic, with floral applications, translucent panels, lace, leather and elongated silhouettes. All complemented with wine colored lips or a good smokey eye.
Miu Miu Lo andrógino ha estado presente durante mucho tiempo en el estilo de muchas " It girls " como Tilda Swinton, y cada día más chicas como Leighton Meester se atreven a portar trajes tipo sastre, pero esta temporada marcas como Kenzo nos presentan este look a temporal con un twist en el combinado de estampados, haciéndolo más interesante, atrevido pero aún perfecto para las working girls. The androgynous has been around for a long time in the style of many "It girls" like Tilda Swinton, and more and more girls like Leighton Meester dare to wear such tailor suits , but this season we have brands like Kenzo bringing this look back to life with a twist in the combined patterns, making it more interesting, daring but still perfect for working girls.
September is the month of Fashion, Fashion Week, the famous "September Issue" and of course Fashion's Night Out, an event organized by Vogue, "the bible of fashion", and that was held last Thursday in various fashion capitals around the world, in Mexico City it took place in Polanco and Perisur.
I attended to Perisur, where most of the agenda was organized and sponsored by El Palacio de Hierro , which featured many dynamics, prizes, drinks, snacks and even temporary tattoos which were one the favorites
The night wasn´t highlighted by the presence of "celebrities", but after walking chasing Oscar Madrazo (Fashion Hunter, artistic director and chief judge of CONTEMPO MNTP) for hours, the Fashion Hunter ended finding me, and definitely made my night, he is a super nice person! We could also see the guys from Motel, and several girls who participated in Mexico's Next Top Model.
I think events like this are a good step in the Mexican fashion industry, but I honestly expected something more spectacular, as they do in other parts of the world, I think it would have taken a bit of more organization and most of all more media exposure to make more people interested in these themes. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to organic compounds useful as pesticides and more particularly to carbamate derivatives of ketoximes having insecticidal, miticidal, and, in some cases, nematocidal activity comparable or superior to the most closely related commercial products while having significantly lower toxicity toward mammals than these commercial products.
2. Description of the Prior Art
The outstanding pesticidal activity of the carbamate derivatives of the ketoximes disclosed in this invention is surprising and unexpected because the prior art indicates that carbamate derivatives only of substituted aldoximes have high pesticidal activity, whereas ketoxime derivatives were essentially inactive. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 3,217,037 and U.S. Pat. No. 3,507,965 show compounds, possessing pesticidal activity, of the structure: ##STR1## wherein X=0 or S(O).sub.n when n=0, 1, or 2 and the free valences are satisfied by hydrogen or hydrocarbyl radicals. In these two patents, the preferred compounds are aldoximes wherein the carbon atom (C.sub.1) attached to the oxime moiety in the above structure is substituted with hydrogen. In the J. Agr. Food Chem,. 14, 356 (1966), the patentees of these patents state, "The data . . . demonstrate . . . the detrimental effect . . . of replacing the aldehydic hydrogen with an alkyl group. All of the ketoxime derivatives . . . were virtually inactive when compared with the aldoxime derivative . . . " Ketoxime compounds of Formulas (I) and (II) below are reported in the reference as being essentially inactive compared to the aldoxime compound of Formula (III) below which is known commercially as aldicarb (Temik). The compound of Formula (II) differs from the compound of Formula (III) only in that a methyl group has been substituted for the aldehydic hydrogen of Formula (III). ##STR2##
The ketoxime compounds of Formulas (I) and (II) have been resynthesized and tested and their reported lack of activity relative to that of the compound of Formula (III) reconfirmed. Surprisingly, however, the ketoxime derivatives of the present invention have been found to possess high pesticidal activity, comparable or superior to that of the compound of Formula (III). | {
"pile_set_name": "USPTO Backgrounds"
} |
Differential diagnosis of pancreatic serous oligocystic adenoma and mucinous cystic neoplasm with spectral CT imaging: initial results.
To investigate the imaging characteristics of pancreatic serous oligocystic adenoma (SOA) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) using spectral computed tomography (CT) and to evaluate whether quantitative information derived from spectral imaging can improve the differential diagnosis of these diseases. From February 2010 to June 2013, 44 patients (24 SOAs and 20 MCNs) who underwent spectral CT imaging were included in the study. Conventional characteristics and quantitative parameters were compared between the two disease groups. Logistic regression was used for multiparametric analysis. The receiver-operating characteristic curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of single parameter and multiparametric analysis. Two radiologists diagnosed the diseases blinded and independently, without and with the information of the statistical analysis. Tumour location, contour, size, and monochromatic CT values at 40 keV to 70 keV, iodine concentration, and effective atomic number (effective-Z) in the late arterial phase were the independent factors correlated with category. Multiparametric analysis with logistic regression showed that tumour size, location, and contour were the most effective variations, and obtained an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.934. With the knowledge of statistical analysis, the accuracy of the first reader increased from 70.5% to 86.4%, and the accuracy of the second reader increased from 81.8% to 90.9%. Although CT spectral imaging provided additional information and multiparametric analysis obtained better performance than single-parameter analysis in differentiating MCNs from SOAs, multiparametric analysis with the combination of quantitative parameters derived from CT spectral imaging did not improve the diagnostic performance. Tumour size, location, and contour played an important role in differentiating MCNs from SOAs. | {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Abstracts"
} |
Listen Live to Valentine Radio
Valentine Radio on Facebook
From the Valentine Radio Newsroom
FORT DAVIS, TX (Ben Caxton) — If you’re looking to experience some real ghosts and goblins who just aren’t in it for the candy on this Halloween there are at least a few places you might want to visit. In Fort Davis, the old Confederate fort has long been believed… | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Q:
Reasons behind extraordinarily long waiting times since patent filing date?
This answer claims that the average time to obtain a patent from the USPTO in 2015 was around 32 months. If a patent is pending for significantly longer than this period (say, 5 - 6 years from the filing date), then is this indication that the patent application, as written initially, was very far from being valid? In other words, is it likely the case that the patent, as initially written, requires a large amount of changes in order to be valid, and so there is a large amount of correspondence between the USPTO examiners and the inventors for changes, leading to the longer time? Especially if the organization that the patent was filed under has a large amount of financial resources and experience filing patents, since I presume that this would mean that it is unlikely that the reason for the longer time is some trivial legal technicality/issue, and more-so a fundamental issue with the patent claims themselves?
I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify this.
A:
There is no one reason. I do not see it as a measure of the quality of the patent application. If 32 months is average there will be cases that are faster and those that are longer. Some Technology Centers and art units (the groups that examiners are broken into by subject matter) have bigger backlogs than others.
The USPTO published pendency data by Technology Center.
This came up quickly in a search but is for 2009. See that Semiconductors were 29.7 months while Networks was 47.7 months.
Tech Center 2800 - Semiconductor, Electrical, Optical Systems & Components total pendency average 29.7 months
Tech Center 2400 - Network, Multiplexing, Cable & Security total pendency average 47.7 months
You can look up specific applications in USPTO Public PAIR and see all of the back and forth between the applicant and the office to try to judge the reasons for yourself. Of course anything that goes to an appeal will take quite a while.
What changes during the prosecution of a patent application is not primarily the body of the appliation - no new matter can be added after filing but just the claims.
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
R nineT Urban G/S SportBMW Select Finance
Enjoy the confident feel of a boxer with an upright and relaxed riding position, coupled with modern technology. Choose from countless customising options for your own unique ideas. The R nineT Urban GS makes a clear statement: It pays tribute to the early days of BMW Motorrad's GS success story. Just one look and it's clear that the R nineT Urban GS captures the off-road spirit of that era. Fantastic features such as Heated Grips, Cross Spoke Wheels and a Chrome Exhaust which come as standard on the R nineT Urban GS Sport make it even more stylish.
Cookies on our website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website and to improve the relevance of our communications with you. If you continue without changing your settings, we’ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on our website. However, if you would like, you can change your cookie settings at any time. You can find detailed information about how cookies are used on this website, please see our cookie policy. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Coming Soon
David Thomas, our Musical Director, conducts Winchester Music Club Choir and Orchestra together with Winchester College Glee Club and Quiristers in a programme of Bach Magnificat and Handel Coronation Anthems at Winchester Cathedral. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Q:
How to Remove assigned tags if the product becomes out of stock
When any product's quantity becomes 0 or out of stock i need to remove all the tags assigned to that particular product.
A:
You will have to create a module for that.
First create the app/etc/modules/Vendor_Module.xml
<config>
<modules>
<Vendor_Module>
<active>true</active>
<codePool>local</codePool>
</Vendor_Module>
</modules>
</config>
Then you need to observe the cataloginventory_stock_item_save_commit_after that is dispatched when the stock of a product is changed as well as catalog_product_save_after in case the stock status is changed.
app/code/local/Vendor/Module/etc/config.xml
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<config>
<modules>
<Vendor_Module>
<version>0.0.1</version>
</Vendor_Module>
</modules>
<global>
<models>
<module>
<class>Vendor_Module_Model</class>
</module>
</models>
<events>
<catalog_product_save_after>
<observers>
<vendor_module_catalog_product_save_after>
<type>model</type>
<class>module/observer</class>
<method>afterProductSave</method>
</vendor_module_catalog_product_save_after>
</observers>
</catalog_product_save_after>
<cataloginventory_stock_item_save_commit_after>
<observers>
<vendor_module_cataloginventory_stock_item_save_commit_after>
<type>model</type>
<class>module/observer</class>
<method>afterStockSave</method>
</vendor_module_cataloginventory_stock_item_save_commit_after>
</observers>
</cataloginventory_stock_item_save_commit_after>
</events>
</global>
</config>
Then in app/code/local/Vendor/Module/Model/Observer.php
<?php
class Vendor_Module_Model_Observer {
public function afterStockSave(Varien_Event_Observer $observer)
{
$event = $observer->getEvent();
$_item = $event->getItem();
if ((int)$_item->getData('qty') == 0) {
$productId = $_item->getProductId();
$tags = Mage::getResourceModel('tag/collection')->addProductFilter($productId)->delete();
}
}
public function afterProductSave(Varien_Event_Observer $observer)
{
$product = $observer->getProduct();
$stockData = $product->getStockData();
if ((int)$stockData['qty'] == 0 || !$stockData['is_in_stock']) {
$productId = $product->getProductId();
$tags = Mage::getResourceModel('tag/collection')->addProductFilter($productId)->delete();
}
}
}
| {
"pile_set_name": "StackExchange"
} |
Cyberpunk 2077 Is Much Bigger Than Witcher 3
CD Projekt Red has been keeping a tight lid on their futuristic, open-world cyberpunk RPG, Cyberpunk 2077. They did recently reveal that the game is going to be far bigger than The Witcher 3 in terms of scope and content, which is kind of hard to wrap one's mind around given how big The Witcher 3 is.
MCVUK managed to get in word with CD Projekt Red's visual effects artist Jose Teixeira, who explained to them that not only is Cyberpunk 2077 far bigger than their medieval dark-fantasy RPG The Witcher 3, but the team learned a lot from working on Geralt's final big adventure and they've used that to help carry over in their design techniques for the upcoming sci-fi game. Teixeira told the media outlet...
Cyberpunk is far bigger than anything else that CD Projekt Red has done before, […] We're really stepping into the unknown in terms of complexity and size and problems we encounter
I'm curious how the game will be? Is it going to be one big city that players explore with a lot of buildings you can enter? Or will it be setup where there are hubs... maybe a city hub and maybe a wasteland or maybe a space station? Heck I have no idea how they're going to tackle Cyberpunk 2077 because the possibilities for the game are practically endless.
As far as what sort of features the game will have, Teixeira does a fine job of avoiding anything that could giveaway what CD Projekt Red is planning for the game. As most gamers know the medieval setting for The Witcher 3 affords players to utilize a lot of melee weapons and some low-range projectiles like magic attacks and crossbows. For a game like Cyberpunk 2077 many gamers would probably assume that futuristic weapons will be on the table, which instantly makes me question how well CD Projekt will handle the combat in the game. I'm definitely looking forward to that.
According to Teixeira, a lot of the staff learned a lot from having worked on The Witcher 3 and they're applying that knowledge to the upcoming game...
If anything, working on The Witcher 3 was a really good and often brutal learning experience. Cyberpunk is going to benefit greatly from it. I can almost guarantee it.
I have a lot of things that I want to change and do better the next time around, and I can guarantee that almost everyone in that studio has something that they go 'I did this this time, next time I can do it differently, I can do it better'.
Do what better?! The travel? The dialogue? The environments? The combat? Give us something!
CD Projekt has long said that the release date for Cyberpunk 2077 is a long ways off and they weren't going to go neck-deep in development until 2016 or so. The release for the game will likely come no sooner than 2017.
Teixeira joked that the game's name of Cyberpunk 2077 would mean that the release could be 2077.
Once all the DLC for The Witcher 3 wraps up expect to see and hear more about the futuristic, sci-fi RPG. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Artistic Approaches to Music and Sound – Game Audio Summit
In view of the aesthetic ideas and individual approaches that have been
brought forth in the sonic arts, in radio drama, on the theatre stage,
in performances or sound installations, but also in the cinema, creating
musical and auditory worlds for games can mean much more than composing
a specific set of musical pieces for standard gaming situations. That is
why we shall discuss influences from different areas of mediated music
and sound design. What can we learn from them in order to expand the
possibilities of game audio today? By reviewing various audio-visual
gaming scenarios we will further ask about concepts such as space and
presence in augmented, mixed or virtual reality environments from a
perceptual standpoint. | {
"pile_set_name": "Pile-CC"
} |
Background
==========
The anaplerotic glyoxylate cycle is a variation of the tricarboxylic acid cycle (TCA cycle), which allows acetyl-CoA to be used to replenish carbon for anabolic processes \[[@B1]\]. The isocitrate lyase of this shunt prevents a carbon loss by cleaving isocitrate into glyoxylate and succinate, thus avoiding the decarboxylation of isocitrate and 2-oxoglutarate. Glyoxylate and acetyl-CoA are joined to malate by the malate synthase, the second enzyme of the glyoxylate shunt, which allows for the regeneration of oxaloacetate that is henceforth available for anabolic activities via the TCA cycle or gluconeogenesis. From a bioprocessing viewpoint, this ability is especially interesting for bacteria that previously produced overflow metabolites. In terms of *Bacillus subtilis* such conditions include aerobic growth with excess glucose or anaerobic nitrate respiration \[[@B2],[@B3]\] and lead to the formation of acetate as well as acetoin and 2,3-butanediol. Industrial fermentation processes are usually so designed that overflow metabolism is avoided or at least limited. The overflow metabolism leads to metabolic shifts towards less efficient pathways and causes energy spilling reactions \[[@B3]\]. Nevertheless the mixing of incoming, highly concentrated feed solutions is insufficient in industrial-scale bioreactors and always gives rise to zones of excess carbon source \[[@B4]\]. For *Escherichia coli* it has been shown that the formation of overflow metabolites, especially acetate, hampers large scale fed-batch processes. Accumulated acetate has been observed to have adverse effects on target product formation and cell growth \[[@B5]\].
After depletion of the preferred carbon source (e.g. glucose), the excreted overflow metabolites are converted into metabolically utilizable acetyl-CoA \[[@B6]\]. Since *B. subtilis* lacks the capability to conduct the glyoxylate cycle, it can only make use of the energy provided by the overflow metabolites in the form of reduction equivalents, which are generated during the TCA cycle. In this study the transfer of the glyoxylate shunt - operon from its close relative *Bacillus licheniformis*\[[@B7]\] was investigated in *B. subtilis.* It is shown that the functional expression of this operon enables *B. subtilis* to utilize the overflow metabolite acetate as a carbon source and resulted in a more robust growth behavior with excess glucose and an increased production of a recombinant reporter enzyme.
Results
=======
Primer extension experiments with *B. licheniformis* showed that the transcript of the glyoxylate operon (*aceBA*) starts 231 bp upstream of the *aceB* gene with a potential promoter sequence at the position of 4,040,629 to 4,040,601 in the genome (personal communication A. Ehrenreich). Analysis of the 3'-end with the Vienna RNA package \[[@B8]\] revealed a potential terminator structure (4,037,415 to 4,037,434; --∆G = 15.2) and typical Shine-Dalgarno sequences (SDS) in front of a hypothetical protein sequence (RBS1: 4,040,515 to 4,038,510), *aceB* (RBS2: 4,040,338 to 4,040,332) and *aceA* (RBS3: 4,038,731 to 4,038,726) (Figure [1](#F1){ref-type="fig"}A). These SDS meet the requirements for an efficient ribosomal binding side of *B. subtilis*\[[@B9]\].
{#F1}
First attempts to construct plasmids containing the complete glyoxylate operon of *B. licheniformis* failed with *E. coli* as subcloning host. Transformation of the ligation reaction using *E. coli* as a shuttle host resulted in plasmids containing different fragments of the genes, but never the complete operon, making it likely that ORFs of the glyoxylate operon are expressed in *E. coli* and interfere with its metabolism. Therefore, we constructed the plasmids in such a manner that one plasmid contained only the *aceB* and the *aceA* genes without a promoter and another plasmid contained the native *aceBA*-operon specific promoter and the above mentioned hypothetical protein (Figure [1](#F1){ref-type="fig"}B). Both plasmids could be propagated in *E. coli* and the transformation of *B. subtilis* in a two-step-procedure worked well, yielding *B. subtilis* ACE which contains the native glyoxylate operon of *B. licheniformis* in its chromosomal *amyE* locus.
In mineral salt medium containing a mixture of glycerol, acetate and acetoin as carbon sources, the glyoxylate-positive strain *B. subtilis* ACE reached a significantly higher final maximal optical density than the wild type strain (Figure [2](#F2){ref-type="fig"}). Glycerol is in this medium the preferred carbon and energy source for *B. subtilis*. In contrast to the wild type (WT) *B. subtilis* ACE showed a diauxic growth pattern with a slightly reduced specific growth rate during the mid-exponential growth phase, indicating a utilization of acetate but also acetoin for its growth.
{#F2}
A quantitative *aceB*-mRNA-analysis indicated a basal expression of the *aceBA*-operon in *B. subtilis* ACE during the exponential growth on glycerol (Figure [3](#F3){ref-type="fig"}). A significant induction (\~7-fold) occurred during the diauxic transition phase. The *B. subtilis* control strain (WT) did not show a detectable *aceB*-mRNA signal in any of the experiments (data not shown). The expression of the isocitrate lyase (AceA) in the *aceBA* positive strain was detectable in the cytoplasmic soluble proteome during the transient and stationary phase by mass spectrometry analyses. No AceA-specific peptides could be identified in the negative control (WT). However, no peptides could be detected for the malate synthase (AceB) and the hypothetical protein in any of the samples. The difficulty of the identification of AceB-specific peptides was not unexpected, since the protein has so far eluded identification in several gel-based studies of *B. licheniformis* (personal communication B. Voigt, \[[@B10]\]). With a molecular weight of about 5 kDa, the absence of peptides for the hypothetical protein can be explained by the difficulties of analyzing such small proteins with the gel-based MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry.
{ref-type="fig"}. N = 3, therefore the box plot does not show quartils.](1475-2859-12-72-3){#F3}
The analysis of extracellular metabolites revealed the consumption of glycerol as the preferred carbon source and a nearly constant level of acetoin and acetate during this first growth phase (Figure [4](#F4){ref-type="fig"}). Thus, in contrast to growth on glucose \[[@B6],[@B11]\], *B. subtilis* does not produce overflow metabolites like acetate or acetoin in detectable amounts while using glycerol as main carbon source. Both strains showed a weak utilization of acetate and acetoin already during the late exponential growth phase on glycerol. However, the glyoxylate cyle - positive ACE strain revealed a significant higher utilization of acetate but also of acetoin compared to the WT. After exhaustion of glycerol the ACE strain started to accumulate glycolic acid. In contrast, no such accumulation could be detected in the *B. subtilis* WT strain. It is interesting to note that the final glycolic acid concentration in the *B. subtilis* ACE mutant strain was almost three times as high as that of the *aceBA*-donor strain *B. licheniformis* DSM13 (data not shown). Glyoxylate could not be detected in the supernatant of any strain. 2.3-butanediol accumulated in both *B. subtilis* strains and was not consumed (Figure [4](#F4){ref-type="fig"}).
{ref-type="fig"}.](1475-2859-12-72-4){#F4}
Simulated fed-batch cultivation experiments using 'EnBase Flo' revealed a clear distinction of growth patterns between the WT and the glyxolate cycle - positive mutant (Figure [5](#F5){ref-type="fig"}). *B. subtilis* ACE reached higher cell densities and was not negatively affected by the addition of excess glucose. In contrast, the WT only exhibited a relative stable growth behavior without additional glucose. The excess of glucose led to a lysis of the WT cells after 360 min of incubation. All cultures, except the WT cultures with 0.2 or 0.4% glucose, featured a pronounced biofilm formation in the late growth phase (at about 1200 min). Additionally, *B. subtilis* ACE produced a red pigment, which was not detectable in the WT cultures. The formation of biofilms and pigments hampered the exact determination of the optical density in these experiments. However, the determined trend in the growth behavior was reproducible for all investigated biological replicates. The absorption maximum of the observed red pigment in these cultures was at 410 nm, while only a minor absorption could be observed at 500 nm \[[@B12]\]. Care was as well taken not to pipette the biofilm but only the cells underneath. It should be noted that due to different path lengths and measurement methods of the plate reader in comparison to a standard photometer, OD values shown in Figure [5](#F5){ref-type="fig"} are relative values. The final ODs of the cultures measured with a standard 1 cm path length photometer are given in the legend of Figure [5](#F5){ref-type="fig"}.
{#F5}
In order to further characterize the glyoxylate shunt - expressing *B. subtilis* strain, studies using an acetoin-inducible promoter (*acoA*) and a secreted alpha-amylase \[[@B13]\] as a reporter enzyme were carried out. In order to increase the transcription activity of the *acoA*-promoter the MSM growth medium was supplemented with 0.5% acetoin. Similar to the growth experiments shown in Figure [2](#F2){ref-type="fig"} the ACE-strain revealed a higher final optical density in comparison to the WT (Figure [6](#F6){ref-type="fig"}). It is interesting to note that the *B. subtilis* ACE strain enables an increased *acoA*-directed amylase overproduction under these conditions. These experiments also indicate that the *acoA*-promoter is repressed during growth on glycerol \[[@B14]\] and is activated during the transient phase in the WT culture and during growth on acetate in the *B. subtilis* ACE strain after glycerol has been consumed.
{#F6}
Discussion
==========
Relatively little is known about the regulation of the glyoxylate cycle in Gram-positive bacteria. Results of this study indicate a control of the *aceBA*-operon of *B. licheniformis* in *B. subtilis* at the transcriptional level*.* A transcriptional regulation of the glyoxylate shunt has also been shown for the Gram-positive bacterium *Corynebacterium glutamicum*, where the expression of the malate synthase and isocitrate lyase is positively controlled by the LuxR-type transcriptional regulator RamA in the presence of acetate \[[@B15]\]. Voigt et al. detected a strong induction of the AceB expression in *B. licheniformis* at the transcriptional and translational level as soon as the preferred carbon and energy source glucose is exhausted \[[@B16]\]. Schroeter et al. \[[@B10]\] could determine an induction of the glyoxylate shunt during peroxide stress experiments, which was attributed to an irreversible oxidation of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (ICDH). However, it is also shown in our study that the region encoding the hypothetical protein (BL02643) in front of *aceBA* is essential for a functional transfer of the glyoxylate shunt to *B. subtilis*. Strain constructs missing this putative regulatory region of the operon fail to grow on acetate (data not shown). It can be concluded that this small protein plays an essential role in the regulation of the glyoxylate cycle activity.
The incorporation of the glyoxylate shunt - encoding operon led to growth of *B. subtilis* ACE on the overflow metabolite acetate and to a lesser degree on acetoin. A diauxic growth with a preferred utilization of glycerol over acetate can be derived from the metabolite analyses (Figure [4](#F4){ref-type="fig"}). However, the current version of the glyoxylate cycle - positive strain *B. subtilis* ACE failed to reach the same maximal optical density as *B. licheniformis* (data not shown). A possible reason for its earlier growth arrest might be the accumulation of glycolic acid (see Figure [4](#F4){ref-type="fig"}). This small alpha-hydroxy acid has been described as a potent inhibitor of the isocitrate lyase of *Pseudomonas indigofera*\[[@B17]\] and could disable *B. subtilis* ACE to continue utilizing acetate as a replenishing carbon source through its glyoxylate cycle. Glycolic acid is also formed in *B. licheniformis*, but to a much smaller extent (data not shown). *B. licheniformis* DSM13 possesses a putative glyoxylate reductase (ORF BL02138) which exhibits a 70% identity to a similar enzyme (*gyaR*) of *Bacillus pumilus* ATCC 7061. This putative glyoxylate reductase (ORF BL02138) could catalyze the reduction of glyoxylate to glycolic acid and could thus lead to a reduced accumulation of glycolic acid in *B. licheniformis*.
The accumulation of 2.3-butanediol in *B. subtilis* during the exponential and stationary phase is likely due to the activity of the acetoin reductase/2.3-butanediol dehydrogenase (*bdhA*) \[[@B18]\]. The remaining acetoin could block the reverse reaction that would transform the 2.3-butanediol back to acetoin. It has been reported that the presence of acetic acid leads to an increased production of 2.3-butanediol by *B. subtilis*\[[@B19]\]. In contrast, *B. licheniformis* is able to utilize acetoin but also 2.3-butanediol entirely (data not shown), which might also have contributed to an increase of biomass. This is most probably also supported by the butanediol/acetoin reductase encoded by the *budC* (BL01177) gene of *B. licheniformis*, which catalyzes the irreversible reduction of 2.3-butanediol to acetoin \[[@B20]\]. Interestingly, the subspecies *B. subtilis subsp. spizizenii,* which is of a different lineage than the used *B. subtilis* strain 6051HGW \[[@B21]\], encodes the same potential for the 2.3-butanediol utilization as *B. licheniformis*, highlighting both as potential donors of the butanediol/acetoin reductase for a further optimization of *B. subtilis* ACE.
The simulated EnBase fed-batch cultivation indicated an advantage of the glyoxylate shunt - active strain *B. subtilis* ACE in comparison to the WT under high glucose concentration conditions. Induction of a significant overflow metabolism by addition of excess glucose presumably resulted in the growth arrest of the WT, while the activity of the glyoxylate shunt enabled *B. subtilis* ACE to exploit too high levels of these metabolites and to reach thus elevated cell densities.
This study indicates that the previously described *acoA*-expression system \[[@B13]\] displays an improved performance in the glyoxylate cycle - positive strain *B. subtilis* ACE. The promoter of the *acoABCL*-operon is repressed by PTS--sugars \[[@B22]\], but as demonstrated in this study also by the non-PTS carbon source glycerol. The cheap C-source glycerol in combination with acetate therefore offers an interesting alternative for the control of the *acoA*-based *B. subtilis* expression system. Another possible application of *B. subtilis* ACE may be an auto-inducing system that depends on phosphate limitation. As described by Dauner et al*.*\[[@B3]\], *B. subtilis* produces large quantities of acetate during chemostat experiments with high glucose and low phosphate levels. The ability of *B. subtilis* ACE to produce higher recombinant target protein levels, while growing on acetate, would therefore be a suitable alternative possibility for the application of the *acoA*-expression system.
Conclusion
==========
The *aceBA* operon of *B. licheniformis* is a self-contained metabolic entity that can be functionally transferred to *B. subtilis*. The obtained strain is able to grow on acetate as carbon source which results in an increased biomass formation and an improved production of a recombinant model protein. In addition, the glyoxylate cycle-positive *B. subtilis* mutant cells feature greater robustness towards excess glucose cultivations.
Methods
=======
Construction of plasmids, strains, and genome analysis
------------------------------------------------------
Chromosomal DNA of *Bacillus licheniformis* MW3, which is a mutant of *B. licheniformis* DSM13 \[[@B23]\], was used as template for the amplification of the *aceBA*-operon. Sequence information was derived from the published genome of *B. licheniformis* DSM13 \[GenBank:NC_006322\]. PCRs were performed with the Phusion polymerase. The utilized oligonucleotides are summarized in Table [1](#T1){ref-type="table"}, while the constructed plasmids and used strains are listed in Table [2](#T2){ref-type="table"}.
######
Oligonucleotide primers used in this study
**Name** **Sequence 5' → 3'** **Usage**
-------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------
aceBAfor GATCGTCTAGAGTCTCCCTACCCCTTTACAT Forward primer for *aceBA* operon
aceBArev GATCGGATCCAAGACAACCGGCCGGCCAAA Reverse primer for *aceBA* operon
Prom1-for GAAAATGGCTAAAATTGGTTATGCACGACTCTACGAAT Forward primer for integration of native promoter
Prom1-rev CGCAACGCGGGGAGGCAGACAAGGTATAGGGCGGGG ACCAAAATCGAACAGGCTTGC Reverse primer for integration of native promoter
SLIC-Ery-for TTATGCACGACTCTAGCCTGCAGGTCGACTGATAAGACGGTTCGTGTTCG Forward primer for *Ery*^*R*^ cassette
SLIC-Ery-rev TAATTAGACCGGTACCCGGGGATCCTCTAGCTCTTTAGCTCCTTGGAAGC Forward primer for *Ery*^*R*^ cassette
aceB-for CTGCCGCCGATCAGCACATGC Forward primer for mRNA-standard of *aceB*
aceB-rev CCCGCAAATTAACCTGGC Reverse primer for mRNA-standard of *aceB*
aceB-rev-T7 TAATACGACTCACTATAGGGCCCGCAAATTAACCTGGC Reverse primer for mRNA-standard of *aceB* with T7-promoter
######
Strains and plasmids used in this study
**Strain** **Genotype** **Reference**
------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
*B. subtilis* 6051HGW Wild type \[[@B24]\]
*B. licheniformis MW3* *ΔhsdR1, ΔhsdR2* \[[@B23]\]
*B. subtilis* ACE Δ*amyE::aceBA* This study
*B. subtilis* ACEProm1 Δ*amyE::aceBA* This study
*B. subtilis* ΔamyE Δ*amyE::Ery*^*R*^ This study
*B. subtilis* acoAamyE Δ*amyE::Ery*^*R*^ Δ*sacA::acoAamyESSS* This study
*B. subtilis* ACEamyE Δ*amyE::aceBAProm1SSE* Δ*sacA::acoAamyESSS* This study
*E. coli* DH10B F-*mcrA,*(*mrr-hsdRMS-mcrBC*)'80*lacZ,*M15, *lacX74, recA1 araD139, (ara leu)* 7697 \[[@B25]\]
**Plasmid** **Function** **Reference**
pBGAB Integration of genes into the *amyE* locus with Neo^R^ \[[@B26]\]
pACEBA *aceBA* chromosomal integration into the *amyE* locus without promoter This study
pMTL500 Source of *ermB* gene for erythromycin resistance \[[@B27]\]
pAMYSSE Integration of genes into the *amyE* locus with Ery^R^ This study
pProm1 Integrating of the native *aceBA* promoter and the gene encoding the hypothetical protein This study
pJK168 Integration of genes into the *sacA*-locus J. Kumpfmüller (unpublished results)
pMJS2 Source of the P~*acoA*~-*amyE* construct \[[@B13]\]
pSacAmyE Integration of the *amyE* gene under P~*acoA*~ control into the *sacA*-locus This study
*Ery*^*R*^: Erythromycin resistance cassette, *Neo*^*R*^: Neomycin resistance cassette, *amyE*: Alpha-amylase gene, *P*~*acoA*~: Promoter of the *acoABCL*-operon, *sacA*: Phospho-sucrase gene.
The plasmid pACEBA was constructed by amplifying the *aceBA*-operon without its predicted promoter region and the hypothetical protein. The PCR product and the pBGAB \[[@B26]\] plasmid were cut with XbaI and BamHI and ligated using T4-ligase. To integrate the native promoter and the hypothetical protein in front of the *aceBA*-operon, the pBGAG plasmid was cut with SmaI and NotI and an erythromycin cassette from pMTL500 \[[@B27]\] was inserted yielding the plasmid pAMYSSE. Hereafter, this plasmid was cut with NarI and EcoRI and the PCR product resulting from the Prom1-primer pair was integrated via a modified sequence and ligation-independent cloning method \[[@B24]\]. Electroporation of the plasmids into *E. coli* was performed as previously described \[[@B28]\]. All utilized enzymes were purchased from New England Biolabs (Frankfurt a. M., Germany), oligonucleotides were synthesized by Life Technologies (Darmstadt, Germany).
To obtain an *aceBA*-encoding strain, *B. subtilis* 60-51HGW was transformed via natural competence \[[@B29]\] using the linearized plasmid pACEBA. The clones were selected on neomycin and the positive mutants were designated as *B. subtilis* ACE-P. To functionalize the operon, pProm1 was transformed in the same manner into *B. subtilis* ACE-P with erythromycin selection resulting in *B. subtilis* ACE. To examine the expression of a reporter enzyme, *B. subtilis* ACE and *B. subtilis* 6051HGW were transformed with pSacAmyE yielding a wild type (*B. subtilis* WTamyE) and a glyoxylate cycle - positive mutant (*B. subtilis* ACEamyE) that express and secrete an alpha-amylase under control of the *acoA*-promoter \[[@B13]\]. pSacAmyE was constructed by cutting pJK168 and pMJS2 \[[@B13]\] with XbaI and ligating the *acoA-amyE* fragment from pMJS2 into the *sacA* landing pads of pJK168. To ensure comparable alpha-amylase measurements, the native alpha-amylase of *B. subtilis* was disrupted by the integration of the *aceBA-*operon (*B. subtilis* ACEamyE) and an erythromycin cassette of plasmid pAMYSSE (*B. subtilis* WTamyE) into the *amyE*-locus. All plasmid constructs and chromosomal integrations were verified by sequencing.
The publicly available genome sequence of *B. licheniformis* was annotated in 2004 \[[@B7]\]. Since then, a large amount of novel sequences and annotations have been published, which implicates the necessity to update previous functional assignments for organisms of interest. Accordingly, we reannotated the genome sequence of *B. licheniformis* DSM13 in the same manner as described for *B. subtilis* 6051HGW \[[@B24]\]. In short, the GenBank file of *B. licheniformis* DSM13 \[GenBank:AE017333\] was imported into the GenDB 2.2 \[[@B30]\] pipeline and the resulting database was used to analyze the ORFs with JCoast \[[@B31]\].
Cultivation conditions
----------------------
Cultivations were carried out at 37°C and 250 rpm shaking in Erlenmeyer flasks with a maximum culture volume of one fifth of the flasks volume. Pre-cultures were inoculated from a cryo-stock and grown in LB medium for 5 h and then transferred into the appropriate medium for overnight cultures. Main cultures were inoculated from exponentially growing overnight cultures. The composition of the mineral salt medium (MSM) and its trace element solution has been described previously \[[@B24]\]. The MSM was supplemented with 0.08% glycerol, 0.5% acetate, 0.2% acetoin, and 2 mM MgSO~4~ if not indicated otherwise.
In order to test fed-batch like conditions, we cultivated the glyoxylate cycle - positive mutant and the WT strain with 3 ml EnBase Flo Liquid (\# EBLM500, BioSilta Oy, Oulu, Finland) medium in 24-deep-well plates. The EnBase system is based on the slow release of glucose from a polymer through the action of an enzyme, thus acting like a substrate feeding pump \[[@B32]\]. The native amylase of *B. subtilis (amyE)* has been reported to interfere with this method (personal communication P. Neubauer). Therefore, *B. subtilis* amylase knock-out strains (Table [2](#T2){ref-type="table"}) were used in all EnBase cultivations. Beside the control culture without external glucose addition, cultures supplemented with 0.2% and 0.4% glucose were investigated to simulate high glucose conditions and to stimulate acetate formation. 1.5 U of the EnBase-specific hydrolase (BioSilta Oy, Oulu, Finland) was used in all experiments. Plates were shaken at 300 rpm with an amplitude of 25 mm. Sample volume was 10 μl, with which the OD at 500 nm was determined in a 1:10 dilution in a Tecan infinite M200 plate reader (Männerdorf, CH).
RNA analysis
------------
RNA samples were taken and prepared as previously described \[[@B33]\]. An additional treatment with RNAse-free DNAse (\#79254, Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) was performed followed by a purification with the RNA Clean-Up and Concentration Kit (\#23600) from Norgen Biotek (Thorold, Canada).
The *aceB*-mRNA-standard was created with the primers aceB-for and aceB-rev-T7 (Table [1](#T1){ref-type="table"}) using the DIG RNA Labeling Kit (SP6/T7) from Roche (Mannheim, Germany) and substituting the DIG-labeled nucleotides with unlabeled NTPs (Fermentas UAB, Vilnius, Lithuania).
The real-time RT-PCR analysis was performed as described by Hoi et al. \[[@B34]\]. The RNA samples were prepared as recommended by the supplier of the LightCycler® RNA Master SYBR Green I (\#03064760001, Roche). The RT-PCR reaction was prepared with the primers aceB-for and aceB-rev (Table [1](#T1){ref-type="table"}) and analyzed applying the Roche LightCycler as suggested by the manufacturer with an annealing temperature of 56°C.
Protein analysis
----------------
The supernatant required for the alpha-amylase reporter enzyme assay was obtained by centrifugation of 2 ml culture at 10000 x g for 5 min at 4°C. The resulting supernatant was transferred to a new tube and stored at -20°C until further processing. The amylase activity was determined by use of the Ceralpha Assay (Megazymes, Wicklow, Ireland). To stay within the linear range, 1:200 dilutions in the suggested buffer were prepared. Measurements were done with a Tecan infinite M200 plate reader.
For the cytosolic proteome analysis, 8 ml of cells were harvested by centrifugation and washed twice with TE-buffer (10 mM Tris-Cl, pH 7.5, 1 mM EDTA) and finally resuspended in 1 ml TE with 2 mM PMSF (Carl Roth, Karlsruhe, Germany). Samples were transferred to cryotubes (Sarstedt, Nümbrecht, Germany) filled with 0.25 ml glass beads (Sartorius AG, Göttingen, Germany) and the cells were disrupted by bead-beating for 30 seconds at 6.5 m/s. After cooling for 5 min on ice, this procedure was repeated twice. Cell debris was removed by 30 min centrifugation at 17000 x g. The supernatant was stored at -20°C. 5 μg of protein mixture were separated by SDS-PAGE \[[@B35]\] and stained with silver-blue Coomassie \[[@B36]\].
The bands were excised using a sterile scalpel and transferred into 96 well micro titer plates (Greiner bio one, Frickenhausen, Germany). The tryptic digest with subsequent spotting on a MALDI-target was carried out automatically with the Ettan Spot Handling Workstation (Amersham Biosciences, Uppsala, Sweden). The gel pieces were washed twice with 100 μl of a solution of 50% CH~3~OH and 0% 50 mM NH~4~HCO~3~ for 30 min and once with 100 μl 75% CH~3~CN for 10 min. After drying at 37°C for 17 min 10 μl trypsin solution containing 4 μg/ml trypsin (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) was added and incubated at 37°C for 120 min. For extraction gel pieces were covered with 60 μl 0.1% TFA in 50% CH~3~CN and incubated for 30 min at 40°C. The peptide-containing supernatant was transferred into a new microtiter plate and the extraction was repeated with 40 μl of the same solution. The supernatants were completely dried at 40°C for 220 min. The dry residue was resuspended in 0.9 μl α-cyano-4-hydroxy-cinnamic acid matrix (3.3 mg/ml in 50%/49.5%/0.5% (v/v/v) CH~3~CN/H~2~O/TFA) and 0.7 μl of this solution was deposited on the MALDI target plate. The samples were allowed to dry on the target 10 to 15 min before measurement by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry.
The MALDI-TOF measurement was carried out on the AB SCIEX TOF/TOF™ 5800 Analyzer (ABSciex /MDS Analytical Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany). This instrument is designed for high throughput measurement, being automatically able to measure the samples, calibrate the spectra and analyze the data using the TOF/TOF™ Series Explorer™ SoftwareV4.1.0. The spectra were recorded in a mass range from 900 to 3700 Da with a focus mass of 1700 Da. For one main spectrum 25 sub-spectra with 100 shots per sub-spectrum were accumulated using a random search pattern. If the autolytical fragment of trypsin with the mono-isotopic (M + H) + m/z at 2211.104 reached a signal to noise ratio (S/N) of at least 40, an internal calibration was automatically performed as one-point-calibration using this peak. The standard mass deviation was less than 0.15 Da. If the automatic mode failed (in less than 1%), the calibration was carried out manually. The five most intense peaks from the TOF-spectra were selected for MS/MS analysis. For one main spectrum 20 sub-spectra with 125 shots per sub-spectrum were accumulated using a random search pattern. The internal calibration was automatically performed as one-point-calibration with the mono-isotopic arginine (M + H) + m/z at 175,119 or Lysine (M + H) + m/z at 147,107 reached a signal to noise ratio (S/N) of at least 5. The peak lists were created by using GPS Explorer™ Software Version 3.6 (build 332) with the following settings for TOF-MS: mass range, 900--3700 Da; peak density, 20 peaks per 200 Da; minimum S/N ratio of 15 and maximal 65 peaks per spot. The TOF-TOF-MS settings were a mass range from 60 to Precursor - 20 Da; a peak density of 50 peaks per 200 Da and maximal 65 peaks per precursor. The peak list was created for an S/N ratio of 10. All peak lists were analysed using Mascot search engine version 2.4.0 (Matrix Science Ltd, London, UK) with a specific user sequence database and specific *B. subtilis* and *B. licheniformis* databases.
^1^H-NMR for extracellular metabolite analysis
----------------------------------------------
2 ml cell culture was rapidly sterile filtered into a 2 ml tube and stored at -20°C. 400 μl of the extracellular sample was buffered to pH 7.0 by addition of 200 μl of a sodium hydrogen phosphate buffer (0.2 mM \[pH 7.0\], including 1 mM TSP)) made up with 50% D~2~O to provide a nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-lock signal. The samples were measured using 1H-NMR (600.27 MHz) at a nominal temperature of 310 K (Bruker AVANCE-II 600 NMR spectrometer, Bruker Biospin GmbH, Rheinstetten, Germany) as described previously \[[@B37]\]. AMIX 3.9 was used for data processing and analysis.
Software
--------
Graphs were created using R \[[@B38]\] and, where applicable, with the ggplot2 package \[[@B39]\]. Graphs for metabolites were created with VANTED V2.1.3 \[[@B40]\]. Genome analysis was done with Geneious version 5.6.2 created by Biomatters (Auckland, NZ) available from <http://www.geneious.com>. Free Gibbs-Energy (-∆G) of mRNA structures was determined with UNAfold \[[@B41]\].
Competing interests
===================
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors' contributions
======================
JK has devised and carried out most of the experiments and written the manuscript. IP has transformed the *B. subtilis* ACE mutant and has carried out preliminary cultivations and RNA analyses. HM and ML have carried out the metabolomic investigation. DA has performed the MS-analysis and provided the MS-methodology description for the manuscript. AE has provided information about primer extension experiments of the *aceBA* operon. TS conducted the research, analyzed data and revised the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgments
===============
This study was financially supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF reference 0315400A/B) in the frame of the BIOKATALYSE2021 network and the BACELL-SysMo project (reference 031397A). We thank Jana Matulla and Daniel Götze for their excellent technical support and Stephanie Markert for critical reading of the manuscript.
| {
"pile_set_name": "PubMed Central"
} |
using System.Collections.Generic;
using clawSoft.clawPDF.Core.Jobs;
using clawSoft.clawPDF.Core.Settings.Enums;
using clawSoft.clawPDF.Utilities;
using SystemInterface.IO;
namespace clawSoft.clawPDF.Core.Ghostscript.OutputDevices
{
/// <summary>
/// Extends OutputDevice to create PNG files
/// </summary>
public class PngDevice : OutputDevice
{
public PngDevice(IJob job) : base(job)
{
}
public PngDevice(IJob job, IFile file, IOsHelper osHelper) : base(job, file, osHelper)
{
}
protected override void AddDeviceSpecificParameters(IList<string> parameters)
{
switch (Job.Profile.PngSettings.Color)
{
case PngColor.BlackWhite:
parameters.Add("-sDEVICE=pngmonod");
break;
case PngColor.Color24Bit:
parameters.Add("-sDEVICE=png16m");
break;
case PngColor.Color32BitTransp:
parameters.Add("-sDEVICE=pngalpha");
break;
case PngColor.Color4Bit:
parameters.Add("-sDEVICE=png16");
break;
case PngColor.Color8Bit:
parameters.Add("-sDEVICE=png256");
break;
case PngColor.Gray8Bit:
parameters.Add("-sDEVICE=pnggray");
break;
}
parameters.Add("-r" + Job.Profile.PngSettings.Dpi);
parameters.Add("-dTextAlphaBits=4");
parameters.Add("-dGraphicsAlphaBits=4");
}
protected override string ComposeOutputFilename()
{
//%d for multiple Pages
return Job.JobTempFileName + "%d.png";
}
}
} | {
"pile_set_name": "Github"
} |