  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 "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 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 £5, 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 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. |
|
