Americanism Contrasted with Foreignism, Romanism, and Bogus Democracy in the Light of Reason, History, and Scripture;

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 nigger 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 Æsop'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 cripple 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.

MIDDLE TENNESSEE.

WEST TENNESSEE.

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.

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!