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

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 negroes 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 negroes 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. [**hand pointing right ==>]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!