Abolitionists

Contributed by Lee Freeman, February 2004

From the Florence Gazette, Saturday, April 19, 1851, p. 1. [Written for the Florence Gazette.]

An Abolitionist Done Brown, OR Circumstances Alter Cases.

BY M. G. LEWIS.

Rev. James Jones was an "out and outer" Abolitionist--- a travelling [sic] Lecturer under the patronage of the Maine State Abolitionist Society, and as such "ruinated" the "peculiar institution" of the South through the provincial towns of theState [sic]--- describing with streaming eyes, to opened mouth auditories, the monstrous wrongs perpetrated of "Africk's degraded Sons"-- the actual condition of which, neither he nor his hearers knew no more, than they did about the man in the moon--- even free negroes in Maine being so scarce that they are taken around in boxes, and exhibited as "show."

Said he in his lectures---

"My friends---you know nothing of the iniquity practiced in the South---'tis awful to believe. See an aged, grey-headed negro, a pious man with a large family of virtuous sons and daughters, stripped naked to the waist and tied to a tree. Hark, the lash of the blood thirsty overseer. Behold the red blood, the same that flows through our veins, coursing down the lacerated flesh of that pious old grey headed man. See his writhings and strugglings. Hear his agonizing and heart rending groans, cries and prayers. It touches not the hardened heart of that incarnate devil, the overseer. Three hundred times that cruel lash has buried itself into the lacerated flesh, and blood of that aged christian [sic]. He ceases to struggle, or pray, and sinks a bleeding martyr into the arms of death, and his spirit wings its way to that bourn from whence no traveller [sic] returneth.

"Again see a fugitive flying from a pack of ravenous bloodhounds. He hears their blood thirsty cry, and strains every nerve to escape---but in vain. They close upon, seize him, rend limb from limb, and actually eat him up---horrible yet true.

"Again see an overseer with 50 or 100 human beings, before light on their way to the cotton field, with boards upon their heads, thereupon fire and roasting cotton seed, which is to be their breakfasts, and cotton seed contains about as much nutriment as wheat brand. And this is "The land of the brave, and the home of the free."

Such was the "rant and fustian" fabrications, Gulliverisms, Jones et id omno genus dished up to gain converts out of the raw material from which are made Millerites, Mormonites, Tourerits [sic], or any other ite or ism that may be compounded without the ingredient---common sense---who see not the "beam" in their own opticks, but magnify the "mote" in their Southern breather's---feel wooly headed sympathy afar off, instead of straight haired under their noses---the former being a much cheaper commodity, as what they expend except gass "is nothing to nobody."

Jones in course of his peregrinations, kissed Abby Kelly---partook of soda and peanuts with Horace Greely---and slept with Fred Douglass, therefore he considered himself one of the "fust class," "a died in the wool" Abolitionist.

Jones had a brother who had emigrated to Florence, Ala., and made a fortune---by marrying---who offered him a large salary to see his plantation. He felt "called" to quit his station (as the pay was better) and go down among the heathens to secure the "filthy lucre" and convince the Ishmalites of their wickedness.

He soon arrived in Florence, where he understood (in Maine) the common costume was a shirt collar, bowie knife, and spurs---the chief amusements poker, camp meetings, and free fights---and took charge of his brother's negroes, whom he was going to govern on the abolitionist principle, "moral suasion," that he was very well acquainted with (in theory)---therefore called the grinning negroes around him---he gave them a long lecture on morality, early piety, unfortunate circumstances, stern necessities, and "moral suasion"---the only understandable part to the curly heads was that they need be under no fear of being whipped.

The next morning at breakfast it was discovered that the biscuits were "hunch backed," a little crust being on the outside, with a large pile of soft dough in the middle---the cook, a stout lazy negro woman not caring for any "suasion" except the fear of the lash---had, instead of attending to her legitimate business been popping and munching corn.

Here was a fine chance for Jones to show the practical results of his theory, therefore he requested the family to keep their seats, while he called in the cook, who appeared looking as all negro cooks do.

"Take your seat there," said Jones, pointing to the head of the table.

"Wat, mass., wid de wite folkes?"

"Yes, madam."

"Wat for."

"Do you see these biscuits," pointing to about a peck of warm dough, "you must eat every one of them---I'll wait on you."

"Jes like de wite folks, am waited on?"

"Exactly."

Taking her cue from her mistress, who with the rest of the family were convulsed with laughter, yet anxious to see the denouement. She took the seat with all the pomposity of a negro imitating a white person. This was unexpected as he had anticipated using his authority to force her to compliance, thus shame her into a proper attention to her duties. "Boy," said she with the look of superiority, "a cup ov coffee, an' don't be stingy ov de sugar nuther." This was a shot that almost knocked Jones "into a heap"---though a member of the Peace Society, and a "Rev." yet his fists involuntarily closed and his propelling apparatus seemed likely to get into action, and would have done so had it not been for the amused group laughing at his discomfiture---as it was he concluded to "grin and bear it," at the same time wishing shame "suasion" in a very warm place where fires are kept up the year around without expense---while he performed the duties of waiter under instructions. "Boy, pass de butter up 'ere." "Leetle more cream in de coffee." The "hunch backed" biscuits disappeared before the vigorous attacks of the cook, who, (when Jones was not looking, dropped them in her bosom and they slid---out of sight,) to Jones seemed to have the appetite of a threshing machine. Soon the whole peck were non come at i bus. She then turned with an angry look upon Jones, stamped her foot, and cried out with all the nonchalance of a Broadway Dandy in a country tavern: "Boy, tend to yer bizness, an' fetch me some more bread." Rev. James Jones, in vulgar dictum, "broke" like a quarter nag, with a finger in each ear. His brother ruined his "gallasus"* and lost two buttons from his unmentionables. Mrs. Jones' collar became disarranged and face flushed. Sundry little ones performed strange antics. And the cook slid with many "Yah, Yah's" and her bosom full of dough. On the same day there might have been seen about a mile from the house, a pail of water suspended near the top of a tall pine, in which was a small leak from which the water occasionally droped [sic]. Underneath was the aforementioned cook, her neck fixed closely in a wooden frame, the top of her head shaved bare, upon which the never ending drops of water fell pat, pat---while she filled the air with dismal yells, that made the surrounding negroes tremble, and pale with affright. Jones never whipped any, yet he had better negroes, and made two bales of cotton more per head than his neighbors. He is now married, and owns a large plantation---has dropped [sic] the "Rev."---"totes" a Bowie-knife, and "revolter" [sic]. If any one wants to hear the Abolitionists get---(impious ejaculation) ask Jones his opinion of them, or if he wants a fight say to him Yankee or codfish and potatoes and he can be accommodated sans ceremonies.* Gallasus - Suspenders.

From the Florence Gazette, October 6, 1855, p. 2.The Editor of the American Democrat has answered his "Startling Disclosures" by secretly running away. The defenses of the persons assailed appear in our today's paper.From the Florence Gazette, October 6, 1855, p. 2.HEAVY LOSS.--- By the abscondation of the Know Nothing Editor of this place we have lost a Subscriber, Mr. Garrick Campbell. This gentleman stops his paper because Mr. Wheler [sic] Ranaway [sic] owing Mr. Campbell about $20. Mr. C. is a Tavern keeper, and a Know Nothing, but not proscriptive by any means. Anti Know Nothings mark our loss,--- and by whom.

From the Florence Gazette, Saturday, October 6, 1855, p. 2.

KNOW-NOTHING EDITOR RUNAWAY.

Runaway, strayed, absconded, surreptitiously vamosed [sic], by means unknown, went away, gone by the underground railroad, Charles L. Wheeler, formerly the editor of the Know-nothing* paper of this place [theAmerican Democrat, of which there are two known extant issues, from 1856, apparently edited by pro-slavery Democrats, as the paper carried slave sales and runaway notices], without notice to his patrons, or permission of his council, formerly of parts unknown, now to the unknown regions gone, to the somewhat purification of his party in particular, and the south, generally-left, the once cherub editor of the Know-nothing party of this county, on the 4th instant, for Massachusetts, or some other place, where Know-nothingism, and its twin-coadjutor, Abolitionism, rules-after he had maliciously, and with a fiendish malignity, attacked and slandered private persons, (evidencing that his soul was black as night,) -left, after he had vented his spleen upon true southern and national men-left, after he had put our county in commotion; aided by some under-ground railroad conductor, revealing alike, in both, the vilest and darkest machinations ever concocted by fiends or devils-left after he had invaded the silent watches of the invalid's slumber, with abuses and heart burnings, and the hoarse croakings of a satanic maliciousness-but left, however before the full proof of his abolitionism appeared.

FLOYD, of the Athens Herald, has gotten the proof, and published it, that Charles L. Wheeler is an abolitionist. We do not write because we have treasured malice to pour out on his absconding head. Towards this Know-nothing Editor on the wing, personally, we have no animosity to gratify. We write this that southern people may be aware of him, and give him such treatment as an abolitionist deserves. We understand thatWheeler has also-left the stock-holders of the Know-nothing paper, minus a few slugs. If this be true we most heartily sympathise with them in their minus co[nd]ition.

[Know-Nothings: The Native American political party, founded in New England in 1845, which was composed of native-born Protestant whites, and whose platform was anti-immigration and virulently anti-Roman Catholic, called “Know-Nothings” because of the secrecy surrounding many of their beliefs. [From An American Iliad: The Story of the Civil War by Charles P. Roland]] [back to article]

From the Florence Gazette, Saturday, October 6, 1855, p. 2.

The absconding of Wheeler, brings to light another phase of know-nothing inconsistency and practice. It is well remembered that at the last aldermanic election, a gentleman was refused because his birthplace was Ireland. But shortly after this so called American triumph, whose glorious ovations were celebrated by the booming of cannon, they placed Charles L. Wheeler in the most important position in their party-that of editor of their organ, and promulgator and defender of their principles. We dont [sic] suppose they examined into his soundness on the slavery question, or any other important point. It was sufficient that he had sworn fealty to know-nothingism, and emnity to to freign born citizens and Catholics. That was recommendation enough. He was from the home of our partucular enemies, freshly imported; but the man whom they suspicioned, on account of his birth place alone, and declared unworthy to sit in aldermanic council, for that reason only, came here when young and had grown up in our midst, and was identified with us in interest and feeling. This is the way Know-nothings rule.

From the Florence Gazette, Saturday, October 6, 1855, p. 2.

To the Citizens of Lauderdale County.

You have doubtless read with no little astonishment and surprise, the "startling disclosures" of the editor of the American Democrat, in the issue of that paper, of the 29th ult., in which article, the editor labored assiduously to show that there is no Sheriff in Lauderdale; that notwithstanding Col. Robt. McClanahan has been acting as such, his acts are all void, and of non effect.

Now if the decamped editor be correct in his position, every legal gentleman in Florence, is ignorant of the law, and Mr. Wheeler and his conspirators are far in advance of those gentlemen, notwithstanding some of them have grown grey in the practice and profession of Law, and have acquired no little character as true exponents thereof.

We had prepared for publication, a response to the awful disclosures of the editor of the Democrat, showing the aim and object, that prompted him to such a course; that the whole scheme was concocted by him and his allies, for no other purpose than to injure those referred to in the article. But inasmuch as the redoubtable editor has eloped, and is doubtless about this time making tall and rapid strides toward that clime, more congenial with his nature, we have declined publishing the same; but will hold it in reserve for the benefit of those anonymous letter writers, who seeing and knowing, as they assert, that great frauds have been perpetrated by certain persons upon the public generally, and knowing these things, come like midnight assassins, fearing to let themselves be known in open day. W. T. HAWKINS. Florence, Oct. 5, I855 [sic].

Lauderdale historian, the late Jill Knight Garret, quoting the Columbia, Tenn., Democratic Herald, of Oct. 13, 1855, in her A History of Florence, Alabama, stated:

An interesting communication for 1855 involves one Charles L. Wheeler, "editor of the American Democrat, Know-nothing newspaper, recently started at Florence, Ala . . . He absonded [sic] last week following an expose in the Athens Post. An infamous liar, and unprincipled scoundrel, and a blackhearted Freesoiler and Abolitionist." Research has so far failed to reveal what black secrets were exposed by the Athens Post about this short-lived newspaper and its editor. (p. 24).

From the Tuscumbia Enquirer (Franklin, Co., AL), Wednesday, October 10, 1855, p.2.

From the Athens Herald

Startling Disclosures!

A SCOUNDREL OCCUPYING A RESPONSIBLE POSITION AMONGST THE PEOPLE OF FLORENCE!!!!!--AN ABOLITIONIST WHO LEFT HIS NATIVE STATE CLANDESTINELY, EDITING A PAPER IN ALABAMA!!!---VILLAINY EXPOSED!!!

C. L. WHEELER UNMASKED!!!!

Startling as we may naturally suppose the above announcements will be to our readers, they are not so startling as is the proof which we have in our possession---the damning proof, that CHARLES L.WHEELER, Editor of the American Democrat, published at Florence, Ala., is not only all that we ever represented, but more than we ever suspected him of being. Before giving this proof, however, we will review briefly our course in regard to Mr. Wheeler, and our controversy with him, as there are those who have accused us of injustice toward[s] him. In [noticing] the first number of the American Democrat [sic], we corrected a misstatement which the editor [made], viz: that the Richmond, Va., Enquirer called all of Mr. Flournoy's supporters abolitionists, and stated that the Enquirer [sic] only accused the editor of the [Greenbrier] Era (C. L. Wheeler.), [of being an abolitionist]. [This] was the head and front of our 'offending,' and the next number of the AmericanDemocrat [sic] came back to us with a column of personal abuse. The editor did not enquire or seem to care upon what grounds we made the statement, but abused us for d[a]ring to make it at all. We replied, and were thus drawn into a controversy with him which he finally carried so far into blackguardism that we could follow him no further with any show of decency or self respect. We [informed?] Mr. Wheeler of this and told him we would take no further notice through the columns of our paper of [h]is personal articles. This seemed only to [embolden?] him to come out in an article ? eaded with our name, in which he went far beyond anything to which his vulgar mind and cowardly spirit had before ventured; we considered it so outrageous, indeed, that we addressed him privately, and several letters passed [b]etween us, which only went to prove that he is as vile a coward as he is a slanderer and and falsifier. We intend[ed] publishing him as a coward and [slanderer] but [luckily?] we got pro[o]f [against him of such a character] as to make [his cowardice? appear a] redeeming [trait] in his character and to demand that we sh[o]uld t[ea]r away the m[as]k [he has] w[o]rn and hold him up [to the judgement of] a d[ecei]v[e]d p[ublic], which ? deal with him as his [duplicity], m ? and scoundrelism demand they should. We shall say nothing of Mr. Wheeler which we cannot prove, and hope, [thereafter?], our readers will [excuse us] if we use strong language, indeed we intend [to use] the [strongest] for his ? requires, and [our duty] d[e]mans [sic] it. We proclaim it to the world and defy Charles L. Wheeler, or anyone else, to gainsay it, that he---the New Hampshire editor of the American Democrat, published at Florence, Ala.,---the man who professes to have been in the South for the last t[e]n years who claims to be a good Southern man and wished us to withdraw the insinuation that he is, or ever was, an abolitionist---we proclaim it, we say, t[h]at the said Charles L. Wheeler, the "[natural?] gentleman," South Carolina secessionist, enemy of Abolitionism and advocate of our "peculiar rights and institutons," is AN INFAMOUS LIAR, AN UNPRINCIPLED SCOUNDREL and a BLACKHEARTED FREESOILER AND ABOLITIONIST!!! These are grave charges, but we [make] them calmly, coolly [sic], deliberately, and fully conscious of the [responsibility] which we are taking upon ourself. If we fail to substantiate them we [hold ourself amenable] to him and his personal or political friends, who, together with the community at large, will deal with him as he deserves, and as justice demands if we prove them, which which [sic] we will now proceed to do. We said Charles L. Wheeler was an infamous liar. We do not like to use the term, but the case requires it and we will quote his own words by way of proving it---in the second column of the 3d page and 3d No. of the American Democrat, the following will be found--- the editor is speaking of himself: "The editor of this paper has lived in the South ever since he was 18 years of age.--- He has never live[d] a year without being called an Abolitionist by some brainless fool who could n[o]t charge him with anything worse, and he has got used to the thing." So he says he has been in the South ever since he was 18 years old---we are informed that he is now some thirty [odd]---but lest he should contend that he is not yet 21, and thus get around the falsehood he has told, we make another extract fr[o]m the same column of the sam[e] paper: "We came to the South from Concord, N. H., some ten years ago---a town [celebrated?] for its [bea[utiful carriages, and [a town?] as having given the last President to the United States. Eastman, editor of the Nashville Union and American, is from the same town: but we do not put these facts forth in p ? of our ? . They are both [anties?] (the President and Eastman.) and hence neither Abolitionists [or scoundrels]." No they are "[neither] abolitionists or scoundrels," but were you, Mr. Wheeler, an "anti," 'deeply dyed and doubly distilled,' we should still denounce you as both an abolitionists [sic] and a scoundrel. But the point we intended to make by quoting the above is that Mr. Wheeler claims to have been in the South [ever since] he was a youth or "for some ten years.' [sic] We have shown that he has so asserted, and if we now prove that the assertion is as false as his heart is foul, his men[dacity] will not only excite the indignation of all honest men, but the inquiring mind will be led to ask 'why did Charles L. Wheeler wish to practice thislittle decep[tion] up[o]n the Southern people.' Because he thought it calculated to stop all investigation and inquiry regarding his former life, character and opinions---because in the South he is a breathing deception, a living lie. Now for our proof. We make a couple of extracts from an old paper which we have in our possession, (our readers will readily perceive that the editor was a good "anti-American.")

CHARGE AGAIN!

"For Religious Toleration and the right of conscience, against which [former Gen., later U. S. Pres.] Franklin Pierce has long labored.["]

The Calumny Down. The Washington Union has published the following, and it has been reported by the organs of the "truth loving Democracy:" "You are instructed not to enlist Foreigners, for the Batallion of St. Patricio has taught us that Foreigners cannot be trusted."--- Gen. Sc[ot]t's instructions to his Recruting officers during the Mixican War. We find in the National Intelligencer [sic], the following triumphal refutal of it. Now, we ask the conscientous editors in the State who have been so indignant at the naked statement that Gen. Pierce fell from his horse in Mexico, or at the extracts from the reports of the Consitutional Convention, to do Gen. Scott the justice to retract this calumny. If not, let their mouths be forever shut on the subject of honesty. The above extracts, gentle reader, are from a little, dirty sheet, EDITED AND PUBLISHED IN CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE---LESS THAN THREE YEARS AGO---called the "CONCORD TRIBUNE, by Charles L. Wheeler.''' [sic] Yet Mr. Wheeler has been in the South ever since he was 18 years old. Oh, yes! he has been in the South for "some ten years."' [sic] Most truthful and truth-loving Wheler [sic], if the people do you justice, you will not stay in Florence ten days longer. We said Charles Wheeler was an unprincipled scoundrel. This is as easily proven as was our first charge. We have in our possession a letter (which we will presently give) from a respectable gentleman in Concord, N. H., in which he says Mr. Wheler [sic] left that place "CLANDESTINELY, indebted to various persons HIS BILLS ARE STILL UNPAID, and they [have heard nothing of him since, except his connection with a Virginia paper.]" This, indignant reader, is the"natural gentleman["] Charles L. Wheeler, whose [notions?] regarding these things "spring from innate conviction and were not learned or modified by dynamical teachings," as he says himself. Most noble gentleman: the people of Florence will doubtless reward your noble conduct as it most richly deserves. We said Charles L. Wheler [sic] was a blackhearted freesoiler and abolitionist. This is as easily proven as was either of the other charges and we shall, by way of of proving it, extract a few editorial articles from the Concord paper above alluded to. Let us first, however, put the Tribune "right side up" before the public.

CONCORD TRIBUNE.

Of the Campaign By C. L. Wheeler.[Paper masthead quote illegible]CONCORD, N. H.---OCT. 30, 1852.[Subscription rates illegible]CHARLES L. WHEELER.CONCORD, N. H. Now, having introduced the Tribune, [we] will proceed to give a few extracts from its [prospectus] columns, and lift its fanatical and [scoundrelly?] editor out of his "Southern Rights" and ["anti-abolition" bonds?] Our readers will bear in mind that the number we are [extracting] from was published [a short time before the last Presidential Election.] Here are the extracts:

Keep it before the People.

That Franklin Pierce was opposed to the abolition of Slavery by the District of Colombia.

Keep it before the People.

That John P. Hale has made a written declaration that the [West?] considers Mr. Pierce's election would be DECIDEDLY FAVORABLE TO SLAVERY.

CHARGE AGAIN!

For [Human Freedom?], against which Franklin Pierce has always voted---See his vote against [the abololition of Slavery] in the District of Columbia.

Vote for Scott.

[Every man who would not have the author of the Fugitive Slave] Law, the ruling Spirit in the [adminoistration?] for the next four years.

Would that we could do this subject justice, but we cannot. Our indignation at the [bare] thought that the fanatical and traitorous scoundrel who wrote the above at the N[o]rth is n[o]w in Alabama, fawning upon and flattering [h]er slave owners, is so ext[re]me that like 'valuing ambition' it ["oerleaps?] itself And falls on [t'other?] side."

People [of] Florence, did ever John P. Hale, H[o]race Gr[ee]ly, Joshua R. Giddings or any of that fanatical gang utter more [rabid?] abolition sentiments than the above? Will you keep this viper in your bosom?

A few more extracts and we have done:

"Gen. Scott, like Mr. Hale, is a decided temperence* man, at His election would save the Presedential [chair?] from being disgraced, and SECURE THE RETURN OF MR. HALE TO THE SENATE, in one year from the from the [sic] fourth of March next. We are DECIDEDLY FRIENDLY TO MR. HALE. But we shall vote for Gen. Scott to keep Pierce out, and TO SECURE MR. HALE'S RETURN TO THE SENATE, where he has borne himself so nobly for now nearly six years. Scotts [sic] election would be followed by a complete overthrow of Mr. Hale's enemies in this State, and who is a friend to Mr. Hale whould [who would] not [rejpoice?] at such an event as would be his restoration to the Senate. [Mr. Hale's friendshave [sic] it] in their [power] to [make] Gen. Scott's election certain and Gen. Scott's election would make Mr. Hale's return to the Senate [certain].["]

From the Tuscumbia Enquirer, Wednesday, October 17, 1855, p. 2.

A frank Confession.--- It is said an "honest confession relieves the soul," this being so, the editor of the Alabamian, who is by the bye a Yankee, must feel much relieved after delivering himself of the subjoined paragraph in regard to the abolitionist, Wheler [sic]:

"He was lacking in discretion, as well as firmness and stability of purpose and honesty of intention. In short, he was a pretty fair specimen of a Yankee adventurer, who under other auspices and in other times, would have made a fortune in the nutmeg line."

If Wheler [sic] is a "fair specimen of Yankee adventurers,' it would not be amiss for the Southern people to keep a keen eye on the Yankees. The South is becoming overstocked with Yankee teachers and projectors.

From the Tuscumbia Enquirer, Wednesday, October 17, 1855, p. 2.

The editor of the Journal made a sudden start to the North yesterday. We presume he went by his favorable mode of conveyance, the "Underground Railroad," and will proclaim as he goes that "all men have a right to liberty, no matter what color." We have not heard whether any runaway negroes accompanied him, or whether it was arranged that they are to follow hereafter.--- Louisville Courier.

Another know nothing [sic], abolition Yankee editor left Florence a few nights since, without giving previous notice, or even paying his debts. Wheler's [sic] whereabouts has not been ascertained, and he like Prentice, thinks "all men have a right to liberty, no matter what color," and it may be that he may attempt to carry some of his colored brethren of the North with him. Look out for these Yankees--- they are much worse than the foreigners.

From the American Democrat*, Thursday, September 11, 1856, p. 2.

For the American Democrat. Letter from Dr. Stewart in reply to the Florence Gazette.

MR. HATCHER,-- Dear Sir: I must request the use of your columns to answer an editorial in the Florence Gazette of the 6th inst., in reply to my answer to Mr. R. M. Patton's communication of the 30th ultimo. I regret that my name should thus be brought prominently before the public. There are few things which I have less desire to engage in than newspaper controversy. In replying to Mr Patton's call, I did not design, or expect, to bring myself to a controversy with the Editor of the Gazette. As it has happened, however, so let it be. I had been informed, privately, by Mr. J. S. Kennedy, of Mr. Patton's friendly message, and should not have thought of it again, had not my attention been called to it, by its publication in the Gazette. Seeing that the "private" correspondence of Mr. Patton had been placed before the public for political effect, and my name held up to the community as one of those who were "foolishly wasting their time in talking of Americanism** and Fillmore," I felt called upon to set myself Mr. Patton and before the public Mr. Patton because I long acted with him as a whig [sic] partisan, and I was desirous to reclaim the prodigal son who has wandered far away from his long cherished principles, and is spending his substance following the prostituted Democracy of 1856, so different from the Democracy of Jefferson and Jackson; (and hence, I suppose, the slanders and repudiation of the latter by the Democratic press and by Democratic speakers of the present day.) If I should fail in my attempt, I can only say of friend Patton what was said of one of old: "come away from Ephraim and his idols; he is given over to a hardness of heart and a political reprobacy of mind." I hope, however, that when the National Whig convention has met and endorsed the nomination of Mr. Fillmore, and thereby placed the certainty of his election beyond doubt or cavil, that Mr. Patton will, like a true patriot, be found where his country calls him, and where he has always stood--for the Union--and not be wasting his time talking and writing letters in favor of Buchanan, who, I do not believe, can carry more than one Northern State: and as Fillmore will more than divide the South with him, he has not the slightest chance of being elected.

That the public may fully understand [great?] Missouri Compromise [question?] standing comes questions now before the public, I will proceed to reply to the Gazette's questions:

The Editor asks me whether I am in favor of restoring the Missouri Compromise. I would say that if it were possible to restore things to the same condition in which they were before its repeal, I would be in favor of it. But as we cannot restore life to those who have been murdered, nor bind up the wounds inflicted upon the hearts of wives who have lost husbands, mothers who have lost sons--perhaps an only son upon whom she leaned for comfort and support [in] her old age--and children who were left orphans, houseless, homeless, and friendless, by the loss of a father who had fallen a victim to the ruthless hand of civil war, it is worse than useless to talk of restoring the compromise as a means of healing the breach that has been made by its repeal.-- I repeat that if it were possible to make its restoration the means of allaying the hostile sectional strife that has grown out of its repeal, and restoring the country to the peace and quiet it enjoyed under its continuance, I would be in favor of it. By its [passage?] an [excitement?] of that agitated our country throughout its whole length and breadth was allayed. It was hailed with joy by every Union-loving and conservative man in the North and the South. All parties sanctioned and approved it, except a few disappointed fire-eating disunionists. The old line Whigs approved of it, and the old line Democrats approved of it, and published their approval of it in a platform adopted by the National Democratic Convention which met in Baltimore to nominate a candidate for the Presidency. Mr. Pierce endorsed it when he accepted the nomination; and yet, during the first session of Congress after his inauguration that compromise so much approved of in the summer, was repealed during the next winter and he shamefully gave his sanction to it.

Out of this repeal has grown all the difficulties in Kansas, and the Democracy is accountable to the country for it.

The foreshadowing of the future results are to be seen in the action of the Northern Abolition emigration-aid-societies, who are sending their thousands of newly imported foreign Abolitionists and surplus natives to strengthen the Anti-Slavery interest, and boldly declare that Kansas should be free. The South stands firm and determined to defend her rights to the last extremety [sic]; she too, is busy in raising men and money to aid her pro-slavery friends, and the breach is widening and the danger increasing, while the President whose sworn duty it is to quell insurrection and maintain peace and order sits supinely, and calmly looks on the bloody scene. What would Jackson in a case like this have done? and what did Millard Fillmore do under similar circumstances, when Massachusetts refused to submit to the Fugitive Slave Law? He issued his proclamation and declared the law omnipotent and said it should be enforced and obeyed. Mr. Pierce when called upon to act, only recalled one Abolition Governor and sent another in his place. And now, when the Grand Jury of the of the Territory has found a true bill under an indictment for high treason against his [pets?], he permits his premiere, Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, to say that the Government will not permit the Judges of Kansas to prosecute the suits against the treasonable Governors. With such a Presi[dent] we expect peace in [Kansas] which has been opened is too wide [to be] healed by the restoration of the Missouri Compromise. Some more potent measure must be resorted to; a change of captains must be made; a more skillful pilot must be placed at the helm of the ship of State--one whose strong arm and honest heart can be relied upon to direct us through the stormy sea of civil strife that is now raging around us, and whose angry billows are threatening to engulph [sic] our gallant ship of State in the abyss of disunion and ruin.

Millard Fillmore is the man who ought to receive the command, and the pilot of his appointing would now, as was done in 1850, steer the gallant vessel safely into the harbor of peace.

I am asked whether, if Mr. Fillmore is elected, he would favor the restoration of the Missouri Compromise. I do not know what Mr. Filmore would do, but if I did not believe he would favor it upon the conditions that I propose--that is, as a full and final settlement of this vexing question of slavery, I would not support him for the high office to which he aspires.

Once more I am asked if I would acquiesce in the will of the majority if that majority decided in favor of Mr. Fremont and he were elected President? Has the when a Democrat and a teacher shall boldly declare that he did not submit to the will of the majority, though that majority was legally obtained under the provisions of the Constitution? Certainly Mr. Fremont has the same right to become a candidate for the office of President that James Buchanan, or any other man has, and his friends and political partisans have the same right to advocate his claims, and vote for him, too, that the editor of the Gazette has to support Mr. Buchanan, or I to vote for Mr. Fillmore.

This, then, being the case, I should most certainly acquiesce in the will of the majority, even if that majority should decide in favor of John C. Fremont. Would not you, my friend of the Gazette?

Mr. Wheler [sic] was not repudiated by the American Party for saying that "the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was an unpardonable blunder committed by the Pierce administration," but because he had entertained Abolition principles and expressed Abolition sentiments, and said, like Mr. Buchanan, that he thanked his God his lot had not been cast in a State where the evil of slavery exists. He denied these charges, and when Mr. Floyd obtained and published the proofs, the American Party found that a wolf in sheep's clothing had entered the flock. Mr, Wheler [sic] was told that he was no longer acceptable to the party and was advised to leave.

Now, with my thanks to the editor of the Gazette for his kind sympathies in my behalf, I must take leave of him, after in the same spirit of kindness, advising him not to be quite so revolutionary in his feelings as to threaten to dissolve the Union if Kansas cannot come in as a slave State, or if John C. Fremont is elected under the provisions of the Constitution to the Presidency, but let his hot Southern blood cool down a little, and I am sure he will not so readily see the mote in his neighbor's eye.

What! not submit to the will of the majority! Are you not afraid of suggesting the idea to Fremonters that they have the same right to object if Mr. Buchanan should have the majority? Encourage men to emigrate to Kansas from the South and deny the same privilege to the North? Not submit to the majority in Kansas if that majority happens to be opposed to slavery, and yet require the North to submit to the minority! strange doctrine of "equal rights," this!

With sentiments of high personal regards, I bid my friend, the editor of the Gazette, adieu.
J. W. STEWART.
Sep. 8, 1856.

[to be continued]

CHARGE AGAIN!

For [Human Freedom?], against which Franklin Pierce has always voted---See his vote against [the abolition of Slavery] in the District of Columbia.

Vote for Scott.

[Every man who would not have the author of the Fugitive Slave] Law, the ruling Spirit in the [administration?] for the next four years.

A few more extracts and we have done:

From the Tuscumbia Enquirer, Wednesday, October 17, 1855, p. 2.Where is Samuel?--- The question is often asked, "where is Wheler [sic]?" but there is another interrogatory that can with the same propriety be propounded. About twelve months since, there was a small personage introduced into Alabama called "Sam," and at first he was represented as being very popular and known everywhere, but like Wheler [sic], he has disappeared. It was said S-a-m-u-e-l was in old Virginia, but he was not thar. Sam's friends in Tennessee said he was some punkins in that State, but he was not thar. The know nothings [sic] thought he was on a visit to Alabama, but the 6th of August, Sam was like the Dutchman's flea--- not thar. Throughout all the kingdoms of the South, Sam could be found only in Kentucky, and there his character is stained with the blood and brains of innocent women and children, and his horrible carcass is disgusting to the eye and sickening to the smell. Sam is not in Georgia, Sam is not in Pennsylvania. Where is Sam? Where is S-a-m-u-e-l? Echo says where?From the Tuscumbia Enquirer, Wednesday, October 17, 1855, p. 2.A frank Confession.--- It is said an "honest confession relieves the soul," this being so, the editor of the Alabamian, who is by the bye a Yankee, must feel much relieved after delivering himself of the subjoined paragraph in regard to the abolitionist, Wheler [sic]:"He was lacking in discretion, as well as firmness and stability of purpose and honesty of intention. In short, he was a pretty fair specimen of a Yankee adventurer, who under other auspices and in other times, would have made a fortune in the nutmeg line."If Wheler [sic] is a "fair specimen of Yankee adventurers,' it would not be amiss for the Southern people to keep a keen eye on the Yankees. The South is becoming overstocked with Yankee teachers and projectors.From the Tuscumbia Enquirer, Wednesday, October 17, 1855, p. 2.The editor of the Journal made a sudden start to the North yesterday. We presume he went by his favorable mode of conveyance, the "Underground Railroad," and will proclaim as he goes that "all men have a right to liberty, no matter what color." We have not heard whether any runaway negroes accompanied him, or whether it was arranged that they are to follow hereafter.--- Louisville Courier.

Another know nothing [sic], abolition Yankee editor left Florence a few nights since, without giving previous notice, or even paying his debts. Wheler's [sic] whereabouts has not been ascertained, and he like Prentice, thinks "all men have a right to liberty, no matter what color," and it may be that he may attempt to carry some of his colored brethren of the North with him. Look out for these Yankees--- they are much worse than the foreigners.

From the American Democrat*, Thursday, September 11, 1856, p. 2.

For the American Democrat. Letter from Dr. Stewart in reply to the Florence Gazette.

MR. HATCHER,-- Dear Sir: I must request the use of your columns to answer an editorial in the Florence Gazette of the 6th inst., in reply to my answer to Mr. R. M. Patton's communication of the 30th ultimo. I regret that my name should thus be brought prominently before the public. There are few things which I have less desire to engage in than newspaper controversy. In replying to Mr Patton's call, I did not design, or expect, to bring myself to a controversy with the Editor of the Gazette. As it has happened, however, so let it be. I had been informed, privately, by Mr. J. S. Kennedy, of Mr. Patton's friendly message, and should not have thought of it again, had not my attention been called to it, by its publication in the Gazette. Seeing that the "private" correspondence of Mr. Patton had been placed before the public for political effect, and my name held up to the community as one of those who were "foolishly wasting their time in talking of Americanism** and Fillmore," I felt called upon to set myself Mr. Patton and before the public Mr. Patton because I long acted with him as a whig [sic] partisan, and I was desirous to reclaim the prodigal son who has wandered far away from his long cherished principles, and is spending his substance following the prostituted Democracy of 1856, so different from the Democracy of Jefferson and Jackson; (and hence, I suppose, the slanders and repudiation of the latter by the Democratic press and by Democratic speakers of the present day.) If I should fail in my attempt, I can only say of friend Patton what was said of one of old: "come away from Ephraim and his idols; he is given over to a hardness of heart and a political reprobacy of mind." I hope, however, that when the National Whig convention has met and endorsed the nomination of Mr. Fillmore, and thereby placed the certainty of his election beyond doubt or cavil, that Mr. Patton will, like a true patriot, be found where his country calls him, and where he has always stood--for the Union--and not be wasting his time talking and writing letters in favor of Buchanan, who, I do not believe, can carry more than one Northern State: and as Fillmore will more than divide the South with him, he has not the slightest chance of being elected.That the public may fully understand [great?] Missouri Compromise [question?] standing comes questions now before the public, I will proceed to reply to the Gazette's questions:The Editor asks me whether I am in favor of restoring the Missouri Compromise. I would say that if it were possible to restore things to the same condition in which they were before its repeal, I would be in favor of it. But as we cannot restore life to those who have been murdered, nor bind up the wounds inflicted upon the hearts of wives who have lost husbands, mothers who have lost sons--perhaps an only son upon whom she leaned for comfort and support [in] her old age--and children who were left orphans, houseless, homeless, and friendless, by the loss of a father who had fallen a victim to the ruthless hand of civil war, it is worse than useless to talk of restoring the compromise as a means of healing the breach that has been made by its repeal.-- I repeat that if it were possible to make its restoration the means of allaying the hostile sectional strife that has grown out of its repeal, and restoring the country to the peace and quiet it enjoyed under its continuance, I would be in favor of it. By its [passage?] an [excitement?] of that agitated our country throughout its whole length and breadth was allayed. It was hailed with joy by every Union-loving and conservative man in the North and the South. All parties sanctioned and approved it, except a few disappointed fire-eating disunionists. The old line Whigs approved of it, and the old line Democrats approved of it, and published their approval of it in a platform adopted by the National Democratic Convention which met in Baltimore to nominate a candidate for the Presidency. Mr. Pierce endorsed it when he accepted the nomination; and yet, during the first session of Congress after his inauguration that compromise so much approved of in the summer, was repealed during the next winter and he shamefully gave his sanction to it. Out of this repeal has grown all the difficulties in Kansas, and the Democracy is accountable to the country for it.The foreshadowing of the future results are to be seen in the action of the Northern Abolition emigration-aid-societies, who are sending their thousands of newly imported foreign Abolitionists and surplus natives to strengthen the Anti-Slavery interest, and boldly declare that Kansas should be free. The South stands firm and determined to defend her rights to the last extremety [sic]; she too, is busy in raising men and money to aid her pro-slavery friends, and the breach is widening and the danger increasing, while the President whose sworn duty it is to quell insurrection and maintain peace and order sits supinely, and calmly looks on the bloody scene. What would Jackson in a case like this have done? and what did Millard Fillmore do under similar circumstances, when Massachusetts refused to submit to the Fugitive Slave Law? He issued his proclamation and declared the law omnipotent and said it should be enforced and obeyed. Mr. Pierce when called upon to act, only recalled one Abolition Governor and sent another in his place. And now, when the Grand Jury of the of the Territory has found a true bill under an indictment for high treason against his [pets?], he permits his premiere, Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, to say that the Government will not permit the Judges of Kansas to prosecute the suits against the treasonable Governors. With such a Presi[dent] we expect peace in [Kansas] which has been opened is too wide [to be] healed by the restoration of the Missouri Compromise. Some more potent measure must be resorted to; a change of captains must be made; a more skillful pilot must be placed at the helm of the ship of State--one whose strong arm and honest heart can be relied upon to direct us through the stormy sea of civil strife that is now raging around us, and whose angry billows are threatening to engulph [sic] our gallant ship of State in the abyss of disunion and ruin.Millard Fillmore is the man who ought to receive the command, and the pilot of his appointing would now, as was done in 1850, steer the gallant vessel safely into the harbor of peace.I am asked whether, if Mr. Fillmore is elected, he would favor the restoration of the Missouri Compromise. I do not know what Mr. Filmore would do, but if I did not believe he would favor it upon the conditions that I propose--that is, as a full and final settlement of this vexing question of slavery, I would not support him for the high office to which he aspires.Once more I am asked if I would acquiesce in the will of the majority if that majority decided in favor of Mr. Fremont and he were elected President? Has the when a Democrat and a teacher shall boldly declare that he did not submit to the will of the majority, though that majority was legally obtained under the provisions of the Constitution? Certainly Mr. Fremont has the same right to become a candidate for the office of President that James Buchanan, or any other man has, and his friends and political partisans have the same right to advocate his claims, and vote for him, too, that the editor of the Gazette has to support Mr. Buchanan, or I to vote for Mr. Fillmore.This, then, being the case, I should most certainly acquiesce in the will of the majority, even if that majority should decide in favor of John C. Fremont. Would not you, my friend of the Gazette?Mr. Wheler [sic] was not repudiated by the American Party for saying that "the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was an unpardonable blunder committed by the Pierce administration," but because he had entertained Abolition principles and expressed Abolition sentiments, and said, like Mr. Buchanan, that he thanked his God his lot had not been cast in a State where the evil of slavery exists. He denied these charges, and when Mr. Floyd obtained and published the proofs, the American Party found that a wolf in sheep's clothing had entered the flock. Mr, Wheler [sic] was told that he was no longer acceptable to the party and was advised to leave.Now, with my thanks to the editor of the Gazette for his kind sympathies in my behalf, I must take leave of him, after in the same spirit of kindness, advising him not to be quite so revolutionary in his feelings as to threaten to dissolve the Union if Kansas cannot come in as a slave State, or if John C. Fremont is elected under the provisions of the Constitution to the Presidency, but let his hot Southern blood cool down a little, and I am sure he will not so readily see the mote in his neighbor's eye.What! not submit to the will of the majority! Are you not afraid of suggesting the idea to Fremonters that they have the same right to object if Mr. Buchanan should have the majority? Encourage men to emigrate to Kansas from the South and deny the same privilege to the North? Not submit to the majority in Kansas if that majority happens to be opposed to slavery, and yet require the North to submit to the minority! strange doctrine of "equal rights," this!With sentiments of high personal regards, I bid my friend, the editor of the Gazette, adieu. J. W. STEWART. Sep. 8, 1856.

[to be continued]