Secrets of the Late Rebellion

CHAPTER XVIII. WHY THE SOUTH HAS NOT DENOUNCED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY – WHAT KEEPS THE PARTY ALIVE – WHAT THE FINAL END OF THIS REPUBLIC

THREE more questions, please, and then I will not trouble you more. What you have already said seems to be true, and yet so new and so strange are these revelations to my ears – stranger than any fiction I ever read in the works of Sir Walter Scott or others – that had you not substantiated each proposition with arguments drawn from antecedent probability, from sign, and from example, I could scarcely have believed them. But three queries yet remain in my mind. Allowing all that you have said to be veritable history, how comes it that the South has not denounced the Democratic party for its perfidy in making promises which it never fulfilled? How comes it that, with such a weight of sin upon it, the party can still be kept alive? And, from all your study of history, what deductions do you draw as to the final decline and fall – if such a thing is to be – of this Republic?

Your questions are plain, frank, yet pointed, and I will endeavor to answer each in as plain and frank a manner. First, as to the truth of what we have already said, if the statements and propositions related to any other than a political subject, there would be no more doubt of their truthfulness than of any statement or proposition made by Gibbon, Macaulay, Bancroft, or any other historian. But upon the two subjects of politics and religion, men are generally so set in their opinion that blindness in the one and bigotry in the other seems to be as natural to the human mind "as for grass to be green, or skies to be blue, on bright clear days in June." Nor are such statements ever allowed to go unchallenged, however true they may be, unless the parties have been so long dead and buried that no sympathy remains. What Macaulay says of political parties and of church influences in his History of England, is just as true as any other part of his admirable work, and yet the work had scarcely made its appearance before the most violent epithets were hurled at him because of these. Had Gibbon written his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ten or even five centuries earlier, it would have received most bitter denunciation from all who yet sympathized with the wrongs which Gibbon pointed out, and even so late as the eighteenth century, when his work was first published, it did not escape censure. While Bancroft only wrote of the long, long ago, in his capital History of the United States, nobody questioned his statements or deductions; but as he approached nearer to the present, and had of necessity to say something of the acts and influence of political parties and of churches, he awoke the sleeping demons – blindness and bigotry – and from thenceforth there was more or less growl whenever a new volume appeared. I revive and mention these facts now, only to show you, my friend, that I am not at all surprised at your inquiries; nor shall I be surprised if the last six chapters of this volume, and, because of these, the whole book, are most violently and bitterly denounced by the entire Democratic press of this country, and by every religious and political journal in this country and Europe whose special province it is to uphold foreign religious and political influence. With these as introductory remarks, I will now proceed to answer your inquiries.

1. How comes it that the South has not denounced the Democratic party for its perfidy in making promises which it never fulfilled?

We have no sympathy now, and never had, with rebellion, as such; and, while it continued, helped to fight it as best we could; but we had then, and have now, a very deep sympathy with those who were blindly led to their own destruction by wicked, designing men. To no people in all of history are the words of our blessed Saviour more applicable than to the people of the South, when he said, "Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!"

We have heretofore spoken of Jefferson Davis, his Cabinet, and of others with whom he advised, as high-minded, honorable gentlemen. This character they had before the war, maintained it during the war, and such as survived continued to maintain it after the war. After the war, Mr. Davis had but little to say of the events of the past. He preferred not to talk of them at all, as he often said to those who broached the subject, and never would talk of them except to his most confidential friends. He desired to live a quiet, peaceful, retired, Christian life, in the bosom of his little family (and no man ever had a truer or more faithful helpmeet than Mrs. Davis proved to be to her husband), nor would he allow himself to talk of politics at all, as before stated, except to a very few. From one of these few we have it, as from Mr. Davis's own lips, that no one felt, nor could feel, more keenly than he did, the perfidy, the meanness, the baseness which had been practised upon the South by certain leading Democratic politicians of the North; and yet he could not but recollect that others, as they had opportunity, had aided him and their cause to the full extent of their ability, and had the will to aid them a thousand times more, if they could have done so with safety to themselves, personally and pecuniarily. This last recollection took the keen edge off the first, and left a sort of dulcamara – a bitter-sweet – to rest upon his mind.

And, besides this, only a choice of evils was left to him and his followers. Their own party of Secession having been destroyed, only the Democratic and Republican parties remained. To side with or go into the Republican party was out of the question. Such as did, would be charged with, or suspected of, treachery by both sides. To denounce and yet expect to get into, or cooperate with, the Democratic party, was out of the question. No one can regard as a friend one that curses him. So, you see, they were walled in, as it were, on every side, and, as a choice of evils, thought it best to go into the Democratic party – to which most of them had belonged all their lives, previous to the rebellion – to hold their peace, and to "wait for the good time coming which the voice of certain siren leaders still whispered into their ears. We say this not in a poetic, but in a historic sense; for we know it to be true that, after the close of the rebellion, prominent leaders of the Democratic party North said to prominent gentlemen of the South that so soon as they could get the general government once again into their own hands, all Southern claims upon the government, because of the war, should be adjusted, the same as Northern claims had been; all bonds issued by the Confederate government during the war should be placed upon precisely the same footing as the bonds issued by the United States government during the same period; and that slavery should be restored as it was before the war, or those who had owned slaves, or their legal representatives, should be paid full value for every slave they had lost. When it was said to them that to do all this would require several alterations in the United States Constitution as it now stands, their ready reply was, "Only put the government into our hands, and we'll find means to amend the Constitution just as readily as to make laws, for all needed purposes. Your wrongs and ours will find a way, or make one!" With such assurances, made over and over again in the most solemn manner, how could a Southern man find it in his heart to denounce the Democratic party, notwithstanding all the wrongs he had suffered from it?

Some seventeen years have now passed since the close of that war. As a matter of history it is well known that over ninety-five per cent, of those who had taken an active part in the Confederate cause went into the Democratic party, and since that time have steadily cooperated with that party. A few, a very few, could not, as they said, forgive the treachery and the wrongs of the Democratic party towards the South, and these went into the Republican party – some honestly, no doubt; others, only because they thought it would "pay best."

Another answer to your query would be, that in not denouncing, but by going into, the Democratic party a very large proportion of Southern men were only returning to their first love. In the days of Whiggery several of the Southern States gave Whig majorities; but when that party died, because of its coquetting with slavery, and the Republican party took its place, the leading principle of which new party was opposition to slavery, first, as to its extension, and then as to its continuance, nearly the whole vote of the South became Democratic. This was very plainly shown in the vote cast for Franklin Pierce and Winfield Scott (the last Whig candidate), in 1852, when the former received two hundred and fifty-four electoral votes and the latter only forty-two. Indeed, it was this fact, and the great preponderance of Democratic votes at that election, that gave to the Secessionists of the South, and their sympathizers, aiders, and abettors of the North, the encouragement which caused them to inaugurate a rebellion in 1860. It was this, together with the fact that out of the thirty-two preceding years – from the election of Jackson in 1828 to that of Lincoln in 1860 – the Democrats had held the power twenty-four years and the Whigs only eight. They had grown to look upon the Democratic power as invincible, and their European coadjutors had been made to believe that the time had finally come when the hated representative form of the United States government could be changed into a slaveocracy, then into an aristocracy, and then into a kingly form of government; while a censorship could be placed upon the press so effectual, that from thenceforth it could never do European sovereignties or the Roman Catholic Church any harm. Those who only saw the outside of the late rebellion supposed that it had its incipiency in 1860, whereas those who knew of its inside workings (as we all know now), knew that preparations had been going on for eight years previous, and that both Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, from 1852 to 1860, had only been used as tools or instruments by which to forward these preparations. The result of the Presidential vote in 1856 only made those in the secret of the secession movement (both in this country and in Europe) the more determined to strike the blow in 1860; for they saw by that vote that, while their candidate, Buchanan, was elected by a majority of fifty-two electoral votes (Buchanan one hundred and seventy-four, Fremont et al. one hundred and twenty-two), yet the popular vote stood Buchanan 1,838,169, Fremont et al. 2,215,498, being really against their candidate, on the popular vote, to the extent of 377,329 votes. This strange result was owing to the fact that, while all the Southern States voted for their candidate, and several Northern States as well, they were all by small majorities; whereas such of the Northern States as voted for Fremont and others did so by large majorities. Had they delayed the strike another four years, it would have been forever too late.

So soon as the secret commenced to ooze out among the masses, it caused no little commotion in the Democratic party itself, and when they came to name presidential candidates in 1860, while those in the secret boldly put forward John C. Breckenridge (who afterwards became a rebel general in their army), the more timid and doubting named Stephen A. Douglas, while those who were yet more frightened at the prospect of coming events named Bell of Tennessee. The Republicans named Abraham Lincoln. The result showed one hundred and eighty electoral votes for Lincoln and one hundred and twenty-three for all the others (again the South voting solid against the Republican nominee), while the popular vote showed 1,866,352 for Lincoln, and 2,810,501 for all the others. The South by that time became so thoroughly identified with the Democratic party, and the Democratic party with the South, that, like man and wife, their interests were thenceforth inseparable, while the groomsman and bridesmaid (fitly represented by European sovereignty and the Roman Catholic Church) stood at their sides, or close behind, tapping them on the back.

And just here let us say, lest we may be misunderstood, that when we speak of the Catholic Church it is not by way of disparagement, so far as their religion is concerned, but only and purely as one of the instruments by which European sovereigns hope to work the downfall of this nation, or rather of the representative form of its government and the liberty of its press. Against the religious faith and the religious zeal of the Catholics we have not a word to say, though ourself a Protestant. History, as well as our own eyes and ears while travelling in Europe, has proven to us that with every ounce of corruption to be found in that Church there is a full pound of virtue, and, better than this, so far as we know, cannot be said of any other church organization. We cannot forget, nor overlook the facts, that while Tetzel was peddling indulgences and Luther was thundering against them, thousands of Sisters of Charity (God bless them!) were waiting upon the sick and dying in Paris and elsewhere, and doing what they could to make life tolerable and death endurable to thousands and tens of thousands; that while scores were being tortured and burned by the Spanish inquisition, thousands of faithful Catholic missionaries, in all parts of the world, were enlightening their fellow-men, easing their burdens of life, and pointing them to a hope beyond the grave. Nor can we overlook the fact that other religious bodies have been just as bigoted and just as intolerant as the Catholics, whenever they have had the power and opportunity; that John Calvin and his followers burned Servetus, at Geneva, with just as little compunction of conscience as the Catholics burned Huss at Constance; that Luther and his coadjutors granted to Philip, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, a dispensation for polygamy, rather than lose his support, while Clement VII., Pope of Rome, refused a like dispensation to Henry VIII., King of England; that this same Henry, who was acknowledged at the time as the head of the Church of England, divorced two wives and beheaded two others; and that even here, in our own New England, when the Puritans had absolute power, they ordered delicate Quaker women tied to a cart-tail and whipped upon the bare back, and others hung, for no other reason than that they chose to worship God in a different way from themselves. A somewhat careful study of the rise and progress of all religions, and of all religious sects, convinces us that bigotry, intolerance, and persecution are alike common to all whenever they hold absolute power, and that in this respect the Catholics are no worse than others.

And yet, while saying all this, no less in justice to ourself than to them, we must not overlook the fact that Catholicism is the religion of a large majority of the sovereigns and princes of Europe; that absolutism (and consequent opposition to anything like a representative form of government, or the liberty of the press) is one of its cardinal principles of faith and practice; that, being so largely supported by European sovereigns, it would naturally be disposed to aid them in any way within its power; and that to aid them in overthrowing our representative form of government, and our boasted liberty of the press, would be no violation of their own cherished principles, but in exact accordance therewith. Hence in all our calculations as to influence and power, without having the least prejudice against the religion of the Catholics, we must invariably put them down as in favor of absolutism, and as only using, in this country, the name democracy (which means the reverse of absolutism) as a cloak to their real sentiments. Of course in this we only refer to the bishops, priests, and few educated laymen of the Catholic Church; for, as to the great mass of its adherents, they merely follow the dictum of others, without knowing or caring about the meaning of names, and would vote under any name, or for anybody, if only told to do so by their church officials.

It is a matter of public notoriety – indeed of public record – that, under the name of "Societies for the Propagation of the Faith," the sovereigns of Europe, and their more wealthy subjects, have sent, and are every year sending, large sums of money to this country. A single one of these societies at Lyons, France (as published in their own reports at the time), sent in this way $65,438 in 1839; $163,000 in 1840; $177,000 in 1842; $207,218 in 1843, while correspondingly large sums were doubtless sent from Spain, Austria, and other European countries during the same years; and from that time until the present every year. A portion of this was and is undoubtedly contributed from the purest of religious motives; but by far the larger portion, only with the view to subvert our representative form of government and the liberty of the press. 'All these are matters of history, and as such come legitimately within the province of any historian, and of any reader, who, aside from religious or political prejudices, would carefully weigh facts with a view to arrive at undoubted conclusions.

And thus, my friend (the reader), have we, by reciting historic facts, and through the processes of deduction and induction, shown you very plainly "How it comes that the South has not denounced the Democratic party for its perfidy in making promises which it never fulfilled;" and thus, my friend, I have, I think, fully and fairly answered your first inquiry.

CHAPTER XIX. – II. – HOW COMES IT THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WITH SUCH A WEIGHT OF SIN UPON IT, CAN STILL BE KEPT ALIVE?

TO answer this question, we would first direct your attention to the United States census returns for the years 1850,'60,'70, and 80. We only go back four decades, for from these we can draw correct conclusions just as well as if we commenced at an earlier date. These returns show that for the ten years preceding 1850 there arrived in this country from Europe 1,713,251 persons; for the ten preceding 1860, 2,598,214; for the ten preceding 1870, 2,491,209; and for the ten preceding 1880, 2,742,137. Of those that came from Catholic countries, 95 out of every 100 went into the Democratic party. Of those that came from Germany and other Protestant countries, probably about one-half went into the Democratic party; for even though they came from nominally Protestant countries, fully one-half of the emigrants from those countries are Catholics. Of those who are Protestants in Europe, but few join the Democratic party after reaching this country. Estimating that one out of every five of these emigrants becomes a voter, and that 85 out of every 100 of these voters joined the Democratic party, we should have as added to that party from naturalization alone, for the ten years preceding 1850, 290,753 votes; for the ten preceding 1860, 431,696 votes; for the ten preceding 1870, 424,505 votes; and for the ten preceding 1880, 466,164 votes. Meanwhile, while these immense additions are being made from year to year to the Democratic party from naturalization, it loses large numbers every year from increased civilization. The Whig party was, and the Republican party is, the party of enlightenment; and as foreigners, and especially their children, become more enlightened as to the advantages of a republican or representative form of government – more and more enlightened as to the advantages of a free press – they leave that party and go into the Republican; or, what is more frequent, their children, having been educated in our free schools, learn to love freedom of thought as well as of action, and, on becoming of age, join the Republican party, and some of them join Protestant churches. But for this retroactive process, which is constantly going on, this country long ago would have been completely under foreign influence, and we never should have been permitted to have celebrated the one hundredth anniversary of American independence.

Now let us take a retrospective view and see what has been the practical outcome of these two antagonistic principles. In 1852 the number of Democratic votes cast for President was 1,601,474; number of Whig votes, 1,542,403; total, 3,143,877; population of the United States in 1850, 23,191,876. In 1860, number of Republican votes, 1,866,352; Democratic and all others, 2,810,501; total, 4,676,853; population that year, 31,443,321. In 1872, number of Republican votes, 3,597,070; Democratic, 2,834,078; total, 6,431,148; population for 1870, 38,558,371. In 1880, number of Republican votes, 4,450,921; Democratic, 4,447,888; total, 8,898,809; population for 1880, 50,155,783.

The immigration for the last few years has been exceedingly large, reaching the enormous figures of 457,257 for 1880, and 669,431 for 1881. Among these were 2,600 Jews from Russia, of whom it is announced there are 10,000 more to come soon, and for whom contract has already been made with the Hamburg line of steamers. Of these it is safe to calculate that 95 out of every 100 voters will go into the Democratic party.

As showing the effect of the retroactive process heretofore spoken of, whereby enlightenment turns Catholics into Protestants and Democrats into Republicans, it may be stated (as census returns show) that while in 1801 there were in the two Protestant countries of Great Britain and the United States about 6,000,000 Roman Catholics to about 15,000,000 Protestants, or about one to two and a-half, in 1880 there were about 12,000,00 °Catholics to about 74,000,000 Protestants, or about one to six. In using the word enlightenment in connection with the words Republican and Protestant, we would by no means have it inferred that all Democrats and all Catholics are ignorant. In both are to be found men of the highest intelligence and of the most exalted character; but these form the exception rather than the rule – the leading few, who have their own purposes to subserve, rather than the following many, with whom party is madness only for the benefit of the few.

Now, my friend (the reader), you can begin to see, can you not, why it is that the Democratic party, notwithstanding all its sins, has still been kept alive? But yet there is one more item to be added to account for its continued existence: namely, that it is not only supplied with recruits from Europe, but with money as well. We have heretofore shown from official sources how many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been, and are constantly being sent from Europe to this country to "propagate" the Catholic faith – which is, indeed, but another name and another way of propagating the Democratic party – and but for the extreme secrecy of their movements, we might show just as plainly that other hundreds of thousands are sent here at every Presidential election by European capitalists, European manufacturers, and European sovereigns, with a view to influence our elections. Bribery at elections being made a misdemeanor in nearly all the States, movements of this character have to be conducted with extreme secrecy; but that the thing has been done for the past forty years (ever since the inauguration of the protective system by Henry Clay), and is still being done, there is not a shadow of doubt; nor is there a doubt that this is another one of the reasons why the Democratic party is kept alive. A single Hartford convention killed the Federal party; a single set of pro-slavery resolutions, adopted by a National convention, killed the Whig party; and the part which the Democratic party took in the late rebellion would have killed it so effectually that no resurrection could have ever reached it, but for the support it has had, and still has, from European powers, through emigration and through the Catholic Church, and with the once avowed, and now no less steadily held, object of overthrowing our representative form of government, and of destroying the liberty of our press. Thus, my friend (the reader), your second query is answered beyond, as we think, all possibility of successful contradiction.